Is it me?

Have a read of this, if you’ve not read it already, and then explain to me:

Are they really proposing the make a law that says you can do this sometimes as long as you don’t do it too often?

I mean, really, what kind of insanity is that? And how often is too often? Twice a week? Twice a month? Twice a year?

Really, is it so difficult to decide what’s illegal, and enforce it? We already have offences relating to antisocial behaviour when drunk – ancient ones. Drunk and disorderly, drunk in charge, whatever happened to those? Don’t they work on teenagers?

In any case, “persistently possessing alcohol in public” – even if you don’t drink it – is a ridiculous pseudo-crime, and that way madness lies. If madness isn’t what we’ve already stumbled into. Tsk.

2 thoughts on “Is it me?

  1. and people wonder why I think alcohol is generally a bad idea, it is generally unmanageable. Those who drink in moderation (whoever they are) aren’t willing to curtail their rights but want the rights of others to be drunk, give it to their kids etc to be curtailed. NIMBY

  2. I agree it is hard to follow! It is possible that the BBC has mis-reported what is actually happening! or that the Government has indulged in some wooley thinking. In order to be a workable law the MP’s or the Judges have to clarify what constitutes as “too much” or “persistent” Usually this is done by someone challenging the law and a High Court Judge or a Law Lord makes a clarifying decision which effectively is added to the original law, so that everyone is clearer. It isn’t particularly unusual for Parliament to put a law on the statute book which has to be subsequently “tested” or clarified in a Court of Law, before it can be used in practice. I don’t know whether it is me, but it does seem to be happening more often of late.

Comments are closed.