In message , at
13:46:51 on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Martin Underwood remarked:
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".

Of course, the first thing anyone you ring to say you are late says is
"Where the heck are you?"

It is extraordinarily difficult not to instinctively reply "on the
train" ...
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
13:30:37 on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Tom Anderson
remarked:
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.

It's this sort of attitude that did indeed make me stop using the train
in 2001, and buy a better car instead, and use that. Although that made
sense for me, as a national policy it probably doesn't.

I've since moved houses and jobs several times, and am back using the
train quite often. On Monday I pick up a new (to me) car. The temptation
returns.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:08:51 UTC, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
13:46:51 on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Martin Underwood remarked:
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".

Of course, the first thing anyone you ring to say you are late says is
"Where the heck are you?"

It is extraordinarily difficult not to instinctively reply "on the
train" ...

Anyway, I bet the most common first words of phone calls made from
payphones at Tebay service station are "I'm at Tebay service station".
It's a perfectly sensible thing to say.

Ian
--

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

On their property they can impose whatever rules they like.

Brimstone wrote in
:

On their property they can impose whatever rules they like.

Just because they can doesn't mean that they should. They still need to
justify any draconian rules: the "just because we can" justification doesn't
wash with me.

In message , at
15:16:27 on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Brimstone
remarked:
On their property they can impose whatever rules they like.

Not quite. They can't impose rules prohibiting negroes, or pregnant
women, or cripples. And there is still a feeling that they are a public
service, and somewhat of a "natural monopoly", so they don't have the
absolute freedom you suggest.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:22:40 -0000, Martin Underwood wrote in
, seen in
uk.railway:
Brimstone wrote in
:

On their property they can impose whatever rules they like.

Just because they can doesn't mean that they should. They still need to
justify any draconian rules: the "just because we can" justification doesn't
wash with me.

It doesn't _need_ to was with you, as long as it washes with the
courts.
--
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life), Diplom-Skeptiker (DB)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

Martin Underwood wrote:
Brimstone wrote in
:

On their property they can impose whatever rules they like.

Just because they can doesn't mean that they should.

Agreed

They still need to justify any draconian rules:

No they don't.

the "just because we can" justification doesn't wash with me.

Nor I, but tough.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:16:27 on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Brimstone
remarked:
On their property they can impose whatever rules they like.

Not quite. They can't impose rules prohibiting negroes, or pregnant
women, or cripples. And there is still a feeling that they are a
public service, and somewhat of a "natural monopoly", so they don't
have the absolute freedom you suggest.

I suspect any intelligent person would recognise that "within the law of the
land" was implicit in my statement.

In message , at
16:08:49 on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Brimstone
remarked:
On their property they can impose whatever rules they like.

Not quite. They can't impose rules prohibiting negroes, or pregnant
women, or cripples. And there is still a feeling that they are a
public service, and somewhat of a "natural monopoly", so they don't
have the absolute freedom you suggest.

I suspect any intelligent person would recognise that "within the law of the
land" was implicit in my statement.

Any rule not forbidden by the law, I suppose you mean. Which brings us
back to the laws which govern the actions of whoever the railways are
being regulated by this week. There should be some safeguards there
against the most extreme of the arbitrary rules that might be imposed
(while not being themselves overtly criminally illegal).

One recently discussed one which springs to mind is the "special"
ticketing of Megatrain, which is only allowed for an experimental
period.
--
Roland Perry