Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#122
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#123
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#124
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#125
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#126
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#127
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 -- |
#128
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#129
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#130
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Mobile Phone Users On Trains / Busses | London Transport | |||
Mobile Phone Users On Trains / Busses | London Transport | |||
Mobile Phone Users on Trains / Busses | London Transport | |||
Dealing with failed LU trains | London Transport | |||
# Get FREE Sony VAIO, iPod, Xbox, PlayStation, or Cell Phone when you spend $40..!! | London Transport |