damnum absque injuria

June 8, 2005

England, Britain, Potato, Potahto…

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:36 pm

The Ass. Press reports that “Britain’s” strict pub licensing law, which currently requires pubs to close at 10:30 on Sunday nights and at 11:00 p.m. the rest of the week, is going by the wayside. That’s good news, but lousy news reporting. In fact, only England has had that requirement. Most pubs in Edinburgh, Scotland close at midnight, and some are open as late (or, depending on your perspective, as early) as 3:00 a.m.

17 Responses to “England, Britain, Potato, Potahto…”

  1. Flap Says:

    Ahhhh those Brits still taking property without just compensation( The law includes measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder, including new police powers to close pubs without notice for up to 24 hours where disorder is occurring.

    Flap thinks they are changing the law to increase government revenue by requiring all pubs to re-register with the licensing authority and the increased VAT due to the longer hours of operation.

    Ahhhhh socialist governments ever seeking revenue to redistribute.

  2. clark smith Says:

    According to the article:

    Supporters of the new law, which ends the requirement that pubs shut by 11 p.m. Monday through Saturday and by 10:30 p.m. on Sundays, say it will bring an end to binge drinking in the last minutes before closing time, cutting late-night violence in town centers.

    Bull. Quite the opposite. It will allow binge drinking to continue later into the night, leading to more inebriated, unruly patrons.

    More poisonous drinks will be imbibed, further deepening runaway addictions, to the ruin of more lives and families. Altogether it amounts to a lose/lose for English society.

  3. Xrlq Says:

    Yup, that’s why Jesus turned all that water into wine, to poison the already-inebriated wedding guests.

  4. clark smith Says:

    Yup, that’s why Jesus turned all that water into [unfermented] wine

    We’ve had this conversation before. As in times past we’ll agree to disagree.

    In any event, I highly doubt that even liberal Christians would advocate the distinctly immoderate drinking typical in taverns after 11pm.

  5. Xrlq Says:

    Yup, that’s why Jesus turned all that water into [unfermented] wine

    Yeah, right. That explains this passage:

    [A]nd the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

    We all know “had too much to drink” means “drank a bunch of Welch’s Grape Juice,” and that everyone serves the finest grape juice first, followed by cheap crap that everyone can still tell is cheap crap because they’re stone cold sober after a night of drinking non-wine. We also know that every time the Bible says anything good about “old” (obviously fermented) wine, or anything disparaging about “new” (unfermented, or at most partially fermented) wine, they’re just kidding. Get real!

    In any event, I highly doubt that even liberal Christians would advocate the distinctly immoderate drinking typical in taverns after 11pm.

    You may be right about that, but then again, you have to consider the trade-off. The choice is not between ideally moderate vs. immoderate drinking, but between pacing oneself and ordering one bourbon, one scotch and one beer at 10:55. Ever been to an English pub?

  6. boifromtroy Says:

    Many pubs are also promising to eliminate Happy Hour in exchange for extended hours.

    Also, there are bars that stay open till 3AM anyways…they are the losers since they won’t be able to charge a cover after 11PM.

  7. clark smith Says:

    Another thing I’ve been meaning to ask you, X, is Why must you consistently be so damn snarky?

    Intended or not, your responses in this comment section have been of a nature to gall more than to convince.

    You can disagree with people without employing ridicule and straw man to lampoon contrary opinions, right?

    I would think you would do well to treat your friends less shabbily than you treat your trolls.

  8. Xrlq Says:

    I would think you would do well to treat your friends less shabbily than you treat your trolls.

    I do. I call trolls all sorts of nasty names, but thus far I haven’t called you any. All I did do was mock an idea espoused which, quite frankly, needed a good mocking. If you were to argue that all alcohol is bad for reasons having nothing to do with the Bible, that would be a defensible position, but to claim that John 2 has Jesus turning water into unfermented grape juice is just too stupid to be worthy of a serious debate. Indeed, had I not mocked that idea, the few liberals who read this blog could have rightly called me a hypocrite for giving you a pass, even while I routinely mock liberals for saying things that sound almost rational by comparison.

  9. clark smith Says:

    So I am to understand that you took a “mocking” tone toward me in order to protect your own good name. That doesn’t sound like the kind of good name worth having.

    In any event, I won’t submit to being mocked anymore.

  10. Justene Says:

    I wouldn’t take it personally. Snarky is xrlq’s way and generally a draw. Yes, he’s acted mocking towards me. In hindsight, I’ve occasionally acted superior, condescending and nagging toward him. Unfortunately or fortunately for the rest of you, we usually go at it via private email.

  11. Joel B. Says:

    I come here for the snark, makes it one of the most fun reads on the web. But as corny as it sounds, I view x as a kind of blog friend, lol…and take it all in jest, and a little serious. But come on, who doesn’t like reading about Frisco, the Ass. Press, and some Ass. Bills.

    Disagree without being disagreeable and all, but no reason to not have fun with it too. And in fairness, I’m a member of a Baptist church, and seriously I don’t have a problem with some drinking or that Water was turned into wine (although supposed from my Roman History class Roman Wine was very low on the alcohol content, and the remark about good vs. bad wine I think has to do with the fact that traditionally Roman Wine was very watered down. Which does suggest that Jesus’ miracle involved maybe some higher alcohol content stuff), but even at my church a lot of people are backing off a alcohol is bad stance, instead it is one thing like many others that taken to excess is dangerous.

    Always worth remembering is the corrolary that it is the love of money not money itself that is trouble.

  12. clark smith Says:

    Justene

    Thank you for your insight.

    I would not have thought Xrlq would have ever treated you in such a way. How your gentle and notably inoffensive demeanor could have elicited such treatment is, I confess, somewhat beyond me; but I guess I’m learning a lot in this post and comments section. It’s “xrlq’s way,” and not a way that I like very much or have too much use for.

    Joel B

    who doesn’t like reading [snark] about Frisco, the Ass. Press, and some Ass. Bills.

    All well and good, but I’m not Frisco, the Ass. Press, or an Ass. Bill. I’ve been a decent and friendly commenter here, as well as a fellow Bear-Flagger; I am entitled to more respect than Xrlq has shown me, however strenuously he may disagree with my position on wine as relates to Biblical accounts.

    I’m fine with your different perspective on wine in the Bible, Joel. What’s more, your ability to communicate a difference in opinion without a tone laced with contempt is, well, refreshing.

    I would be happy to further discuss with you privately such Biblical themes and perspectives as you have raised, Joel, in any venue where my opinions and—by extension—my person will be held in a measure of respect.

  13. Xrlq Says:

    I would be happy to further discuss with you privately such Biblical themes and perspectives as you have raised, Joel, in any venue where my opinions and—by extension—my person will be held in a measure of respect.

    That’s where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think people are generally entitled to a certain level of respect, but I don’t think the same goes for opinions.

  14. clark smith Says:

    I think people are entitled to a certain level of respect, but I don’t think the same goes for opinions.

    When you treat an opposing opinion with respectful dissent (for an example of this, please review the tone and nature of Joel’s comment above), you maintain a level of separation between the opinion you oppose and the holder of that opinion. When you treat an opposing opinion with open contempt, it becomes personal; disrespect and insult are being paid not only to the opinion, but to the holder of the opinion.

    Whether or not you intend it to be so, those are the natural dynamics. With a little introspection, this concept should be self-intuitive. This is such basic stuff that it should not be necessary to spell it out here.

  15. Justene Says:

    clark, it seems to me you’ve cheered xrlq on before when he’s argued with others in this manner. You treated disagreement with open contempt too. It’s the blogosphere. It’s down and dirty. You can’t start getting thinskinned on us.

  16. clark smith Says:

    it seems to me …

    In my experience, when Justene says someone is drunk, it’s time for them to sit down.

    Points taken. Sitting down now.

    As regarding my own treatment of personal disagreement, I have been–I hope you will agree–a kinder and gentler blogospheric presence in recent times, Justene. I aim for that trend to continue.

    In all events, Justene, I value and appreciate your input. Thanks.

  17. Chad Elpert Says:

    Some people are entitled to a certain level of respect, because of their rude behaviour.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Subscribe without commenting

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.