A tough new approach to tackling drunken yobs involving twice-a-day alcohol breathalyser testing could be rolled out across London.
Deputy mayor for policing, Kit Malthouse, said subjecting repeat offenders to testing, and locking them up for 24 hours if they failed, would also save money.
Look, really, I don't like struggling through vomit-drenched streets any more than the next guy, but isn't this taking things just a little bit too far? I mean, really, for fuck's sake, this is just trying it on, surely?
Notice that this is the deputy mayor of Tory London trying this shit on. Exactly the kind of daft idea that we'd associated with Labour at the very peak of their cuntishness, once again proving that there is no fucking difference between Labour and Conservative when it comes to making our lives miserable, nor is there any fucking difference between the two when it comes to telling us how to live our fucking lives (Kingbingo!)
BoJo has already banned drinking in the tube, now they're cracking down on drinking overall. And of course, if, somehow, BoJo can claim success for this horrendous policy, you just know it will be followed up.
It's just another example of fucking politicians knowing better than the miserable proles and going way past their election manifesto to fuck up our lives.
Kit Malthouse: Le Hoon de Jour.
And cunt.
29 comments:
You know what fucks me off about this? There are already about 5000 existing laws to deal with this behaviour. But because the words "personal responsibility" are as utterly alien to this shower of fuckwits as the last lot, we have to behave like it's alcohol vomming in the street, kicking people's heads in and smashing windows. It's not alcohol fucksticks, it's fucking people and there are laws to deal with these offences.
You wait til the first time one of these guys gets breathalysed, is over the limit but is released anyway 'cos the cells are full, then goes on to smash up a shop or kick someone's head in. His lawyer will claim the police were negligent and not only will the scrote get off, the victim will sue the polis and the taxpayer will bend over once again for a chunky compensation claim.
This is also a yooman rights violation case just waiting to happen, a very expensive one no doubt.
Also, ever noticed that no matter what happens, lawyers benefit?
"You know what fucks me off about this? There are already about 5000 existing laws to deal with this behaviour."
Well, precisely. But they entail some effort.
Kit Malthouse is a cretin. Pretty much every word that comes out of his mouth lowers your IQ just reading about it...
I agree.
Why bring in a new regulation, when they obviously haven't been enforcing the laws we already have against being drunk and disorderly?
Monty
“there is no fucking difference between Labour and Conservative when it comes to making our lives miserable, nor is there any fucking difference between the two when it comes to telling us how to live our fucking lives (Kingbingo!)”
Just to clarify AGAIN, I do not share the opinions of everyone who happens to be a card carrying Tory, anymore than all anarchist share the same opinion. I’m sure there are a number of people who would welcome anarchy as a chance to own slaves and visit child prostitutes. But I don’t keep asserting over and over again that because anarchist holds this view, all anarchists hold this view, including yourself.
I do not support this bollocks. If someone is drunk fine, if someone is drunk and commits a crime bang them up for that, but not just for being drunk. Just make the penalty for committing crimes really count rather than all this soft justice rubbish.
As I have explained to you on countless occasions I am a Tory because I want to help shift them from the inside towards being more libertarian. That does not mean I have joined some sort of Borg like collective consciousness.
"As I have explained to you on countless occasions I am a Tory because I want to help shift them from the inside towards being more libertarian."
How's that working out for you, then? Because to me, it doesn't look like you're having any effect.
Okay Kingbingo, I admit it. I fancy you.
I want to fuck you up the arse right now.
"How's that working out for you, then? Because to me, it doesn't look like you're having any effect."
One of the advantages of not being you is my patience span is longer than 90 seconds. If I can convince a small handful of the right people over a decade I am quite happy.
And? How *is* that working out for you?
Because based on what I've seen to date, you're pretty fucking useless.
"If I can convince a small handful of the right people over a decade I am quite happy."
It's little things like this that convince me that you're no more libertarian than Gordon Brown.
You want to convince a handful of "the right people" that what they should do is gracefully deign to let the proles have a little more freedom.
That's mighty white of them. And you.
Ever the charmer.
The alternative perhaps is to start advocating an extremist position that is unpalatable and unsellable to the general public. And will ultimately alienate them. This is obnoxio route.
Mine is to argue for why greater liberty, less reliance on the state can have provable benefits. It’s about small debates, why freeing schools reform is a good idea. How NHS services could be provided better in the free market. The realist debate.
Your such a blinkered idealist that for you it has to be either total anarchy, the slightest compromise has you screaming blue murder. You don’t want to actually change the real world, you want to rage at a system you loath. Its venting not persuading.
I also appreciate its your website so you can do what the hell you like, but you did ask.
"Mine is to argue for why greater liberty, less reliance on the state can have provable benefits. It’s about small debates, why freeing schools reform is a good idea. How NHS services could be provided better in the free market. The realist debate."
Another way of looking at it is that you're selling Tory policies under the pretence of being libertarian. "Pragmatism" and "realism" are just fig-leaves which you hide behind while endorsing armed robbery because your tribe is doing the robbing right now.
@Kingbingo: Why do you hide behind euphemism if you really believe what you preach?
Do you not "loath" immorality? Do you not rage at evil?
How is a compromise between Raping and not Raping someone, which ends in some rape, not something to get angry about?
I understand that not raping is "extremist" and "unpalatable", but why exactly would that be a convincing reason for Obo to not produce the "unsellable" idea that rape is bad?
It seems more likely it'd be more reason for him to mention to people that evil is evil and stop pretending otherwise by hiding behind euphemism and new speak.
I notice you proide exactly the same arguments time and time again without any change. Doesn't this make you "extremist" and a moral fundementalist... but with evil and pathetic morals?
Perhaps, I would suggest the reader can form their own view based on the strengths of our respective arguments.
I maintain that my approach, while perhaps less ideologically pure than your own, would likely persuade more.
Besides, even if Labour were to collapse and the Limp Dems consumed, I believe it would not be long before the Tories would split between Tory libertarians and Tory authoritarians in short order.
Perhaps decades later if the Tory libertarians became dominant it would again spilt, perhaps Libertarian mid-statists and libertarian mini-statists etc.
Baby steps and all that.
Locking people up without any sort of trial? Hmmmmmm, when was English law abolished in England? These bloody nazis would lock everyone up if they had the means.
“Locking people up without any sort of trial? Hmmmmmm, when was English law abolished in England? These bloody nazis would lock everyone up if they had the means.”
Isn’t that precisely what they are not doing with their mission to reduce prison numbers? (some out of context comment by a deputy fuckwit not withstanding)
Not a position I necessarily support, I favour reducing the number of laws. But not necessarily the same as reducing prison numbers if you actually lock up those that deserve it.
"Besides, even if Labour were to collapse and the Limp Dems consumed, I believe it would not be long before the Tories would split between Tory libertarians and Tory authoritarians in short order."
And pigs might fly.
Why would they split in this way? We already have Tory authoritarians and Tory libertarians. One of the things I was told was that the LPUK should be more "realistic" about was appealing to a broad church. It might even have been you who preached that lesson, I don't remember. This inevitably means making compromises to keep the broad church together.
What makes you think that whoever is in charge next time around won't move heaven and earth to shore up his power base rather than follow some "ideologically pure" path to liberty, sweetness and light?
Politicians are in it because they want their hands on the levers of power, not because they want to "achieve" anything. Unless it's maybe a "legacy". But trust me, there isn't a single MP in the house who really gives a flying fuck about your liberty.
It's perfectly normal to be tribal and dream up all sorts of bullshit reasons to be tribal. But don't try and tell me that you're just being a "realistic libertarian."
“I was told was that the LPUK should be more "realistic" about was appealing to a broad church. It might even have been you who preached that lesson, I don't remember”
I remember far enough back to when you preached that lesson.
“What makes you think that whoever is in charge next time around won't move heaven and earth to shore up his power base rather than follow some "ideologically pure" path to liberty, sweetness and light?”
I don’t. Nor do I feel anything for ideological purity, I simply care about what works, and small states work better than big states at improving wealth, liberty and freedom. While causing less externalities
“Politicians are in it because they want their hands on the levers of power, not because they want to "achieve" anything. Unless it's maybe a "legacy". But trust me, there isn't a single MP in the house who really gives a flying fuck about your liberty.”
I don’t know how many MP’s you know, or have even met, but that is not my experience.
“It's perfectly normal to be tribal and dream up all sorts of bullshit reasons to be tribal. But don't try and tell me that you're just being a "realistic libertarian."”
I want to see the state reduced in size because I think it will be better for everyone that it is. Believe me or don’t believe me, whatever....
"“What makes you think that whoever is in charge next time around won't move heaven and earth to shore up his power base rather than follow some "ideologically pure" path to liberty, sweetness and light?”
I don’t. Nor do I feel anything for ideological purity, I simply care about what works, and small states work better than big states at improving wealth, liberty and freedom. While causing less externalities"
So when you said: "Perhaps decades later if the Tory libertarians became dominant it would again spilt, perhaps Libertarian mid-statists and libertarian mini-statists etc.
Baby steps and all that."
... you were just talking out of your arse?
"I want to see the state reduced in size because I think it will be better for everyone that it is. Believe me or don’t believe me, whatever...."
You may well believe that, but that doesn't make you any kind of libertarian.
“... you were just talking out of your arse?”
You’re just being combative now, you’re capable of better.
“You may well believe that, but that doesn't make you any kind of libertarian.”
And you are the not the arbiter libertarism.
What? You make a statement, then directly confess that it's never going to happen. How is that being combative? I've been sneered at by better than you.
I'm not being an arbiter of libertarianism. But advocating supporting the Napoleonic Tory party, whose leader has explicitly said that he's not libertarian, as a sound method of getting more liberty simply doesn't make you a libertarian.
It's like fighting for peace or fucking for virginity. "Vote social democrat Tory and you'll get a libertarian nirvana" -- it just doesn't work.
You've argued round and round about how much better it is to be on the inside changing things, but outside that cosy coterie it looks no fucking different than it did under Labour. This government is, just like the last government, saying one thing and doing the most authoritarian other thing it can.
You are desperate to defend your tribe as the one true way to libertarianism while your tribe is actually going in the directly opposite direction.
Be a Tory, by all means. But stop trying to tell me how it's the only way to live the libertarian dream.
Two points, firstly he is not my leader, he is just the bloke driving the bus right now, and if it were ever in my gift to replace him with a proper libertarian I would.
Secondly I am perfectly well aware that the Tories are NOT the one true path to libertarianism.
HOWEVER, I think they are the least worst option and the least unlikely way of getting there.
One of the key differences between you and I is that I have a road map to a smaller state. A flawed one, no doubt, but a plan.
All you have is vitriol.
The reason I read you is because you are one of the very best when it comes to critiquing a facet of our system/democracy/state; but what you are not sir is any sort of strategist. (not wanting to be a bit of a cunt, but plenty of IT people I meet are like this) You have no idea how we might actually achieve smaller government.
The reason I love your blog is because you can so powerfully reduce the actions of our current system in a way that both amusing and rich with common sense, that is impossible to dispute without double-think. THAT is inspirational and superb asset for the libertarian cause.
The reason I despair at your latest fling with anarchy is you have not thought it through and it alienates people.
"One of the key differences between you and I is that I have a road map to a smaller state. A flawed one, no doubt, but a plan.
All you have is vitriol."
I have a road map, too. The difference is that it doesn't involve me portraying my tribal loyalties as that road map.
How many years of social democratic policies is it going to take for you to realise that Cameron isn't listening to you, or to Hannan or Carswell?
How many new quangos will it take before you accept that he's not doing anything different from Tony Blair or Gordon Brown?
What will it take for you to admit that voting for the Tories was a complete fucking waste of your time?
What does "ideological pure" mean?
I'm confused, does not being ideological pure mean you are still applying ideology? Ooh, plan! Let's test it!
Ok, Ideology A: Rape Is Bad.
Counter Theory: Rape Is Good.
Ideologically Pure: No Rape.
Not Ideologically Pure: Raping people.
Oh my, it seems that by not being ideologically pure, you still require rape and therefore might as well agree entirely with the opposing doctrine. Nice try Kingbingo, better look next time.
Also, exactly how many people do we need to convine on an untruth to make it true? Because it seems lieing to convince people is a bit mad if you convince them of the wrong thing...
"What will it take for you to admit that voting for the Tories was a complete fucking waste of your time?"
Good question. I shall give that some proper though and return with an answer.
But whatever I come back with its not going to be a question of judging against an idealistic libertarian nirvana, it will be an assessment of them on their own terms as the least worst option.
But a good question that has got me thinking anyway.
You're disingenuous if you think I believe that everything in an anarchist society will be easy and nirvana-like.
But freedom is worth the occasional inconvenience.
"But freedom is worth the occasional inconvenience."
I think if you throw off the state, your going to be landed with something else that looks just like it very fast. But of course I know you just don't believe that.
No, I think you're going to wind up with a lot of structures that resemble state structures, but you're not going to have someone holding a gun to your head every time you do something.
"idealistic libertarian Nirvana"
What does this mean? Shall we test this absurd euphemism.
Ok, the use of a term that describes the quality of the world, suggests a perfect solution is being offered. So, let's look at the two theories and see if you're not lieing again!
Statism : Can Solve Worlds Problems with Violence.
Anarchism : Violence is bad.
Ok, did you notice which one claimed to have a solution to all the worlds problems? The one that thinks Utopia is just one more law away? Yes, it was Statism. Anarchism is simply the lack of a Violent Monopoly, and therefore an infinite number of possible solutions, and not some definable or predictable "Nirvana".
It won't even be idealistic. Anarchists don't believe they can get rid of violence, they simply speak out against this one example of Violence, the state, like they will all others, however much evil comes at them.
Do you actually believe these lies your sprout by the way? Or is your brain just really jumbled?
Post a Comment