Policy 1 - Grin with cat attached — LiveJournal
Previous Entry Next Entry
Policy 1 May. 7th, 2008 12:34 pm

Now to see:

- How it's implemented.
- Who's supposed to be enforcing it.
- Whether they do, or can.

From: valkyriekaren
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 11:43 am (Link)
I always believed you weren't supposed to drink on the Tube anyway, though a quick web search indicates I may have been wrong in this.

I think there'll be difficulties in enforcing it, but then again when smoking was banned on the Tube in the wake of the Kings Cross fire, it probably initially seemed a bit weird and then became culturally normal. Practically nobody (who isn't a foreign tourist) tries to smoke on the underground these days.
From: ergotia
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 11:43 am (Link)
I am *very doubtful* about the whole astamping out minor crime stops major crime thing - where is the evidence?

More specifically, it is very easy indeed to disguise alcohol as a soft drink and I trust there will be no attempts to ban those!
From: d_floorlandmine
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 12:02 pm (Link)
I trust there will be no attempts to ban those!
Then they'll ban water, because it could be gin or vodka in disguise.
And then they'll have a spate of heat exhaustion deaths on the tube in the summer ...
From: valkyriekaren
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 12:06 pm (Link)
Mmmm vodka.

It does make me giggle when I see people carrying cans of beer wrapped in brown paper, as if that disguises them as soft drinks. Because obviously everyone carries cans of Coke wrapped in paper!
From: nevla
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 12:13 pm (Link)
Easiest way to get around this would be to put beer in a starbucks mug. It's now culturely acceptable to carry coffee cups everywhere :)

And like you, i assumed drinking alcohol in public was illegal anyway...
From: valkyriekaren
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 12:31 pm (Link)
i assumed drinking alcohol in public was illegal anyway...

I never assumed that, but certainly thought it was illegal on public transport, usually under local byelaws / conditions of carriage.
(no subject) - (Anonymous)
From: wechsler
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 12:57 pm (Link)
*chokes on his burrito*

From: kekhmet
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 01:24 pm (Link)
and purchased after we pass the security checkpoint ;-P
From: thekumquat
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 12:33 pm (Link)
I feel a sudden urge for a picnic on the Northern Line, including a bottle of champagne and enough glasses to share with the rest of the carriage.

Being drunk/disorderly/committing nuisance behaviour is already against Tube byelaws I believe, but understandably gate staff are reluctant to prevent people entering the system if they're physically capable of getting through a barrier. I don't see how they could possibly enforce this.
From: hairyears
Date: May 7th, 2008 - 01:08 pm (Link)
Hmmm... It's another case of being seen 'solving' a problem that already has effective solutions available if only they were implemented.

Teenage drinking accounts for much of it - and it comes as a shock to see 14-year old schoolgirls swigging vodka from the bottle on their way to the West End - but there's a legal power to detain underage drinkers already.

As for the rest, it's rowdy drunks who are the problem, and there are already perfectly adequate laws to deal with being drunk and disorderly - or drunk and incapable - if, and only if, someone bothers to enforce them.

Better still, abusive behaviour can get you removed from the train, bus or tube and banned from all TFL property and services - drunk or sober. Have I used the word 'Already' enough times yet?

This nonsense of enacting more laws which we know aren't going to be enforced, compounding our contemptible disregard for the existing ones, is a waste of time and money and it brings the legislative process into disrepute.