'24-Hour Licencing Has Failed' |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <12 |
Author | ||||
MartinW ![]() Moderator in Command ![]() ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
The question, is whether Magic's reply is in the same spirit as my carbonised human remains, plasma bolt, nanotech spirit, or if he's deadly serious??? Either way, he has my wholehearted support. If it were down to you wimpy pufter boys there would be anarchy.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Magic Man ![]() Chief Pilot ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
If you are drunk and disorderly then no, it's not lunacy, it's the law. You think it's okay? What about those high on drugs doing the same thing? Same thing, just a different drug.
Many of the problems associated with teenage violent crime are down to the almost friendly way being drunk is portrayed. "Oh! I was out of my skull last night, great laugh, ha, ha."
It's become too socially acceptable to stagger down the street shouting and swearing due to drink because the attitude is always jovial. Take the same number of people staggering out of some place high out of their heads on drugs and would that be seen in the same manner? No. But it's the same thing it's just the social attitude towards it. Which is sad and wrong and shows what society has become.
I didn't say anything about speeding, I was referring to the legal age to drive. 65 in a 60 zone, yep, just about forgiveable. A couple of mph more though and no, not acceptable in my book and should be punished with a heavy fine.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Magic Man ![]() Chief Pilot ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
Deadly.
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
MartinW ![]() Moderator in Command ![]() ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
Magic Man, you have my support. I like your style. Mutley is sacked; you are officially my right hand man. Welcome to the team. Agree with everything you say, sadly no one else will on the forum, quite frankly because they are addicted to the fire water, like the politicians. |
||||
![]() |
||||
Rich ![]() Just Flight Staff ![]() ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Planet Earth Points: 8543 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
But you said anyone caught drunk on the streets, not disorderly. Two different things surely? Being caught drunk seems to imply that anyone having a few drinks and stepping foot outside of their house is going to be liable for a fine. If that is the case then why not just impose a curfew and arrest anyone who goes out at night in case they intend to commit any crimes. That should make a real impact on crime rates. Being disorderly is fair enough but that is different to just being drunk. Thankfully I don't think I have to worry about this sort of thing too much as most people wouldn't stand for such a loss of liberties and personal freedom. |
||||
![]() |
||||
MartinW ![]() Moderator in Command ![]() ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
But you said anyone caught drunk on the streets, not disorderly. Two different things surely?
I'm sure he meant drunk and disorderly!
Personally, I see no reason whatsoever for anesthetizing the brain. It’s the most complex arrangement of matter we know of, an evolutionary marvel, it really doesn’t require limiting in this way. A world where alcohol wasn’t consumed at all would be rather nice, less damage to property, less violent crime, less accidents on the road, less of a burden on the health service, sounds good to me. However… society has grown used to consuming alcohol, with the majority of the population addicted in some way. When I say addicted, I mean in varying degrees, a person may not be diagnosed as an alcoholic, but might still shudder at the thought of abstaining. Trouble is, most politicians would fall into that category, and they are the ones that make the laws. As the vast majority in society have grown used to consuming this intoxicating substance, the chances of a law being passed and obeyed, curtailing or severely limiting its consumption is zero. As John mentioned, it was attempted in the states and failed miserably. It’s plainly obvious however, that we desperately need a better way to control its use. When you have children as young as 12 admitted to hospital on a regular basis close to death, and youths rampaging through the streets destroying property, injuring others, and making the job of the police a nightmare it’s obvious something needs to be done. What kind of a society do we live in where children, youths, and adults are allowed to wander the streets with the intelligent, responsible parts of the brain shut down, causing leaving mayhem in their wake? Like Magic man, I agree that to exert pressure on the parents to better control their off spring is the key. If the parents can be shown to be negligent in their attempt to control their children and have not upheld their duty as parents to do everything in their power to prevent their children from breaking the law, then they should be penalised. Conversely, if they have demonstrated that they have done all they can, all that can be reasonable expected, then they should be free from prosecution. |
||||
![]() |
||||
Magic Man ![]() Chief Pilot ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
"Two different things surely" - one tends to lead to the other.
Drunk in this context is defined as (according to a quick Google search) "intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties." or "intoxicated with alcohol to the extent of losing control over normal functions "
If you can be in that state but remain orderly then congratulations, you get away with it. The fact that you would want to be able to get to that state in public as some sort of civil liberty or expression of personal freedom is, quite frankly, sad.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
MartinW ![]() Moderator in Command ![]() ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
Agree, anyone in that state, by definition has limited self control and that's a danger in itself to society.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Magic Man ![]() Chief Pilot ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 Apr 2008 Location: South Wales Points: 5336 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
Exactly, apart from the obvious of drink driving or drink aggrevated violence, how many drunks have been hit or killed by perfectly sober people driving home at night.
No sympathy to those drunk but what about the possible danger to life of the driver or, at least, the effect it has on the rest of his life.
How much money is wasted by the NHS every Friday and Saturday night with ER departments full of drunks? Same for the police who have to divert money and resources.
Fine them, make them pay for the costs everyone of us ends up paying in taxes.
|
||||
![]() |
||||
Rich ![]() Just Flight Staff ![]() ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Planet Earth Points: 8543 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
A danger to society? Blimey, I think you lot have been watching a little too much Police, Camera, Action or whatever the program is that likes to seek out the worst cases and make entertainment out of them.
Have a look around Cambridge sometime where I often like to go to lose control of my normal functions and be a danger to society. What you will actually find in 99.99% percent of cases are normal, intelligent people getting together with friends and enjoying each others company. Not being able/willing to gather together with people in this social environment is, in my opinion is far sadder for society. Of course people could have friends round for a BBQ or dinner party etc instead of going out on the streets but those people will still need to leave the confines of the house in order to get a taxi or walk home so that would also out of the window unless they were willing to risk a £1000 fine and a night in the cells. I really hate the attitude of ruining something for the masses because of the minority. Be as harsh as you like to those people getting in fights, drink driving or whatever but to suggest fining somebody for walking home after a perfectly respectable evening out is so extreme and unnecessary it's almost laughable. I just saw a statistic that said that only 20% of car accidents involve alcohol. That would seem to suggest that cars are doing far more damage than alcohol is and I'd wager that more police time is spent dealing with car related incidents than alcohol related ones. Shall we ban them to? We would certainly be safer and we could all get buses instead. |
||||
![]() |
||||
MartinW ![]() Moderator in Command ![]() ![]() Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: United Kingdom Points: 26722 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
A danger to society? Blimey, I think you lot have been watching a little too much Police, Camera, Action or whatever the program is that likes to seek out the worst cases and make entertainment out of them. Even just been drunk is indeed a danger, they don't have to be running around kicking peoples brains in. Take the case of my son's friend. She's a nice friendly girl, ordinarily sensible. One night at a club, feeling somewhat inebriated, she took it upon herself to go on the roof, not content with the view, she decided to walk across a skylight. She fell straight through the glass, plummeting 15 feet, and was only saved a potentially fatal injury because the windscreen of a van parked below, broke her fall. That van could have easily been a person. I had a friend when I was at work, who decided to leapfrog concrete bollards; he ended up in hospital all night with a broken leg. My son was at a nightclub and some drunk decided to throw a bottle in the air, it landed on Daniels head. At a different nightclub someone smashed a bottle on the floor deliberately and the shards severed Daniels friend’s leg, she spent a good few hours in casualty. I can see magic’s point, simply being under the influence brings with it danger, to the individual and others. Not being able/willing to gather together with people in this social environment is, in my opinion is far sadder for society. I socialize just fine, without touching alcohol. I really hate the attitude of ruining something for the masses because of the minority. Be as harsh as you like to those people getting in fights, drink driving or whatever but to suggest fining somebody for walking home after a perfectly respectable evening out is so extreme and unnecessary it's almost laughable. I'm not sure if Magic is suggesting that, you would have to define how much is too much to be swaggering around the streets, a danger to yourself if not others. We breathalyz drivers, perhaps there should be a higher level allowed for pedestrians. Must admit, it's a bit draconian though, even for me, but if they are seen to be in such a state that they are in danger of doing something potentially dangerous then test them. I just saw a statistic that said that only 20% of car accidents involve alcohol. That would seem to suggest that cars are doing far more damage than alcohol is and I'd wager that more police time is spent dealing with car related incidents than alcohol related ones. Shall we ban them to? We would certainly be safer and we could all get buses instead. Drinking and driving is illegal, cars aren't. Cars don't cause accidents, drivers do, and if they are culpable the law deals with them. And 20% seems a lot to me. |
||||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |