Big up the tube drinkers

[paolo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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 about 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]

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]

Your attempts to justify Boris the Buffoon rushing through legislation for something that no one was complaining about 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Harden up.

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

 

[gabi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Dravinian]

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]

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]

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.