just one amusing snip from my link....hopefully someone will smile along with me....
"Mild drunkenness is one of the charming things about the British nation,' states Oz. 'Everyone has a few beers, gets slightly lit up and we're all smiling. Slightly drunk, fine, what's wrong with that?'
James writes that part of their 'mission' was 'to defend the right of normal British people to get a bit p***ed'.
But does that 'right' really need defending, I ask? Indeed, step out in a town or city any Friday night and it's the drink-fuelled ' attacking' that is the real issue. The pair are having none of it.
'The problem is that there is a small number of people who, as they've done through the ages, get outrageously drunk and cause trouble one way or another,' says James.
'The anti-drink movement, the rather sanctimonious one that the Government is supporting, is targeting perfectly reasonable, balanced people who like a drink, get a bit clattered, and actually have a better time - meet more people, have more sex, produce more children, and all the rest that goes with it - as a result.
'The idea some minister has come up with - that wine glasses in pubs should be smaller to discourage people from drinking too much wine, that the middle classes are drinking too much wine at home and that it is damaging the economy - is such utter horse **** that I will die before I agree with it,' he continues.
'I think it is just patronising rubbish of the first order. It is actually a weak-kneed excuse for not tackling the real problem, which is people who get drunk and beat policemen up or set fire to things. I don't think that Oz Clarke or what he espouses is any threat to society.'"
Read more: dailymail.co.uk |
