BANS. So far, two that I can see. In as many hours.
Big Society. Small Government.
BAN loss-leading on booze.
BAN daft interest rates on store cards.
Look, chaps, or should I say cunts, WE are society. We don't HAVE to have a store card. We don't HAVE to buy cheap booze. I haven't got a store card because their interest rates are exorbitant, and I don't need anything that the store can sell me, that I can't save up and wait for. And I get my booze off Polish lorry drivers MUCH cheaper than the supermarkets can afford to sell it. Same with fags.
But if we want to do daft things, who are YOU, the Small Government, to decide for us?
I am sniffing something that sounds an awful lot like double-dealing bullshit. Nanny State, MK II.
Sort it out.
5 comments:
One prob dude. There are some TWATS out there who don't have much brain. They abuse cheap booze. Store cards get thrown at you & again some twats don't or can't think for themselves.
Personally in favour of banning cheap booze. On this we will have to agree to disagree.
I'm not in favour of foxhunting either but I am SERIOUSLY against banning.
It is NEVER the answer.
Uncle Marvo is right and Dippyness is wrong. The store-cards have the high %APRs on the application forms. Caveat emptor! And it's not illegal to sell booze, buy booze, drink booze or to be drunk. It IS illegal to be drunk and disorderly, though. Why not send for a constable, Dippyness, if you suspect someone of an alchohol-related crime or breach of the peace? Isn't that a more measured response than supporting blanket bans which punish innocent people on the offchance that they might cause (or suffer) inconvenience in the future?
Point taken. :)
Any such ban will be worked around
booze from polish truck drivers and other smugglers
credit from loan sharks
ConLab- friend of the smuggler and the loan shark, who'd a thunk it
Post a Comment