« British Bean Counters Divert Police from Serious Crimes | Main | More Shrillary Staged Question Revelations »

"People often reject the idea of a nanny state but the Government has a duty to look after the health of everyone and sometimes that means guiding or restricting our choices."

We can safely assume that the estimable Lord Krebs doesn't include himself in "our".

The ban on 24 hour drinking is not so much an evil government intrusion into peoples lives as it is a very large portion of citizens not able to exercise their own self control in how much they drink.

I lived in England and Scotland for half my adult life.

And binge drinking and the resulting violence is an epidemic in the U.K. You might try spending a weekend in downtown liverpool sometime and then you would get some very good insight into this problem.

So in this instance it is not the nanny state intruding on peoples lives, It is actually the citizens who refuse to exercise any self control and hence are forcing the state to intrude into everyones lives even those who exercise some self restraint.

Ah yes, the evil citizenry are too irresponsible to live their lives. The elite have no choice but to intrude, O woe!

Going out and getting rat-arsed is part of british culture, like it or not. There are descriptions of said culture that extend back for centuries. That doesn't give the State the right to intrude. If people commit crimes while under the influence, fine. Arrest them, lock them up, punish them, whatever. But to prevent the *potential* for criminality is to give the state infinite power.

Alcohol is an intoxicating drug. If people take it, they may get intoxicated and act like twats. That's the way of things. Going out and tying one on is, for many young people, the only real release they have from humdrum, dismal lives. Living for the weekend and all that.

Simply put, the state has no right to decide what level of "restraint" or self control people should exercise upon themselves. It may punish them if they harm others. But to punish the law abiding majority to prevent potential harm by a minority is fascism.

I may also add that one of the primary exacerbators of "binge drinking"** has been... the licensing laws. The artifical restraint on pub opening hours (introduced in World War I to make the munitions workers more "productive") led to a culture of necking as much beer as possible before 11pm. I used to do that when I was a young man. As the hour approacheth, the drinking speeds up. That's a direct result of nanny statism. It's going to take decades for that mindset to gradually fade away.

"24 hour drinking" is an absurd term. imagine talking about "24 hour eating" or "24 hour driving". It simply means people may choose to drink when they feel like it, rather than when a commissar tells them they can.

This attitude is very much an evil government intrusion into peoples lives. How dare these prim, miserable elitists, cossetted in their insider fantasy world tell the rest of us when we can have a beer? If you support them, John, you support totalitarianism. That is evil. People have a right to freedom; it is the only right there is (all others derive from it). If you want to take freedom from others, you're an asshat. And that's a far more polite word than the one I should have used.

--
**And let's be clear here, the term has recently been redefined by the health nazis from its old meaning, which was drinking for a couple of days and waking up on a beach with your clothes missing, to drinking any more than they say you should. I went and had about 6 pints last week (I drink rarely, btw) and by modern puritanical definitions that was a "binge".

they drink in england because life in the 3rd world is poopy.

now that said when will people in the UK finally rise up and other throw this monarchy?

"furballz at November 13, 2007 12:14 PM"

Huh, maybe they should throw off the neo-SOCALIST governemnt they have let gain power and bring back the monarchy?