On 1 Jun, 19:05, Adrian wrote:
A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as often)
the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.

From my experience it was good natured, spoiled only by the media
playing up the yob angle. There were thousands of people involved and
only a tiny number of yobbish incidents.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 13:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

So anyone drinking on the Tube or bus would just be breaking the
conditions of carriage rather than breaking the law, and if caught all
that could be done would be for them to be asked to alight and/or
leave the premises.

Could they perhaps ban people or withdraw season tickets/Oyster cards
without penalty for such a breach of the conditions of carriage?

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Mr Thant gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as
often) the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.

From my experience it was good natured, spoiled only by the media
playing up the yob angle. There were thousands of people involved and
only a tiny number of yobbish incidents.

That's good to hear.

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(asdf) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:11:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:

There's not much history of drinking either, so it was lazy piece
of non-policy addressing a non-existent problem*, on the lines of
the charm at my front door that has had 100% success in preventing
elephant-attacks since I hung it there.

*Drunkenness may be, but sipping it while on public transport is
not
the issue.

And, significantly, drunkenness was already illegal under the
railway
by-laws:

"No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is
unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a
state of intoxication."

As is typical of politicians (particularly the current government),
when a problem is caused by legislation not being enforced, they try
to solve it by simply adding more legislation. Those who are
law-abiding have their freedoms slowly stripped away, while those
who
ignore the law continue to get away with it.

Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they
are
unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour.
I didn't expect it of the Tories too.

You didn't read his manifesto then.

You mean he promised the people of London he would punish the innocent?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

James Farrar wrote in uk.transport.london on Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:06:42
+0100 :

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they are
unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour. I
didn't expect it of the Tories too.

You didn't read his manifesto then.

I can't actually see any reference to this proposed policy anywhere on
http://www.backboris.com/ (which I presume is an official site).

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:10 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(asdf) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:11:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:

There's not much history of drinking either, so it was lazy piece
of non-policy addressing a non-existent problem*, on the lines of
the charm at my front door that has had 100% success in preventing
elephant-attacks since I hung it there.

*Drunkenness may be, but sipping it while on public transport is
not
the issue.

And, significantly, drunkenness was already illegal under the
railway
by-laws:

"No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is
unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a
state of intoxication."

As is typical of politicians (particularly the current government),
when a problem is caused by legislation not being enforced, they try
to solve it by simply adding more legislation. Those who are
law-abiding have their freedoms slowly stripped away, while those
who
ignore the law continue to get away with it.

Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they
are
unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour.
I didn't expect it of the Tories too.

You didn't read his manifesto then.

You mean he promised the people of London he would punish the innocent?

He promised the travelling public of London that they would be spared
the intimidating sight of fellow passengers swigging alcohol on the
Tube, yes.

Mr Thant wrote:
On 1 Jun, 19:05, Adrian wrote:
A crying shame - it could easily have been civilised fun, but (as
often) the yob tendency spoiled the game for everybody.

From my experience it was good natured, spoiled only by the media
playing up the yob angle. There were thousands of people involved and
only a tiny number of yobbish incidents.

Well, that may be your experience, but the reports I've seen amount to
rather more than a "tiny number" of yobbish incidents. I don't see how you
can blame the media for passengers assaulting drivers, throwing bottles,
damaging trains and stations.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Jun 2, 12:40*am, James Farrar wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 23:10 +0100 (BST), (Colin





Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:06 +0100 (BST), (Colin
Rosenstiel) wrote:

In article ,
(asdf) wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 06:11:05 -0700 (PDT), MIG wrote:

There's not much history of drinking either, so it was lazy piece
of non-policy addressing a non-existent problem*, on the lines of
the charm at my front door that has had 100% success in preventing
elephant-attacks since I hung it there.

*Drunkenness may be, but sipping it while on public transport is
not
the issue.

And, significantly, drunkenness was already illegal under the
railway
by-laws:

"No person shall enter or remain on the railway where such person is
unfit to enter or remain on the railway as a result of being in a
state of intoxication."

As is typical of politicians (particularly the current government),
when a problem is caused by legislation not being enforced, they try
to solve it by simply adding more legislation. Those who are
law-abiding have their freedoms slowly stripped away, while those
who
ignore the law continue to get away with it.

Yes, punishment of the innocent because of a few guilty people they
are
unable or unwilling to deal with under existing powers. So New Labour.
I didn't expect it of the Tories too.

You didn't read his manifesto then.

You mean he promised the people of London he would punish the innocent?

He promised the travelling public of London that they would be spared
the intimidating sight of fellow passengers swigging alcohol on the
Tube, yes.

I bet he wishes that he had promised to spare them from elephant
attacks as well.

At least that wouldn't have resulted in thousands of elephants on the
Undgerground the day before the ban (would it?).

"redcat" wrote in message
...
Brian Watson wrote:

I look forward to Doris' "wise" words on the subject once he gets back to
the office.


What is the meaning and intention behind changing "Boris" to "Doris"?

He is what is known colloquially as a "bit of an old woman."

Since "Doris" and "Boris" are so similar in sound and "Doris" is a name now
rarely used, but was commonly given to girls about 80 years ago, it seemed
an appropriate substitution.

Should I be crossposting this to alt.english.usage, Cat?

:-)
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

In message
, at
13:25:50 on Sun, 1 Jun 2008, Mizter T remarked:
So anyone drinking on the Tube or bus would just be breaking the
conditions of carriage rather than breaking the law, and if caught all
that could be done would be for them to be asked to alight and/or
leave the premises.

Though with a bit of smoke and mirrors it can be made to sound a lot
heavier than that

At least they aren't mentioning The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol)
Act 1985, which in fact only bans alcohol on football specials - despite
recently being quoted as the measure backing a much wider ban on a match
day.
--
Roland Perry