| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
James Farrar wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:27:40 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: James Farrar wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:18:41 +0100, Ross wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:52:38 +0100, Ian F. wrote in , seen in uk.railway: "John Turner" wrote in message . .. My wife and I run a small model shop where we are totally reliant on the good will of our customers. We've been doing that for almost twenty years, but not many customers come back if you treat them with contempt, so we have to treat them well. The difference is that bus drivers, TOC staff et al know full well that we *have* to use their services No you don't, any more than you *have* to use Woolworths, a company which IMX wouldn't know what customer service was if it was tied to a wet fish and slapped around their face. A shockingly false analogy. Woolworths has no monopoly. In the main, TOCs *do* have a monopoly. Certainly, for my journey to work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. Why not use Southern's main competitor? Which would be what? The car. Failing that a motor or pedal cycle. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:18:30 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote: James Farrar wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:27:40 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: James Farrar wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:18:41 +0100, Ross wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:52:38 +0100, Ian F. wrote in , seen in uk.railway: "John Turner" wrote in message . .. My wife and I run a small model shop where we are totally reliant on the good will of our customers. We've been doing that for almost twenty years, but not many customers come back if you treat them with contempt, so we have to treat them well. The difference is that bus drivers, TOC staff et al know full well that we *have* to use their services No you don't, any more than you *have* to use Woolworths, a company which IMX wouldn't know what customer service was if it was tied to a wet fish and slapped around their face. A shockingly false analogy. Woolworths has no monopoly. In the main, TOCs *do* have a monopoly. Certainly, for my journey to work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. Why not use Southern's main competitor? Which would be what? The car. Failing that a motor [cycle] Sure, if someone wants to buy me one. or pedal cycle. After pedalling for however long it would take across London, I would not be in a fit state to work. We have no showers available. -- James Farrar September's coming soon |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
James Farrar wrote:
A shockingly false analogy. Woolworths has no monopoly. Woolworths doesn't make any profit, either. It is not exactly the most successful of the high street retailers - which probably has something to do with the poor customer service, fully supporting John Turner's original point. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Brimstone" wrote:
James Farrar wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 20:27:40 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone" wrote: Why not use Southern's main competitor? Which would be what? The car. Failing that a motor or pedal cycle. The car does not compete with Southern, at least not north of the M25. When I lived in Haywards Heath and commuted to central London, my journey by rail took 1h 10m. By car, it took at least 2h, and much longer if I left home later than 05:30. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
Uncle Fester wrote:
Ian F. wrote The difference is that bus drivers, TOC staff et al know full well that we *have* to use their services - we can't take our business elsewhere at a similar cost - so they can treat us with as much derision, contempt and sneering bad-attitude as they like and we are powerless to do anything about it. On the odd occasion when I have reported to a company an instance of appalling behaviour, I have no doubt that, despite the palliative letters and promises that it would be dealt with, no mention of it would ever have been made to the offenders. Public transport finds it difficult to keep staff. Something to do with being treated like **** by passengers. It has much more to do with unsocial hours, especially the shift work. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Ross" wrote in message
... No you don't, any more than you *have* to use Woolworths, What a fatuous analogy! There are dozens of shops that sell the same items as Woolworths. And yet they don't seem to have any problems making a profit I think you'll find they do! rest of post snipped due to lack of credibility Ian |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Ian F." wrote in message ... "Ross" wrote in message ... No you don't, any more than you *have* to use Woolworths, What a fatuous analogy! There are dozens of shops that sell the same items as Woolworths. Just as millions of people find alternative methods of travelling to the train. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
In article , John Turner
writes Try murdering fanatics, not sure about the cowardly bit, although any *honest* soldier would wear a uniform. Like Violette Szabo? -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
A few weeks back I found myself on a tube train with somebody who was S
Byers double. I hadn't quite got the nerve to ask if he was Byers and to ask why Ministers were such lieing ****s. Kevin |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote Like Violette Szabo? New one on me - never heard of him/her. John. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
|
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
John Turner wrote:
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote Like Violette Szabo? New one on me - never heard of him/her. http://www.violette-szabo-museum.co.uk/foyer.htm http://www.specialforces.co.uk/violette.htm http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/violette_szabo.htm |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:24:44 +0100, James Farrar wrote in
, seen in uk.railway: On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 21:18:41 +0100, Ross wrote: [...] My wife and I run a small model shop where we are totally reliant on the good will of our customers. We've been doing that for almost twenty years, but not many customers come back if you treat them with contempt, so we have to treat them well. The difference is that bus drivers, TOC staff et al know full well that we *have* to use their services No you don't, any more than you *have* to use Woolworths, a company which IMX wouldn't know what customer service was if it was tied to a wet fish and slapped around their face. A shockingly false analogy. I disagree. Woolworths has no monopoly. In the main, TOCs *do* have a monopoly. The OP in the (sub)thread I'm replying to wasn't complaining about TOCs but about LU. I'm not aware of any part of London where the Underground has a monopoly of travel. In any case, even if TOCs were involved, since when have trains been the only possible way of getting from A to B? work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. Bike. Car. Motorbike. There's three options immediately. -- Ross, Lincoln, UK We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:50:36 +0100, Ian F. wrote in
, seen in uk.railway: "Ross" wrote in message ... No you don't, any more than you *have* to use Woolworths, What a fatuous analogy! There are dozens of shops that sell the same items as Woolworths. I assume that by "fatuous analogy" you mean "Oh, ****, he doesn't agree with me and I can't come up with a decent argument"? In case you haven't noticed, there are far more methods of transport than just trains. Of course, if you wish to only consider one method (be that train, bus, car or elephant), that's up to you. And yet they don't seem to have any problems making a profit I think you'll find they do! rest of post snipped due to lack of credibility Yup, I was right. You can't come up with a decent argument so you try to claim my point isn't credible. Still, the fact that you are unable to defend your own assertions says everything I need to know about the value of your own position. It's very noticeable that throughout this thread there are plenty of people posting about how awful transport staff are and how the business is a monopoly, but only who is actually willing to justify his statements - and he's not one of the people who's claiming poor staff. All the rest either go quiet or start stonewalling when their views are challenged. Strange that. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact they know they're talking ********? -- Ross, Lincoln, UK We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:52:48 +0100, John Turner wrote:
"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote Like Violette Szabo? New one on me - never heard of him/her. Next time the film, "Carve Her Name With Pride" is on, watch it. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309746.html (47 599 at Birmingham New Street, Jun 1985) |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:21:09 +0100, Ross
wrote: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:50:36 +0100, Ian F. wrote in , seen in uk.railway: "Ross" wrote in message ... No you don't, any more than you *have* to use Woolworths, Snip And yet they don't seem to have any problems making a profit I think you'll find they do! rest of post snipped due to lack of credibility Yup, I was right. You can't come up with a decent argument so you try to claim my point isn't credible. Just in case anyone is interested in facts, see http://www.companyannouncements.net/...00271040K.html -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Ross" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:50:36 +0100, Ian F. wrote in , seen in uk.railway: "Ross" wrote in message ... . It's very noticeable that throughout this thread there are plenty of people posting about how awful transport staff are and how the business is a monopoly, but only who is actually willing to justify his statements - and he's not one of the people who's claiming poor staff. All the rest either go quiet or start stonewalling when their views are challenged. Strange that. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact they know they're talking ********? -- Ross, Lincoln, UK We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com Two points in reply 1) Public transport staff I meet on my travels are very nearly all fine to deal with. The ones who are difficult are a very small minority and we can all have the odd bad day. 2) Trains do have effective monopolies. For example train is the only public transport to Manchester from my town unless I want to use a succession of local buses |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:17:24 +0100, BIG_ONE
wrote; well **** off and die you fat ******* Feeding the troll, perhaps, but some people "run hotter" and therefore sweat more than others regardless of fitness level. I'd not cycle to work (about 5-6 miles) if it were not for the fact that showers (very nice power showers in fact, and thus better than the one in my flat - there's motivation!) are provided. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:39:48 GMT, Tom Haliax wrote in
, seen in uk.railway: [...] Two points in reply 1) Public transport staff I meet on my travels are very nearly all fine to deal with. The ones who are difficult are a very small minority and we can all have the odd bad day. Quite. There *are* some complete arseholes working in the transport industry, I know this from my own experience, but then there are complete arseholes working everywhere. My problem with the comments in this thread is that some people seem to be asserting that it is *only* the transport industry which has arseholes working for it. 2) Trains do have effective monopolies. For example train is the only public transport to Manchester from my town unless I want to use a succession of local buses Um. Straw man, I think. You're making rail a monopoly by specifying a small usage sector in your argument. If you make the wider argument, by discussing available transport rather than only public transport, I should think it's a very different story. To give a concrete example: rail has the monopoly of public transport business between Lincoln and Nottingham, because the only public transport competition is an occasional National Express coach. However, rail carries only a minority of Lincoln - Nottingham travellers, because the majority use the car. -- Ross, Lincoln, UK We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Uncle Fester" wrote in message enews.net... SB wrote Laughing Jackasses on the Railways What is it that causes the misfortune and disruption of others so much amusement from those who should be serving us paying customers? Such is the attitude tonight amongst staff at stations just after the second wave of 'bombings.' On 7/7 I had the sense not to visit London due to the severe disruption, not, I repeat not, due to any fear of being blown to bits by any Islamic murdering cowards. However tonight I was damned if these fools were going to stop my usual Thursday night in town. BUT at many stations including local ones, London Underground and certain TOCs, the customer service staff seemed to revel in the dusruption. Laughing and joking the ones I spoke, to ask which lines were running, could hardly take time off from their smiles and laughter together, to take my concerns seriously, to answer my questions and to put my mind at ease that things were under control. I suspect that I'm not the first commuter nor will be the last to get the impression that by asking for help I'm actually being a damned nuiscance to them. This has been the attitude towards passengers, sorry customers, for years. And even in these more dangerous times nothing seems to have changed. I might add that at Paddington there are two young customer service staff who take great delight in acting the arse rather than being ambassadors for their companies, Great Western &/or National Rail. This is especially evident when the old Great Western Band is playing on Friday evenings. These two not only take the **** out of the musicians, but also out of the passengers watching. With so-called 'customer service' like this it is no wonder passengers, customers, commuters, or whatever are ****ed off, especially in London? You dull ****. Transport staff are going to be in the front line throughout their working day. They don't have a choice - you do. Now **** off and grow up. Now now, just because he's an inbred dimwit, there's no need to call him a ****. Arf! Cru -- "If God had meant women to drive trains he would have put a sink in the cab." |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
James Farrar wrote:
After pedalling for however long it would take across London, I would not be in a fit state to work. We have no showers available. well **** off and die you fat ******* |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
|
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:21:09 +0100, Ross
wrote: work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. Bike. Asked and answered. Car. Motorbike. Do you propose to buy me one? Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). -- James Farrar September's coming soon |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:50:52 +0100, James Farrar
wrote: Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). It is possible to buy a vehicle which is exempt from the congestion charge. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
Uncle Fester ) said:
Terry Harper wrote Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). It is possible to buy a vehicle which is exempt from the congestion charge. It's a ******* finding parking for a bus. An alternative fuel car (including dual fuel) is entitled to enter the zone for a tenner a year providing emissions are low enough: http://www.cclondon.com/downloads/Drivers.pdf Likewise electrics are entitled to this discount on another form. See http://www.cclondon.com/exemptions.shtml -- Andrew |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Andrew Bell" wrote in message k... Uncle Fester ) said: Terry Harper wrote Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). It is possible to buy a vehicle which is exempt from the congestion charge. It's a ******* finding parking for a bus. An alternative fuel car (including dual fuel) is entitled to enter the zone for a tenner a year providing emissions are low enough: http://www.cclondon.com/downloads/Drivers.pdf Likewise electrics are entitled to this discount on another form. See http://www.cclondon.com/exemptions.shtml -- Andrew |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:50:52 +0100, James Farrar wrote in
, seen in uk.railway: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:21:09 +0100, Ross wrote: work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. Bike. Asked and answered. Didn't notice, sorry. Car. Motorbike. Do you propose to buy me one? If you'll buy me one in return. You can buy me a house too, whilst you're at it. Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option". Rather different things. Terry Harper has said there are alternative vehicles which don't attract the full congestion charge. I'll take his word for that, and simply suggest that there are options that you are, for whatever reason, unwilling to acknowledge. -- Ross, Lincoln, UK We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Ross" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:50:52 +0100, James Farrar wrote in , seen in uk.railway: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:21:09 +0100, Ross wrote: work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. Bike. Asked and answered. Didn't notice, sorry. Car. Motorbike. Do you propose to buy me one? If you'll buy me one in return. You can buy me a house too, whilst you're at it. Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option". Rather different things. Terry Harper has said there are alternative vehicles which don't attract the full congestion charge. I'll take his word for that, and simply suggest that there are options that you are, for whatever reason, unwilling to acknowledge. -- Ross, Lincoln, UK Now now. Don't be silly. Accept that for options to be viable they have to be realistic rather than theoretical. Think of sensible realistic options. For example buying a hybrid car to beat a congestion charge would be silly. Say 220 working days per year x £5 = £1,100. Rather less than the depreciation of an expensive hybrid car so to most salaried p.a.y.e. employees it's not in any realistic sense an option. When I worked in central London my options for getting to work were proper train, District Line or motorbike and I used them all from time to time. Theoretically I could have walked, cycled, used several buses ( oh I forgot two buses and tube could be done but that would have been a pointless waste of time) or even used my car but in no practical way were they options that could reallistically exercised on a regular basis. So they were not options except in some daft schoolboyish arguement. We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:28:57 GMT, Tom Haliax wrote in
, seen in uk.railway: "Ross" wrote in message ... work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. [big snip] Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option". Rather different things. [big snip] Now now. Don't be silly. Why not? Everyone else is being silly, in the "I don't agree therefore any options presented are stupid and irrelevant" sense, so why shouldn't I join in the fun? Accept that for options to be viable they have to be realistic rather than theoretical. [big snip] Yup. But, of course, realistic options rather rely on those they're suggested to being open minded enough to actually realise that they're realistic. I think that's where the sticking point is, which makes the entire conversation pointless, as it seems that any realistic option offered gets an automatic response along the lines of "That's not realistic because I don't like it". Like you say, we're into schoolboy-ish arguments, and there ain't nobody going to win because schoolboy arguments are never won; both sides simply go off in a huff. -- Ross, Lincoln, UK We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
"Ross" wrote in message ... On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:28:57 GMT, Tom Haliax wrote in , seen in uk.railway: "Ross" wrote in message ... work, I can catch a Southern train, or I can take about three hours travelling on multiple buses. Since I don't propose to spen a quarter of the day commuting, I have no option. [big snip] Car travel in particular would be more expensive than rail travel, even if there were zero running costs. (A month's C-charge is more expensive than 1/12 of a Gold Card from my station). What you mean is that "I have another option, but I don't wish to take it because it is more expensive", not "I have no option". Rather different things. [big snip] Now now. Don't be silly. Why not? Everyone else is being silly, in the "I don't agree therefore any options presented are stupid and irrelevant" sense, so why shouldn't I join in the fun? Accept that for options to be viable they have to be realistic rather than theoretical. [big snip] Yup. But, of course, realistic options rather rely on those they're suggested to being open minded enough to actually realise that they're realistic. I think that's where the sticking point is, which makes the entire conversation pointless, as it seems that any realistic option offered gets an automatic response along the lines of "That's not realistic because I don't like it". Like you say, we're into schoolboy-ish arguments, and there ain't nobody going to win because schoolboy arguments are never won; both sides simply go off in a huff. -- Ross, Lincoln, UK No I,m not in a huff. I rather like a good arguement. End this as a score draw? |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
Uncle Fester wrote:
It is possible to buy a vehicle which is exempt from the congestion charge. It's a ******* finding parking for a bus. I believe that a 9-seater Landrover Defender 110 is exempt from the charge, by virtue of it having more than 8 seats. Not the sort of car you'd think Red Ken would want to encourage, but there you go... -- Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________ |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 20:45:23 +0100, Stevie D
wrote: I believe that a 9-seater Landrover Defender 110 is exempt from the charge, by virtue of it having more than 8 seats. Not the sort of car you'd think Red Ken would want to encourage, but there you go... No, but a 12-seater LR 110 is exempt, as it's a minibus. The definition of a minibus, incidentally, is a vehicle that has 9 or more passenger seats *additional to the driver*. A more recent Defender 110 that has 9 seats *in total* (to avoid the minibus regs[1]) doesn't count. Or we could, of course, all go and drive around in 17-seater LDVs, which aren't quite what Ken wants to encourage one passenger to travel in either. I'm surprised the exemption isn't based on a requirement for it to be being used as a PSV (taxi etc) and not privately. It does require registration at a nominal fee, but I recall it is available to any owner or operator of such a vehicle. That said, from past experience it's a bugger to park one in London - too high (7' 6") for most car parks, but not welcome in coach parks! [1] The original 12-seater Defender exists to avoid the car tax regs; it doesn't sensibly seat 12 unless all are midgets[2]. How things change... [2] Midget adults, not children, because you can't legally use the side-facing 6 seats for under-16s in the minibus configuration. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
Laughing Jackasses on the Railways
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:12:34 GMT, Tom Haliax wrote in
, seen in uk.railway: "Ross" wrote in message ... [...] Like you say, we're into schoolboy-ish arguments, and there ain't nobody going to win because schoolboy arguments are never won; both sides simply go off in a huff. No I,m not in a huff. I rather like a good arguement. End this as a score draw? You ain't and I ain't, but we're not going to change each other's minds, which means a huff is an option if we keep arguing. So, yes, a score draw and a handshake is a good idea. :) fx:extends hand -- Ross, Lincoln, UK We're *not* afraid http://www.werenotafraid.com |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk