# Big up the tube drinkers



## editor (Aug 16, 2008)

Just got the last tube back home from central London and was delighted to see loads of happy drinkers peacefully enjoying cans of beer on their way home.

Fuck you Boris.


----------



## chainsaw cat (Aug 16, 2008)

I'm going to that London next month and I shall be having a drink on the Tube for the first time in my life.

I don't even need to go on the Tube, I'll be making  a special trip.

If anything interesting happens I'll start a thread.

I shall call it 'Stroppy Bumpkin Harassed over Meths by Nazi Boris'


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 16, 2008)

editor said:


> Just got the last tube back home from central London and was delighted to see loads of happy drinkers peacefully enjoying cans of beer on their way home.
> 
> Fuck you Boris.



But have you ever spoken to any of the cleaners who have to get rid of the litter and puke? I know a few who work up the station and they are paid a shit wage for having to clear up after drinkers and it aint nice. Some passengers piss into cans and leave them on shelf at the back of the seats and sometimes they get knocked over and it goes all over the seats and floor. Then there's the sick.
I know this probably still happens but from what I hear things are alot better now they have banned booze from the tube.


----------



## Sunray (Aug 16, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> But have you ever spoken to any of the cleaners who have to get rid of the litter and puke? I know a few who work up the station and they are paid a shit wage for having to clear up after drinkers and it aint nice. Some passengers piss into cans and leave them on shelf at the back of the seats and sometimes they get knocked over and it goes all over the seats and floor. Then there's the sick.
> I know this probably still happens but from what I hear things are alot better now they have banned booze from the tube.



Thats hardly related to people enjoying a can or two after work is it.  Thats from people stumbling home after a skinful on Fri night.  Banning being pissed on the tube would sort that out.


----------



## butterfly child (Aug 16, 2008)

I would imagine an all out ban on drinking alcohol on the tube is easier to police than having to assess whether someone is pissed.


----------



## BlackSpecs (Aug 16, 2008)

Sunray said:


> ..... people enjoying a can or two after work .



On the tube ??? 

I am with Stobart on this one ....


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 16, 2008)

Sunray said:


> Thats hardly related to people enjoying a can or two after work is it.  Thats from people stumbling home after a skinful on Fri night.  Banning being pissed on the tube would sort that out.



Damn right, get em back in their cars where they belong! 

I don't think people should be allowed to drink alcohol on the Tube, people WILL spill it, that is a given, it is a moving shaking carriage after all, it makes seats sticky, it smells fucking awful if you don't drink and I don't really see the need.

London Underground reckon you should add 2 mins to your journey time for each station that you pass through.  That is just 20mins if you travel 10 stops, 20 stops is only 40 mins.

There are only 37 stops on the Central Line, so even if you were going from one end to the other, it would only take an hour and a quarter, if you can't survive an hour and a quarter without actively drinking alcohol, I think you need to go get some help.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2008)

> I don't think people should be allowed to drink alcohol on the Tube, people WILL spill it, that is a given....


Nothing like treating people as guilty until proven innocent, is there?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 16, 2008)

more clumsy til proven innocent


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 16, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Nothing like treating people as guilty until proven innocent, is there?



*yawn*

if that attempt wasn't so utterly pathetic I might have wasted a moment refuting it.


----------



## Xanadu (Aug 16, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> if you can't survive an hour and a quarter without actively drinking alcohol, I think you need to go get some help.



This is a fucking idiotic argument.

That fuckwit Johnson is probably laughing at all the proles moaning about drinking on the tube, while he's sipping champagne in his chauffer-driven rolls.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 16, 2008)

Xanadu said:


> This is a fucking idiotic argument.
> 
> That fuckwit Johnson is probably laughing at all the proles moaning about drinking on the tube, while he's sipping champagne in his chauffer-driven rolls.



No it really isn't.

You are stopped from drinking alcohol for a measly 1hour and 15 mins if you travel from one end of the Central Line to the other.

A 'slight' inconvenience.  For the benefit of everyone else.

I am shocked by the selfish attitudes displayed on this board, given its propensity to complain about shareholders and dodgy corporations making billions while millions live in fuel poverty.  Yet ask you to not drink alcohol on the tube and all of a sudden your needs, your wants, your desires, what you want to do, is most important and everyone else can get fucked. How dare you think you can get on a tube without it stinking of Special Brew, how dare you think you can sit on a seat and not get stuck to it through the magical properties of dried alcohol.

Those are minor inconveniences that non-drinkers have to put up with, but thats ok, we can suffer right, I mean, as long as you don't have to suffer.

Just to add, the only person in his chaffuer driven car, is him, the only person he spill champagne on, is him and his car.  The Tube you have to share.  Yes unfortunately being poor means you have to share with other people sometimes, sucks don't it, but when you do share, you supposed to be considerate, not selfish bastards who think your need to consume alcohol should come before everyone else.

eta not saying you all bastards, just i couldn't think of another word to fit in there, it is far harsher then I intended to be, but still not sure what i can replace it with that isn't just as harsh  being selfish is just a bit harsh anyway, but I do feel that people who think they have the right to drink on the tube are being inconsiderate and they are being selfish.  Look I might understand if it was the Overground and you might not be able to have a drink on a 6 hour journey, that might be a bit brutal, but its the underground, the average journey is probably no more then 30mins and some are much lower.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 16, 2008)

I don't even feel much like drinking on the Tube today but since I'm only in London briefly I'm going to put the effort in.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 16, 2008)

There was a man opposite me on the tube yesterday eating a yoghurt. He could have spilled that. Should have been ashamed of himself, the bastard.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 16, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> There was a man opposite me on the tube yesterday eating a yoghurt. He could have spilled that. Should have been ashamed of himself, the bastard.



I do agree, I think the banning of food eating on the Tube should be next, hardly like you will starve to death between stops if you don't eat.

....but it won't happen, cause they sell that in the stations and they would have to stop selling food in stations, if they wanted people not to eat food in stations.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 16, 2008)

Well at least you're consistent.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> But have you ever spoken to any of the cleaners who have to get rid of the litter and puke?


There was no puking going on in the carriages I was on - just good natured banter. It was a very pleasant atmosphere - people smiling everywhere.

But if if you want to remove the chance of people being sick, then you'd have to introduce a breathalyser test at the gates because most of the problems come from people who are already pissed out of their heads when they get on the tube.

And as for your touching concern for the cleaners, I trust you will be lobbying hard to remove their number one source of litter, the freebie papers. Oh, and fast food packaging. And soft drink cans. And water bottles. And sweet wrappers. 

Tell you what - let's just ban everyone.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 16, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well at least you're consistent.



I look at it like this, I wouldn't get in a friends car and eat a stinking Kebab as he drove around, sure he might tell me its ok, but I certainly wouldn't assume it was ok to do it, it isn't considerate of him or his car.

Tube isn't really all that different, except we are all passengers.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2008)

as I predicted the laughably unenforcable ban is being quietly flouted by sensible folk. In your face Boris, Dravinian, Ajdown and all the other self appointed moral busybodies who find the mere sight of a proley enjoying a can offensive


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I look at it like this, I wouldn't get in a friends car and eat a stinking Kebab as he drove around, sure he might tell me its ok, but I certainly wouldn't assume it was ok to do it, it isn't considerate of him or his car.
> 
> Tube isn't really all that different, except we are all passengers.


So you've never, ever eaten anything on a train, plane, bus or tube?


----------



## strung out (Aug 16, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> as I predicted the laughably unenforcable ban is being quietly flouted by sensible folk. In your face Boris, Dravinian, Ajdown and all the other self appointed moral busybodies who find the mere sight of a proley enjoying a can offensive



fuck the system!


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2008)

strung_out said:


> fuck the system!


 

in your face authority *fights the power*


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2008)

Sock it to The Man!


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 16, 2008)

It's only anti-Conservatives who hate the no-drinking on the tube IMO, it's because it was bought in by Boris. If Ken had done it would be a different story.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 16, 2008)

editor said:


> And as for your touching concern for the cleaners, I trust you will be lobbying hard to remove their number one source of litter, the freebie papers. Oh, and fast food packaging. And soft drink cans. And water bottles. And sweet wrappers.
> 
> Tell you what - let's just ban everyone.


They don't mind the free papers, it's the half-empty drink cans and bottles that cause the most problems. Water bottles are easy to empty out and clean up but with alcohol you can't just tip it anywhere as it reeks.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> They don't mind the free papers, it's the half-empty drink cans and bottles that cause the most problems. Water bottles are easy to empty out and clean up but with alcohol you can't just tip it anywhere as it reeks.


 

stale coke and fruit juices however, smell divine. I may realease a new line of perfumes based on stale non alcohol drinks. Sure to be a big seller


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> It's only anti-Conservatives who hate the no-drinking on the tube IMO, it's because it was bought in by Boris. If Ken had done it would be a different story.


#

nah, I'd have seen it as a petty curtailment of a harmless enjoyment even had Commisar Ken of Keningrad introduced it. I'm not _that_ partisan


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2008)

editor said:


> Tell you what - let's just ban everyone.


Can we vote on who to start with ...


----------



## panpete (Aug 16, 2008)

I know I dislike ingratiated authoriarianism, but I've got to admit, I find it very bizzare, that smoking indoors is banned in public, yet you can still drink on the tube.

I 'm not tory, but tbh, I would vote banning shit-faced tube travellers, over indoor smokers.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 16, 2008)

editor said:


> So you've never, ever eaten anything on a train, plane, bus or tube?



I think there is a difference between a Train and a Plane, each of which can be extended journeys that could take hours, and some are insane and are 24 hours, for instance a plane to Australia.

As compared to the average bus and tube journey time.

There is also the fact that this isn't new and clever that I just thought of, and is pretty much recognised in the design of both those vehicles.

The Tube and the Buses are short hop journey fillers, they are not designed for you to sit down and eat a meal, and nor really should they be as it would be a huge waste of space.  Trains and Planes are sometimes designed so that you can sit and eat.

Also to argue that you did it once so......, doesn't really make any sense does it.  Sure I have eaten chocolate bars and crisps and probably McDonalds, and I more then likely drank alcohol on the Tube too, and all sorts on Tubes and Buses, because I have at times in my life been an inconsiderate little bastard.  Hell I remember smoking at the back of the Bus because it was legal at the back.

Just cause I did it, doesn't mean the person doing it wasn't being inconsiderate.


----------



## Firky (Aug 16, 2008)

Not sure why you would want to drink on the tube anyway. 

All seems a bit teenage rebellion to me.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Aug 16, 2008)

It is puke the cleaners hate the most (I used to work in a train depot, so I know the sort of thing SS is talking about). 

 I agree with Editor about the freepapers (by all means have them in a dispenser, but don't force them on people), but they are not nearly so unpleasent or hard to clean as puke and other bodily excrement.


----------



## tarannau (Aug 16, 2008)

firky said:


> Not sure why you would want to drink on the tube anyway.
> 
> All seems a bit teenage rebellion to me.



That's the  (non) issue for me. I can't say I'm madly in favour of the ban, but the prospect of having to spend half an hour underground without a tin of lager doesn't fill me with dread either. Christ, it's hardly a hardship is it?

Still, got to love the fact that people are justifying the ban  because of the majority's seeming inability to swig without spilling and upchuckign frequently, fearlessly fighting for an easier life for cleaners everywhere.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 16, 2008)

firky said:


> Not sure why you would want to drink on the tube anyway.
> 
> All seems a bit teenage rebellion to me.



i used to see loads of builders, office workers etc having a can of beer on the way home from work.

and why not, after a hard day. 

the Tube is as full of drunk people as it ever was in the evenings, rendering the ban somewhat futile imo.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 16, 2008)

Dan U said:


> rendering the ban somewhat futile imo.


No.  Apparently the ban is working fine and London is now a far safer, more pleasant place for all.  (It said so in a summary of Boris' achievements in his first 100 days I saw the other day ... so it must be true )


----------



## Dan U (Aug 16, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> No.  Apparently the ban is working fine and London is now a far safer, more pleasant place for all.  (It said so in a summary of Boris' achievements in his first 100 days I saw the other day ... so it must be true )



if i had a London flag, i'd drape my self in it and stroke the picture of Boris on my mantelpiece


----------



## Tank Girl (Aug 16, 2008)

impludo said:


> I know I dislike ingratiated authoriarianism, but I've got to admit, I find it very bizzare, that smoking indoors is banned in public, yet you can still drink on the tube.


drinking _is_ banned on the tube.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> They don't mind the free papers, it's the half-empty drink cans and bottles that cause the most problems. Water bottles are easy to empty out and clean up but with alcohol you can't just tip it anywhere as it reeks.


I didn't realise that you were the spokesperson for cleaners with all the insider knowledge!

So they're just fine with smelly soft drinks, whiffy Red Bull, bits of discarded food, chip wrappers, chewing gum, McD boxes, KFC buckets and the recently introduced tube-fulls of papers flapping around, but it's just empty beer cans that cause them so much hardship?  Ya. Rly.



Dravinian said:


> I think there is a difference between a Train and a Plane, each of which can be extended journeys that could take hours, and some are insane and are 24 hours, for instance a plane to Australia.


Some tube journeys can be up to an hour. So, the same as some plane, bus and train journeys, then.


firky said:


> Not sure why you would want to drink on the tube anyway.


Going for a night out and haven't much cash for beer... going straight from work to a first date, getting in the mood for a football match... I can think of lots of reasons why a can might be nice....



Oswaldtwistle said:


> I agree with Editor about the freepapers (by all means have them in a dispenser, but don't force them on people), but they are not nearly so unpleasent or hard to clean as puke and other bodily excrement.


And how many of the people puking are actually drinking at the time? Any idea?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Aug 16, 2008)

editor said:


> And how many of the people puking are actually drinking at the time? Any idea?



Not the foggiest. My experience comes from a national rail depot.

I do know from working alongside cleaners what a shitty job they have to do-low pay and permanent nights, so if making their life a bit better is a side effect of this ban, I have to say that is a good thing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 16, 2008)

Don't find people having a drink threatening. But try travelling on Hong Kong's MTR and you can't help but think, "Banning drink & food is fucking great!"

The tube, and London is a fucking mess. The tube mirrors London in that it is dirty and the people assume someone else will clean away their shit. It is dirty. Ban drinking and eating with people in place to enforce fines. Equally fine those who leave papers behind and other litter. 

Paper recycling bins at every station, under & overground, provided by Metro/London Shite/Other One. 

Our city is a dirty mess. We need more bins that are emtpied more often, with ashtrays on top. And proper enforcement of anti-litter laws. 

Nothing much to do with Boris or boozing on the tube, very indifferent to both.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 16, 2008)

Why not simply close the tube?

Then drinkers & non-drinkers alike can deal with the same realities that almost every other drinker or non-drinker in the country has to face.


----------



## dtb (Aug 16, 2008)

yeah, right on man - fuk you boris! (i bet if ken had this idea everyone on this forum would be applauding him)


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 16, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> London Underground reckon you should add 2 mins to your journey time for each station that you pass through.  That is just 20mins if you travel 10 stops, 20 stops is only 40 mins.



Good info - got a link to a chart containing this information incase I need to refer back to it?


----------



## Firky (Aug 16, 2008)

editor said:


> Going for a night out and haven't much cash for beer... going straight from work to a first date, getting in the mood for a football match... I can think of lots of reasons why a can might be nice....



It doesn't appeal to me but I couldn't really care if others were drinking - as long as they didn't turn into pissed up wankers that seem to inhabit most city centres. 

I reckon the ban was to stop homeless people sitting on the tube all day to keep warm. Most of the people I saw supping a can on the tube looked like they could do with a bit help. At least that is why they introduced a ban on outside drinking in Southsea - it didn't apply to me or anyone else who looked like they had slept in a bed. They brought in three months before the International Festival of the Sea to clear the streets of homeless people.


----------



## editor (Aug 16, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> I do know from working alongside cleaners what a shitty job they have to do-low pay and permanent nights, so if making their life a bit better is a side effect of this ban, I have to say that is a good thing.


So have you any actual evidence that their life has got better since the ban?

Is there a puke-o-meter you can consult?


----------



## Jazzz (Aug 16, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> But have you ever spoken to any of the cleaners who have to get rid of the litter and puke? I know a few who work up the station and they are paid a shit wage for having to clear up after drinkers and it aint nice. Some passengers piss into cans and leave them on shelf at the back of the seats and sometimes they get knocked over and it goes all over the seats and floor. Then there's the sick.
> I know this probably still happens but from what I hear things are alot better now they have banned booze from the tube.



Sounds about right to me. And if it's better for the cleaners, then it's better for all of us. 

I'm totally fine with a ban.

Well done Boris


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 16, 2008)

I can't remember the last time I had a beer on the tube.  Not something I'm ever inclined to do, tbh.

Nor can I remember the last time I saw someone throwing up on the tube, or pissing in a can.  And much as I'm sure it happens, I find it very hard to believe that they hadn't already had a fair old skinful before getting on.

Pointless ban, silly claims being made for its supposed success.


----------



## david dissadent (Aug 17, 2008)

And yet on inter-city services the companies are happy to sell me alcohol.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 17, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Don't find people having a drink threatening. But try travelling on Hong Kong's MTR and you can't help but think, "Banning drink & food is fucking great!"



The MTR shames the Tube in many respects.

Cheap as chips, rapid, regular, air conditioned etc.

and clean. it's like a massive Jubliee line extension.

i am guessing it was all built reasonably recently, not as old as the Tube is in parts.


----------



## qoidjgf (Aug 17, 2008)

yup, another vote for HK MTR.
for me, no drinking and eating all together will do better job in terms of keeping the trains clean.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2008)

qoidjgf said:


> yup, another vote for HK MTR.
> for me, no drinking and eating all together will do better job in terms of keeping the trains clean.


p
Yeah we should have enforced rules on public transport. And gaurds who look like Blakey is SS uniforms. That would shit the feral hoodies right up


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

david dissadent said:


> And yet on inter-city services the companies are happy to sell me alcohol.



Editor didn't actually reply to me about the fact that Trains and Planes are designed for you to eat food and to drink.  Buses and Tubes are not designed that way, and nor should they be.

It isn't enough to suggest that in the most extreme of cases, you might be on a bus as long as you were on a train or plane, when on average, train and plane journeys will far outstrip the average tube journey.

This was taken into account during design and some trains and planes are designed for you to be able to drink and eat.  This is not true of tubes or buses, it is surprising really that you have ever been allowed to eat or drink on the Tube.


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Editor didn't actually reply to me about the fact that Trains and Planes are designed for you to eat food and to drink.  Buses and Tubes are not designed that way, and nor should they be



Yes but, Fong, that 'fact' is bollocks.

Trains and planes _aren't_ designed for you to eat on.  Some offer you a table and some might sell you a drink - alongside the sandwiches and tea - but that's as far as it goes.  It's not a matter of being 'designed' for eating and drinking, just of making provision for what most of us want to do on a long journey.

Meanwhile, I've seen several people get very drunk - antisocially so, in a few instances - during the course of a four-hour train journey, whereas I know no-one capable of drinking themselves into a stupor during the length of the average tube journey.  I have, however, seen people who were pissed before travelling cause trouble on all forms of transport, which Boris's ban does nothing at all to address.

So, it's all a bit pointless really, isn't it?


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Trains and planes _aren't_ designed for you to eat on.  Some offer you a table and some might sell you a drink - alongside the sandwiches and tea - but that's as far as it goes.  It's not a matter of being 'designed' for eating and drinking, just of making provision for what most of us want to do on a long journey.



Well provision is a dodgy word in this sentence.

Do you mean provisions as in food, like you would take on a trip, or do you mean provisions as in a table?

If you mean provisions as in a table, then surely that was designed like that? So why claim at the start that planes and trains _aren't_ designed for people to eat and drink when they provide a table and if I remember rightly, a cup holder.



> Meanwhile, I've seen several people get very drunk - antisocially so, in a few instances - during the course of a four-hour train journey, whereas I know no-one capable of drinking themselves into a stupor during the length of the average tube journey.  I have, however, seen people who were pissed before travelling cause trouble on all forms of transport, which Boris's ban does nothing at all to address.
> 
> So, it's all a bit pointless really, isn't it?



Dunno about that.

Do we really want to stop drunk people travelling on the Tube and Buses?  That makes little sense since the choices left open are expensive cabs or drive yourself.  Not choices we want to be forcing people into really for fear they might make the wrong one.

So if it isn't about stopping drunk people what it is about, perhaps it is about stopping alcohol on Tubes for the smell, the anti-social factor of spilt alcohol on seats and on people etc rather then stopping drunk people.


----------



## Jazzz (Aug 17, 2008)

Unless I'm much mistaken, you certainly cannot carry your own alcohol onto a plane and consume it mid-flight. It's a source of revenue for the airlines. 


However on the tube I don't think we are going to see trolley-girls doing the rounds. Or maybe that's Boris' fiendish plan?


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Well provision is a dodgy word in this sentence.
> 
> Do you mean provisions as in food, like you would take on a trip, or do you mean provisions as in a table?
> 
> If you mean provisions as in a table, then surely that was designed like that? So why claim at the start that planes and trains _aren't_ designed for people to eat and drink when they provide a table and if I remember rightly, a cup holder.



No, provision is a very uncontentious word and only fong, with his penchant for irritating nitpicking, would try to make anything of it.

It's blindingly obvious.  Trains and planes are designed for longer journeys where people are liekly to spread things out - be that food or drink or games, laptops and the rest.  



> Dunno about that.
> 
> Do we really want to stop drunk people travelling on the Tube and Buses?  That makes little sense since the choices left open are expensive cabs or drive yourself.  Not choices we want to be forcing people into really for fear they might make the wrong one.
> 
> So if it isn't about stopping drunk people what it is about, perhaps it is about stopping alcohol on Tubes for the smell, the anti-social factor of spilt alcohol on seats and on people etc rather then stopping drunk people.



No-one ever claimed we wanted to stop drunk people travelling, just that a ban on drinking makes no difference to whether they do or not.  

The smell is a complete non-issue, no-one has ever spilt a can on the tube in my sight (how clumsy do you have to be to spill a can anyway?), and the litter issue remains a red herrign as long as people can still read free papers and eat takeaways (which stink as well) on the tube.

Pointless, in other words.




Jazzz said:


> Unless I'm much mistaken, you certainly cannot carry your own alcohol onto a plane and consume it mid-flight. It's a source of revenue for the airlines.
> 
> 
> However on the tube I don't think we are going to see trolley-girls doing the rounds. Or maybe that's Boris' fiendish plan?



<--- point                                       .       jazzzz---->


----------



## hendo (Aug 17, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Don't find people having a drink threatening. But try travelling on Hong Kong's MTR and you can't help but think, "Banning drink & food is fucking great!"
> 
> The tube, and London is a fucking mess. The tube mirrors London in that it is dirty and the people assume someone else will clean away their shit. It is dirty. Ban drinking and eating with people in place to enforce fines. Equally fine those who leave papers behind and other litter.
> 
> .


 
The Hong Kong system is very clean indeed and says a lot for the society that uses it. It's quite a bit smaller than the London system and not anywhere near as old, so maybe we're not comparing like with like.

Personally I think the ban on alcohol is pointless; there is no way to enforce it, and people flout it willy-nilly. But oddly the ban on smoking works fine. Is that the Kings Cross fire having a deterrent effect? I haven't seen anyone light a cig on the tube since that time.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 17, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Don't find people having a drink threatening. But try travelling on Hong Kong's MTR and you can't help but think, "Banning drink & food is fucking great!"



The MTR doesn't really suffer delays. A 5-minute delay somewhere on the system is enough to make it into the newspapers the next day.

The Tube is much older and crappier and breaks down all the time, taking food and drink on board is a sensible way to prepare for a journey that can often take at least an hour longer than planned - and I reckon having to cross London on the Tube every day for years would be enough to drive even the strictest mullah into alcoholism.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Going for a night out and haven't much cash for beer... going straight from work to a first date, getting in the mood for a football match... I can think of lots of reasons why a can might be nice....


How frightfully common!

Have a beer in a pub if  you want one, or before you leave home. Not on public transport.

I would ban all alcohol from planes/airports as well, look at the trouble that causes when pissed up fuckwits go mental and scare the crew and passengers.


----------



## Jazzz (Aug 17, 2008)

@ roadkill


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> So have you any actual evidence that their life has got better since the ban?
> 
> Is there a puke-o-meter you can consult?



Only Stobarts post #3 at the start of the thread.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> It's blindingly obvious.  Trains and planes are designed for longer journeys where people are liekly to spread things out - be that food or drink or games, laptops and the rest.



And for these long journeys you don't think the designers thought, you know, I bet people would like to eat and drink on this plane, esp since it can be used in the 24 hour flight to Aussie.  I know, lets make some space for that and provide some useful additions to make that easier?

And do you think Bus designers or Tube designers had that thought?

So one was designed with eating/drinking in mind and one was not.

Funny, I said that 3 posts ago.



> No-one ever claimed we wanted to stop drunk people travelling, just that a ban on drinking makes no difference to whether they do or not.
> 
> The smell is a complete non-issue, no-one has ever spilt a can on the tube in my sight (how clumsy do you have to be to spill a can anyway?), and the litter issue remains a red herrign as long as people can still read free papers and eat takeaways (which stink as well) on the tube.



How clumsy do you have to be?  Usually 3 sheets to the wind clumsy.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 17, 2008)

butterfly child said:


> I would imagine an all out ban on drinking alcohol on the tube is easier to police than having to assess whether someone is pissed.


I don't recall inebriation being outlawed....

Personally I'm not really fussed about the ban, I don't normally drink on the tube anyway. But the rationale is highly questionable - do you want people slowly getting drunk on the tube or downing all their cans before they get on? After all, it's not like many tube journeys are long enough for someone to go from sober to drunk en route...

The real issues are to do with antisocial behaviour - belligerent drunks, weak bladdered types, litter louts, etc. I would imagine that most pissed-up louts on the tube were already pissed before they got on.

Banning booze on the tube is nothing more than a cheap, headline grabbing move by the incumbent mayor - a no cost attempt at being seen to "do something".

There will still be pissed people on the tube, people will still leave empty bottles & cans on the tube, people will still use them as impromptu lavatories.

The only effective solution would be to either ban unpleasant people (if only...) or employ more staff to monitor the platforms and trains (which costs money...).


----------



## Roadkill (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> And for these long journeys you don't think the designers thought, you know, I bet people would like to eat and drink on this plane, esp since it can be used in the 24 hour flight to Aussie.  I know, lets make some space for that and provide some useful additions to make that easier?
> 
> And do you think Bus designers or Tube designers had that thought?
> 
> ...



I know you did.  I was trying to point out, though, that it isn't only a matter of being designed for eating and drinking, but that planes and (some) trains are designed for long journeys and their facilities are tailored accordingly, which includes but isn't limited to provision for eating and drinking, whilst buses and tubes aren't.

But really, it's hardly that relevant, is it?  Not all trains are designed to accommodate food, drink, laptops and other things people use on longer journeys.  Sure, intercity trains are, but commuter trains aren't and nor are trains designed for many mlonger journeys, such as Sprinter units or Pacers.  And yet, no-one seems to think that that is a good reason to stop people from having a sandwich or a beer on them.  So, why should the fact that tube trains aren't designed with long journeys in mind be a reason for stopping people drinking?

Quite obviously, it shouldn't, and it isn't.  The justification for the ban was antisocial behaviour, and yet, as has been pointed out again and again, most drunken antics on all forms of transport come from people who are already drunk before they get on, which the booze ban does nothing to address.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 17, 2008)

I am massively relieved to see that so many courageous soldiers for freedom are fighting for our rights to get pissed on a train.

To think that people claim that the days of political activism are dead and gone


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2008)

EastEnder said:


> I don't recall inebriation being outlawed....


It is.  It's another "anti-terror law" ((c) Police Staters everywhere) of nu-Labour's ... from, er, 1872 ... (s.12 Licensing Act 1872) ...


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> I know you did.  I was trying to point out, though, that it isn't only a matter of being designed for eating and drinking, but that planes and (some) trains are designed for long journeys and their facilities are tailored accordingly, which includes but isn't limited to provision for eating and drinking, whilst buses and tubes aren't.
> 
> But really, it's hardly that relevant, is it?  Not all trains are designed to accommodate food, drink, laptops and other things people use on longer journeys.  Sure, intercity trains are, but commuter trains aren't and nor are trains designed for many mlonger journeys, such as Sprinter units or Pacers.  And yet, no-one seems to think that that is a good reason to stop people from having a sandwich or a beer on them.  So, why should the fact that tube trains aren't designed with long journeys in mind be a reason for stopping people drinking?
> 
> Quite obviously, it shouldn't, and it isn't.  The justification for the ban was antisocial behaviour, and yet, as has been pointed out again and again, most drunken antics on all forms of transport come from people who are already drunk before they get on, which the booze ban does nothing to address.



It isn't that they are just not designed for long journeys, they are not designed for people to eat and drink on.  There is no place to put a drink down, no place to rest food, nowhere to throw your rubbish, no one to collect it til the train gets back to the depot.

Yeah I never saw the idea as having much of an impact against asb, it is yet another initiative that really doesn't even begin to deal with the problem.

That doesn't mean the Tube isn't better for the ban.  Sure it isn't likely to be any better in terms of the asb you might encounter, but I believe it would smell better and be better not to stick to furniture.

As I said Roadkill, ok it has only a minor effect, but then, it is only a minor inconvenience not to drink alcohol for 30mins.  It isn't a HUGE deal, so we don't need a HUGE gain from it, it is a minor thing so minor gains are what we can expect.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2008)

EastEnder said:


> The only effective solution would be to either ban unpleasant people (if only...) or employ more staff to monitor the platforms and trains (which costs money...).


Putting bins on trains and on platforms would be a start.  And putting toilets on stations would be another.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 17, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> It is.  It's another "anti-terror law" ((c) Police Staters everywhere) of nu-Labour's ... from, er, 1872 ... (s.12 Licensing Act 1872) ...


So why have I never been arrested?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> The MTR doesn't really suffer delays. A 5-minute delay somewhere on the system is enough to make it into the newspapers the next day.
> 
> The Tube is much older and crappier and breaks down all the time, taking food and drink on board is a sensible way to prepare for a journey that can often take at least an hour longer than planned - and I reckon having to cross London on the Tube every day for years would be enough to drive even the strictest mullah into alcoholism.



As I said, don't really care for the tube one way or the other. But the tube is a reflection of London in general, it's filthy. Hong Kong used to be too. Now there are restrictions on where you can smoke outside (not in most parks for instance). There are bins with ashtrays everywhere, with notices on each telling you of the fine for putting non-fag stuff in the ashtray. There are signs everywhere telling you the penalty for littering, both on the street and MTR. In london we also have those rules, it's just that no one enforces them.

I smoke and am guilty of dropping buts on the floor when I can't find a bin or drain close by. However if I was ever slapped with an £80 fine, I think I may think about where to dispose of my butt before lighting up.

In Hong Kong last year I lit a fag with a match, 2 coppers saw me and followed me unti I put the spent match in to a bin. Had I not seen them I would of course just dropped the match on the street. After that incident I made sure a bin was close by before lighting up.




And as to planes & trains, ever seen a galley on a plane or restaurant car on a train? Pretty much designed for eating I'd say.


----------



## paolo (Aug 17, 2008)

Interesting to note TFL's apparent view on relative nuisance. Just before Boris announced the ban, they were running a poster campaign about anti social behaviour on public transport, which included eating smelly food and playing music.

It did not highlight drinking.

If drinking was the biggest problem, the one so pressing that above all others, it needed banning, how did TFL not know this? Surely, no, it can't be - gesture politics? Oh no, definitely not. TFL just "forgot".


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Unless I'm much mistaken, you certainly cannot carry your own alcohol onto a plane and consume it mid-flight.




You can on Royal Brunei. It's a dry airline, but if you bring your own booze they will serve it for you and dish uot mixers.




			
				Jazzz said:
			
		

> It's a source of revenue for the airlines.



Only on charters and low cost jobbies. You don't pay for booze on BA.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Only Stobarts post #3 at the start of the thread.


That doesn't prove a thing, neither does it back up any claims that it's the people who are _actively drinking_ who are making the mess.

Bahnhof Strasse: the vast majority of people who eat on trains don't all sit in the restaurant car, do they?


----------



## smokedout (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> It isn't that they are just not designed for long journeys, they are not designed for people to eat and drink on.



and tube staff arent trained to police pointless laws (which arent even laws)

which is why its been pretty much ignored


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

smokedout said:


> and tube staff arent trained to police pointless laws (which arent even laws)
> 
> which is why its been pretty much ignored



The Tube have their own police service.  Didn't Boris make some noise about making sure it isn't down to ticket staff to enforce this?


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> The Tube have their own police service.  Didn't Boris make some noise about making sure it isn't down to ticket staff to enforce this?


Great idea! Distract the police from getting on with serious work and set them to work enforcing Boris's meaningless and pointless political gesture!


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Great idea! Distract the police from getting on with serious work and set them to work enforcing Boris's meaningless and pointless political gesture!



Well if people weren't so selfish that they couldn't go without actively drinking alcohol for a short period they wouldn't need to enforce it and thus wouldn't be distracted.

Again we come back to the selfish actions of those who insist they have some right to drink alcohol in an enclosed, moving, public vehicle.


----------



## strung out (Aug 17, 2008)

what about the selfish actions of those who insist they have the right to listen to loud music in an enclosed, moving, public vehicle?  or people who read the newspaper, what cunts!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Well if people weren't so selfish that they couldn't go without actively drinking alcohol for a short period they wouldn't need to enforce it and thus wouldn't be distracted.



"If people didn't want to drink alcohol on the tube they wouldn't need to ban it"

A masterpiece of both technical accuracy and irrelevance


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

strung_out said:


> what about the selfish actions of those who insist they have the right to listen to loud music in an enclosed, moving, public vehicle?  or people who read the newspaper, what cunts!



So compare two things that don't inconveince you at all to something that inconveniences a great number of passengers and act like that means something?

Wow that is incredibly lame.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Well if people weren't so selfish that they couldn't go without actively drinking alcohol for a short period they wouldn't need to enforce it and thus wouldn't be distracted.
> 
> Again we come back to the selfish actions of those who insist they have some right to drink alcohol in an enclosed, moving, public vehicle.


What's "selfish" about quietly having a beer after work on your way home, and why is it any more "selfish" than someone drinking Tango, coffee  or whatever?

And, more importantly, what's it go to do with you anyway?


----------



## JTG (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> The Tube have their own police service.  Didn't Boris make some noise about making sure it isn't down to ticket staff to enforce this?



It isn't down to anyone to enforce this because it's pointless and a waste of time to do so


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> "If people didn't want to drink alcohol on the tube they wouldn't need to ban it"
> 
> A masterpiece of both technical accuracy and irrelevance



Not really what I said.

What I said was this:

"Now that it is banned, the people who are continuing to drink are being selfish, they are the ones that will be wasting the time of staff who have to enforce the ban."

Not really the same is it.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> So compare two things that don't inconveince you at all to something that inconveniences a great number of passengers and act like that means something?


Please list the times you've recently been "inconvenienced" by someone drinking on the tube, and detail the exact nature of the inconvenience caused. Thanks.


----------



## JTG (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> So compare two things that don't inconveince you at all to something that inconveniences a great number of passengers and act like that means something?
> 
> Wow that is incredibly lame.



I've never once seen anyone inconvenienced by tube drinking and have never been so inconvenienced myself.

I wasn't even aware it was a massive problem either.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> What's "selfish" about quietly having a beer after work on your way home, and why is it any more "selfish" than someone drinking Tango, coffee  or whatever?
> 
> And, more importantly, what's it go to do with you anyway?



Cause i share the use of that carriage.

Why can't I drop my draws and have a shit, whats it to do with you anyway? So it stinks and is digusting, so what, some people like skat. 

It is inconsiderate to other passengers to drink alcohol, it stinks, I also, as stated earlier, believe it is inconsiderate to eat on the Tube and drink anything but bottled water, a polite non-sticky, non-smelly liquid that even if spilt and sat in is mildy annoying but isn't likely to make you stink like a pub for the rest of the day.

You also only talk in YOUR absolute terms of what drinking means on teh Tube, guy going home having a quite drink on the journey, but that is not the only type of drinker on the Tube is it? There are absolute pissheads falling all over the place, there still are you will insist, but I will simply say yes but now they don't have an open can of special brew in their hand.

Perhaps you will argue but they still do no one is enforcing the Ban, but that doesn't change the argument that they should and people shouldn't be doing that.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

I can see this going the same way as all of the other ones to be honest.

"I hate drunks on the tube, they're really annoying."
"But drunks on the tube haven't got that way because they've been drinking on the tube."
"But drunks on the tube are really annoying!"
"But they haven't got that way drinking on the tube!"
"But they're really annoying! You're just selfish if you want to drink on the tube because drunks on the tube are really annoying."

Basically it'll just be an endless back and forth of "drinking != drunkenness" again.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

JTG said:


> I've never once seen anyone inconvenienced by tube drinking and have never been so inconvenienced myself.
> 
> I wasn't even aware it was a massive problem either.



Now its a massive problem?

Despite the fact that I have used the Term MINOR in capitals atleast 3 times, but no, now it is a massive problem.

Laughable really.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Cause i share the use of that carriage.
> 
> Why can't I drop my draws and have a shit, whats it to do with you anyway? So it stinks and is digusting, so what, some people like skat.
> 
> ...



I suppose it would never have been banned if the tube carriages had the capabilities to sell the booze to you. There doesn't seem to be the same clamour to apply these rules to people travelling on planes and trains... I don't see many people complaining about it on those services either.

Go figure.


----------



## JTG (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Cause i share the use of that carriage.
> 
> Why can't I drop my draws and have a shit, whats it to do with you anyway? So it stinks and is digusting, so what, some people like skat.
> 
> It is inconsiderate to other passengers to drink alcohol, it stinks, I also, as stated earlier, believe it is inconsiderate to eat on the Tube and drink anything but bottled water, a polite non-sticky, non-smelly liquid that even if spilt and sat in is mildy annoying but isn't likely to make you stink like a pub for the rest of the day.



Bizarre authoritarian nonsense



> You also only talk in YOUR absolute terms of what drinking means on teh Tube, guy going home having a quite drink on the journey, but that is not the only type of drinker on the Tube is it? There are absolute pissheads falling all over the place, there still are you will insist, but I will simply say yes but now they don't have an open can of special brew in their hand.
> 
> Perhaps you will argue but they still do no one is enforcing the Ban, but that doesn't change the argument that they should and people shouldn't be doing that.



The absolute pissheads must have been pissed when they got on. So drinking alcohol on the tube is not the problem here is it?

As has been pointed out several times.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Please list the times you've recently been "inconvenienced" by someone drinking on the tube, and detail the exact nature of the inconvenience caused. Thanks.



How about getting to work and stinking of special brew despite being tea total?

How about getting up from the seat and sticking to it as the alcohol has seaped into your suit trousers, hey just another a few quid down the dry cleaners, no inconvenience there.

How about getting on a carriage after a long days work and realising that it absolutely stinks of special brew and is making you want to heave, and you halfway between stations and somewhat stuck, hey no inconvenience to travel down the carriage, open the window and hold your head there, no inconvenience to have to get up at the next station and move to the next carriage, in the hope that it too doesn't stink of special brew.


----------



## JTG (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Now its a massive problem?
> 
> Despite the fact that I have used the Term MINOR in capitals atleast 3 times, but no, now it is a massive problem.
> 
> Laughable really.



Ah so it really is a minor problem.

Why bother making such a song and dance about this ban then? Why bother at all?


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

JTG said:


> Bizarre authoritarian nonsense
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet you completely ignore the fact that they no longer have an open can of beer on them to spill.

Yeah just ignore that part, lets pretend it is about drunkness as FridgeMagnet has suggested, that is an easier argument a circular one that doesn't go anywhere and doesn't require you to answer the point.

With no open cans of beer, no beer will be spilt.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

JTG said:


> Ah so it really is a minor problem.
> 
> Why bother making such a song and dance about this ban then? Why bother at all?



Because it is also just a minor inconvenience to go without actively drinking alcohol for a short Tube Journey.

A small inconvenience for a small benefit.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> How about getting to work and stinking of special brew despite being tea total?
> 
> How about getting up from the seat and sticking to it as the alcohol has seaped into your suit trousers, hey just another a few quid down the dry cleaners, no inconvenience there.
> 
> How about getting on a carriage after a long days work and realising that it absolutely stinks of special brew and is making you want to heave, and you halfway between stations and somewhat stuck, hey no inconvenience to travel down the carriage, open the window and hold your head there, no inconvenience to have to get up at the next station and move to the next carriage, in the hope that it too doesn't stink of special brew.



What, these things have actually happened to you or are you making it up to back your position?

Nothing like that has happened to me in the ten years I've been using the tube.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> How about getting to work and stinking of special brew despite being tea total?
> 
> How about getting up from the seat and sticking to it as the alcohol has seaped into your suit trousers, hey just another a few quid down the dry cleaners, no inconvenience there.
> 
> How about getting on a carriage after a long days work and realising that it absolutely stinks of special brew and is making you want to heave, and you halfway between stations and somewhat stuck, hey no inconvenience to travel down the carriage, open the window and hold your head there, no inconvenience to have to get up at the next station and move to the next carriage, in the hope that it too doesn't stink of special brew.



How about being set upon by gangs of tube goblins who pour in through the windows at the end of the carriage, hold you down and jam Bacardi Breezers into your every orifice before smearing you with brewer's yeast?


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Cause i share the use of that carriage.


So it's now the _smell_ of alcohol being drunk that offends you? You must have a pretty amazing sense of smell to be able to detect beer being drunk unless you're sat right next to them. And then of course, you could just move if your hyper sensitivities are being offended.

What about perfumes and aftershaves? There's quite a few I don't like much come to think of it, so there's just as strong a case for banning it by your logic.


Dravinian said:


> There are absolute pissheads falling all over the place, there still are you will insist, but I will simply say yes but now they don't have an open can of special brew in their hand.


And how often have you personally been inconvenienced by someone drinking on the tube?  Go on, list the times.

As for me it's..... *thinks....... *tries to remember.....nope, I can't recall any times in the last five years..


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> What, these things have actually happened to you or are you making it up to back your position?
> 
> Nothing like that has happened to me in the ten years I've been using the tube.



Now I'll have to make up a new story for smelling of booze when I get to work  Damn Boris!


----------



## JTG (Aug 17, 2008)

Stupid, goalpost moving nonsense.

As is usual with Dravinian.

Your obsession with the smell of tube carriages sounds a bit OCD to me


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> So it's now the _smell_ of alcohol being drunk that offends you?



Heaven help anyone trying to choose a restaurant to take him to that has no alcohol or strong food odours!


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Now I'll have to make up a new story for smelling of booze when I get to work  Damn Boris!


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

Oh well if in your anecdotal experience it never happens, since you posting I assume you never been shot and killed, so that must never happen to anyone else either then.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> How about getting up from the seat and sticking to it as the alcohol has seaped into your suit trousers, hey just another a few quid down the dry cleaners, no inconvenience there..


I have never, ever, ever accidentally sat in a tube seat soaked in beer and I don't believe you have either (surely hyper sensitive sense of smell would have prevented that happeneing?).

I've never got into a rush hour tube that had such a heady whiff of Special Brew permeating the carriages that people were barfing wildly.

You're making all this up now. You must live in a dystopian Special Brew fantasy world.


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Oh well if in your anecdotal experience it never happens, since you posting I assume you never been shot and killed, so that must never happen to anyone else either then.



It clearly only happens to whingeing tee-totallers Dravinian. Perhaps the alcohol knows who you are and lies in wait.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> I have never, ever, ever accidentally sat in a tube seat soaked in beer and I don't believe you have either (surely hyper sensitive sense of smell would have prevented that happeneing?).
> 
> I've never got into a rush hour tube that had such a heady whiff of Special Brew permeating the carriages that people were barfing wildly.
> 
> You're making all this up now. You must live in a dystopian Special Brew fantasy world.



Oh right, so now it is just rush hour tubes, you mean the ones that come out of the paddock early in the morning after being cleaned of an evening, you mean they never stink...wow amazing.  Or you mean all the extra ones they lay on of an evening soecially for the rush, that also have been cleaned, they don't tend to stink either.

Wow, thankfully that is the only time we use the Tube so thats ok then.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> It clearly only happens to whingeing tee-totallers Dravinian. Perhaps the alcohol knows who you are and lies in wait.



I think it is more of a case that you have an opinion and you want it to be correct.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Oh right, so now it is just rush hour tubes, you mean the ones that come out of the paddock early in the morning after being cleaned of an evening, you mean they never stink...wow amazing.  Or you mean all the extra ones they lay on of an evening soecially for the rush, that also have been cleaned, they don't tend to stink either.


How many times have you accidentally sat in a tube seat so soaked with beer that you had to send your suit off to the dry cleaners, and what had happened to your self proclaimed ultra-keen sense of smell in these instances?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 17, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Oh right, so now it is just rush hour tubes, you mean the *ones that come out of the paddock early in the morning *after being cleaned of an evening, you mean they never stink...wow amazing.  Or you mean all the extra ones they lay on of an evening soecially for the rush, that also have been cleaned, they don't tend to stink either.
> 
> Wow, thankfully that is the only time we use the Tube so thats ok then.



So now you're claiming you know how often trains are taken out of service to be cleaned. Amazing!

"Paddock!" They're trains dude, not buffaloes. LMFAO


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2008)

Darv, it's 'teetotal' from the story about the stammering member of some early Temperance Society who is reputed to have claimed nothing but tee-tee-tol abstinence' would do.

And stop mentioning spesh as if it's the universal drink of choice man, you're doing so in order to connect the idea of a beer on the tube with drunkards


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Darv, it's 'teetotal' from the story about the stammering member of some early Temperance Society who is reputed to have claimed nothing but tee-tee-tol abstinence' would do.
> 
> And stop mentioning spesh as if it's the universal drink of choice man, you're doing so in order to connect the idea of a beer on the tube with drunkards




Exactly. He's forgetting the Purple Tin and Ace 



editor said:


> I have never, ever, ever accidentally sat in a tube seat soaked in beer..



What? You've done it on purpose Wierdo.


----------



## JTG (Aug 17, 2008)

The old purple tin,
The old purple tin,
Sweet testament Lord,
To the state that I'm in,
I've drunk it all day,
And I've drunk it all night,
The old purple tin,
Oh Lord, lights up my life


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> I've never got into a rush hour tube that had such a heady whiff of Special Brew permeating the carriages
> 
> .



I have, a few months ago just before the ban started. It was only 3.30 in the afternoon and these two chavs were pissed and drinking more beer, it was so crowded every time someone knocked into them when they were getting on/off the train they were spilling the beer.


----------



## art of fact (Aug 17, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> I have, a few months ago just before the ban started. It was only 3.30 in the afternoon and *these two chavs* were pissed and drinking more beer, it was so crowded every time someone knocked into them when they were getting on/off the train they were spilling the beer.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 17, 2008)

Why are people replying to this thread, when they could just link to the ones we had a few months ago and save themselves the effort?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2008)

Cos people didn't get the message 1st time round 

Fucking newb


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Why are people replying to this thread, when they could just link to the ones we had a few months ago and save themselves the effort?



It's the internet and people are wrong


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> I have, a few months ago just before the ban started. It was only 3.30 in the afternoon and these two chavs were pissed and drinking more beer, it was so crowded every time someone knocked into them when they were getting on/off the train they were spilling the beer.


Well that's certainly more than enough to implement an immediate and permanent city-wide ban.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 17, 2008)

So what happens if you are caught drinking on the tube? Do you get a fixed penalty notice? 

Only that would make Dravinian’s head explode!


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> So what happens if you are caught drinking on the tube? Do you get a fixed penalty notice?


Once you've finished breathing Special Brew fumes over every person on the tube and carefully pouring any surplus beer into the seats ready for the next besuited arse to dampen, if caught, you would be asked to give up your can or face being thrown off the system.


----------



## JTG (Aug 17, 2008)

Wooh scary.

An effective fine of what, 80p or so?


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

JTG said:


> Wooh scary.
> 
> An effective fine of what, 80p or so?


They also make you sit next to Dravinian for a day.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> They also make you sit next to Dravinian for a day.



Don't be silly, have you not heard of the Human Rights Act. 

So, seriously there’s no penalty other than having your can taken off you? No wonder no one takes any notice of it.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 17, 2008)

IMO all chavs and yuppies should be banned from public transport.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

You are _so_ Sunday trolling


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 17, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> IMO all chavs and yuppies should be banned from public transport.



What about daft bints?


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 17, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> What about the bints?


And them as well. Fucking pests with their high heels digging in everyone's toes.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2008)

EastEnder said:


> So why have I never been arrested?


Because we _don't_ actually live in a police state despite what you might read on here ... 

The police have got lots of better things to do than arrest drunks.  They usually only arrest for simple drunkenness in two instances:  (a) someone is so drunk they are incapable of taking care for themselves (usually dealt with by caution in the morning) and (b) when someone is drunk and is refusing to take advice about going home / not getting involved in an argument or whatever (i.e. failing the "attitude test") (again usually dealt with by way of caution in the morning unless they are still arsey, in which case they may get charged).  There is another offence - being drunk and disorderly - which is more commonly used as the sort of "entry level" offence for disorder, though the s5 offence under the Public Order Act 1986 has largely replaced it in a lot of cases as the disorder bit is about the same and there is no need to prove drunkenness as well.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> So, seriously there’s no penalty other than having your can taken off you? No wonder no one takes any notice of it.


There will be soon - at the moment it's just a condition of travel and ejection is the only sanction.  When a penalty is introduced it will undoubtedly have a Fixed Penalty Notice option.  And, as has already been noted, that is likely to lead to some amusing wriggles ...


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 17, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Because we _don't_ actually live in a police state despite what you might read on here ...
> 
> .










This is why..........


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2008)

Good God woman ... never fucking doner kebabs ...  

Either shish kebabs or, preferably, shwarmas from Kebab Kid in New Kings Rd Fulham ...


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Just got the last tube back home from central London and was delighted to see loads of happy drinkers peacefully enjoying cans of beer on their way home.
> 
> Fuck you Boris.




cue Bowie's _Rebel, Rebel._ #

SMASH THE SYSTEM!


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 17, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Because we _don't_ actually live in a police state despite what you might read on here ...
> 
> The police have got lots of better things to do than arrest drunks.  They usually only arrest for simple drunkenness in two instances:  (a) someone is so drunk they are incapable of taking care for themselves (usually dealt with by caution in the morning) and (b) when someone is drunk and is refusing to take advice about going home / not getting involved in an argument or whatever (i.e. failing the "attitude test") (again usually dealt with by way of caution in the morning unless they are still arsey, in which case they may get charged).  There is another offence - being drunk and disorderly - which is more commonly used as the sort of "entry level" offence for disorder, though the s5 offence under the Public Order Act 1986 has largely replaced it in a lot of cases as the disorder bit is about the same and there is no need to prove drunkenness as well.


I have a serious moral objection to this sort of thing (I don't really, I'm just being pointlessly melodramatic), I mean obviously I can understand why the police don't go around arresting every random, but completely harmless, drunk. But why is it an offence at all? Surely something should only be an offence if you're not supposed to do it, and if it is an offence then aren't the police obligated to enforce the law? Otherwise you're left with the bizarre situation where there's lots of laws, all of which we're supposed to abide by, but which are only selectively enforced at the whim of the officer concerned.

If I see someone breaking into car and alert a passing copper, presumably he's under obligation to arrest the miscreant (as opposed to having the option of saying "well it is illegal, but I'm going to ignore it anyway")? And if being drunk is illegal, even if the drunks concerned are doing no worse than regaling boring anecdotes, what would be to stop me finding a passing copper, pointing through the window of a pub and saying "they're all drunk and therefore breaking the law, you should arrest them at once!"???


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2008)

Same reason that for the past 18 years I've never been pulled over for cruising past plod at 80 on the motorway.

Always amazes me the traffic jam behind a pig car on a motorway. 80 in decent conditions is not dangerous, no traffic pig is gonna pull you for it.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> cue Bowie's _Rebel, Rebel._ #
> 
> SMASH THE SYSTEM!


Er, no. They weren't rebelling against anything. 

They were just enjoying a drink and upsetting no one - apart from a few ridiculously uptight moral guardians on a web forum, apparently.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

Uptight moral guardians? On a web forum? Blimey. People drinking booze on a tube journey. Fucking menace to society...yeah...give it to the man...we shall overcome...no turning back....Stand! Stand! Don't run! Babycham! Mine's a babycham!
How old are you, ed? lol.

No Pasaran! Vive! Ethanol!

btw - which tube line was this hot bed/carriage of defiance?


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> btw - which tube line was this hot bed/carriage of defiance?


I said they were just enjoying a drink and upsetting no one. That's all. 

No need for you to get upset over it and there's really no need for any moralising or snidey little remarks either.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2008)

EastEnder said:


> Surely something should only be an offence if you're not supposed to do it, and if it is an offence then aren't the police obligated to enforce the law? Otherwise you're left with the bizarre situation where there's lots of laws, all of which we're supposed to abide by, but which are only selectively enforced at the whim of the officer concerned.


Unfortunately there will ALWAYS be more laws and more offences than the police can possible deal with (if they went on a "work to rule" they'd never get twenty yards out of the police station before dealing with some trivial shite).  

The fact that every officer has absolute discretion in enforcing the law is a key part of the police - public relationship in the UK.  That is, I think, a very powerful aspect which helps maintain the relationship (there are thousands of people (including some on here)) who tell stories of how they _could_ have been arrested but were let off with a bollocking / given a lift home or whatever.  This is the entirely reasonable basis for the "attitude test" - if someone is committing a minor offence and the officer is willing to deal with it by way of informal warning, they are perfectly entitled to take a step back and say "OK, if thats how you want to play it, you're nicked!" if their initial approach is met with snarling, spitting abuse and violence.

You mentioned two very different scenarios - one in which the exercise of discretion IS appropriate and one in which it would not usually be.  In the first there is no VICTIM as such (e.g. drunkenness), in the second (e.g. theft from a vehicle) there IS.  In the latter case, if the officer did not intervene and pursue a proper investigation, etc. the victim would be able to complain about them failing to do their duty.  They could _try_ to do that in the first scenario (and some interfering twats do try!) but they'd never get it off the ground in the Courts unless they could show some specific harm being caused.

There is a grey area, which you touch on in the last part of your post and that is where individual, non-victim offences (such as drunkenness) have a wider impact (e.g. widespread drink fuelled disorder because pubs allow drunkenness (it is a very specific criminal offence by licensees, etc. to allow a drunken person to enter or remain in licensed premises, or serve them alcohol, by the way).  In these situations police may well have a bit of a local crackdown although they will normally try and make sure that individual's caught up as "collateral damage" (e.g. individual users caught buying as part of an operation aimed at a drug dealer) are dealt with as leniently as possible.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 17, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 80 in decent conditions is not dangerous, no traffic pig is gonna pull you for it.


But a blunt instrument, zero-discretion camera might ...


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> I said they were just enjoying a drink and upsetting no one. That's all.
> 
> No need for you to get upset over it and there's really no need for any moralising or snidey little remarks either.



I'm not upset "over it". I find a wee bit sad that you have this cross you carry - I'm pretty sure there are other things more important re BoJo than railing against not being able to drink on a relatively short journey.

Didn't read any moralising; not that I'm sure that I know what "morals" are. 

Gotta have that drink, gotta have that drink. Booze! I demand some booze! And bollox to everyone else. 

For a complete picture of this radical group of mobile activists - what were you drinking? A nicely chilled Pouilly Fume? Or a can of 8 Ace? Did you remember to touch in and touch out?


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Gotta have that drink, gotta have that drink. Booze! I demand some booze! And bollox to everyone else.


That's a fair old rant there, and all because some people - whom you neither know or have even _seen_ - were quietly drinking on a tube carriage that you weren't even on. No one was bothered except, it seems, you.

You want to calm down else you'll explode at this rate.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)

And think how much that would inconvenience the other travellers!


----------



## paolo (Aug 17, 2008)

I'm still wondering how TFL "forgot" about this most pressing issue, in their campaign about anti social behaviour.

Do any of the pro-ban people know why TFL clearly willingly ignored this apparently pressing need for a ban?

Did Ken veto it? Had it removed from the campaign? Was the message conceived and executed by someone who habitually pisses in beer cans?

Just how was such a clear and prominent issue missed by the organisation that runs the pulic transport, when it was so clearly obvious to someone who doesn't use the tube very much, if ever?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> And think how much that would inconvenience the other travellers!




Lol. I'm actually hanging upside down in my parachute harness. It adds a whole new dimension to posting. Headrush, fer sure.

I can see this is an important topic for you, ed. I'll leave it.

*hic*

*pass the meths*

Avoid Bank station, due to refurbishment work between Monument and Bank, access is severly restricted. Use alternative routes, if possible.

Cheers!


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> *hic*
> 
> *pass the meths*


are you drunk?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

Lmao - no. Never.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Lmao - no. Never.


Then why are you acting like a drunken idiot?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

I'm not.

I'm amused and surprised at the sense of entitlement that seems to accompany frustrated tube-drinkers. 

You've made a meal (with free drinks?) about it on the board before. 

Odd.


----------



## Dead Cat Bounce (Aug 17, 2008)

As someone who uses the tube for at least two hours a day I've never seen a single person trying to enforce this ridiculous 'law', in fact since Boris announced the ban on booze I've not seen a British Transpot Officer on any of my tube journeys.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I'm amused and surprised at the sense of entitlement that seems to accompany frustrated tube-drinkers.
> 
> You've made a meal (with free drinks?) about it on the board before.
> 
> Odd.


Imagine! Having a "sense of entitlement" to do something that harms no one and brings pleasure to people, while inconveniencing no one else at all. Whatever else!

Imagine being pissed off by something so incredibly minor and trivial that it had barely _eve_r been mentioned in terms of a social problem on the underground until a fucking Tory toff buffooned into town, unilaterally declared it a menace to civilised society and banned it as part of a truly vacuous PR offensive.

And now you're joining in, whining on about people quietly enjoying a drink on a tube ride that you weren't even on.

Talk about intolerant. You're doing Boris proud.


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Aug 17, 2008)

Boris should ban dreadlock wearers next, they must be minging.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Imagine! Having a "sense of entitlement" to do something that harms no one and brings pleasure to people, while inconveniencing no one else at all. Whatever else!
> 
> Imagine being pissed off by something so incredibly minor and trivial that it had barely _eve_r been mentioned in terms of a social problem on the underground until a fucking Tory toff buffooned into town, unilaterally declared it a menace to civilised society and banned it as part of a truly vacuous PR offensive.
> 
> ...



Yes. Imagine being _so_ pissed off... **holds mirror for ed**

He's eroding your liberties, he is. It is the right of every Englishman to drink foreign lager from a can on the short hop home.

Is that a jet engine I can hear? No! It's Lights whining! Ready for take-off (is there a bar?)...


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 17, 2008)

editor said:


> Imagine! Having a "sense of entitlement" to do something that harms no one and brings pleasure to people, while inconveniencing no one else at all. Whatever else!



In your opinion.  Remember, that isn't a proven fact, it is just an opinion, and the opinion of someone who thinks it should be ok to drink on the Tube and may be a little biased.



> Imagine being pissed off by something so incredibly minor and trivial that it had barely _eve_r been mentioned in terms of a social problem on the underground until a fucking Tory toff buffooned into town, unilaterally declared it a menace to civilised society and banned it as part of a truly vacuous PR offensive.



Yet the great sacrifice you are being asked to make is?

Not drink alcohol actively while on the Tube.

Oh noes!

You act like we should see an end to crime in this country or the ban isn't living up to the hardships it may cause, but at the end of the day, it is a tiny inconvenience and it brings a tiny benefit to passengers.  All pretty much in keeping.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2008)




----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

You may need to be Scots or from t'North to have sampled this delicate wee plonk -


----------



## paolo (Aug 17, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> You may need to be Scots or from t'North to have sampled this delicate wee plonk -



Confused. Was that a popular tube drink?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 17, 2008)

No idea. Just trumping the Special Brew for alcoholic-induced insanity.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 17, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Unfortunately there will ALWAYS be more laws and more offences than the police can possible deal with (if they went on a "work to rule" they'd never get twenty yards out of the police station before dealing with some trivial shite).
> 
> The fact that every officer has absolute discretion in enforcing the law is a key part of the police - public relationship in the UK.  That is, I think, a very powerful aspect which helps maintain the relationship (there are thousands of people (including some on here)) who tell stories of how they _could_ have been arrested but were let off with a bollocking / given a lift home or whatever.  This is the entirely reasonable basis for the "attitude test" - if someone is committing a minor offence and the officer is willing to deal with it by way of informal warning, they are perfectly entitled to take a step back and say "OK, if thats how you want to play it, you're nicked!" if their initial approach is met with snarling, spitting abuse and violence.
> 
> ...


That all makes sense, but I still think it's daft that being drunk is illegal (even if it's hardly ever enforced). Did you ever arrest anyone for being drunk? I thought most drunks who got nicked were arrested for offences like drunk & disorderly, resisting arrest, breach of the peace, etc. When was the last time someone was specifically arrested for the crime of inebriation? Pragmatically I don't suppose it really matters, it just seems odd that you can have a law that practically everyone from teenagers to old grannies break on a weekly basis! It also means that, assuming criminality is defined as breaking the law, then pretty much every single member of society over the age of about 14 is a criminal!


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 18, 2008)

I can't help but notice how the only people getting their knickers in a twist over this happen to be teetotallers. 

I'd also probably question how often these moaning types actually use the tube in reality; which warrants all these hysterical responses. 

I thought Dravinian struggled to eat, for example, let alone spending endless days on the underground system in his posh suit, being drenched incessantly with super-strength booze causing him untold dry cleaning bills.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7853939&postcount=874

Be consistent, if nothing else.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

My mum thinks the ban is excellent. She lives in the Cotswolds.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 18, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> But a blunt instrument, zero-discretion camera might ...



Quite. Been stopped probably 2 times per year for speeding, for 18 years - never been booked. Been flashed 3 times by cameras, booked each time


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> I can't help but notice how the only people getting their knickers in a twist over this happen to be teetotallers.
> 
> I'd also probably question how often these moaning types actually use the tube in reality; which warrants all these hysterical responses.
> 
> ...



If you really must drink.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7875460&postcount=11


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2008)

EastEnder said:


> Did you ever arrest anyone for being drunk? I thought most drunks who got nicked were arrested for offences like drunk & disorderly, resisting arrest, breach of the peace, etc. When was the last time someone was specifically arrested for the crime of inebriation?


Yes, hundreds (thousands probably) of times.

People get arrested for being drunk and incapable (that is the s.12 Licensing Act 1972 offence, the "incapable" proides the reason for arrest rather than being necessary for the actual offence, which simply mentions drunkenness in a public place) all the time.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2008)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Quite. Been stopped probably 2 times per year for speeding, for 18 years - never been booked. Been flashed 3 times by cameras, booked each time


Maybe we should change ACAB to "All Cameras Are Bastards" and think of something nice beginning with B that coppers could be then ...


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> If you really must drink.


It must be awful for you having to watch people quietly enjoying a drink at restaurants, pubs, picnics, restaurant cars, planes and sometimes even on the tube.

Oh, how you suffer!


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

editor said:


> It must be awful for you having to watch people quietly enjoying a drink at restaurants, pubs, picnics, restaurant cars, planes and sometimes even on the tube.
> 
> Oh, how you suffer!



Of course, rely on sarcasm, dismissiveness.

Lets not live up to your selfish desire to drink overriding any other considerations.

You don't need to drink on the tube, but you want to, so you pretend that only your opinion is the right one, only your experiences are the real ones, the only truth is yours.

When the real truth is you are too selfish to suffer the minor inconvenience of not drinking alcohol during a Tube Journey.

Lets not pretty it up or pretend it is anything else.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Of course, rely on sarcasm, dismissiveness.
> 
> Lets not live up to your selfish desire to drink overriding any other considerations.


Remind me again exactly what is "selfish" about me quietly enjoying a drink, and then perhaps we could compare and contrast with your selfish and intolerant demands that no-one must do anything you don't like, even if it has no adverse effect on you at all.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2008)

That sounds like excellent fun. Hang on, I'll go and get a beer from the fridge and settle down to watch it.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Crispy said:


> That sounds like excellent fun. Hang on, I'll go and get a beer from the fridge and settle down to watch it.


Don't do that! You'll upset Dravinian.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

editor said:


> Remind me again exactly what is "selfish" about me quietly enjoying a drink, and then perhaps we could compare and contrast with your selfish and intolerant demands that no-one must do anything you don't like, even if it has no adverse effect on you at all.



Always comes back to you quietly enjoying a drink, because you want me to say, but people aren't always quiet and they don't always enjoy their drink without inconveniencing others, this is so you can return and say...oh but drunks are still on the tube.

I don't care if you are quietly enjoying your drink, there are people who are drunk, with open containers who are spilling alcohol.  To deny that is to call basic mathematical probabilities into question.

You have NO idea how many people are inconvenienced by alcohol on the Tube, no one does, there has been no studies, no realistic polls, I have given my personal experience, you have given yours, they are both different, neither prove anything.

It comes down to this very simple fact.

You don't _need _to drink alcohol on the short journeys that the Tube provides.  Even if the benefit to other passengers is small, the inconvenience to you is small.

Why can't you have a quiet drink before you get on the train? Why can't you wait til you get off?  Neither should pose a problem and yet by not having a drink you MAY (and you have to admit it is a possibility) benefit other passengers.

So you have a possible benefit, for very little inconvenience, but that isn't enough for you.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2008)

*does massive yeasty burp into thread*


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2008)

Things is, drav, I can understand your position, but the logic you use is flimsy. There are a great many things that people don't need to do, but which might cause minor inconvenience to others. Barbequing meat, for example, or running on the pavement. I think an argument for prohibiting alcohol on public transport should be built on more solid foundations.


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 18, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> *does massive yeasty burp into thread*



EEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!





Woof


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> You have NO idea how many people are inconvenienced by alcohol on the Tube, no one does, there has been no studies, no realistic polls, I have given my personal experience, you have given yours, they are both different, neither prove anything.


There's been decades of near total silence on the issue from the Transport Police, LT, passenger groups and passengers who clearly didn't think it was an issue until Herr Boris unilaterally declared it one. I'd say that puts the 'problem' into very sharp focus.


Dravinian said:


> I don't care if you are quietly enjoying your drink, there are people who are drunk, with open containers who are spilling alcohol. To deny that is to call basic mathematical probabilities into question.


Good grief. This really is scraping the barrel. There's also babies burping up sick on the tube every day. There's workmen walking on with dirty boots. There's people with questionable body odours. Do you want them all  banned too just because you might, just possibly, find yourself sitting within a 100m of them?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

I wonder why in this country we have licencing laws that are quite strictly enforced? I grew up in a pub, so I've seen it first hand.

Alcohol changes the way people behave. As a society we're becoming less tolerant of drunks and drunken behaviour.

For every person like editor who says he enjoys a quiet drink on the tube, there are others whose behaviour impeaches on the quiet enjoyment of others' journies.

You gotta hope ed doesn't travel on the Waterloo & City line; he'd be fucked. Two mouthfuls at most?

So many things are happening in our 'society' that need our attention, but let's not infringe the rights of tube drinkers, eh?


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I wonder why in this country we have licencing laws that are quite strictly enforced?


That'll be because of the legacy of World War 1 and the munitions factory workers. Not that it's got anything to do with drinking in the tube.


lights.out.london said:


> So many things are happening in our 'society' that need our attention, but let's not infringe the rights of tube drinkers, eh?


Be sure to detail all the times you've found yourself inconvenienced by people drinking on the tube.

Or is just the _thought_ of people doing something you personally don't approve of that gets your Daily Mail  "OMG! BAN IT NOW!" kneejerk reaction going?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I wonder why in this country we have licencing laws that are quite strictly enforced? I grew up in a pub, so I've seen it first hand.
> 
> Alcohol changes the way people behave. As a society we're becoming less tolerant of drunks and drunken behaviour.
> 
> ...



What a fatuous comment. A needless, restrictive law has been brought in but we're not allowed to care because of other social problems? So presumably, we also shouldn't think about small social problems because of bigger social problems, and so on and so on. 

It may come as a surprise, but people are often capable of being concerned about as many as 3 problems at once - 4 or 5 if they've got a pen and paper.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

editor said:


> That'll be because of World War 1 and the munitions factories.
> Be sure to detail all the times you've found yourself inconvenienced by people drinking on the tube.
> 
> Or is just the _thought_ of people doing something you personally don;t approve of that gets your Daily Mail  "OMG! BAN IT NOW!" kneejerk reaction going?



Oh. Dear. 

Have you ever thought of career in PR? Twist and spin? A new dance you've come up with. Mind you don't trip over your own feet, booze-boy.

Never once have I said alcohol should be banned or we should live in a prohibition society. I take a very laissez faire approach to personal liberty, but not at the inconvenience of others. 

I don't read the Daily Mail.

You wanna be careful - what you going to do if someone tries to take your so badly needed/deserved/whatever ale off you?

Only knee and jerk interface here, editor is you.

I AM EDITOR. I MUST BE RIGHT!


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> What a fatuous comment. A needless, restrictive law has been brought in but we're not allowed to care because of other social problems? So presumably, we also shouldn't think about small social problems because of bigger social problems, and so on and so on.
> 
> It may come as a surprise, but people are often capable of being concerned about as many as 3 problems at once - 4 or 5 if they've got a pen and paper.



Oh, do crawl back under your stone.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

The Pro Ban people would find Berlin vile and intimidating. Drinking is not only permitted on the 24 hour S-Bahn, there are even shops on platforms with fridges full of 'disgusting' alcohol. It's very common for Berliners - who are all so 'desperate' obviously - to have a beer on their journey to their night out.

Vile filthy Berliners, vile filthy Berlin.

Personally I think it's a great, liberal city, but some people here would find it sickening. A hotbed of depravity perhaps. Singapore would be their utopia. Anything questionable is banned.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> Oh, do crawl back under your stone.



I can only assume from that infantile response that you can't actually come up with anything more substantial.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

You're incisive posting doesn't warrant the wear and tear on my keyboard. Thanks for asking, though.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

Well the post I responded to did seem to suggest that we can't care about Issue Z because of issues A-Y. Do you believe that to be the case?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

No idea who you are. No need to engage with you. See ya.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

What sterling debating skills. So you only engage with people you 'know'?

This gets better and better


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> The Pro Ban people would find Berlin vile and intimidating. Drinking is not only permitted on the 24 hour S-Bahn, there are even shops on platforms with fridges full of 'disgusting' alcohol. It's very common for Berliners - who are all so 'desperate' obviously - to have a beer on their journey to their night out.
> 
> Vile filthy Berliners, vile filthy Berlin.
> 
> Personally I think it's a great, liberal city, but some people here would find it sickening. A hotbed of depravity perhaps. Singapore would be their utopia. Anything questionable is banned.



Why all of a sudden are they vile and filthy?  I don't see anyone calling drinkers here vile and filthy, oh but of course, we are back to the ridilcous stretches.  That is what happens when you are forced to argue a weak position, you have to stretch everything, take everything to the extreme to make it look silly.

As it isn't silly by its own merits, so now everyone has to be vile and filthy if they drink alcohol, because that is just plain silly so that allows you to continue to argue, despite having absolutely no point to make other then this.

They do it in Germany.

So what.  Is this Germany, do we have the German tube system here? no? Do we have a country full of Germans with German societal norms? No?

So why would we think their example had any bearing on our situation?

Oh cause it agrees with you, of course sorry, thats all it ever needed to do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> *Why all of a sudden are they vile and filthy?  I don't see anyone calling drinkers here vile and filthy, oh but of course, we are back to the ridilcous stretches.  That is what happens when you are forced to argue a weak position, you have to stretch everything, take everything to the extreme to make it look silly.*
> 
> As it isn't silly by its own merits, so now everyone has to be vile and filthy if they drink alcohol, because that is just plain silly so that allows you to continue to argue, despite having absolutely no point to make other then this.
> 
> ...



what, like inventing special brew fantasy lands to make all drinkers out to be desperate drunks? as you did scant pages ago?


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> what, like inventing special brew fantasy lands to make all drinkers out to be desperate drunks? as you did scant pages ago?



So pointing out that Special Brew has a particular and pungent stench is now making out all drinkers to be desperate drunks?

Interesting sense of logic.

If I point out Grass is Green, does this mean I am suggesting that all Ballet dancers are secret lemonade drinkers?  Just wondering if there was any limit to these leaps?


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

^

(((Dravinian)))

You could be here for quite some time, Dravinian.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2008)

you know well the connotations associated with spesh Drav, but play innocent if you wish


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

I pick Berlin because it shows a different attitude to personal freedoms, one that I do agree with, ad I assume you don't - or at least in terms of whether Londoners should have those freedoms too.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> you know well the connotations associated with spesh Drav, but play innocent if you wish



You also know well that the smell of that stuff is pungent, it stinks.

I never suggested that every drinker on the Tube was drinking Special Brew, merely that some were and the stuff reaks and is a fine example of why drinking alcohol on the Tube should be banned because of the inconvenience it causes for others.

I have always maintained that it is a minor inconvenience, but it is also just a minor inconvenience not to drink.

If someone could explain why it was such a big deal to take a break from drinking for the short journey on teh Tube I might be sympathetic, but all I have heard is that it is nice to have a quiet drink on the way home from work.  Sure it is, but it is not the end of the world that you can't.

You can't smoke on the tube, now if you can go without a cigarrette for that long, then you can surely go without a drink without any adverse effects.

So what we are saying is that there are no adverse effects for you, you just want a drink.  It pisses you off that you can't have a drink as you don't see how it harms anyone else, but as a drinker you are unlikely to see the harm or be dismissive of it.

For me if there was a more valid reason, something stronger then "I want" then I might have more sympathy and support you against the Ban, but as far as I can see, someone has to be inconvenienced a little and I don't see why it shouldn't be drinkers.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> I pick Berlin because it shows a different attitude to personal freedoms, one that I do agree with, ad I assume you don't - or at least in terms of whether Londoners should have those freedoms too.



It might be a different story if we had a different tube system, and a different societal attitude.  Neither of which have I experienced in Berlin.  So I don't know how similar they are or how different they are.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> I pick Berlin because it shows a different attitude to personal freedoms, one that I do agree with, ad I assume you don't - or at least in terms of whether Londoners should have those freedoms too.



I've found the attitude (?) or outlook of Berliners some way removed from the lager culture of this country. Not sure it's as straight forward as mapping their situation on to London's.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2008)

I'm not going over this whole inconvenience issue again, there are millions of inconveniences far more pressing that others have to put up with.

anyway it really makes no odds because the ban is being quietly flouted as I predicted having observed exactly the same thing happen six months previous when my local transport system put a no alcohol or hot food ban in place.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 18, 2008)

editor said:


> Just got the last tube back home from central London and was delighted to see loads of happy drinkers peacefully enjoying cans of beer on their way home.
> 
> Fuck you Boris.



yeah well it's illegal now get over it to paraphrase some one about some other ban recently...


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2008)

Not actually illegal though. Just against the Conditions of Carriage so all they can do is tell you to get off the train/bus.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I've found the attitude (?) or outlook of Berliners some way removed from the lager culture of this country. Not sure it's as straight forward as mapping their situation on to London's.



Sure - I use Berlin because it's freshest in my mind. But drinking not being banned is the norm in European cities. It's London that is the exception, not Berlin. Are Londoners really so much worse? I'd say they're not.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

El Jefe;7917995]I can only assume from that infantile response that you can't actually come up with anything more substantial. [/quote]This particularly pathetic example would suggest that to be the case. [quote=lights.out.london said:


> Mind you don't trip over your own feet, booze-boy.


 "Booze boy." LOL.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> You also know well that the smell of that stuff is pungent, it stinks.


I can't remember the last time I got on a tube train and it "reeked" of alcohol. In fact, I don't recall ever getting on a train that stunk so much of beer that it was uncomfortable for 'normal' passengers.

You're just making this stuff up to try and justify your ridiculously intolerant stance, just like all that nonsense about beer soaked seats.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

We managed to get across London without feeling the need to drink on the tube? Surely it's just like most rules on buses, no hot/smelly food or drink or alcohol??

When you've got that many people in close proximity, standing up, it's just purely good manners.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Not actually illegal though. Just against the Conditions of Carriage so all they can do is tell you to get off the train/bus.



But it is suggested that it will become illegal and no doubt enforced with fixed penalty notices.

The question is will Dravinian support the assumption of guilt under such circumstances without each case being referred to the CPS for consideration?   



paolo999 said:


> Sure - I use Berlin because it's freshest in my mind. But drinking not being banned is the norm in European cities. It's London that is the exception, not Berlin. Are Londoners really so much worse? I'd say they're not.



Nor is drinking on commuter trains leaving London banned. Nor did Transport for London campaign for this ban. Why? Because basically it’s not a problem – all this is about is attention seeking headlines for Boris at the cost of another piece of liberty being removed.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Nor is drinking on commuter trains leaving London banned. Nor did Transport for London campaign for this ban. Why? Because basically it’s not a problem – all this is about is attention seeking headlines for Boris at the cost of another piece of liberty being removed.


Yep. 100% correct.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

The times I've smelt alcohol, it's been off someone who's had a drink after work. They've rarely had a drink with them.

In fact, casting my mind back to before the ban, I can't remember seeing that many people drinking at all. Lots of very very pissed people, some quite unpleasant, but almost none of them drinking. In my experience, there was no correlation at all between alcohol related anti social behaviour and drinking actually on the tube.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> Nor is drinking on commuter trains leaving London banned. Nor did Transport for London campaign for this ban. Why? Because basically it’s not a problem – all this is about is attention seeking headlines for Boris at the cost of another piece of liberty being removed.



Quite.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

It's bizarre - fox hunting, the Iraq war, GM foods: all these issues have something to consider on both sides. You might conclude that GM foods are wrong, but it's still wise to consider the counter-arguments in so doing. But the booze ban? 

There's NOTHING there. It's hollow electioneering and despite the best (snigger) efforts of Dravinian and LoL, there's yet to be a single coherent point in the ban's favour, it's just hyperbole, dishonesty, prejudice and bleating.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> at the cost of another piece of liberty being removed.



Oh, _puuuuuuurleaze_! 

**builds barricades, paints placards and posters, prepares molatovs**


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> But it is suggested that it will become illegal and no doubt enforced with fixed penalty notices.
> 
> The question is will Dravinian support the assumption of guilt under such circumstances without each case being referred to the CPS for consideration?
> 
> ...




Trains that are going cross country are different, people might want to eat and drink on a long journey.

The tube isn't the same, everyone knows how packed it is, lots of people standing up. There are no tables or drinks holders and the potential for lots of spillages/ accidents.

Buses don't let you on with smelly food or alcohol and it's explicitally banned from National Express coaches (drinking that is). The absense of any loos on the tube and the fact there's hardly any air down there are other good reasons not to have smelly foods and drink.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

It is a liberty. A small one, but a liberty nonetheless. No one here is suggesting that we should put up an armed resistance, merely that it is gesture politics, and has almost no bearing on anti-social behaviour. TFL seemed to agree too.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Trains that are going cross country are different, people might want to eat and drink on a long journey.
> 
> The tube isn't the same, everyone knows how packed it is, lots of people standing up. There are no tables or drinks holders and the potential for lots of spillages/ accidents.
> 
> Buses don't let you on with smelly food or alcohol and it's explicitally banned from National Express coaches (drinking that is). The absense of any loos on the tube and the fact there's hardly any air down there are other good reasons not to have smelly foods and drink.



So ban smelly foods and all drinks. Thats a different argument from banning alcohol, so not actually relevant to this thread, really. 

I'd rather sit next to someone drinking a can of lager than eating a boxful of KFC, but I'm confronted with KFC all the time.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> It is a liberty. A small one, but a liberty nonetheless. No one here is suggesting that we should put up an armed resistance, merely that it is gesture politics, and has almost no bearing on anti-social behaviour. TFL seemed to agree too.



I take your point. And no-one...well...me...likes being told what to do. But that liberty needs to be considered within a framework of "society" and society's wider issues.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

Angel... Smelly food isn't banned on any London transport, nor are spillable drinks.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

lights.out.london said:


> I take your point. And no-one...well...me...likes being told what to do. But that liberty needs to be considered within a framework of "society" and society's wider issues.



I'd agree with that principal, totally.

My contention is that there was little correlation between drinking on public transport, and being drunk. Long distance trains, yes, intra-city journeys, no.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Angel... Smelly food isn't banned on any London transport, nor are spillable drinks.



I'm quite surprised they're not. You wouldn't want someone chomping on a kebab all over you on the tube.

I'm amazed people can't bear not to drink for a short while while on the tube, to be honest, a lot of the people supporting the smoking ban are using the same arguments as the smokers they disagreed with.

And I like a drop of wine as well...


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

I'm amazed people slap ugly satellite dishes on their houses so they can watch 100 channels of low quality entertainment, or drive around in modified Fiestas, or eat in Harvester pubs.

Just because something is unsophisticated, or aesthetically displeasing, doesn't mean it should be banned.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> I'm amazed people slap ugly satellite dishes on their houses so they can watch 100 channels of low quality entertainment, or drive around in modified Fiestas, or eat in Harvester pubs.
> 
> Just because something is unsophisticated, or aesthetically displeasing, doesn't mean it should be banned.



Well it is more then that becuase it effects you, you watching 100 channels of rubbish shouldn't really effect me, perhaps the sale price of my home because your dish lowers the tone of the area, but really, fuck those people.

You eating a stinky kebab that may or may not all end up in your belly rather then on the seats and other passengers is more likely to actually inconvenience a fellow passenger.

As I said earlier, I think if it wasn't about money being made, food would be banned on the Tube.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Trains that are going cross country are different, people might want to eat and drink on a long journey.
> 
> The tube isn't the same, everyone knows how packed it is, lots of people standing up. There are no tables or drinks holders and the potential for lots of spillages/ accidents.



I did say communter trains. Have you been on a peak-time train from, let's say, Victoria to East Croydon recently and seen how packed many of them are?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> If you really must drink.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7875460&postcount=11



Aye. I **REALLY** do!


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> I did say communter trains. Have you been on a peak-time train from, let's say, Victoria to East Croydon recently and seen how packed many of them are?



Most of them have more seating and table/ drinks holders though. I wouldn't advocate eating or drinking anything (other than water) on any train that packed, though.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

Just to be clear, I find smelly food unpleasant too. It was one of the things TFL highlighted in their campaign. They did not cover drinking. And indeed, on a much smaller scale, here on urban 2 things have consistently come up time and time again. Smelly food, and playing music. I can't ever remember any thread discussing how unpleasant it is to be near an open alcoholic drink on public transport. Nor can I remember any passenger group raising this as an issue. This makes me think that for most people, it simply wasn't an issue.


----------



## JTG (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Buses don't let you on with smelly food or alcohol



where's that then? Not Bristol


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

JTG said:


> where's that then? Not Bristol



Leeds you aren't meant to bring in hot food or alcohol.


----------



## JTG (Aug 18, 2008)

Can't be common then, never come across that


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2008)

JTG said:


> Can't be common then, never come across that



It applies in northampton too but is unenforced and ignored


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> It applies in northampton too but is unenforced and ignored



Much like drinking on the tube.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

So just to summarise, am I right in thinking there's still not a single argument of substance from the anti-tube-drinking lobby?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 18, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> So just to summarise, am I right in thinking there's still not a single argument of substance from the anti-tube-drinking lobby?



No more than for banning food and drink generally. To be fair to Dravinian, he also wants to do that.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> No more than for banning food and drink generally. To be fair to Dravinian, he also wants to do that.



See, I'd oppose that but at least it would be a level playing field, and based on tangible objections. Rather than some vague, fuckwitted "enough of that sort of thing" bollocks.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> So just to summarise, am I right in thinking there's still not a single argument of substance from the anti-tube-drinking lobby?



The pro alcohol arguments are the same as the pro smoking ones.

Water is the only drink you need down there, maybe some bottled oxygen.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> The pro alcohol arguments are the same as the pro smoking ones.



Are they? Are you sure?

Do you have the figures for death from passive drinking?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Are they? Are you sure?
> 
> Do you have the figures for death from passive drinking?



To be quite serious, there are lots of people who have died as a result of someone else's intoxication.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I'm amazed people can't bear not to drink for a short while while on the tube, to be honest, a lot of the people supporting the smoking ban are using the same arguments as the smokers they disagreed with.


No, they're not. Passive smoking _endangers people's health_, particularly so if they were working in a pub or office stuffed full of heavy smokers. There is no risk to your health from the extremely rare sight of someone enjoying a can of beer on a tube journey.

Well, I say _no_ risk, but there's clearly a risk that Dravinian and lights.out might work themselves into a dangerous froth of apoplexy at the sight of someone quietly doing something they disapprove of.





paolo999 said:


> Just to be clear, I find smelly food unpleasant too. It was one of the things TFL highlighted in their campaign. They did not cover drinking. And indeed, on a much smaller scale, here on urban 2 things have consistently come up time and time again. Smelly food, and playing music. I can't ever remember any thread discussing how unpleasant it is to be near an open alcoholic drink on public transport. Nor can I remember any passenger group raising this as an issue. This makes me think that for most people, it simply wasn't an issue.


Exactly. It's never been an issue until that fucking Tory clown saw an opportunity to drum up some middle England-pleasing PR brownie points.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> To be quite serious, there are lots of people who have died as a result of someone else's intoxication.


"Lots of people" have not died as a result of people having a drink on the tube, so quit trying to muddy the issue.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

editor said:


> No, they're not. Passive smoking _endangers people's health_, particularly so if they were working in a pub or office stuffed full of heavy smokers. There is no risk to your health from the extremely rare sight of someone enjoying a can of beer on a tube journey.
> 
> Well, I say _no_ risk, but there's clearly a risk that Dravinian and lights.out might work themselves into a dangerous froth of apoplexy at the sight of someone quietly doing something they disapprove of.Exactly. It's never been an issue until that fucking Tory clown saw an opportunity to drum up some middle England-pleasing PR brownie points.



People might rightly find having a can of beer shoved in their face sick making and just abit rude. The same applies to smelly hot food. I really am surprised anyone needs to drink on the tube, and why?

Can't you just wait a bit?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> To be quite serious, there are lots of people who have died as a result of someone else's intoxication.



Of course there are, but that's a bollocks point, serious or not. By that argument, you should ban alcohol entirely - or are you claiming that drunk people on the tube are more likely to become violent than those on the street or in the pub?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> People might rightly find having a can of beer shoved in their face sick making and just abit rude. The same applies to smelly hot food. I really am surprised anyone needs to drink on the tube, and why?
> 
> Can't you just wait a bit?



Oh for fuck's sake


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

El Jefe said:


> Of course there are, but that's a bollocks point, serious or not. By that argument, you should ban alcohol entirely - or are you claiming that drunk people on the tube are more likely to become violent than those on the street or in the pub?



There's no loos on tubes and no much space if people puke/ need a piss because of alcohol. If someone DID become violent, last place I;d want to be was on a tube because you can't get away like on the street, in a pub. There are by laws about drinking on the  street, anyhow.

Of course it won't stop people BEING drunk on the tube (or anywhere else).


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

I give up. Your attempts to justify this bollocks are becoming more random, more irrelevant and more desperate.

Which kinda sums the whole thing up


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> There's no loos on tubes and no much space if people puke/ need a piss because of alcohol. If someone DID become violent, last place I;d want to be was on a tube because you can't get away like on the street, in a pub. There are by laws about drinking on the  street, anyhow.
> 
> Of course it won't stop people BEING drunk on the tube (or anywhere else).


But tube journeys are shorter and - medically - you're far more likely to need a piss if you've been drinking some time before you got on the tube.

As for the "what if someone got violent" argument, that's too irrelevant to even bother with.


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> There's no loos on tubes and no much space if people puke/ need a piss because of alcohol. If someone DID become violent, last place I;d want to be was on a tube because you can't get away like on the street, in a pub. There are by laws about drinking on the  street, anyhow.
> 
> Of course it won't stop people BEING drunk on the tube (or anywhere else).



As you say, this won't stop people being drunk on the tube, so what's the point?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2008)

Why do you _need_ a drink on the tube? The journeys are that short?


----------



## fogbat (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> To be quite serious, there are lots of people who have died as a result of someone else's intoxication.



What an excellent argument.

Let's just enforce a national alcohol ban, just to be on the safe side.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Why do you _need_ a drink on the tube? The journeys are that short?



So now legislation should be based on need?  

You appear to have completely missed the point. If a new law is being introduced, the onus is on the body pushing for that law to justify banning something, NOT on the people involved in that something justifying it on a needs basis.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> People might rightly find having a can of beer shoved in their face sick making and just abit rude.


I have never, ever, ever in 30 years of catching the tube had a can of beer "shoved in my face" and clearly you haven't either.

But, over the years, I have had small children grab me, be sick on me, scream throughout the entire journey, sit on me, rattle things, throw things, eat  smelly food, and I've also had to put up with their prams causing congestion by the entrance.

Should they be banned too or maybe I could just continue to shrug, smile and show a little tolerance? After all, does the mother really *need *to make that journey to the park?


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

fogbat said:


> What an excellent argument.
> 
> Let's just enforce a national alcohol ban, just to be on the safe side.



And cars. And rolled-up newspapers.


----------



## rich! (Aug 18, 2008)

editor said:


> After all, does the mother really *need *to make that journey to the park?



Does the mother really need to have had children? Wouldn't it be better for all of us if breeding was banned? Tubes would be much more pleasant without prams on them. Ladies - think of the comfort of tube travellers before deciding not to flush that sprog!!!


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

The pros for this ban really don't have a thing, do they?


----------



## Cid (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> Why do you _need_ a drink on the tube? The journeys are that short?



Quite apart from what Fogbat said I often used to sink a few cans on the way to gigs etc, saves money.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

Cid said:


> Quite apart from what Fogbat said I often used to sink a few cans on the way to gigs etc, saves money.



Yep.

There are dozens of reasons why a perfectly well behaved person might want a can on the way someone on the tube. And not a single SPECIFIC reason for a ban - any arguments being proposed either apply to things as well as drink, OR apply to alcohol in general, or are related to drunkeness. I've yet to see a single concrete argument which applies SOLELY to alcohol SOLELY on public transport.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

The nonsensical nature of this ban can be fully demonstrated at stations where tubes platform alongside overground. At Stratford, for example, you can step from "good alcohol" to "bad alcohol" in a few metres. Where I was working until recently, my journey was on a "good alcohol" line, 30 minutes from Liverpool St to Brentwood. As of Wednesday, I'll be in a big shiny tower in Canary Wharf. This 45 minute journey is a "bad alcohol" route.

Meanwhile, somewhere up in the skies, a flight attendant is getting thumped after someone has drunk "good alcohol".


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

:d


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Meanwhile, somewhere up in the skies, a flight attendant is getting thumped after someone has drunk "good alcohol".



And on another flight a couple of drunk daft bints are trying to open the door for some air.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> And on another flight a couple of drunk daft bints are trying to open the door for some air.


----------



## El Jefe (Aug 18, 2008)

Personally, when I'm flying I can't STAND the person next to me shoving their glass of cheap white wine in my face, it's sick-making.

And as for people on the coach with egg sandwiches 

fuckers.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Have you seen those trolley-toting CUNTS that come around on trains trying to shove tea, coffee, beer, wine, refreshments and snacks in your face?
I've seen them on planes too, except they're often pushing hot meals too.  

Fuckers.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 18, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> There are by laws about drinking on the  street, anyhow.


Not in the vast majority of places there aren't ...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 18, 2008)

You lot may laugh about bints, but since the ban how many times have you had laughing gangs of tube drinkers spray shaken-up Special Brew all over you, making you smell like a particularly careless alcoholic just before you meet with the head of the Bank of England? None. Therefore the ban is working. QED.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You lot may laugh about bints, but since the ban how many times have you had laughing gangs of tube drinkers spray shaken-up Special Brew all over you, making you smell like a particularly careless alcoholic just before you meet with the head of the Bank of England? None. Therefore the ban is working. QED.



True.

Fuck I got this all wrong.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> You lot may laugh about bints, but since the ban how many times have you had laughing gangs of tube drinkers spray shaken-up Special Brew all over you, making you smell like a particularly careless alcoholic just before you meet with the head of the Bank of England? None. Therefore the ban is working. QED.


You might laugh, but I was on the way to an important meeting yesterday and sat down in the carriage only to discover that my seat was virtually a Special Brew _bath_ after the entire contents of at least four cans had been carelessly spilt into the fabric by butter-fingered louts. Strangely enough, I couldn't see or smell a thing until I'd sat down into the moist, bubbling cauldron of stale 'Brew.

And if that wasn't bad enough, I had drinkers pushing their stinking , obnoxious cans _right into my face_ for the entire duration of the journey and when I got up to leave, I slipped on the many puddles of puke and hit my head on one of the hundreds of empty bottles rolling around.

Thank goodness Boris is going to sort this out.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

Did they "aggressively swig" first, or just go straight for the "face shove" ?


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

They were violently supping and then slurping with malice.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

editor said:


> You might laugh, but I was on the way to an important meeting yesterday and sat down in the carriage only to discover that my seat was virtually a Special Brew _bath_ after the entire contents of at least four cans had been carelessly spilt into the fabric by butter-fingered louts. Strangely enough, I couldn't see or smell a thing until I'd sat down into the moist, bubbling cauldron of stale 'Brew.
> 
> And if that wasn't bad enough, I had drinkers pushing their stinking , obnoxious cans _right into my face_ for the entire duration of the journey and when I got up to leave, I slipped on the many puddles of puke and hit my head on one of the hundreds of empty bottles rolling around.
> 
> Thank goodness Boris is going to sort this out.



You were lucky. 

On the way home tonight - the tube doors opened and the special brew flooded out on to the platform, we had to swim against the tide to get on the train. Several poor sods were washed away, some ended-up under the train instantly electrocuted as the tide of special brew hit the live rail.

We grumbled a bit as we fell about negotiating our way over all the empty cans & bottles towards a seat, but frankly we were happy to get a seat even if it was a bit damp and happy to still be alive in view of the obnoxious fumes. 

But, you tell the kids on the internet that and they will not believe you.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Contents of a single tube carriage on the 08.10 yesterday.


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2008)

Looking inside the window of a carriage on the 08.45 Central Line tube train.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 18, 2008)

this thread is so funny i just burnt my dinner  

the pro ban people have yet to make a decent argument imo


----------



## Big Vern (Aug 18, 2008)

This thread reminded me of a great game we used to play on the tube called "cane that brew"  it's based on the "name that tune" game ..you need around 5-6 of you to play..all get 4 cans of special brew per player and state how many tube stops it will take you to drink a can..eg.. first guy may say "I'll cane that brew in 4"..next guy may say they'll do it in one..so then you say "cane that brew"!..if the guy don't manage to drink the can before the next stop he gets a good kicking...great game to start your evening.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

I can't help thinking you were missing something. After winning, you shove the brew in someone's face, piss in the empty can, and finally throw up?


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

Dan U said:


> this thread is so funny i just burnt my dinner
> 
> the pro ban people have yet to make a decent argument imo



I do love this page too, but for other reasons.

All I see is the "I want to do it" argument from the people who are opposed and when given decent arguments as I have, they simply ridicule them, they don't refute them, they can't prove them wrong, they don't explain why their desire to drink alcohol overrides them.

They simply ridicule them.

It is laughable because it is a huge back slapping excercise, oh aren't we all soo clever, if we just keep posting up ridiculous comments and silly pictures maybe we can force any proper arguments off the page without ever having to answer them.

The only answer they have is: It doesn't harm anyone else.

Which is nothing more then their opinion.  Can they explain why such a small inconvenience is a problem for them? No, they just insist they want to enjoy a quiet drink on the way home and why should they lose that right.  Because it is all about them.


----------



## JTG (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> I can't help thinking you were missing something. After winning, you shove the brew in someone's face, piss in the empty can, and finally throw up?



Not before you've spilt it on the seat Dravinian's about to occupy though. Many's the laugh I've had with that down the years


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

Big Vern said:


> This thread reminded me of a great game we used to play on the tube called "cane that brew"  it's based on the "name that tune" game ..you need around 5-6 of you to play..all get 4 cans of special brew per player and state how many tube stops it will take you to drink a can..eg.. first guy may say "I'll cane that brew in 4"..next guy may say they'll do it in one..so then you say "cane that brew"!..if the guy don't manage to drink the can before the next stop he gets a good kicking...great game to start your evening.



It’s behaviour like this ^^^^ that result in the tidal wave of special brew I had to deal with earlier today.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> All I see is the "I want to do it" argument from the people who are opposed and when given decent arguments as I have, they simply ridicule them, they don't refute them, they can't prove them wrong, they don't explain why their desire to drink alcohol overrides them.



FFS – you have NOT given a single decent argument, all your arguments have been refuted and shown to be wrong, but as usual you aren’t listening. 

One day you will need to pull your head out of your arse.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian, yes the lasts few posts have got a bit silly. So returning to a more grown-up discourse, I'll ask you: If this was such a clear and pressing issue, why didn't TFL highlight it in their campaign about anti social behaviour? BTP weren't pressing for it either, and neither were passenger groups?

Just how did all these organizations fail to see what apparently was the single most problematic behaviour issue on TFL run transport?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Dravinian, yes the lasts few posts have got a bit silly. So returning to a more grown-up discourse, I'll ask you: If this was such a clear and pressing issue, why didn't TFL highlight it in their campaign about anti social behaviour? BTP weren't pressing for it either, and neither were passenger groups?
> 
> Just how did all these organizations fail to see what apparently was the single most problematic behaviour issue on TFL run transport?



TBF that has already been asked, but ignored by Dravinian.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 18, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Which is nothing more then their opinion.  Can they explain why such a small inconvenience is a problem for them? No, they just insist they want to enjoy a quiet drink on the way home and why should they lose that right.  Because it is all about them.



in years of traveling on the tube i've never seen any problems from people drinking on the train.

plenty of people causing problems by people *being* drunk on the tube but that has, without fail, been people who are completely ball bagged before getting on the train - generally after kicking out time.

I've yet to be swayed by any of the arguments put forward on this thread (or some of the others on this topic) to change my mind.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

claphamboy said:


> FFS – you have NOT given a single decent argument, all your arguments have been refuted and shown to be wrong, but as usual you aren’t listening.
> 
> One day you will need to pull your head out of your arse.



Shown to be wrong?

So someone has managed to show that drunk people don't spill alcohol from open containers?

Wow, that is pretty impressive.  How did that prove that, since it goes against all common sense and natural probabilities?

Like I said, people have proven nothing, they have just repeated their claims that it harms no-one and tried to belittle the inconvenience to others, to suit their own agenda.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 18, 2008)

Dan U said:


> in years of traveling on the tube i've never seen any problems from people drinking on the train.



Anecdotal evidence, when I provided my anecdotal evidence, I was a liar, I was making it up, it wasn't true!

You give yours and all of a sudden it is supposed to be indicative of everyone elses experience?

Notice any bias here?



> plenty of people causing problems by people *being* drunk on the tube but that has, without fail, been people who are completely ball bagged before getting on the train - generally after kicking out time.
> 
> I've yet to be swayed by any of the arguments put forward on this thread (or some of the others on this topic) to change my mind.



I agree, I just don't see the problem of stopping someone who is already "ball bagged" from carrying an open container of alcohol on a moving vehicle, because the chances are, the more people like that, the more chance of it being spilt and becoming an inconvenience to someone else.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Dravinian, yes the lasts few posts have got a bit silly. So returning to a more grown-up discourse, I'll ask you: If this was such a clear and pressing issue, why didn't TFL highlight it in their campaign about anti social behaviour? BTP weren't pressing for it either, and neither were passenger groups?
> 
> Just how did all these organizations fail to see what apparently was the single most problematic behaviour issue on TFL run transport?


Reposted in the remote hope that Dravinian will *actually answer the question* this time.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

editor said:


> Reposted in the remote hope that Dravinian will *actually answer the question* this time.





paolo999 said:


> Dravinian, yes the lasts few posts have got a bit silly. So returning to a more grown-up discourse, I'll ask you: If this was such a clear and pressing issue, why didn't TFL highlight it in their campaign about anti social behaviour? BTP weren't pressing for it either, and neither were passenger groups?
> 
> Just how did all these organizations fail to see what apparently was the single most problematic behaviour issue on TFL run transport?



How come this is supposed to be the more grown-up discourse, but you immediately step out of the box over exaggerating the importance of what is happening.

Despite many many times me remarking that it is a minor inconvenience to go without a drink and it is a minor inconvenience saved to other passengers.  You still refer to it as the single most problematic behavioural issue on TFL.

What makes me laugh is that if you were actually interested in the grown-up debate you would have realised you answered your own question.  If you accept that this is a minor issue for ALL concerned, you would have realised why TFL didn't bother highlighting it as a big anti-social problem and nor did BTP or passenger groups campaign for it.  There are bigger fish to fry, and why you can then ask...why do this then...the answer is simple, you make the little changes that you can that make minor improvements, while you work on the larger problems.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> What makes me laugh is that if you were actually interested in the grown-up debate you would have realised you answered your own question.  If you accept that this is a minor issue for ALL concerned, you would have realised why TFL didn't bother highlighting it as a big anti-social problem and nor did BTP or passenger groups campaign for it.  There are bigger fish to fry, and why you can then ask...why do this then...the answer is simple, you make the little changes that you can that make minor improvements, while you work on the larger problems.


Right! So you rush in laws for the things that no one is complaining about and then - at some unspecified date some time in the distant future - eventually get around to tackling the things that people have been complaining about.

Fantastic logic!


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

editor said:


> Right! So you rush in laws for the things that no one is complaining about and then - at some unspecified date some time in the distant future - eventually get around to tackling the things that people have been complaining about.
> 
> Fantastic logic!



So your logic is, you can never do anything about anything, until you do something about the number 1 thing complained about on the list?

That is somehow better logic?


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> So your logic is, you can never do anything about anything, until you do something about the number 1 thing complained about on the list?
> 
> That is somehow better logic?


Your attempts to justify Boris the Buffoon rushing through legislation for something that *no one was complaining abou*t really is truly laughable stuff.



Politicians are supposed to listen to the public and deal with the major issues that people are concerned with, not piss about with trifling things that no one - apart from a few whiners on the internet - give a fuck about. TFL didn't mention it. BTP didn't mention it. No passenger groups mentioned it. Yet you think it's an important issue!


----------



## gabi (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> So your logic is, you can never do anything about anything, until you do something about the number 1 thing complained about on the list?
> 
> That is somehow better logic?



Nobody was really complaining about it, thats the point.

For me, its one of the great things about the UK (and friends who visit from outside this place) - how liberal it is re: alcohol. I've spent a lot of time in NY for instance and there is no way in fucking hell you'd be allowed to even have a pint in the street outside a pub let alone on public transport. 

They think im joking (or was) when i tell them its fine to crack open a can on the way to a gig. 

Now, that famed old teetotaller himself, BJ, has scuppered it. Soho's his next target apparently.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

editor said:


> Your attempts to justify Boris the Buffoon rushing through legislation for something that *no one was complaining abou*t really is truly laughable stuff.



To give you an analogy.

Of all the things wrong in the Criminal Justice system, no one seems to be complaining about the cost of running courts, sure we got problems in prisons, we got problems with arrests, we got problems with sentencing, and in amongst all of that, it costs a lot of money to run the courts.

So if someone comes up with an idea that is of slight inconvenience to people using courts...for instance you have to ring in the morning to confirm your court place, and this ends up saving us thousands of pounds.

We shouldn't do it, because no one complained about it, and there are bigger things we could be doing.

It is the same here, just because no one complained doesn't mean it isn't of benefit, and this should in NO WAY effect the ability of the BTP, TFL or the Mayor's office from implementing changes to better address larger problems....will they, probably not because like all politicians they are turds and have they done this to gain headlines rather then tackle the real problems of anti-social behaviour...yes....does that mean it isn't a good idea and doesn't benefit passengers...no.


----------



## gabi (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> To give you an analogy.
> 
> Of all the things wrong in the Criminal Justice system, no one seems to be complaining about the cost of running courts, sure we got problems in prisons, we got problems with arrests, we got problems with sentencing, and in amongst all of that, it costs a lot of money to run the courts.
> 
> ...



Jesus. So nobody needs to actually have a problem with something before its banned? Are you familiar with the history of the 20th century? If not, perhaps pick up a copy of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Or.... maybe, some short stories by a guy called Dick.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> To give you an analogy.


That has no relevance whatsoever to Boris unilaterally banning tube drinking on a personal whim.

And it doesn't save taxpayers money either - in fact it costs us _more_ money and resources to enforce, infringes on the liberty of law abiding passengers, diverts vital police resources and potentially puts tube workers at personal risk.

In fact, RMT General Secretary Bob Crow descrbed the ban as "poorly thought through" commenting that it was "being implemented in haste and could put his members in danger.” 

Not that I expect you give a flying fuck about the tube workers.

Howe often do you get to the tube btw, and how many times have you actually been inconvenienced by beer spilling drinkers or sat in a Special Brew encrusted seat?


----------



## Jazzz (Aug 19, 2008)

Oh come on editor, avoiding the smelly seats/liquid on floor is a recurrent problem on tubes and buses, once I sat down on a completely-soaked bus seat unwittingly and it took an hour to dry


----------



## gabi (Aug 19, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Oh come on editor, avoiding the smelly seats/liquid on floor is a recurrent problem on tubes and buses, once I sat down on a completely-soaked bus seat unwittingly and it took an hour to dry



Harden up.


----------



## Jazzz (Aug 19, 2008)

gabi said:


> Harden up.



Why need I be hard? I just want a comfortable journey


----------



## gabi (Aug 19, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Why need I be hard? I just want a comfortable journey



Well dude - u just edited your post. But in response to what u orginally posted re: people having a laugh -well lets just ban laughing too eh? So many times I've been disturbed by people having 'a good time' on their way to a party or a gig. I'm gonna write a letter now!!

In response to your new post - 'comfortable journey' is a relative term. If u want one of those, try mmm.... NZ for instance. Everything is banned there, you'd fuckin love it.


----------



## Jazzz (Aug 19, 2008)

gabi said:


> Well dude - u just edited your post. But in response to what u orginally posted re: people having a laugh -well lets just ban laughing too eh? So many times I've been disturbed by people having 'a good time' on their way to a party or a gig. I'm gonna write a letter now!!


eh? I'm not bothered by laughing people, the term was used in my original post metaphorically to describe a ridiculous comment (i.e., 'spilt beer is never an issue on public transport' = editor is 'having a laugh')


----------



## paolo (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian, you still can't explain why neither the network operators, the police, or the passengers (in any collective form) saw this as an issue.

Let's try again.

Why did they ignore this?

E2a:

Let's not gloss over, by suggesting this was an administrative efficiency that had only been discovered by TFL at the exact same time as a new politician made a "mark".

TFL had a campaign specifically aimed at anti social behaviour. Why did they not see this?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 19, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Oh come on editor, avoiding the smelly seats/liquid on floor is a recurrent problem on tubes and buses, once I sat down on a completely-soaked bus seat unwittingly and it took an hour to dry



So if it's spilled drinks that is the problem then we must ban water and soft drinks too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2008)

gabi said:


> Now, that famed old teetotaller himself, BJ, has scuppered it. Soho's his next target apparently.



Ehrm, Boris isn't teetotal 









He gave up booze during the election campaign. That's all. Presumably so he wasn't seen falling out of functions likening Jewish reporters to Nazi concentration guards.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

paolo999 said:


> Dravinian, you still can't explain why neither the network operators, the police, or the passengers (in any collective form) saw this as an issue.
> 
> Let's try again.
> 
> Why did they ignore this?



Yes I can and I already did.

Why did they ignore this? cause it is a minor issue.

You don't think muggings or violent attacks on the Underground might be of a bit more importance to the BTP, you don't think Fare Prices might be of a bit more importance to Passenger Groups, Time Tables, etc etc.  You don't think working conditions, age of carriage stock, might be of a bit more importance to TFL.

People will complain about what effects them *the most*, that doesn't mean it is the _ONLY_ thing that effects them or that it is the only thing we can do to make things better.



> Let's not gloss over, by suggesting this was an administrative efficiency that had only been discovered by TFL at the exact same time as a new politician made a "mark".
> 
> TFL had a campaign specifically aimed at anti social behaviour. Why did they not see this?



So if it don't appear on the TFL list, we can't fix it?  So the TFL list is entirely exhaustive, except for this?


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 19, 2008)

The booze ban is a silly, politically motivated move.


Another vote here for the HK MTR System - No Smoking. NO Eating, NO Drinking. Everyone enjoys a clean, pleasant environment.

Given the age of London's tube network, I would imagine that a no smoking/eating/drinking policy would go some ways towards enhancing the cleanliness and pleasance of the travelling environment for all.


So - ban ALL food and drink from the tube.




Woof


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

editor said:


> That has no relevance whatsoever to Boris unilaterally banning tube drinking on a personal whim.



Why Boris did something is a little out of my realms of knowledge.



> And it doesn't save taxpayers money either - in fact it costs us _more_ money and resources to enforce, infringes on the liberty of law abiding passengers, diverts vital police resources and potentially puts tube workers at personal risk.



It isn't about the money.  You claimed that no one complained about drinking on the Tube.

I showed you an example where something can be improved even when no one was complaining about it, now you want to argue that the details of the analogy were not perfectly in sync, when they never had to be.

It wasn't about the outcome, it was about the fact that this was an improvement that no one was complaining about before hand.



> In fact, RMT General Secretary Bob Crow descrbed the ban as "poorly thought through" commenting that it was "being implemented in haste and could put his members in danger.”
> 
> Not that I expect you give a flying fuck about the tube workers.
> 
> Howe often do you get to the tube btw, and how many times have you actually been inconvenienced by beer spilling drinkers or sat in a Special Brew encrusted seat?



In what the last 25 years I have been using the Tube on my own?  Had I known it was going to come up I might have kept a diary.

Bob Crow has already complained about abuse against his staff, long before the drinking ban was in place.  Unfortunately we live in a county where people are selfish fuckers who think that the staff working public services are their bitches and get upset the moment the staff try to stop them doing whatever the hell they want.

"The ban will not be enforced with extra policing - instead a "softly softly" approach is being used, where it is hoped the ban will be self-policed, in much the same way as the smoking ban.

If necessary, our staff can call on the support of 2,500 dedicated transport police and community support officers across the transport network."

If the staff see a problem, call a CSP or a BTP.  There is no reason to get involved with aggressive drunks.

-

Oh yeah for Paola999.



> TfL's Director of Transport Policing and Enforcement, Jeroen Weimar, said the new policy on alcohol was a reasonable one.
> 
> "We are encouraging our passengers to show a bit more respect and to be more considerate and involve other people's views and other passengers' views as they make their journeys," he said.



Seems like TFL support it, even if they didn't think about it before hand.


----------



## Yossarian (Aug 19, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Another vote here for the HK MTR System - No Smoking. NO Eating, NO Drinking. Everyone enjoys a clean, pleasant environment.
> 
> Given the age of London's tube network, I would imagine that a no smoking/eating/drinking policy would go some ways towards enhancing the cleanliness and pleasance of the travelling environment for all.
> 
> ...



It gets hot as hell in the Tube in summertime - supposedly up to 47C in places -  because the system's very old and poorly ventilated in places, it'd be craziness to ban people taking drinks on the system unless they want to have passengers swooning all over the place.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 19, 2008)

The anger and pisstaking levels on this thread are dangerously high. I'm amazed it's such a volatile subject.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

Crispy said:


> The anger and pisstaking levels on this thread are dangerously high. I'm amazed it's such a volatile subject.



Been reasonably aggressive insult free though.   Sure insults have been bandied about but they have generally been more humourous then hurtful, at least from what I noticed.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I agree, I just don't see the problem of stopping someone who is already "ball bagged" from carrying an open container of alcohol on a moving vehicle, because the chances are, the more people like that, the more chance of it being spilt and becoming an inconvenience to someone else.


Oh, I didn't realise the ban on carrying open containers of alcohol ONLY applied to those already drunk (and thus incapable of keeping it upright).  It all makes perfect sense now ...


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> We shouldn't do it, because no one complained about it, and there are bigger things we could be doing.


If you knew the first thing about the theory of problem solving, especially in the context of policing, you would realise that the FIRST thing you do (the "S" of SARA, for scanning) is to gather information, ensure that what is _perceived_ by someone complaining to be a problem actually _is_ a problem.  The second thing you do (the first "A") is analyse that problem, try to identify root causes and opportunities to change things.

In this case Boris, no doubt concerned about general anti-social behaviour on tubes, has simply decreed (as politicians do) "Here is the answer" ... it isn't.  It _may_ be one thing which could be done as part of a multi-faceted attack on the bigger problem ... but I would suggest it is unlikely to have any effect on it's own and would be way down the list of things likely to have a noticeable effect anyway.

IF Boris perceived this as a problem in itself (as opposed to a symptom of a larger one) then I would have expected the scanning stage of a problem solving approach to reveal that it was, in fact, more of a perceived problem than an actual one ... though it would still be perfectly acceptable to carry out and information gathering exercise rather than pre-judging the issue.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> "The ban will not be enforced with extra policing - instead a "softly softly" approach is being used, where it is hoped the ban will be self-policed, in much the same way as the smoking ban.


Whereas you would probably prefer ... I don't know ... swingeing on-the-spot fines or something ...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> It gets hot as hell in the Tube in summertime - supposedly up to 47C in places -  because the system's very old and poorly ventilated in places, it'd be craziness to ban people taking drinks on the system unless they want to have passengers swooning all over the place.



No way should anyone ban water. It is far too hot down there for that to be safe.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2008)

editor said:


> "Lots of people" have not died as a result of people having a drink on the tube, so quit trying to muddy the issue.



That's another pro-smoking styled 'argument'. Careful


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2008)

rich! said:


> Does the mother really need to have had children? Wouldn't it be better for all of us if breeding was banned? Tubes would be much more pleasant without prams on them. Ladies - think of the comfort of tube travellers before deciding not to flush that sprog!!!



You hardly get any kids on the tube, I noticed, probably something to do with all the steps and not many accessible tube stations. Likewise you don't seem to get very many people over 50 on them.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Anecdotal evidence, when I provided my anecdotal evidence, I was a liar, I was making it up, it wasn't true!
> 
> You give yours and all of a sudden it is supposed to be indicative of everyone elses experience?
> 
> Notice any bias here?



i haven't called you a liar. You don't agree with my anecdotal evidence, i don't agree with yours. which is fair enough.

As others have said TFL haven't ever really raised this as an issue on any factual basis.



Dravinian said:


> I agree, I just don't see the problem of stopping someone who is already "ball bagged" from carrying an open container of alcohol on a moving vehicle, because the chances are, the more people like that, the more chance of it being spilt and becoming an inconvenience to someone else.



That is what the transport police are for surely. a friend of mine wasn't allowed on to a tube by a PCSO for 20 minutes on Sunday as he was deemed to be drunk - he didn't have a drink on him though! (although a proper BTP came out and told us the other way in to the tube station and to ignore the PCSO )

I don't see why plenty of ordinary folk who just like a beer after work etc should suffer from the actions of the weekend drunken rabble.

If you were to argue to ban all food and drink completly then the 'mess' arguement might hold a bit more sway. It would be a bit of a bind, but at least it would make sense from a litter point of view.


----------



## lights.out.london (Aug 19, 2008)

Crispy said:


> The anger and pisstaking levels on this thread are dangerously high. I'm amazed it's such a volatile subject.




Indeedy and blimey. I think I've lived in a very different London for the past 19 years to many of the posters on this thread.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Oh, I didn't realise the ban on carrying open containers of alcohol ONLY applied to those already drunk (and thus incapable of keeping it upright).  It all makes perfect sense now ...



And how do you measure? blood tests, breathlysers at the entrance?

No. it is just easier to say no alcohol.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> And how do you measure? blood tests, breathlysers at the entrance?
> 
> No. it is *just* easier to *say* *no* alcohol.




you heard it here first kids!


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Whereas you would probably prefer ... I don't know ... swingeing on-the-spot fines or something ...



Better then what you would prefer surely, which would be random strip stretches and unlawful imprisonment.

Oh, don't like people putting words in your mouth, then don't do it.


----------



## Dravinian (Aug 19, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> you heard it here first kids!



That stinger I hit you with two days ago has been hurting hasn't it Dot, you waited all that time for that lame joke just to ease the pain of that one.

Well I hope you feel better.


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 19, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> It gets hot as hell in the Tube in summertime - supposedly up to 47C in places -  because the system's very old and poorly ventilated in places, it'd be craziness to ban people taking drinks on the system unless they want to have passengers swooning all over the place.



Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? No air conditioning?

It really _is_ old, isn't it?





OK then - _one_ small (max 500ml), plastic, transparent, bottle of water (only) allowed per person.




Woof


----------



## fogbat (Aug 19, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> You hardly get any kids on the tube, I noticed, probably something to do with all the steps and not many accessible tube stations. Likewise you don't seem to get very many people over 50 on them.



Not really relevant in the context of the question you were replying to, though, is it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> That stinger I hit you with two days ago has been hurting hasn't it Dot, you waited all that time for that lame joke just to ease the pain of that one.
> 
> Well I hope you feel better.



what stinger was that drav? if it was another your special brew fantasies I must have missed it.

Must be weird for you. On paper Good Uncle Boris has won you the right to spare your teetotal ultra-sensitive nose from the hordes of 'brew swilling louts (that exist in your head).

But reality is the rules are being quetly ignored by sensible folk.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2008)

Well I guess this has gone the same way as other tube drinking threads.

I'm in favour of the ban and want it extended to all food and drink. It's dirty and it smells unpleasant. 

I don't use commuter trains but if I did I'd want food and drink banned on those too. 

Planes are different. Flights are often longer and (sometimes derisory) facilities are provided to eat a meal. The cabin is also cleared by cabin crew soon after each meal. Planes are also air conditioned so smells don't tend to linger. 

I'd be more than happy with an alcohol ban on planes and have many times witnessed nuisance pissheads on flights.

I was an advocate of a food/drink ban on tubes long before Boris became mayor. The alcohol ban is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> Whereas you would probably prefer ... I don't know ... swingeing on-the-spot fines or something ...



For a first offence, yes. Amputation and execution should be sentencing options for repeat offenders.


----------



## Bob (Aug 19, 2008)

Stobart Stopper said:


> It's only anti-Conservatives who hate the no-drinking on the tube IMO, it's because it was bought in by Boris. If Ken had done it would be a different story.



Actually (as a Lib Dem) I'd have hated it whoever brought it in.

But then I'm pretty libertarian - I'm anti the smoking ban in pubs too.


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> And how do you measure?


The same as all other offences involving drunkenness ... with the evidence of a police officer (which is deemed to be "expert" evidence in relation to drunkenness and so opinion can be given).


----------



## detective-boy (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Better then what you would prefer surely, which would be random strip stretches and unlawful imprisonment.


Realised that your inconsistency catches you out, have you ...


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 19, 2008)

detective-boy said:


> with the evidence of a police officer, which is deemed to be "expert" evidence *in relation to drunkenness* and so opinion can be given





Excellent!




Woof


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 19, 2008)

Dravinian - the PT booze ban doesn't extend to the internet, so what's it got to do with you?


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 19, 2008)

So much bollocks talking here...

The majority of drinkers (me included) don't drink on the tube.

The majority of liquid mess left on a seat on a tube could have been left from soft drinks or any other non-alcoholic substance.

The point is about Boris's dash to ban it for no apparent reason. No debate. Nothing!

*"Oooh, Aren't I popular with the tut-tut brigade now..."*


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Oh come on editor, avoiding the smelly seats/liquid on floor is a recurrent problem on tubes and buses, once I sat down on a completely-soaked bus seat unwittingly and it took an hour to dry


Sure you did. And what was this slow drying liquid?


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 19, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> So much bollocks talking here...
> 
> The majority of drinkers (me included) don't drink on the tube.
> 
> ...



As I posted, Cit, the booze ban is nonsense.

A total ban on food and drink is what's required (with the 500ml water proviso I suggested).




Woof


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2008)

fogbat said:


> Not really relevant in the context of the question you were replying to, though, is it?



How do people with small children and the elderly (sorry defined as the over 50's in this instance because there seem so few of them on the tube!) get about in London?? (Serious question?)


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 19, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> As I posted, Cit, the booze ban is nonsense.
> 
> A total ban on food and drink is what's required (with the 500ml water proviso I suggested).
> 
> ...



I'll tell you a true story and it only stuck in my mind because of this debate.

I went to meet a person of the fairer gender for drinks on Sunday night. From where I live I took a central line tube and changed at bank/monument to get the northern line. My favoured seat is the one at the end of a row and not stuck in the middle but when I joined the northern line train I couldn't sit in that seat because there was a semi-sealed large paper cup of some drink or other already sitting there from some earlier lazy fucking traveller that thought it easier to leave it there than find a bin to place it in.

Now here's the rub; As much as I was fucked off about not being able to have that seat there were other seats available. At that time. And why should I clear some other cheeky fuckers mess up?

I travelled from Bank to Angel and not once did I see that drink spill even though it was left on a seat unattended.

And not once did I think about campaigning against cheap burger bar drinks being on the tube. Because the wanker that left it there clearly doesn't represent every other wanker who uses cheap American burger bars to buy drinks to use on and litter the tube with.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> A total ban on food and drink is what's required (with the 500ml water proviso I suggested).


So that's no baby milk allowed, no soft drinks, no flavoured water, no juice, just a law designed to promote the wasteful use of bottled water.

Nice one!


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 19, 2008)

editor said:


> So that's no baby milk allowed, no soft drinks, no flavoured water, no juice, just a law designed to promote the wasteful use of bottled water.
> 
> Nice one!



Even though TFL have given away free water on the system in the past because they don't want people dehydrating on the tubes in the summer months!

Ill people on the system creates delays for the trains whilst they're being dealt with.

Be careful not to spill any of that folks! The city boys' suits cost a fortune to dry clean.

Mind how you go.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 20, 2008)

editor said:


> So that's no baby milk allowed, no soft drinks, no flavoured water, no juice, just a law designed to promote the wasteful use of bottled water.
> 
> Nice one!



Indeed... one of the nice things I noticed on a trip to Tokyo recently was that the train carriages were not overflowing with mouldy chicken bones and various other bits of crap, and I didnt see single person eating on the trains either.

Despite the lack of food scattered around there was still plenty of people drinking water and other drinks because without them travelling anywhere in the middle of August would leave you dehyrdated within an hour at most...


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 20, 2008)

editor said:


> So that's no baby milk allowed, no soft drinks, no flavoured water, no juice, just a law designed to promote the wasteful use of bottled water.
> 
> Nice one!



It works perfectly well in HK and nobody whinges about it since they see that it creates an environment that is pleasant, clean, odour free and unlittered.

Everyone appreciates that it creates a better environment for all. And frankly, having travelled on both systems, there's no doubt which is the better travelling experience.



Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 20, 2008)

Artaxerxes said:


> Indeed... one of the nice things I noticed on a trip to Tokyo recently was that the train carriages were not overflowing with mouldy chicken bones and various other bits of crap, and I didnt see single person eating on the trains either.
> 
> Despite the lack of food scattered around there was still plenty of people drinking water and other drinks because without them travelling anywhere in the middle of August would leave you dehyrdated within an hour at most...



Did you miss the bit about the water?




Woof


----------



## cesare (Aug 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> How do people with small children and the elderly (sorry defined as the over 50's in this instance because there seem so few of them on the tube!) get about in London?? (Serious question?)



There are *loads* of over 50s on the tube. How do you suppose people get to work? If you'd said over 70s, maybe. But over 50s 

There aren't that many prams/pushchairs especially at rush hour. But there are plenty of small children, again though, not many at rush hour. Lots of school kids at certain times of day, depending on the tube.


----------



## fogbat (Aug 20, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> How do people with small children and the elderly (sorry defined as the over 50's in this instance because there seem so few of them on the tube!) get about in London?? (Serious question?)



Noisily and obstructively for the most part


----------



## Badgers (Aug 20, 2008)

It has probably already been said but..... 

I used to like a beer on the train a LOT and occasionally one on the tube or bus. 

I never spilt any as I had a good lug before we started moving. 
I always take the empty cans with me the same as I do in a public park/space where it is legal to drink. 
I never vomit on trains as I like a couple of beers rather than a soft drink or a stupid coffee. 

Basically Boris is trying to legislate against morons who will always be fucking morons. The same people who eat boxes of fried chicken on the tube, listen to their phones out loud, drop litter and stick gum to the seats. Also the people who get on the tube pissed out of their faces, rude, aggresive and likely to vomit are 'okay' as long as they are not holding an open alcoholic drink!! 

Has Boris actually done anything apart from this? 
All I can see is that he has annoyed people, done photoshoots, lost a lot of his staff and got rid of bendy buses........Oh.........Hang on.........Wait..........Oh.......No!


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2008)

I can say with absolute confidence that I have never, ever, ever spilled beer on any tube train ever.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 20, 2008)

editor said:


> I can say with absolute confidence that I have never, ever, ever spilled beer on any tube train ever.



I have to confess that once a can did fizz a little on opening and despite my best efforts a drop or two ran down the side and landed on the floor. I felt bad for a while but this was before the ban so I could do nothing apart from wipe it up with a tissue.


----------



## ovaltina (Aug 20, 2008)

I've never seen anyone spill booze from a can on the tube, but one December a few years ago (xmas party season) I saw a very drunk man in an expensive suit, who was passed out in the seat next to me and pissed his pants without waking up.

I remember seeing the little dark patch spreading across his grey trousers and leaping out of the seat. He didn't have an open can of lager tho, so would have still been able to travel post Bojo-ban.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 20, 2008)

ovaltina said:


> I've never seen anyone spill booze from a can on the tube, but one December a few years ago (xmas party season) I saw a very drunk man in an expensive suit, who was passed out in the seat next to me and pissed his pants without waking up.



Public transport is fun during the office xmas party season isn't it? 

I recall a few years ago getting a late tube from the City to High Barnet. I was sitting alone in a carriage when this lass stumbled on wearing a teeny skirt and some sort of mistletoe earrings. She promptly passed out across from me, spread her legs open about 90 degrees and started drooling. 

Tricky thing is do you: 

A) Ignore it
B) Change carriage 
C) Try to wake her and risk the scream of 'RAPE' when she opens her eyes 
D) Get out your camera phone 


Life's decisions....


----------



## ovaltina (Aug 20, 2008)

Badgers said:


> I recall a few years ago getting a late tube from the City to High Barnet. I was sitting alone in a carriage when this lass stumbled on wearing a teeny skirt and some sort of mistletoe earrings. She promptly passed out across from me, spread her legs open about 90 degrees and started drooling.




Ergh! I'd have gone to the other end of the carriage.

Reminds me - I was sitting fairly close to a woman in her 20s, again wearing a smart suit, who was passed out on the tube. She woke up, puked down the front of the suit, then passed out again, before throwing up again and falling asleep a couple of minutes later.

Again, she wasn't carrying an open container of alcohol at the time...


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 20, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> It works perfectly well in HK and nobody whinges about it since they see that it creates an environment that is pleasant, clean, odour free and unlittered.
> 
> Everyone appreciates that it creates a better environment for all. And frankly, having travelled on both systems, there's no doubt which is the better travelling experience.
> 
> ...



I sometimes eat on the tube, but not smelly food, and I don't leave any detritus behind me. 

If you can get people to change their behaviour, why not get them to do it in a moderate and sensible way, rather than a draconian one?


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 21, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> I sometimes eat on the tube, but not smelly food, and I don't leave any detritus behind me.
> 
> If you can get people to change their behaviour, why not get them to do it in a moderate and sensible way, rather than a draconian one?



Well.

Given the difference in cleanliness, pleasantness, lack of litter, lack of odours, etc. between the tube and the MTR, it would seem that the one with the mandatory restrictions wins on all counts.

If you think a voluntary system would work and everyone would pull together to create a sparkling tube system, then just compare the tube with the MTR to see the reality of how that actually works.





Woof


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 21, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Well.
> 
> Given the difference in cleanliness, pleasantness, lack of litter, lack of odours, etc. between the tube and the MTR, it would seem that the one with the mandatory restrictions wins on all counts.
> 
> ...



You're completely missing the point, which is that whatever the rules, people have to respect them for them to work. 

It's already illegal to drop litter on the tube - a 'mandatory restriction' - and yet litter remains the biggest unpleasantness associated with tube travel. 

I'm no expert, but I would imagine the way the rules work in HK has a lot to do with how Hong kongese people are, and the way the rules work/don't work in London has a lot to do with the way Londoners are. The rules don't work in a vacuum like!


----------



## Citizen66 (Aug 21, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> You're completely missing the point, which is that whatever the rules, people have to respect them for them to work.
> 
> It's already illegal to drop litter on the tube - a 'mandatory restriction' - and yet litter remains the biggest unpleasantness associated with tube travel.
> 
> I'm no expert, but I would imagine the way the rules work in HK has a lot to do with how Hong kongese people are, and the way the rules work/don't work in London has a lot to do with the way Londoners are. The rules don't work in a vacuum like!



Oh Yes!

"Rules"

The finest works of art always abided by them.


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 22, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> You're completely missing the point, which is that whatever the rules, people have to respect them for them to work.
> 
> It's already illegal to drop litter on the tube - a 'mandatory restriction' - and yet litter remains the biggest unpleasantness associated with tube travel.
> 
> I'm no expert, but I would imagine the way the rules work in HK has a lot to do with how Hong kongese people are, and the way the rules work/don't work in London has a lot to do with the way Londoners are. The rules don't work in a vacuum like!



I'm not missing the point at all.

You are right.

We don't have (in any way worth mentioning stastiscally,) any kind of gun crime, knife crime, robbery, muggings, burglary, hate crimes or much any other kind of anti-social public behaviour either.

And this is beacause we have, of course in general, an extremely tolerant society, where a falling down drunk will be looked at as someone who needs help - and will be helped, peeps will call an ambulance while they wait and make sure you're OK.

We can do this because we don't need to worry that coming to peoples' aid will result in an assault. It won't! That's not how we do things here.

How would assaulting anyone help us as a society to create a better environment/world for all?

We (of course, once again, generally,) realise that we're _all in this together_ and therefore recognise that co-operation and tolerance of differences is the "way to go".

Any kind of violence would undermine our tolerent society and precipitate an acceptance of "mob rule", "jungle rule" or some such.


Why would _any_ civilised society accept that kind of shit?



We don't! We are _intolerent_ only of _intolerence_ and will _not_ accept the level of violence and lack of civic responsibility that seems to be routine in so many other societies.

We have _very_ severe penalties for street crimes, et al. We want to be safe to walk around alone, kid, woman or man at _any_ time in _any_place within our region and, (in general, etc, etc.) we are.

It works!

We vocally criticise our (HK) politicians and executive and (of course, in general,) they respond to our concerns.

We are _far_ from a perfect society, but we've been here for over one hundred years (I mean "us", the growing immigrant community - HK has gone from 130,000 population in 1930 to over 7,000,000 in 2008,) and perhaps being a "refugee" population has allowed us to create this level of tolerance and understanding of each of our individual struggles.....


....You get on with your shit, I'll get on with mine. We're all different and yet we're all the same. We see that this society is a place where we can integrate and prosper and it's in our own interests to keep fostering the same ethos and culture within society.

So!

If you want to come and play with us, that's cool - we have a very welcoming immigration policy and we _always_ welcome talent, eccentricity and creativity.....


....But.....



We have certain rules when you travel on the MTR.


No smoking. No drinking. No eating.


We like it that way so we made a law - to make it clear where we set the boundaries.

Now.

You might imagine that, in such a society, we are very tolerant odf those the "break the rules within certain limits" - a woman who gives her infant a sip of water or milk on the MTR - or a group of kids straight of the public basketball court who sup their water - or even (god forbid   ) the occasional complete tosser who is drunk and leery and spilling her piss all over the place. We can and do accomdate this.

Though it seems that there is a consensus about where to draw the line and (in general, of course,) everyone seems to be, in general, in agreement as to where that line lies - it's not about homogeneity, it's about _diversity_ among peeps who have an unspoken (other than through the normally accepted and vocal avenues of protest: assembilies, marches, gatherings, protests, demonstrations, writing to the press, screaming from the rooftops - [we're _very_ tolerant of that one], etc, etc.

But there _is_ a _social covenant_ that needs to be respected - or you will simply _not be welcome_ (we denied Paul Francis Gadd entry to HK today, sent him back from ehence he came, in the hope that he gets back to where he belongs and will be monitered properly and get the help that he obviously desperately needs).

It's a fantastic social experiment.

It's under threat from forces that you can't _imagine_. Forces that, if permitted, would swamp us with the violence, corruption, repression, fear, chaos, starvation, murder and destruction that swept China between 1954 and 1978.

The very _concept_ of this society is also under threat from those societies that have aquiesed to accepting a level of violent crime that deems that "mugging" someone on the steet might warrant a sentence of "sweeping the roads for 260 hours".

Come here and rob someone with violence (or the threat of it - knife, gun, bottle, club..... ANY weapon,) on the street and you _will_ be caught, and you _will_ be sentenced to six years in jail.

If you actually _really_ hurt someone - badly stab, badly bash, shoot, etc. you will get a sentance of probably 8 - 12 years.

In the meantime, you can get pissed/wrecked, shout (within reason), make fun (24/7 - we never sleep), fall over, laugh and play.....and if you hurt yourself.....of course, we will come to your aid.



But if you are violent towards others?


Nah!

Do not pass go.


Oh! And did I mention?

We have the most bestest, most cheapestest, most *cleanestest*, most pleasantest, most efficientest, most joy-to-travel-on est public transport system on the planet (rivalled, perhaps, only by Singapore - but they are a million miles behind us in terms of the "freedoms" we so cherish and vehemently defend. Tokyo can't compare either - the level of physical sexual abuse against females neccessitates "women only" carriages).

I'm not suggesting that a "three NO's" (other than water,) policy on the London Tube would suddenly create the same degree of "civil society" that we enjoy over here (if only,) and I've already said that the "Boris Booze Only" policy is daft and politically motivated.

I'm _only_ suggesting that a "3 NO's" policy _might_ just provide a better environment and make travelling on the tube a more pleasant experience for _most_ of those using it.




But I _do_ appreciate and accept your point that while this kind of "social contract" works _extremely_ well in a city like HK, it may simply not be possible in a city like London where, it seems to me, that any _concept_ of this kind of social contract has, almost, _completely_ disintigrated.


That's why I recognise - and am so grateful that - I have been fortunate enough (through random circumstances - other than being a refugee, as we almost all are here, first or second generation,) lucky enough to be a part of our beautiful, open, tolerant society.


Wanna play?




Woof


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> We have certain rules when you travel on the MTR.
> No smoking. No drinking. No eating.
> 
> 
> We like it that way so we made a law - to make it clear where we set the boundaries.


Jolly good. But London has always had a laissez-faire attitude to people enjoying a drink on the tube.

Until Boris decided to make a new law based on nothing more than his own personal prejudices, of course.


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 22, 2008)

editor said:


> Jolly good. But London has always had a laissez-faire attitude to people enjoying a drink on the tube.



Very good.

I love freedom.

Enjoy!

We have _humoungous_ freedoms here too - as I explained.

The best ones for me are the freedom from violence, thuggery and crime.








> Until Boris decided to make a new law based on nothing more than his own personal prejudices, of course.



Yeah.

As I said.

That's daft.

He's just a stupid cunt!




Woof


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 22, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> But I _do_ appreciate and accept your point that while this kind of "social contract" works _extremely_ well in a city like HK, it may simply not be possible in a city like London where, it seems to me, that any _concept_ of this kind of social contract has, almost, _completely_ disintigrated.
> 
> 
> That's why I recognise - and am so grateful that - I have been fortunate enough (through random circumstances - other than being a refugee, as we almost all are here, first or second generation,) lucky enough to be a part of our beautiful, open, tolerant society.
> ...



Sounds great. Doesn't explain what's wrong with eating a sandwich on the tube, though.


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 22, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> Sounds great. Doesn't explain what's wrong with eating a sandwich on the tube, though.



Crumbs!



Woof


----------



## fogbat (Aug 22, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Crumbs!
> 
> 
> 
> Woof










Congratulations - you've just won the thread


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 22, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Crumbs!
> 
> 
> 
> Woof



IMO, civil society doesn't legislate against crumbs, it catches them in the sandwich box


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 22, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> IMO, civil society doesn't legislate against crumbs, it catches them in the sandwich box



While I'm quite prepared to accept that you, personally, would be _most_ careful and even enhance the crumb catching capacity of your sandwich box with a dainty napkin draped over your lap, the disgusting state of the tube (especially in comparison to the MTR which is pristine - if we allowed food, you could eat it off the floor,) suggests that you've got some way to go in convincing your fellow London travellers to join you in your expression of civil society.




Woof


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 22, 2008)

fogbat said:


>




Oh God.

That's _disgusting_.



They don't let it on the tube, do they?





Woof


----------



## fogbat (Aug 22, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Oh God.
> 
> That's _disgusting_.
> 
> ...



Does BoJo even use the tube, other than for the occasional photo-op?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 22, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> Sounds great. Doesn't explain what's wrong with eating a sandwich on the tube, though.



I'd have no problem legislating against egg sandwiches.


----------



## Jessiedog (Aug 22, 2008)

_angel_ said:


> I'd have no problem legislating against egg sandwiches.



And that's another thing about the booze ban.

It's a silly thing to do as has been pointed out; it's kinda like banning _only_ egg sandwiches - and then after another couple of years adding kebab to the list and then fish and chips and then........



Hence the sense of a "3 No's" policy.



Woof


----------



## se5 (Oct 31, 2008)

According to the BBC no one has been thrown off public transport as a result of the booze ban - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7701392.stm . Apparently Police have "spoken to" 35 people seen drinking alcohol and no criminal offences have been recorded. This is why we (although not me and I suspect most on here) elected you Boris... tough measures to crack down on anti-social behaviour or maybe not


----------



## Dravinian (Oct 31, 2008)

se5 said:


> According to the BBC no one has been thrown off public transport as a result of the booze ban - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7701392.stm . Apparently Police have "spoken to" 35 people seen drinking alcohol and no criminal offences have been recorded. This is why we (although not me and I suspect most on here) elected you Boris... tough measures to crack down on anti-social behaviour or maybe not



Much like the smoking ban, most people have some consideration and just don't do it once it is banned, whether they agree or not.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Much like the smoking ban, most people have some consideration and just don't do it once it is banned, whether they agree or not.


What 'consideration' should someone quietly - and harmlessly - enjoying a can of beer on the tube be expected to show?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 31, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> most cheapestest,  public transport system on the planet



Cheaper than the mainland?

Double woof!


----------



## Dravinian (Oct 31, 2008)

editor said:


> What 'consideration' should someone quietly - and harmlessly - enjoying a can of beer on the tube be expected to show?



Consideration for the ban?

If I can't smoke in your face, because it is banned, why should you be allowed to flaunt the ban on drinking in my face?

Consideration, it goes all ways, you don't like someone smoking in a crowded place, on a train, on a bus, but regardless of what anyone else thinks about drinking you believe you have the right to drink, even when it is banned.

Why should some be forced to adhere to a ban and not others?  How about a bit of consideration for people who can't smoke on the tube and a bit of solidarity.

I know you will come back and claim passive smoking is something different and that it is harmless to drink alcohol, but frankly that idea means nothing.  You don't get to decide which bans are ok and which are not...if you do, why can't smokers get to decide too?  What makes you so special?

Or are you suggesting that we should all be allowed to smoke on the Bus and Tube now too?

I doubt it.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Consideration for the ban?
> 
> If I can't smoke in your face, because it is banned, why should you be allowed to flaunt the ban on drinking in my face?


How does one "drink in your face" and what health risks does it pose to fellow passengers?

You flaunt your ignorance, intolerance and bigotry most days here, but I put up with it. It's called tolerance. You should try it sometimes.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Oct 31, 2008)

I was told not to drink on a station platform (train). Mind you I was quite drunk and smoking as well.


----------



## Dravinian (Oct 31, 2008)

editor said:


> How does one "drink in your face" and what health risks does it pose to fellow passengers?
> 
> You flaunt your ignorance, intolerance and bigotry most days here, but I put up with it. It's called tolerance. You should try it sometimes.



Rubbish you completely ignored the entire point you have no answer for.

You did exactly what I said you would do...come back claiming it isn't a health risk...like this has got anything at all to do with the attitude that YOU get to decide what bans are worthy.

The sheer arrogance of that is incredible.

Should smokers get to make that decision too? Perhaps they think if they smoke on an open platform then there is no health risk? What about smoking near an open window blowing your smoke away?

Should they get to decide whether to follow the ban or not?


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> Rubbish you completely ignored the entire point you have no answer for.
> 
> You did exactly what I said you would do...come back claiming it isn't a health risk...like this has got anything at all to do with the attitude that YOU get to decide what bans are worthy.
> 
> The sheer arrogance of that is incredible.








Dravinian, earlier today.


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2008)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> I was told not to drink on a station platform (train). Mind you I was quite drunk and smoking as well.


Well, you may as well got the whole hog.


----------



## lights.out.london (Oct 31, 2008)

The thread that they couldn't hang!

Lmao @ Atomic.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 31, 2008)

se5 said:


> According to the BBC no one has been thrown off public transport as a result of the booze ban - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7701392.stm . Apparently Police have "spoken to" 35 people seen drinking alcohol and *no criminal offences have been recorded.* This is why we (although not me and I suspect most on here) elected you Boris... tough measures to crack down on anti-social behaviour or maybe not



Ehrm, whacky idea, just mulling it really. But maybe, just maybe that's cos it ain't a criminal offence to drink on teh tube?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2008)

I don't mind not drinking on the tube, but banning alcohol on buses is going too far.  There are few greater pleasures in life than sitting at the front on the top of a double-decker enjoying a can of Guinness.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 31, 2008)

front top seats on a double-decker are fantastic anyway. having a can (or any chemical enhancement) just make it that much better


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 31, 2008)

Crispy said:


> front top seats on a double-decker are fantastic anyway. having a can (or any chemical enhancement) just make it that much better



Absolutely.  I can never understand those people who traipse all the way up the stairs only to sit on an ordinary, boring, halfway-back seat.  I often spend a whole day just riding around London on the front tops of various buses, leaving countless cans of Guinness in my wake.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 1, 2008)

It still is amazing to me that people can drink alcohol on public transportation there, and it amazes anyone I tell it to.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Nov 1, 2008)

editor said:


> Well, you may as well got the whole hog.



I wasn't the tube mind (I'm not a very naughty person), it was Kentish town train station and it was really late.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 1, 2008)

Eating on the tube is wrong, but drinking is just fine.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Nov 1, 2008)

I enjoyed a can of Stella on the tube in september.

No one died.


----------



## keithy (Nov 1, 2008)

when I've drank on the tube (whilst already drunkenly joyous) people on the carriage have just been smiling/laughing at me.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 1, 2008)

Last time I drank on the tube I had a bottle of cava and behaved like a wanker; brayed a bit, you know the type. I did not spill any and removed my bottle to bin above ground. Last time I drank on the bus I had Smirnoff Ice (litre bottle) and sang along to Girls Aloud and got laughed at by teens. 

Imo it's just not worth being a wanker so I don't do it anymore.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 1, 2008)

Perhaps the ban will eventually open up the market for the 330ml (ie, Coke-sized) can of beer - hitherto a rare site in this city.

At present, the only brew widely available in this format is this one:


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 1, 2008)

gold label is fucking lethal, practically a barley wine.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2008)

It is a barley wine isn't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 1, 2008)

I'm not sure if the wine/beer distinction is made on abv or method of production tbh


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2008)

Horrible stuff either way.


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 1, 2008)

No discussion of the best things to drink on the tube then?

Top tip: The premixed cans of pimms and lemonade look like an energy drink to anyone that isn't used to them, so you can wander around drinking in front of staff as much as you like. And they sell them in liverpool street tube station.

~Central line user


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 1, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> No discussion of the best things to drink on the tube then?
> 
> Top tip: The premixed cans of pimms and lemonade look like an energy drink to anyone that isn't used to them, so you can wander around drinking in front of staff as much as you like. And they sell them in liverpool street tube station.
> 
> ~Central line user



These are good. Threshers do one that is a triple, for about £1.50.


----------



## paolo (Nov 2, 2008)

On a similar tip, the premixed G&Ts etc are very good. Easily pocketable if you've got one open when the bus comes.


----------



## Hoss (Nov 2, 2008)

I was on the tube to Wembley last Sunday for the NFL game with a few mates. We had a couple of cans on the way up and noone batted an eyelid.

After the game we waked back to Wembley Central (with a beer in hand) and on arrival at the station a BTP officer grabbed me to one side and told me drinking was not allowed. I went to take a final sip at which point the miserable bastard grabbed the brew from me and threatened me with a £50 fine for trying to finish it 

As we walked off a mate started chanting "Boris is a Wanker, Boris is a wanker, na na na na" only to get pretty much everybody walking through the station to join in. That'll learn the miserable copper


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 2, 2008)

Thing is, who would be in the British Transport Police?

There are two reasons to join:

a) Not good enough to join the normal police
b) Trainspotter

This explains a lot.

The police state thing is par for the course these days and my advice to anyone that wants it is to ignore any laws you don't like, otherwise you'll just end up depressed.


----------



## paolo (Nov 2, 2008)

Hoss said:


> I was on the tube to Wembley last Sunday for the NFL game with a few mates. We had a couple of cans on the way up and noone batted an eyelid.
> 
> After the game we waked back to Wembley Central (with a beer in hand) and on arrival at the station a BTP officer grabbed me to one side and told me drinking was not allowed. I went to take a final sip at which point the miserable bastard grabbed the brew from me and threatened me with a £50 fine for trying to finish it
> 
> As we walked off a mate started chanting "Boris is a Wanker, Boris is a wanker, na na na na" only to get pretty much everybody walking through the station to join in. That'll learn the miserable copper





If only it would learn miserable Boris.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 2, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> Cheaper than the mainland?
> 
> Double woof!



Good question.

I think it's about 50% more than the Shenzhen underground (which I was also very impressed with,) but it's _still_ dirt cheap when compared to London. The cheapest fare is about 40p, it costs about 60p to travel, say, 8 - 10 stations and the highest fare is about GBP 1:80p which gets you across the region.




Woof


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 2, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> Thing is, who would be in the British Transport Police?
> 
> There are two reasons to join:
> 
> ...



Not quite right, BTP pays more than any other police force, so loads of coppers want in.

In fact the 2nd in charge was a Chief Cuntsuble for a regional force, retired after 30 years with full pension and now gets top whack off BTP, he trousers something like £200K a year


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 2, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> No discussion of the best things to drink on the tube then?



Kaliber.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 2, 2008)

I think my comments on this thread amount to a colossal case of sour grapes.

I'd love nothing more than to finish a meeting, get on the Skytrain, pull a brewski out of my briefcase, shotgun that first beer, pull out another, and be totally shitfaced, tie askew, when I finished the 45 minute ride back downtown.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Nov 2, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Good question.
> 
> I think it's about 50% more than the Shenzhen underground (which I was also very impressed with,) but it's _still_ dirt cheap when compared to London. The cheapest fare is about 40p, it costs about 60p to travel, say, 8 - 10 stations and the highest fare is about GBP 1:80p which gets you across the region.
> 
> ...



Reading that amazes me how we decided that the HK underground system was too expensive when I was there. Mind you, my friends and I were sticking to a £10 a day budget at the time, and accommodation in HK was relatively expensive to the other places we had been. 

Ah, Chungking Mansions - the memories.


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 2, 2008)

I was a great fan of Chungking Mansions when I worked in Hong Kong, hash even cheaper and more chilled out than the MTR


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 2, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> It still is amazing to me that people can drink alcohol on public transportation there, and it amazes anyone I tell it to.



Not in Newcastle.  There are signs everywhere.

And I think it's banned in public, at least on the main streets, as I never see anyone clutching a can of beer like I see in London.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2008)

It's banned on Northampton busses, but you can quietly flout it


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 2, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Good question.
> 
> I think it's about 50% more than the Shenzhen underground (which I was also very impressed with,) but it's _still_ dirt cheap when compared to London. The cheapest fare is about 40p, it costs about 60p to travel, say, 8 - 10 stations and the highest fare is about GBP 1:80p which gets you across the region.



That's very cheap by Western standards, yes. 

In Dalian, though, you can travel from Dalian centre to Jinshitan on the very clean, very good light railway, for 8 RMB. 

(That's about 50km)


----------



## scifisam (Nov 2, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think my comments on this thread amount to a colossal case of sour grapes.
> 
> I'd love nothing more than to finish a meeting, get on the Skytrain, pull a brewski out of my briefcase, shotgun that first beer, pull out another, and be totally shitfaced, tie askew, when I finished the 45 minute ride back downtown.



Blimey, you're a lightweight! Totally shitfaced on two bottles of beer!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2008)

The real issue with drinking on public transport is the lack of toilet facilities on the X4 from kettering to northampton. It's a forty minute ride and a three can build-up can cause acute discomfort. to me.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 2, 2008)

RenegadeDog said:


> That's very cheap by Western standards, yes.
> 
> In Dalian, though, you can travel from Dalian centre to Jinshitan on the very clean, very good light railway, for 8 RMB.
> 
> (That's about 50km)



Yer.


Fifty clicks on the MTR would definately be the top whack, I think about HK$ 12:50c.

But that's about the limit you could travel on the MTR, Hong Kong is a widely dispersed region and is better served by bus.

Interestingly (or not), from my home (in the north-east New Territories,) it costs about GBP3:20p to get to and back from (return cost) the CBD - using mostly the MTR - and yet closer to GBP3:80p, return, on the bus. When I used to commute, I preferred the bus unless I was late, since it goes straight throught the mountain tunnel and harbour tunnel and I can read on the way there and back - he "tube" route involves a short bus-hop to the tube and then four changes, walking, escalators, crowding, etc.


If I was late, I'd take the minibus to the MTR and then do all the walking, changing, standing, etc. It took about 55 minutes door-to-door to get to work. The bus route takes about 1 hour 10 minutes.


Given that I live 1 minute walk from the bus stop *** and the buses (both mini and double decker run every 4 - 10 minutes and the trains run every 1 1/2 minutes (yup one and a half,) and the system, in total, is clean, efficient, convenient, safe, cheap, etc. etc., it's unsurprising that less than 5% here own private cars (and 50% live in social housing too, BTW).



And remember, we're talking about a 30km journey each way here.


In a society (similar in size and affluence to London I guess,) it makes sense to invest in public transport. What %age of Londoners own cars?


No smoking, no eating, no drinking.







*** Oh and I live here by the way and can still enjoy the public transport system that will convey me to the city within in an hour.











Woof


----------



## Mitre10 (Nov 3, 2008)

Was on the bus yesterday and someone cracked open a can of Budweiser and took a swig.

The driver then spoke over an intercom (didn't know buses had those!!) and said "to the man sitting near the exit doors, if I can't see that can of lager you're drinking, I can't ask you to get off the bus can I?".

Bloke sheepishly hid it under his arm  


Should have thrown him off for having the poor taste to drink Budweiser imho.

.


----------



## Mitre10 (Nov 3, 2008)

Was on the bus yesterday and someone cracked open a can of Budweiser and took a swig.

The driver then spoke over an intercom (didn't know buses had those!!) and said "to the man sitting near the exit doors, if I can't see that can of lager you're drinking, I can't ask you to get off the bus can I?".

Bloke sheepishly hid it under his arm  


Should have thrown him off for having the poor taste to drink Budweiser imho.


Didn't realise the ban was for buses too.
.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 3, 2008)

All TFL public transport.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 3, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> Yer.
> 
> 
> Fifty clicks on the MTR would definately be the top whack, I think about HK$ 12:50c.
> ...



This may come as shocking news to you, but most people here have realised that you really like Hong Kong, and support eating and drinking bans on public transport.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> This may come as shocking news to you, but most people here have realised that you really like Hong Kong, and support eating and drinking bans on public transport.



You mean there're some that don't?

I can feel an MTR picture a' comin' on.



Woof


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 3, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> You mean there're some that don't?



On reflection, no, I don't think there's anyone who hasn't figured it out yet.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Nov 3, 2008)

Mitre10 said:


> The driver then spoke over an intercom (didn't know buses had those!!) and said "to the man sitting near the exit doors, if I can't see that can of lager you're drinking, I can't ask you to get off the bus can I?".





That reminds me of the time when I was in stratford station, and the announcer said something like, "May I remind all members of the public that this is a no-smoking station.  Therefore, if you are smoking a cigarette (or any other substance) please put it out!"


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> On reflection, no, I don't think there's anyone who hasn't figured it out yet.



Ahhhh.


OK!





Just in case though.....











Woof


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 3, 2008)

Bit weedy compared to the LU isn't it!


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 3, 2008)

On the contrary, over there they're proper big fuck off trains (like our subsurface lines) rather than the shitty things in the tube. Also have airconditioning.


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2008)

slowjoe said:


> Bit weedy compared to the LU isn't it!



'Pends which metrics you use to measure it. Trains every 90 seconds is a good one. Fares can also be compared. Cleanliness. Safety. Efficiency. Politeness.

And as I mentioned earlier, the ubiquitous bus and minibus system picks up any slack. In the jungle, here, I rarely wait more than five minutes, never ten. And in the city during the rush hour, it's never more than a five minute wait for the vast, vast majority of routes.


The three "no's" are a part of the reason the system works. And, as I've mentioned, (other than smoking,) the rules are enforced in an appropriately flexible manner, essentially by the system users themselves - no cops required.


If your "weedy" comparison is merely refering to the number of stations, then yes, London approaches 300, I understand, while HK struggles towards 100, but with plans for expansion.

If only "size" was _everything_, eh?



Woof


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 3, 2008)

Also Jd, don't forget the escalators. Once you've experienced escalators running at a proper speed like they do over there you'll hate British ones.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Nov 3, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> No discussion of the best things to drink on the tube then?
> 
> Top tip: The premixed cans of pimms and lemonade look like an energy drink to anyone that isn't used to them, so you can wander around drinking in front of staff as much as you like. And they sell them in liverpool street tube station.
> 
> ~Central line user



I just carry around a flask of single malt


----------



## Jessiedog (Nov 3, 2008)

greedy banker said:


> Also Jd, don't forget the escalators. Once you've experienced escalators running at a proper speed like they do over there you'll hate British ones.



Yer.

But after a twenty five year media-blitz campaign to get peeps to "stand on the right and hold the handrail tight", so that peeps can walk up/scoot down on the left, we recently seem to have given up and moved to a campaign of "stand firm and hold the handrails".

The consistent mainland-immigration also helped to scupper the generational campaign - if 70% of peeps want to hang out on escalators and new immigrants add to this consensus........


I guess that's "democracy".


I think it's sad.



I think that we were beginning to win the right (and the expectation that peeps will,) walk on the escalators. But it would seem that the fear of litigation has, I'm ashamed to say, outweighed the common sense approach. We were on the verge of a massive change in social conventions - walking on the left of the escalators being the norm and standing on the right.

Alas, the MTR Corp succumed to potential profit-loss.








From now on we are destined to be chastised for trying to walk down/up an escalator and will be condemned to endure the idle gossip of the masses as they clog the works. As you might coin it, gb.


Such is life.

At least the trains come every 90 seconds or so.


And at least the "stand on the right" convention still prevails on the "mid-levels escalator".





Woof


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 3, 2008)

Jessiedog said:


> 'Pends which metrics you use to measure it. Trains every 90 seconds is a good one. Fares can also be compared. Cleanliness. Safety. Efficiency. Politeness.
> 
> And as I mentioned earlier, the ubiquitous bus and minibus system picks up any slack. In the jungle, here, I rarely wait more than five minutes, never ten. And in the city during the rush hour, it's never more than a five minute wait for the vast, vast majority of routes.
> 
> ...



Cool, hopefully it will still be just as good when it expands to be a full-sized system like the tube


----------



## greedy banker (Nov 4, 2008)

The tube isn't full sized, look south of the thames. 

Not that there's any reason to go there


----------

