Tag Archives: prohibition

The erosion of liberty in small cuts, or how to boil frogs


Michael Winning

I saw this on Devil’s kitchen just now, and really people should read the whole thing. Not us because we know, but pass it round.

Advertisements

Maybe nothing can now be done for these people


Michael Winning

I meant the hoddies, not the woman and her daughter. Labour’s artificially-created client-underclass may contain many individuals for whom there will be no earthly use. It is a tragic and useless waste of human potential.

And ive just found this here.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100011721/24-hour-drinking-is-not-to-blame-for-broken-britain/

I,ll reprint it just in carse, I’m sure the man won’t mind. The blog master says it should be in red to show its been lifted.

Ed West Politics Last updated: September 29th, 2009

8 Comments Comment on this article

Well, this is possibly Labour’s last ever party conference in power, so I was expecting some big gimmicks, but Gordon Brown’s attack on 24-hour drinking is weak.

The move will be part of a wider package of crime measures that the Prime Minister will unveil in his crucial pre-election party conference speech. He has previously indicated that he is unhappy with parts of the licensing law changes that were brought in while Tony Blair was Prime Minister but has stopped short of overhauling the legislation.

As a teenager the one cause I really felt passionate about was not global warming (as we called it back then), third world poverty or the Rwandan genocide (which I don’t even remember) – it was 24-hour drinking. I hated the fact that all pubs shut at 11 and we then had to find a nightclub, queue for ages, and then pay over the odds to stand around somewhere so loud you wouldn’t hear Ian Paisley if he was standing next to you. Lloyd George ruined my teenage years.

Conservatives, who win most arguments through the law of unintended consequences, were strangely averse to the obvious fact that our First World War-era licensing laws only encouraged people to drink quickly and then head to even boozier venues. It was left to New Labour, in a rare moment of liberalism, to change the law.

The phrase “24-hour drinking” is misleading, creating the image of some Oliver Reed-style epic bender – often it just means theatre-goers popping in for a couple or people choosing to stay in their local past 11 rather than making a night of it. And it does not make alcohol-related social problems any worse – it doesn’t make them hugely better, but it doesn’t make them worse. In fact the number of venues open 24-hours is tiny, and the number of pubs open past 1 am is not huge, either.

The Government knows this, of course, but the real problems with alcohol are too difficult to deal with. The initial inconvenience is that too many city centres are dependent on alcohol – if they raise the duty on alcohol or arrested drunks wholesale or did anything to reduce the number of rubbish chain pubs then they may as well evacuate Liverpool or Newcastle.

Secondly, and more importantly, too many members of the violent community are also part of Labour’s 5-million-strong welfare army, people who do not pay fines because they know the authorities won’t chase them, and who do not modify their bad behaviour because they know the state won’t kick them out of their taxpayer-provided homes. This is why “drink Asbos” won’t work:

The measure will be part of a wider package of anti-social behaviour policies that the Prime Minister will unveil. It includes “drink anti-social behaviour orders” being extended to force courts to consider imposing a Drinking Banning Order against anyone convicted of a crime who was under the influence of alcohol.

The Drink Asbos will give magistrates the power to bar problem drinkers from bars and off-licences, Mr Brown will say.

Parents of any child guilty of anti-social behaviour will be given a parenting contract and where they refuse to comply with them, their benefits will be stopped. He will also announce a four-fold increase in the number of families covered by ‘family intervention projects.’

He will say: “These are binding contracts which require people to take one to one support or lose their benefits. We will double the number of these family intervention projects so that for the 50,000 most chaotic families and their 100,000 children there will be clear rules, and clear punishments if they don’t comply.”

But Asbos have been a terrible failure – half of them are breached and most of the time the authorities simply give the hooligan another “last chance” warning, like some ineffective and weak teacher. On the other hand they are genuinely illiberal and can and have been used by the authorities to persecute the merely eccentric or children with serious disorders.

This issue is relevant to the suicide of Fiona Pilkington, driven to her death by yobs while the police did nothing (for fear of “criminalising” the bullies by sending them to prison), because even if the authorities did intervene to stop her ordeal, they would still be bound by the law to re-house Miss Pilkington’s tormentors, the Simmons family, and scumbags everywhere know that.

If Labour really wanted to get tough on anti-social behaviour, whether committed drunk or sober, it would change the law so that the state no longer had to find a home for criminals among ordinary, decent people. But then, you wouldn’t want people to actually take personal responsibility for their behaviour, would you?

Rutger Engels, professor in developmental psychopathology at the Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen…..


….has got one-hell-of-a-great title! It beats “Prime Minister”, or just “Professor”, hands-down.

He has said things like this. Go to The Devil and read the entire hilarious scam……it’s worth five minutes or so of your time.

The coming ban on  _all_  alcohol advertising  (initially only on TV, of course!) is, er, coming.

When alcohol is prohibited, a half-pint-bottle of gin is £150, a 3/4-litre whisky is £500 (and double in Londond, even if you can find a still-living pusher) and the Rule of Law is like Mexico ….. they STILL won’t listen, and will find the next thing to ban.

David Davis

The Stalinist terror-drink-police will come for you next…


UPDATE:- Lots of useful links out, from The Devil, to other state fake-charities etc, specially those which castigate you for drinking more than you oughta on “at least one day a week”….disaster: all that excise tax-take, and they don’t even thank you.

David Davis

….arriving at a “supermarket” or “off-licence” near you. They’ve done the pubs, kicking them into the bloody dust, so now it’s the turn of the “middle class professionals”. I wonder which fake charity staffed by State-sponsored-scumbags is behind this one? Obviously not a real one then, they have better things to do.

And here’s the Beeboids, direct. And why do nasty gestapoid-Gramsco-Marxians always, always always get so het up about “strong lager”? Eh? Eh? Who ya’-lookin’ at then? Gorra-problem?

Mexico coming undone at the seams: why ALL drugs should be legalised absolutely everywhere.


David Davis

We stand aghast, at the possibility of “military intervention by the USA” against – of all places – Mexico. We know that, since “drugs” are grown in Latin America, and since Mexico is in the way of their transfer to “Film Stars” and wannabes in British North America, where these things are officially illegal to have or trade, that therefore mexico will be on the road of transfer.

This is all very well and ought not to matter. Cars and lorries carrying cocaine and other stuff whose names I can’t remember ought to be able to cross Mexico as though it was anywhere. The problem arises because – and only because –  it is locally illegal to have, sell or use these substances, in the points of destination.

This has several effects:-

(1) It makes the substances themselves more desirable in the eyes of certain people. They will want it more because “The State” says they shouldn’t have any at all at all at all, for their own good at all at all at all .   Nsty useless Hollywood delinquents film stars will leak details of their use of it, and because they are pretty and shaggable (and that’s just the men) you will want to do it too, as you are sheeple because the liberals Stalinists have told you to become so.

(2) It makes it risky and unprofitable and demoralising, for legitimate businesses to supply the stuff. If you wozz an off-licence, would YOU want to supply cocaine to any willing buyer, if you got raided every week by the rozzers for doing it, and had your shop smashed up by them (rozzers) and were put in jug?

(3) It makes the risks of supplying it worthwhile, for shysters and hoods, who don’t mind having to shoulder the boring business of killing people including police and soldiers, in the course of securing their hold on the distribution of of their stuff, to you. The £5-a-day habit, if the stuff was legally sold through chemists even including the impost of State Taxation, becomes the £100-a-day habit if you have to buy it through hoods who have to insure themselves – at your cost –  for their own risk against both the State and against other hoods who want to compete, for what is really a rather small niche sector.

(4) it makes jobs for Police rozzers. Rozzers are inherently tormented people, who ought not to have got like that; they need psychiatric help, and quickly.  Just as you ought not to want to be a criminal, also you ought not to want to be a policeman in the 21st century: what does that desire say about you, and your morals, and world-view, as a person?

So the way forward is quite clear. ALL drugs have to be legalised, in all jurisdictions, preferably by yesterday. This will have a number of good effects:-

(1A) The “Police”, currently a pantomime collection of gamma-minus droids unfortunately increasingly supplied with real guns as opposed to things that shoot out a flag which says “bang”, and who are “employed” by their “states”  not in chasing real muggers, robbers, burglars and killers but in harrassing “drug dealers”, “motorists”, “paedophiles”, “racists”, “terrorists”, “non-payers of council tax”, “TV-license-evaders” and “climate-change-deniers”, will find that their workload is decreased alarmingly. We will “need” fewer of them. Good.

The main solution to civilisation’s ills is

fewer Laws,

and more and better people.

There may even be “calls for” “FEWER POLICE ON THE STREETS”. I think that in a civilised society, the police ought to be invisible: see poll below.

(2A) The use of “drugs”, which is to say substances currently classified as drugs”, by all people, will fall dramatically. or it may not: I do not know. But I think it will fall.

(3A) The legalisation of “drugs” will mean that Galxo-Smith-Klein, Schering-Plough, Ciba-Geigy, and all the others, will be abot to compete legally for whatever market they think they can get. Adverttisisng will be allowed. Advertising is the best way to garotte bad stuff fast. The purity and quality of products will thus rise, and the price will fall to the point where the “State” will come in.

(4A) The “State” will take a take. Where GSK wants to sell you your Ecstasy for 50p a go, via the chemist down the road in Shaky-street (PR8  . . . ) , the State will take £4 or so, making it about the price of 20 fags. What’s the point of going and doing crime, if it’s only that much? You can get it from your dosh you that get “on the sick”.

OK so the “State” wins, win-win in the short run. But it’s got to justify how it needs to spend so much less on policing, since there’s so much much less less petty crime going on down.

That in itself will be tremendous fun to watch.