Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Barry) wrote:

Richard J. wrote:

It was managed by Silverlink previously. LU only took over the
managment when LO was launched. I assume that formally it's still
owned by Network Rail.

Thanks for clearing that up, I thought it went LU before the LO
takeover, but the announcement could have been well in advance of
it happening.

I'm puzzled by that because I thought it was handed over to LU at BR
privatisation, like East Putney to Wimbledon Park definitely were.

I guess the difference was that the only passenger services that called at
East Puney/Southfields/Wimbledon Park were LU, whereas both Silverlink Metro
and LU served Gunnersbury and Kew Gardens.

At
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ns_station.jpg
you can see the Silverlink-style station name plate at Kew Gardens.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

On 2008-05-09, Rob wrote:
On May 8, 9:55*pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 21:09:52 +0100, "Paul Scott"

wrote:
They'll probably have walk through machines to test it for the presence of
gin or vodka by then

:-)

It did occur to me that those who wish to continue drinking alcohol on
the Tube will just get round the new rule by carrying it mixed with a
soft drink in the appropriate soft drink container.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

I am working on a mental sleeve that fits around a can of Tennants
Super that makes it look like you are drinking Fanta

Rob

Long ago and far away, a friend of mine had an enormous number of
soft-drink cans that contained beer.

How long ago? Beer actually doesn't maintain its quality for more
than a relatively short period of time.

Arguments will vary, but 120 - 180 days seem to be mentioned as a
rough time frame for canned/bottled brews, i.e. four to six months.


He worked for a brewery that had bought a new canning machine which had
to be tested before the cans arrived, so they used whatever they could
get that would work in the machine. Of course it was illegal to sell
them, and may even have been illegal to give them away, so they put them
on pallets under a tarpaulin at the back of the brewery yard, and
'forgot' about them. They're still there, of course :) .

My friend liked to give them to thirsty friends and acquaintances
without warning so he could enjoy the reaction.

E

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:30:39 -0700, Nobody wrote:

How long ago? Beer actually doesn't maintain its quality for more
than a relatively short period of time.

Canned shandy? Sorry, I'm assuming that actually contains beer...

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 19:30:39 -0700, Nobody wrote:

How long ago? Beer actually doesn't maintain its quality for more
than a relatively short period of time.

Canned shandy? Sorry, I'm assuming that actually contains beer...

Is it written down anywhere how much alcohol needs to be in something
before it's "an alcoholic beverage"?

Am I going to be carted off to prison for sitting on a bus taking NyQuil
cough syrup (which includes alcohol)?

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

On Sun, 11 May 2008 20:42:22 +0100, Mark Morton wrote

Is it written down anywhere how much alcohol needs to be in something
before it's "an alcoholic beverage"?

ISTR it used to be 2%.

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote:

Moreover , it seems possible that having bought a drink at Marylebone
one could travel to Amersham whilst enjoying a drink on a Chiltern
train. If one bought a drink at Baker Street one would not be allowed
to consume it whilst travelling, over the very same metals, on a
Metropolitan line train.

Presumably if one were waiting on the platforms at Harrow-on-the-Hill
station for (e.g.) an Uxbridge service, and one wanted to take a sip
from one's hip flask, one would have to wait for a Chiltern train to
arrive, hop on, take a swig, and hop off again.

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:14:29 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote:

Given that most incidents late at night involve alcohol consumed a long
way from TfL premises or vehicles I wonder how long it will be before
"the civility on public transport" argument means drunk or tipsy people
won't be allowed on to the system because it's incompatible with Mayoral
views on how we should conduct ourselves? How loud an outcry will there
be from the huge entertainment business sector if there is even a hint
of policy going that way? I assume alcohol is not actually being banned
- just the consumption of it? Otherwise a few supermarkets might lose
some trade from those who doing their shopping and then hop on a bus or
train home.

Having an open container of alcohol will be banned, but otherwise
you'll be allowed to carry it.

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

"asdf" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote:

Moreover , it seems possible that having bought a drink at Marylebone
one could travel to Amersham whilst enjoying a drink on a Chiltern
train. If one bought a drink at Baker Street one would not be
allowed to consume it whilst travelling, over the very same metals,
on a Metropolitan line train.

Presumably if one were waiting on the platforms at Harrow-on-the-Hill
station for (e.g.) an Uxbridge service, and one wanted to take a sip
from one's hip flask, one would have to wait for a Chiltern train to
arrive, hop on, take a swig, and hop off again.

You'd have to run over the bridge to do that... Chiltern and Uxbridge
lines Met trains don't use the same platform.

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:11:31 +0100, Stimpy
wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2008 20:42:22 +0100, Mark Morton wrote

Is it written down anywhere how much alcohol needs to be in something
before it's "an alcoholic beverage"?

ISTR it used to be 2%.

You are confusing percentage (of alcohol by volume) with degrees
proof. 100deg proof = ~57 % abv ('Merkan measure is different).

From http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pd...olguidance.pdf :-

"10. All prepacked drinks with an alcoholic strength of more than
1.2%(abv) must be labelled with an indication of alcoholic strength by
volume. This must be shown as a figure (to not more than one decimal
place) preceded by the word "alcohol" or by the abbreviation "alc" and
followed by the symbol "% vol". Specified positive and negative
tolerances are permitted in respect of the indication of alcoholic
strength.

11. Specified descriptions can be used to describe drinks of not more
than 1.2%(abv). These descriptions include:
· "low alcohol" - a drink with an alcoholic strength by volume of not
more than 1.2%;
· "de-alcoholised" - a drink from which the alcohol has been extracted
and which has an alcoholic strength by volume of not more than 0.5%;
and
· "alcohol-free" - a drink from which the alcohol has been extracted
and which has an alcoholic strength by volume of not more than 0.05%.

12. Furthermore, the description “non-alcoholic� shall not be used in
conjunction with a name commonly associated with an alcoholic drink,
except in the composite name “non-alcoholic wine� when that composite
name is used in accordance with regulation 43 of the Food Labelling
Regulations."

In Scotland, an "alcoholic drink" is merely defined as "a drink
consisting of or containing alcohol" [s.147(1) Licensing (Scotland)
Act 2005]; in England and Wales "alcohol" is defined (with exceptions)
as "spirits, wine, beer, cider or any other fermented, distilled or
spirituous liquor" [s.191(1) Licensing Act 2003]. The principle
exception in the context of drink is that alcohol[ic drink] of a
strength less than 0.5% is excluded from those general definitions
[s.191 Licensing Act 2003, s.2 Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005].

Slainte!

Johnson unveils Tube alcohol ban
 

On Mon, 12 May 2008, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2008 21:11:31 +0100, Stimpy
wrote:

On Sun, 11 May 2008 20:42:22 +0100, Mark Morton wrote

Is it written down anywhere how much alcohol needs to be in something
before it's "an alcoholic beverage"?

ISTR it used to be 2%.

You are confusing percentage (of alcohol by volume) with degrees proof.
100deg proof = ~57 % abv ('Merkan measure is different).

Yes, which i've never got. My understanding is that British proof was
defined as the percentage of alcohol at which a mixture of the spirit with
gunpowder would explode when lit. Why the septics switched to the
gratuitously different, chemically meaningless and practically
no-better-than-ABV system of 1 degree = 0.5 % ABV, i really don't know.
The usual sheer wrongheadedness, i suppose.

tom

--
Argumentative and pedantic, oh, yes. Although it's properly called
"correct" -- Huge