Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#171
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
d wrote:
Why on earth is this a "nanny" law? Do you even know what that means? ![]() It means any law that requires you to do something you don't want to do, and also any law that requires you not to do something you want to do. Simple, really! |
#172
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"N.I.B." wrote in message
... d wrote: Why on earth is this a "nanny" law? Do you even know what that means? ![]() It means any law that requires you to do something you don't want to do, and also any law that requires you not to do something you want to do. So every law is a nanny law, simply put ![]() Simple, really! |
#173
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
d wrote:
"N.I.B." wrote in message It means any law that requires you to do something you don't want to do, and also any law that requires you not to do something you want to do. So every law is a nanny law, simply put ![]() Precisely! |
#174
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk... 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 Do you even know which century you're in?? Seemingly not. |
#175
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
N.I.B. wrote:
d wrote: "N.I.B." wrote in message It means any law that requires you to do something you don't want to do, and also any law that requires you not to do something you want to do. So every law is a nanny law, simply put ![]() Precisely! Including those that forbid theft (in all forms) and acts of violence? |
#176
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news ![]() In message , at 21:38:07 on Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Ivor Jones remarked: Oh dear, not the "private property" canard again :-( You might not like it, but it remains true, given that the restrictions are legal, i.e. not racist etc. As others have pointed out, the railways have certain legal obligations to carry passengers. These cannot be over-ruled by silly restrictions. It is entirely legal to wear yellow underpants, and could well be illegal for the railways to refuse to carry people who are (let alone insist on facilities to check). No-one needs a beer to travel any more than they need a cigarette. "Silly restrictions" that make travelling bearable for those customers who do not wish to impose on other people are a good thing. ps. Let's not distracted by discussions about carrying passengers wearing *only* yellow underpants. -- Roland Perry |
#177
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Brimstone" wrote in message
... N.I.B. wrote: d wrote: "N.I.B." wrote in message It means any law that requires you to do something you don't want to do, and also any law that requires you not to do something you want to do. So every law is a nanny law, simply put ![]() Precisely! Including those that forbid theft (in all forms) and acts of violence? Apparently so, as it ****es off thieves and violent types. ![]() |
#178
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() d wrote: "Brimstone" wrote in message ... N.I.B. wrote: d wrote: "N.I.B." wrote in message It means any law that requires you to do something you don't want to do, and also any law that requires you not to do something you want to do. So every law is a nanny law, simply put ![]() Precisely! Including those that forbid theft (in all forms) and acts of violence? Apparently so, as it ****es off thieves and violent types. ![]() Does the concept of "theft" exist outside of the laws which prevent things being acquired in certain circumstances (unlike violence, which might be legal)? I mean, you might be violent whether it was legal or not, but you couldn't be a thief unless the law forbade you to acquire the thing you were acquiring in the circumstances. |
#179
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at
13:39:02 on Mon, 21 Nov 2005, d remarked: Do you even know which century you're in?? Seemingly not. 21st, which is where railways need to be - in recognising that people have a need to use mobile phones. -- Roland Perry |
#180
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at
13:48:30 on Mon, 21 Nov 2005, d remarked: No-one needs a beer to travel any more than they need a cigarette. "Silly restrictions" that make travelling bearable for those customers who do not wish to impose on other people are a good thing. The question is, where do you draw the line. The chap opposite me on the train today was reading an "adult" magazine. Should that be allowed? It didn't upset me particularly, nor were there any young persons or ladies present. But perhaps this is the sort of thing that needs a rule in order to cater for the "worst case scenario". No-one needs to read on a train, after all. So ban all magazines. -- 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 |