Streets of Rage

[AronSearle]

So your logic is as long as you pay taxes then you are free to behave as you wish and somebody else will sort you out?

No, my logic is that some people will behave poorly anyway, always have, always will. Better to have it in the open, taxed and costed (which it is, the puritans always like to lie that it is not taxed to cover costs, the numbers don't lie and proove 'sin' taxes raise more money than the cost of the sins).

History and current living examples proove me right, prohibition causes crime and black markets, the countries with the strictest 'sin' laws have the highest levels of debauchery.

The puritans always ignore the facts, as they are to blinded by ideology.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Can't have personal responsibility without freedom, can't have the freedom to be a dick, without some people being dicks.

 

[Newboy]

No, my logic is that some people will behave poorly anyway, always have, always will.

Agree - but I resent the fact that the majority end up paying for the poorly behaved.

Sadly, natural selection doesn't have a chance to work as long as the emergency services keep rescuing the idiots

 

[Brigadier]

I always find it strange that drink driving is hammered, yet alcoholic consumption is seen as mitigation, for other forms of poor behaviour.

"My client had consumed six pints of strong lager, when he jumped on the victim's head, your Honour." Oh - that's better than if he'd been stone-cold sober then.....

 

[Norcon]

The countries and times with the most strict alcohol laws, are also the ones with the most social unrest, crime and poverty.

Alcohol is already used by the government to pay for it's costs, and on top of that as a way for the government to raise extra revenue.

Those nurses that complain about having to treat drunks at weekend A&E's, if they got their wish and drunks stopped getting injured, they would be made redundant, haha.

You should be thanking the drunks, they are paying more tax than you, if they didn't pay the excessive duties, the government would have to raise income tax to make up the difference.

Ahh the youth of today.

Better than your generation of Jimmy savile kiddy fiddlers.

You seem to be assuming kiddy fiddlers don't exist today.
Probably far more today than in the saville era. And the internet gives them much more power.
So today we got the fiddlers and the young ladies who bash a homeless man over the head for daring to ask for a few bob.

Btw it would only be the foreign nurses made redundant.

I dumped two inebriated birds out unto a motorway one night in the middle of no where because one of them became a real pain in the arze.

They didn't want to get out but when I threatened to call the police they soon made haste.
I'd never make a taxi driver.

 

[JBR]

OK, if increasing alcohol duty is unacceptable, then make the punishments for drink fuelled misbehaviour more severe.

A night in the cells to sober up, then a slap on the wrist (or nothing at all) just encourages repeat offending.

 

[ladylola]

Two solutions:

1. Close all pubs and clubs at 11pm.

2. Remove all fuel duty and replace it with additional taxes on alcohol. Fuel is a necessary commodity for most of us; alcohol is not.

Wouldn't that only apply to fuel used for work purposes? Leisure driving , holidays , cruising , motor sports , visiting , perhaps even socialising and mowing one's own lawn could easily be classed as not being necessary ? Needs work that idea.
I've often thought that a simple idea would be to give everyone a sort of electronic account , assessable via chip and pin or something similar , and credit it with so many units of alcohol per week ( not carrying over more than a fortnight) thus making it so much harder , but not impossible of course, to get the booze in the first place. Result fewer drunks , and extend it to cover fat and sugar and perhaps we could have fewer obese people as well.
Never going to happen of course , as said drunks raise taxes and TPTB won't raise taxes too much to actually stop people over indulging .

 

[AronSearle]

Agree - but I resent the fact that the majority end up paying for the poorly behaved.

Puritan rubbish.

As said, 'sin' taxes on alcohol more than pay for the costs, and this excludes the savings made from not paying pensions towards dead alcoholics.

OK, if increasing alcohol duty is unacceptable, then make the punishments for drink fuelled misbehaviour more severe.

Why should it matter if I was drunk or not when I hit someone?

Being drunk is only relevant if being drunk itself is the issue, aka drink driving.

You seem to be assuming kiddy fiddlers don't exist today.
Probably far more today than in the saville era. And the internet gives them much more power.
So today we got the fiddlers and the young ladies who bash a homeless man over the head for daring to ask for a few bob.

Drinking rates in young people are falling compared to oldens, most deaths are in the 60s+, 1970s saw large scale gang crime and football hooliganism, racism was legal, crime rates are falling (and crime rates are compiled by the older generation and senior ministers), all the problem with rubbish immigrants, voted for by the baby boomers. Housing and rent costs are absolutely screwing the younger generation, guess which generation is responsible for this issue

In every measurable way, the older generation has no right to moan about the 'youth of today', they are the vandals of civilisation.

 

[JBR]

OK, if increasing alcohol duty is unacceptable, then make the punishments for drink fuelled misbehaviour more severe.

Why should it matter if I was drunk or not when I hit someone?

Being drunk is only relevant if being drunk itself is the issue, aka drink driving.

Yes, it is equally wrong to hit someone whether drunk or sober (unless they hit you first).

But it has been shown that being drunk can encourage people to go further than they might normally do, for example, to kick someone in the head until they are unconscious (or dead), not just drink driving.

I've nothing against drinking - I drink - but if people don't know their limits or are just too stupid to know when to stop, they need to be punished and deterred from doing it again until they learn sense. For some, it could be a very protracted learning experience.

 

[Norcon]

Aron Searle wrote..
"In every measurable way, the older generation has no right to moan about the 'youth of today', they are the vandals of civilisation."

Complete nonsense.
The older generation lived within their means to a large extent. If they didn't have the money they did without. No popping a credit card into a hole in the wall creating huge debts.

They didn't breed to live off the dole. Because there was no dole.

Yes today's young face high unemployment, expensive education, and a lifetime of renting. Tough.
They can always get stoned down the pub and then beat up some homeless guy on the crawl to the next pub.
They'll probably be on the streets themselves begging for a few bob in another few years.

 

[Whitespirit66]

all the problem with rubbish immigrants, voted for by the baby boomers. Housing and rent costs are absolutely screwing the younger generation, guess which generation is responsible for this issue

In every measurable way, the older generation has no right to moan about the 'youth of today', they are the vandals of civilisation.

Who voted for mass immigration? Don't remember it in anyone's manifesto. Millions of people of all ages, not just middle/old aged, voted the party in that opened the floodgates. When Bliar dragged the band members of Oasis into no. 10 and droned on about 'cool Britannia', was he courting the grey vote?

You seem to imply that racism was legal in the 70s, but also blame the baby boomers who were actively involved in society at that time for mass immigration. So which way do you want it. Are older people racists (who by their nature are anti-immigration) or are they all for mass immigration. Doesn't make any sense.

Hanging the blame for society's ills on the baby boomers is wide of the mark. It's always the politicians and vested interests that are really pulling the strings. The paying public get strung along. They see that a certain government isn't working, vote for 'change', but often end up with something worse. Much of what they do isn't in their manifestos, and a lot that is doesn't happen.

And as for trashing the 70s because of the sins of Saville, et al - that is bizarre. Would you judge this current decade on the actions of footballers convicted of rape? Maybe you weren't there, but although there were problems (when aren't there?), the 70s were a hell of a lot more civilised than today. If all you have to go on as your 'experience' of the 70s is tabloid headlines, then you aren't qualified to write off a whole decade with glib generalisations.

Life at home was a lot more civilised than events at Westminster or The BBC would lead anyone to believe. What the politicians and celebrities got up to isn't representative of how the population lived. The problems then look a whole lot less scary than the problems we face today. Think about it. And if you're not sure, ask your mum what it was really like 40 years ago.

 

[AronSearle]

The older generation lived within their means to a large extent. If they didn't have the money they did without. No popping a credit card into a hole in the wall creating huge debts.

The older generation didn't pay nearly enough tax to cover pension and healthcare liabilities, now this generation is paying more for longer, and already there is talk about allowing our pensions to be inflated away, and the retirement age being upped and upped, the young generation is paying for your benefits they that will never themselves see.

And welfare has been about since 1911 and ramped up massively after the war, so don't talk nonsense about their being no dole.

You paid *significantly* less on mortgages and rent, both as a percentage of income, and over time. And then your generations has the nerve to be a very large factor in the anti development nimby movement (got mine, f*ck you).

Organised paedophilia in the media, gangs of London, football hooliganism, plenty of examples of ****ty behaviour that makes kicking a homeless man to death seem normal.

The older generation should think again before criticising the young.

Who voted for mass immigration? Don't remember it in anyone's manifesto.

It was part and parcel of the EU deal, you didn't bother to read the small print, the older generation voted for it.

Millions of people of all ages, not just middle/old aged, voted the party in that opened the floodgates. When Bliar dragged the band members of Oasis into no. 10 and droned on about 'cool Britannia', was he courting the grey vote?

Labour are not responsible for EU immigration, it is part an parcel of the EU package, which older generations voted for.

Labour were also predominantly voted in by older generations, young people at that time were statistically insignificant.

 

[Norcon]

The older generation lived within their means to a large extent. If they didn't have the money they did without. No popping a credit card into a hole in the wall creating huge debts.

The older generation didn't pay nearly enough tax to cover pension and healthcare liabilities, now this generation is paying more for longer, and already there is talk about allowing our pensions to be inflated away, and the retirement age being upped and upped, the young generation is paying for your benefits they that will never themselves see.

And welfare has been about since 1911 and ramped up massively after the war, so don't talk nonsense about their being no dole.

You paid *significantly* less on mortgages and rent, both as a percentage of income, and over time. And then your generations has the nerve to be a very large factor in the anti development nimby movement (got mine, f*ck you).

Organised paedophilia in the media, gangs of London, football hooliganism, plenty of examples of s behaviour that makes kicking a homeless man to death seem normal.

The older generation should think again before criticising the young.

Who voted for mass immigration? Don't remember it in anyone's manifesto.

It was part and parcel of the EU deal, you didn't bother to read the small print, the older generation voted for it.

Millions of people of all ages, not just middle/old aged, voted the party in that opened the floodgates. When Bliar dragged the band members of Oasis into no. 10 and droned on about 'cool Britannia', was he courting the grey vote?

Labour are not responsible for EU immigration, it is part an parcel of the EU package, which older generations voted for.

Labour were also predominantly voted in by older generations, young people at that time were statistically insignificant.

They voted for a trade agreement which is what they were told it was.
Not a dictatorship that rides roughshod over UK laws. Its not the voters job to read the small print.
That what we pay politicians for ffs.

Roll on the referendum that we may be rid of it forever.
Nigel Farage for Prime minister.

Just think. Under bliar we would have adopted the euro. Another fine mess that would have gotten us in too.

 

[JBR]

They voted for a trade agreement which is what they were told it was.
Not a dictatorship that rides roughshod over UK laws. Its not the voters job to read the small print.
That what we pay politicians for ffs.

Roll on the referendum that we may be rid of it forever.
Nigel Farage for Prime minister.

Just think. Under bliar we would have adopted the euro. Another fine mess that would have gotten us in too.

Yes, I don't remember any party stating in their manifesto that they would agree to the Maastricht Treaty, or that they would agree to a free trade organisation metamorphosing into a political dictatorship.

I just hope that the electorate are astute enough to vote for a party that will guarantee an in/out referendum, and then vote for our freedom. This is just like the 1930s all over again, not that I was around in those days, but I seem to remember people weren't too concerned then about events taking place on the continent... until it was almost too late.

 

[Norcon]

Yes we should never forget history. Of course the wishy washy lefty liberal brigade would rather history never be mentioned.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yeah. We need a modern Neville Chamberlain.