Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Prior to the drinking ban on the tube, which one of these would you say ruined your life most?
people drinking on the tube never affected me.
music on buses, reason i always take the tube. It takes longer, but its better
as no one can hear it over the din.
buy headphones dipshits, your taste is heinous.
I didn't realise it was illegal to drink on National Express coaches too. I polished off a bottle of port on my way to a gig before I found that out.
illegal to drink on the road, I think.
Certainly it's illegal to drink on private coaches..
but not coaches, which are far shitter and take longer and benefit more from being half-cut.
who was drinking on the megabus. when the driver wouldnt stop the bus for him to piss, he pissed in a bag, which he then spilt everywhere.
crucial difference: toilets
I almost died needing a pish coming back from Alton Towers once. I felt like pish was going to go straight out of my ears. It hurt so much, kind of like having a hard on for too long.
idiots playing music really loudly can and does happen at ANY time on buses, day, night, you name it.
drinking on the tube, by and large, only happened i'd guess at between 6pm - midnight... at the weekend. with exceptions obviously. (this does not include drunk people, which is separate)
is my biggest pet hate in the world.
do they? A few unique cases and really uptight people aside
because you can hear it more clearly on a bus.
it's a problem on other forms of transport too.
but plenty of things have, and I'm not pro-banning them.
As for the discomfort, that I can see. But in much the same way banning drink on tubes probably won't have much effect on alcohol-related crime, I can't see enforcing a ban on music on buses will change much
"I can't see enforcing a ban on music on buses will change much"
If you enforce it, the music will stop..
that such a crack-down on music on buses was part of a more holistic plan to curb anti-scoial behaviour. I can't see this policy would address the problems that cause such behaviour.
Perhaps this presumption is incorrect
policy can't address the causes of it ... certainly not at London level
an irritating nuisance...
but maybe it's harder to legislate against.
unless you LOVE shitty R'n'B played through some tuinny speakers.
you do, don't you?
no matter what music it is?
Sure its annoying, but can you really ban something because of that? Alcohol consumption has links to crime, poor health, violence etc (not that I think banning its consumption on tubes will help any of these issues at all). Playing shit music that annoys people doesn't.
"Surely its a 'public disturbance' no matter what music it is?"
Of course it is. I'm still waiting for your rebuttal..
that playing loud music on public transport should be banned on the grounds that it is a public nuisance.
arguably much more so than the drink ban
be impossible to enforce. Difficult, given the scale, but not impossible.
in much the same way the alcohol ban is 'impossible' to enforce
because people just seem to follow that rule.
Who would 'enforce' this rule though? Can you see the sort of people who play music on buses just stopping?
People do occasionally flout the smoking rule on buses but it is occasional.
I guess maybe society is falling to pieces since the smoking ban came in so long ago people just follow it.
"Alcohol consumption has links to crime, poor health, violence etc" - what, on public transport?
In general noise pollution contributes to a lot of violence and agression. And on buses it does this too. I know people who've almost got into fights because they had the temerity to ask someone to shut their fucking phone music up.
The link you've made between music and crime/violence probably does exist, but you've based it on anecdotal evidence, whereas the links I referred to are proven.
I'm not against banning music at all, just amazed at how many detractors of the last ban think this is a good idea
so to put your case outside of it is silly.
And my point about noise pollution is entirely true outside of public transport where neighbour disputes are caused over and over by loud music/TVs/etc.
But we're talking about on public transport so bringing up the DANGERS OF ALCOHOL in a wider sense is a bit pointless, isn't it?
in fact I think music on buses already violates the conditions of carriage.
In this I include people who have headphones in but seem to be resistant to music unless it's played loud enough to hear outside them. TSH TSH TSH TSH DIE.
who was stood next to me on the tube, listening to a dance remix of the Dallas theme tune, and dancing along to it. it was amazing.
Clearly they don't have to because Sony are apparently capable of making decent ones freely available with their overpriced walkmen.
scrapped Ken's PR budget. He's handed it over in its virtual entirey in Inhouse PR, who ran his election campaign and is generally using it to give thank you gifts to people who helped him get elected.
i love this if that's true.
The man who said that, from day one, taxpayers in London would be able to see all of the details of City Hall spending has refused to reveal any information.
It is rumoured that he has given £500k to these two
the taxpayers should be able to see all details of city hall spending and that he is refusing to reveal info?
Boris told the Business + Administration committee that he did not expect the cost of his transition team (i.e Inhouse PR) to exceed £425,000 and then told an Evening Standard journalist it would be more like £460,000
I suspect we will never know..
if Boris kept his most fundamental election promise we'd know for certain?
Considering he has filled his team with the most corrupt amoral filth on earth, I wouldn't be surprised...
What about these people?
And the only person he has appointed who is sane is Nicholas Boles. Kit Malthouse and Simon Milton should be in prison for housing the homeless in asbestos ridden tower blocks in Westminster in the 1980s.
But now they run housing & crime policy for all of London!
It's really no wonder he refused to announce his team prior to polling day.
dig up the Hain stuff himself.
Do you agree with him over Spelman?
i have a mate who's a PCSO on the buses in Brent. he says that he feels powerless, and that even if they call for backup, a lot of the time they get ignored, as the police don't really give a shit about them.
and the kids all know this.
That's some major kick-ass bluejacking!
it'll just end up in stupid arguments which delay everyone. Loads of bus journeys I go on end up like this, and I can just see it increasing:
Bus driver to kid: hey, pay your fare/don't bring alcohol or food on/turn your music off/don't punch that guy
Kid: fuck you! [runs upstairs]
Bus driver: right, this bus isn't going anywhere til I get this kid off
everyone else: [groans]
Bus driver and kid fight. Bus driver calls police. Other people on the bus try and manhandle the kid off the bus. Police turn up. Tussle. Get the kid off the bus. 15 minutes later, bus sets off.
God, I hate London.
but actually, I haven't seen it happen anywhere else, although it probably does.
You could have a car in London.
But it's one of those 'He might be a nutter and knife me to death' situations. And they're usually in groups of about eight, and my voice will go squeaky and I'll sound less than manly and then they'll all laugh at me. Which is bad.
I was very drunk. He was an idiot. I thought I'd be a carriage hero, but I was greeted with silence and I think people were a bit scared of me and thought I was a nutter. There's a fine line.
I know I shouldn't be. But there is no way I'd tell a stranger off, I'm so freaked out by the guy who got stabbed by the chip throwing guy near my house :(
unless someone was actually doing something terrible though, rather than annoying, I'd be loath to say anything.
They DO all have fists and some of us aren't built like a brick shithouse. Or even a Japanese paper-walled shithouse.
they threatened to stab me. i told them not to be silly
who thought that Boris's plan to ban alcohol on tubes would be possible to enforce and wouldn't tackle the roots of the problems associated with alcohol consumption are pro banning music on buses?
in favour of the alcohol ban. What sort of uncivilised wretch drinks on public transport? etc etc
Both are aimed at reducing anti social behaviour and both would face the same issues when being enforced.
That's really the point. Drunk people are annoying when you're sober but that's not really connected.
Compared to how annoying tinny shitty music is whenever it is played on a bus. There's no comparison here.
Anti-social behaviour is, fairly often, in the eye of the beholder. Some people take exception to people drinking on public transport, deeming it inappropriate. Some people don't care. Some deranged people may like the music played on buses (it sounds ridiculous, but I've seen it happen).
There is a very definite comparison when it comes to the issue of enforcing such a ban and you'd have to be an idiot to not spot it.
Infact, in the course of this thread, you've repeatedly stated that people drinking aren't a threat and that people who play music are. How then do you enforce this ban? With PCSOs, largely regarded as being incapable of delaing with apparently benign drinkers?
It's unenforceable. But the question was which is the most important thing to ban, surely. You seem to be arguing that banning alcohol was a more obvious thing than annoying tinny radios, as if this were a more obvious threat to society.
YES, some people might find people with a can of Stella on the bus to be 'anti-social'. Most probably just look down on them.
But I think 100% of people would consider tinny music to be anti-social, not just 'distasteful'. We are talking the comparison here in terms of banning stuff.
I fucking hate listening to some twerp playing music out of their phone on a bus.
All I've really questioned is
a) the futility of such a policy and how it tackles the 'branch' as it were of a major problem rather than the 'root' (although JJ has pointed out little can be done about that, particularly at this level of government)
b) how easily such a ban could be enforced and
c) the meaning of the term 'anti-social behaviour'
Clearly, not 100% of people feel playing music on buses is 'distasteful' because some of them do it. And as for the comparisons to the alcohol ban and the perceived need for it; the question posed compares them and given current events, I think it is a legitimate comparison to make
I'd be for both bans if I could see that they would work and were part of a more holistic approach to anti-social behaviour
is anti-social behaviour, because some of them do it
they justify it to themselves
it's mob rule. If someone plays music on a bus, the other passengers have the legal right to kill them.
So it's totally different.
No one cared. They didn't attack anyone or anything.
Got any others?
I guess my point is that drinking alcohol on a bus is not necessarily remotely anti-social and nor does it make people angry in the main.
There's no way that playing tinny music on your phone isn't antisocial and isn't annoying.
and it starts up a good old sing-a-long?
"A long time ago, in a Galaxy far far away.."
but I'm gonna say the music anyway.
It's just bad manners. Particularly irritating when you're listening to your own music through EARPHONES, but you can still hear their shit r'n'b over it. It should be banned.
would it be fair in a sense to equate the loud playing of music to smoking?
i mean in the sense that even though someone is making the choice to do something themselves (play music/smoke) it is in fact irritating and directly affecting the people surrounding them?
the point with drinking is that someone just having a can of beer on the bus isn't directly harming or annoying the people surrounding them. the only time this could potentially happen is if this person were drunk - which is different. and doesn't necessarily mean that they have alcohol on their person.
"the only time this could potentially happen is if this person were drunk - which is different. and doesn't necessarily mean that they have alcohol on their person."
This is the issue I have with the alcohol ban. It doesn't actually stop drunken behaviour. For example, you could get ridiculously drunk before getting on the tube, have no alcohol left, and technically you're not breaking the no-alcohol law...
Obviously if you were being anti-social then that's ASBO territory, but my point still stands.
Better nuke the planet then.
"would it be fair in a sense to equate the loud playing of music to smoking?
i mean in the sense that even though someone is making the choice to do something themselves (play music/smoke) it is in fact irritating and directly affecting the people surrounding them?"
The most substantial difference is that people playing music isn't associated with increased harm to the health of others. Unless it's REALLY loud.
have 65 years completely free of twats playing music on buses or 70 years of non-stop bus music twattery? I know which one I'd choose.
it just means there are left-wing middle-aged men and women telling people their behaviour is totally unnacceptable.