Lower drink-drive limit supported
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 20 Mar 2010 09:10 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:976dnSPLbsxOXznWnZ2dnUVZ7sVi4p2d(a)pipex.net... > Brimstone wrote: >> >> >> "Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:50faf28db3dave(a)davenoise.co.uk... >>> In article <80jopdFbckU2(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>>> they were saying: >>> >>>> > That's fair enough. Now all we need is alcohol free restaurants so >>>> > those who don't drink to excess can enjoy them without the drug >>>> > induced 'merriment' from others who consider that normal behaviour. >>> >>>> You seem to forget that it's already an offence to be intoxicated in >>>> public >>> >>> Given such places make their money by selling alcohol they're unlikely >>> to >>> police that law very well themselves. If it had the same punitive fines >>> for smoking, they might. >>> >> Sensibly run places do and the punishment for failing to control >> drunkenness are more severe than for allowing smoking, up to and >> including loss of a licence to sell booze which means that the licencee >> of a conventional pub loses both his income and his home (rather than in >> one of the more recent corporately run drinking shops where they will >> simply put in another manager). >> >> You're also overlooking the availability of cheap booze in supermarkets >> etc. That's where the real problem lies, not in pubs. > > What "problem" is that? The increased level of public drunkenness. People intent on doing so buy cheap booze from the supermarket etc get slightly pissed and then go to the various bars and pubs to get totally legless. >> But, as usual, it's easier to blame the bigger more obvious target. > > Especially if it might lead to more tax being raised. I wasn't referring to government action, more the attitudes of self-righteous individuals.
From: Brimstone on 20 Mar 2010 09:13 "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:13de1129-f4c7-49e3-890c-4d2b7de263ce(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 20, 11:31 am, "Brimstone" <brimst...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "Bod" <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:80joapFlnoU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> >> > On 20/03/2010 10:50, Derek C wrote: >> >> On Mar 20, 9:30 am, Dave Plowman<d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> In article >> >>> <398cd883-3138-400a-a1d2-5d2336abe...(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >> >>> Derek C<del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >>>> The tests for drunkeness before the breathalyser was introduced were >> >>>> walking along a straight line and picking up coins. Even then some >> >>>> people where better at this than others, even when sober. So no >> >>>> tests >> >>>> are really a measure of fitness to drive. >> >> >>> Indeed. The only real check on a fitness to drive would be some form >> >>> of >> >>> driving test - so totally impracticable. >> >> >>> Of course those who think it's ok to drink and drive like Mr Nugent >> >>> will invent any excuse to justify their breaking of the law. >> >> >>> -- >> >> If the puritan, nanny state Nu Labour government get their way and >> >> reduce the alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood, there would be little >> >> point in visiting a pub at all, even if you have no intention of >> >> driving until the next day. You would only be able to drink about half >> >> a pint of shandy if you want to be sure of staying legal. Many pubs, >> >> effectively local meeting places, will be forced out of business. >> >> >> I should point out that living people have a natural level of blood >> >> alcohol of something like 20 - 30 mg/100ml as a product of metabolism, >> >> so the reduction in the proposed limit is much greater than the raw >> >> numbers suggest. Some foods and medicines contain alcohol, so you >> >> would have to watch those as well. Wine gums - forget them! >> >> >> Derek C >> >> > We'll all end up drinking at home. >> >> > I and many others will not bother to go out for a meal nearly as much. >> > I love a glass of wine with my meal, without it, the meal would be >> > incomplete. >> >> > The end to socialising? >> >> Indeed. >> >> Meanwhile, a different part of the nanny state is complaining that we >> spend >> too much time sitting in front of the TV etc and not enough socialising.- >> Hide quoted text - >> > Did you really expect any joined up thinking from the current shower > that calls itself a government? > The present shower are no different in that respect to any that have gone before. Witness the government of the 1980s closing down our manufacturing and extractive industries and the social and economic consequences in which the country is now mired.
From: Brimstone on 20 Mar 2010 09:14 "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message news:976dnSHLbsyBXznWnZ2dnUVZ7sVi4p2d(a)pipex.net... > Dave Plowman wrote: > > >> Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >>> The tests for drunkeness before the breathalyser was introduced were >>> walking along a straight line and picking up coins. Even then some >>> people where better at this than others, even when sober. So no tests >>> are really a measure of fitness to drive. >> >> Indeed. The only real check on a fitness to drive would be some form of >> driving test - so totally impracticable. >> >> Of course those who think it's ok to drink and drive like Mr Nugent >> will invent any excuse to justify their breaking of the law. > > Over the period that I have been reading some of your posts, I had formed > the opinion that you are a self-serving idiot. > > I have now modified that opin ion. You are a lying self-serving idiot. It's good to see that you've found a friend.
From: JNugent on 20 Mar 2010 09:15 Brimstone wrote: > > > "JNugent" <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > news:976dnSPLbsxOXznWnZ2dnUVZ7sVi4p2d(a)pipex.net... >> Brimstone wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Dave Plowman" <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:50faf28db3dave(a)davenoise.co.uk... >>>> In article <80jopdFbckU2(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Dave Plowman <dave(a)davesound.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >>>>> like >>>>> they were saying: >>>> >>>>> > That's fair enough. Now all we need is alcohol free restaurants so >>>>> > those who don't drink to excess can enjoy them without the drug >>>>> > induced 'merriment' from others who consider that normal behaviour. >>>> >>>>> You seem to forget that it's already an offence to be intoxicated in >>>>> public >>>> >>>> Given such places make their money by selling alcohol they're >>>> unlikely to >>>> police that law very well themselves. If it had the same punitive fines >>>> for smoking, they might. >>>> >>> Sensibly run places do and the punishment for failing to control >>> drunkenness are more severe than for allowing smoking, up to and >>> including loss of a licence to sell booze which means that the >>> licencee of a conventional pub loses both his income and his home >>> (rather than in one of the more recent corporately run drinking shops >>> where they will simply put in another manager). >>> >>> You're also overlooking the availability of cheap booze in >>> supermarkets etc. That's where the real problem lies, not in pubs. >> >> What "problem" is that? > > The increased level of public drunkenness. People intent on doing so buy > cheap booze from the supermarket etc get slightly pissed and then go to > the various bars and pubs to get totally legless. OK, but *that's* the problem, not the availability of drink at reasonable and affordable prices in supermarkets! Drink is cheap in French and Italian supermarkets (cheaper than here), but public (and private) drunkenness is almost unknown in those countries. >>> But, as usual, it's easier to blame the bigger more obvious target. >> Especially if it might lead to more tax being raised. > I wasn't referring to government action, more the attitudes of > self-righteous individuals. One wonders whether recent pronouncements about the desirability of legally-enforced minimum (ie, maximised) pricing of retail alcohol will be carried forward into legislation. In the meantime, I'll carry on enjoying the (these days, only weekly) occasional bottle of Claret from Morrisons for only 35p more than a pint of decebt lager at my local.
From: Brimstone on 20 Mar 2010 09:17
"Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message news:893b8b90-e68a-4301-aedb-9d46af4db727(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 20, 12:06 pm, Dave Plowman <d...(a)davesound.co.uk> wrote: >> In article >> <ac21a5ea-6034-48c4-acda-849ba040b...(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, >> Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > > Indeed. The only real check on a fitness to drive would be some form >> > > of >> > > driving test - so totally impracticable. >> >> > > Of course those who think it's ok to drink and drive like Mr Nugent >> > > will invent any excuse to justify their breaking of the law. >> >> > > -- >> > If the puritan, nanny state Nu Labour government get their way and >> > reduce the alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml of blood, there would be little >> > point in visiting a pub at all, even if you have no intention of >> > driving until the next day. You would only be able to drink about half >> > a pint of shandy if you want to be sure of staying legal. Many pubs, >> > effectively local meeting places, will be forced out of business. >> >> If it's a local meeting place, why do you need to drive there? >> > I do most of my 'socialising' at a couple of clubs and a pub that are > some distance from where I live. Well beyond easy walking or cycling > distance anyway, and not connected by public transport. I do have a > local pub within walking distance, but it's a complete dive mostly > used by young chavs, so I wouldn't want to go there. > I suppose it's not surprising that people who don't socialise in pubs fail to understand that those who do travel to pubs they like rather than one that's close by and they don't like. It's just a shame that they insist on forcing their prejudices on the rest of us. |