Artie Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 15 minutes ago, Left Back said: What rights are still eroded from the pandemic response? Off the top of my head I can only think of drinking on trains. You mentioned still eroded from the pandemic response, I didn't. Drinking on trains couldn't really be described as a right? Unless you are one of these people that argue the toss with rail staff about it because they can't go a full hour without alcohol passing their lips. Maybe they should ban alcohol in Parliament, some of these decisions and that behaviour from our politicians jeeezz.? Explains a lot. Doubt there was ever a ban on alcohol there during the pandemic. I'm right in a ranty f**king mood today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 4 minutes ago, Artie said: You mentioned still eroded from the pandemic response, I didn't. Drinking on trains couldn't really be described as a right? Unless you are one of these people that argue the toss with rail staff about it because they can't go a full hour without alcohol passing their lips. Maybe they should ban alcohol in Parliament, some of these decisions and that behaviour from our politicians jeeezz.? Explains a lot. Doubt there was ever a ban on alcohol there during the pandemic. I'm right in a ranty f**king mood today Rights were eroded during the pandemic response. You can argue whether it was too much or too little but it was for a specific purpose and has proven to be time bound mostly. Drinking on trains was something I could legally do before the pandemic. It was taken away during the pandemic and hasn't been restored so yes, I'd class that as an erosion of rights. The pandemic was used as an reason (rightly or wrongly) to deny something to people on the whims of politicians that didn't agree with it and has been spun into something else and not restored when that reason no longer existed.. Your "full hour" comment has been shown to be moronic on this forum many times before so I won't bother explaining why. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 7 minutes ago, Left Back said: Rights were eroded during the pandemic response. You can argue whether it was too much or too little but it was for a specific purpose and has proven to be time bound mostly. Drinking on trains was something I could legally do before the pandemic. It was taken away during the pandemic and hasn't been restored so yes, I'd class that as an erosion of rights. The pandemic was used as an reason (rightly or wrongly) to deny something to people on the whims of politicians that didn't agree with it and has been spun into something else and not restored when that reason no longer existed.. Your "full hour" comment has been shown to be moronic on this forum many times before so I won't bother explaining why. Good post, we'll agree to disagree. who else posted the full hour comment, just out of interest? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 3 hours ago, Artie said: Good post, we'll agree to disagree. who else posted the full hour comment, just out of interest? It's been brought up regularly when discussing drinking on trains or at football and someone always plays the "if you can't go x amount of time without a drink you've got a problem" card as justification for why it shouldn't be allowed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 13 minutes ago, Left Back said: It's been brought up regularly when discussing drinking on trains or at football and someone always plays the "if you can't go x amount of time without a drink you've got a problem" card as justification for why it shouldn't be allowed. I don't remember a time when we were allowed to drink at a football match? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Artie said: I don't remember a time when we were allowed to drink at a football match? Banned after the riot at a cup final. 1980 (I think) so most people won't. Gets brought up and discussed allowing it again occasionally. Was certainly discussed when Hampden was hosting games at the last Euros. Can't remember the exact details but possibly the only venue in use where you couldn't have an alcoholic drink at all. In England you can as long as you aren't in view of the pitch. ETA https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/humza-yousaf-addresses-scottish-football-27031697 Edited January 21 by Left Back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 1 minute ago, Left Back said: Banned after the riot at a cup final. 1980 (I think) so most people won't. Gets brought up and discussed allowing it again occasionally. Was certainly discussed when Hampden was hosting games at the last Euros. Can't remember the exact details but possibly the only venue in use where you couldn't have an alcoholic drink at all. In England you can as long as you aren't in view of the pitch. I believe something like this was discussed a few years ago on this forum in Scotland you have access inside a ground to a supporters bar to buy a pint at half-time and you can drink alcohol as long as you stay in the bar. Not including hospitality. I've been in hospitality a few times and a few of us were told not to drink in front of the window watching the game and not put our drinks on the window sill. I think it was a few big games in the mid-late 70's pitch invasions were blamed on alcohol rather than the people who couldn't help themselves. Scotland v England and an OF cup final springs to mind. Back then everyone drank like a sink plug hole and smoked like a chimney. We still get odd pitch invasion but generally most of us are a little on the large size these days so tend to get stuck on the boundary climbing over so easy pickings for the stewards or police. Sad sight when Boi's had one too many pizza and falls over the boundary and can't get up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salt n Vinegar Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 13 minutes ago, Left Back said: Banned after the riot at a cup final. 1980 (I think) so most people won't. Gets brought up and discussed allowing it again occasionally. Was certainly discussed when Hampden was hosting games at the last Euros. Can't remember the exact details but possibly the only venue in use where you couldn't have an alcoholic drink at all. In England you can as long as you aren't in view of the pitch. ETA https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/humza-yousaf-addresses-scottish-football-27031697 I can remember taking a couple of cans to Hampden for games in the 70's. In those days they weren't made out of aluminium and I could drink them then stand on them to get a better view! On the drinking on trains issue, although I accept that it was removed at the time of the pandemic, on the whole I'm not particularly bothered. I used to be a pretty frequent traveller on evening trains between Glasgow and Inverness or Aberdeen. It wasn't unusual to be near absolute arseholes who treated a few hours on the train like a night out in the pub, sometimes leading to arguments and even fights and it certainly wasn't pleasant for other passengers. On my occasional long distance trips now, I'm glad it's a no-no. Apart from that if the companies don't want their customers to drink on trains I think it's fair enough for them to decide that. Their staff have to deal with the passengers and the resulting mess. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 5 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said: I can remember taking a couple of cans to Hampden for games in the 70's. In those days they weren't made out of aluminium and I could drink them then stand on them to get a better view! On the drinking on trains issue, although I accept that it was removed at the time of the pandemic, on the whole I'm not particularly bothered. I used to be a pretty frequent traveller on evening trains between Glasgow and Inverness or Aberdeen. It wasn't unusual to be near absolute arseholes who treated a few hours on the train like a night out in the pub, sometimes leading to arguments and even fights and it certainly wasn't pleasant for other passengers. On my occasional long distance trips now, I'm glad it's a no-no. Apart from that if the companies don't want their customers to drink on trains I think it's fair enough for them to decide that. Their staff have to deal with the passengers and the resulting mess. If companies don’t want alcohol on their premises that’s their prerogative. It’s not companies that decided this though. It’s the government. Toys went everywhere from SG when LNER said “we’re an English company, we’ll follow English laws”. That being said I genuinely have no idea what Scotrail’s stance was before being taken back under government control. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 It is legal to drink on trains. You can do so on non Scotrail services. LNER even have bars on some of their trains. Its only Scotrail who don't allow alcohol on their trains, although this is widely ignored anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leith Green Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 This is the Culture Secretary.........thick and inept. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Leith Green said: This is the Culture Secretary.........thick and inept. Nadine Dorries v. 2.0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Leith Green said: This is the Culture Secretary.........thick and inept. That’s only your perception. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 18 hours ago, Left Back said: If companies don’t want alcohol on their premises that’s their prerogative. It’s not companies that decided this though. It’s the government. Toys went everywhere from SG when LNER said “we’re an English company, we’ll follow English laws”. That being said I genuinely have no idea what Scotrail’s stance was before being taken back under government control. I'm a frequent train user and pre pandemic Scotrail regularly ran trains that were dry. Especially on football days. The SG made the decision during the pandemic with Scotrail's full backing. I'm glad it's banned as pissheads on trains are a total pain in the arse. Also the idea that the set up in England for football fans is some kind of freedom utopia is for the birds. Rubbish overpriced watery pisswater in plastic bottles and plastic glasses on sale in the concourse at half time that you can't take to your seat results in a pretty limited uptake. What you can do is go to one of the club's fan areas in the stadium beforehand and get much better quality booze. But then you can do that at Hibs for example as well. Edited January 22 by AndyM 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyellowbox Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) 2 hours ago, Leith Green said: This is the Culture Secretary.........thick and inept. Clearly been told to go out and bash the BBC, but has absolutely no idea why and no real evidence. All they have left in the playbook now is a phony culture war and will stick to it until the bitter end. Journalist should keep the receipts and when out of office, essentially ignore these no marks when they come crawling looking for exposure. Edited January 22 by Theyellowbox 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said: Clearly been told to go out and bash the BBC, but has absolutely no idea why and no real evidence. All they have left in the playbook now is a phony culture war and will stick to it until the bitter end. Journalist should keep the receipts and when out of office, essentially ignore these no marks when they come crawling looking for exposure. I think they’ve expected Sky and Kay Burley to be right alongside them for a bit of beeb bashing. It’ll probably play well on GB “news”. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagar Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Florentine_Pogen said: Nadine Dorries v. 2.0 Of course the BbC is biased. Always has been. Should be privatised ASAP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 13 minutes ago, Highlandmagar said: Of course the BbC is biased. Always has been. Should be privatised ASAP. Aye, but no doubt you can think of reasons to back up your view. Or at least, if you knew you were about to go on Telly to say that you'd probably take at least a minute or two to find some research or an example or two of said bias. I'm not sure privatisation cures bias, but BBC bias or not wasn't really the point: clueless ineptitude was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theyellowbox Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 14 minutes ago, Highlandmagar said: Of course the BbC is biased. Always has been. Should be privatised ASAP. On the presumption you are being sarcastic, that these nut jobs genuinely believe the massively regulated and hugely transparent BBC are somehow biased against them, shows how far from reality they have become. I'm sure all of could point to something in the BBC that irks us or seems a little too right or left, but institutionally it is certainly not biased. It's more the case that these people do not like being called out or just hearing the truth. Social media has allowed folk to live in a world of mainly people with the same views and anything that is different to that must therefore be wrong and biased. For a general member of the public to believe that is bad enough, but a sucession of sitting ministers is nothing short of terrifying. They should (and do) know better and it all plays to the lowest common denominator. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackislekillie Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 hours ago, coprolite said: That’s only your perception. I think there's enough evidence to support his statement. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.