That's a little overreaction isn't it?
Now here me out as you obviously have strong views on this! If I have the choice between paying £50 - £75 for an off peak return to take me away for the weekend (Let's say out Friday evening back Sunday) or driving, driving will probably win on cost grounds. However if I take the train I can have a couple of drinks after a hard day in the office on the Friday, chill out, and I can do the same on the way home. If I can't drink on the train at all, I might be swayed into driving.
Thats not whats it's about though, doing that will likely result in a blind eye being turned, it's specifically aimed at trouble and using a rule to prevent it escalating, where the rule doesn't exist it makes staffs work harder.
Surely you know the difference in taking off a paralytic drunks beer off him and giving him a chance to sober up on the way home or groups knowing the rule then topping up on the train possibly leading to aggro as they get more drunk and loud.
I agree it doesn't happen, but I'm also saying I don't think it could happen.
Who are you addressing and which post are you telling to?
Did anyone say it is the deciding factor?
Surely there are many factors involved.
It's not going to happen to everyday passengers going about their day which included a bag with majestic wine written on it.
If an officer or security guard has the power of a booze ban then when someone drunk and in danger to themselves or others and will get worse if they drink more then a check of their shopping may happen, just like if underage drinkers are caught in a park it's poured down the drain