No Southern Trains Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday

[Diego Napier]

if my Mrs is.travelling home from London at.11.o clock at night I want a bloody guard on the train

Unfortunately life isn't fair and can't always be completely equal , you're foolish to assume it can .

You've answered yourself, it's OK to discriminate against a more vulnerable sector of society.

 

[alfredmizen]

You've answered yourself, it's OK to discriminate against a more vulnerable sector of society.

It's not discrimination at all , would denying a wheelchair bound person a place on a team climbing everest be discrimination? No of course it wouldn't , disabled people should be helped wherever possible, unfortunately it's not always the case, quite how you've managed to link that with having guards on trains I don't know.

 

[Diego Napier]

It's not discrimination at all , would denying a wheelchair bound person a place on a team climbing everest be discrimination? No of course it wouldn't , disabled people should be helped wherever possible, unfortunately it's not always the case, quite how you've managed to link that with having guards on trains I don't know.

If you can equate accommodating a non ambulant on a climb of the world's highest mountain with the need to ensure women are safe on public transport then I'm not at all surprised you cannot see the link.

 

[alfredmizen]

If you can equate accommodating a non ambulant on a climb of the world's highest mountain with the need to ensure women are safe on public transport then I'm not at all surprised you cannot see the link.

I didn't, you did.

 

[beorhthelm]

i've never understood why women would feel safer on a train because a guard is present upto 8(or 12) carriages away. in my direct experience they cant be relied on to intervene, instead report it, then stay out of the way for other passengers to intervene. im sure that wouldnt apply to all guards of course.

on the disability matter, its apparent from lack of disabled access at many stations that the rail network is not currently a mandatory requirement. for example, Wivelsfield that bizarrely only seems to have disabled access southbound, and many stations in south London are elevated with no lifts.

 

[Simster]

i've never understood why women would feel safer on a train because a guard is present upto 8(or 12) carriages away. in my direct experience they cant be relied on to intervene, instead report it, then stay out of the way for other passengers to intervene. im sure that wouldnt apply to all guards of course.

This comment beggars belief.

 

[studio150]

RMT leader banned from to-days talks according to the Union.

This is going to end well

 

[alfredmizen]

i've never understood why women would feel safer on a train because a guard is present upto 8(or 12) carriages away. in my direct experience they cant be relied on to intervene, instead report it, then stay out of the way for other passengers to intervene. im sure that wouldnt apply to all guards of course.

on the disability matter, its apparent from lack of disabled access at many stations that the rail network is not currently a mandatory requirement. for example, Wivelsfield that bizarrely only seems to have disabled access southbound, and many stations in south London are elevated with no lifts.

So if a.woman presses the alarm , the guard knows which carriage.to go to assist.etc., you can't understand how a woman would feel safer than just having a driver who would have to continue on to the next station before stopping , ensuring the train is made.safe.etc , then locating the carriage where the woman/alarm is ?

 

[beorhthelm]

So if a.woman presses the alarm , the guard knows which carriage.to go to assist.etc.

fair point, i suppose i hadnt consider that, as i was thinking more situations were you couldnt get to an alarm. i would think being in a busy carriage would be better for sense of safety over all.

 

[BBassic]

I'm at a gig in London on Friday. Decided to take the day off work and go up and back via National Express. That way I only have to worry about getting across London on the tube.

Bloody trains.

 

[1066familyman]

Unfortunately life isn't fair and can't always be completely equal , you're foolish to assume it can .

I didn't say life is fair and should always be completely equal.

I also don't want the National Trust to concrete over Snowdonia so we can all get up and down it.

But thankfully we do have disability anti discrimination laws, and it really should be a given in this country in this day and age that a wheelchair user should be able to use the trains in the same way as anyone else without having to book 24 hours ahead first.

 

[pearl]

i've never understood why women would feel safer on a train because a guard is present upto 8(or 12) carriages away. in my direct experience they cant be relied on to intervene, instead report it, then stay out of the way for other passengers to intervene. im sure that wouldnt apply to all guards of course.

on the disability matter, its apparent from lack of disabled access at many stations that the rail network is not currently a mandatory requirement. for example, Wivelsfield that bizarrely only seems to have disabled access southbound, and many stations in south London are elevated with no lifts.

imho it's more to do with certain other people knowing there is a guard .... or more importantly not, if Southern get their way

 

[Lower West Stander]

Only partially....he was posturing and I called him out.

Way above my intellectual capacity. I'm utterly humbled by the sheer strength and firepower of your verbiage

 

[Diego Napier]

I didn't, you did.

Let's guide you through an audit trail of your confusion. You posted:

if my Mrs is.travelling home from London at.11.o clock at night I want a bloody guard on the train

Implying your wife is part of a vulnerable sector of society (women) who would be discriminated against if placed in a position of fear by the train company by not providing a guard. You were quite outspoken about your demands.

Unfortunately life isn't fair and can't always be completely equal , you're foolish to assume it can .

You then adopt a totally different tone about the potential predicament of the disabled, another vulnerable sector of society. Contradictory or what? Both your wife and a disabled person would be discriminated against, one being placed in fear the other being denied the rights of an able bodied person.

Yoda then posted:

Which is then discrimination and there are laws against that

Pointing out that it is discriminatory to deny access to the disabled. To which you replied:

No its not, its.reality.

So you can't seem to comprehend that both situations are discrimination. Is it because you have no personal connection or empathy with a disabled person whereas you do with your wife?

And then you went on to post:

It's not discrimination at all , would denying a wheelchair bound person a place on a team climbing everest be discrimination? No of course it wouldn't , disabled people should be helped wherever possible, unfortunately it's not always the case, quite how you've managed to link that with having guards on trains I don't know.

So you introduced an extreme scenario at the top of the world, presumably in an attempt to justify your laissez faire attitude to the disabled. It's obvious that when anti-discrimination laws were introduced there would always be exceptions. So it is that a disabled person may be able to board a train unassisted or a boxing champion may feel totally safe when she travels on a train without a guard late at night however, your climbing Everest conjecture is patently off the scale. I know you have a problem with discrimination but the exceptions to the rule don't obviate the need to ensure that the vulnerable are empowered rather than being disadvantaged. It's what a decent society does.

 

[alfredmizen]

Let's guide you through an audit trail of your confusion. You posted:



Implying your wife is part of a vulnerable sector of society (women) who would be discriminated against if placed in a position of fear by the train company by not providing a guard. You were quite outspoken about your demands.



You then adopt a totally different tone about the potential predicament of the disabled, another vulnerable sector of society. Contradictory or what? Both your wife and a disabled person would be discriminated against, one being placed in fear the other being denied the rights of an able bodied person.

Yoda then posted:



Pointing out that it is discriminatory to deny access to the disabled. To which you replied:



So you can't seem to comprehend that both situations are discrimination. Is it because you have no personal connection or empathy with a disabled person whereas you do with your wife?

And then you went on to post:



So you introduced an extreme scenario at the top of the world, presumably in an attempt to justify your laissez faire attitude to the disabled. It's obvious that when anti-discrimination laws were introduced there would always be exceptions. So it is that a disabled person may be able to board a train unassisted or a boxing champion may feel totally safe when she travels on a train without a guard late at night however, your climbing Everest conjecture is patently off the scale. I know you have a problem with discrimination but the exceptions to the rule don't obviate the need to ensure that the vulnerable are empowered rather than being disadvantaged. It's what a decent society does.

You can attempt to "guide me through an audit trail " all you like, in reality you're waffling and attempting to introduce a totally new meaning to the word discrimination, apart from the fact it's the platform staff , not the guard who assist the disabled passengers on and off the train , in you're pink fluffy world all things would be available to all people , unfortunately we live in the real one.

 

[1066familyman]

You can attempt to "guide me through an audit trail " all you like, in reality you're waffling and attempting to introduce a totally new meaning to the word discrimination, apart from the fact it's the platform staff , not the guard who assist the disabled passengers on and off the train , in you're pink fluffy world all things would be available to all people , unfortunately we live in the real one.

And there's platform staff at every station is there?

You know full well guards assist disabled passengers on and off the train as well as part of their duties.

 

[Beach Hut]

RMT leader banned from to-days talks according to the Union.

This is going to end well

Quite right as well Mr Cash has sold his members down the line already and nothing to do with ASLEF

 

[Diego Napier]

You can attempt to "guide me through an audit trail " all you like, in reality you're waffling and attempting to introduce a totally new meaning to the word discrimination, apart from the fact it's the platform staff , not the guard who assist the disabled passengers on and off the train , in you're pink fluffy world all things would be available to all people , unfortunately we live in the real one.

I fully understand why you have such difficulty with the concept of discrimination as I do your recourse to dismissing my post as "waffling" rather than attempting at least the semblance a credible response.

 

[alfredmizen]

I fully understand why you have such difficulty with the concept of discrimination as I do your recourse to dismissing my post as "waffling" rather than attempting at least the semblance a credible response.

I don't have difficulty with the concept of discrimination, I have difficulty with your ridiculous interpretation of it

 

[Bry Nylon]

In the interests of Bozza's hosting fees for NSC, maybe we should just have threads when Southern ARE running trains?