Andrew Yarnwood wrote:
I have a proposal for dealing with (punishing) people who make loud
business phone calls on trains (or any other public transport).
("I'm on the train ... buy! ... sell!")

I'm 6ft3, wide, and tend to wear lots of black. Going up and being
polite but firm in pointing out that the prohibition on making noise
in the Quiet Zone includes them can sometimes help.

Alas, their subsequent whining about how I'm being *so* unreasonable
by asking them to consider others for once can be more irritating than
their phone call. It is of course never their fault.

--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger for full key

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk
In message , at 12:32:21
on Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Ivor Jones
remarked:
There are numerous signs up in many areas near where I
live claiming that the police have powers to restrict
people from drinking alcohol in the street. Now I'm one
of those that prefers to do my drinking in a pub, but
that doesn't mean I believe that people shouldn't be
able to drink in the street if they want to.

It's not just streets, such bans would extend to having a
can of beer with a picnic in the park.

Indeed.

As to drinking on trains, or buses or any other form of
public transport, then that is up to the operators of
said transport. If Virgin or whoever don't want you to
drink on their trains that's their business and if you
don't like it you don't have to travel with them. You
may not like that, I certainly don't, but it is still
up to them.

We are getting very much into the area of monopoly here.
If I can't travel by train because they have a ban on
quiet enjoyment of a can of beer, then there may not be
an obvious alternative for me. What if trains had a dress
codes (like some shopping centres) would that be OK too?

If it's private property, the owners of that property have an absolute
right to set conditions on people that enter. If you don't like those
conditions you don't have to enter. If you insist on being able to drink
beer while travelling and the train company says you can't, then that's
your tough luck. You can't smoke in many places now, I don't like that,
being a smoker, but I can't do anything about it.

As for dress codes, well I'd like to see one that bans those ghastly
shorts that some people insist on wearing, but that's me ;-)

Ivor

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk

[snip]

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.

Stupid no doubt, but still their right if they choose. It's their
property.

Ivor

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message

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.

Whether it washes with you or not is irrelevant. If they don't want you as
a customer then they're not obliged to take your money..!

Ivor

"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.

True, but we're talking about beer.

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.

They're not and they do, unfortunate though it is.

Ivor

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message


[snip]

"It's not against any religion / To want to dispose of a
pigeon."
And similarly squirrel pie: "And maybe we'll do in / A
squirrel or two."
Good old Tom Lehrer.

Indeed, I'd forgotten that one..!

Ivor

"steve" wrote in message
news
[snip]

If I could guarantee my arrival time coincided with the
timetabled time I wouldn't need to make any calls.

So how did you manage before mobile phones..? Trains were late in those
days as well, weren't they..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
"steve" wrote in message
news
[snip]

If I could guarantee my arrival time coincided with the
timetabled time I wouldn't need to make any calls.

So how did you manage before mobile phones..? Trains were late in those
days as well, weren't they..?

Ivor


I remember making a phone call from a BT Phonecard phone in the
corridor of a 309 in the 1980s.

No one was interested in where I was though. (Come to think of it,
they aren't now either.)

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

Tom Anderson typed

Basically, make your best effort to minimise the impact of your phone
use on others, by whatever means. I agree entirely - i think i was a
bit harsh in my previous post.

Were you? I agreed with what you'd written enough to add to it. Phones
can be tremendously useful to travellers, but they can and should be
TAMED!

I thought i was saying that nobody should use phones anywhere except the
vestibule. I think it's fine to use them at your seat, provided you do
your utmost to minimise the impact on others - keep it quiet and keep it
short.

tom

--
BUTTS LOL

In message , at 19:41:42 on Sun, 20 Nov
2005, Ivor Jones remarked:
Stupid no doubt, but still their right if they choose. It's their
property.

Although there are rules imposed upon them "from above". And not just
about obviously illegal things.
--
Roland Perry