Sunday, 29 June 2008

The One That Wants This Printed On A T-Shirt. . .

It'd have to be in pretty small writing, though.

I do not wish to be forced into state subjugation by the stupid, the ignorant and the just plain bastard lazy.

I do not wish to be forced to associate with those with whom I have no wish to spend my time.

I do not wish to be forced to close my mouth for fear of arrest.

I do not wish to find myself locked away without trial, not knowing what I am accused of.

I do not wish to be an indentured servant, half of the product of my hard work stolen to pay for the lifestyles of those who are parasitic on the productive.

I reject this statist evil and I reject the validity of this democracy—this tyranny of the majority—this totalitarianism of the lazy and stupid over those who think and would be free.

I am not interested in democracy, but in liberty. And our democracy is proving, as any system of government always does eventually, to be the enemy of liberty.

As taken from the excellent Devil's Kitchen. Do go and read the whole article.

The One That Finds It Amazing That This Group Is Given Such Respect. . .

There's this group, they think women are second class citizens, would criminalise homosexuality, seem to think that they are beyond any criticism and that we should all listen to them.

BNP? National Front? Combat 18? No. A collection of Anglican Clerics.

Oooh, ooooh, I've got an idea.

Fuck off you illiberal bunch of hate driven, misery peddling fucktards. I'm glad you are a private members club, because I'd hate to see you running a country. What an odious collection of intolerant self-absorbed wankers.

Here's another idea. Let's take all these pricks, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever, all those pricks who say that they know what God wants, and what he says. Let's find a nice island in the pacific with no inhabitants and then they can kill each other in the name of their God (who apparently loves everyone). We need do nothing more, think of it as an ecclesiastical version of Lord of the Flies.

I've said it before, you lot are an irrelevance in today's world. You've had the best part of 2000 years in charge and fucked it right up. Remind me, why should I give any attention or credence to what you have to say?


Thursday, 26 June 2008

The One That Is Saying 'You Couldn't Make It Up'. . .

I normally take these stories with a pinch of salt. I think to myself 'surely this can't be true.'

A fruit and veg wholesaler faces throwing away an entire consignment of Chilean kiwis because inspectors said they were too small.

Tim Down, from Bristol, said he could not even give away the 520 fruit, each of which is about the size of a small hen's egg and weighs about 60g.

"I was given 24 hours to think about it and my outrage grew," he said.

A spokesman for the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) said the consignment failed to meet EU grading rules.

It goes on for a while in a similar vein.

If it were a chap trying to sell a Mercedes estate with a moped engine hidden away under the bonnet, I could understand. But kiwi fruit? Give me a break, you see it sat in a box in front of you, there's not a great deal that can surprise you. As for not being able to give it away. . .

Stupidity doesn't even being to cover it.

The One That Is Being Racially And Sexually Discriminated Against. . .

<--- There she is, Harriet Harman, the member of the cabinet that has made racial and sexual discrimination legal once again. Well done Harriet, I hope you are really proud of yourself.

You repulsive and detestable bitch. I hope you lose the use of your legs.

Why am I so angry? Simple, today the government has announced that when firms have two equally good candidates for a job, they will be permitted to choose a succesful candidate on the basis of their gender or ethnicity.

Guess what? As long as you're not male and white.

What really annoys me is that this policy has been introduced in such a fashion that speaking out against it can only make one sound like a BNP campaigner, which I ain't. What agenda are the fuckers trying to push forward now? This is another slap in the face from these self-loathing, shit-for-brains malcontents. You know what? We made some serious mistakes in the past, we have been guilty of the most horrific prejudices and discriminations in the past, but it wasn't me. I didn't do it, so why am I being penalised for it? This will not make the past go away, and nothing we can do can change what has happened. We have redressed the balance, apologised for the actions of our forebears and, I thought, levelled the playing field to ensure that such a thing can never happen again.

It is now happening again. Just as I would hate to think I got a job because I am white and male and the other candidate was black and female (indeed I don't think I would work for such an organisation), I would hate to think I would not get a job for the same reasons.

You can always tell when a policy is bullshit, it is passed off as being, after consideration, a good thing, but the reverse being introduced would cause hell to be raised. What would the reaction be if the government told companies that it would be perfectly acceptable to choose the white male candidate in the event of a tie on the grounds of his skin colour and gender? The CRE would be up in arms, and rightly so.

Race, gender, sexuality, disability, age, whatever, it makes NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE. You can either do the job, or not. Why on Earth in the 21st Century are we keeping records on what little boxes we fit into? I only care about if someone is a) competent and b) a decent person. The rest is irrelevant. Why not keep records on how many members of staff have blue eyes, are left handed or enjoy eating cauliflower? Fucking cut it out.

There is no such thing as positive discrimination, only discrimination. It amounts to saying there is good and bad democracy, for example if an electorate is given a referendum on an important treaty and. . . oh. . . hang on. . . shit.

What a bunch of fucking wankers.

Tuesday, 24 June 2008

The One That Is Watching His Bloody Back . . .

Today saw a superb piece from the always excellent Daily Mash which is a parody of the news stories about use of RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) by local authorities to 'snoop' on dog walkers.

Now RIPA is an interesting bit of legislation, and is one that I am personally acquainted with having endured a seemingly endless training course with Kent Police relating to it, and the 'sister' act - CPIA. It does actually have fairly robust safeguards regarding the use of the provisions therein and the consequences for anyone who steps out of line.

It all comes down to a little mnemonic - JAPAN. Any investigations must be Justified, Auditable, Proportionate, Authorised and Necessary. If your investigations do not fulfill all criteria, watch out, because it is you who carry the can for it.

Now, I am a dog owner who does pick up after my charge, and it makes me really angry when people don't do it. It is selfish and basically acting like a prick. However, is the use of directed surveillance really proportionate in the matter of dog walkers not picking up after their pooch has a poo-poo? I would submit not, it is an example of legislation creep where powers put in place for fairly specific reasons are being used in situations it was never designed for.

It would be interesting to see if anyone charged with not clearing up after their dog gets full disclosure (local authorities are notoriously bad at disclosure, they don't have the staff or training, no disclosure is abuse of process and should lead to cases being thrown out of court) of the evidence or if public interest immunity is sought on the surveillance that gets them to court in the first place. I would imagine a number of magistrates would be quite scathing of what amounts to the abuse of RIPA powers in cases such as this.

Who knows perhaps these covert, dog walking, surveillance officers have seen the episode of the Day Today where they talk about the IRA using dog bombs and are just being vigilant?

Watch out for these bastards, it'll not be long before they demand that we all collect our own shit to be sent off for dietary analysis, it'll be for own good. . .

Monday, 23 June 2008

The One That Sees Two Problems and Two Solutions. . .

There was a 'news' story on the BBC last night which was talking about subcontractors to high street 'fashion' store Primark employing child labour to finish off articles of clothing off site from their Indian factories.

OK, 1st problem, and the easiest:-

Dear BBC, it is your job to report the news, not to make it. Please don't insult us by dressing up a trailer for Panorama as a news item. A news story is influenced by the events surrounding it, this story could have been broken at any time, it is a magazine feature not news. Please stop it.

Right that's the first problem identified and solved.

Secondly, I have a real problem with child labour, I want to live in a world where children have the opportunity to go to school and just be kids. However we do not live in such a utopia. I can't help wondering that if by cancelling these suppliers' contracts that they have just placed more people in worse poverty. A more pragmatic and real-politik view is needed with this situation.

Firstly you have to ask the question, 'why are these kids working like this?' I'm betting it is because there is an economic and family financial imperative that the wages, no matter how meagre, earned by these kids are coming in. I'm also betting that as the kids specifically included in the Panorama report are Tamil/Sri Lankan refugees living in a camp, there is no school for them to go to. What happens to these families now the income generated by the children has gone? There is no welfare state to look after them. My concern is that we are judging these practices from the viewpoint of a developed Western economy with social security. A luxury these people do not have. I am not supposing that these families want their kids to work, I don't believe any responsible parent wants this for their kids, but if it is the difference between the kids eating and not eating, then what choice do they have?

Would it not be better to accept that child labour, whilst being highly undesirable is a fact, and that by removing the job the kids are doing you may be removing the labour, but not the cause behind it?

Here's a solution I've been mulling over for a few hours. I decide to open 'Snowolf's Gentlemen's Clothing Emporium - competitively priced clothing with a conscience'. Just as with Primark, I want to keep prices low, however I accept that some items of clothing will be made by child labour. Would it be acceptable for me as the proprietor of this outlet to promote the fact that:

a: We use child labour.
b: The cost of the clothing is displayed on the item's price tag.
c: Additional to this is a displayed amount of x% that goes toward the funding of schools for the kids that make the clothes, and enables them on a 2 day, 3 day split either way in a five day week to be paid to go to school as if they were producing the clothes.
d: Perhaps a surplus from the x% means that the company can sponsor the brightest kids working for them to attend university.

I don't know, I don't have the answers, merely suggestions and would be interested to hear what you think.

Thursday, 19 June 2008

The One That Wishes People Would Take Responsibility For Their Actions. . .

Two stories have attracted my attention over the last couple of days. The first is the launch of a rail safety DVD following the death of a teenager who was electrocuted after walking down a rail line. Her grandfather is of the opinion that network rail could do more to make tracks safer.

The second is a story about a chap who hired a canoe and took his two children out on the Wye river in Powys, the canoe overturned and the man's nine year old daughter died. He wants tougher regulation of canoe hire.

Now, I don't want to appear hard-hearted, the loss of a child must generate pain that I cannot even begin to imagine, but these two incidents could have been so easily avoided if the people involved had shown a little more thought. With respect to the rail incident in Kent, the young lady's mother has said that 'I cannot, as a mother, educate my children if I do not understand the dangers.'

Well, what is there to understand? You don't need to understand how the tracks work to understand that they are dangerous. I don't understand how microwave ovens work, however I do know that if I took next door's cat and put it in the microwave, things would not go well for the little chap. Rail lines are dangerous, ergo do not walk on them. Simple.

The man who lost one (and almost both) of his two kids whilst canoeing has criticised the canoe rental company for allowing a novice out in one of their boats. Well, why on earth as a novice were you taking out two young children? You had no experience of handling such a craft on a fast moving body of water, did you not consider that you did not have the skills to get out of trouble if any developed? Canoes travel on rivers, people drown on rivers, ergo if you don't know what you're doing, leave well alone, or take the time to learn what you are doing.

The problem here is that we have now been conditioned to think that if something goes wrong it is always someone's fault, and never, ever yours. We have seen two bad decisions made betraying a complete lack of judgement and the call goes up 'something must be done'.

Yes. Something must be done. It is cheap, doesn't involve regulation, legislation or (shudders) bannings. What must be done, is before you do something you've not done before or are unfamiliar with, just stop and consider what could happen and if you are equipped to react and prepared to deal with the consequences. If you are not then perhaps you ought to postpone your planned picnic on the M20 or impromptu dental inspection of the lions at the zoo, you may find that you avoid an unpleasant ending.

Tuesday, 17 June 2008

The One That Is Amazed With The Bone Headedness. . .

There's been reams written about it, a forest of paper and a lake of ink taken up in newsprint, but since the Irish voted 'No' to Lisbon, one phrase keeps coming to the fore. This little quote is taken from,2144,3417083,00.html:

The EU executive has commissioned a survey to try and find out what went wrong in Ireland.

I'll tell you what went wrong in Ireland: Nothing.

It was a process of democracy. There is no right or wrong answer, merely an outcome. It may be outcome that you do not agree with, but that does not mean it is wrong. I am thankful that it is an outcome that I find favourable, but make no mistake had the vote been 'Yes' I would have accepted the outcome as the democratic desicion of the Irish people.

I fail to understand why this is so difficult for people to grasp. We had it only a few weeks ago when Boris won the London Mayoral election, those with Labour sympathies were bemoaning the death of democracy and the electorate making the wrong decision.

No, No, No. Not the death of democracy, indeed quite the reverse, an indication that on the occasions when the old war horse is led out of the stable she is as energetic and vital as ever. Not the wrong decision, merely an outcome that is not to your liking.

Unfortunately the wishes of the Irish public would appear to amount to nought. Al-Beeb is trotting out the line that only 3 million people voted in the whole of the EU. That is not a statistic to make the Irish referendum an irrelevance, it is a damning statistic about the dictatorial nature of the EU and their national sub-alterns that so few people have had a say on the treaty. We in the UK have had no direct opportunity to give an opinion since Heath and the Common Market, before I was born, and we certainly didn't vote in favour of this.

The Romanians have come out with some swill that effectively says if people are going to vote the wrong way, then they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. Dangerous, dangerous ground. Those in Eastern Europe would do well to remember what happened to the Romanian Communist Party and their leaders, I for one will never forget the footage of the moment the crowd turned, Ceaucescu's look of complete incomprehension and the military big-wigs behind him very quietly and efficiently shitting themselves.

These dictatorial post-war regimes lasted 40 years before the populations rose up for a taste of democracy, here in the West we've had that taste for decades, verging on centuries. How long will it take us to rise up? Not as long as 40 years, I'll bet.

Monday, 16 June 2008

The One That Wishes They'd Stop Bloody Banning Things. . .

It really does beggar belief.

Now we have plans to ban (I'm starting to respond to that word as I do to the word 'Nigger' - with revulsion) the sale of alcohol in off licences and supermarkets to the under 21's in Scotland.




There was some Johnny on Al-Beeb a moment ago representing the Scottish Licencesee Association, or some-such bemoaning the fact that the supermarkets are knocking out booze much, much cheaper than pubs.

Well? Yes? Should we also ban the little counters selling pre-cooked chickens and curry on that basis?

He then goes on to moan about falling numbers in Scottish pubs.

Now, what has recently been banned in pubs that means a large number of people could turn to drinking at home?

Furthermore, this causes problems because people are now drinking out of pubs and out of a controlled environment. A controlled environment? Give me strength. Go to my local Weatherspoons, the very embodiment of a controlled environment, no music, no telly, no sitting at the bar, drinking in the new Soviet is upon us. See how controlled it is at kicking out time. I was in NY a few years ago and was amazed to see a little sign on a bar-top which said something along the lines of 'For your enjoyment a maximum of three drinks may be consumed.' In other words, we've decided how much you can safely drink, it was like trying to buy more than a dozen paracetemol. For Pete's sake, don't let the politicos hear 'drinking in a controlled environment' next thing will be having to go to a State Booze Shop and buying vouchers which can be exchanged in state approved drinking dens and we'll be limited to the daily amount of units allowed for our gender.

Then he went even further and suggested a state set minimum price for alcohol, to prevent supermarkets knocking out Belgian stubbies at 12p a bottle or whatever. This isn't binge drinking control, this is competition nobbling. To dress it up for the social good is cynical and underhand, you should be disgusted with yourself.

But where has all this come from? Ah yes, the SNP. Now I have no problem with the Scots having a chance to vote on splitting from the Union (in fact here's an idea, let's save some cash and have it on the same day we have a referendum on our continued membership of the EU, bugger Lisbon, let's go the whole hog), but fuck me, what a bloody shower. Quite happy to argue for the vote for sixteen year olds, this suggests their vote is quite young, banging on about marriage, taxes and the army, but then turning around and saying you can't buy a bottle of wine to have with your dinner until you're 21! I bet all those 14 year olds are quaking in their boots as they score a bottle of Buckie, they'll be breaking the law by seven years now, rather than four. I'm sure the good burghers of Greenock will be able to sleep safely in their beds.





Saturday, 14 June 2008

Friday, 13 June 2008

The One That Is Delighted With The Irish Throwing Out The Lisbon Treaty. . .

And more power to them, wouldn't it be nice to have a written constitution that demands the consent of the electorate before any changes are made to it?

I'm not going to cover the old argument between the 'it's the same as the EU Constitution', 'no it isn't', 'yes it is' camps.

Have no doubt that had we in the UK had an opportunity to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, the result here would have been exactly the same here as it was in Ireland. I would also imagine that the Dutch and French and no doubt others would have thrown it out. That is the sole reason we've not had the opportunity to pass judgement on it, the government were well aware that they would have lost.

Kudos to Vaclav Klaus the Czech president who has called for ratification of this to be discontinued and brickbats to the French, German and Spanish governments for trying to ride roughshod over the wishes of the Irish people.

There's one thing I don't understand, why are the national governments of Europe so desperate to see more power handed over to Brussels? I just don't get it. I understand why the troughers in the EU Commission want it, they are desperate to control all our lives in some nightmarish Socialist dystopia and to steal as much of our cash as possible whilst they're at it. But why the national governments? I know a large number of MPs are in the game to get as much gravy as they can, but do they not want some modicum of power? It seems to me like employing a man to drive my car, but only when and to where he wants to drive me, it is sheer stupidity.

I want to be close to our neighbours in Europe, I want free movement of trade, goods and people, but that doesn't mean we need to have tax harmonisation, a common foreign policy, the 'Euro-Corps' (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA) and the all other shite that goes with it, and if we absolutely MUST have this, then give me a vote on Commissioners and the President, give me some audited accounts, a fair and open parliament and at least a pretence of accountability. The ironic thing is that if the EU wanted to join the EU, it wouldn't be allowed to do so because of its economic and democratic practices.

'Do as I say, don't do as I do.' - No I won't. Do as I say: Fuck off.

Thursday, 12 June 2008

The One That Thinks David Davis Is A Total Fucking Hero. . .

<--- This is David Davis, and he is a total fucking hero.

When he made his statement this afternoon criticising the new 42 day detention law and the government's 'slow strangulation' of our most important and basic freedoms, it was the first time I have ever sat and applauded a politician whilst watching TV, actually, it was the first time I've ever applauded a politician at all.

I am absolutely delighted that a politician, and a proper heavyweight with some substance about them, has the balls to stand up and say enough. This admiration is matched only by the horror I felt at hearing that over 60% of the population supported the 42 day law. Have things come to this that like turkeys voting for Christmas, we will support moves to curb our liberty? How far does this support go? Do the population support one CCTV camera for every 14 people in the UK, the most intrusive ID card scheme in the world, a database containing the DNA of millions of people who have done nothing wrong, just in case? All these issues are linked, and I would hope that the majority of people are against this, if not then perhaps it is us as Libertarians that are out of touch, rather than the illiberal authoritarian political class who hold power as and end rather than a means to an end. If it is we who are out of touch then I could weep rather than shout about the idiocy and short-sightedness of the electorate like those connected to NuLabour.

I hope beyond hope that David wins his by-election at a stroll and a clear message is sent to the leadership of all the political parties that we have simply had enough of this.

Cynics say it is a blitzkrieg against Cameron's leadership. If it is, so what? If Davis is genuine, and he certainly gave the impression of being so during his speech at Westminster today, then perhaps he is the man to save us from this disturbing and odious morass.

And David, if the Tories don't want you after this, I'm sure I can think of one party that would be happy to talk to you.

I congratulate you, Sir.

Tuesday, 10 June 2008

The One That, Amazingly, Agrees With President Bush.

Old George Dubbya has today announced that Turkey must join the EU.

I agree wholeheartedly. They can have our place.

You pack up the stationery we don't need anymore, I'll nip down the local(ish) Post Office, (y'know, one of the ones that the EU hasn't forced to close), and get all the post from the Commission redirected to Ankara.

There you go, a win-win-win situation. How often do they turn up?

Sunday, 8 June 2008

The One That Wonders What They Expect. . .

How's this for a news story:

Duran Duran fans have accused the government of favouring AC/DC and other bands whilst only paying "lip service" to New Romanticism. A report commissioned by the Simon LeBon fan club says ministers failed to understand the full range of Duran Duran's work, that the government has marginalised the band and called for a change of attitude.

It's a bloody ridiculous story, isn't it? Yes, you can see where I'm going with this, can't you?

Of course, if you substitue Duran Duran with Christianity, AC/DC with Islam (although I'd prefer it if both were the other way around. 'Cardinal to replace Catholicism with Led Zeppelin' shouts the headline, great! Where do I sign up?) then you have the story in the press today.

Well, why? Why should the government be asking the church, of whatever faith, what they think about policy? What the hell is it to do with them? They don't even listen to the electorate, and to be honest all you Bishops, Imams, Rabbis and anyone else, your views really don't matter. It is like asking the Guildford Am-Dram society their views on renewing Trident. As an organisation they are, or at least should be, a political irrelevance.

Let's face facts guys, taken as an average you've had about two thousand years haven't you? For a long period of time you WERE the governance, the legislature, the 'moral compass', and you have squandered your time. You have spent centuries bickering, killing each other, killing your own followers, indulging in schisms and plots, oppressing, spreading misery and disease, and then, you have the total fucking cheek to whine and bitch because the government don't take heed of your moral bleatings? Why the fuck should they? Your track record isn't great, is it?

We still suffer the Lords Spiritual sitting in the upper chamber, and they are only Protestant, CofE clergy, no Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, bloody Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (wiki it, it rules) and yet you moan at a lack of involvement in debate and government?

Piss off, you are not open to debate, you are prescriptive, dictatorial and when push comes to shove will simply state that anyone opposing you will be damned to the eternal fires of hell. Not really a structured argument is it? If I were God, I'd start sending thunderbolts down on to your churches, temples, mosques, synangogues and whatever else now, in response to the evil you have done in my name.

And here's an addendum; The Chief Constable of Notts Police, Steve Green (Steve? Give me strength), has basically demanded a ban on the sale of cheap alcohol. Newsflash, Stevie boy, you police, because WE, as society, want you to. You don't get to make policy either, on detention of terrorists, ID Cards, alcohol, anything, you get to enforce the laws WE want, not the ones YOU want. I appreciate our government makes your job as a copper pretty much impossible, but still. In fact, most of your constabulary probably consider you to have only a fleeting relationship with reality and your 'troops', I bet you call them that, don't you?

Wednesday, 4 June 2008

The one that is pleased to see someone sticking it to them . . .

Good to read the reports of fishermen from around Europe (but mainly our Italian and French cousins) having a bit of a tear-up outside the EU Commission in Brussels, not that I'd ever condone civil disobedience. Well, perhaps a bit.

No prizes for guessing that the basis of the 'protest' was the price of fuel, in their case marine diesel which has gone up, well, lots recently. This hits the French fisherman particularly hard as it makes it very expensive for them all to go out and blockade harbours and ports in righteous indignation whenever the harbour master looks at them in a funny way or doesn't bless their barnacles, or whatever.

Whilst I respect the French fishermen for standing up for themsevles, I can't help thinking that they're a little shellfish (geddit? Sorry.) as they are protesting about the fact that the French government won't give them, and only them as fishermen, a break on the tax they pay on the diesel they use. Of course the French goverment shrug their shoulders in that oh so Gallic fashion. There's nothing they can do of course, it is all down to EU competition laws. Which as far as I can make out are there to stop any competition at all and make sure that the commission has complete control over every industry.

But here's the rub, EU rules state that VAT rate on fuel in member states MUST be at least 15%. Anything above that is down to the member state.

Let us just revisit that shall we? The EU says that we MUST charge 15% VAT minimum on fuel.

I'm not entirely happy about that, in fact, when the next election comes around, I think I'm going to vote for a different commissioner.

What? What's that you say? I can't vote for commissioners? Ahh, well that explains how Peter Mandelson is alive and getting paid as well (to mis-quote HMHB). That is why I hate this collection of dictatorial, unelected, grasping, sociopathic, fuckwits who are trying to run my country and my life and give me absolutely no say in it whatsoever.

It is exactly this sort of thing that makes we want to unwind razor wire and set tank traps on Camber Sands whilst wearing a tin helmet and singing Gracie Fields and Vera Lynn.

What a bunch of servile, arrogant fuckers, and what a bunch of fucking idiots we are to continually elect politicians who feather their own nests and sell more and more of our sovereignty down the river. The sooner we're rid of the shower of shite in Westminster and the absolute deluge of typhoid ridden shit in Brussels the better.

Now, where did I leave my barrage ballloon?

Sunday, 1 June 2008

The One That Thinks It Knows What's Coming Next. . .

And how do I know? Simple, it has already started.

OK, let's start with smoking. I smoke, and I hate it. It is expensive, makes me stink, destroys my taste buds and is generally unpleasant. I started when I was 21, it was the single stupidest thing I've ever done and I wish I'd never started. The whole bansturbation mania surrounding smoking pisses me off, although I personally prefer pubs without smoke, I can see no reason why smoking exclusive and smoking inclusive venues can't be had, but that and the new proposals surrounding the display and sale of cigarettes isn't the point here.

The point is that as soon as smoking is trussed up, the target of the nannies is going to be alcohol. We've seen the first shots fired today. Firstly, today is the day that drinking on the London transport network is now verboten. We also have notification of plans to stop the under 18's drinking in public.

Now, most reasonable people would respond that this is a reasonable step. Isn't socio-political conditioning a wonderfully insidious thing? Because teenagers drinking in public is immediately associated with teenagers fighting, intimidating passers by, vomiting and any other of a legion of anti-social activities. It always starts with the children. (Won't someone pleeeeeease think of the children?) Firstly, isn't existing drunk and disorderly and public order legislation robust enough to deal with this?

Secondly, the reason that kids are carrying on like this is because they're so fucking bored. There's nothing to do, where are the town centre cinemas? Closed, to go out of town with the wonderful shopping centre, and there's no public transport, that's where. Where are the youth clubs of yore? Closed, because of obscene insurance rates brought about because if an accident happens, it must be someone's fault and thus they owe you a shit load of cash.

Thirdly, what about kids drinking perfectly legally, such as is allowed under licencing laws with their meals with a family. That is drinking in public, is this to be banned as well?

Once again we see huge amounts of our cash spunked on another initiative, the Police with loads of PCSOs but no officers to enforce the law. It isn't a legislation problem, it is an enforcement and parenting problem.

I smoke, and smoke responsibly, but shortly will not be allowed to do so, or if allowed my perfectly legal behaviour will be made very difficult indeed.

I drink as well, I await the ban on alcohol advertising, drinking in public (excepting Royal palaces, obviously), the display of alcohol in shops and so on. This will be because a small number of people cannot behave in a reasonable fashion. It is akin to the teacher threatening to keep the whole class in detention if the miscreant fails to own up. . . And when the miscreant does own up, punishing the whole class anyway.

Then the ban on advertising confectionary and fatty foods, eating these products in public, the display of said items. . .