He who picks on young voters might take care, lest he thereby become unelected (or perhaps not)

The BBC have reported that, after a successful scheme in which off-licenses in Armadale (West Lothian) banned sales of alcohol to under-21s on Friday and Saturday nights, with a consequent reduction in "assaults, vandalism and general complaints about young people", the Scottish parliament want to roll-out a ban on supermarket/off-license sales to under-21s every day of the week, across the whole of Scotland.

There are many things which may reduce crime by removing citizens' rights: introducing a night-time curfew for just one example. But when elected legislators start picking on voters, it will hardly be a surprise if the voters bite back. 18-years old is deemed old enough to be sent into war and "die for your country" but not to buy a bottle of chardonay or a can of beer from the supermarket to enjoy over dinner. Are 18, 19 and 20-year-olds in Scotland really going to stand for this?

It fits into a wider theme, doesn't it:

• The state allowing itself to ban alcohol sales from under-21s because some of them will engage in loutish behaviour


• The state allowing itself to detain anyone without charge for up to 42 days (after it failed in its push for a 90-day detention without charge) because some people will be guilty of terrorist offences and the police don't want to be hampered with the inconvenience of charging them


• The state making suspects of every citizen by taking their fingerprints and DNA because some of them will be criminals

Most crimes are committed by "men between the ages of 15 and 24", "14-16 year olds playing truant from school", "repeat offenders", "blacks", "people with low intelligence", they say.

So why not lock them all up, until the 14-16 year olds become 17, until the 15-24 year olds become 25, until first-time offenders die in jail, until blacks become white and people of low intelligence become intelligent? This is the natural extension of a policy to punish whole sections of people for the misdemeanours of a few.

The sad part is, Brits seem so eager to lose their rights that it's actually a vote winner! When Tony Blair tried to introduce 90-day detention without charge (a policy known by some as "internment") a BBC-On-Line poll found 41% of people in favour, and 72% of people in favour of an increase from the then 14-day maximum. I would like every one of them to inadvertently find themselves suspects in a terrorist investigation, in order to take metrics after just a week of how many revise their view!