The Train Boozer

I haven’t forgotten the Freddos competition. I’m still in recovery from the recent chaos. It will happen. Yesterday we had a sample of the Green Life – a power cut from 9 am to 3 pm – and if it had continued into the evening we’d have been glad of that wood burning stove. Easter is here and will be over soon. Maybe then normality, such as it is, will be restored for a while.

Anyway, today it seems Diane Abbott has been photographed sprawled out in a train carriage, surrounded by vomit and cans of Special Brew.

Not really. In fact she was quietly sipping from a single 250 ml can of Marks and Spencer Mojito and not bothering anyone.

There are now calls for her to be prosecuted.

I never thought I’d see the day when I would take Diane Abbott’s side on anything but there you are, sitting quietly on the eleventy-thirteen train home, not causing anyone any bother, and suddenly a mob of Puritans appear and lynch you.

Yes, it is against the law, but it’s a stupid law. We already have laws to cover drunk and disorderly – in fact I believe ‘drunk in a public place’ is against the law, so even the lone guy staggering home from the pub in silence is breaking the law. I have broken that one many times. We do not need an absolute alcohol ban anywhere other than while driving anything or while at work (politicians really should take note of that one, especially Anti Sobriety, because it applies to everyone else).

The whole point of public transport is that the alcohol driving limit does not apply to anyone but the train staff. Sure, being drunk and obnoxious will, and should, get you refused transport or thrown off at the next stop but one can of 8% booze (roughly half a pint of a not very strong wine by equivalent) isn’t likely to do that.

I mean, she’s taking public transport home at a time when a lot of those politicians are demanding a full police escort everywhere they go. Why isn’t that the story? All she did was sit in a seat and drink a can of what, to me at least, could almost be considered a soft drink.

She drank two units! Two! She drank all of both those units and had the nerve to walk off the train without falling over! How could she! Shock! Horror! Call the Sun! They’ll print this shit.

Pfft. If I had to work with Grandpa Cordite and The McConnellator all day, I reckon I’d be necking vodka straight from the bottle on the way home. And hitting myself on the head with the bottle between swigs.

Some are going to say I am advocating drunks on trains, with waves of urine wafting across the aisles on every curved track, and tsunamis of piss and vomit building up along the train at every abrupt stop. You’re not going to get that from a game of two units, one can.

Scotland does not allow drinking on trains between 9 pm and 10 am. The 10 am part is irrelevant really, you can’t buy any in Scotland before 10 am anyway. The 9 pm part is so that those leaving pubs don’t get any more plastered on the way home. If you want to open a can of Tennent’s on a train at 1 pm, no one cares. The buffet will even sell you a can (at far above minimum price).

Nobody’s really likely to bother you if you take a swig from a hip flask at 9:30 pm or later. As long as you aren’t causing any bother… no one cares.

Of course, if you are sitting in a warm-but-cooling wet seat and swearing incoherently at the other passengers, you’re going to be met by the transport police at the next stop, whether it’s your stop or not. And that is as it should be.

There is no time limit on the Transport for London ban. There is no sensible in-between. They see it as all or nothing. If you so much as sniff a beer, you are a raging alcoholic likely to smash every window then stab the passengers with the shards of glass. So they have banned it entirely.

I can understand a ban on late boozing on public transport. It’s likely to be those who have come, pie-eyed, from the pub and are already blootered. You don’t want them tipping over into vomit-factory on your old and smelly train, it’s bad enough in there as it is. You can’t even rely on a friendly smoker to quench the stench because that’s been banned for a long time too.

Same with buses. I have taken the very late weekend bus home from Aberdeen a couple of times in the past and they put the shittiest vehicle in the fleet on that route. It’s not called the ‘vomit comet’ for nothing. It doesn’t come out this way – nothing does – so I don’t go drinking in Aberdeen now.

But really, a whole newspaper article over a can of premixed plonk? Being drunk by someone who didn’t cause so much as an inconvenience to anyone?

I know, I know, ‘one rule for us and another for them’ but is this a rule she was involved in making? I rather suspect it’s one of Sadold Khunt’s idiotic pronouncements to distract from his dire record of actually doing his job. It’s not a national law. It’s just That London. They had seven to choose from and they chose Dopey. Grumpy was already employed as Squeaker in the House of Conmen but that still left six.

It is, I repeat, a stupid law. One among many. Diane Abbott is right to ignore it and was wrong to apologise for it. The idiots calling for her to be prosecuted should instead be calling for the idiotic law to be dumped.

That never happens, does it? It’s never ‘Well it’s a stupid law anyway’. It’s always ‘Enforce the stupid law!’

I have no hope for this current iteration of civilisation, and I doubt the next one will be any better.

There are times, like this, when I am glad I don’t have too many birthdays left to endure.

19 thoughts on “The Train Boozer

  1. No, the booze ban on public transport was Boris when he became Mayor. Sucks Can’t banned images of scantily clad women not bless with Diane Abbot’s physic…

    *Or pictures of jam, Clicky… /sigh… anything with sugar in, basically…*

    Liked by 1 person

  2. One of the things I hope is that this is like the puritan era after the English Civil War. It took the death of Cromwell and the restoration of the Monarchy to get rid of all these pettifogging restrictions. Perhaps the impending collapse of Labour and the Conservative parties might help bring a similar set of circumstances about.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Alinsky’s rules for radicals. Make the enemy live by their own rules. Okay, Labour didn’t make this particular rule, but it’s typical of the nasty authoritarian behaviour they and all the main parties are known for. So, yes, go for the jugular. And then come back for another bite to make sure.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Seems it was in broad daylight.

    I couldn’t have known the packaging, so just another person sipping a drink while looking at her phone. Common as.

    The complainant is a retired police officer, who I suspect was sick fed up of the political class and their interference in front line duties.

    Or it could be he was motivated by the cash paid by newspapers for every story printed.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I break rules and laws, if I think that they’re stupid.
    If I get caught, I pay the penalty. Without much complaint.
    (“Why don’t we do it in the road?”)

    I can’t imagine breaking a law, and then apologizing, though.
    That would mean agreeing that it was not a stupid law.
    In which case, I wouldn’t break it?

    A prospective Home Sec is entitled to break the law, as we all are.
    (And pay the penalty.)
    She got caught.
    She apologized, thus confirming that she accepts that it’s a good law.
    She should pay the penalty, (apology or not.)
    Hell, she can afford the fine better than I could!
    And she chose a career making laws, unlike me.

    Meanwhile, the court of public voter opinion will make it’s own individual minds up.
    It was right for the press (and Leggy) to report it.

    And yes, it’s a stupid, and unnecessary law.

    PS, I enjoyed the “tsunami” image.
    Then I got to thinking –
    We used to call tsunamis “tidal waves” (incorrectly).But arguably, this would be a tidal wave?
    (Caused by gravity/acceleration, not a rearrangement of geography.)
    I’ll get me coat.

    PPS I enjoyed “Norman’s House”. Thanks!
    (And didn’t find any spelling mistakes!)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Mr Walker

      I have always favoured the name ‘tidal wave’ for geologically induced waves, because one of the features of such an event is the ‘tide’ goes out on a sloping shore before the incoming waves arrive: linking the one with the other in people’s minds might save lives.

      ‘Tsunami’ is Japanese for ‘harbour wave’. Even less accurate and less likely to link the precursor event with the arrival of death by drowning – at least amongst Anglophones. I’d rather be inaccurate and alive, than scientifically accurate and dead, though in truth I’d be thinking ‘f**k, tidal wave’ and shouting ‘RUN’, whilst doing just that.

      Hope this helps.



  5. Civil disobedience is fine but when you are actually involved in making the laws then I think that you should abide by them. If she didn’t want it enforced for her then she should force it on the rest of us. I think she should be prosecuted and if she thinks it is wrong she can campaign to have the law changed. She is in a better position than most.

    Liked by 1 person

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.