In message , at
09:42:42 on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Brimstone
remarked:
The direct answer to your question that as long as some people make
life unpleasant for others then I will tolerate nanny laws since I'm
not one of those who is being restricted.

...yet

Since none of my activities (nor those of milions of others) make life
unpleasant for others it's not going to happen.

....yet

I'd have problems if a new nanny law said I couldn't buy and drink a can
of beer on the train on the way home. I assume such a rule would be for
the prevention of unpleasantness, despite my belief that I can have
quiet drink without causing any unpleasantness.

The issue here isn't whether or not *you* cause any unpleasantness, in
your normal day to day life; but whether or not there's a risk that
*some* people might cause unpleasantness, resulting in a blanket ban
(which then causes you restriction).
--
Roland Perry

Cheeky wrote:
[...]
Alternatively just have a ride on one of Branson's trains. You'll
get the same without shelling out £200...

Unfortunately, selfish ******s seem to travel on Virgin trains as much
as any other operator. Worse, they seem to think that the Quiet Zone
is so that they have less background noise to interfere with their
loud mobile phone calls and hip hop at full blast on their iPod.

If you're having a poke at the Pendolino, I've not noticed any
meaningful attenuation of mobile signals on those trains. Where I find
no signal inside the train, it's in a place where the signal outside
the train is either too poor to use or nonexistent.

--
Her virtue was that she said what she thought, her vice that what she thought
didn't amount to much.
- Sir Peter Ustinov

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 08:20:13 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

The direct answer to your question that as long as some people make
life unpleasant for others then I will tolerate nanny laws since I'm
not one of those who is being restricted.

Lucky you're perfect then :-)

Far from, I simply learnt the consequences of making life unpleasant for
others.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk

[snip]

I'd have problems if a new nanny law said I couldn't buy
and drink a can of beer on the train on the way home. I
assume such a rule would be for the prevention of
unpleasantness, despite my belief that I can have quiet
drink without causing any unpleasantness.

There are numerous signs up in many areas near where I live claiming that
the police have powers to restrict people from drinking alcohol in the
street. Now I'm one of those that prefers to do my drinking in a pub, but
that doesn't mean I believe that people shouldn't be able to drink in the
street if they want to. What I believe they should not be allowed to do is
behave in such a manner as to annoy or disturb others, but that isn't
necessarily related to drinking.

As to drinking on trains, or buses or any other form of public transport,
then that is up to the operators of said transport. If Virgin or whoever
don't want you to drink on their trains that's their business and if you
don't like it you don't have to travel with them. You may not like that, I
certainly don't, but it is still up to them.

The issue here isn't whether or not *you* cause any
unpleasantness, in your normal day to day life; but
whether or not there's a risk that *some* people might
cause unpleasantness, resulting in a blanket ban (which
then causes you restriction).

Precisely.

Ivor

In message , at 12:32:21 on Sat, 19 Nov
2005, Ivor Jones remarked:
There are numerous signs up in many areas near where I live claiming that
the police have powers to restrict people from drinking alcohol in the
street. Now I'm one of those that prefers to do my drinking in a pub, but
that doesn't mean I believe that people shouldn't be able to drink in the
street if they want to.

It's not just streets, such bans would extend to having a can of beer
with a picnic in the park.

As to drinking on trains, or buses or any other form of public transport,
then that is up to the operators of said transport. If Virgin or whoever
don't want you to drink on their trains that's their business and if you
don't like it you don't have to travel with them. You may not like that, I
certainly don't, but it is still up to them.

We are getting very much into the area of monopoly here. If I can't
travel by train because they have a ban on quiet enjoyment of a can of
beer, then there may not be an obvious alternative for me. What if
trains had a dress codes (like some shopping centres) would that be OK
too?

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:38:51 UTC, Roland Perry
wrote:

I'd have problems if a new nanny law said I couldn't buy and drink a can
of beer on the train on the way home. I assume such a rule would be for
the prevention of unpleasantness, despite my belief that I can have
quiet drink without causing any unpleasantness.

It is interesting, I think, that the most strident views expressed on
thise group about behaviour on trains are

a) that mobile phones should be banned from trains, because a few
people use them antisocially and

b) that alcohol should not be banned from trains, since it's only a
few people that use it antisocially

Even more interesting, there's a heavy overlap between these two
groups of shriekers (not you, Roland, just using your post as a
prompt).

Ian

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:04:02 UTC, Roland Perry
wrote:

If I can't
travel by train because they have a ban on quiet enjoyment of a can of
beer

If you /can't/ travel on a train without having a can of beer, you
have much worse problems than finding alternative transport.

Ian

--

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 23:17:51
on Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Tom Anderson remarked:

I don't care what people do on trains/busses/in public as long as it
doesn't affect other people. As soon as that happens, the perpetrator
has over-stepped the mark, and should stop.

So if someone insists on silence, and that affects someone who has an
important phone call to make...

Get up, walk to the vestibule, and make your call from there. This is not
rocket science.

We then have the situation that what one person does (insist on quiet)
affects other people (who have to move to the vestibule).

I'm intrigued that you choose to say 'one person' for the party wanting
quiet, and 'people' for the party wanting to make calls. In my experience,
it's the number of people making phone calls is ususally much smaller than
the number of people forced to listen to them.

But yes, you're right, that is essentially exactly what's happening. I
would have phrased it in terms of rights, myself - one person's right to
make a phone call against everyone else's right not to be disturbed - but
it comes out the same way, which is that the needs of the many outweigh
the needs of the few - or the one.

It's a poor choice in something like an HST because the vestibules are
very noisy,

That is true, i have to admit.

and impossible in most modern EMU/DMU because they don't have vestibules
in the sense you probably mean.

There's always, i think, some area by the doors which, even though it's
not completely separated from the seating, is somewhat acoustically
separated, by distance and usually by perspex screens.

And there are issues related to leaving ones seat (with or without
possessions left behind) and if the train is full and standing, moving
around it may not be an option.

In these situations, out of simple common courtesy to your fellow
passengers, you should refrain from making phone calls. If you absolutely
must make phone calls, don't take a train.

tom

--
I do not think we will have to wait for very long.

Tom Anderson wrote in
:

and impossible in most modern EMU/DMU because they don't have
vestibules in the sense you probably mean.

There's always, i think, some area by the doors which, even though
it's not completely separated from the seating, is somewhat
acoustically separated, by distance and usually by perspex screens.

And there are issues related to leaving ones seat (with or without
possessions left behind) and if the train is full and standing,
moving around it may not be an option.

In these situations, out of simple common courtesy to your fellow
passengers, you should refrain from making phone calls. If you
absolutely must make phone calls, don't take a train.

I think it's possible to use a mobile phone on a train without annoying
other people. The rules are as follows:

- set your phone to vibrate so incoming calls don't disturb other people

- talk in a normal voice: don't shout

- try to shield yourself from the rest of the carriage as much as possible,
for instance by turning towards the side of the train beside the window

- limit the use of your mobile phone to essential details like "the train's
been delayed - I'll see you at this time at this place instead of what we
agreed before".

People who use mobile phones for prolonged business calls, as if the train
is an extension of their office, speaking in a loud voice and talking about
sensitive confidential matters, are worthy of contempt; people who try to be
discreet are not.

In message dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-gf7OyjtMdIJK@localhost, at 13:21:49 on
Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Ian Johnston remarked:
If I can't travel by train because they have a ban on quiet
enjoyment of a can of beer

If you /can't/ travel on a train without having a can of beer, you
have much worse problems than finding alternative transport.

It's the matter of principle about being told what I can and can't do
(where what I want to do doesn't significantly affect anyone else).

Refreshments are beside the point. Although I'd also object if they told
me I couldn't eat a sandwich I'd bought at the station buffet - the only
allowable one being three times the price on board the train.

Or that I could only read one particular newspaper because they had an
agreement with "The Sun" that they'd ban all others, and only sell the
Sun at £2 a copy. No-one ever died because they couldn't read the
Evening Standard on the train, or because they had to pay £2 for a
newspaper, but it's stupid to have those sorts of policies in place.

--
Roland Perry