I'm sure you must know what i'm going to say here!
Yes it "might be nice".....just as i used to enjoy a ciggie on a long train journey but that got taken away years ago. Drinkers actually got away relatively 'scot free' and left alone compared to smokers who have been vilified and hounded by the most draconian laws.
"I can't do what I enjoy so I don't see why anyone else should do anything they enjoy either"?
Because as we all know only too well, if we are honest (!!), that 'quiet' one glass of wine or G&T easily becomes two, then three and so on...
No, I'm sorry. My own experience is that I, and many other people I know, are perfectly capable of having a single glass of wine or beer (not really into spirits myself) without going on to have a second, or a third, or whatever. Perhaps we move in different circles.
When smoking used to be allowed on trains they had specific carriages for those who smoked. Personally i can't see a problem with that......but i can with alcohol.
It worked well enough until the non-smoking carriages filled up so that people had the choice between venturing into the smoking carriage and sitting down, or standing in the vestibule at the end of the coach. For me, the vestibule won every time - my back might have suffered, but at least I was spared two or three hours of coughing, a week with a throat that felt rubbed raw, and ears that bubbled every time I swallowed.
Whereas the bizarre thing was, if I could get a seat in the non-smoking section, and someone in the next seat opened a can of beer... it had no effect whatsoever on me or anyone else in the carriage.
Its pathetic seeing people open cans of booze or tramps branded XXX strength Cider on the train home at 5:30 as if they could not wait to get hammered after work.
Ironically, that's what prevents me from drinking alcoholic drinks on trains - that the choices available are almost exclusively vile.
"I can't do what I enjoy so I don't see why anyone else should do anything they enjoy either"?
Then you should have thought more deeply about the long term rather than short when crowing so gleefully when BOSIPP was introduced. The anti-smoking boozers were cock-a-hoop. I saw it as the thin end of the wedge.
No, I'm sorry. My own experience is that I, and many other people I know, are perfectly capable of having a single glass of wine or beer (not really into spirits myself) without going on to have a second, or a third, or whatever. Perhaps we move in different circles.
I could say the same about someone who smokes......but i wouldn't as it would be economical with the truth at best, and grossly exaggerated at worst!
It worked well enough until the non-smoking carriages filled up so that people had the choice between venturing into the smoking carriage and sitting down, or standing in the vestibule at the end of the coach. For me, the vestibule won every time - my back might have suffered, but at least I was spared two or three hours of coughing, a week with a throat that felt rubbed raw, and ears that bubbled every time I swallowed.
From memory i believe there was a fixed penalty for smoking in non-smoking carriages but it's such a long time ago now (pre BOSIPP even) i cannot even remember how much it was. However i never saw anyone smoking in a non-smoking carriage ever.
Whereas the bizarre thing was, if I could get a seat in the non-smoking section, and someone in the next seat opened a can of beer... it had no effect whatsoever on me or anyone else in the carriage.
If happy to put up with the stench of the boozers breath as they're slurping their way through a few cans, not to mention the collateral damage from passive drinking.
Then you should have thought more deeply about the long term rather than short when crowing so gleefully when BOSIPP was introduced.
Not having been involved in drawing up the relevant legislation, so how my thinking more or less deeply would have made any difference. As for crowing, gleefully or otherwise... nope
The anti-smoking boozers were cock-a-hoop. I saw it as the thin end of the wedge.
Oddly enough, my local "anti-smoking" (actually, it styled itself a "non-smoking") boozer wasn't "cock-a-hoop" - it ended up losing business as a result. Overnight, its USP had ceased to be unique.
I could say the same about someone who smokes......but i wouldn't as it would be economical with the truth at best, and grossly exaggerated at worst!
Just as the person who smokes a couple of cigarettes during a two hour train journey. No problem whatsoever.....to use your definition.
Except that it is impossible to smoke without producing... well, smoke. But, yes, people smoking on trains was never a problem provided I avoided those areas.
JFrom memory i believe there was a fixed penalty for smoking in non-smoking carriages but it's such a long time ago now (pre BOSIPP even) i cannot even remember how much it was. However i never saw anyone smoking in a non-smoking carriage ever.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up "smoking in a non-smoking carriage" - all I was talking about was when the non-smoking carriages filled up so the choice was between venturing into smoking carriage for a seat... or staying out and standing. As I said, the latter won out.
If happy to put up with the stench of the boozers breath as they're slurping their way through a few cans, not to mention the collateral damage from passive drinking.
Ha i hear you say......passive drinking?
That's right. ;-)
I'm in full agreement that people shouldn't be drinking in pregnancy - but should that principle be applied to everybody else too? Likewise drinking to excess when looking after children and I'd suggest that the threshold of "to excess" should be set rather lower under those circumstances that in other
Drink-driving? That's a problem when somebody chooses to get behind of the wheel after drinking. If they don't get behind the wheel, then they contribute exactly nothing to the problem of drink-driving.
Yes, it does seem to be common practice for defendants accused of sexual assault, or just plain ordinary assault and battery, to bleat that "it was the drink that made me do it" but no, we shouldn't accept that as an excuse. They made a choice to commit their offence - and should be held to account for that, with no spurious excuses.
Not having been involved in drawing up the relevant legislation, so how my thinking more or less deeply would have made any difference. As for crowing, gleefully or otherwise... nope
Oddly enough, my local "anti-smoking" (actually, it styled itself a "non-smoking") boozer wasn't "cock-a-hoop" - it ended up losing business as a result. Overnight, its USP had ceased to be unique.
Except that it is impossible to smoke without producing... well, smoke. But, yes, people smoking on trains was never a problem provided I avoided those areas.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up "smoking in a non-smoking carriage" - all I was talking about was when the non-smoking carriages filled up so the choice was between venturing into smoking carriage for a seat... or staying out and standing. As I said, the latter won out.
I'm in full agreement that people shouldn't be drinking in pregnancy - but should that principle be applied to everybody else too? Likewise drinking to excess when looking after children and I'd suggest that the threshold of "to excess" should be set rather lower under those circumstances that in other
Drink-driving? That's a problem when somebody chooses to get behind of the wheel after drinking. If they don't get behind the wheel, then they contribute exactly nothing to the problem of drink-driving.
Yes, it does seem to be common practice for defendants accused of sexual assault, or just plain ordinary assault and battery, to bleat that "it was the drink that made me do it" but no, we shouldn't accept that as an excuse. They made a choice to commit their offence - and should be held to account for that, with no spurious excuses.
The reality is if your in a confined space with a smoker it is proven to be damaging to your health so smoking bans make sense to me. I remember going to pubs years ago and the next morning all I could smell was stale cigarette smoke on my clothes.
As you say there are issues with drink, but in this scenario it's not comparable to smoking. A person sat next to on a train drinking a glass of wine is not damaging your health.
Not having been involved in drawing up the relevant legislation, so how my thinking more or less deeply would have made any difference. As for crowing, gleefully or otherwise... nope
You were probably among what i term as the non-smoker then as opposed to anti-smoker. Both have a very different mindset.
Oddly enough, my local "anti-smoking" (actually, it styled itself a "non-smoking") boozer wasn't "cock-a-hoop" - it ended up losing business as a result. Overnight, its USP had ceased to be unique.
A couple of lads i used to work with, both non-smokers but liked a few pints at 'their' local told me a similar story. They openly said they regretted the introduction of BOSIPP as it had virtually finished their local off and it was facing closure. A typical Friday or Saturday evening the Landlord was lucky if he had a dozen people in. This was five years ago now so it's no doubt closed down.
With Pubs, they should have reverted back to the old style of Bar, Lounge and Smoke Room but most Pubs had long knocked the walls down to cram more kids in.
I'm not teetotal, i do drink.....just not in this country. I don't like the Pub atmosphere here at all. I like the Bars in European countries as it's much more open and relaxed though i don't hang out in places where British go such as Spain etc.
Except that it is impossible to smoke without producing... well, smoke. But, yes, people smoking on trains was never a problem provided I avoided those areas.
On the old style carriages there were always windows you could open but all that's gone now. It's like sitting in a sterile tube. I can bear it for a couple of hours which is the max i do (down to London) and i don't bother that i can't smoke.....so don't see why it should really bother anyone if they banned booze on trains. As i said earlier, if someone can't cope without a 'fix' of alcohol for a couple of hours then they've got a serious problem.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up "smoking in a non-smoking carriage" - all I was talking about was when the non-smoking carriages filled up so the choice was between venturing into smoking carriage for a seat... or staying out and standing. As I said, the latter won out.
I mistakenly thought you had experienced people smoking in non-smoking carriages.
I'm in full agreement that people shouldn't be drinking in pregnancy - but should that principle be applied to everybody else too? Likewise drinking to excess when looking after children and I'd suggest that the threshold of "to excess" should be set rather lower under those circumstances that in other
Drink-driving? That's a problem when somebody chooses to get behind of the wheel after drinking. If they don't get behind the wheel, then they contribute exactly nothing to the problem of drink-driving.
Yes, it does seem to be common practice for defendants accused of sexual assault, or just plain ordinary assault and battery, to bleat that "it was the drink that made me do it" but no, we shouldn't accept that as an excuse. They made a choice to commit their offence - and should be held to account for that, with no spurious excuses.
No doubt subjects for another thread but passive drinking is a reality which i think many are either in denial of, or simply ignorant to it.
I've seen it in all manners as i once worked in Hotels where 24/7 drinking was pretty much 'the norm'. I've known quite a few who lost their lives through it but possibly the worst and saddest of all was a friend of a young lad who used to work with me.
His best pal had gone out for his usual Friday night bender, then staggering back home drunk he slipped off the kerb and an oncoming car split seconds away ran straight over his head killing him instantly. The driver (who hadn't been drinking) ended up getting taken to Hospital in a severe state of shock.
That lad was just 19 years old. But the driver, completely innocent, would be left to live with that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
In South Wales, alcohol has been banned on trains on the valley lines from Pontypridd northwards. That means if you get on at Cardiff Queen St, you have to finish your drinks by the time you get to Pontypridd, no matter which valley line it's branching off to next, whether it be Merthyr Tydfil, Aberdare or wherever.
Rail operators DO have the authority to ban alcohol on particularly troublesome stretches such as this already.
What DOES annoy me when I'm travelling around the country is if I'm on a late-night train full of football fans, or if it's student night and the carriages are taking large groups of students from a small-town university/college to a large city 20 miles away.
I dislike the way the inspectors, who are often incredibly fussy about tickets etc, are nowhere to be seen and hide away in their own compartments, leaving the train to mob rule. In the case of football yobs, it normally means stomping loudly up and down the carriage, as though to make it clear that they're in charge, and that normal rules of behaviour do not apply here. This is usually followed by a table where everyone laughs extra-loudly at the ringleader's every comment.
It's a horrible experience if you're travelling on business or are just on the way back from a day out. British Transport Police should take a much tougher line on this sort of thing.
However, I, and millions more, have a few quiet social drinks on trains from buffets or trolley carts after a long day. In the vast majority of cases, the problem drinkers started drinking long before they got on the train. It's not alcohol consumed/bought on the train that's the problem. They'd still be behaving like arseholes.
I can remember smoking carriages on trains when I was a child, and from the very early days of when I started smoking myself. However, I have no logical objection whatsoever to people smoking on railway platforms. If the train is pulling into a station and is going to stay put for five minutes, what is wrong with passengers getting off for a quick cigarette on the platform?
We now have a quite comical situation on a line I travel on regularly where I get on and get off the train at a station at the end of the line. Train drivers and inspectors regularly walk a few feet around the back of the platform for a cigarette during the five-minute changearound period, rather than smoke on the very wide, open unsheltered platform, where it wouldn't harm anyone.
I can remember smoking carriages on trains when I was a child, and from the very early days of when I started smoking myself. However, I have no logical objection whatsoever to people smoking on railway platforms. If the train is pulling into a station and is going to stay put for five minutes, what is wrong with passengers getting off for a quick cigarette on the platform?
We now have a quite comical situation on a line I travel on regularly where I get on and get off the train at a station at the end of the line. Train drivers and inspectors regularly walk a few feet around the back of the platform for a cigarette during the five-minute changearound period, rather than smoke on the very wide, open unsheltered platform, where it wouldn't harm anyone.
At my local rail station not only is smoking forbidden anywhere on the platforms, outside coffee bar, stairways etc.....you can't even smoke outside the station. They erected a sign by the entrance banning smoking from the outside. Quite how they can enforce that i've no idea as it's not even land belonging to NR or any rail company......it's a public footpath and main road!
This is the reason i no longer go to any Pubs for a drink in this country now. Smokers got kicked out of the Pubs to the outside, but come summer and the anti-smokers start whinging they can't go outside because people are smoking.
They want it both ways!
In European countries this kind of silliness just doesn't exist.
I've always thought it rather sad when people can't last for a train journey or flight without booze. I'm not a preachy teetotaler, it's just something I don't understand.
States in an offence to carry open containers of alcohol and and offence to consume alcohol on merseyrail trains or stations.
So hardly new.
I seem to remember a girl who had been drinking in some clubs getting killed at a station in the Liverpool area last year. Can't remember all the detail though i think there was an attempt to blame the guard.
I've always thought it rather sad when people can't last for a train journey or flight without booze. I'm not a preachy teetotaler, it's just something I don't understand.
Er well I don't know where you are, but the trains on the local routes here are mostly unstaffed. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to pay more to pay for extra staff to police something that is not a real problem. The 'ban it' lot have (as per usual) blown it all out of proportion.
I've always thought it rather sad when people can't last for a train journey or flight without booze. I'm not a preachy teetotaler, it's just something I don't understand.
Enjoying something is not the same as not being able to last or getting a "fix" as other posters have said. It's just a pleasureable activity.
I'm sure there are things you enjoy too. Perhaps you like a coffee or tea with your breakfast?
I like wine, and therefore I like drinking a glass of it on a train or plane journey. I'm not an alcoholic, so of course can "last" without it. It would just be a bit of a shame to ban it, especially as the majority of drunks are already drunk when they board.
Also, as to the fatality aspect, isn't it the responsibility of the train manager or conductor to ensure the train only pulls away if the line is clear? If someone has fallen down the gap and the train pulls away, then the train staff can get in serious trouble. There was a case a few years ago where a train conductor in Liverpool either got fined or imprisoned in that circumstance.
I'm sure no one happy to ban it has taken the train north of Inverness. The journey's miserable without my M&S nibbles, a couple of glasses of wine and a good book. Even then you can't drink after 8pm and you're only halfway through the journey...
Er it is watched by train staff who can do those things. Im sorry but your plan isnt as foolproof as you seem to think.
I think you'll find the driver is probably too busy to spot individual people drinking alcohol and, on our lines, the stations are so close together any guard would be too busy opening and closing doors to notice.
Put it in a polystyrene cup and defy anyone to tell the difference, on cctv, from a cup of coffee.
I think you'll find the driver is probably too busy to spot individual people drinking alcohol and, on our lines, the stations are so close together any guard would be too busy opening and closing doors to notice.
Put it in a polystyrene cup and defy anyone to tell the difference, on cctv, from a cup of coffee.
Comments
"I can't do what I enjoy so I don't see why anyone else should do anything they enjoy either"?
No, I'm sorry. My own experience is that I, and many other people I know, are perfectly capable of having a single glass of wine or beer (not really into spirits myself) without going on to have a second, or a third, or whatever. Perhaps we move in different circles.
... and someone who falls well short of any definition of "tanked up" poses no problem whatsoever. I really did
It worked well enough until the non-smoking carriages filled up so that people had the choice between venturing into the smoking carriage and sitting down, or standing in the vestibule at the end of the coach. For me, the vestibule won every time - my back might have suffered, but at least I was spared two or three hours of coughing, a week with a throat that felt rubbed raw, and ears that bubbled every time I swallowed.
Whereas the bizarre thing was, if I could get a seat in the non-smoking section, and someone in the next seat opened a can of beer... it had no effect whatsoever on me or anyone else in the carriage.
Ironically, that's what prevents me from drinking alcoholic drinks on trains - that the choices available are almost exclusively vile.
but drinking alcohol is easier to hide than, smoking as you can put alcohol in another container:D
Wake up.
I could say the same about someone who smokes......but i wouldn't as it would be economical with the truth at best, and grossly exaggerated at worst!
Just as the person who smokes a couple of cigarettes during a two hour train journey. No problem whatsoever.....to use your definition.
From memory i believe there was a fixed penalty for smoking in non-smoking carriages but it's such a long time ago now (pre BOSIPP even) i cannot even remember how much it was. However i never saw anyone smoking in a non-smoking carriage ever.
If happy to put up with the stench of the boozers breath as they're slurping their way through a few cans, not to mention the collateral damage from passive drinking.
Ha i hear you say......passive drinking?
That's right. ;-)
Er a cctv can't arrest anyone nor can it alert transport police.
people would find a way of hiding from the a******:D:D:D:p
Not having been involved in drawing up the relevant legislation, so how my thinking more or less deeply would have made any difference. As for crowing, gleefully or otherwise... nope
Oddly enough, my local "anti-smoking" (actually, it styled itself a "non-smoking") boozer wasn't "cock-a-hoop" - it ended up losing business as a result. Overnight, its USP had ceased to be unique.
Except that it is impossible to smoke without producing... well, smoke. But, yes, people smoking on trains was never a problem provided I avoided those areas.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up "smoking in a non-smoking carriage" - all I was talking about was when the non-smoking carriages filled up so the choice was between venturing into smoking carriage for a seat... or staying out and standing. As I said, the latter won out.
I'm in full agreement that people shouldn't be drinking in pregnancy - but should that principle be applied to everybody else too? Likewise drinking to excess when looking after children and I'd suggest that the threshold of "to excess" should be set rather lower under those circumstances that in other
Drink-driving? That's a problem when somebody chooses to get behind of the wheel after drinking. If they don't get behind the wheel, then they contribute exactly nothing to the problem of drink-driving.
Yes, it does seem to be common practice for defendants accused of sexual assault, or just plain ordinary assault and battery, to bleat that "it was the drink that made me do it" but no, we shouldn't accept that as an excuse. They made a choice to commit their offence - and should be held to account for that, with no spurious excuses.
The reality is if your in a confined space with a smoker it is proven to be damaging to your health so smoking bans make sense to me. I remember going to pubs years ago and the next morning all I could smell was stale cigarette smoke on my clothes.
As you say there are issues with drink, but in this scenario it's not comparable to smoking. A person sat next to on a train drinking a glass of wine is not damaging your health.
A couple of lads i used to work with, both non-smokers but liked a few pints at 'their' local told me a similar story. They openly said they regretted the introduction of BOSIPP as it had virtually finished their local off and it was facing closure. A typical Friday or Saturday evening the Landlord was lucky if he had a dozen people in. This was five years ago now so it's no doubt closed down.
With Pubs, they should have reverted back to the old style of Bar, Lounge and Smoke Room but most Pubs had long knocked the walls down to cram more kids in.
I'm not teetotal, i do drink.....just not in this country. I don't like the Pub atmosphere here at all. I like the Bars in European countries as it's much more open and relaxed though i don't hang out in places where British go such as Spain etc.
On the old style carriages there were always windows you could open but all that's gone now. It's like sitting in a sterile tube. I can bear it for a couple of hours which is the max i do (down to London) and i don't bother that i can't smoke.....so don't see why it should really bother anyone if they banned booze on trains. As i said earlier, if someone can't cope without a 'fix' of alcohol for a couple of hours then they've got a serious problem.
I mistakenly thought you had experienced people smoking in non-smoking carriages.
No doubt subjects for another thread but passive drinking is a reality which i think many are either in denial of, or simply ignorant to it.
I've seen it in all manners as i once worked in Hotels where 24/7 drinking was pretty much 'the norm'. I've known quite a few who lost their lives through it but possibly the worst and saddest of all was a friend of a young lad who used to work with me.
His best pal had gone out for his usual Friday night bender, then staggering back home drunk he slipped off the kerb and an oncoming car split seconds away ran straight over his head killing him instantly. The driver (who hadn't been drinking) ended up getting taken to Hospital in a severe state of shock.
That lad was just 19 years old. But the driver, completely innocent, would be left to live with that on his conscience for the rest of his life.
Rail operators DO have the authority to ban alcohol on particularly troublesome stretches such as this already.
What DOES annoy me when I'm travelling around the country is if I'm on a late-night train full of football fans, or if it's student night and the carriages are taking large groups of students from a small-town university/college to a large city 20 miles away.
I dislike the way the inspectors, who are often incredibly fussy about tickets etc, are nowhere to be seen and hide away in their own compartments, leaving the train to mob rule. In the case of football yobs, it normally means stomping loudly up and down the carriage, as though to make it clear that they're in charge, and that normal rules of behaviour do not apply here. This is usually followed by a table where everyone laughs extra-loudly at the ringleader's every comment.
It's a horrible experience if you're travelling on business or are just on the way back from a day out. British Transport Police should take a much tougher line on this sort of thing.
However, I, and millions more, have a few quiet social drinks on trains from buffets or trolley carts after a long day. In the vast majority of cases, the problem drinkers started drinking long before they got on the train. It's not alcohol consumed/bought on the train that's the problem. They'd still be behaving like arseholes.
I can remember smoking carriages on trains when I was a child, and from the very early days of when I started smoking myself. However, I have no logical objection whatsoever to people smoking on railway platforms. If the train is pulling into a station and is going to stay put for five minutes, what is wrong with passengers getting off for a quick cigarette on the platform?
We now have a quite comical situation on a line I travel on regularly where I get on and get off the train at a station at the end of the line. Train drivers and inspectors regularly walk a few feet around the back of the platform for a cigarette during the five-minute changearound period, rather than smoke on the very wide, open unsheltered platform, where it wouldn't harm anyone.
This is the reason i no longer go to any Pubs for a drink in this country now. Smokers got kicked out of the Pubs to the outside, but come summer and the anti-smokers start whinging they can't go outside because people are smoking.
They want it both ways!
In European countries this kind of silliness just doesn't exist.
http://www.merseyrail.org/seasonal/notification-of-new-byelaw.aspx
States in an offence to carry open containers of alcohol and and offence to consume alcohol on merseyrail trains or stations.
So hardly new.
I agree.
Er it is watched by train staff who can do those things. Im sorry but your plan isnt as foolproof as you seem to think.
Most European countries would either find a sensible compromise or just ignore these stupid bans
Alright David, but when your train fare rises to pay for these CCTV watching staff, please don't come on here complaining
Er cctv is already on trains. So are staff.
Er well I don't know where you are, but the trains on the local routes here are mostly unstaffed. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to pay more to pay for extra staff to police something that is not a real problem. The 'ban it' lot have (as per usual) blown it all out of proportion.
Enjoying something is not the same as not being able to last or getting a "fix" as other posters have said. It's just a pleasureable activity.
I'm sure there are things you enjoy too. Perhaps you like a coffee or tea with your breakfast?
I like wine, and therefore I like drinking a glass of it on a train or plane journey. I'm not an alcoholic, so of course can "last" without it. It would just be a bit of a shame to ban it, especially as the majority of drunks are already drunk when they board.
Also, as to the fatality aspect, isn't it the responsibility of the train manager or conductor to ensure the train only pulls away if the line is clear? If someone has fallen down the gap and the train pulls away, then the train staff can get in serious trouble. There was a case a few years ago where a train conductor in Liverpool either got fined or imprisoned in that circumstance.
I think you'll find the driver is probably too busy to spot individual people drinking alcohol and, on our lines, the stations are so close together any guard would be too busy opening and closing doors to notice.
Put it in a polystyrene cup and defy anyone to tell the difference, on cctv, from a cup of coffee.
Other passengers will also alert staff.