Ban on under 21s buying alcohol
- Thread starter poster342002
- Start date
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Plenty of answers, I just can't be arsed taking you through the basics of Marxism you tool. Infact, it's you who're stating the positive;- that it is in some way 'un-Marxist' to accept people may develop a false consciousness, despite the fact Marx himself developed the ideas surrounding the false-consciousness (lumpen-prole, etcetera).
If your question had any validity, it may have well have been written as; 'if people are capable of achieving socialism, then how come we don't live in a socialist society'.
So, conclusively, Louise doesn't understand Marxism folks!
D-Dawg
Remember saying this: 'I don't blame people for littering in London, where there are no bins.' Where is there any recognition of agency?
It wasn't Marx's notion of false consciousness I was having a dig at; it was your presumption of knowing best.
So the obstacles facing the creation of a socialst society are analogous to those stopping people dropping litter...you twit.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
The Black Hand
Unclean
Can't fault you there.
Fullyplumped
in a personal capacity
Anyway... booze and under 21s
Youse will all be interested in some evidence I'm sure.
Youse will all be interested in some evidence I'm sure.
Massive drop in anti-social behaviour after Fife alcohol crackdown
A community in Scotland has seen anti-social behaviour drop by almost 60% after a ban on alcohol sales to under-21s. Off-sales in both Cupar in Fife and the neighbouring village of Springfield have trialled a voluntary restriction on the sales of drink on Friday and Saturday night. And police there have seen a fall in offences of almost 45% since the scheme started, with a drop of just under 60% in the number of anti-social crimes.
In a bid to tackle problems of under age drinking and youth disorder in the community, Insp Dewar led a series of meetings with local off-sales retailers. That resulted in the pilot scheme, which began on June 27 and runs to August 2, being put in place. Insp Dewar said: "The object of this trial is to disrupt the supply of alcohol to under age persons and have a positive impact on the quality of life of Cupar residents.
"Compared to the crime levels of the three weeks leading up to the start of the campaign, there was a 58% reduction in the number of calls to the police concerning anti-social behaviour, with a 44% reduction in the commission of anti-social crimes." But he added: "The success of the scheme is primarily due to the support of the retailers in Cupar and the neighbouring village of Springfield, who have been 100% behind it."
If a community perceives a threat of harm, shouldn't it be empowered to take modest steps like this to mitigate it? Isn't this what anarchists would approve of?A community in Scotland has seen anti-social behaviour drop by almost 60% after a ban on alcohol sales to under-21s. Off-sales in both Cupar in Fife and the neighbouring village of Springfield have trialled a voluntary restriction on the sales of drink on Friday and Saturday night. And police there have seen a fall in offences of almost 45% since the scheme started, with a drop of just under 60% in the number of anti-social crimes.
In a bid to tackle problems of under age drinking and youth disorder in the community, Insp Dewar led a series of meetings with local off-sales retailers. That resulted in the pilot scheme, which began on June 27 and runs to August 2, being put in place. Insp Dewar said: "The object of this trial is to disrupt the supply of alcohol to under age persons and have a positive impact on the quality of life of Cupar residents.
"Compared to the crime levels of the three weeks leading up to the start of the campaign, there was a 58% reduction in the number of calls to the police concerning anti-social behaviour, with a 44% reduction in the commission of anti-social crimes." But he added: "The success of the scheme is primarily due to the support of the retailers in Cupar and the neighbouring village of Springfield, who have been 100% behind it."
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
What has me not having anything against people dropping litter where there are no bins (or where there are, for that matter) got to do with me claiming they have no agency over whether or not they drop litter at all, you stupid prick?
I don't know whether or not this was seriously your first line of inquiry, or if it was adopted when you realised your original one had fuck all to do with reality, but well done. You still look like a tool.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
They drop litter because they are forced to by the lack of bins ( a 'structural' short coming beyond their control...although remember it's not a social problem); why couldn't they keep hold of it until they got somewhere they could get rid of it? Are they lacking the individual agency to make such a choice?
By the way there is no first line of enquiry; your posts are so riddled with confusion it's easy enough to just dip in at random and have a chuckle at your latest inanity.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
p.s. why not have another go at your stopping litter is like making socialism ananlogy, that was very good.
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
No - and tough shit. The end does not justify the means. It's time for more, hard lines in the sand to be drawn over dictatorial moves like this. Time to say: "NO MORE and we're not entering into negotiaiton over it on your terms".
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
What on Earth are you talking about? You point out yourself that there being no bins around doesn't mean people can't keep ahold of their litter - that's as true for you as it is for me!
All I'm saying is that I don't blame people for dropping litter where there are no bins, whereas you do. This has fuck all to do with agency, everything to do with morals.
eejit
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
So when people are presented with a choice which they can exercise (agency) you feel unable or unwilling to decide which choice is preferable (not on moral grounds but on the basis of what sort of environment people say they want to live in, or reducing the public health risks associated with increased vermin populations); although as you think that litter adds character you might want to come down on the side of littering being a good choice.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
cockneyrebel
New Member
DU are you seriously saying that litter and refuse left all over the place is ok and even a good thing? How far would you take that? Is sewage spilling over the streets ok? Have the slums of Calcutta never had it so good?
People don't like litter and waste everywhere because it causes health problems, looks grim and stinks.
In terms of people throwing litter on the floor because there aren't any bins obviously it would be better to have more bins and more street cleaners but are you saying that people should have no responsibility at all?
Does that mean if there aren't many public toilets it's alright to start pissing up walls and have a shit on the pavement?
People don't like litter and waste everywhere because it causes health problems, looks grim and stinks.
In terms of people throwing litter on the floor because there aren't any bins obviously it would be better to have more bins and more street cleaners but are you saying that people should have no responsibility at all?
Does that mean if there aren't many public toilets it's alright to start pissing up walls and have a shit on the pavement?
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
Blame: to hold responsible for and criticise for a fault. Blame doesn't have to be moral anymore than fault does. However, it absolutely has to do with agency since lack of agency undermines any notion of responsibility.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
I said I didn't blame - there's no way you can semantically twist your way out of this. Why don't you just apologise for jumping to false conclusions?
wrt cockney - I've already expressed that within reason litter is actually preferable to no litter imo. Sewage? No. Household waste? No. Please don't overreact.
wrt cockney - I've already expressed that within reason litter is actually preferable to no litter imo. Sewage? No. Household waste? No. Please don't overreact.
cockneyrebel
New Member
How you can say litter is a good thing, even "within reason", is beyond me. But each to their own.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
How dense are you DU? You implied that I did blame people for dropping litter (by saying that you were above all this blame business) and that my take was about morals not about agency. I have been pointing out that you are wrong (partly because you don't understand what blame means and partly because you'd firmly backed yourself into the dunces' corner with your early contributions to this thread) and that it is not about morals and is about agency.
I suggest some remedial English lessons over the summer. I would offer some free one to one on-line tutorials but I'm off on holiday Friday...oh and I don't want to.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Bliss...
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
lol - it thinks it can wriggle and squirm out of the mess it is in, yet it still can't justify (in any comprehensible way) how I have attacked the idea that individuals have agency for their actions.
Similar threads
