Mizter T wrote:
On 17 Feb, 15:52, "Stevo" wrote:
Rob Hamadi wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:07 pm, Dave A wrote:
The gateline staff didn't seem too interested.

Last time I confronted a guy for squeezing through behind me he
threatened to stab me.

Tip for the future. In London NEVER confront anybody! Let him
squeeze through, and the authorities deal with him if they see him.
As you really could end up getting stabbed by a nutter.


I disagree. If your policy is to never confront anyone (and when I say
confront this can merely mean a polite and queit word with someone)
then it's carte blanche for anyone who feels like it to take the ****
with no come. Obviously any one situation has to be addressed
individually according to specific circumstances - note that I'm not
saying one should *always* confront the person(s), just saying that I
think it's a bit pathetic to decide that one will *never* confront
anyone.

How you act is up to you. But I wouldn't confront anyone just becuase
they were slipping through a barrier behind me at a train station!

In article .com,
Mizter T wrote:
Rob Hamadi wrote:
Last time I confronted a guy for squeezing through behind me he
threatened to stab me. The (Silverlink) "security" guard backed him up
shouting "What's it to do with you? How is it your business if he's
got a ticket?" at me.

If he was definitely a security guard, and the above is an accurate
portrayal of what he said, then I am surprised.

Perhaps the security guard and the guy knew each other, or perhaps the
security guard has sussed out his ground and knew whom to leave alone
if he was after an easy life.

Or he wasn't keen on a 'have a go hero' getting knifed on his shift.

--
Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3!
-- Flash

On 18 Feb, 01:32, "Stevo" wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
On 17 Feb, 15:52, "Stevo" wrote:
Rob Hamadi wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:07 pm, Dave A wrote:
The gateline staff didn't seem too interested.

Last time I confronted a guy for squeezing through behind me he
threatened to stab me.

Tip for the future. In London NEVER confront anybody! Let him
squeeze through, and the authorities deal with him if they see him.
As you really could end up getting stabbed by a nutter.

I disagree. If your policy is to never confront anyone (and when I say
confront this can merely mean a polite and queit word with someone)
then it's carte blanche for anyone who feels like it to take the ****
with no come. Obviously any one situation has to be addressed
individually according to specific circumstances - note that I'm not
saying one should *always* confront the person(s), just saying that I
think it's a bit pathetic to decide that one will *never* confront
anyone.

How you act is up to you. But I wouldn't confront anyone just becuase
they were slipping through a barrier behind me at a train station!


Of course it's not really something to get that worked up about given
the bigger picture, and yes I would probably leave it be (not least
because it a few moments to actually realise what happened, if you
realise at all - that said it's only happened to me a couple of times,
probably because I'm not really a suitably diminutive target!).

Nonetheless though, as I said earlier I quite disagree with operating
a blanket policy of non-intervention and non-confrontation in public,
but I'll just leave it at that.

To finish on a lighter note - I have had a guy trying to bustle
through the gates *in front* of me (i.e. using my ticket) - they ended
up on the floor behind me, though I dare say on that occasion I was
assisted somewhat by a liberal dose of dutch courage. Quite satisfying
though!

Mizter T wrote:

Nonetheless though, as I said earlier I quite disagree with operating
a blanket policy of non-intervention and non-confrontation in public,
but I'll just leave it at that.

I agree. Such a policy is bad for one's self and society.
--
Michael Hoffman

John B wrote:
On Feb 12, 11:25 pm, "Boltar" wrote:
Thats all very fascinating and I'm sure you and your Casio had a great
time. What I can tell you is that my monthly travelcard cost me about
95 quid 3 years ago (which is as far back as I can remember, I've been
using the tube to go to work on and off for 10 years) , this month its
over 120. For 3 years with inflation of say 3% that 95 quid should now
be 95 * 1.03 ^ 3 = 103.80. So where has that other 17 quid come from
then?


A z1-3 Travelcard cost £91.40 in 2004 and now costs £105.30, which is
only slightly above the inflation-adjusted increase you suggest above.
I'm not sure what kind of exotic ticket you're using...

The additional increase is fair enough, because the UK economy is
currently showing substantial deflation in goods prices combined with
inflation in services prices. The Tube's cost base is primarily based
on services and wages rather than goods, so its costs will be rising
faster than inflation too...

Just to supplement this thread, the London Travel Report 2006 has a
graph which nicely shows London Underground fare trends from 1971 to 2006.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/lt...2006-final.pdf
Chart 2.2.2

It shows that whilst the inflation-adjusted average fare paid has risen
by about 50% since 1985, the average fare deflated by real London
earnings has just oscillated slightly around the 1985 level (and in fact
dropped gently from 1997 to 2003, rising slightly to 2005 but still
several percentage points lower than the 1985 mark).

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave A wrote:

Just to supplement this thread, the London Travel Report 2006 has a
graph which nicely shows London Underground fare trends from 1971 to 2006.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/lt...2006-final.pdf

As a complete aside: that is a fascinating document, and some of the
charts are beautiful.
--
Michael Hoffman

game of detaining someone who didn't have a ticket. In fact they
would probably open the gates if you asked nicely enough, lest they
be acqused of "false imprisonment" or kidnap?

More likely they are instructed to avoid confrontation for obvious
reasons.

Probably, but that doesn't give the fare-paying passengers much
satisfaction for spending their hard-earned on what is to some a free
service

Michael Hoffman wrote:
Dave A wrote:

Just to supplement this thread, the London Travel Report 2006 has a
graph which nicely shows London Underground fare trends from 1971 to
2006.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/lt...2006-final.pdf

As a complete aside: that is a fascinating document, and some of the
charts are beautiful.

It contains some very interesting pieces of information. I was surprised
to discover that average household expenditure on transport in London is
lower than in the rest of GB (£67.70/week vs £73.30/week) - despite both
public and private transport being portrayed as very expensive in London
compared to elsewhere. It's also a lower proportion of household
expenditure at about 13.6%, vs 16.6% elsewhere.

--
Dave Arquati
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave A wrote


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/lt...-2006-final.pd
f

As a complete aside: that is a fascinating document, and some of
the
charts are beautiful.

It contains some very interesting pieces of information. I was
surprised
to discover that average household expenditure on transport in London
is
lower than in the rest of GB (£67.70/week vs £73.30/week) - despite
both
public and private transport being portrayed as very expensive in
London
compared to elsewhere. It's also a lower proportion of household
expenditure at about 13.6%, vs 16.6% elsewhere.

Assuming this means average household expenditure by residents of
London, it may be most reasonable, one of the advantages of city
residence being that work and leisure is closer at hand so annual
mileage may be much lower.

Again, one reason for being a commuter is to trade off housing costs
for transport costs, so a resident outside the zones may be paying
£4000 or more a year for a season ticket from deepest Surrey or
Hampshire to work in London. The maximum for a zone 1-6 Annual is £1720
hence the lower average. I predict of course lower average housing
costs, larger houses and lower council tax outside London.


--
Mike D