No drinking and no drunks policy?

[Pugwash]

I agree that merseyrail have one but surely they arent the only TOC with a problem with drunks? Im sure no TOC in London has an anti-dink and no drunks allowed to travel policy, FCC and Southern spring to mind?

Would you rather they drove instead ?

 

[Greenback]

Just searched Google and this turned up:

http://www.arrivatrainswales.co.uk/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=3709&libID=4144 (page 2)

No idea if it is enforced though! Seems to be a (rare) example of a total and permanent ban on designated routes.

It certainly wasn't enforced when I caught a train to Cardiff on a rugby international day. Half the train were swigging from cans and bottles. No behavioural problems though. I would think that is more likely afterwards!

Alcohol should be banned by every TOC, at all times of day. And it definitely should be banned from being sold on trains and in stations. There is no reason whatsoever to have an alcoholic drink on a train. If you need to quench your thirst then there are plenty of other drinks to choose from. There is nothing worse than feeling threatened by a drunk person on a train and feeling helpless.

But the people that cause problems don't get drunk on the train or at the station. They get drunk in a bar, or at home, long before they set foot on a train.

It is a problem we have across society as a whole, and the issue of aggressive drunks causing problems on trains and threatening other passengers will not be solved by banning alcohol on stations and trains.

At best, it will only prevent someone already intoxicated from becoming even more drunk. At worst, trying to enforce such a blanket ban can potentially escalate the situation further. As swj99 said, it's a cop out.

As a country, we need to respect alcohol more. Which is easier said than done and it will, in any case, take many years to effect such a change in attitude.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

I think the existing rules should be enforced so that the people who drink and still behave in a civilised and acceptable manner aren't penalised or affected by those who really need to be dealt with. As I've said before in threads where the subject of discussion was unacceptable behaviour on trains and railway property, banning alcohol is I believe a cop out, when what really needs to happen is that those who behave badly are dealt with.

What we seem to have at the moment is a situation where there is no consistent enforcement of the rules, ie it's against the bylaws to be drunk on a train, but many people are effectively allowed onto stations and trains whilst intoxicated to the extent that they are a danger to themselves and to others around them. Every once in a while, the police may be quoted in the gutter press as saying they need more powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. But they don't at all, because they are already empowered to deal with problems like this.

The real problem, and I mean in society generally, not just on the railways, is that people will continue to behave badly all the time they believe they can get away with doing so. It is the lack of enforcement that I believe is the problem. What is needed is for bad behaviour to be challenged and dealt with. Penalising the many for the transgressions of the few is a slippery slope which leads to and perpetuates a 'them and us' mentality. By all means punish the perpetrators, but leave everyone else alone. To do otherwise causes resentment and offends the sense of fair play in reasonable law abiding people. Policing by consent is a two way street. I believe one reason so many regular ordinary people nowadays are becoming increasingly interested only in themselves is that they are fed up with being inconvenienced by the behaviour of the few. They often see the collective punishment mentality as a cop out, and as something which may have been acceptable in a school playground in the 1970s but is neither relevant or acceptable in Britain in the 21st century.

Having rules, regulations and laws specifically targeted to deal with problems, but failing to use them is ridiculous, makes a mockery of the system, and sends out entirely the wrong message. My translation of the current message is, “It’s only illegal if you get caught !"
If people knew that if they went out, got drunk and behaved in an anti social and disorderly manner, they were very likely to be arrested, fined, etc, there would be a much better and more effective deterrent than there is now. Until that deterrent is in place, it might be more accurate to rename the Friday night trains ‘The Vomit Trail’. The next generation of trains could be built in a similar way to a wet room, with cleaning accomplished ready for the next day simply by removing a plug from the floor, and turning on a water tap.
Realistically, I don’t envisage either of the above possibilities happening anytime soon.

The most sensible post I've ever read on here.

I'm fed up of drinking and being drunk and aggressive forever being linked together. I've never felt threatened by someone who's been out drinking and is otherwise a responsible member of society. The people I have been on my guard with is gangs of hoodie or baseball cap adorned youths. They can be just as aggressive and intimidating sober as drunk.

There maybe very good reasons to make a specific sports related train "dry", but its a very slippy slope when you start targeting the retired couple enjoying a glass of wine on a long distance service, or the couple of mates who have enjoyed an afternoon out in a beer garden heading home (yes that's usually me!) or the young lady heading off for a night out having a couple of drinks before setting off.

By all means, clamp down HARD on behavoir that is intimidating, violent, disruptive in the same way that it should be dealt with drunk or sober. But be careful of blanket bans. One of these days, a blanket ban might just stop you doing something you enjoy, which harms or affects nobody else.

 

[AlexS]

Don't just tar the youths, middle aged people* get in on the gig when they go to sports fixtures, I assure you. Perfectly normal people get in a stupid tribal mentality over some irrelevance and then think they are some massive force of nature that can do what they want.

And all the practically non functioning regular alcoholics/tramps I get causing problems are certainly not young at all.

 

[Greenback]

I'm fed up of drinking and being drunk and aggressive forever being linked together. I've never felt threatened by someone who's been out drinking and is otherwise a responsible member of society. The people I have been on my guard with is gangs of hoodie or baseball cap adorned youths. They can be just as aggressive and intimidating sober as drunk.

You are quite correct that non drunks can be just as, if not more so, aggressive as those who have been drinking. But it is also well known that people who are quiet and well behaved can turn into a completely different character after consuming too much alcohol. Some people completely lose their inhibitions when drunk, and are unable to rationally think about the consequenes of their actions either.

It may be a small number of individuals in total, but that is little comfort when you are one of the people who has felt threatened or at risk because of a group of drunk people

There maybe very good reasons to make a specific sports related train "dry", but its a very slippy slope when you start targeting the retired couple enjoying a glass of wine on a long distance service, or the couple of mates who have enjoyed an afternoon out in a beer garden heading home (yes that's usually me!) or the young lady heading off for a night out having a couple of drinks before setting off.

I certainly agree with that. Rather than target or punish law abiding and well behaved people, it is those that do cause trouble that should be dealt with. At the moment it seems that where there is aggressive behaviour, it is easier to put the people on to a train and get rid of them, rather than deal with the situation proactively.

By all means, clamp down HARD on behavoir that is intimidating, violent, disruptive in the same way that it should be dealt with drunk or sober. But be careful of blanket bans. One of these days, a blanket ban might just stop you doing something you enjoy, which harms or affects nobody else.

Quite right!

 

[sprinterguy]

Alcohol should be banned by every TOC, at all times of day. And it definitely should be banned from being sold on trains and in stations. There is no reason whatsoever to have an alcoholic drink on a train. If you need to quench your thirst then there are plenty of other drinks to choose from. There is nothing worse than feeling threatened by a drunk person on a train and feeling helpless.

You can sod that: As a regular leisure traveller, one of the greatest selling points of rail travel, particularly on long distance journeys, is the freedom that it offers to relax; read a book, gaze out of the window, and/or have a drink or three. Take a part of that away, and I might as well take to the roads and drive for many journeys.

I don't see why I need be penalised because I enoy the taste of ale over anything caffeinated or one of those gaudily coloured carbonated beverages that would be my alternatives. As swj99 has most eloquently put it, and as has been competently argued by other posters on this thread, penalising a majority who can enjoy a drink responsibly because of the actions of an agressive minority is a poor practice to follow and is still unlikely to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour on trains.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

You are quite correct that non drunks can be just as, if not more so, aggressive as those who have been drinking. But it is also well known that people who are quiet and well behaved can turn into a completely different character after consuming too much alcohol.

Its relatively new research but there is some evidence now that drinking mearly amplifies personality traits already evident when sober. A genteel person sober is unlikely to be an aggressive drunk. However an impulsive, aggressive person sober is likely to even more so drunk.

STUDY

"If you carefully consider the consequences of your actions, it is unlikely getting drunk is going to make you any more aggressive than you usually are," Bushman said.

 

[Greenback]

Its relatively new research but there is some evidence now that drinking mearly amplifies personality traits already evident when sober. A genteel person sober is unlikely to be an aggressive drunk. However an impulsive, aggressive person sober is likely to even more so drunk.

STUDY

I wouldn't dispute that, alcohol certainly can amplify traits that can normally be suppressed by the individual.

From my own experience, I know that it can change behaviour as well as amplify it. I am extremely passive normally, but under the influence of a lot of alcohol, I can and have responded to aggressive behaviour in an equally aggressive manner. This is not ideal, as I have found to my cost, fortunately, I have learnt to bit my tongue even after drinking as I have got older!

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

I don't think your experiences are in anyway unusual or at odds with the study. Like most people you are normally very good at controlling your aggression, which I think is present in every human for sound Darwinian reasons. You're equally good at controlling this aggression whilst drunk, but when threatened with aggression will respond, as I'm sure I and most people would.

However in a rail related setting, you're unlikely want to fight with anyone like the Guard no matter how drunk you were unless severely provoked, which is highly unlikely!

The solution (and I know you broadly agree with the point I'm making) is to target those causing the aggression in the first place, and not those sat quietly enjoying or having enjoyed, a few drinks.

 

[sheff1]

Mrs B & myself had the misfortune to return on a Saturday night East Coast service from Edinburgh which seemed to be full of loud drunk people. Despite moving seats twice into different coaches we were unable to escape these pests. The ticket man was swamped with complaints about them.

Seems to be the norm on Saturday evenings.

EC display posters quoting the Byelaw and reaffirming that intoxicated persons will not be carried. Unfortunately, neither EC staff nor the police at Waverley (and there is usually plenty of both around) seem inclined to act before the drunks board. The poor ontrain staff then get the complaints when they can realistically do little about the situation other than call the police to attend at Berwick, which I have seen a couple of times (this of course delays the train, inconveniencing law abiding travellers further).

 

[Greenback]

However in a rail related setting, you're unlikely want to fight with anyone like the Guard no matter how drunk you were unless severely provoked, which is highly unlikely!

Very true!

The solution (and I know you broadly agree with the point I'm making) is to target those causing the aggression in the first place, and not those sat quietly enjoying or having enjoyed, a few drinks.

Absolutely I agree, and I don't disagree with your points about non drunks being aggressive too.

Seems to be the norm on Saturday evenings.[/QUOTE}

And everywhere across the UK at that!

EC display posters quoting the Byelaw and reaffirming that intoxicated persons will not be carried. Unfortunately, neither EC staff nor the police at Waverley (and there is usually plenty of both around) seem inclined to act before the drunks board. The poor ontrain staff then get the complaints when they can realistically do little about the situation other than call the police to attend at Berwick, which I have seen a couple of times (this of course delays the train, inconveniencing law abiding travellers further).

I can imagine that the view of the staff and the police is that (assuming no crime has been committed, just a technical bye law breach), by getting the drunks on to the train they are not liable to escalate the situation at the station, and that hopefully the drunken passengers will fall asleep or quieten down, and so not cause further trouble.

Of course, if they do cause more trouble, then someone else will have tod eal with it!

The alternative (which i would like to see happen), is to deny the loudest and most aggressive drunk passengers the ability to travel, and arrest any that kick off for being drunk and disorderly.

The problem is that by tolerating bad behaviour, society gives the impression that it is acceptable.

 

[sheff1]

And everywhere across the UK at that!

In my experience, the problem is not uniform. Leaving Edinburgh southbound it seems particularly marked. However, leaving Glasgow southbound at similiar times, I have not encountered the same.

Similarly, York to Sheffield trains via Doncaster are much worse than via Leeds.

I think this says more about the type of people returning to Newcastle and Doncaster (as opposed to Carlisle and Leeds) than anything else.

The alternative (which i would like to see happen), is to deny the loudest and most aggressive drunk passengers the ability to travel, and arrest any that kick off for being drunk and disorderly.

Agreed. There is little point in displaying notices if the people with the authority to act on those notices are not going to do so.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

First TPE ban alcohol on Saturday evening services from York to Middlesborough.

We also have BTP, revenue and security staff manning the platform and btp or NY police will monitor the train at northallerton with Cleveland forces hanging ound Yarm and Thornaby. Often btp or security and senior management travel with the train crew and will help with monitoring the passengers. The trouble with this is the problem passengers have transferred to the 21:10 grand central or 21:14 TPE services
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why not ban men, they're responsible for the vast majority of violent and abusive behaviour, drunk or sober. Much easier to enforce too.

You'd be surprised how many problems are caused by women. Often they start with the bitchy and abusive slanging matches, hen the blokes step in sticking up for their wags, before you know it the whole platform kicks off. Women in drink can be surprisingly violent, especially with a high heel shoe in their hand!!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't just tar the youths, middle aged people* get in on the gig when they go to sports fixtures, I assure you. Perfectly normal people get in a stupid tribal mentality over some irrelevance and then think they are some massive force of nature that can do what they want

Events such as Horse racing bring far more trouble than football crowds do and stag parties do! We describe race goers as thugs in suits. People who are incapable of handling the plonk they have drunk since getting on the train at 8am and think as you posted that just because they are in a suit can pretty much do what they want and flick you anyone who tries to stop them.

The morning trains often look a war zone when the amount of empty and abandoned alcohol scattered all over the train.

 

[jb]

The problem is that by tolerating bad behaviour, society gives the impression that it is acceptable.

It is acceptable to society, inasmuch as society would not and will not permit the sort of intolerance wished for above.

If you do it on the railways you have to do it everywhere else. The costs, both direct in terms of enforcing the rules and the (arguably more important) indirect ones of compromising individual liberty, are far higher than society is willing to pay. Hence such ideas are marginalised politically and deemed to be in the demesne of the Daily Mail. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying how it is.

 

[Greenback]

It is acceptable to society, inasmuch as society would not and will not permit the sort of intolerance wished for above.

If you do it on the railways you have to do it everywhere else. The costs, both direct in terms of enforcing the rules and the (arguably more important) indirect ones of compromising individual liberty, are far higher than society is willing to pay. Hence such ideas are marginalised politically and deemed to be in the demesne of the Daily Mail. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying how it is.

You make a good point. It is not society that has decided to be tolerant to behaviour which is against the law, though, it is governments, influenced by the things that you mention, that made these decisions, despite all claiming to be upholding law and order and committed to reducing crime.

I am convinced that the majority of UK citizens would wish to see a different drinking culture to that which seems prevalent (is it really necessary to start guzzling alcohol at 8am when off to the Cheltenham Gold Cup?!!!).

There is no compromise to individual liberty either, as long as laws are clear and the rules are enforced correctly. What we have now is that laws and rules are not always being enforced at all.

 

[jb]

You make a good point. It is not society that has decided to be tolerant to behaviour which is against the law, though, it is governments, influenced by the things that you mention, that made these decisions, despite all claiming to be upholding law and order and committed to reducing crime.

I'm afraid governments and societies are not so neatly decoupled as one might infer from this. Funnily enough, I've seen an "approach" to the problem that is about as far from the Daily Mail as one can get. I now live in Scandinavia and, in some respects, where I live might be regarded as something of a Utopia (at least compared to the UK) with regard to these sorts of issues.

Leaving aside the minor inconvenience of this not being (quite) true, I've nonetheless got a glimpse of one way of achieving a modern Western society like this. My conclusion is that it takes a deeply engrained social contract between citizen and state in ways that are absolutely inconceivable in the UK - they would be seen as being off the left-wing political scale. Many of the caricature aspects of Scandinavian life (high taxes, BIG government etc.) basically stem from this. Bringing this back on topic, all this results in a deep cultural imperative not to be a drunken dickhead on the railways (or anywhere else).

As I say, the above is not 100% black-and-white true by any means, and I'm by no means saying it's a better set-up than in the UK. I'm just saying that if you want true intolerance of antisocial behaviour then you need more, much more, than the government "doing something".

I am convinced that the majority of UK citizens would wish to see a different drinking culture to that which seems prevalent (is it really necessary to start guzzling alcohol at 8am when off to the Cheltenham Gold Cup?!!!).

Ask them in the abstract "do you support measures to curb drunken dickheadedness" and they'll say "of course". Map out what it means in practice and the support evaporates, quickly.

There is no compromise to individual liberty either, as long as laws are clear and the rules are enforced correctly. What we have now is that laws and rules are not always being enforced at all.

I agree, but when push comes to shove, and you move from the abstract to the concrete, society really doesn't.

 

[Greenback]

I'm afraid governments and societies are not so neatly decoupled as one might infer from this. Funnily enough, I've seen an "approach" to the problem that is about as far from the Daily Mail as one can get. I now live in Scandinavia and, in some respects, where I live might be regarded as something of a Utopia (at least compared to the UK) with regard to these sorts of issues.

No, they are not neatly discoupled, but the nature of the government/citizen relationship is that they ar enot always coupled either!

My conclusion is that it takes a deeply engrained social contract between citizen and state in ways that are absolutely inconceivable in the UK - they would be seen as being off the left-wing political scale. Many of the caricature aspects of Scandinavian life (high taxes, BIG government etc.) basically stem from this. Bringing this back on topic, all this results in a deep cultural imperative not to be a drunken dickhead on the railways (or anywhere else).

Actually, I agree! I have friends in Norway and have spent a fair bit of time there. I was intrigued on my first visit how there was total consensus with the rule that you had to move inside a bar on the waterfront in Oslo at midnight. I can't imagien that ever happening here!

Perhaps I am in favour of what you describe as I am naturally drawn towards what we in the UK would describe as the left wing!

As I say, the above is not 100% black-and-white true by any means, and I'm by no means saying it's a better set-up than in the UK. I'm just saying that if you want true intolerance of antisocial behaviour then you need more, much more, than the government "doing something".

I can't disagree with you, it is down to more than just government will, but instructions to enforce the laws we have would be a good start in my book!

Ask them in the abstract "do you support measures to curb drunken dickheadedness" and they'll say "of course". Map out what it means in practice and the support evaporates, quickly.

That is a good point. Surveys are easily rigged by asking leading questions.

 

[sheff1]

If you do it on the railways you have to do it everywhere else.

??

I do not see campaigns for reversing the ban of alcohol consumption on coaches becuse it is still allowed on trains.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

If the laws can't be enforced pertaining to illegal drugs what chance of barring those on legal sale ?

 

[Oswyntail]

One of the troubles you meet in this area is that my "I can handle my drink" is another person's "you are making this journey unpleasant" and another person's "you are being violent and aggressive". As I often point out in the context of football crowds, unless you are on the outside looking in you do not know how you are perceived. It's the same thing with social groups - a group of thirty-something businessmen in suits can seem just as aggressive to a set of hoodies as they do to us. I do not have an answer - I just wish that we all could know, not when we have "had enough" but when we are just before that stage, so we can stop in time.

 

[Clip]

Alcohol should be banned by every TOC, at all times of day. And it definitely should be banned from being sold on trains and in stations. There is no reason whatsoever to have an alcoholic drink on a train. If you need to quench your thirst then there are plenty of other drinks to choose from. There is nothing worse than feeling threatened by a drunk person on a train and feeling helpless.

So you are putting everyone who has a beer on a train into the drunken and threatening class of person. What a load of sensationalist rubbish.

 

[reb0118]

Events such as Horse racing bring far more trouble than football crowds do and stag parties do! We describe race goers as thugs in suits. People who are incapable of handling the plonk they have drunk since getting on the train at 8am.......

Too true, I find a big difference between the professional drinkers (football fans) and the amateurs (rugby & the rest).

Football fans travel regularly to away games on average every second weekend and are used to the journey, generally pace themselves with the drink, & know the score. They also know that Inspector Knacker will come down like a ton (not tonne) of bricks on them if they step out of line. This is not to say that football fans are angels - far from it! (some are right tw*ts). However, due to the numbers travelling any misbehavior - albeit a great nuisance to those involved - is minor in percentage terms of those travelling.

Rugby (Internationals - don't see a lot of local club supporters travelling by rail) fans, forbye that they are only travelling a few times a year, cause a shed load of bother. Most to be true is non aggressive but consists of passengers being sick all over the place, collapsing drunk, trespass, forcing doors open for their mates who are not even in the station, &c., &c.. However the police seem to turn a blind eye to this in comparison to their dealings with football fans. A class issue perchance?

Race goers can be a right pain esp. on their way back from the meeting. Those that have lost heavily can sometimes take it out on the first person who crosses them. Not nice at all. Again it is a case of not pacing yourself re the drink. In fact drinking on an empty mind!.

Now, a small caveat: Most travellers to football, rugby, racing, &c. are well behaved both before & after their said event. A small minority ruin it for others ~ however this is the society we live in.

Notes: I went to a rugby playing school, used to play, & still support the FPs and my county at Internationals, I regularly attend football matches at Tynecastle, Anfield, & Hampden. (also attending away matches, & sometimes as a neutral, last match attended was at Ochilview). So I have no axe to grind with either sport. Racing is different - I lose money and was well p*shed after the SGN at Ayr - missed my stop & had to stay at my Mum's ~ serious nagging session followed ~ never again!

As traincrew I have to work trains with large numbers of sporting fans on a regular basis - most turn out OK - but some..............well, we can all imagine!

Rant over.

 

[DXMachina]

The comments above about social contracts interested me because it brings to mind that laws do not become effective by being policed, they become effective by being obeyed and obedience to them being expected by others.

I'm hugely tall and substantially enough built that I can get away with walking up to people who are being antisocial and advising them to stop it before I feel the need to act, but it often takes me being the first to do this before anyone else joins in to back me up. Then suddenly I've got a few people at my side just in case.

The cure for crime isnt a police that detects every crime but a society that prevents it.
That said I do worry that someday I'll intervene and it'll end up with someones blood on my hands, or with a mob taking inspiration from me and kicking some lowlife's head in before I can stop things going too far....

This was my post No 465. It will shortly be leaving for Tonbridge. No drunk passengers please.

 

[Greenback]

Rugby (Internationals - don't see a lot of local club supporters travelling by rail) fans, forbye that they are only travelling a few times a year, cause a shed load of bother. Most to be true is non aggressive but consists of passengers being sick all over the place, collapsing drunk, trespass, forcing doors open for their mates who are not even in the station, &c., &c.. However the police seem to turn a blind eye to this in comparison to their dealings with football fans. A class issue perchance?

Not down here it isn't! When there are rugby internationals in Cardiff, few traditional rugby fans can afford to attend so it has become a haven for what we call 'the pink sparkly cowboy hat brigade'/ In short, these ar epeople with no real interest in rugby as a sport, but with a great interest in having a day out on the drink, even if they don;t see much of the actual game!

Race goers can be a right pain esp. on their way back from the meeting. Those that have lost heavily can sometimes take it out on the first person who crosses them. Not nice at all. Again it is a case of not pacing yourself re the drink. In fact drinking on an empty mind!.

I would guess this is similar to Wesh rugby fans - it isn't the racing that is important, but a good old booze up with the racing as an excuse. I would think that these people ar emore interested in the occasion than the racing, just like most of those at the Millennium Stadium!

Now, a small caveat: Most travellers to football, rugby, racing, &c. are well behaved both before & after their said event. A small minority ruin it for others ~ however this is the society we live in.

Very true!

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

The cure for crime isnt a police that detects every crime but a society that prevents it.

I agree with that. I put most of societies ills down to encouraging the belief in rights without responsibilities. If I was to indulge someone for a second and say yes you do have a right to travel by train. But if you are to have that right then you have a responsibility to do so in a civilised manner, drunk or sober.

 

[s2345]

Sports fans will probably stop using the train, you may as well be on a coach for 5 hours if you can't have a drink on the train. Having a few beers before the football is part of the culture, part of going to away matches.

In Scotland drinking on football coaches has been banned for a long time. If you can change the football culture here you can change it anywhere. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/ArtsCultureSport/Sport/SafetyIssues/SportsGrounds/AlcoholControl)

Personally I think the way the problem is dealt with up here is a reasonable one. It's fairly predicable what are likely to be potential problem trains (major football and rugby fixtures mainly) and alcohol on those services is banned irrespective of the time of day. Notices appear at the station a good while in advance of the event and is advertised on the station departure board entry for each train. It is announced on train before departure and regularly throughout the journey. You can't miss it. The 'dry trains' after 9pm also seems to have made a difference, I'm regularly on the last trains out of both Queen St and Central at the weekend I would say there has been less noticeable 'anti-social' drunkenness, obviously a significant majority have had something to drink but they were never the ones causing the problems. The after 9pm restriction avoid most 'retired couples with wine' but starts early enough for the young ones heading into town. You still have to put up with the overpowering smell of fish and chips on the last train though!

If anyone hasn't read Scotrails policy on this its worth a read, it seems to be enforced in a similar manner to the way it's set out, especially to/from the major stations - which is where I suspect they were having the majority of the issues anyway. (http://www.scotrail.co.uk/alcohol-ban)

 

[MacRae13]

Scot-Rail have become a 'dry' TOC after, I think, 2200 on all services except the Sleepers.

Scotrail have an evening ban

Alcohol isn't served after 2030 and any opened alcohol in your possession has to be finished or binned by 2100. Sales don't commence again until 1000.

Don't just tar the youths

Indeed. Age is no barrier to stupidity.

 

[ainsworth74]

Alcohol isn't served after 2030 and any opened alcohol in your possession has to be finished or binned by 2100. Sales don't commence again until 1000.

Right so just an hour and half out then

Thanks for clarifying

 

[MacRae13]

Thanks for clarifying

Just to clarify further - I didn't intend to be pedantic in case that's the way it looked.

 

[swj99]

So you are putting everyone who has a beer on a train into the drunken and threatening class of person. What a load of sensationalist rubbish.

Have to agree there. Some people don't react badly to it, others get loud and obnoxious, some become violent, some even get behind the wheel of a car, but whatever they do, I still believe it is their personal responsibility how they behave once they have consumed alcohol. If someone behaves in an unacceptable or criminal way, they need to be dealt with, irrespective of why they did it.

Which politician is it who says, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." ?
Personally I'd concentrate on the crime itself, and leave the search for causes to the medical profession. Once you go down the road of asking why, things start to get too complicated. For example, the minute you ask a defendant why he or she beat someone up, vandalised a train, smashed the mirrors off a car etc, their reply starts to stray into the realms of a mitigation plea / sob story / excuse. And to be honest, the fact that they did it and they are responsible for it is the problem. Not the fact that they were very, very drunk, they'd had a terrible upbringing, their girlfriend had recently left them, they were depressed, or whatever. As long as society, and the courts accept the sob story mitigation pleas, they are as good as accepting that maybe the person in the dock isn't really responsible for what they have done, and maybe it was the alcohol, depression, bad upbringing, society, violent video games (insert scapegoat here) that made them do it. :roll:

Even Rod knew the score, back in the 70s....

Promises made in the heat of the night
Creepin' home before it got too light
I wasted all that precious time
And blamed it on the wine

Rod Stewart - I Was Only Joking (1977) lyrics

........But if you are to have that right then you have a responsibility to do so in a civilised manner, drunk or sober.

Absolutely true. And it's not really a lot to ask either.