On Jun 2, 12:40*am, James Farrar wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:10 +0100 (BST), (Colin





Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(asdf) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:11:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:

There's not much history of drinking either, so it was lazy piece
of non-policy addressing a non-existent problem*, on the lines of
the charm at my front door that has had 100% success in preventing
elephant-attacks since I hung it there.

*Drunkenness may be, but sipping it while on public transport is
not
the issue.

And, significantly, drunkenness was already illegal under the
railway
by-laws:

"No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is
unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a
state of intoxication."

As is typical of politicians (particularly the current government),
when a problem is caused by legislation not being enforced, they try
to solve it by simply adding more legislation. Those who are
law-abiding have their freedoms slowly stripped away, while those
who
ignore the law continue to get away with it.

Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they
are
unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour.
I didn't expect it of the Tories too.

You didn't read his manifesto then.

You mean he promised the people of London he would punish the innocent?

He promised the travelling public of London that they would be spared
the intimidating sight of fellow passengers swigging alcohol on the
Tube, yes.

I bet he wishes that he had promised to spare them from elephant
attacks as well.

At least that wouldn't have resulted in thousands of elephants on the
Undgerground the day before the ban (would it?).