Nowhere else in the public sector is drinking on the job considered normal or even acceptable.
Well, at least in Canada, I've always had the vague idea that university professors lecturing under the influence is a not unheard-of phenom, though I think I can only remember one name explicitly linked with the behaviour.
Just as an aside. when I first read "Polanski" I thought of the trenching tool wilderness firefighters use to cut a fire break. It is named the Polanski after a forest ranger who invented it.
He was born 'David Paulden', but later chose to use 'Polanski', as that was his original family name (they were Latvian Jews) - changed to avoid antisemitism. He uses the forename 'Zack' after a character in the novel Goodnight Mister Tom, and because he wabted to avoid having the same name as his stepfather...
One day, soon, he will, I hope, be a Member of Parliament.
There seem to be very few occasions where drinking during working hours would be considered acceptable, almost entirely independent of where one works. The days of people going to the pub at lunch time are past.
Yes, we are a pretty joyless and puritan society these days. But I live in hope that the Overton window of social acceptability may yet swing back to a more reasonable location while I’m still around.
There seem to be very few occasions where drinking during working hours would be considered acceptable, almost entirely independent of where one works. The days of people going to the pub at lunch time are past.
Yes, we are a pretty joyless and puritan society these days. But I live in hope that the Overton window of social acceptability may yet swing back to a more reasonable location while I’m still around.
Objectively speaking, what would you say is the proportion of UK voters who would agree with your general outlook? Especially interested in what number of them woulda been potential Green voters in the first place.
Personally, I'm a pretty big fan of what I call "the post-1980s health and safety revolution". But having lived through eg. controversies over seat belts, teen drinking-parties etc, it's always seemed to me that they're the sortsa reforms that are pushed from the top-down, generally not in response to grassroots demands, though possibly lubricated(at least in some places) by the rise of legal-litigation as a prevalent practice.
There seem to be very few occasions where drinking during working hours would be considered acceptable, almost entirely independent of where one works. The days of people going to the pub at lunch time are past.
Yes, we are a pretty joyless and puritan society these days. But I live in hope that the Overton window of social acceptability may yet swing back to a more reasonable location while I’m still around.
Objectively speaking, what would you say is the proportion of UK voters who would agree with your general outlook? Especially interested in what number of them woulda been potential Green voters in the first place.
Too few, and no idea but probably not many.
Personally, I'm a pretty big fan of what I call "the post-1980s health and safety revolution". But having lived through eg. controversies over seat belts, teen drinking-parties etc, it's always seemed to me that they're the sortsa reforms that are pushed from the top-down, generally not in response to grassroots demands, though possibly lubricated(at least in some places) by the rise of legal-litigation as a prevalent practice.
To the extent that “health and safety” minimises the risks people are forced to take in order to do their jobs or access services, I like it. Just not when it starts minimising the risks people are allowed to freely choose to take because of some stupid idea that the first, last, and only priority that anyone should ever have is to remain a physically healthy and maximally productive economic unit for as long as possible, whether they enjoy it or not.
Personally, I’m very glad to be old enough to have participated in a good few teen drinking parties - and some pretty wild ones, at that. I’d far rather have those happy memories than another four or five years of pointless dotage tacked on to the end of a life that wasn’t even worth remembering.
Personally, I’m very glad to be old enough to have participated in a good few teen drinking parties - and some pretty wild ones, at that. I’d far rather have those happy memories than another four or five years of pointless dotage tacked on to the end of a life that wasn’t even worth remembering.
I suspect students drinking less has more to do with material conditions like large amounts of student debt, sky high rents and an uncertain job market than some outbreak of joyless puritanism.
I am sure there are many people who would be delighted if they could drink (in moderation) during the working day. Self-employed tradespeople and delivery drivers can't risk it though: if they lose their driving licence, they lose their job. I daresay this is where Hannah is coming from: as a self-employed plumber she would not be able to drink on the job, whatever she might choose to do after hours.
BTW Marvin, it is possible to find joy without having to get drunk first.
When I first started work, lunchtime drinking was not uncommon. There was at least one person I worked with who could not be relied to anything in the afternoon. Any afternoon.
There is no way I want to return to that situation. An occasional lunchtime get-together with a drink or so, and no expectation of working is OK, but that is not what this is about.
But the more I read and think about this the more I realise that there is another aspect to this. That most MPS don't really have anything to do, except make up the numbers. They know how they are going to vote before any of the ridiculous debates start, because their party whips have told them. Because it is about what the political capital is in a particular vote - not whether it is the right thing to do.
I am also reminded of the comment of Mahairi Black when she left, that the place was a toxic environment. I am sure that alcohol and smoking in the building contribute to this - the sense of it being still, really, a gentlemens club, for the wealthy and important people, as they all assume they are.
When I first started work, lunchtime drinking was not uncommon. There was at least one person I worked with who could not be relied to anything in the afternoon. Any afternoon.
Especially in London.
Back in the mid 80s, I spent 12 months working in London for a software company. I was taken aback by the fact that most people went to the pub every lunchtime. And not just for one drink.
One of my co-workers, who was pretty much the same age as me, was an enforced teetotaller because he used to drink so much (especially at lunchtime) that he had done huge damage to his liver and had been told by his doctor "stop drinking now or you won't last another year".
And the thing is - he wasn't that extreme in that place and time.
Personally, I’m very glad to be old enough to have participated in a good few teen drinking parties - and some pretty wild ones, at that. I’d far rather have those happy memories than another four or five years of pointless dotage tacked on to the end of a life that wasn’t even worth remembering.
I suspect students drinking less has more to do with material conditions like large amounts of student debt, sky high rents and an uncertain job market than some outbreak of joyless puritanism.
There is also much more awareness of making things accessible for people who can't or don't want to drink alcohol. It's not joyless or puritan to be more considerate of other people's needs. Speaking personally as the child of alcoholics, being around drunk people can be a traumatic experience for me and I would avoid situations where they congregate even if I could drink alcohol (which I can't due to medication). That has nothing to do with puritanism. The idea that you have to drink alcohol in order to have fun is just not true.
@Jane R wrt subsidised food and drink, I do think that a subsidised or even free staff canteen is something workplaces in general should have - and of course in many countries like France, it is still the norm. Waitrose and John Lewis have staff canteens in all their branches as the Partnership constitution states that all Partners are to be provided with hot meals, and when I worked in a Waitrose café on my feet all day dealing with customers it made a huge difference to have the canteen there. I don't think that depriving MPs of something that imo should be the default (in terms of regular food and drink rather than alcohol) would be a good thing.
Given the somewhat strange hours that MPs can keep, having a (subsidised) canteen is not a bad thing. Another reason for having it is that MPs can sometimes find themselves called to vote at short notice. If MPs had to leave the Houses of Parliament to find eating establishments, this could easily be exploited (by the Government or the Opposition), to force through a vote when they knew a significant number of MPs had left the building to eat and probably wouldn't make it back in time.
Personally, I’m very glad to be old enough to have participated in a good few teen drinking parties - and some pretty wild ones, at that. I’d far rather have those happy memories than another four or five years of pointless dotage tacked on to the end of a life that wasn’t even worth remembering.
I vaguely have the idea that, at least in Canada, underaged drinking parties fell outta favour after a few incidents of kids' driving home drunk and causing fatal car accidents, leading to criminal charges for the parents who allowed the parties in their homes, and so parents in general got the message they needed to clamp down. But I graduated high-school right at the start of that health-and-safety revolution I posited earlier, so I don't know if the laissiz-faire attitudes I recall from my adolescence prevailed afterwards, or for how long.
I am sure there are many people who would be delighted if they could drink (in moderation) during the working day.
I will claim that the degree to which having had a drink or two impairs your work performance depends strongly on what your work is. If you're operating heavy machinery, or driving, or doing something else where reaction time and a sensible approach to risk is important, don't have a drink.
If you're doing something more akin to creative writing, perhaps one drink is even advantageous if it helps you to stop second-guessing yourself.
I am sure there are many people who would be delighted if they could drink (in moderation) during the working day.
I will claim that the degree to which having had a drink or two impairs your work performance depends strongly on what your work is. If you're operating heavy machinery, or driving, or doing something else where reaction time and a sensible approach to risk is important, don't have a drink.
If you're doing something more akin to creative writing, perhaps one drink is even advantageous if it helps you to stop second-guessing yourself.
But that's also highly dependent on the individual, and also whether or not you can behave appropriately around work colleagues after alcohol. Safety at work isn't just about preventing workplace injuries.
I am sure there are many people who would be delighted if they could drink (in moderation) during the working day.
I will claim that the degree to which having had a drink or two impairs your work performance depends strongly on what your work is. If you're operating heavy machinery, or driving, or doing something else where reaction time and a sensible approach to risk is important, don't have a drink.
If you're doing something more akin to creative writing, perhaps one drink is even advantageous if it helps you to stop second-guessing yourself.
Write drunk, edit sober.
And a lot of writing is editing.
I think there are some parts of most jobs that are better off with some alcohol. Company meetings, for example. Just a single drink, to help you relax. Actually, I would concur that there are even parts of an MPs role that are better done like this.
But not most of it. Not every day. Not trying to wrangle with complex issues that have massive impacts when you have drunk two bottles of wine. In fact, someone who can drink two bottles of wine and still appear competent is probably an alcoholic, and shouldn't be making any decisions of import.
I think there are some parts of most jobs that are better off with some alcohol. Company meetings, for example. Just a single drink, to help you relax. Actually, I would concur that there are even parts of an MPs role that are better done like this.
I'm repeating myself; but there have been a number of harassment cases in the Commons in which alcohol has been named as a contributing factor, and the point at which I'd start to worry about judgement being impaired is well below that where it manifests as harassment.
'Constantly needing a bit of Dutch Courage to relax' seems dysfunctional, and the reason drinking became less of a thing in professions like banking was that the one thing it really impairs is one's ability to process and react to new information.
I am sure there are many people who would be delighted if they could drink (in moderation) during the working day.
I will claim that the degree to which having had a drink or two impairs your work performance depends strongly on what your work is. If you're operating heavy machinery, or driving, or doing something else where reaction time and a sensible approach to risk is important, don't have a drink.
If you're doing something more akin to creative writing, perhaps one drink is even advantageous if it helps you to stop second-guessing yourself.
Write drunk, edit sober.
And a lot of writing is editing.
I think there are some parts of most jobs that are better off with some alcohol. Company meetings, for example. Just a single drink, to help you relax. Actually, I would concur that there are even parts of an MPs role that are better done like this.
But not most of it. Not every day. Not trying to wrangle with complex issues that have massive impacts when you have drunk two bottles of wine. In fact, someone who can drink two bottles of wine and still appear competent is probably an alcoholic, and shouldn't be making any decisions of import.
Isn't this suggesting (I'm sure not intentionally) that teetotal writers are worse writers? Alcohol has never had any impact on my writing, for instance, even when I did drink alcohol.
But that's also highly dependent on the individual, and also whether or not you can behave appropriately around work colleagues after alcohol. Safety at work isn't just about preventing workplace injuries.
Or whether you can behave appropriately around work colleagues without any alcohol at all. Having had a drink does not in any way relieve you of your obligations to behave like a decent person. If you know that you can't keep your hands to yourself after a drink (for example), then you should factor that in to your considerations of whether it is wise to have a drink. And if this is you, you shouldn't drink at parties either.
(For the avoidance of doubt, that's a generic "you".)
George Herbert, the priest-poet, recommends moderation:
Drink not the third glass, which thou canst not tame,
When once it is within thee; but before
Mayst rule it, as thou list: and pour the shame,
Which it would pour on thee, upon the floor.
It is most just to throw that on the ground,
Which would throw me there, if I keep the round.
I think there are some parts of most jobs that are better off with some alcohol. Company meetings, for example. Just a single drink, to help you relax. Actually, I would concur that there are even parts of an MPs role that are better done like this.
I'm repeating myself; but there have been a number of harassment cases in the Commons in which alcohol has been named as a contributing factor, and the point at which I'd start to worry about judgement being impaired is well below that where it manifests as harassment.
'Constantly needing a bit of Dutch Courage to relax' seems dysfunctional, and the reason drinking became less of a thing in professions like banking was that the one thing it really impairs is one's ability to process and react to new information.
"Constantly" absolutely a problem. I am more thinking of sitting with difficult people, sometimes I can see a drink would ease the tensions somewhat. Doing this more than occasionally is a problem. A serious problem.
Drinking to the point of harassing colleagues or staff - as I know and experienced when this was common - is not a valid state to be in.
Isn't this suggesting (I'm sure not intentionally) that teetotal writers are worse writers? Alcohol has never had any impact on my writing, for instance, even when I did drink alcohol.
It isn't my quote, I should point out. And that was never the intention. I think the idea is that - for many people - some alcohol lets words and ideas flow out, you can end up with some fantastic writing. But that it makes less sense - hence the edit part.
I know that some of the greatest ideas for my fantasy-adjacent writing come from surreal dreams, which is probably the same thing. But it is not the case for all writing, obviously.
George Herbert, the priest-poet, recommends moderation:
Drink not the third glass, which thou canst not tame,
When once it is within thee; but before
Mayst rule it, as thou list: and pour the shame,
Which it would pour on thee, upon the floor.
It is most just to throw that on the ground,
Which would throw me there, if I keep the round.
Did he also fail to look both ways when crossing the road last week?
Here's the political memory that comes into my head whenever I hear that sort of quip.
A few days after the Bush '88 campaign launched its attack ads referencing Dukakis' furlough of Willie Horton, the panel on the the TV show McLaughlin Group, consisting of Reagan Republicans and Establishment Democrats, unanimously mocked the ads as ridiculous and certain to be ineffective. At the end of that particular mini-discussion, one of them said, to general laughter, "I hear he has some overdue library books as well."
Reading about Polanski's boat taxes, it doesn't strike me as an issue that will incite the public imagination the way Willie Horton eventually did, but I'm not on the ground over there.
These sorts of attacks are so common, and so boring. So some politicians get bad advice or no advice and make mistakes, that they then correct when they realise. Like, erm, normal people. Which they are. And it is worth pointing out that these mistakes are usually a few thousand pounds - not trivial, but of an order that they can pay them off.
But then other politicians have gifts from dodgy sources of 5M, for "security" (a lie) or "as a personal gift" - just before the election. And that is all fine, nothing to worry about.
Those on the left, who actually threaten the establishment get held to standards in a completely different league to those on the right who will let the establishment continue its grift. It is part of what politicians actually wanting change have to put up with, sadly.
Even before we get to the accusations that Zack - a Jew - is antisemitic and Farage - a fascist and a racist - isn't. Those are tried and tested ways of making people hate the ones that the establishment want you to hate.
I remember when the Scottish papers did a hit piece on an SNP minister because she'd been at summer camp events for care-experienced children and had made them some tablet as a treat and posted the recipe. (It's a very sweet and delicious Scottish treat. You shouldn't live on it but as a home made treat, it's absolutely top tier - a lovely thing to do)
She did something nice for care experienced children! How dare she! Why wasn't she giving them fruit!
I remember reading this and thinking ,yes technically it is indeed unhealthy and also you can all feck off if this is the level you stoop to.
It's one of the things that exposes how rigged the media is and that it's not a level playing field. It's very right wing and strains at gnats from the politically progressive while often ignoring 'camels' from the other end.
People get sick of it. But it's how the monied right work - they have the megaphones and algorithms and so control the salience of things, what gets passed over quickly and what gets blown out of all proportion as a 'story'. You can bet they wont be reporting on how successfully their monied proprietors have evaded millions of pounds of tax through expensive advice on schemes and loopholes.
It also puts off people from getting into politics because if you support anything to the left of Genghis Khan, the Eye of Mordor will be turned on you next and the orcs will be raking through your bins. Even Starmer wasnt far enough right for them - remember the donkey sanctuary stuff?
From what I've seen elsewhere, it seems that nobody at that marina has paid council tax for the past 35 years - and that it was the council's mistake for not charging them.
From what I've seen elsewhere, it seems that nobody at that marina has paid council tax for the past 35 years - and that it was the council's mistake for not charging them.
That's interesting. It had occurred to me to wonder why the Council hadn't charged earlier. I also live on a houseboat, and, although we've paid Council Tax for some years now, there was a time when it was unclear as to whether or not we were liable for it.
Our moorings are officially recognised by our local authority, but that may not be so in Polanski's case.
Anyway, it clearly shows that he's quite unfit for high office, unlike the rest of our politicians (IRONY).
There may be confusion about whether the boat is classified as a houseboat or a live aboard canal boat, in which case, I believe dues are payable to the Canals and Rivers Trust. In short, I don’t know and it looks like others could be in the same situation.
From what I've seen elsewhere, it seems that nobody at that marina has paid council tax for the past 35 years - and that it was the council's mistake for not charging them.
That's interesting. It had occurred to me to wonder why the Council hadn't charged earlier. I also live on a houseboat, and, although we've paid Council Tax for some years now, there was a time when it was unclear as to whether or not we were liable for it.
Our moorings are officially recognised by our local authority, but that may not be so in Polanski's case.
If I was living on a canal boat in a marina where I a) had never received any invoice for Council Tax, b) no one else I knew there had said that they had, c) had an additional digs where I thought part of my rent was going to the landlord paying Council Tax, and d) some moorings are exempt anyway ... well, I'd probably assume that I didn't need to pay anything.
There's a good chance that other boat owners in that marina are now cursing Polanski, as they're all likely to get bills for unpaid Council Tax after the council notices it's mistake.
Of course, the take home message is simple: STOP THE BOATS
I'd like to be able to triumphantly yell "I called it!!", but in all modesty, overdue library books have a long history as the humourous go-to contrast for more serious wrongdoing. SCTV did "Library Police" in the 1970s, and later generations saw the same routine on Seinfeld.
(I will read into the record that as a child, I got a notice from the library that if I did not pay a fine, somewhere between 5 and 10 dollars, IIRC, "...the matter will be settled by a collection agency.")
From what I've seen elsewhere, it seems that nobody at that marina has paid council tax for the past 35 years - and that it was the council's mistake for not charging them.
That's interesting. It had occurred to me to wonder why the Council hadn't charged earlier. I also live on a houseboat, and, although we've paid Council Tax for some years now, there was a time when it was unclear as to whether or not we were liable for it.
Our moorings are officially recognised by our local authority, but that may not be so in Polanski's case.
If I was living on a canal boat in a marina where I a) had never received any invoice for Council Tax, b) no one else I knew there had said that they had, c) had an additional digs where I thought part of my rent was going to the landlord paying Council Tax, and d) some moorings are exempt anyway ... well, I'd probably assume that I didn't need to pay anything.
There's a good chance that other boat owners in that marina are now cursing Polanski, as they're all likely to get bills for unpaid Council Tax after the council notices it's mistake.
Of course, the take home message is simple: STOP THE BOATS
Another point to bear in mind is that the boat owners probably pay mooring fees to the marina management (as we do here), who, in their turn, pay business rates to the local authority (as ours does). I cannot now recall what reason was given for us being liable for council tax, but it may well have been because our boats are our only place of residence.
You haven't been in a public library recently, then.
Well, yeah, but I described myself as "yell[ing]" , so I assume @Alan Cresswell was using that to segue into the stock-comedy image of a librarian shushing people to stop them from talking loudly in the library.
(Persuant to the on-going social critique of multi-purpose libraries and any subsequent decline of quietude, IME it really depends which library you're talking about. Not a topic I'm personally much invested in at the moment, though.)
From what I've seen elsewhere, it seems that nobody at that marina has paid council tax for the past 35 years - and that it was the council's mistake for not charging them.
Yep - well, not wanting to put fault anywhere, the council had not requested council tax, and the residents had not paid it - as it had not been asked for - because the liability was unsure.
Most critically, Polanski had not "evaded" paying it. None of them had. They had simply not been informed.
I'd like to be able to triumphantly yell "I called it!!", but in all modesty, overdue library books have a long history as the humourous go-to contrast for more serious wrongdoing. SCTV did "Library Police" in the 1970s, and later generations saw the same routine on Seinfeld.
(I will read into the record that as a child, I got a notice from the library that if I did not pay a fine, somewhere between 5 and 10 dollars, IIRC, "...the matter will be settled by a collection agency.")
I'd like to bid for "walked down the escalator at King's Cross St Pancras on the wrong side" as the next one.
Comments
Well, at least in Canada, I've always had the vague idea that university professors lecturing under the influence is a not unheard-of phenom, though I think I can only remember one name explicitly linked with the behaviour.
One day, soon, he will, I hope, be a Member of Parliament.
Yes, we are a pretty joyless and puritan society these days. But I live in hope that the Overton window of social acceptability may yet swing back to a more reasonable location while I’m still around.
Objectively speaking, what would you say is the proportion of UK voters who would agree with your general outlook? Especially interested in what number of them woulda been potential Green voters in the first place.
Personally, I'm a pretty big fan of what I call "the post-1980s health and safety revolution". But having lived through eg. controversies over seat belts, teen drinking-parties etc, it's always seemed to me that they're the sortsa reforms that are pushed from the top-down, generally not in response to grassroots demands, though possibly lubricated(at least in some places) by the rise of legal-litigation as a prevalent practice.
Too few, and no idea but probably not many.
To the extent that “health and safety” minimises the risks people are forced to take in order to do their jobs or access services, I like it. Just not when it starts minimising the risks people are allowed to freely choose to take because of some stupid idea that the first, last, and only priority that anyone should ever have is to remain a physically healthy and maximally productive economic unit for as long as possible, whether they enjoy it or not.
Personally, I’m very glad to be old enough to have participated in a good few teen drinking parties - and some pretty wild ones, at that. I’d far rather have those happy memories than another four or five years of pointless dotage tacked on to the end of a life that wasn’t even worth remembering.
I suspect students drinking less has more to do with material conditions like large amounts of student debt, sky high rents and an uncertain job market than some outbreak of joyless puritanism.
BTW Marvin, it is possible to find joy without having to get drunk first.
There is no way I want to return to that situation. An occasional lunchtime get-together with a drink or so, and no expectation of working is OK, but that is not what this is about.
But the more I read and think about this the more I realise that there is another aspect to this. That most MPS don't really have anything to do, except make up the numbers. They know how they are going to vote before any of the ridiculous debates start, because their party whips have told them. Because it is about what the political capital is in a particular vote - not whether it is the right thing to do.
I am also reminded of the comment of Mahairi Black when she left, that the place was a toxic environment. I am sure that alcohol and smoking in the building contribute to this - the sense of it being still, really, a gentlemens club, for the wealthy and important people, as they all assume they are.
Especially in London.
Back in the mid 80s, I spent 12 months working in London for a software company. I was taken aback by the fact that most people went to the pub every lunchtime. And not just for one drink.
One of my co-workers, who was pretty much the same age as me, was an enforced teetotaller because he used to drink so much (especially at lunchtime) that he had done huge damage to his liver and had been told by his doctor "stop drinking now or you won't last another year".
And the thing is - he wasn't that extreme in that place and time.
There is also much more awareness of making things accessible for people who can't or don't want to drink alcohol. It's not joyless or puritan to be more considerate of other people's needs. Speaking personally as the child of alcoholics, being around drunk people can be a traumatic experience for me and I would avoid situations where they congregate even if I could drink alcohol (which I can't due to medication). That has nothing to do with puritanism. The idea that you have to drink alcohol in order to have fun is just not true.
I nowhere said it was.
Again, I nowhere said it was.
Apologies for any mix-up wrt quoting posts, but I was responding to @Marvin the Martian with those comments - I was agreeing with you!
I vaguely have the idea that, at least in Canada, underaged drinking parties fell outta favour after a few incidents of kids' driving home drunk and causing fatal car accidents, leading to criminal charges for the parents who allowed the parties in their homes, and so parents in general got the message they needed to clamp down. But I graduated high-school right at the start of that health-and-safety revolution I posited earlier, so I don't know if the laissiz-faire attitudes I recall from my adolescence prevailed afterwards, or for how long.
I will claim that the degree to which having had a drink or two impairs your work performance depends strongly on what your work is. If you're operating heavy machinery, or driving, or doing something else where reaction time and a sensible approach to risk is important, don't have a drink.
If you're doing something more akin to creative writing, perhaps one drink is even advantageous if it helps you to stop second-guessing yourself.
But that's also highly dependent on the individual, and also whether or not you can behave appropriately around work colleagues after alcohol. Safety at work isn't just about preventing workplace injuries.
Write drunk, edit sober.
And a lot of writing is editing.
I think there are some parts of most jobs that are better off with some alcohol. Company meetings, for example. Just a single drink, to help you relax. Actually, I would concur that there are even parts of an MPs role that are better done like this.
But not most of it. Not every day. Not trying to wrangle with complex issues that have massive impacts when you have drunk two bottles of wine. In fact, someone who can drink two bottles of wine and still appear competent is probably an alcoholic, and shouldn't be making any decisions of import.
I'm repeating myself; but there have been a number of harassment cases in the Commons in which alcohol has been named as a contributing factor, and the point at which I'd start to worry about judgement being impaired is well below that where it manifests as harassment.
'Constantly needing a bit of Dutch Courage to relax' seems dysfunctional, and the reason drinking became less of a thing in professions like banking was that the one thing it really impairs is one's ability to process and react to new information.
Isn't this suggesting (I'm sure not intentionally) that teetotal writers are worse writers? Alcohol has never had any impact on my writing, for instance, even when I did drink alcohol.
Or whether you can behave appropriately around work colleagues without any alcohol at all. Having had a drink does not in any way relieve you of your obligations to behave like a decent person. If you know that you can't keep your hands to yourself after a drink (for example), then you should factor that in to your considerations of whether it is wise to have a drink. And if this is you, you shouldn't drink at parties either.
(For the avoidance of doubt, that's a generic "you".)
Drink not the third glass, which thou canst not tame,
When once it is within thee; but before
Mayst rule it, as thou list: and pour the shame,
Which it would pour on thee, upon the floor.
It is most just to throw that on the ground,
Which would throw me there, if I keep the round.
"Constantly" absolutely a problem. I am more thinking of sitting with difficult people, sometimes I can see a drink would ease the tensions somewhat. Doing this more than occasionally is a problem. A serious problem.
Drinking to the point of harassing colleagues or staff - as I know and experienced when this was common - is not a valid state to be in.
It isn't my quote, I should point out. And that was never the intention. I think the idea is that - for many people - some alcohol lets words and ideas flow out, you can end up with some fantastic writing. But that it makes less sense - hence the edit part.
I know that some of the greatest ideas for my fantasy-adjacent writing come from surreal dreams, which is probably the same thing. But it is not the case for all writing, obviously.
Third? Bit of a lightweight, that Herbert!
Did he also fail to look both ways when crossing the road last week?
A classic ad hominem attack, showing that anyone in such a position needs financial and legal support. It’s boring and costly until things go wrong.
Dug up by a mate of Luke the Nuke.
Well, he says he's happy being Jewish, gay, vegan, and possessed of a crooked smile, so they have to hold something against him...
Here's the political memory that comes into my head whenever I hear that sort of quip.
A few days after the Bush '88 campaign launched its attack ads referencing Dukakis' furlough of Willie Horton, the panel on the the TV show McLaughlin Group, consisting of Reagan Republicans and Establishment Democrats, unanimously mocked the ads as ridiculous and certain to be ineffective. At the end of that particular mini-discussion, one of them said, to general laughter, "I hear he has some overdue library books as well."
Reading about Polanski's boat taxes, it doesn't strike me as an issue that will incite the public imagination the way Willie Horton eventually did, but I'm not on the ground over there.
But then other politicians have gifts from dodgy sources of 5M, for "security" (a lie) or "as a personal gift" - just before the election. And that is all fine, nothing to worry about.
Those on the left, who actually threaten the establishment get held to standards in a completely different league to those on the right who will let the establishment continue its grift. It is part of what politicians actually wanting change have to put up with, sadly.
Even before we get to the accusations that Zack - a Jew - is antisemitic and Farage - a fascist and a racist - isn't. Those are tried and tested ways of making people hate the ones that the establishment want you to hate.
She did something nice for care experienced children! How dare she! Why wasn't she giving them fruit!
I remember reading this and thinking ,yes technically it is indeed unhealthy and also you can all feck off if this is the level you stoop to.
It's one of the things that exposes how rigged the media is and that it's not a level playing field. It's very right wing and strains at gnats from the politically progressive while often ignoring 'camels' from the other end.
People get sick of it. But it's how the monied right work - they have the megaphones and algorithms and so control the salience of things, what gets passed over quickly and what gets blown out of all proportion as a 'story'. You can bet they wont be reporting on how successfully their monied proprietors have evaded millions of pounds of tax through expensive advice on schemes and loopholes.
It also puts off people from getting into politics because if you support anything to the left of Genghis Khan, the Eye of Mordor will be turned on you next and the orcs will be raking through your bins. Even Starmer wasnt far enough right for them - remember the donkey sanctuary stuff?
That's interesting. It had occurred to me to wonder why the Council hadn't charged earlier. I also live on a houseboat, and, although we've paid Council Tax for some years now, there was a time when it was unclear as to whether or not we were liable for it.
Our moorings are officially recognised by our local authority, but that may not be so in Polanski's case.
Anyway, it clearly shows that he's quite unfit for high office, unlike the rest of our politicians (IRONY).
There's a good chance that other boat owners in that marina are now cursing Polanski, as they're all likely to get bills for unpaid Council Tax after the council notices it's mistake.
Of course, the take home message is simple: STOP THE BOATS
I'd like to be able to triumphantly yell "I called it!!", but in all modesty, overdue library books have a long history as the humourous go-to contrast for more serious wrongdoing. SCTV did "Library Police" in the 1970s, and later generations saw the same routine on Seinfeld.
(I will read into the record that as a child, I got a notice from the library that if I did not pay a fine, somewhere between 5 and 10 dollars, IIRC, "...the matter will be settled by a collection agency.")
Well played.
Another point to bear in mind is that the boat owners probably pay mooring fees to the marina management (as we do here), who, in their turn, pay business rates to the local authority (as ours does). I cannot now recall what reason was given for us being liable for council tax, but it may well have been because our boats are our only place of residence.
Well, yeah, but I described myself as "yell[ing]" , so I assume @Alan Cresswell was using that to segue into the stock-comedy image of a librarian shushing people to stop them from talking loudly in the library.
(Persuant to the on-going social critique of multi-purpose libraries and any subsequent decline of quietude, IME it really depends which library you're talking about. Not a topic I'm personally much invested in at the moment, though.)
Yep - well, not wanting to put fault anywhere, the council had not requested council tax, and the residents had not paid it - as it had not been asked for - because the liability was unsure.
Most critically, Polanski had not "evaded" paying it. None of them had. They had simply not been informed.
I'd like to bid for "walked down the escalator at King's Cross St Pancras on the wrong side" as the next one.