Knights & Knaves Alehouse

The Icemaiden wrote:It has been getting progressively worse across the UK and is now at a point where some City centres are "No Go" areas for any right-thinking person on a Friday or Saturday night.

My wife and honeymooned in Scotland, and it is for this very reason that we didn't visit Glasgow. The prospect of drifting into the wrong part of town and being subject to a "Glasgow Grin" was just too intimidating. And the irony of this is that I'm a third generation 'Angeleno' (citizen of Los Angeles) and much of my hometown is considered to be an outright warzone . . . Compton, Watts, East L.A. We even have a comparably horrible form of assault as depicted in American History X: the 'curbie'. I'm fully aware of how inflated a city's reputation can be, and I'm sure that Glasgow isn't nearly as bad as popular opinion would have it.

(I should add that I found your country to be absolutely beautiful, and can't wait for a chance to visit it again).

- Wheggi

AxeMental wrote: It sounds like you have some serious social issues that run deep to be having street fighting at that rate. Perhaps you Brits have your lid on too tight in general. Your problem isn't cheap booze, its a screwed up population segment that for some reason think its OK to let loose if they have an excuse (like being drunk). They've done studies where subjects are given a drink that tastes like alchohole but its actually not. They exhibit all the same behavior they have when they are drunk (including violence).

Maybe, but these are cultural issues aggravated by the increasing availability and relative cheapness of alcohol. Some people have even been known to argue that intrusive American cultural values have helped to create the problem, stressing the priority of the individual over the community (sometimes described as the "me, me, me!" culture). Whilst I don't particularly agree with that, the fact is that things have changed and there appear to be no easy solutions (if there are any at all).

That said, the price of beer has increased rapidly in the last few years, especially in the city, and happy hour may actually be contributing to this, as clubs and pubs have cause to sell alcohol at an inflated price outside of that period, perhaps partly to offset their losses. Indeed, it is possible that the ending of happy hour will bring down the general price of alcohol (by flattening sales), which I would be fine with.

The U.S. government couldn't pass a law like that because of the 21st Amendment. It repealed Prohibition, and basically ceded Congress' Commerce Clause powers to the States in matters with regard to Alcohol.

That said, each State, and the localities therein, have quite a bit more say in the sale of alcohol than other commodities. A number of localities have similar laws to the one proposed in the article by the OP. (Champaign, Illinois, in fact.) A number of "blue laws" left over from Prohibition are still on the books throughout the U.S.

My county, for example, is dry on Sundays. On Sunday, you can't sell alcohol, except in restaurants, and even then only with a special license. My wife's home town was completely dry until just last year. Another town in her home county remains dry. States like Utah and South Carolina have some odd laws about who can buy booze and how. College towns, in particular, tend to have some pretty draconian and sometimes outright strange liquor laws.

AxeMental wrote:It sounds like you have some serious social issues that run deep (do you still have class levels?) Perhaps you Brits have your lid on too tight in general? Your problem isn't the cheap booze, its a screwed up population segment that for some reason think its OK to let loose with violence if they have an excuse (like being drunk) otherwise you'd see that sort of thing on the same scale in the USA and in other nations across the board.

The "problem" from your point of view, mate, is that here you can punch someone outside the pub and be reasonably confident they aren't going to pull out a Desert Eagle and blow your brains out. Lack of firearms leads to brawling.

AxeMental wrote:Anyhow, P&P, the freedom enjoyed by the lawful citizen should never be lost because of crime.

If this were a civil liberty, I'd be totally on your side, Axe. But it's not, it's a commercial liberty (freedom to vary the price of your product by the hour) in the context of a drug.

Sales of drugs have always been regulated for reasons of public health, and they're regulated everywhere.

AxeMental wrote:It sounds like you have some serious social issues that run deep (do you still have class levels?) Perhaps you Brits have your lid on too tight in general? Your problem isn't the cheap booze, its a screwed up population segment.

The class system went out with the arc...yes you still have some people with titles that are merely heridetary but in the wider scheme of things they mean nothing. Besides anti-social drunken behaviour is across the board. You are just as likely to encounter a violent "poor" drunk as you are a "wealthy" one. Indeed lawyers, teachers, off-duty police officers, Lords, Doctors, Members of Parliament have all joined the list of those arrested and prosecuted for drunken violent behaviour in the streets.

[quote="AxeMental] Isn't that what you objected to with the patriot act (illegal wire tapping to help prevent terrorist activity)? .[/quote]

We didnt disagree with the US having its own "Patriot Act", I think you'll find what we objected to was a foreign country wanting access to carry out these activities on our soil

The Icemaiden wrote: The class system went out with the arc...yes you still have some people with titles that are merely heridetary but in the wider scheme of things they mean nothing.

But words like "Chav", "Yobbo", "Sharon" and so on show that the class system is alive and kicking - it's just moved to a more American style where "White-trash", "redneck" and "trailer-trash" denote low class.

You onl have to read the Daily Mail to see the class system alive and kicking.

The Icemaiden wrote: Besides anti-social drunken behaviour is across the board. You are just as likely to encounter a violent "poor" drunk as you are a "wealthy" one. Indeed lawyers, teachers, off-duty police officers, Lords, Doctors, Members of Parliament have all joined the list of those arrested and prosecuted for drunken violent behaviour in the streets.

That's true, and it's even more true when discussing domestic violence.


[quote="AxeMental] Isn't that what you objected to with the patriot act (illegal wire tapping to help prevent terrorist activity)? .[/quote]

I get what you're saying Axe, though actually if anything, as Matthew pointed out the Happy Hours actually push up prices for those wanting to go for a quiet drink (as opposed to downing 6 pints in 1 hour).

I'm not sure free-market in everything is such a good thing - one of the reasons people drink more is that constant advertising glamorises drinking and various "alco-pops" aimed at kids (they taste like children's sweets but are 5% alcohol).

I mean if you oppose a freemarket for cocaine no-one would call you a socialist! (Cocaine is the most profitable product in the world). Marijuana (pretty much on a level with alcohol in terms of potential harm - actually probably slightly less, is subject to pretty powerful controls).

An given some US States smoking laws you can hardly call the British system over strict by comparison.

Besides, given what I've seen in Rome, binge drinking is as much (if not more) of a problem with American kids as with British ones.

The Icemaiden wrote: We didnt disagree with the US having its own "Patriot Act", I think you'll find what we objected to was a foreign country wanting access to carry out these activities on our soil

As usual our Government tends to copy the worst elements of American legislation - Bush's Patriot Act and Iraq invasion, Clinton's "Three-strikes your out".

Werral wrote:
But words like "Chav", "Yobbo", "Sharon" and so on show that the class system is alive and kicking - it's just moved to a more American style where "White-trash", "redneck" and "trailer-trash" denote low class.

Not phrases used in Scotland, but we do have "Neds" (probably the equivalent of the English "Chav")

It does not automatically denote that the person is from an underprivillaged background indeed you can be wealthy, educated and still be a "Ned" due to your actions.

But I do agree there is distinctions between those that are poor and those that are wealthy, like anywhere, but the "old class system" is long gone. Under that it would've have been near impossible for someone from the "working-class" to go to university, run a business or indeed become very wealthy. If you look at the list of Scotlands wealthies people, they almost all come from humble beginings, hardly any "upper class" there at all.

Werral wrote: You onl have to read the Daily Mail to see the class system alive and kicking.

Not a newspaper that I'd allow in the house....unless I ran out of loo roll

The "class system" differs widely depending upon which country in the UK you visit. For example the social make-up and outlooks in Scotland and England are totally different, some may find it hard to believe due to the size of the UK, but there are four different nations here, all have different customs, social makeups, political outlooks, languages./dialects...

Iceman: "The class system went out with the arc...yes you still have some people with titles that are merely heridetary but in the wider scheme of things they mean nothing. Besides anti-social drunken behaviour is across the board. You are just as likely to encounter a violent "poor" drunk as you are a "wealthy" one."

I didn't mean a litteral class system, but rather a carry over (as is seen in India to some extent). I've had English people visiting the States say they like Americans because they don't judge a person based on their accent or social status. I've also heard this sort of thing from American's who've visited the UK. If accent traps people into unoffical "classes" (and I have no idea if thats the case since I haven't studied it or visted England for any period of time) then your going to get blocks of the population feeling disgruntled and perhaps a since of hopelessness.

The idea in America of the "individual first" isn't a snub at community (its not the me me me you seem to think). Its the idea that a person can become anything they want to (rather then anything the community wants them to be that your parents, your church leaders or the government). Rugged individualism is in many ways the foundation of our country (it is expression of freedom). And it actually creates the social fabric on its own. Those that seek it out are go getters, and usually the most generous and giving people you'll ever meet. Because individuals fight for their individual survival on their own (rather then having it organized or mandated for them by someone else) together they weave a much tougher and resiliant fabric then they otherwise might (not prone to easily being torn). I think this is something we too are loosing (though it still survives in rural America to a large extent). As Myth pointed out alot of what keeps behavior in check is religion. Our country was based on religious freedom but also on a general aknowledgement of God (its on our currency).

The English used to be famous for that sort of individual gumpshen (at least from the American perspective) back in WWII. Somehow I think you've lost your way since then (and I think it has to do with what SKA calls the Nanny State. Reliant on govt. (or your union, etc.) to solve your personal problems...and that results in low self esteem (unless your a very special case like a person suffering from some mental illness etc. ).

AxeMental wrote: I didn't mean a litteral class system, but rather a carry over (as is seen in India to some extent). I've had English people visiting the States say they like Americans because they don't judge a person based on their accent or social status. I've also heard this sort of thing from American's who've visited the UK. If accent traps people into unoffical "classes" (and I have no idea if thats the case since I haven't studied it or visted England for any period of time) then your going to get blocks of the population feeling disgruntled and perhaps a since of hopelessness. ).

I cant really speak for England as I dont live there but its quite hard to "read" someone by accent here in the West of Scotland because the accent is quite "distinct", it has sometimes been described as harsh and lilting at the same time

I hear what you say about an "underclass" feeling trapped but we have easy access to good education for all, our educational recreational facilities (galleries, museums etc) are all free... so I dont think they can blame class divides etc the problem its something deeper rooted within themselves in many cases.

Axemental wrote:The English used to be famous for that sort of individual gumpshen (at least from the American perspective) back in WWII. Somehow I think you've lost your way since then (and I think it has to do with what SKA calls the Nanny State. Reliant on govt. (or your union, etc.) to solve your personal problems...and that results in low self esteem (unless your a very special case like a person suffering from some mental illness etc. ).

Things certainly seem to have went downhill in some areas. Not sure that the "nanny state" came first thought. Unions..they're probably different here from the US ones and actually can be very good in looking out for a workforce's interests and pressing for changes in legislation (ie Health and Safety at Work reforms). Gone are the days when you could be sacked on the spot because a manager didn't like your face, that you were Catholic/Protestant etc...(the latter was very, very common practice in Scotland.) or when you were expected to work with dangerous machinery without protective gaurding equipment.

We digress though...

The problem with drunken violent and anti-social behaviour is something that has affected all the member nations of the UK and is getting worse. As I posted before Glasgow had a crackdown but it cost money in manpower and resourse. The Scots government has not been able to replicate this sort of operation in other cities such as Aberdeen and Edinburgh due to cost.

England has far more cities that Scotland and a far bigger population. It would be impossible to replicate the Glasgow "model" on such a large scale, there just isnt the money or manpower available.

I once heard someone say the main problem seems to be that "Brits" dont drink to be sociable and happen to end up drinking too much....they go out soley for the purpose of getting "blootered", something thats easy to do if there is a one or two hour window when cheap spirits are being sold (three-for-one in some cases)

Unions are great when there is legit problems. But once those legit problems are taken care of they don't just go away, and dues are still collected (to collect for strikes and pay union bosses and expenses etc.). Thus the "system" must justify its existance (driving up the cost of labor to unrealistic non-market rates) and causing disharmany between the owner/managment (who may be completely concerned with safety and conditions) and the workers. For example in the USA the non-union car manufacturing workers (for the most part in the South) are very happy with their jobs, while the union workers are constantly feeling scornful toward their employers despite being grossly overpayed (mostly due to the union bossses and leadership stirring crap up). Laws are now in the books preventing some industries from hiring non-union workers (a disaster for many industries, incl. the American auto industry). Yes, back to the topic:

One option might be have restrictions only in areas where its a major problem, rather then across the board.

Another thing that works is consentrating resources in one location massively unti its cleaned up then moving to the next. Often times getting your good citizens (churches can help organize) involved personally is helpful in keeping neighborhoods clean once under control (kind of the Iraq model if you will).

Werral wrote:

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Well, binge drinking *is* a significant problem here. Much more so than in the United States--perhaps because the US has a history of prohibition and of a generally condemnatory attitude to drunkenness, whereas culturally we tend to tolerate or even glorify it.

Having spent years walking past drunk American students puking their guts out outside Rome's "Irish" pubs I wouldn't be so sure of that. I'd say the American drinking culture is quite similar to the British one.

Of course that may have something to do with the fact that in America you have to be 21 and in Europe only 18 (actually 16 in Italy).

Living in a city that attracts many tourists from around the world, I see people do things that they would never dream of doing "back home." In New Orleans, especially in and near the French Quarter, public drunkenness is very much tolerated, and bartenders rarely cutoff the obviously shit-faced. A person usually has to assault someone before the cops take action. This is especially true during the two weeks leading up to Fat Tuesday. When the time comes, however, the cops in the Quarter are very quick to take action. They patrol on foot, horse, moped and cruiser. I must admit, I'm often amused when tourists get busted for drunk and disorderly, because I know how far out the box you have to be to actually get picked up. You just know then, that it's someone that has no idea how to be publicly drunk. College kids are the worst, the ones who can't handle it are usually from small mid-west towns and they apparently must have 20 years of repression just busting to come out all at once. They don't have the experience seeing public drunkenness, because it's not tolerated where they come from. When you grow up around it, you get a sense of what's it's like, and what you're own personal limit is.

If you want a clue what it's like, then the TV show Cops sometimes has a Mardi Gras special. They don't call us the The Big Easy for nothing, and I don't think you can judge the rest of the country by us.

I grew up in the more civilized age when you still only had to be 18, and your parents could give you what they though appropriate in their own home at age 16. I think raising the drinking age to 21 was a mistake, and apparently, I'm not alone. Some universities would like states to lower the drinking age back to 18. When university presidents are asking states to relax the drinking age, I think that it should at least be considered.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

AxeMental wrote:It sounds like you have some serious social issues that run deep (do you still have class levels?) Perhaps you Brits have your lid on too tight in general? Your problem isn't the cheap booze, its a screwed up population segment that for some reason think its OK to let loose with violence if they have an excuse (like being drunk) otherwise you'd see that sort of thing on the same scale in the USA and in other nations across the board.

The "problem" from your point of view, mate, is that here you can punch someone outside the pub and be reasonably confident they aren't going to pull out a Desert Eagle and blow your brains out. Lack of firearms leads to brawling.

AxeMental wrote:Anyhow, P&P, the freedom enjoyed by the lawful citizen should never be lost because of crime.

If this were a civil liberty, I'd be totally on your side, Axe. But it's not, it's a commercial liberty (freedom to vary the price of your product by the hour) in the context of a drug.

Sales of drugs have always been regulated for reasons of public health, and they're regulated everywhere.

I'm all for regulation (legal limits driving, outlawing disorderly conduct etc.), what I don't like is blanket laws that hamper those not breaking the law for the few that are (though I understand its an epidemic problem in places). Target the areas where its a problem first, that might solve the problem. No reason to cut happy hour in areas that don't have problems that relate to happy hour (and there should be a study even proving that connection. DO criminals really go into nice taverns and drink, that seems far fetched).

Its true that in America criminal behavior is deterred for fear of armed citizens (though not in bars, as its illegal to carry concealed in places that serve alch). Whats great is that criminals just don't want to take the risk (so the crime never occurs). There are several studies that prove this connection. P&P please read this: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html


IceMaiden, I'm a bit confused. You say everyone in the UK (incl. Scotland) has access to public education, thus everyone should conceivably be able to move up the social ladder, yet you also state that its difficult (and sometimes impossible) for an Englishman (say a Londoner) to understand some Scotish accents. To me, that puts the Scott at a huge disadvantage employment-wise; if a Scot wants to become a powerhouse attorney or a cutting edge surgeon in London forget it. There limited to poor little Scotland (if they can even find a job). Thats the same sort of thing we have going on here, with Spanish Speaking persons (for instance South Florida or South Texas) in the USA trying to attend a good University Grad program unable to speak English fluently. Language is a barrier to careers, and don't think its not meant to be (we fight a class system as well). The UK should teach all their citizens to speak proper English so that a kid in Scotland can speak proper English and have a chance to break out of poverty and do what he wishes with his life.

Axe: Unions are also important for industries where a lot of workers are freelance. I'm on a lot of work related forums and many Americans in my position get their medicare, holiday pay and pensions via their unions for example.

Anything can be abused, but there is nothing inherently bad about unions.

The "Iraq model" hasn't worked in Iraq so what makes you think it might work in Britain?

The accent thing does happen in Britain but doesn't it happen in the US too? I've never been to America, but judging from your films/TV a thick Alabama farmworker accent will get you a lot of stick in Manhatten or Los Angeles for example.

Interestingly this government has put more free-market into Britain than ever before,. Though privatisation was started by Thatcher, Tony Blair continued it with gusto. British Gas, British Telecom, British Rail, The London Tube, The Prison Service, Army firing ranges, elements of the hospital and schooling system have all gone to private or semi-private businesses. Yet it is in this period that social meddling has increased the most.

So we have less State run economy (excepting the recent u-turn on banks), yet more state interference in private lives.

The English used to have "Stiff Upper Lip" a kind of stoicism for which they were often mocked. Becoming a bit more easy going also lost some of the positive aspects of this. For example it's odd that the British in the American media are often depicted as uptight prudes, when it's Americans who won't even say "toilet".

Having said that the cultures that drink the most are often the most stuck up: The US, Britain, South Korea, Japan and Germany are all heavy drinking nations.

Just like A Clockwork Orange?

AxeMental wrote:Its true that in America criminal behavior is deterred for fear of armed citizens (though not in bars, as its illegal to carry concealed in places that serve alch). Whats great is that criminals just don't want to take the risk (so the crime never occurs). There are several studies that prove this connection. P&P please read this: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

Axe, mate, there are fewer shootings in the UK per annum than there are in the playgrounds of Detroit. From my point of view, the US's attitude to firearms is incomprehensible and completely insane, and I'm certainly not going to bother reading some NRA-sponsored research that "proves" otherwise.

I'm prepared to accept that because your criminals are extensively armed, the only answer left is to arm the populace, but thank the non-existent God we don't have that problem here so introducing laws that would arm criminals would be absolutely crazy.

Besides, haven't we had this argument about three million times? The only problem here is that you can't see why you're wrong.