I see that Neil is up to his usual totalitarian fuckwittery.
I don’t think the drinking age of 18 for pubs should be affected, I just think think the age for buying at off-licences should be raised to 21.
What a pile of arse. Neil argues that this is reasonable later on in the comments when taken to task quite reasonably by Urko:
I find it despicable that you can advocate so many restrictions on ordinary law abiding people (the majority – as you seem to have forgotten) in so many areas simply because a few people can’t behave and no-one seems interested in enforcing the perfectly adequate laws we already have.
Quite right – Urko takes the words from my mouth (although he is more polite than I have been of late). The response to this charge?
Raising the drinking age would be part of this strategy along with increasing taxes on booze and banning advertising.
Nobody (least of all me) wants to put unnecessary restrictions on people. To have real freedom you sometimes have to restrict some of the more anti-social activities. There is always a balance to be found – it is not a simplistic ‘individual good, government bad’ strategy that you alway seem to follow.
The usual bollocks then. Everything (apart from legalising drugs – where, incidentally, I agree with him) that Neil proposes seems to involve some form of restriction on individual liberty. Freedom is what the government grants us according to Neil’s doctrine. Dictionaries and Neil are but passing acquaintances.
As an 18 year old, I didn’t much like pubs. I still don’t. I haven’t set foot inside one for years – decades, possibly. I certainly cannot recall when I was last in one. So, if as an 18 year old, I wanted to buy a couple of bottles of wine at the local offy and consume them with a few friends at home in front of the television, in Neil’s totalitarian world, I would be banned from doing so; because as a member of the law-abiding majority, I would be punished for the behaviour of the minority. It takes an incredible level of misanthropy to follow that line of thinking – I refrain from using the term reasoning because, quite frankly, it is not reasonable.
Look dear reader and take note. This is the mindset of New Labour. Be afraid, very afraid and remember how they treat us with contempt next time you are looking at a ballot paper.
Thank goodness for Neil – a ready supply of inanities to blog on.
He also serves a useful purpose in letting people see for themselves the thoroughly nasty, authoritarian nature of New Labour. Bring it on, I say.
I suppose you have no problem with 17 year olds being prevented from drinking at home? Wherever we draw the line is of course arbitrary, but if it reduces crime amongst 18-21 year olds it can be justified.
If parents wish to introduce their offspring to the concept of responsible drinking before they reach the age of majority – as my parents did – this is a good thing.
This is an assertion, nothing more. Penalising the innocent and law abiding majority for the behaviour of a minority is not justified (except in the control freak’s warped mentality). The evidence, if you speak to those who have to deal with the rowdiness in town centres, is among people going from pubs and clubs; not off-licenses or at home, contrary to your absurd assertion. Still, don’t let such things as evidence and facts get in the way of a little bit of bansturbation, eh?