Whereas I support a union's right to strike (though agree that it sometimes feels like the RMT *does* strike willy-nilly!), but to complain about alcohol being banned on the Tube is ridiculous.
When smoking was banned I distinctly remember witnessing at least 2 very antagonistic cigarette wielding men who felt it was their right to smoke underground. Yep, that kind of thing happens. Soon though everyone will get the picture and follow the rules.
As a woman, I support *anything* that makes the tube safer for me to ride on my own. The unpredictable behaviour of stinking drunk young men doesn't happen often, but when it does it's very frightening.
"The unpredictable behaviour of stinking drunk young men doesn't happen often, but when it does it's very frightening."
please explain how banning drink *on* the Tube will change this?
Interesting comment by Bob Crow about never entering into a no-strike agreement. It's my impression that Boris isn't planning on leaving them with much choice on the matter.
And as with most other things, Bob Crow is good at saying "That's a ridiculous idea!" but isn't very good as proposing alternatives. It's all a bit typical really.
Oh, and I don't think you need to be a woman specifically to support the Tube being safer, I think it's more a civilised human thing than a desire motivated by one's gender. I'm a man who has felt intimidated many times by groups of drunken youths on the Tube (I live in East London) and some of them were men, some were women, and some were mixed groups. It's not a gender-specific thing.
Again - how does banning drinking on the tube help? Drunk people on the tube are 99% of the time not drinking anyway, they are going out or comming home, plus your odd all day nutter.
LU staff will now be required to ask people to leave, escort them out of the station and deal with the abuse. They can then call the BTP, who'll show up a few hours later when it's all over. Meanwhile we're all delayed.
Drunken violence is banned on the tube (and everywhere) and yet this is unenforcable. I fail to understand how diverting resources away from this, and onto escorting can wealding reverlers to street level (where they will no doubt down there drinks and come back one, more intoxicated and more troublesome than before).
There are insufficent staff (out of peak times) or BTP officers to enforce order on the underground - that is the problem, not drinking.
As for no strike agreement, it's not Boris who has the power to not offer the RMT any alternative, quite the opposite. The RMT will strike to protect their right to strike, it's a shame that they abuse that right on occasion but there is not actualy anything that we can do legaly to prevent them from doing so.
John F - James is absolutely right on the no strike agreement. Boris cannot force a no strike agreement onto the RMT without them giving consent. Such an agreement has to entered into by both parties voluntarily. Furthermore even if Boris were able to get the RMT to agree to such an agreement (which I seriously doubt - if Ken couldn't do it, Boris doesn't stand a chance) they are generally not legally binding and do not stop strikes from happening.
I think it's outrageous any public service has the right to strike. It is a fact, most hardworking people in this country not in the public sector or professions protected by a strong union do not have this right nor have ever been granted it.
Most of us would lose our jobs if we took that kind of action!
The sooner we stop seeing striking as a 'right' the better. How about the government strives to enforce a better living wage in London for everyone and values its most precious public sector workers? Perhaps then the issue of striking would not raise its ugly head.
James comments are interesting to read because they seem so universally negative. But maybe he has a closer read than I.
Imho any reasonable person should be able to see a slight ASB improvement if public imbibery is prevented. And a train operator behind a secure door viewing onboard CCTV's of ASB in progress is certainly in a better position to do things that protect the environment of other passengers. Including using the bully pulpit of a PA system. But if he or she is too timid to do so, even though protected from direct assault by a locked door, I say they don't very much want the job, anyway. Public conveyance vehicle operators in my locale get extremely protective of their passengers, so this whole RMT not able to do much thing doesn't make much sense to me. But maybe its just a culture thing. We Yanks do tend to be cowboys, after all. 
And his comments about drunken violence being unenforceable merely speaks to the poor quality of law enforcement in the city. I doubt most bobbies share his view, though I could be wrong. Where I live "unenforceable" does not exist, (except for local traffic laws). Maybe London has too many traffic bulls and not enough BTP staff.
There are ways unions have given up their "right-to-strike", but it must be a negotiated thing, or else by enactment of Parliament. Bob Crow does indeed find much fault and offers too few suggestions, imho, but the train operators are probably stuck with him forever and ever, they way they talk about him. Sad.
The violent attack on the young woman at 6:30PM puzzles me. I would have thought that car would be crowded at that hour, but maybe I'm wrong - again.
49erDweet - the violent attack on the young woman was at 8.30pm although with only 2 hours difference I'm being pendantic & splitting hairs.
If you read London's news you may have read that a BBC journalist had witnessed the verbal abuse of a young woman on a Tube carriage by a drunk in a full carriage and he did nothing much about it (or at least only did after plucking up the courage) and felt ashamed that he did nothing about it (or didn't until the woman was already very harrassed). Such is the unspoken Tube etiquette or the Brits reserve that it's sometimes very hard to take a stand against something that even if it isn't illegal is unpleasant and means that you think you might get attacked for speaking up.
The only time I was verbally abused in a Tube carriage was by a drunk. But he was drunk on boarding the train. He didn't have a drink on him. I stared him out even though inside I was trembling and I thought the rest of the carriage were a bunch of fooking cowards for actively moving carriages and leaving me alone to face this guy.
I have no idea how we can improve people's behaviour in these instances, but taking away everyone's ability to have a drink on a Tube carriage isn't going to help.
I agree with you that we do not have enough BTP on carriages. As much as I don't like vigilantism I felt much safer on the Tube when we had the US styled Guardian Angels on the Tube.
I've said enough but the right to strike is a right. It's a legal right and I've never worked for an industry that was unionised. If I did however, I would fight tooth & nail to keep that right to strike and if Boris thinks he can stop the RMT from striking he's seriously more stupid that I initially thought he was.
Bob Crow IMO uses bully boy tactics to force more people to join his union than the alternative railway unions but nonetheless whether the staff belong to the RMT, ASLEF, TSSA or UNITE they feel that they must belong to one or the other in order to protect themselves from the private sector, low wages, workplace racism, sexism or whatever. Once you take away that right you may as well live in a police state or a state controlled by the extreme right or the extreme left.
49erDweet
Drivers (at least on my line) are not really protected by a locked door - remove a flimsy piece of plastic and anyone can turn the handle and open it at any time.
We have onboard CCTV - out of reach from the driver's seat and generally of very low quality or not functioning at all. The reality is that the most vigilant of us have little idea what's going on in any of the carriages except the front one to a certain extent. There are passenger emergency alarms with 'talkback' capability throughout the train and if we become aware of a problem we will do whatever we can. But to imply that we're not protective of our passengers? I think that's unfair.
Anyway, it is of course mainly station staff who would end up bearing the brunt of any attempt to enforce this. James is absolutely right.
No driver on the underground has a locked door - that's also the emergency exit.
People get killed intervening in ASB. Not many people, but enough to scare everyone. That is the situation we have - people do not feel safe to ask people to respect the rules and laws.
It's not my read of the situation that these deaths and ASB are caused by alcohol. Even if they were the alcohol is drunk long before getting on the train.
It's not that I can't see why people would support a ban, but I can see it diverting resources from the real problem as well as 'criminalising' people who have never caused a problem but quite like to have a drink on the way out (as a student I did this all the time so I can sympathise - london bar prices!).
Thanks for the clarifications and comments. I sit corrected, and more humble than normal. When I rode the tube I studied the drivers doors and thought they were secured, so that's one on me.
The neat thing about being an ancient Yank riding the tube was that I could smile at other people, make eye contact and get away with it because I was so obviously a foreigner. Delicious fun.
Cheers
Most of us simply ignored the rantings of class bigot Crow. Like most socialists, he inherited his unjustified hatred of the law-abiding classes from his bigoted parents and friends. I'd love to know when the full set of morals/discrimination laws are going to come in? So the constructive elements in society are given protection, rather than the destructive/criminal sections of society? Anyone know?
Commenting by HaloScan.com
