Happy Land 3 "whats that you say"?

PapersAndPaychecks · Post by **PapersAndPaychecks** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:08 am

Thoth Amon wrote:Out of curiousity, how did the age 5 become the drinking age? It seems to me that if the age is so young, there might as well not be any.

I agree. I think that's a pointless law, and practically unenforceable -- nobody's allowed to drink in public until they're 14, so you're talking about detecting what people give their children to drink at home.

JCBoney · Post by **JCBoney** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:23 am

Interesting that last night's ep of Torchwood dealt with the invasion of people's inner most thoughts.

TRP · Post by **TRP** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:21 pm

Brief Threadjack

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Well, we've got a more relaxed attitude to booze. Anyone aged 18 or over can purchase alcohol anywhere in the country, and it's legal to drink it from the age of 5.

The eldest young'un of the house is in college, we still can't legally serve her wine at dinner at home. Uncle Sam does consider her responsible enough to enlist in the military though. There's a mixed message for ya.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Interesting that last night's ep of Torchwood dealt with the invasion of people's inner most thoughts.

Sir, do you have access to a cable channel to which I do not?

JCBoney · Post by **JCBoney** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:03 pm

Nope.

P&P, would you happen to know the names of those American hotels in the Bushy Triangle?

Incidentally, I see your description of the Anti-social restrictions. Again, we have similar things depending on the crime: convicted felons are not allowed to vote, possess firearms, or enlist in the military. Convicted sex offenders are not allowed near places children hang out, etc.

PapersAndPaychecks · Post by **PapersAndPaychecks** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:46 pm

SemajTheSilent wrote:Nope.

P&P, would you happen to know the names of those American hotels in the Bushy Triangle?

Not off the top of my head, but the details are on the shared drive at work. I'll look it up when I remember.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Incidentally, I see your description of the Anti-social restrictions. Again, we have similar things depending on the crime: convicted felons are not allowed to vote, possess firearms, or enlist in the military. Convicted sex offenders are not allowed near places children hang out, etc.

Sure, but as I understand it, those are blanket restrictions. No convicted felon can vote (and that's also the case in Britain -- the three categories of people who can't vote are called "The Three L's" for Lords, Lunatics and Long-term prisoners. Lords are already represented in the House of Lords, of course; the mentally ill and those serving a prison sentence of over six months also lose their voting rights.)

An ASBO is a specific restriction against a specific person.

For example, one was handed down recently to a young person caught causing criminal damage in Stevenage (read: spraying graffiti). Let's call her Sarah Smith.

Her ASBO said, "Sarah Smith may not be in possession of paint, spray or aerosol cans of any description in any public space in Stevenage." Effectively, it said she can only have paint or spraycans if she's on her own property.

PapersAndPaychecks · Post by **PapersAndPaychecks** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:49 pm

Actually, I've just thought -- you probably do have an ASBO-analogue in the US.

As I understand it, wives who've been beaten by their husbands (for example) can get a Court Order of some kind keeping him away from her house (do you call it an "injunction" ?)

That's a good equivalent, because it relates to a specific named individual and a specific circumstance. The difference is that an ASBO is taken out by the state against a private individual, rather than by one individual against another.

TRP · Post by **TRP** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:58 pm

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Actually, I've just thought -- you probably do have an ASBO-analogue in the US.

As I understand it, wives who've been beaten by their husbands (for example) can get a Court Order of some kind keeping him away from her house (do you call it an "injunction" ?)

AKA a restraining order.

JCBoney · Post by **JCBoney** » Mon Nov 27, 2006 3:03 pm

In that case it would be a restraining order... generally given against individuals who have been assessed as being dangerous to someone.

Additionally, some court rulings in criminal matters forbid the convicted from doing or possessing certain things: hackers can't touch computers, for example... but those are individual sentences, not something off the books.

Some get weird. There was a case awhile back when a minor possessed some unusual porn of an illegal nature, and the judge ordered that he would have to eat a certain part of it. Of course, the kid's lawyer went Eighth Amendment in the appeal, and it was stopped.