Should there be an alcohol limit for leisure boaters?

[Tims Osprey]

Originally Posted by Jonny Fuller

So, legislation that could restrict idiots from driving fast craft while pissed is: "ridiculous". very good!

I hate the nanni state more than most, but you're just talking rubbish when it comes to this particular subject. I hope you, or any of your family never fall victim of this sort of thing....It 'may' just change your mind.

Sorry but thats just a typical stealth pro nanni state view, and if thats hating the nanni state more than most perhaps you should be asking yourself a few questions about who's talking rubbish here? maybe i do talk rubbish sometimes but i'm big enough to admit it and laugh about it unlike some that will go to any measure just to prove or should i say try and prove that they are right and always right.

If all of the rib-net members were split into 2 groups one anti nanni and the other pro it would be easy to pick out which group was which, and i know which group would get the most from a weekend together, life is for living not legislating.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

.... life is for living not legislating.

...as long as some "Piss Head" doesn't kill you first......

[Mugshot]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

If all of the rib-net members were split into 2 groups one anti nanni and the other pro it would be easy to pick out which group was which, and i know which group would get the most from a weekend together, life is for living not legislating.

What differences do you think you would see Tim? What differences would stand out so you could tell who was who?

[MarkWildey]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

If all of the rib-net members were split into 2 groups one anti nanni and the other pro it would be easy to pick out which group was which, and i know which group would get the most from a weekend together, life is for living not legislating.

This thread is turning into "Lord of the Flies"

You either with us or against us....

[The Garfish]

Originally Posted by MarkWildey

This thread is turning into "Lord of the Flies"

You either with us or against us....

iym wiv napowleon de pigg

gaRf

[Tims Osprey]

Originally Posted by Mugshot

What differences do you think you would see Tim? What differences would stand out so you could tell who was who?

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.

[thorper]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.

Rather than generally slagging people off who don't share your point of view Tim, how about answering the questions I posted further up this thread?

[Jonny Fuller]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.

And I fit that group do I?

Fool.

You SO don't know me. go and have a drink and just 'hang' man.

Just out of interest, how old are you?

[Mugshot]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.

Hmmmm, well that seems clear enough.
So a RIBnetter that wants to see some restriction on the amount of beer people can throw down their necks before taking the helm will be more likely to be sitting quietly reading a newspaper (would have thought it would get wet on the rib) maybe wearing slippers and smoking a pipe just to complete the image. Whereas the people that don't want any restictions will be hanging loose, maybe at the bar, laughing and singing for the joy of being alive.
Then when we all set off the paper readers will all put on their life jackets and attach their kill cords, before setting off at sensible non-planing speeds. Whilst the cool crew will stagger onto their RIBs and blast off into the sunset whooping and laughing, cos lifes for living, right?
I hope you can sense the sarcasm in my post Tim, unfortunately I couldn't sense any in yours. Maybe we're going to have to agree to disagree but I cannot understand why legislation whch could prevent some pisshead taking you and your family out is so abhorrent to you. I don't want to have Big Brother contolling my every move and I know you cannot legislate for idiots, but, if the regulations had been in place then three people may not have been hurt off Cowes, wouldn't it be worth it just to have prevented that?

[nikster]

Bottom line is.....legislation.... it aint never gonna happen in our lifetimes.. so just drink sensibly - be safe - and have maximus fun when the sun shines - and try to be as professional as you can most of the time -

anyone for pimms...... :-)

[Tims Osprey]

Originally Posted by thorper

Great - so given the scenarios I outlined, I am interested to know what your non nanny state approach would be?

I will do my best and start by saying off coarse all of us do not want to see or hear of horrible accidents on the water, unfortunately thats part of life and we have to deal with it, and if somebody is guilty of causing injury to others then off coarse justice must be done. For instance Confiscating boats from people who are a danger to others i'm not against but bringing out any form of compulsory licensing that involves taxing us yet more money and no doubt will not end there i am totally against, i ask myself why would people want to change a system that all ready works ok, incidents are very rare and there is no way that bringing in tighter laws will necessarily make things safer anyway? and i'm not knocking everybody who doesn't agree with me i like to disagree with certain types and i think you will find its them getting aggressive not me, i'm as cool as yu like.

[Tims Osprey]

Originally Posted by nikster

Bottom line is.....legislation.... it aint never gonna happen in our lifetimes.. so just drink sensibly - be safe - and have maximus fun when the sun shines - and try to be as professional as you can most of the time -

anyone for pimms...... :-)

well said that dude

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

.....i think you will find its them getting aggressive not me, i'm as cool as yu like.

Yes.... very cool

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

....get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.

[Tims Osprey]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yes.... very cool

yer well i did say i dont want a hand bag throwing contest so i'm not going there, it wasn't directed at anybody particular anyway and wasn't ment to be offensive, sticking 2 fingers up to the mentality of some people is good for the sole.

[Tims Osprey]

Originally Posted by Jonny Fuller

And I fit that group do I?

Fool.

You SO don't know me. go and have a drink and just 'hang' man.

Just out of interest, how old are you?

Chill jonny Its this type of aggression that i'm not gonna get involved in and people that post aggressive posts like telling people to hang should be ashamed of their selfs. I wasn't saying that any particular person was in that group and i didn't mention any names, do you really expect me to answer your question about my age? after your remarks! besides my age is not important, what is important is to be appy, better a happy fool than an angry wise guy.

[Jon Brooks]

Originally Posted by Barry Blitter

I am referring to type two diabetes which is now seen more often in children. Not to be confused with juvenile diabetes and meaning no offense to people with this disorder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womansho...7_26_mon.shtml

That is not what you were trying to say at all.
Your statement included a reference to injecting insulin, this is only required by type one diabetics not those suffering from type two.

The main reason that there are higher reported case of diabetes, full stop, is far better detection. Whilst there is some links to the diet and life style better detection is one of the main reasons.

You should take more effort to make your posts clearer, you are less likely to suffer from instant epistaxis than when you make sweeping statements.

I therefore refer you to my earlier statement of "uneducated twat"

All the best.

[Bigmuz7]

[Jonny Fuller]

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

Chill jonny Its this type of aggression that i'm not gonna get involved in and people that post aggressive posts like telling people to hang should be ashamed of their selfs. I wasn't saying that any particular person was in that group and i didn't mention any names, do you really expect me to answer your question about my age? after your remarks! besides my age is not important, what is important is to be appy, better a happy fool than an angry wise guy.

Originally Posted by Tims Osprey

duur no!!! then get a life, get a grip or get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.

MMn, well, I've certainly given my opinion a few times in this thread, but aggressive...I don't think so. I reckon you've cornered the market there yourself.

I have to assume from your avaisive comments that you're an 11 year old with 'attitude'. Keep up the good work! By the time your legaly old enough to drink alcohol, you could be the leader of the waterborn drunken chav pack. God help us when you reach puberty and the aggression really kicks in though eh.

I'm bored with this one now, so I'll see ya later.

[Tims Osprey]

Am i supposed to be insulted by that last post jonny trust me it takes alot more than them pathetic comments to even begin to get me stop smilling i would swoop down to your level and start posting nasty personal and aggressive posts but thats not really in my nature (although exceptions are sometimes called for) but should i ever turn up to a ribnet cruise why don't you come and say hello well it seems that aggression and arguing is yer specialty so i am too laying this little pissing contest to rest having learned at least one thing i.e yu aint cool dude.

Oh and ban me if yu like if it means i don't have to read any more of yer pathetic posts then good.
Oh and just for the record many 11 year olds are far smarter than they get credited for and also act more grown up than some adults, bless um.

[Sarah G]

Going back to the original thread, I agree with Codprawn, I don't think any legislation would have affected the behaviour in Cowes. They had already been warned by the police - they were driving at night - no lights - no lifejackets. Drunk or Sober they were going on that course of action and the outcome would have probably ended up the same - perhaps worse.

There is an argument for and against legislation. Nobody believes that drink driving a car is a good idea and there is legislation to prevent this and yet people still do it.

I do not drink and drive over the limit in a car or a rib and to be honest, it is fun enough without alcohol. Having said that, at the priory bay meeting I had a pimms and lemonade, who is to say that I wasn't over the limit as there are so many factors that would determine whether I would be over the limit.

However a zero tollerance would be unworkable in some situations. You are at a beach planning to spend the weekend there, have a few beers. You've listened to the forecast and know the tide times and yet you have to move your boat in the middle of the night for whatever reason. Do you:-

a) not have any alcohol - just in case;
b) not move the boat even though this may put yourself or your boat in danger;
c) move the boat and hope that everything will be OK.

Clearly, the most sensible answer is a) but in reality!