Most of them deserve to be there. Why should I care how free they feel?
Are you trying to claim that a pub open to the general public isn’t a public place?
I can’t see any qualifications on indoors vs. outdoors here
Not only did you not bother to read my post you didn’t read you own.
As I pointed out, A pub is called a Public House, because it run by a Publican, not because it is in public. In this context a Pub is not a Public place. Pubs are private property.
I actually found a sentence where they are clearing illustrating the a public house is not in public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_in_public#United_Kingdom
It is clear that they don’t consider being in a public house as being in public.
A reasonable person would agree that a pub constitutes “in public”, yes. An unreasonable person would take that comment and decide it meant the writer was (and I paraphrase) a violent sociopath who beats up old ladies for complaining about the empty liquor bottles thrown into their back yard.
This statement, like most of your statements in this thread, is untrue. Even the article you linked to indicates that the word “publican” only started being used to describe the pub landlord in Victorian times and that, indeed, the writing of Pepys, which preceded that by a couple of centuries, made reference to the “pub”.
“1859, slang shortening of public house, which originally meant “any building open to the public” (1570s), then “inn that provides food and is licensed to sell ale, wine, and spirits” (1660s), and finally “tavern” (1768).”
JoelUpchurch, why don’t you just stop? Every single thing you say is simply nonsense. Untrue, utterly misinformed, and frequently utterly offensive.
“They”? What, the anonymous random people who write Wikipedia articles?
If you look at post 164, you will notice you aren’t considered drinking in public until you leave the pub.
I think you understood my question correctly the first time and then realized your answer made you look bad and now you claim you are spending thousands of pounds in cab fare because you live too far to walk home from your pub. This doesn’t make sense because I was asking about drinking in your neighborhood, not across town. Your mugging comment doesn’t make any sense either if you were drinking in a pub and taking a cab home, since muggings occur outdoors.
BTW, I found another apropos Theodore Dalrymple quote in lfpress.com today.
.
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/2011/08/24/18597091.html
By whom? I consider a pub apublic place. Every sane person I know does, too.
Whether you do or not is irrelevant.
Holy moley. This thread has become batshit insane.
So, uh, pray tell. How do I get hone then? Do I walk the whole way? What route do I take? I’m fascinated! How long does it take me? How mamy people do I mug on the way home? Please, tell me more about my life!
This thread had entered pure comedy territory. Now I actually find myself WANTING to hear more from you and your bizarre theories!
Is my town not my neighborhood then? Fuck knows. I thought it was. Certainly my preferred drinking hole is across town. I’m not a fan of locals; too insular.
But hey, you know better. Could you let me know where it actually is? What’s it called?
YOUR mugging comment. You were the one who decided I beat up old ladies after they complained when I threw empty liquor bottles into their back yards.
Congratulations. I’m proud of you. It’s nonsense, but it’s clear by bow you aren’t interested in hearing that. Enjoy your fantasies; shine on, you crazy diamond, you!
[quote=“Candyman74, post:167, topic:593120”]
You know neighbourhood isn’t the same thing as town. Do you assume Kensington is the same as Spitalfields? One neighbourhood could be a completely different socioeconomic category than one in the same town.
If you aren’t clear about what neighbourhood you live in, you can look it up here:
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/
I already explained that I mixed you up with a another poster on the ageism comment and apologized.
You actually brought up mugging first in post 123.
You said
The term mugging means Street Robbery. If no robbery takes place, then it is just assault.
Okay, this derail (again) has officially killed my interest in this thread. As people won’t do the civil thing and take it to the pit where they can just duke it out I think I’ll leave you all to it.
Sorry, man. I didn’t mean to ruin the thread for you. I felt I had the right to repudiate accusations of horrific crimes, but I appreciate you’re not interested in that.
I’ll back out of the thread. I ain’t gonna accomplish anything here anyway, and hopefully Joel is the only person who believes his offensive claims.
Carry on with your thread. I promise not to post again in it. 
For the record, in France, constitutionnally, international treaties are “hierarchically” above laws. In fact, this has been ignored by French courts for a long time, using a couple reasonnings I’m not going to explain here. Until the increasing importance and numbers of EU treaties, regulations, etc… made this position untenable, resulting in courts voiding French laws not complying with treaties provisions.
Even though the EU was the cause, this obviously applied too to the decisions of the ECHR, forcing France to take more seriously its decisions (in particular, France has lost several cases regarding conditions in prisons, long pre-trial jailing, etc)
By the way, since most Americans (and quite a lot of Europeans, I guess) are probably not aware of it, the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU. It’s a completely different treaty, involving many nations that aren’t members of the EU (For instance Russia) since long before the EU became as closely tied and as large as it is now.
You’re absolutely right, my words might have easily given the impression that the ECHR is an institution of the EU, which it is not.
I know, section 52 to 55 of the French Constitution, right? However, you should point out that Parliament has to ratify or approve of a treaty first and the status of the treaty is accepted only under the reserve that the contractual partner approves of the rules as well. IIRC, treaties ratified by the President become effective immediately but only if Parliament has approved of them by law during an earlier stage.
Which means that the high status of international treaties is granted by the French Parliament.
Or, that the treaty doesn’t properly exist until it has been ratified by Parliament, which is considered a better representative of the nation as a whole than its President. OTOH and while I’m not directly familiar with French law and based only on what I know of similar systems, I’m assuming they have regulations stating a timeframe within which a treaty must be submitted to Parliament, and either rejected or approved - unlike the US system, in which apparently a treaty can sit in Limbo forever and a day.
This is not relevant, organic law (the laws that pertain to the organization of the Parliament) is superior to regular law in the French law hierarchy. In both cases they have to be voted/approved by the Parliament. Décrets (executive orders, President’s main weapon) are issued by the President, and are below regular law. As you can see it is not the nature of body that issues/vote a text that establishes its place in the hierarchy, it is the nature of the text itself.
Treaties are above laws in the French system, period.
As I wager they are everywhere - else there wouldn’t be such a thing as diplomatic immunity.
Still, it’s the Parliament’s decision to accept or refuse a treaty - they cannot be passed by in the decision-making process.
But what’s the position of the Conseil constitutionnel with regard to … well its own position in the hierarchy of courts? As I said, the German Federal Court has pointed out to our government that they are the highest authority wrt the interpretation of the constitutionality of laws, institutions and actions/decisions by political organizations, and not some European Court and definitely not any group of politicians, no matter what treaty they deemed necessary to ratify.
Which means that no German government or parliament can lawfully approve of a treaty that contradicts the constitution. The constitution has to be adapted first and since its core cannot be altered by any majority in Parliament, there are limits to the nature of treaties that can be accepted - as long as the nation does not merge into something else. And that’s the reason why it’s legally so important that the EU is not considered a nation, not even a proto-nation but a union of nations.
Euro credit markets starting to freeze up again à la 2008. Things could start getting tricky for western europe and the wider economy very soon now.
Now just hold on a minute there. How many countries in the Americas are currently ruled by military dictatorships or juntas? Please count them.
Don’t keep up with Latin America much, do you?