In message , at 19:40:19 on Sun, 20 Nov
2005, Ivor Jones remarked:
If it's private property, the owners of that property have an absolute
right to set conditions on people that enter.

Oh dear, not the "private property" canard again :-(

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Ivor Jones remarked:
[...]
If it's private property, the owners of that property have an
absolute right to set conditions on people that enter.
Oh dear, not the "private property" canard again :-(

Well, try to light a cigarette in my house and see how long you and
the disgusting cancer stick will remain on my property.

--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger for full key

In message , at 20:44:54 on
Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Peter remarked:
If it's private property, the owners of that property have an
absolute right to set conditions on people that enter.
Oh dear, not the "private property" canard again :-(

Well, try to light a cigarette in my house and see how long you and
the disgusting cancer stick will remain on my property.

Fortunately, you aren't running a railway company from your house, which
is a different kind of private property.

(I agree that smoking is a bad thing, btw).
--
Roland Perry

"Ivor Jones" wrote

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.

But Parliament can, if it chooses to. In 1868 Parliament orderedcall railway
companies, except the Metyropolitan, to provide smoking compartments on all
trains (Regulation of Railways Act 1868).

Peter

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk
In message , at 19:40:19
on Sun, 20 Nov 2005, Ivor Jones
remarked:
If it's private property, the owners of that property
have an absolute right to set conditions on people that
enter.

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.

Ivor

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).

ps. Let's not distracted by discussions about carrying passengers
wearing *only* yellow underpants.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:54:00 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:

But Parliament can, if it chooses to. In 1868 Parliament orderedcall railway
companies, except the Metyropolitan, to provide smoking compartments on all
trains (Regulation of Railways Act 1868).

Was that to allow smoking, or to prohibit it elsewhere?

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:54:00 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:

But Parliament can, if it chooses to. In 1868 Parliament orderedcall
railway
companies, except the Metyropolitan, to provide smoking compartments on
all
trains (Regulation of Railways Act 1868).

Was that to allow smoking, or to prohibit it elsewhere?

It was to compel all railways to provide smoking accomodation on their
trains with the exception of the Metropolitan.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
In message , at 14:02:52
on Thu, 17 Nov 2005, d remarked:
I don't care what people do on trains/busses/in public as long as it
doesn't
affect other people. As soon as that happens, the perpetrator has
over-stepped the mark, and should stop.

So if someone insists on silence, and that affects someone who has an
important phone call to make...

Then they can go to a place where that's permitted, and not just assume it's
OK to do it anywhere, and **** off a carriage of people in the mean-time.

--
Roland Perry

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:15:20 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

It's all about reasonableness. I have no time for the people with silly
ring tones (someone on the train yesterday had one which shouted "answer
the phone!" over and over again) or with those who conduct one-sided
conversations as if they were speaking at a public meeting.

Nevertheless, it's galling for those of us who do know that we can talk
quietly and still be heard the other end, to be prevented from doing so
by "one size fits all" rules.


My ring tone plays "Nellie the Elephant". Do you find that
acceptable? (Actually, if you don't, tough ****.)

Agreed, we don't need more "nanny" laws.

Why on earth is this a "nanny" law? Do you even know what that means?