Here we go again. All about money. The privately run train companies have a duty of care to their customers and can easily absorb the costs of extra staff for women only carriages and at stations Of course some people seem to be quite content with other folk being assaulted just as long as it is not them
All about money? Train companies are businesses. Businesses exist to make money. If they didn't want to make money they would be called charities.
How do you know they can absorb the costs?
I may be wrong but I suspect they would like all companies pass the cost on to their customers. Perhaps you can give us an example of where a company has just absorbed extra costs without passing them on to their customers.
The very fact he's considering it and opening the idea up to debate is enough for me to know he's a loon. It's one of the most knee-jerk nanny-state pointless ideas I've seen in a long time.
Firstly assault happens anywhere. It can be in a street.. someone stood behind you at an ATM.. someone stood behind you on a packed rush hour tube train.. someone sat next to you on a bus in the afternoon.. someone intentionally brushing past you in a crowd. Predators generally don't hang around tube trains at 3am hoping to find a woman alone who they can assault. Not unless they fancy being arrested.
And even if they had women only tube carriages.. the woman still has to make her way to the tube station and stand on the platform. What's going to protect her then?
I'm not saying safety isn't an issue.. of course it's an issue. But I'd rather they just install CCTV cameras in each tube carriage (if they don't already exist) and just make it clear that if anyone did something criminal they'd be on camera. Perhaps some staff on the platforms during those late hours. And an education system suggesting that women don't travel alone late at night. And that's even if we pretend it's only women who are ever assaulted on public transport. Quite often it's men too. Perhaps not sexually but there are plenty of unprovoked assaults.
The only idea along these lines I do support is women only taxi cab firms. I think those are a good idea to give a woman confidence that the car she is getting into doesn't contain a rapist pretending to be a private cab driver. But I don't agree with women only public transport.
From the interview though it sounds like Corbyn was just mentioning it as a possible idea that should be discussed, he wasn't 'advocating' it as a ultimate solution to the problem of sexual harassment. I don't think that anyone thinks that it can be solved by quick and easy changes.
Maybe a better idea would be to have a 'safe' carriage on every train that is continually monitored and has quick access to the police. Then anyone who feels threatened could simply move to that carriage. Just the idea of a safe carriage would probably put off potential abusers.
I cannot get my head this idea from a logistical point of view. So let's say we have segregated carriages - Does that mean we have need to have segregated First Class? How would it be enforced? What happens at rush hour?
Don't blame yourself it's the patriarchy to blame, in that; nearly every time men talk about men's feelings on a matter, someone invariably tells them to man-up or imply they have small penises. No wonder so many of them commit suicide
Men are easy to engage with...it's boys who are the problem ;-)
Not sure what I feel about women only carriages, but the Tories were thinking of doing something similar in 2014.
They exist in other countries.
A Tory that almost no one's ever heard of.
"Open to the possibility of", when someone else suggested it, falls a bit short of "thinking of doing".
Besides, Tories have or consider plenty of dubious ideas. That one of them and one of Corbyn's happen to be quite near each other in 'idea space' doesn't really say anything in favour of Corbyn's.
All about money? Train companies are businesses. Businesses exist to make money. If they didn't want to make money they would be called charities.
How do you know they can absorb the costs?
I may be wrong but I suspect they would like all companies pass the cost on to their customers. Perhaps you can give us an example of where a company has just absorbed extra costs without passing them on to their customers.
You have just given an excellent snapshot of why the privately run trains which operate on publicly owned rail track should be in the public sector. If a train company refuses to provide adequate protection for its customers at no extra cost to the already overcharged customer then their franchise should be revoked.
It is not asking the earth for paying customers to be offered a service which protects them from some nasty pervert.
The opposition from so many might well be less if it was their wife or daughter or sister or mother who had to endure being groped or a lot worse because they paid to travel on a train.
I cannot get my head this idea from a logistical point of view. So let's say we have segregated carriages - Does that mean we have need to have segregated First Class? How would it be enforced? What happens at rush hour?
There are 'quiet cars' where you're not to talk on mobile phones; so those sorts of questions must have already been addressed.
"To help keep things tranquil there are a few rules we need you to abide by in the quiet coach. Mobile phone calls and noise from electronic devices are strictly forbidden, and conversations must be conducted quietly, so everyone can escape distractions or enjoy a nap."
Can we have a separate one for Gays and Bis as well or here's a thought how about we actually police the lived environment properly and remove all those who assault others from it. I'm really not sure why we need to uniquely protect women from those who see violence as a useful social skill, I'm not overly keen on being assaulted myself.
You have just given an excellent snapshot of why the privately run trains which operate on publicly owned rail track should be in the public sector. If a train company refuses to provide adequate protection for its customers at no extra cost to the already overcharged customer then their franchise should be revoked.
It is not asking the earth for paying customers to be offered a service which protects them from some nasty pervert.
The opposition from so many might well be less if it was their wife or daughter or sister or mother who had to endure being groped or a lot worse because they paid to travel on a train.
How about all the violent thefts on the streets, Should councils have guards on every street corner?
Where does this something must be done mentality end and reality begin?
Why the need for "educating men & boys" when 99.999% of them don't require it?
Well, are you going to run some sort of test to see who is likely to offend? Or do you wait for the first offence (if it is reported and if the perpetrator is found) and then re-educate?
The other 0.001% also know it's wrong, but because they are bad people they still do it.
Are you suggesting that the 99.999 still need educating? If so do you think that might lead them to feel that they are all being made to feel guilty?
Maybe if it was introduced at an early stage for all children, and maybe if society had better morals in the first place (and parents exercised proper control over their children), it could be done and be acceptable. Society and attitudes need to change, and that means it will be a long process.
If you see too many obstacles or objections, how would you tackle the situation?
"To help keep things tranquil there are a few rules we need you to abide by in the quiet coach. Mobile phone calls and noise from electronic devices are strictly forbidden, and conversations must be conducted quietly, so everyone can escape distractions or enjoy a nap."
Are children allowed in the "Quiet Coach"? I'd happily pay more for a child-free airline.
You have just given an excellent snapshot of why the privately run trains which operate on publicly owned rail track should be in the public sector. If a train company refuses to provide adequate protection for its customers at no extra cost to the already overcharged customer then their franchise should be revoked.
It is not asking the earth for paying customers to be offered a service which protects them from some nasty pervert.
The opposition from so many might well be less if it was their wife or daughter or sister or mother who had to endure being groped or a lot worse because they paid to travel on a train.
That's all well and good in theory but I think you're seriously underestimating the cost of doing so. I mean what is your suggestion for making every train safe? A guard in every carriage? Many local services are already run at a lost to the train companies, I don't think you appreciate how low the margins are in these cases.
After some thought, I think I'm against the idea of women only carriages, however I'd be firmly in favour of scrapping 1st class carriages, both from a practical viewpoint (reducing overcrowding) and from a social standpoint (they promote division).
The Conservative minister responsible for the railyways. Claire Perry Under Secretary for Transport responsible for train franchises, rail infrastructure, rail safety, rail passenger services, etc. At the Conservative party conference talking about the railways.
There is a problem which exists and those measures you mention are not enough as is proven by the rise in attacks. BTW is it not the stance of most Tories to have driverless trains?
It would be likely that a staff member would still be on the train somewhere as with the DLR, however if not the call can go through to the control room / next station directly. The driver won't leave his car mid-way between stations to help a passenger anyway....
"To help keep things tranquil there are a few rules we need you to abide by in the quiet coach. Mobile phone calls and noise from electronic devices are strictly forbidden, and conversations must be conducted quietly, so everyone can escape distractions or enjoy a nap."
That has nothing to do with this proposed idea of Corbyn. Anyone can use the quiet carriages if they want to. This would by logic segregate on gender - something people cannot do much about!
So on a busy train, Men will be limited to where they can sit - purely due to their gender. Some would say that is discrimination.
The very fact he's considering it and opening the idea up to debate is enough for me to know he's a loon. It's one of the most knee-jerk nanny-state pointless ideas I've seen in a long time.
The idea was first mooted by a Tory minister last year.
That's all well and good in theory but I think you're seriously underestimating the cost of doing so. I mean what is your suggestion for making every train safe? A guard in every carriage? Many local services are already run at a lost to the train companies, I don't think you appreciate how low the margins are in these cases.
Thanks for a reasonable answer and you raise a valid point about costing.
As Corbyn is suggesting a discussion only at this stage then that would be the chance for all the various issues to be costed and thought through properly. I really do not get the level of nastiness from some towards what is just an idea to improve things for many. Much better to have a well thought out policy rather than some of the hasty I'll thought out projects that are imposed on us
Comments
All about money? Train companies are businesses. Businesses exist to make money. If they didn't want to make money they would be called charities.
How do you know they can absorb the costs?
I may be wrong but I suspect they would like all companies pass the cost on to their customers. Perhaps you can give us an example of where a company has just absorbed extra costs without passing them on to their customers.
From the interview though it sounds like Corbyn was just mentioning it as a possible idea that should be discussed, he wasn't 'advocating' it as a ultimate solution to the problem of sexual harassment. I don't think that anyone thinks that it can be solved by quick and easy changes.
Maybe a better idea would be to have a 'safe' carriage on every train that is continually monitored and has quick access to the police. Then anyone who feels threatened could simply move to that carriage. Just the idea of a safe carriage would probably put off potential abusers.
I cannot get my head this idea from a logistical point of view. So let's say we have segregated carriages - Does that mean we have need to have segregated First Class? How would it be enforced? What happens at rush hour?
Men are easy to engage with...it's boys who are the problem ;-)
A Tory that almost no one's ever heard of.
"Open to the possibility of", when someone else suggested it, falls a bit short of "thinking of doing".
Besides, Tories have or consider plenty of dubious ideas. That one of them and one of Corbyn's happen to be quite near each other in 'idea space' doesn't really say anything in favour of Corbyn's.
You have just given an excellent snapshot of why the privately run trains which operate on publicly owned rail track should be in the public sector. If a train company refuses to provide adequate protection for its customers at no extra cost to the already overcharged customer then their franchise should be revoked.
It is not asking the earth for paying customers to be offered a service which protects them from some nasty pervert.
The opposition from so many might well be less if it was their wife or daughter or sister or mother who had to endure being groped or a lot worse because they paid to travel on a train.
There are 'quiet cars' where you're not to talk on mobile phones; so those sorts of questions must have already been addressed.
Here's an example of what "quiet" can mean:
"To help keep things tranquil there are a few rules we need you to abide by in the quiet coach. Mobile phone calls and noise from electronic devices are strictly forbidden, and conversations must be conducted quietly, so everyone can escape distractions or enjoy a nap."
I missed out something in my earlier post that regulary happens; calling men boys.
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/636443648184438784/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
How about all the violent thefts on the streets, Should councils have guards on every street corner?
Where does this something must be done mentality end and reality begin?
Maybe if it was introduced at an early stage for all children, and maybe if society had better morals in the first place (and parents exercised proper control over their children), it could be done and be acceptable. Society and attitudes need to change, and that means it will be a long process.
If you see too many obstacles or objections, how would you tackle the situation?
Are children allowed in the "Quiet Coach"? I'd happily pay more for a child-free airline.
To be fair, judging from the reaction, most women seem to be opposed to the idea of women only carriages.
But since it's something Corbyn said he might consider looking into, it's a long way off being official policy.
That's all well and good in theory but I think you're seriously underestimating the cost of doing so. I mean what is your suggestion for making every train safe? A guard in every carriage? Many local services are already run at a lost to the train companies, I don't think you appreciate how low the margins are in these cases.
I suspect the notion of pink carriages is one that has an appeal more for Nick Boles than for many women.
Wonder how good his Hebrew is these days?
We used to have something quite similar where I live, they were called policemen.
Not any more though....
It would be likely that a staff member would still be on the train somewhere as with the DLR, however if not the call can go through to the control room / next station directly. The driver won't leave his car mid-way between stations to help a passenger anyway....
Anyone know, anyone care?
That has nothing to do with this proposed idea of Corbyn. Anyone can use the quiet carriages if they want to. This would by logic segregate on gender - something people cannot do much about!
So on a busy train, Men will be limited to where they can sit - purely due to their gender. Some would say that is discrimination.
The idea was first mooted by a Tory minister last year.
Thanks for a reasonable answer and you raise a valid point about costing.
As Corbyn is suggesting a discussion only at this stage then that would be the chance for all the various issues to be costed and thought through properly. I really do not get the level of nastiness from some towards what is just an idea to improve things for many. Much better to have a well thought out policy rather than some of the hasty I'll thought out projects that are imposed on us