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!

"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!

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!

"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.

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?

"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

"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.

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.

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

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