Skeddan Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 cassettiespagetie - personally I agree with Margery White of Port Erin that of course 16 year olds should be allowed to drink in pubs - but I don't agree with her wild ideas that knives and illegal drugs ought also to be allowed. Instead I would think 16 year olds ought to be subject to the same requirements for orderly behaviour as any other, and that landlords and licensees ought to be still comply with the licensing regulations - not serving people who are intoxicated, and not allowing drunk and disorderly or riotous behaviour. I'd think maybe try it for a year and see how it goes. Hopefully 16 and 17 year olds will act responsibly, and those who don't will be banned under the Pubwatch scheme - but better if their friends made it clear that acting irresponsibly is unacceptable. The immature troublemakers might end up being stuck outside while the rest can enjoy being treated like grown-ups. Presuming young people are irresponsible with alcohol can sometimes imply such irresponsibility is expected and 'natural'. This can potentially fuel a culture which treats irresponsible behaviour by young people as normal. I think such a change could be a positive, especially if it brings peer-pressure for responsible behaviour. cassettiespagetie, it would be good to hear from you what you think would happen if 16 year olds were allowed in pubs - the possible problems and issues as you see them (e.g. loutish behaviour by a minority, spiked drinks, drink driving), and how these might be addressed. What do you see as the objections and how would you answer these, and what reasons would you give for why this ought to be changed rather than keeping as is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaipyr Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 If you had spent more time on making sure your grammar was correct, I may have taken your little rant a tad more seriously. As it stands, may i suggest you concentrate on your studies before you cry about the inequity of not being allowed into pubs. You are only 16. In 2 years time, you can spend the rest of your life in a bar, what joy! What a pompous, pedantic person post. (By the way, i should be a capital letter and there's an apostrophe missing in '2 years time'.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananaman Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Well I thinki it's a right of passage denied. I lived in a little village on the Island and we were allowed in our local pub but we weren't allowed to drink alcohol though. Hit the 18 mark and woohoo! Have to say I'm getting a tadge bored with the homogonising of society. Another example is 50 is now the new 30. What? I'm halfway between the two and I'm definately going to be balder, wrinklier, greyer, more intolerant in ten years time than I was ten years ago. Bah! Bring on the trumpets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 If you had spent more time on making sure your grammar was correct, I may have taken your little rant a tad more seriously. As it stands, may i suggest you concentrate on your studies before you cry about the inequity of not being allowed into pubs. You are only 16. In 2 years time, you can spend the rest of your life in a bar, what joy! What a pompous, pedantic person post. (By the way, i should be a capital letter and there's an apostrophe missing in '2 years time'.) Oh no there isn't there is no shortening so no missing letter apostrophe and there is no belonging to or of sense so no apaostrophe in years either before or after the s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Oh no there isn't there is no shortening so no missing letter apostrophe and there is no belonging to or of sense so no apaostrophe in years either before or after the s There's also no lawyers in heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha-acid Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Oh no there isn't there is no shortening so no missing letter apostrophe and there is no belonging to or of sense so no apaostrophe in years either before or after the s There's also no lawyers in heaven. I demand proof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassettiespagetie Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 cassettiespagetie, it would be good to hear from you what you think would happen if 16 year olds were allowed in pubs - the possible problems and issues as you see them (e.g. loutish behaviour by a minority, spiked drinks, drink driving), and how these might be addressed. What do you see as the objections and how would you answer these, and what reasons would you give for why this ought to be changed rather than keeping as is? Well I think it should be changed because we are alloud to most other things at 16, so why not drink ? The main problems I see is loutish behaviour by a minority... But that is only by a minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassettiespagetie Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 Ignore double post... whoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 we are alloud to most other things at 16, so why not drink ? The main problems I see is loutish behaviour by a minority... But that is only by a minority. Yes, most youngsters are loud, whether or not it is allowed As in all things, it is a minority that ruin things for the majority, and it is that minority that results in rules being changed for the worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Well I think it should be changed because we are alloud to most other things at 16, so why not drink ? The main problems I see is loutish behaviour by a minority... But that is only by a minority. OK - to play devil's advocate here - a 16 year old is not entitled to the same minimum wage as an 18 year old. That just shows that not everything is the same for 16 as for 18 year olds, and the notion that 16 should be treated no differently from an 18 year old is not established. There are lots of inconsistencies and quirks in what is and isn't allowed and the law. 'Why not' does not offer a good compelling reason to change the rules. It works the other way - you have to show good reason 'why'. You admit there will be loutish behaviour by a minority - perhaps only a small minority - but still this is a problem and you haven't offered much to persuade anyone why should make the change. So why not leave things as they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassettiespagetie Posted October 8, 2008 Author Share Posted October 8, 2008 Well I think it should be changed because we are alloud to most other things at 16, so why not drink ? The main problems I see is loutish behaviour by a minority... But that is only by a minority. OK - to play devil's advocate here - a 16 year old is not entitled to the same minimum wage as an 18 year old. That just shows that not everything is the same for 16 as for 18 year olds, and the notion that 16 should be treated no differently from an 18 year old is not established. There are lots of inconsistencies and quirks in what is and isn't allowed and the law. 'Why not' does not offer a good compelling reason to change the rules. It works the other way - you have to show good reason 'why'. You admit there will be loutish behaviour by a minority - perhaps only a small minority - but still this is a problem and you haven't offered much to persuade anyone why should make the change. So why not leave things as they are? Why change ? Well furthermore, I think that it would be a good idea for us to drink in somewhere safe rather than in a field or some other deserted place. That way people will (In a way) supervise us and perhaps not let us drown in our own vomit. Perhaps ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yehyehyeh Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 on paper i think it would work better, in reality i dont really know still better than destroying the local parks though? might make it better for people that want to walk there dog on friday and saturday nights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fubar Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Well I think it should be changed because we are alloud to most other things at 16, so why not drink ? The main problems I see is loutish behaviour by a minority... But that is only by a minority. OK - to play devil's advocate here - a 16 year old is not entitled to the same minimum wage as an 18 year old. That just shows that not everything is the same for 16 as for 18 year olds, and the notion that 16 should be treated no differently from an 18 year old is not established. There are lots of inconsistencies and quirks in what is and isn't allowed and the law. 'Why not' does not offer a good compelling reason to change the rules. It works the other way - you have to show good reason 'why'. You admit there will be loutish behaviour by a minority - perhaps only a small minority - but still this is a problem and you haven't offered much to persuade anyone why should make the change. So why not leave things as they are? Why change ? Well furthermore, I think that it would be a good idea for us to drink in somewhere safe rather than in a field or some other deserted place. That way people will (In a way) supervise us and perhaps not let us drown in our own vomit. Perhaps ... If you want to drink in a safe environment, why not drink at home? Your parents, as opposed to those who want to have a relaxing night in the pub, could the make sure you don't drown on your own vomit. So who is buying your alcohol? I thought it was illegal to purchase alcohol for the consumption by minors in a public place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 I think what she may be suggesting is that complacency on the issue of underage drinking may yet expand to issues such as drug abuse and possession of dangerous weapons. If we become complacent on one issue.. it won't be long until we turn a blind eye to the other issues too. Getting drunk in parks and bus shelters is a Manx rite of passage. There's many a leading member of Manx society who spent their formative years getting arseholed on cheap cider in various shelters around the Douglas area. Oh the joy of getting your first bus shelter blowy off some pissed up old slapper who barfs in your lap before shes finished. Those were the days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.