Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 10:55am Fri 10 Oct 08
Do These health care professionals frequent many pubs. The actual issue is with the yobs drinking on the street. I agree that may be the night clubs of Scotland could do more? Perhaps this is the area and if so the artcle has missed the target. Not that many youths drinking in our local pubs, drinking to excess. Be difficult to spot a drunk in a nightclub, less likely for that excuse in a well lit public house. The article eiter misrepresens the health board - more likely the health board have fudged the report with their own ignoramus.
Do These health care professionals frequent many pubs. The actual issue is with the yobs drinking on the street. I agree that may be the night clubs of Scotland could do more? Perhaps this is the area and if so the artcle has missed the target. Not that many youths drinking in our local pubs, drinking to excess. Be difficult to spot a drunk in a nightclub, less likely for that excuse in a well lit public house. The article eiter misrepresens the health board - more likely the health board have fudged the report with their own ignoramus.
Posted by: Snydey Bedwetter, Glesga on 11:24am Fri 10 Oct 08
Just what we need. Another law punishing people who behave properly because the authorities cannot control a minority.
Just what we need. Another law punishing people who behave properly because the authorities cannot control a minority.
Posted by: FMJ, Glasgow on 11:26am Fri 10 Oct 08
I agree with Leesome - the real problem is kids drinking on the street. Raising the off-licence age makes sense, but leaving the pub age the same would give 18 to 21-year-olds a more controlled introduction to drink (if bar staff and bouncers do their jobs properly and keep an eye on them).
Why not also give 18 to 21-year-olds a 'provisional' drinking licence that would serve as ID in pubs and could also be removed if they abuse the privilege. It's fairer than banning them outright from pubs - and the thought of six months or more being unable to go for a drink with their mates is a far greater incentive to behave than anything the law currently has to offer.
I agree with Leesome - the real problem is kids drinking on the street. Raising the off-licence age makes sense, but leaving the pub age the same would give 18 to 21-year-olds a more controlled introduction to drink (if bar staff and bouncers do their jobs properly and keep an eye on them).
Why not also give 18 to 21-year-olds a 'provisional' drinking licence that would serve as ID in pubs and could also be removed if they abuse the privilege. It's fairer than banning them outright from pubs - and the thought of six months or more being unable to go for a drink with their mates is a far greater incentive to behave than anything the law currently has to offer.
Posted by: 2for1, Glasgow on 11:28am Fri 10 Oct 08
As someone who spends a lot of time in the USA and Canada, where the age limit varies by state (I think it is 19 in Canada though) - might I propose that rather than changing the age - it becomes a legal requirement that all persons involved in the sale of alcohol [bold]MUST[/bold] be presented with an approved form of photographic ID. No ID = no sale. It's the same for cigarettes (well certainly in Florida!), if you dont have any ID and look young, you don't get sold them. Because it is not the license holder who is punnished by the law, but the individual who processed the sale! (In fact, it's so strict in the States, when out for a few drinks with my crew last week our 40 year old captain had to produce ID in a bar or the girl wasn't serving him!)
Having said that, we could all be ID'd all day and every day, but one thing that seperates us from the States... our national mentality of 'getting p*ssed'! Untill the day comes we can get people to stop getting rat a*sed for no reason what so ever, then we will have tackled the problem. Because, no matter what is done, if 14 yr old neds want to drink Thunderbird on the streets.... they will find a way of getting it! That is the issue we need to tackle head on... Education!
2f1
As someone who spends a lot of time in the USA and Canada, where the age limit varies by state (I think it is 19 in Canada though) - might I propose that rather than changing the age - it becomes a legal requirement that all persons involved in the sale of alcohol
MUST be presented with an approved form of photographic ID. No ID = no sale. It's the same for cigarettes (well certainly in Florida!), if you dont have any ID and look young, you don't get sold them. Because it is not the license holder who is punnished by the law, but the individual who processed the sale! (In fact, it's so strict in the States, when out for a few drinks with my crew last week our 40 year old captain had to produce ID in a bar or the girl wasn't serving him!)
Having said that, we could all be ID'd all day and every day, but one thing that seperates us from the States... our national mentality of 'getting p*ssed'! Untill the day comes we can get people to stop getting rat a*sed for no reason what so ever, then we will have tackled the problem. Because, no matter what is done, if 14 yr old neds want to drink Thunderbird on the streets.... they will find a way of getting it! That is the issue we need to tackle head on... Education!
2f1
Posted by: Jram, Glasgow on 11:38am Fri 10 Oct 08
People will find a way round it, prohibition doesn't work - if they can't beg, borrow, buy or steal booze they'll make their own or find something else.
Find and offer something for folk to do instead of drinking, it's largely a boredom thing.
People will find a way round it, prohibition doesn't work - if they can't beg, borrow, buy or steal booze they'll make their own or find something else.
Find and offer something for folk to do instead of drinking, it's largely a boredom thing.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 11:40am Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote]Why not also give 18 to 21-year-olds a 'provisional' drinking licence that would serve as ID in pubs and could also be removed if they abuse the privilege. It's fairer than banning them outright from pubs - and the thought of six months or more being unable to go for a drink with their mates is a far greater incentive to behave than anything the law currently has to offer.[/quote]
Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink.
There shouldn't need to be a provisional licence - properly run bars with reponsible managers should ensure that people who are already too drunk and incapable don't get served. Stronger controls on licencing needed?
Why not also give 18 to 21-year-olds a 'provisional' drinking licence that would serve as ID in pubs and could also be removed if they abuse the privilege. It's fairer than banning them outright from pubs - and the thought of six months or more being unable to go for a drink with their mates is a far greater incentive to behave than anything the law currently has to offer.
Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink.
There shouldn't need to be a provisional licence - properly run bars with reponsible managers should ensure that people who are already too drunk and incapable don't get served. Stronger controls on licencing needed?
Posted by: RapidAssistant, Glasgow on 11:47am Fri 10 Oct 08
All well intentioned - but the kids that abuse alcohol aren't getting it from pubs in the first place; they are having it bought for them from off licences and supermarkets.
So I can't see how this is going to make any difference whatsoever - they are merely going to be throwing more resources at enforcing a rule which will make little impact. As has been said above - if they want drink, they'll get their hands on it somehow.
All well intentioned - but the kids that abuse alcohol aren't getting it from pubs in the first place; they are having it bought for them from off licences and supermarkets.
So I can't see how this is going to make any difference whatsoever - they are merely going to be throwing more resources at enforcing a rule which will make little impact. As has been said above - if they want drink, they'll get their hands on it somehow.
Posted by: Joe Shmo, Glasgow on 12:27pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm..
Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm..
Posted by: SPAMALOT, southside on 12:31pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]2for1[/bold] wrote:
As someone who spends a lot of time in the USA and Canada, where the age limit varies by state (I think it is 19 in Canada though) - might I propose that rather than changing the age - it becomes a legal requirement that all persons involved in the sale of alcohol [bold]MUST[/bold] be presented with an approved form of photographic ID. No ID = no sale. It's the same for cigarettes (well certainly in Florida!), if you dont have any ID and look young, you don't get sold them. Because it is not the license holder who is punnished by the law, but the individual who processed the sale! (In fact, it's so strict in the States, when out for a few drinks with my crew last week our 40 year old captain had to produce ID in a bar or the girl wasn't serving him!) Having said that, we could all be ID'd all day and every day, but one thing that seperates us from the States... our national mentality of 'getting p*ssed'! Untill the day comes we can get people to stop getting rat a*sed for no reason what so ever, then we will have tackled the problem. Because, no matter what is done, if 14 yr old neds want to drink Thunderbird on the streets.... they will find a way of getting it! That is the issue we need to tackle head on... Education! 2f1[/quote] A thought you were the pilot haha haha ha,but on the point,we have the same laws here its just down to greedy shopkeepers that these people can buy alcohol and fags,if they were to shut their shops down for good and fine them their whole stock they would soon change their big greedy minds.
2for1 wrote:
As someone who spends a lot of time in the USA and Canada, where the age limit varies by state (I think it is 19 in Canada though) - might I propose that rather than changing the age - it becomes a legal requirement that all persons involved in the sale of alcohol MUST be presented with an approved form of photographic ID. No ID = no sale. It's the same for cigarettes (well certainly in Florida!), if you dont have any ID and look young, you don't get sold them. Because it is not the license holder who is punnished by the law, but the individual who processed the sale! (In fact, it's so strict in the States, when out for a few drinks with my crew last week our 40 year old captain had to produce ID in a bar or the girl wasn't serving him!) Having said that, we could all be ID'd all day and every day, but one thing that seperates us from the States... our national mentality of 'getting p*ssed'! Untill the day comes we can get people to stop getting rat a*sed for no reason what so ever, then we will have tackled the problem. Because, no matter what is done, if 14 yr old neds want to drink Thunderbird on the streets.... they will find a way of getting it! That is the issue we need to tackle head on... Education! 2f1
A thought you were the pilot haha haha ha,but on the point,we have the same laws here its just down to greedy shopkeepers that these people can buy alcohol and fags,if they were to shut their shops down for good and fine them their whole stock they would soon change their big greedy minds.
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 12:33pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]Joe Shmo[/bold] wrote:
Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm.. [/quote] OF course you mean "kill terrorists in iraq/afghanistan"...
.
Joe Shmo wrote:
Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm..
OF course you mean "kill terrorists in iraq/afghanistan"...
.
Posted by: tam-m, southside on 12:35pm Fri 10 Oct 08
so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay.
put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals.
so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay.
put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals.
Posted by: SunnyJhim, South of the River on 12:43pm Fri 10 Oct 08
There are few aspects of social / cultural life in Scotland (and the British Isles) that are not soaked in alcohol. A kind of moral relativism engulfs any sensible debate when age limits are discussed, eg, "ah can carry a gun for ma country at 17, why can't ah get jaked at the same age?". Yet you would hope said 17yr old wouldn't be doing both at the same time eh?
Every society makes RELATIVE moral or ethical judgements on what age it thinks its citizens should indulge in certain practices. In the US the drinking age tends to be a very sensible 21yr old - yet same culture also thinks it wise to cling to a 300yr old militia-mans right to bare arms for every citizen.
If we are going to defend specific CIVIL rights (the drinking age is not a fundamental HUMAN right), then we have to be honest about the context and consequences. Most of the folk who seek to defend to the back teeth the right for 18yr olds to get their hands on strong liquor, do so because they have been there themselves and feel guilty about denying the same, er, 'privilege' to the next generation. I come to this conclusion because I can come to no other. I have never, ever, for example, met a 'sensible' or 'moderate' teenage drinker. I'm not saying every teenage boozehound will seek to make murder and mayhem on the streets of our towns and cities but please, please spare me any notion that 17, 18 or indeed 19...or even 20 yr olds are physically or phsychologically 'ready' to consume large quantities of this drug/poison.
Heavy drinking from a young age ('gaun, take a drink - be a man') is a pecualiar Scottish / British rite-of-passage that now exists in an early 21st Century context of instant-availability
; near 24 hour opening hours; cheap product pricing; greater disposable income; more free time; cultural / media saturation of booze-related behaviour; and tacit or latent peer and family-inspired legitimacy to get gassed as young and often as possible.
If we accept all this as the context for Scotland / Britain's drink problem, then by all means fill your boots because we then accept all the short, medium and long term problems that follow from these cultural norms. But let us not pretend that a drinking age of 18 rather than 21 makes our country a more sensible, fair, and liberal society than others.
PS. Can than there be anymore cringeworthy political image this year than 50 students (many of them English-domiciled) standing outside the Scottish Parliament slagging the Scottish Govt for the 21yrs proposal - fronted for the cameras by Tavish Scott, Ian Gray and the Tories - all meekly mouthing "citizens not criminals".........n
ow I know what it takes to motivate direct poltical action these days. All concerned should hang their heads in absolute shame.
There are few aspects of social / cultural life in Scotland (and the British Isles) that are not soaked in alcohol. A kind of moral relativism engulfs any sensible debate when age limits are discussed, eg, "ah can carry a gun for ma country at 17, why can't ah get jaked at the same age?". Yet you would hope said 17yr old wouldn't be doing both at the same time eh?
Every society makes RELATIVE moral or ethical judgements on what age it thinks its citizens should indulge in certain practices. In the US the drinking age tends to be a very sensible 21yr old - yet same culture also thinks it wise to cling to a 300yr old militia-mans right to bare arms for every citizen.
If we are going to defend specific CIVIL rights (the drinking age is not a fundamental HUMAN right), then we have to be honest about the context and consequences. Most of the folk who seek to defend to the back teeth the right for 18yr olds to get their hands on strong liquor, do so because they have been there themselves and feel guilty about denying the same, er, 'privilege' to the next generation. I come to this conclusion because I can come to no other. I have never, ever, for example, met a 'sensible' or 'moderate' teenage drinker. I'm not saying every teenage boozehound will seek to make murder and mayhem on the streets of our towns and cities but please, please spare me any notion that 17, 18 or indeed 19...or even 20 yr olds are physically or phsychologically 'ready' to consume large quantities of this drug/poison.
Heavy drinking from a young age ('gaun, take a drink - be a man') is a pecualiar Scottish / British rite-of-passage that now exists in an early 21st Century context of instant-availability
; near 24 hour opening hours; cheap product pricing; greater disposable income; more free time; cultural / media saturation of booze-related behaviour; and tacit or latent peer and family-inspired legitimacy to get gassed as young and often as possible.
If we accept all this as the context for Scotland / Britain's drink problem, then by all means fill your boots because we then accept all the short, medium and long term problems that follow from these cultural norms. But let us not pretend that a drinking age of 18 rather than 21 makes our country a more sensible, fair, and liberal society than others.
PS. Can than there be anymore cringeworthy political image this year than 50 students (many of them English-domiciled) standing outside the Scottish Parliament slagging the Scottish Govt for the 21yrs proposal - fronted for the cameras by Tavish Scott, Ian Gray and the Tories - all meekly mouthing "citizens not criminals".........n
ow I know what it takes to motivate direct poltical action these days. All concerned should hang their heads in absolute shame.
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 12:48pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Late 70's/early 80's, glue-sniffing was the "in-thing". Put this type of curb in place, then the empty crisp-pokes and evostik cans will make a return, mark my words!!.. Anyway, I'm away fur a pint or three tae droon mah sorrows at this news!!.. LOL!!
Late 70's/early 80's, glue-sniffing was the "in-thing". Put this type of curb in place, then the empty crisp-pokes and evostik cans will make a return, mark my words!!.. Anyway, I'm away fur a pint or three tae droon mah sorrows at this news!!.. LOL!!
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 12:51pm Fri 10 Oct 08
BTW: the pix of Dr Linda and the barmaid - are they "Dr Linda when sober / barmaid when drunk"..??
BTW: the pix of Dr Linda and the barmaid - are they "Dr Linda when sober / barmaid when drunk"..??
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 12:55pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote]yet same culture also thinks it wise to cling to a 300yr old militia-mans right to bare arms for every citizen[/quote] - well, the yanks should ban short-sleeved shirts then!!
yet same culture also thinks it wise to cling to a 300yr old militia-mans right to bare arms for every citizen
- well, the yanks should ban short-sleeved shirts then!!
Posted by: tam-m, southside on 1:05pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]steven976[/bold] wrote:
BTW: the pix of Dr Linda and the barmaid - are they "Dr Linda when sober / barmaid when drunk"..??[/quote] dr linda just out of bed still got her housecoat on/.barmaid just about to have her breakfast'
ps - well, the yanks should ban short-sleeved shirts then. like it.
steven976 wrote:
BTW: the pix of Dr Linda and the barmaid - are they "Dr Linda when sober / barmaid when drunk"..??
dr linda just out of bed still got her housecoat on/.barmaid just about to have her breakfast'
ps - well, the yanks should ban short-sleeved shirts then. like it.
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 1:11pm Fri 10 Oct 08
I blame the rise in alcohol consumption on the British media AND Cherie Blair!!.. Remember the pic of her at the door of No.10, looking like she'd fell out of bed, been dragged through a prickly hedge, then severely slapped in the moosh??.. If that's not the reason, then tell me WHAT IS??...
I blame the rise in alcohol consumption on the British media AND Cherie Blair!!.. Remember the pic of her at the door of No.10, looking like she'd fell out of bed, been dragged through a prickly hedge, then severely slapped in the moosh??.. If that's not the reason, then tell me WHAT IS??...
Posted by: Shifty, Anniesland on 1:13pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[italic]Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink.[/italic]
Count me in - I'm 45 and still can't handle it.
Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink.
Count me in - I'm 45 and still can't handle it.
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 1:16pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]Shifty[/bold] wrote:
[italic]Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink.[/italic] Count me in - I'm 45 and still can't handle it.[/quote] Ah'll drink tae that, SHIFTY!!
Shifty wrote:
Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink. Count me in - I'm 45 and still can't handle it.
Ah'll drink tae that, SHIFTY!!
Posted by: Shifty, Anniesland on 1:16pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[italic]Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink.[/italic]
Count me in - I'm 45 and still can't handle it.
Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly is a good idea, sure, but is the problem only restricted to the young? How many 40 and 50 year olds do see meking an @rse of themselves through drink.
Count me in - I'm 45 and still can't handle it.
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 1:19pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote]Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly[/quote]
Dad (to son): well, son.. here's a pub! Fancy gettin' blootered?..
Son: Aye, da!!
SENSIBLE QUESTION - SENSIBLE ANSWER!!
Some way of introducing younger people to pubs sensibly
Dad (to son): well, son.. here's a pub! Fancy gettin' blootered?..
Son: Aye, da!!
SENSIBLE QUESTION - SENSIBLE ANSWER!!
Posted by: 2for1, Glasgow on 1:21pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Haha... SPAMALOT... I told you... I'm cabin crew... that's why I canny see the 4 engines on my jumbo at one time! But i've had great exercise trying to run from one side of the plane to the other at light speed to see if i can! :D
Your right what you say, it is down to greed on the shopkeepers part, but if there was stronger enforcement of the law... and a HUGE cost to their pockets!
2f1
Haha... SPAMALOT... I told you... I'm cabin crew... that's why I canny see the 4 engines on my jumbo at one time! But i've had great exercise trying to run from one side of the plane to the other at light speed to see if i can! :D
Your right what you say, it is down to greed on the shopkeepers part, but if there was stronger enforcement of the law... and a HUGE cost to their pockets!
2f1
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 1:27pm Fri 10 Oct 08
2for1 - Do you work for Scotia Airways?.. I always fancied that Shona McSpurtle!!
2for1 - Do you work for Scotia Airways?.. I always fancied that Shona McSpurtle!!
Posted by: Tarry breeks, Partick on 1:52pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Far too many pubs/clubs serve already drunk patrons. Of all the alcohol problems that is surely one of the worst. We can't control binge drinking when alcohol is purchased from an off licence, however we can control it when it's purchased from a licensed premises.
Licensees who sell alcohol to already drunk patrons should loose their license after 2 warnings, simple as that.
Far too many pubs/clubs serve already drunk patrons. Of all the alcohol problems that is surely one of the worst. We can't control binge drinking when alcohol is purchased from an off licence, however we can control it when it's purchased from a licensed premises.
Licensees who sell alcohol to already drunk patrons should loose their license after 2 warnings, simple as that.
Posted by: The Wise One, Glasgow on 1:55pm Fri 10 Oct 08
If the gNAT's get independence, we will have Sharia Law and there will be no sale of alcohol.
We will have to travel across the border for a swally, assuming of course they haven't banned travel.
Afghanistan has the Taliban, we have the Alcoban.
If the gNAT's get independence, we will have Sharia Law and there will be no sale of alcohol.
We will have to travel across the border for a swally, assuming of course they haven't banned travel.
Afghanistan has the Taliban, we have the Alcoban.
Posted by: The Wise One, Glasgow on 2:04pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Is it possible the WEE FREE CHURCH has relaunched under the SNP banner:
[bold]S[/bold] cotlands [bold]N[/bold] ew [bold]P[/bold] uritans
Is it possible the WEE FREE CHURCH has relaunched under the SNP banner:
S cotlands
N ew
P uritans
Posted by: Renegade, Cyberspace on 2:54pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Joe Shmo[/bold] wrote: Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm.. [/quote] OF course you mean "kill terrorists in iraq/afghanistan"... .[/quote] So the indigenous inhabitants of Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists are they? Does that include the children who have been killed in coalition attacks? Or the men who were held at Guantanamo for years then eventually RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE! I'm sure terrorism is defined as 'the use of violence to achieve political ends'...obviouslly not when foreign occupiers are doing the same thing, eh?
Anyway, we're told these new proposals are supposed to cut down on alcohol abuse by 12-13 year olds - who are clearly well under the legal age. Raise the age to 21? There will be the same problem, only of 16-20 year olds abusing alcohol. As for pubs, many of them already ban under 21's at certain times, but has that ever reduced antisocial behaviour on the streets? NO. Oh, and the many adults who kick off when they're drunk? Great move indeed, aye right!
If people choose to be yobs, at whatever age, they will do just that.
jrb wrote:
Joe Shmo wrote: Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm..
OF course you mean "kill terrorists in iraq/afghanistan"... .
So the indigenous inhabitants of Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists are they? Does that include the children who have been killed in coalition attacks? Or the men who were held at Guantanamo for years then eventually RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE! I'm sure terrorism is defined as 'the use of violence to achieve political ends'...obviouslly not when foreign occupiers are doing the same thing, eh?
Anyway, we're told these new proposals are supposed to cut down on alcohol abuse by 12-13 year olds - who are clearly well under the legal age. Raise the age to 21? There will be the same problem, only of 16-20 year olds abusing alcohol. As for pubs, many of them already ban under 21's at certain times, but has that ever reduced antisocial behaviour on the streets? NO. Oh, and the many adults who kick off when they're drunk? Great move indeed, aye right!
If people choose to be yobs, at whatever age, they will do just that.
Posted by: 2for1, Glasgow on 3:13pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]steven976[/bold] wrote:
2for1 - Do you work for Scotia Airways?.. I always fancied that Shona McSpurtle!![/quote] Oh deerie me!
Nope, but I wish my airline as more like air scotia! Sometimes it is... but i wish we had a few shona spurtles! :D
2f1
[italic]Now finding power crazy chief purser air-hostesses quite appealing!Grrrr....[/italic]
steven976 wrote:
2for1 - Do you work for Scotia Airways?.. I always fancied that Shona McSpurtle!!
Oh deerie me!
Nope, but I wish my airline as more like air scotia! Sometimes it is... but i wish we had a few shona spurtles! :D
2f1
Now finding power crazy chief purser air-hostesses quite appealing!Grrrr.... Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 3:27pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]Renegade[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Joe Shmo[/bold] wrote: Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm.. [/quote] OF course you mean "kill terrorists in iraq/afghanistan"... .[/quote] So the indigenous inhabitants of Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists are they? Does that include the children who have been killed in coalition attacks? Or the men who were held at Guantanamo for years then eventually RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE! I'm sure terrorism is defined as 'the use of violence to achieve political ends'...obviouslly not when foreign occupiers are doing the same thing, eh? Anyway, we're told these new proposals are supposed to cut down on alcohol abuse by 12-13 year olds - who are clearly well under the legal age. Raise the age to 21? There will be the same problem, only of 16-20 year olds abusing alcohol. As for pubs, many of them already ban under 21's at certain times, but has that ever reduced antisocial behaviour on the streets? NO. Oh, and the many adults who kick off when they're drunk? Great move indeed, aye right! If people choose to be yobs, at whatever age, they will do just that.[/quote] Your been selective,does that include children and women killed by insurgents? and guantanamo bay sure some were released,but many, many more are guilty without a doubt.
and I agree with you on your alcohol points it looks like they have not given it a lot of thought long term.
Renegade wrote:
jrb wrote: Joe Shmo wrote: Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm..
OF course you mean "kill terrorists in iraq/afghanistan"... .
So the indigenous inhabitants of Iraq and Afghanistan are all terrorists are they? Does that include the children who have been killed in coalition attacks? Or the men who were held at Guantanamo for years then eventually RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE! I'm sure terrorism is defined as 'the use of violence to achieve political ends'...obviouslly not when foreign occupiers are doing the same thing, eh? Anyway, we're told these new proposals are supposed to cut down on alcohol abuse by 12-13 year olds - who are clearly well under the legal age. Raise the age to 21? There will be the same problem, only of 16-20 year olds abusing alcohol. As for pubs, many of them already ban under 21's at certain times, but has that ever reduced antisocial behaviour on the streets? NO. Oh, and the many adults who kick off when they're drunk? Great move indeed, aye right! If people choose to be yobs, at whatever age, they will do just that.
Your been selective,does that include children and women killed by insurgents? and guantanamo bay sure some were released,but many, many more are guilty without a doubt.
and I agree with you on your alcohol points it looks like they have not given it a lot of thought long term.
Posted by: Partick Bateman, glasgow on 4:09pm Fri 10 Oct 08
FORGET IT. GIVE THEM MORE BOOZE.
STERILITY INDUCING DRUGS IN BUCKFAST... GIVE IT OUT TO KIDS IN SCHEMESCHOOLS.
MILK FOR KIDS REPLACED BY BUCKIE FOR KIDS. THEY'LL LOVE IT, WE'LL LOVE THE RESULTS IN 50 YEARS.
FORGET IT. GIVE THEM MORE BOOZE.
STERILITY INDUCING DRUGS IN BUCKFAST... GIVE IT OUT TO KIDS IN SCHEMESCHOOLS.
MILK FOR KIDS REPLACED BY BUCKIE FOR KIDS. THEY'LL LOVE IT, WE'LL LOVE THE RESULTS IN 50 YEARS.
Posted by: I Predict A Riot, Glasgow on 4:15pm Fri 10 Oct 08
We don't need alcohol,that's only for people who want to miss out on living their lives,ban it altogether.
We don't need alcohol,that's only for people who want to miss out on living their lives,ban it altogether.
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 4:19pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]2for1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]steven976[/bold] wrote: 2for1 - Do you work for Scotia Airways?.. I always fancied that Shona McSpurtle!![/quote] Oh deerie me! Nope, but I wish my airline as more like air scotia! Sometimes it is... but i wish we had a few shona spurtles! :D 2f1 [italic]Now finding power crazy chief purser air-hostesses quite appealing!Grrrr....[/italic] [/quote] I think you know a few pilots like the one in The High Life too!! Ex-DanAir staff, methinks!!
2for1 wrote:
steven976 wrote: 2for1 - Do you work for Scotia Airways?.. I always fancied that Shona McSpurtle!!
Oh deerie me! Nope, but I wish my airline as more like air scotia! Sometimes it is... but i wish we had a few shona spurtles! :D 2f1 Now finding power crazy chief purser air-hostesses quite appealing!Grrrr....
I think you know a few pilots like the one in The High Life too!! Ex-DanAir staff, methinks!!
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 4:33pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Ahm aff for a pint.
Posted by: steven976, Feltham, Middx on 4:40pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]Pete[/bold] wrote:
Ahm aff for a pint.[/quote] Urr ye aff oan a binge, big man?? LOL!!
Pete wrote:
Ahm aff for a pint.
Urr ye aff oan a binge, big man?? LOL!!
Posted by: thistlemad, Ayrshire on 4:45pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]Joe Shmo[/bold] wrote:
Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm.. [/quote] You`re more likely to BE killed in Iraq/ Afghanistan.
Having said that, I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old???
40 and 50 year olds are more likely to be a pain in the ar5e than stab someone when drunk.
Joe Shmo wrote:
Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm..
You`re more likely to BE killed in Iraq/ Afghanistan.
Having said that, I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old???
40 and 50 year olds are more likely to be a pain in the ar5e than stab someone when drunk.
Posted by: subrosa on 4:50pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote]Posted by: tam-m, southside on 12:35pm today
so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay.
put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals.
[/quote]
I'm weary hearing the excuse about soldiers not being able to buy a drink until they're 21. Ask a soldier what he thinks of the ruling before you make accusations that the soldier is being 'deprived'.
In the Forces alcohol has been too prominent and now, thankfully, they are beginning to be far more responsible and teach our service people about the dangers of alcohol.
An 18 year old soldier just back from a war zone isn't going to worry too much about the fact that he can't buy alcohol in a supermarket. He knows he can have a drink in a pub. The same soldier is usually just relieved he's survived intact.
Pubs should close 11pm in the week and 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. Same for clubs. This so called 'cafe' culture isn't Scotland's culture. All the 24 hour drinking policy has done is encourage drinking from all age groups and made more money for alcohol producers.
Posted by: tam-m, southside on 12:35pm today
so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay.
put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals.
I'm weary hearing the excuse about soldiers not being able to buy a drink until they're 21. Ask a soldier what he thinks of the ruling before you make accusations that the soldier is being 'deprived'.
In the Forces alcohol has been too prominent and now, thankfully, they are beginning to be far more responsible and teach our service people about the dangers of alcohol.
An 18 year old soldier just back from a war zone isn't going to worry too much about the fact that he can't buy alcohol in a supermarket. He knows he can have a drink in a pub. The same soldier is usually just relieved he's survived intact.
Pubs should close 11pm in the week and 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. Same for clubs. This so called 'cafe' culture isn't Scotland's culture. All the 24 hour drinking policy has done is encourage drinking from all age groups and made more money for alcohol producers.
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 5:18pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]subrosa[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Posted by: tam-m, southside on 12:35pm today so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay. put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals. [/quote] I'm weary hearing the excuse about soldiers not being able to buy a drink until they're 21. Ask a soldier what he thinks of the ruling before you make accusations that the soldier is being 'deprived'. In the Forces alcohol has been too prominent and now, thankfully, they are beginning to be far more responsible and teach our service people about the dangers of alcohol. An 18 year old soldier just back from a war zone isn't going to worry too much about the fact that he can't buy alcohol in a supermarket. He knows he can have a drink in a pub. The same soldier is usually just relieved he's survived intact. Pubs should close 11pm in the week and 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. Same for clubs. This so called 'cafe' culture isn't Scotland's culture. All the 24 hour drinking policy has done is encourage drinking from all age groups and made more money for alcohol producers. [/quote] At last someone who talks sense and makes valid points,well said!
subrosa wrote:
Posted by: tam-m, southside on 12:35pm today so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay. put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals.
I'm weary hearing the excuse about soldiers not being able to buy a drink until they're 21. Ask a soldier what he thinks of the ruling before you make accusations that the soldier is being 'deprived'. In the Forces alcohol has been too prominent and now, thankfully, they are beginning to be far more responsible and teach our service people about the dangers of alcohol. An 18 year old soldier just back from a war zone isn't going to worry too much about the fact that he can't buy alcohol in a supermarket. He knows he can have a drink in a pub. The same soldier is usually just relieved he's survived intact. Pubs should close 11pm in the week and 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. Same for clubs. This so called 'cafe' culture isn't Scotland's culture. All the 24 hour drinking policy has done is encourage drinking from all age groups and made more money for alcohol producers.
At last someone who talks sense and makes valid points,well said!
Posted by: SPAMALOT, southside on 5:22pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]thistlemad[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Joe Shmo[/bold] wrote: Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm.. [/quote] You`re more likely to BE killed in Iraq/ Afghanistan. Having said that, I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old??? 40 and 50 year olds are more likely to be a pain in the ar5e than stab someone when drunk.[/quote] What kind of pain in the ar8e? the kind wee purcell likes
thistlemad wrote:
Joe Shmo wrote: Let me get this right. You can go abroad in the army and kill people in iraq/afghanistan. Yet you wont be able to buy a can of beer from a supermarket. Mmmm..
You`re more likely to BE killed in Iraq/ Afghanistan. Having said that, I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old??? 40 and 50 year olds are more likely to be a pain in the ar5e than stab someone when drunk.
What kind of pain in the ar8e? the kind wee purcell likes
Posted by: thistlemad, Ayrshire on 5:26pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]subrosa[/bold] wrote: [quote]Posted by: tam-m, southside on 12:35pm today so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay. put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals. [/quote] I'm weary hearing the excuse about soldiers not being able to buy a drink until they're 21. Ask a soldier what he thinks of the ruling before you make accusations that the soldier is being 'deprived'. In the Forces alcohol has been too prominent and now, thankfully, they are beginning to be far more responsible and teach our service people about the dangers of alcohol. An 18 year old soldier just back from a war zone isn't going to worry too much about the fact that he can't buy alcohol in a supermarket. He knows he can have a drink in a pub. The same soldier is usually just relieved he's survived intact. Pubs should close 11pm in the week and 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. Same for clubs. This so called 'cafe' culture isn't Scotland's culture. All the 24 hour drinking policy has done is encourage drinking from all age groups and made more money for alcohol producers. [/quote] At last someone who talks sense and makes valid points,well said![/quote] Can only actually disagree with one point.
As far back as AT LEAST 1978 (when I joined up), warnings were indeed given about the problems drink can cause.
From a simple hangover when working with extremely technical and dangerous items, all the way through to the problems of medium to long term heavy drinking.
The other points, SubRosa seems to have spot on. Anyway, servce personnel have military ID cards to prove their age!!!!!!
jrb wrote:
subrosa wrote: Posted by: tam-m, southside on 12:35pm today so a 19 year old can come home from a years tour in afghanistan after putting his life on the line but he can not get a drink.about time the offenders were dealt with more severely instead of tarring every teenager with the same brush.plenty of 21 and above get drunk and cause mayhem and violence.a few are causing the problems so why should the majority have to pay. put ear tags on offenders and make it an offence to serve them if they act like animals treat them like animals.
I'm weary hearing the excuse about soldiers not being able to buy a drink until they're 21. Ask a soldier what he thinks of the ruling before you make accusations that the soldier is being 'deprived'. In the Forces alcohol has been too prominent and now, thankfully, they are beginning to be far more responsible and teach our service people about the dangers of alcohol. An 18 year old soldier just back from a war zone isn't going to worry too much about the fact that he can't buy alcohol in a supermarket. He knows he can have a drink in a pub. The same soldier is usually just relieved he's survived intact. Pubs should close 11pm in the week and 12 midnight Friday and Saturday. Same for clubs. This so called 'cafe' culture isn't Scotland's culture. All the 24 hour drinking policy has done is encourage drinking from all age groups and made more money for alcohol producers.
At last someone who talks sense and makes valid points,well said!
Can only actually disagree with one point.
As far back as AT LEAST 1978 (when I joined up), warnings were indeed given about the problems drink can cause.
From a simple hangover when working with extremely technical and dangerous items, all the way through to the problems of medium to long term heavy drinking.
The other points, SubRosa seems to have spot on. Anyway, servce personnel have military ID cards to prove their age!!!!!!
Posted by: Renegade, Cyberspace on 5:50pm Fri 10 Oct 08
JRB: [quote]does that include children and women killed by insurgents?[/quote]
If our government did not insist on interfering there would not be any insurgency! Who are these "insurgents" anyway? Afghan and Iraqi natives trying to resist occupiers? FFS our troops are being abused by the Bliar/Brown governments by being made to occupy other people's countries on behalf of foreign (American/Israeli) political (NeoCon/Zionist) ideology.
There are terrorists in every country, so why do our government insist on occupying those two in the name of "fighting terrorism"? Furthermore they are slowly changing the definition of terrorism to mean any crime against the state. Before we know it, terrorism will be defined as anything that TPTB do not approve of.
[quote]and guantanamo bay sure some were released[/quote]
More than some - many have been released. Only a dozen or so (out of several hundred) have actually been charged with anything.
[quote]but many, many more are guilty without a doubt.[/quote]
If they are guilty without a doubt, then why hold them in secret for years without charge, without due process of law, and gaining confessions through coercion (waterboarding)? Oh, and secret military tribunals with no jury on top of that.
Well of course they are guilty without doubt when the people holding them, can and do change the laws to suit their own agenda. |-8
[quote]and I agree with you on your alcohol points it looks like they have not given it a lot of thought long term.[/quote]
Indeed, it is the usual knee-jerk reaction so they can be *seen to be* doing something, regardless of the end result.
I Predict A Riot: [quote]We don't need alcohol,that's only for people who want to miss out on living their lives,ban it altogether.[/quote]
I don't think banning alcohol would get rid of it - prohibition in America in the 1920's is evidence of that, but otherwise I agree with your sentiments.
thistlemad: [quote]I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old???[/quote]
What's the difference between being killed by a drunken 18-19 year old, and being killed by a drunken 22-23 year old?
JRB:
does that include children and women killed by insurgents?
If our government did not insist on interfering there would not be any insurgency! Who are these "insurgents" anyway? Afghan and Iraqi natives trying to resist occupiers? FFS our troops are being abused by the Bliar/Brown governments by being made to occupy other people's countries on behalf of foreign (American/Israeli) political (NeoCon/Zionist) ideology.
There are terrorists in every country, so why do our government insist on occupying those two in the name of "fighting terrorism"? Furthermore they are slowly changing the definition of terrorism to mean any crime against the state. Before we know it, terrorism will be defined as anything that TPTB do not approve of.
and guantanamo bay sure some were released
More than some - many have been released. Only a dozen or so (out of several hundred) have actually been charged with anything.
but many, many more are guilty without a doubt.
If they are guilty without a doubt, then why hold them in secret for years without charge, without due process of law, and gaining confessions through coercion (waterboarding)? Oh, and secret military tribunals with no jury on top of that.
Well of course they are guilty without doubt when the people holding them, can and do change the laws to suit their own agenda. |-8
and I agree with you on your alcohol points it looks like they have not given it a lot of thought long term.
Indeed, it is the usual knee-jerk reaction so they can be *seen to be* doing something, regardless of the end result.
I Predict A Riot:
We don't need alcohol,that's only for people who want to miss out on living their lives,ban it altogether.
I don't think banning alcohol would get rid of it - prohibition in America in the 1920's is evidence of that, but otherwise I agree with your sentiments.
thistlemad:
I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old???
What's the difference between being killed by a drunken 18-19 year old, and being killed by a drunken 22-23 year old?
Posted by: Partick Bateman, glasgow on 5:58pm Fri 10 Oct 08
What's the difference between being killed by a drunken 18-19 year old, and being killed by a drunken 22-23 year old?
--------------
depends on the method used really.
What's the difference between being killed by a drunken 18-19 year old, and being killed by a drunken 22-23 year old?
--------------
depends on the method used really.
Posted by: thistlemad, Ayrshire on 7:28pm Fri 10 Oct 08
rengade wrote
If our government did not insist on interfering there would not be any insurgency! Who are these "insurgents" anyway? Afghan and Iraqi natives trying to resist occupiers? FFS our troops are being abused by the Bliar/Brown governments by being made to occupy other people's countries on behalf of foreign (American/Israeli) political (NeoCon/Zionist) ideology.
There are terrorists in every country, so why do our government insist on occupying those two in the name of "fighting terrorism"? Furthermore they are slowly changing the definition of terrorism to mean any crime against the state. Before we know it, terrorism will be defined as anything that TPTB do not approve of.
Keep taking the tablets mate.
You sound like the type that kicked up feck when Hussain was murdering his won people with gasses.
Why is it that people come out with the NeoCon/Zionist claptrap so often??
Has it never occured to you that Israel is the only thing standing between Moslem domination and our OWN way of life???
Never heard of TWO sides to a story?????
So the Israelis are supposed to sit back and let an OFFICALLY DESIGNATED terrorist group, who just happen to be the Palestinian Government bomb their civilians? Don`t their human rights count????
Anyway, this WAS about drinking laws NOT Middle East politics.
rengade wrote
If our government did not insist on interfering there would not be any insurgency! Who are these "insurgents" anyway? Afghan and Iraqi natives trying to resist occupiers? FFS our troops are being abused by the Bliar/Brown governments by being made to occupy other people's countries on behalf of foreign (American/Israeli) political (NeoCon/Zionist) ideology.
There are terrorists in every country, so why do our government insist on occupying those two in the name of "fighting terrorism"? Furthermore they are slowly changing the definition of terrorism to mean any crime against the state. Before we know it, terrorism will be defined as anything that TPTB do not approve of.
Keep taking the tablets mate.
You sound like the type that kicked up feck when Hussain was murdering his won people with gasses.
Why is it that people come out with the NeoCon/Zionist claptrap so often??
Has it never occured to you that Israel is the only thing standing between Moslem domination and our OWN way of life???
Never heard of TWO sides to a story?????
So the Israelis are supposed to sit back and let an OFFICALLY DESIGNATED terrorist group, who just happen to be the Palestinian Government bomb their civilians? Don`t their human rights count????
Anyway, this WAS about drinking laws NOT Middle East politics.
Posted by: SPAMALOT, southside on 7:30pm Fri 10 Oct 08
[quote][bold]Renegade[/bold] wrote:
JRB: [quote]does that include children and women killed by insurgents?[/quote] If our government did not insist on interfering there would not be any insurgency! Who are these "insurgents" anyway? Afghan and Iraqi natives trying to resist occupiers? FFS our troops are being abused by the Bliar/Brown governments by being made to occupy other people's countries on behalf of foreign (American/Israeli) political (NeoCon/Zionist) ideology. There are terrorists in every country, so why do our government insist on occupying those two in the name of "fighting terrorism"? Furthermore they are slowly changing the definition of terrorism to mean any crime against the state. Before we know it, terrorism will be defined as anything that TPTB do not approve of. [quote]and guantanamo bay sure some were released[/quote] More than some - many have been released. Only a dozen or so (out of several hundred) have actually been charged with anything. [quote]but many, many more are guilty without a doubt.[/quote] If they are guilty without a doubt, then why hold them in secret for years without charge, without due process of law, and gaining confessions through coercion (waterboarding)? Oh, and secret military tribunals with no jury on top of that. Well of course they are guilty without doubt when the people holding them, can and do change the laws to suit their own agenda. |-8 [quote]and I agree with you on your alcohol points it looks like they have not given it a lot of thought long term.[/quote] Indeed, it is the usual knee-jerk reaction so they can be *seen to be* doing something, regardless of the end result. I Predict A Riot: [quote]We don't need alcohol,that's only for people who want to miss out on living their lives,ban it altogether.[/quote] I don't think banning alcohol would get rid of it - prohibition in America in the 1920's is evidence of that, but otherwise I agree with your sentiments. thistlemad: [quote]I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old???[/quote] What's the difference between being killed by a drunken 18-19 year old, and being killed by a drunken 22-23 year old?[/quote] your a head case now feck off
Renegade wrote:
JRB: does that include children and women killed by insurgents?
If our government did not insist on interfering there would not be any insurgency! Who are these "insurgents" anyway? Afghan and Iraqi natives trying to resist occupiers? FFS our troops are being abused by the Bliar/Brown governments by being made to occupy other people's countries on behalf of foreign (American/Israeli) political (NeoCon/Zionist) ideology. There are terrorists in every country, so why do our government insist on occupying those two in the name of "fighting terrorism"? Furthermore they are slowly changing the definition of terrorism to mean any crime against the state. Before we know it, terrorism will be defined as anything that TPTB do not approve of. and guantanamo bay sure some were released
More than some - many have been released. Only a dozen or so (out of several hundred) have actually been charged with anything. but many, many more are guilty without a doubt.
If they are guilty without a doubt, then why hold them in secret for years without charge, without due process of law, and gaining confessions through coercion (waterboarding)? Oh, and secret military tribunals with no jury on top of that. Well of course they are guilty without doubt when the people holding them, can and do change the laws to suit their own agenda. |-8 and I agree with you on your alcohol points it looks like they have not given it a lot of thought long term.
Indeed, it is the usual knee-jerk reaction so they can be *seen to be* doing something, regardless of the end result. I Predict A Riot: We don't need alcohol,that's only for people who want to miss out on living their lives,ban it altogether.
I don't think banning alcohol would get rid of it - prohibition in America in the 1920's is evidence of that, but otherwise I agree with your sentiments. thistlemad: I wonder how many peoples attitude would change if a loved one was killed by a drunken 18/19 year old???
What's the difference between being killed by a drunken 18-19 year old, and being killed by a drunken 22-23 year old?
your a head case now feck off
Posted by: Renegade, Cyberspace on 9:57pm Fri 10 Oct 08
Thistlemad: [quote]You sound like the type that kicked up feck when Hussain was murdering his won people with gasses.[/quote]
Eh, your infallible masters put Hussain in power and armed him with aformentioned gasses during that time, so youse have a cheek to point the finger at anyone else.
[quote]Has it never occured to you that Israel is the only thing standing between Moslem domination and our OWN way of life???[/quote]
That's BS. Apart from Hussain, none of the Arab/Muslim states have started any wars.
[quote]So the Israelis are supposed to sit back and let an OFFICALLY DESIGNATED terrorist group, who just happen to be the Palestinian Government bomb their civilians?[/quote]
Palestine doesn't have a government. Its under occupation by Israel.
[quote]Anyway, this WAS about drinking laws NOT Middle East politics.[/quote]
JRB started it, not me.
DISMISSED.
Thistlemad:
You sound like the type that kicked up feck when Hussain was murdering his won people with gasses.
Eh, your infallible masters put Hussain in power and armed him with aformentioned gasses during that time, so youse have a cheek to point the finger at anyone else.
Has it never occured to you that Israel is the only thing standing between Moslem domination and our OWN way of life???
That's BS. Apart from Hussain, none of the Arab/Muslim states have started any wars.
So the Israelis are supposed to sit back and let an OFFICALLY DESIGNATED terrorist group, who just happen to be the Palestinian Government bomb their civilians?
Palestine doesn't have a government. Its under occupation by Israel.
Anyway, this WAS about drinking laws NOT Middle East politics.
JRB started it, not me.
DISMISSED.
Posted by: SPAMALOT, southside on 10:02pm Fri 10 Oct 08
jrb is a head case as well away and play on the swings in space with him
jrb is a head case as well away and play on the swings in space with him
Posted by: annie, Glasgow on 1:06am Sat 11 Oct 08
Young people mostly get tanked up at home to keep costs down and then go out. This proposal will make no difference to that.
Young people mostly get tanked up at home to keep costs down and then go out. This proposal will make no difference to that.
Posted by: gordon, glagow on 11:06am Sat 11 Oct 08
On a selfish note, I would love it if under 21 ones would get out of pubs,give us some peace and quiet! HOWEVER,At least pubs are contolled environments in which younger people can drink. This will just push youngsters to drink on the streets or in the home. It will also encourage them to take advantage of cheap booze offers in the supermarkets and drink a lot more than theuy actually would if they were out.If you are 18 you hae the right to vote, work, get married, all in all be a grown up, so it seems very unfair that you cant then go to a bar. I do agree that something has to be done about binge drinking, but surely this is not the way to do it? I agree with the comments about ID, surely actually enforcing our current limit would be the best way forward? We should make it so that only a passport or Driving Liscence is sufficient for entering a bar or buying alcohol. We have to think about the long term plan and that is changing young peoples mind sets about alcohol. Does anyone understand or know why we have become this nation of drunks?
What is it that is so specific about Britain that has lead to us debing dependent on alcohol for a good time? This problem is not specific to any age group or social class, its endemic.
Its also an embarasment and expense to us all and we need to get to the bottom of it.
On a selfish note, I would love it if under 21 ones would get out of pubs,give us some peace and quiet! HOWEVER,At least pubs are contolled environments in which younger people can drink. This will just push youngsters to drink on the streets or in the home. It will also encourage them to take advantage of cheap booze offers in the supermarkets and drink a lot more than theuy actually would if they were out.If you are 18 you hae the right to vote, work, get married, all in all be a grown up, so it seems very unfair that you cant then go to a bar. I do agree that something has to be done about binge drinking, but surely this is not the way to do it? I agree with the comments about ID, surely actually enforcing our current limit would be the best way forward? We should make it so that only a passport or Driving Liscence is sufficient for entering a bar or buying alcohol. We have to think about the long term plan and that is changing young peoples mind sets about alcohol. Does anyone understand or know why we have become this nation of drunks?
What is it that is so specific about Britain that has lead to us debing dependent on alcohol for a good time? This problem is not specific to any age group or social class, its endemic.
Its also an embarasment and expense to us all and we need to get to the bottom of it.
Posted by: hoops1888, KIRKINTILLOCH originally DERRY on 4:30pm Sat 11 Oct 08
so they want to increase the age i say go for it not before time
so they want to increase the age i say go for it not before time
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 6:12pm Sat 11 Oct 08
i say ban the drinking age up to 60! the parents buy the stuff for the under age boozers....they think their off spring will appreciate them more....wrong, they think they have right diddies for parents, getting what they want if they push hard enough,i suggest... use an empty bottle of buckfast filled with ribena, the wee wannabe drunks widnae know the difference(especiall
y if the parents tell them "dont drink ma boattle or you're in for it"
i say ban the drinking age up to 60! the parents buy the stuff for the under age boozers....they think their off spring will appreciate them more....wrong, they think they have right diddies for parents, getting what they want if they push hard enough,i suggest... use an empty bottle of buckfast filled with ribena, the wee wannabe drunks widnae know the difference(especiall
y if the parents tell them "dont drink ma boattle or you're in for it"
Posted by: marie, glasgow on 6:32pm Sat 11 Oct 08
no matter what the age limit most youths always find ways and means of getting booze,most back street off sales you usually find youths outside asking older people to get booze for them,some youths can get quite abusive when you refuse ,i really don!t think by putting the age limit up will make ay differance.
no matter what the age limit most youths always find ways and means of getting booze,most back street off sales you usually find youths outside asking older people to get booze for them,some youths can get quite abusive when you refuse ,i really don!t think by putting the age limit up will make ay differance.
Posted by: jrb, glasgow on 3:56pm Sun 12 Oct 08
[quote][bold]SPAMALOT[/bold] wrote:
jrb is a head case as well away and play on the swings in space with him[/quote] You still posting SPERMALOT!I thought after T.M.C, had wiped the floor with you would have went into hiding...
SPAMALOT wrote:
jrb is a head case as well away and play on the swings in space with him
You still posting SPERMALOT!I thought after T.M.C, had wiped the floor with you would have went into hiding...
Posted by: sburns, Glasgow on 4:26pm Sun 12 Oct 08
As a 19 year old student, I think it is totally unfair to increase the drinking age to 21. People who drink in bars and clubs tent do be decent people, with the sole intention of having a good time, not to drink so much they cant walk, or remember their own name. As a student, I am partial to a drink or five on a night out, and have been for the past year. I am a legally consenting adult who should be able to make up my own mind wether I want to drink or not. It shouldnt be up to the Government to tell me when I can drink. After all, I could have had at least 2 children by now, living in a council flat and claiming benefits, but instead I chose to do something with my life, and go to University, just as it will be me who chooses when I do and dont drink, and how much I consume.
As a 19 year old student, I think it is totally unfair to increase the drinking age to 21. People who drink in bars and clubs tent do be decent people, with the sole intention of having a good time, not to drink so much they cant walk, or remember their own name. As a student, I am partial to a drink or five on a night out, and have been for the past year. I am a legally consenting adult who should be able to make up my own mind wether I want to drink or not. It shouldnt be up to the Government to tell me when I can drink. After all, I could have had at least 2 children by now, living in a council flat and claiming benefits, but instead I chose to do something with my life, and go to University, just as it will be me who chooses when I do and dont drink, and how much I consume.
Posted by: SPAMALOT, southside on 8:08pm Mon 13 Oct 08
[quote][bold]jrb[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]SPAMALOT[/bold] wrote: jrb is a head case as well away and play on the swings in space with him[/quote] You still posting SPERMALOT!I thought after T.M.C, had wiped the floor with you would have went into hiding...[/quote] TMC is a plamf couldney wipe his erse,he,s actually a snowdropper like your self
jrb wrote:
SPAMALOT wrote: jrb is a head case as well away and play on the swings in space with him
You still posting SPERMALOT!I thought after T.M.C, had wiped the floor with you would have went into hiding...
TMC is a plamf couldney wipe his erse,he,s actually a snowdropper like your self
Comment | Read Comments (53)
