Blog powered by Typepad

« Size doesn't matter - honestly! | Main | "Modern, compassionate conservatism": What it means: »

Saturday, 03 December 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Which of those two verbs do you mean, Rem?

Good heavens - I agree (mostly).

Of course, you have to remember that this is's not binge drinking, it's commerce. Imagine the economic damage your proposals could cause!

Wow, I also mostly agree. However, NIB is right: it's the drinks trade which is to blame. I remember reading somewhere recently (maybe in the Economist) that the British like to drink lots, in load places, standing up. As far as I'm concerned, that's rubbish. I like to drink lots, sitting down, in a place I can hear my friends speak. However, your average city-centre "pub" does not allow such things: getting people to stand up and shout means they drink more, which means more money...

Sluts.

I sometimes wonder why I bother casting my pearls before you swine! With but a single whine both N.I.B. and 'Doormat' join together and blame it all on the 'drinks industry', thus, completely ignoring my sermon clearly spelt out above to the effect that "a man [is] always, irrespective of circumstances, responsible for his own action". God, I need a drink....

At least James gets half of Polonius's prescription right.

Dumb sluts.

Well on the one hand Peter Hitchens is the biggest c*nt in the country, but on the other hand "slattern" is a much underused word. So all in all, I agree with Oscar.

I say, steady on, James, old chap, that's two words which is at least 50% more than you're up to.

Larry, you remind me of the ladies who performed at the old Windmill Theatre ("We never close!") who displayed their tits but never moved. (A wobbling breast considered to be, in those days of yesteryear, an inflammatory object.) Hence your delightful and modest '* ' in the middle of the word cunt. I thank you for your attempt at modesty but would remind you that we are all grown-ups over here (I'm not absolutely sure about James - we shall see!), including my regular ladies (if you'll excuse the expression), and none of us is likely to faint at the word. On the other hand, I think a very bright fellow like you could come up with an alternative even ruder but more effective for being *reached* for, so to speak. And putting an asterisk in, is just, well, er, fucking stupid!

And, please, please, give me the 'Oscar' quote.

Erm, I wasn't saying that David. I was saying people *want* to get pissed on booze of an evening and the best way of doing that is buying the damn stuff.

Sorry if that doesn't fit the shape of the straw man you had in your head.

David, I was trying to make the point that not all drinking is equal. For example, your little racist scree aside (which I do note you blamed on the demon drink) I take it you wouldn't count yourself as a drunken lout, as described above? But you like to over-indulge, no? I *do* think that the speed with which some pubs/clubs encourage people to drink at, and the frankly stressful environment they engender, does lead to more loutish behaviour than a traditional boozer would.

Also, you say:

...after issuing a warning, rescind the licence for a weekend, or a week, or a month. Within a very short time, drunkenness on out streets would be a rarity.

Which would seem to be indicating that the licenced pub/club is at least partly to blame? If it's all the personal responsibility of the drinker, then why punish the licence holder? I believe that NIB's point was that the above *doesn't* happen mainly because pubs/clubs would stand to loose a lot of money, and we can't be having that now, can we?

It's a bit rum that David wrote a whole paragraph whining about how the Government is in the pocket of the drinks industry, but *I* get castigated for suggesting that money might have *something* to do with why pubs aren't shut down at the drop of a hat.

Anyway, in the spirit of this thread, I've decided that Typepad should be forced to close down for a few days every time someone contradicts their own argument, because it's the individual responsibilty of each poster to check what they've written. Soon, contradictions would be a thing of the past (as would Typepad).

Speaking of your "regular ladies", David, I notice that they appear to be awful quiet these days. Seems that whenever you write some pompous puff-piece about some play or other your ladies come a-swarmin', but when you expose yourself as a racist, or launch into unpleasant attacks on "sow-like" women with "bare, multiple bellies" and "sausage-like thighs", your female fans beat a hasty retreat.

I wonder why that is?

'Doormat', you wrote, "NIB is right: it's the drinks trade which is to blame". Perhaps you didn't mean it. Perhaps you'd had a drink forced on you by your local publican. I don't know, but I can only respond to what you (and N.I.B.) write.

On the wider question, your local publican can offer you 2-for-1 drinks, cheap hours, discount prices, and whatever, but it is *you* who is responsible for taking the offers up.

N.I.B., we do not have an argument - for once! Yes, the drinks industry is 'in bed' with the government and is thus not policed in the way that it should be. However none of that detracts from each drunk being responsible for his or her own actions. If it were otherwise you would be free to rape the next drunken, half-dressed 'totty' that falls out of a pub, and plead mitigation because you felt something was on offer.

Dan - I have never met my 'regular ladies' but I just know, and don't ask me how, that they do not fit the description I used above, not least because they are indeed 'ladies'. And as for "pompous puff-piece", how dare you, sir? Surely you mean acute, insightful, revealing, witty, and, er, and ... oh bugger! Where's my Thesaurus?

...so why should pubs and clubs, that are not forcing anyone to misbehave, be shut down because of an individual's misbehaviour? What next, we should shut down restaurants because some people rape their dinner dates?

I just get the feeling you haven't really thought this solution through properly, or that you have but you've forgotten to write down some crucial step.

No, I meant "pompous puff-piece".

I wasn't suggesting that your female commenters are sausage-thighed sows. Indeed, I wasn't even speculating as to their physical attributes one way or the other - I'll leave it up to you to base your opinions of women on their appearance, David.

I was just wondering if maybe they find your creepy mysogyny a little distasteful, that's all.

If any of David's "regular ladies" are around, I'd be interested to know what you think about this.

For instance, it's interesting how David's post focuses on the women that he finds so aesthetically repulsive, whereas anyone who has actually been on the streets in the middle of such scenes (as opposed to having witnessed them via television) will tell you that it's the drunken males who are far and away the bigger problem. Matter of fact, they are the ones doing the actual raping.

But instead it's oh, what are we to do about these vile, drunken "sows"?

You claim that Peter Hitchens has changed your mind, but this whole post has the stink of your original viewpoint.

'N.I.B.' - because, as you know perfectly well, pubs and clubs are *licensed* on the basis that they do *not* permit customers to become inebriated on their premises. That is their legal obligation, which, obviously, is never enforced these days with the calamitous outcome to be witnessed in every High Street in the land on any Friday or Saturday night. Both parties, publicans and drinkers, have obligations and responsibilities of a different kind.

Always happy to fill in the gaps in your own thinking, 'N.I.B.', but if I have forgotten something it was probably due to the drink!

Sorry, Dan, our comments crossed 'in the post'.

"[C]reepy mysogyny"! I'll have you know that I'm very fond of the little'Memsahib'. I talk to her several times during a month and I've always found her very obliging and helpful, although I admit that sometimes she chooses the most irritating times to hoover and dust and iron my shirts. Still, you can't have everything, can you?

As for my post, the subject which provoked it was controversy over whether or not men could plead mitigation in a rape case in which the woman was drunk, half-dressed and behaving like a slut. Consequently, and not unreasonably, I concentrated on the women. However, that should definitely not be taken as a licence for men to reduce out town centres to an imitation of Dodge City on a Saturday night. And nor did I imply such a thing.

Oh, and by the way, I take responsibility for *everything* I write on this or any other blog!

Ah, so it *is* the fault of the drinks industry for allowing people to get drunk on their premises?

But on the other hand, it *is not* the drink industry's fault because it is the individual's responsibility to behave properly...

Can't you just admit that you don't have 'the solution' on this matter?

'N.I.B.', for positively the last time. "BOTH PARTIES, publicans and drinkers, have OBLIGATIONS and RESPONSIBILITIES of a DIFFERENT KIND." [Emphasis added, mainly for the benefit of some-one who has, presumably, 'lunched not wisely but too well'!] That's "different" as in, of a dis-similar type or category.

Almost there, David.

Now you've admitted that both sides of the transaction have a responsibility to behave properly, can you explain how your 'simple solution' of restricting one side of the transaction is going to help?

(For extra marks, please try and answer without using snide remarks)

'N.I.B.', if you really do not like my "snide remarks" then stop being deliberately obtuse. I made clear my wish that publicans should have their legal responsibilities enforced under the licencing procedures, and, as far as the women (and men) were concerned, I indicated what a pity it was that "throwing these slatterns into jail" was no longer a practice. Now, in all honesty, can anything be clearer, or more even-handed, than that?

I apologise for reading what you wrote, which was:

"All they have to do is film the drunks falling out of the bar or club concerned and take the result to the local licensing authority who should (but never do!), after issuing a warning, rescind the licence for a weekend, or a week, or a month. Within a very short time, drunkenness on out streets would be a rarity."

I read that as "All they have to do is...", not "All they have to do, in addition to throwing people who misbehave in jail, is..."

Okay, my mistake - it looks like I (along with just about everyone else who ever dares to query your wisdom) have once again fallen into the trap of reading what you actually wrote, rather than what you thought you wrote.

Please don't apologise, 'N.I.B.', but it would be helpful if in future you could read it *all* not just the extracts that you think will trip me up. Don't misunderstand, I am as likely to make mistakes as anyone, more so, perhaps, but this isn't one of them. There are *two* seperate paragraphs dealing with two seperate facets of the same problem, the licensees, and their customers. Now, it's time for our cocoa and I have an early start tomorrow and I won't be back until Friday evening. In the meantime, feel free to pick as many nits as you can find dancing on the head of a pin but don't expect an instant response.

I have read it *all*, from top to bottom, left to right - the normal way. I'm not so sure you have though, which is worrying given it was you who decided it was worth posting.

As I read it - wrongly, I'm sure - one paragraph suggests a solution to the rather specific problem that is drunken women getting raped (lock 'em up for their own good). The other paragraph contains your suggested simply-can't-fail *cure* to the problem of all street drunkenness (shut 'em down). That's two completely different ideas. Which is why you put them in separate paragraphs, rather than in the same sentence, isn't it?

But, you're obviously oh-so-bored of this post now, so here's a new question:

Do you ever sit back and wonder why so, so, *so* many people keep getting the wrong end of the stick when they read your stuff? Have you ever noticed how so many other bloggers manage to have discussions with people they don't agree with, without *ever* having to bring anyone's comprehension skills into question?

May I suggest that if you're trying to convince people that your opinion is worth listening to (rather than have them thinking you're just a very poor wind-up merchant who'll say any old nonsense just to get a reaction) it would really help if you checked to see that the completed posts actually mean what you meant them to when you started writing. It would also save these comments threads constantly going round and round in circles as you patch over the mistakes and omissions in the original posts.

Still, it's a hobby, right? We are all entitled to indulge in something we're not very good at. So perhaps I'm being a bit harsh.

The comments to this entry are closed.