Now The War is Over !
Posted by: Berlin Fritz on 19 October 2004
As from September 2005 nearly 100 years after it being imposed on Britain's working Classes, Pubs will be able to serve cheap lager & one armed bandits whenever they wish and cash in on the wonderfully bouyant economy Britain is now enjoying, luvvly jubbly, Drink Now and pay later, bring back the debtors prisons too, or with an extended new War in Iraq etc, bring the old law back again, innit.
G.G.v. Nottoofarfromthetruthireckon
National Debt always likes Wars !
G.G.v. Nottoofarfromthetruthireckon
National Debt always likes Wars !
Posted on: 20 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
I hate sarcasm generally, but deem the majority of you folk ? intelligent and witty enough to take it and hit me back when required, I've obviously missjudged badlöy, Sorry.
Fritz.
Fritz.
Posted on: 20 October 2004 by Deane F
When you say one armed bandits are you talking about the gambling machines like those in Los Vegas being installed in pubs?
We've got them in pubs over here and the damned things are a scourge.
Deane
We've got them in pubs over here and the damned things are a scourge.
Deane
Posted on: 20 October 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I hate sarcasm generally, but deem the majority of you folk ? intelligent and witty enough to take it and hit me back when required, I've obviously missjudged badlöy, Sorry.
Fritz.
Why is it that when people don't rave about how clever your posts are, you put us down as unintelligent and un-witty? There seems to be an alternative explanation that's at least equally feasible.
Posted on: 20 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by jayd:quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I hate sarcasm generally, but deem the majority of you folk ? intelligent and witty enough to take it and hit me back when required, I've obviously missjudged badlöy, Sorry.
Fritz.
I can only Yawn³
Why is it that when people don't rave about how clever your posts are, you put us down as unintelligent and un-witty? There seems to be an alternative explanation that's at least equally feasible.
Posted on: 20 October 2004 by Steve Toy
And from 7th Feb 2005 (depending on whether your local council is of the nannying variety and/or hung up on imaginary "residents" issues - i.e: residents kept awake in their beds because you are drinking in the pubs) we'll be able to take our time over our beverages, and not have to beat the 11 pm and 11.20 pm deadlines (the former to order beverages; the latter to consume them without committing a criminal offence) before joining the rush for taxis and/or the queue for greasy takeaway food.
I wonder when the island-bound (il)logic imposed upon us by amateur politicians and other empty vessels will finally yield to the more common-sense lifestyle pattern enjoyed by the rest of the developed world.
Our laws currently - and probably after the 7th Feb changeover in many places use an 11 - 11.20 pm brick-wall filter (if you will) for the consumption of alcoholic beverages in licensed premises, when a roll-off after a peak of around 1 am (probably earlier in the week in most places) would enable the non-drinking "residents" to enjoy a good night's sleep that isn't punctuated by the sudden rush of people on the move as everything suddenly closes down at the (premature) peak cut-off time.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Thu 21 October 2004 at 5:00.]
I wonder when the island-bound (il)logic imposed upon us by amateur politicians and other empty vessels will finally yield to the more common-sense lifestyle pattern enjoyed by the rest of the developed world.
Our laws currently - and probably after the 7th Feb changeover in many places use an 11 - 11.20 pm brick-wall filter (if you will) for the consumption of alcoholic beverages in licensed premises, when a roll-off after a peak of around 1 am (probably earlier in the week in most places) would enable the non-drinking "residents" to enjoy a good night's sleep that isn't punctuated by the sudden rush of people on the move as everything suddenly closes down at the (premature) peak cut-off time.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Thu 21 October 2004 at 5:00.]
Posted on: 20 October 2004 by Deane F
Do you still have 11 o'clock closing in the UK?
Posted on: 20 October 2004 by Steve Toy
Last orders 11 pm.
20 minutes drinking-up time.
A few "nite-spots" are permitted to open later but these are usually oversubscribed and this in itself causes many social problems of the broken glass and blood-letting variety.
I think Fritzy's "Now the war is over..." is a reference to the origins of our rather silly, arcane, counterproductive, and bloody (in more than one sense) embarrassing licensing laws that began during the Great War 1914-1918
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Thu 21 October 2004 at 5:27.]
20 minutes drinking-up time.
A few "nite-spots" are permitted to open later but these are usually oversubscribed and this in itself causes many social problems of the broken glass and blood-letting variety.
I think Fritzy's "Now the war is over..." is a reference to the origins of our rather silly, arcane, counterproductive, and bloody (in more than one sense) embarrassing licensing laws that began during the Great War 1914-1918
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Thu 21 October 2004 at 5:27.]
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Deane F
That's a hell of a thing. I just assume that we're always behind the times down here. Having such a large country (compared to mine) means a lot of inertia to overcome to get any change through parliament I suppose.
We had six o'clock closing in New Zealand for quite a while after WW2.
Deane
We had six o'clock closing in New Zealand for quite a while after WW2.
Deane
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
Our Government is dominated by Scots.
Note that in Scotland there are:
- no tuition top-up fees for students.
- no silly licensing laws.
Moving to Central European Time would probably save 500 childrens' lives a year (according to the RoSPA.)
As well as the life-saving benefit, the extra daylight would make living here a bit less depressing, but it won't happen.
The reason?
Objections from Scotland.
I have nothing against Scots as individuals, and I find their country to be a very warm and hospitable place, but I fail to see the fairness behind placing the interests of just 5 million people in Scotland squarely above those of the 55 million living in England. In any case, Scotland could go one hour behind England and Wales if the Scots so wished.
Putting the clocks forward would only save lives and not significantly increase revenues for the treasury - unlike speed cameras...
Regards,
Steve.
Note that in Scotland there are:
- no tuition top-up fees for students.
- no silly licensing laws.
Moving to Central European Time would probably save 500 childrens' lives a year (according to the RoSPA.)
As well as the life-saving benefit, the extra daylight would make living here a bit less depressing, but it won't happen.
The reason?
Objections from Scotland.
I have nothing against Scots as individuals, and I find their country to be a very warm and hospitable place, but I fail to see the fairness behind placing the interests of just 5 million people in Scotland squarely above those of the 55 million living in England. In any case, Scotland could go one hour behind England and Wales if the Scots so wished.
Putting the clocks forward would only save lives and not significantly increase revenues for the treasury - unlike speed cameras...
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Steven:
GTF
Regards,
Davie
GTF
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
Seeing (or not) through the red mist across the Pond
I have nothing against Scots or Scotland.
I'd just like to see some fair play.
So, exiled Welshman in the USA, you GTF.
Regards,
Steve.
I have nothing against Scots or Scotland.
I'd just like to see some fair play.
So, exiled Welshman in the USA, you GTF.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I can only Yawn³
If only this was the case.
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
I have nothing against Scots or Scotland.
Steve.
Scots and Scotland are duly grateful.
I've occasionally wondered why you were the subject of so much derision on the forum. Thanks for clearing that up.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
So Davie,
You come from nowhere and tell me to GTF, not because I've said something that you find simply rediculous - perhaps making me a subject of derision in your eyes, but because of something I've said above that obviously outrages you much more than that, something that has clearly hit a nerve...
I've raised a couple of domestic issues that you clearly don't understand.
My only guess is in you the American question of the melting pot versus cultural pluralism has just manifested itself.
Not content with identifying themselves as just Americans, many Americans attempt to link themselves with their ancestry. This has taken the form of so-called Irish Americans giving huge amounts of money to support Noraid (the registered charity giving money to the IRA terrorists to buy bombs and guns?) out of the misconception that the Northern Ireland question was a simple one of English oppression in a neighbouring territory (a bit like the Chinese in Tibet) when the issue was far more complex, involving religious sectarianism pitching Celt against Celt.
In your case you seem to be identifying with Scots, and upon seeing something written that may be critical of how Scotland may seem to get special favours over England (and how a minority are possibly ruling a majority) you fail to even contemplate the issue in hand, the red mist forms in front of your eyes blinding you to the issues I've tried to raise, and from your keyboard the knee-jerk meat-headed vitriol pours forth in my general direction.
By all means contribute to the discussion and answer some of my points in turn. Otherwise, in your own words, GTF.
I await responses from those this side of the pond, both North and South of the border who may actually be affected in some way by the issues I've raised.
I am aware that all fees for students at Scottish Universities will be met by Scottish taxpayers - including any English students who may cross the border to attend a rather decent Scottish University that will now recruit the very best students on their own intellectual merits, and not simply their ability to pay.
My issue is with the elective process where the number of Scottish MPs who voted in favour of Blair's Bill was sufficient to carry the vote on top-up fees for English Universities in his favour, despite the issue being a total irrelevance to those Scottish constituents who elected them in the first place!
Had the Scottish MPs been denied the vote on an issue that didn't affect their constituents at all, Blair's Bill wouldn't have been passed.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 22 October 2004 at 5:30.]
You come from nowhere and tell me to GTF, not because I've said something that you find simply rediculous - perhaps making me a subject of derision in your eyes, but because of something I've said above that obviously outrages you much more than that, something that has clearly hit a nerve...
I've raised a couple of domestic issues that you clearly don't understand.
My only guess is in you the American question of the melting pot versus cultural pluralism has just manifested itself.
Not content with identifying themselves as just Americans, many Americans attempt to link themselves with their ancestry. This has taken the form of so-called Irish Americans giving huge amounts of money to support Noraid (the registered charity giving money to the IRA terrorists to buy bombs and guns?) out of the misconception that the Northern Ireland question was a simple one of English oppression in a neighbouring territory (a bit like the Chinese in Tibet) when the issue was far more complex, involving religious sectarianism pitching Celt against Celt.
In your case you seem to be identifying with Scots, and upon seeing something written that may be critical of how Scotland may seem to get special favours over England (and how a minority are possibly ruling a majority) you fail to even contemplate the issue in hand, the red mist forms in front of your eyes blinding you to the issues I've tried to raise, and from your keyboard the knee-jerk meat-headed vitriol pours forth in my general direction.
By all means contribute to the discussion and answer some of my points in turn. Otherwise, in your own words, GTF.
I await responses from those this side of the pond, both North and South of the border who may actually be affected in some way by the issues I've raised.
I am aware that all fees for students at Scottish Universities will be met by Scottish taxpayers - including any English students who may cross the border to attend a rather decent Scottish University that will now recruit the very best students on their own intellectual merits, and not simply their ability to pay.
My issue is with the elective process where the number of Scottish MPs who voted in favour of Blair's Bill was sufficient to carry the vote on top-up fees for English Universities in his favour, despite the issue being a total irrelevance to those Scottish constituents who elected them in the first place!
Had the Scottish MPs been denied the vote on an issue that didn't affect their constituents at all, Blair's Bill wouldn't have been passed.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 22 October 2004 at 5:30.]
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Having such a large country (compared to mine) means a lot of inertia to overcome to get any change through parliament I suppose.
The Bill to relax (or at least make them more locally accountable) our licensing laws actually went through Parliament virtually unapposed. The blanket law affecting the whole of England and Wales (but for extensions and special licenses granted by unelected magistrates) will change from 7th February next year.
It will be the local authorities who will set the licensing hours for bars, pubs, restaurants and clubs within their boundaries. Theoretically they will be able to permit licensed premises to open for a full 24/7.
However, many local councils including Westminster City Council (governing the touristy bit of Central London) have stated that when licensing powers pass to them, nothing will change and all current retrictions will remain.
Thus the island-bound logic of sleeping "residents" needing to ensure that everyone is off the streets before they can go to sleep, will still be alive and well after the shift in licensing power from magistrates to councillors.
It is nothing more than a curfew.
I have a letter addressed to me dated in 1994 from the Home Office confirming this to be the case.
Deane,
As for the "six o'clock swill" you cite, I guess that was a real nightmare with all the violence and civil disturbance that I imagine with it, but ten-fold.
If it had been 11 pm and not 6 pm you can just imagine all the local politicians arguing against an extension on the basis of people needing to sleep and not be awaken by such disturbances - the noise of multiple farewells - friendly or otherwise...
Anyone living away from these foggy shores will
know that by removing restrictions altogether (or until most people have already left of their own free will and quietly made their way home in small pockets) there is actually less in the way of alcohol-related crime and disturbance.
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 22 October 2004 at 6:23.]
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Steven:
Read your initial post about Scotland again and consider this: Being patronised by someone able to develop a cogent argument would be offensive enough; when the perpetrator is a half-wit, it's beneath contempt.
You patently have no clue about who or what I am, when even the most cursory research would have helped prevent you making a fool of yourself. No matter. You have nothing intelligent to say about anything of any interest to me.
Incidentally, your potted history lesson about America, Ireland and Scotland is a gem. I'll be sure to carry it with me wherever I go.
Regards,
Davie
Read your initial post about Scotland again and consider this: Being patronised by someone able to develop a cogent argument would be offensive enough; when the perpetrator is a half-wit, it's beneath contempt.
You patently have no clue about who or what I am, when even the most cursory research would have helped prevent you making a fool of yourself. No matter. You have nothing intelligent to say about anything of any interest to me.
Incidentally, your potted history lesson about America, Ireland and Scotland is a gem. I'll be sure to carry it with me wherever I go.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
Davie,
As I've read in the thread on Bush's Christian Fundamentalism, I appreciate that you are able to form well-informed and cogent arguments on issues your side of the pond - and they will probably affect us all at some point.
If you happen to be a British citizen who has (recently) emigrated to the US then I suggest you have lost sight somewhat to some of the issues pertaining to those who still live in the British Isles.
As for our history of screwing over Scots and Irish over the last two centuries or so, as far as I'm concerned, this is no pay-back time.
Regards,
Steve.
As I've read in the thread on Bush's Christian Fundamentalism, I appreciate that you are able to form well-informed and cogent arguments on issues your side of the pond - and they will probably affect us all at some point.
If you happen to be a British citizen who has (recently) emigrated to the US then I suggest you have lost sight somewhat to some of the issues pertaining to those who still live in the British Isles.
As for our history of screwing over Scots and Irish over the last two centuries or so, as far as I'm concerned, this is no pay-back time.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
when the perpetrator is a half-wit, it's beneath contempt.
With respect, you still need to cut the vitriol and consider the (my) issues in turn, however ill-informed or just plain wrong you consider them to be.
I consider Bush to be but a quarter-wit (in agreement with your good self) but if I were ever to be exchanging viewpoints with him I'd stick to challenging the shaky foundations and the dubious point-of-departure for his somewhat global stability-threatening foreign policies.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
From your profile you say that your religion is Celtic FC.
This explains all!
In England we unfortunately have football hooliganism.
In Scotland we unfortunately have football religious sectarianism.
Your profile speaks volumes!
Regards,
Steve.
This explains all!
In England we unfortunately have football hooliganism.
In Scotland we unfortunately have football religious sectarianism.
Your profile speaks volumes!
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Bhoyo
Steve:
We are unlikely ever to agree on much, but your unflappable response is impressive. No more vitriol from me.
Regards,
Davie
We are unlikely ever to agree on much, but your unflappable response is impressive. No more vitriol from me.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 21 October 2004 by Steve Toy
Thanks & respect!
Regards,
Steve.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 22 October 2004 by jayd
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
In England we unfortunately have football hooliganism.
In Scotland we unfortunately have football religious sectarianism.
Hereabouts we unfortunately have religious sectarian hooliganism. Much harder to keep score of. Not much fun.
Posted on: 26 October 2004 by bhazen
Nice bit of trolling Fritz!