Boris's ban on alcohol on London Transport (with poll)

[Johnny Canuck3]

Last time I flew to the states, you could get fruit juice, water, tea or coffee free, or cans of something were £3/$5 each.

Most people only had one can, if at all, because of the cost - so it is a deterrent.

The majority of cases of drunken behaviour come from the first class cabins, where alcohol is usually free.

Given that you aren't allowed to take your own onto a plane ... that seems a fairly reasonable solution - if you must have alcohol, you are at least having to pay for the privilege.

These flights were 8 hours, not 20 minutes, however.

Also, these major disturbances are so rare that they're reported in the news. They occur once in a while, out of thousands of flight movements per day around the world.

 

[8ball]

People shouldn't be allowed to wear primary colours on the tube - it shows a complete lack of consideration to people who may have hangovers.

 

[danny la rouge]

People shouldn't be allowed to wear primary colours on the tube

I agree. But you know what I find really intimidating and upsetting? Men wearing fake tan on public transport. It makes me cry inside.

 

[ajdown]

Also, these major disturbances are so rare that they're reported in the news. They occur once in a while, out of thousands of flight movements per day around the world.

But so do rail accidents. Millions and millions of passenger miles are travelled between incidents yet when they do occur, as you say, they hit the news... despite the fact that thousands of road accidents happen daily and rarely get a mention.

 

[ymu]

You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

Air travel is provided by private companies, to whom I pay hundreds of dollars to ferry me across the Atlantic. If the public demands a right to have a drink concommitant with the payment of all that airfare, it's good business for the airline to provide it.

A transit system is owned by the public, and for most, travel on it is an unavoidable necessity. As it is owned by the public, the public can demand certain levels of decorum to be present for those who are forced to use its services.

The bus companies are privately owned in the UK, and the tube was effectively privatised through PPP, but that went a bit wrong last year when one of the companies went bust and it's all been a bit expensive to sort out... Tax is used to subsidise the private airlines and private train companies too. I find it hard to find a meaningful distinction here; they're all forms of "public transport".

But even if we agree with your ill-informed premise, I can't see why paying a private company the cost of a ticket entitles me to make demands, but if I pay for it through tax as well as the purchase of a ticket, I'm entitled to no say at all. I have more rights as a consumer than I do as a voter? Well yes - but that's not really such a good thing, IMO.

I'm not at all sure what point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could clarify?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The bus companies are privately owned in the UK, and the tube was effectively privatised through PPP, but that went a bit wrong last year when one of the companies went bust and it's all been a bit expensive to sort out... Tax is used to subsidise the private airlines and private train companies too. I find it hard to find a meaningful distinction here; they're all forms of "public transport".

But even if we agree with your ill-informed premise, I can't see why paying a private company the cost of a ticket entitles me to make demands, but if I pay for it through tax as well as the purchase of a ticket, I'm entitled to no say at all. I have more rights as a consumer than I do as a voter? Well yes - but that's not really such a good thing, IMO.

I'm not at all sure what point you were trying to make. Perhaps you could clarify?

You had to read all the post to get the point I was making. Air travel is largely a matter of choice, which we pay premium dollars for.

Tube travel/transit is largely a matter of necessity that, due to volume use, is relatively inexpensive, but usually unavoidable.

 

[8ball]

So you can't drink on the Tube cos you're all peasants!!

 

[SpookyFrank]

.

 

[ymu]

You had to read all the post to get the point I was making. Air travel is largely a matter of choice, which we pay premium dollars for.

Tube travel/transit is largely a matter of necessity that, due to volume use, is relatively inexpensive, but usually unavoidable.

Sorry. Still not getting it.

Long distance, trains (remember trains?) are usually the quickest and cheapest option for me. I am allowed to drink. Sometimes, I have to go by 'plane because someone else is paying and it's cheaper than peak rail fares (did you say premium dollars? ). Takes longer, can't get as much stuff done on the way, don't like it, budget airline is definitely not a luxury. But I am allowed to drink.

But let's pretend for a moment that trains and planes are only for treats and never necessity ... Are you suggesting that I should be prohibited from drinking on journeys when I don't really want to be there - but if I don't really need to be there at all, it would be OK?

I'm sure it's not that that you meant. Is it?

 

[chainsaw cat]

If not then they only have themselves to blame. It's foolish to vote based purely on party, rather than policies and promises (although it's accepted that promises mean nothing in politics).

As for the tube unions ... essential public services should not be privately operated, nor unions involved. There is a job to be done, and if you don't like the conditions you're free to find another job.

I hope to God you are being satirical and not a blithering idiot.

 

[chainsaw cat]

You're trying to compare apples to oranges.

Air travel is provided by private companies, to whom I pay hundreds of dollars to ferry me across the Atlantic. If the public demands a right to have a drink concommitant with the payment of all that airfare, it's good business for the airline to provide it.

A transit system is owned by the public, and for most, travel on it is an unavoidable necessity. As it is owned by the public, the public can demand certain levels of decorum to be present for those who are forced to use its services.

or....

I'm a member of the public. Therefore I own the transit system and I'll do as I wish on it because it's mine (as long as I'm not harming anyone else, which is not a right gifted to me in any circumstances other than self/other defence).

Therefore, if I fancy a can of Speckled Hen or a swig of Stags Breath, yum yum that's for me. Yum.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

not sure if this has been asked already (only managed to read 15 of the 46 pages of this thread!) but will drinking alcohol on the tube actually be illegal? surely making something illegal requires an act of parliament? presumably this "ban" will be some sort of minor bye-law or amendment to the conditions of carriage on the tube or something.

so what will the punishment be if you get caught? take your beer off you? chuck you off the tube/bus? a fine?

i love a cheeky can of strongbow on the bus/tube on the way home from work (when im not cycling). or a quick beer or two on the way to the football, or on the way to a party/going out. and to be honest i reckon i'll keep on doing it. i'm willing to risk any of those punishments for a quiet beer on the way home.

of course, drinking wont be banned on trains. so one alternative is just get the train back to brixton from victoria and have your beer there, lovely. mine's a cider.

 

[editor]

There is?

Yes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes.

To repeat: compare the number of these incidents with the number of flight movements in the world every day.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Sorry. Still not getting it.

Long distance, trains (remember trains?) are usually the quickest and cheapest option for me. I am allowed to drink. Sometimes, I have to go by 'plane because someone else is paying and it's cheaper than peak rail fares (did you say premium dollars? ). Takes longer, can't get as much stuff done on the way, don't like it, budget airline is definitely not a luxury. But I am allowed to drink.

But let's pretend for a moment that trains and planes are only for treats and never necessity ... Are you suggesting that I should be prohibited from drinking on journeys when I don't really want to be there - but if I don't really need to be there at all, it would be OK?

I'm sure it's not that that you meant. Is it?

Another factor I believe behind why there's drinking on planes, is flight anxiety.

Most people don't have that on the tube.

 

[editor]

To repeat: compare the number of these incidents with the number of flight movements in the world every day.

How many incidents are there of people drinking on the tube causing problems every day, Johnny?

Please list some recent examples.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But let's pretend for a moment that trains and planes are only for treats and never necessity ... Are you suggesting that I should be prohibited from drinking on journeys when I don't really want to be there - but if I don't really need to be there at all, it would be OK?

I'm sure it's not that that you meant. Is it?

I think I'm saying that if I'm paying $500 to a private company to ferry me somewhere and I want a drink, you should give it to me, or I'll go to a competitor who will.

The situation with the daily tube ride is different in a multitude of ways.

The only real similarity is that a machine is carrying you from point a to b without you driving it.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Another factor I believe behind why there's drinking on planes, is flight anxiety.

Most people don't have that on the tube.

There's a lot of it about JC2, many people are anxious about being attacked by a drunk or having their personal life interfered with by a pointless politician.

They need a beer.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've brought this discussion up with a few people here. I say, In London, you can drink alcohol on the buses and subways.

It is invariably met with astonished laughter.

I guess people are different all over.

 

[ajdown]

I hope to God you are being satirical and not a blithering idiot.

Why?

Something big changed with my job recently. I do not like it. As there is nothing I can do to change the job, my only option is to seek employment elsewhere, which I am actively doing.

Why is it essential services like the tube go on strike? Because they know they have the fear of mass disruption on their side, and people give in. Yet other jobs don't. It's known that McDonalds pay badly and the conditions are generally crap, but when did you last hear burger flippers going on strike? They either put up with it, or leave, or get booted.

 

[STFC]

You may or may not be right. What I think he's doing, is following in Giuliani's footsteps, with a 'broken windows' policy.

Giuliani said that the way to start back toward public order, is to sweat the small stuff. The analogy is that if you leave a bunch of broken windows in buildings on streets, it creates a lowered sense of pride, a lower desire to keep things orderly, etc. So you start by mending the windows. He also cracked down smaller offences. It apparently helped to turn around the disorder of New York.

In UK, it might be true that most tube drinkers don't cause problems, but it might be more of a perceptual thing, that it's ok to drink anywhere and everywhere. Sort of an air of licence, that it's always a party, so it's ok to cut up, do whatever.

By working to change those subtle perceptions, you create a higher expectation of decorum from the average person on the street.

Exactly. But the point seems to have been lost on those who keep banging on about having a 'civilised' can on their way home from work.

 

[ajdown]

Exactly. But the point seems to have been lost on those who keep banging on about having a 'civilised' can on their way home from work.

... which is, as has already been pointed out various times, not essential.

There's a lot of things that I 'could' do on the way home, to save time ... but they'd infringe on the space or rights of others (whether legal rights or just something people feel they can have) so I console myself with relaxing by looking out of the window at the world going by.

I might notice a new shop that looks interesting, or have a chuckle watching a woman in silly shoes trying to run for a bus, or someone riding a really cool looking bike, or whatever. Perfectly relaxing, and alcohol free.

The concept of 'unable to relax without alcohol' makes no sense whatsoever to me.

 

[pk]

... which is, as has already been pointed out various times, not essential.

There's a lot of things that I 'could' do on the way home, to save time ... but they'd infringe on the space or rights of others (whether legal rights or just something people feel they can have) so I console myself with relaxing by looking out of the window at the world going by.

I might notice a new shop that looks interesting, or have a chuckle watching a woman in silly shoes trying to run for a bus, or someone riding a really cool looking bike, or whatever. Perfectly relaxing, and alcohol free.

The concept of 'unable to relax without alcohol' makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Actually, you help me relax.

I print out your pearls of unbridled wisdom and keep them in the loo, so that whenever I need to purge a pattie I can read them in the correct context.

 

[Fruitloop]

Why?

Something big changed with my job recently. I do not like it. As there is nothing I can do to change the job, my only option is to seek employment elsewhere, which I am actively doing.

Why is it essential services like the tube go on strike? Because they know they have the fear of mass disruption on their side, and people give in. Yet other jobs don't. It's known that McDonalds pay badly and the conditions are generally crap, but when did you last hear burger flippers going on strike? They either put up with it, or leave, or get booted.

There is nothing you can do about the job because organised labour has no power these days. You bring it on yourself, and then still support it afterwards. Amazing and tragic.

 

[ajdown]

There is nothing you can do about the job because organised labour has no power these days. You bring it on yourself, and then still support it afterwards. Amazing and tragic.

Even if I wanted to belong to a union, we don't have it here and they probably aren't recognised anyway, so it's all cosmetic.

Besides, it just wouldn't be appropriate in the place I work.

 

[Fruitloop]

Where is it not appropriate, unless you're a spook?

 

[ajdown]

Where is it not appropriate, unless you're a spook?

I work in an administrative position for a large charity. Giving away any more specific information would be inappropriate on a forum such as this.

 

[Andy the Don]

I work in an administrative position for a large charity. Giving away any more specific information would be inappropriate on a forum such as this.

The T&G covers charity workers & your organisation should have a union rep. If not why don't you go for the position. Remember just because they are a charity it does not mean that they cannot be shit employers & you could well one day find yourself requiring the services of your union.

 

[Fruitloop]

Absolutely. I worked for charities for quite a long time and despite fundamentally doing good work some of them were hideously bad employers. Some of them were so lousy that it ultimately worked to their own detriment, as all the good people bailed out and they were left with an endless succession of temps who came and went too fast to ever get to grips with the job properly.

Doing good work does not give you carte blanche to shaft your employees!

 

[ajdown]

The T&G covers charity workers & your organisation should have a union rep. If not why don't you go for the position. Remember just because they are a charity it does not mean that they cannot be shit employers & you could well one day find yourself requiring the services of your union.

There is no union rep. There is no union representation of any kind. I see no point in attracting trouble for myself by trying to start up something that I feel totally unnecessary, and I'd much rather just find somewhere else to work. I don't even think anyone else would be interested in joining anyway.

It's not as though I'm tied to London either, and in all honesty I'd rather be somewhere friendlier, greener, quieter and cheaper.