The realistic anarchist — 11 Comments

  1. Bravo!    I have been doing this for about 15 years and have not had a problem [perhaps others who see me have ;o)  ].


    But, refecting on it ; as I am about 15 years older than you, perhaps the mid-sixties of our life give us a "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" attitude.


    • So mid sixties is the dawn of a new age?  Beats the hell out of "life begins at forty"!!

    • Oh, I don't think age really comes into it. I've had that very approach to life since I was in my teens, and although I consider myself an honest and (more or less) law abiding person with a very definite moral compass, if I think the law is a fool then I ignore it and go my own way. I'm mid-sixties now, and this approach to life has served me well so far. I've flown a bit close to the sun on occasion and had the odd brush with 'Authority', but fuck 'em, I don't need to be told what is right and wrong. I know that already. If they want to make up stupid fucking rules, then they must expect people like me to disregard them.

  2. The ones who really irritate me are the ones who either can’t differentiate between a law and a rule (because they are either too stupid or too mentally lazy – because it isn’t actually that complicated to work out the difference), or, worse still, those who won’t do so, because they don’t want to take responsibility for making unfair, unreasonable or unpopular rules, so they pretend that they’ve “got to” adopt this or that policy (such as not smoking in their outside areas or not buying more than two packs of baccy), in the hope that it’ll fool people into thinking that if they only had the choice, well, of course they wouldn’t dream of imposing such unfair and unnecessary restrictions. Cowards.

    • The worst are the "jobsworths" who have to do everything strictly by the book.  They are impervious to any kind of logic or reasoning and will always retort that "that's the rules" or "that's the law". 

      Next time, try telling 'em that under the Civil Act 2013 Amendment [Section 6, Paragraph 48, Clause B] you are exempt from their petty rule/law/act/bylaw by reason of ethnicity or religion.  Ultimately it probably won't fool them but it will really fuck with their head for a while.

  3. About the tobacco in the ship's duty free shop. The rule allowing a customer to buy only two packets is designed to prevent a customer from buying so much stock that other smokers are disappointed. In contract law the display of goods in a retail shop is considered as "an invitation to treat" and was established as a precedent ruling in a civil court case to prevent a customer from buying all the stock of certain commodities and then reselling them in his own shop at a big juicy markup.

    • If I were buying to stock my own premises I would need to buy more than ten packs!  In previous years they had sold them in cartons of five packs at a time [and no limits], but then common sense does seem to be on a downward spiral.  Incidentally, I could have bought any amount of booze that I wanted with no restrictions, and they were even offering "three for the price of two" type offers which just made the whole thing more insane.

  4. I had a similar experience sailing from Ireland a few years ago. I wanted to buy 200 cigarettes but was told I could only buy 20 so I said my nine friends want a packet too. I got the 200 no problem with a smile and a wink. 

    • Probably the same girl who served me!  Glad she didn't get the sack anyway. 

      The last time I tried the same game they weren't having any of it so I just visited the shop five or six times.  Crazy!

  5. Sir,

    Through the cunning use of tea leafs and tapping on the table, Mr Heinlein managed to communicate to me his wish for me to humbly pass on to you his thanks for the mention in dispatches; it’s appreciated.

    Now, if I could just get those tea leafs to stay in the water and the table to shut up, I could enjoy my breakfast.

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting