"Mr Thant" wrote in message
...
On 7 May, 12:27, "Paul Scott" wrote:
Is this a real problem?

No, but it's a good excuse for pompous moralising. See also the ramble
about privilege and individual responsibility at the end of this press
release:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...ntre/8162.aspx

Serves us right for electing a tory.

U

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

No chance that this ban will also apply to the TfL Commissioner drinking on
duty I suppose but then what do you expect when you vote for a Socialist.
Or pay him millions of pounds to sit on his backside doing bugger all.

Kevin

"Tom Barry" wrote in message
...


The unions are already getting fidgety about enforcing it (they haven't
been asked, apparently),

Why is it any more dodgey than asking somebody to stop smoking, can I see
your ticket, turn your ipod down or take your feet off the seat, but then
Bob Crowe doesn't need much of an excuse to march all his members pot.

Kevin

So now the BTP have the distraction of having to stop people and
confiscating beer while the next suicide bomber slips by. What a waste
of policing resources!

On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:27:13 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7387113.stm

"That's why from 1 June the drinking of alcohol will be banned from the
tube, tram, bus, and Docklands Light Railway."

An idea that looks OK on paper. However how is this going to be
enforced? I think this is the biggest problem and the lack of even
initial consultation with the people who *may* have to enforce this is
rather indicative of future relationships with the TUs. Regardless of
what people think of the RMT etc it might have been wise to have had a
chat with them first given it could be their members' safety that is at
risk here.

As others have pointed out the real issue is with people being drunk or
a tad tipsy before they get on public transport. For the vast majority
they don't cause any trouble and just want to get home safely in a bit
of a blur. Given the pressure to make drink driving socially
unacceptable all that is left to people is to use public transport,
cadge a lift or take a taxi in order to get home from a night out.

Given that most incidents late at night involve alcohol consumed a long
way from TfL premises or vehicles I wonder how long it will be before
"the civility on public transport" argument means drunk or tipsy people
won't be allowed on to the system because it's incompatible with Mayoral
views on how we should conduct ourselves? How loud an outcry will there
be from the huge entertainment business sector if there is even a hint
of policy going that way? I assume alcohol is not actually being banned
- just the consumption of it? Otherwise a few supermarkets might lose
some trade from those who doing their shopping and then hop on a bus or
train home.

I look forward to seeing the detail of how this will work in practice.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Wed, 7 May 2008 04:53:58 -0700 (PDT), James
wrote:

Hmm. I can't honestly say that I've seen an awefully large number of
people drinking on public transport, either tube or bus, in the few
years that I've been living in the capital. More public transport
journeys are pretty short, so there's rarely enough time for even the
most light-weighted drinker to become drunk.

It does bloody stink when someone is drinking a can of beer on the top
deck of a bus and they spill it, though. Far worse than a can of Coke
or a coffee.

Neil

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

On Wed, 7 May 2008 06:02:31 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

Do you think Thames Clippers will be affected by the alcohol ban.

I would imagine not, as they are not under TfL's jurisdiction, so far
as I understand it. Just as drink won't be banned on mainline
stations as they, again, are not Boris's to play with.

Neil

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

wrote in message
...
So now the BTP have the distraction of having to stop people and
confiscating beer while the next suicide bomber slips by. What a waste
of policing resources!

What a pathetic arguement, let's dispense with smoking bans and the need to
buy tickets for the same reason.

Kevin

"Zen83237" wrote in message
...

"Tom Barry" wrote in message
...


The unions are already getting fidgety about enforcing it (they haven't
been asked, apparently),

Why is it any more dodgey than asking somebody to stop smoking, can I see
your ticket, turn your ipod down or take your feet off the seat, but then
Bob Crowe doesn't need much of an excuse to march all his members pot.

Kevin

The drivers are on 40 grand a year for Christs sake! let them earn their
money by telling a crowd of ****ed up yobs to stop drinking or get of the
train. Some people are taking money for nothing!!

On May 7, 9:49*pm, "Sargeant Rutter" wrote:
"Zen83237" wrote in message

...



"Tom Barry" wrote in message
...

The unions are already getting fidgety about enforcing it (they haven't
been asked, apparently),

Why is it any more dodgey than asking somebody to stop smoking, can I see
your ticket, turn your ipod down or take your feet off the seat, but then
Bob Crowe doesn't need much of an excuse to march all his members pot.

Kevin

The drivers are on 40 grand a year for Christs sake! let them earn their
money by telling a crowd of ****ed up yobs to stop drinking or get of the
train. Some people are taking money for nothing!!

That's presumably unless there's someone on the train who earns more
than that who can do it instead?

I hadn't noticed a correlation between high salary and the expectation
of having physical confrontation added to your job description without
consultation.

However, if you are right, the politicians will be carrying out their
own policies very directly.

John B wrote:

But yes, I'm fairly sure there are no London-only routes with catering
of any kind.

I must confess I was finding it hard to think of any -
Paddington-Ealing Broadway, perhaps, or Marylebone-South Ruislip, but
I'm by no means certain of either case. Waterloo-Wimbledon?

However, the wider point that someone commuting from, say, Uxbridge
can't have a drink on the way home while someone from Oxford can be
*sold* one holds true, and has interesting class implications.

Tom