Heh, what a waste.  Coming home on the train yesterday and had a look 
around, almost empty, three carriage local train, and noticed all carriages 
were defaced with graffitti.  Looked further and the carriages were actually 
very dirty.  Not just soiled and littered but ingrained, deep-seated dirt 
....... and these are mostly new (I believe) for last year carriages.

Makes you wonder what people get out of littering and graffitti, it's 
something I simply don't understand.  I've always been taught to bring 
anything that's waste home with me, whether it's an inconvenience for me to 
do so or not, so who litters?  who graffittis?  I always thought it was 
teenagers, but nope.  I observed a young mother casually feed her baby, then 
drop the yogurt pot to the floor, followed closely by the napkin that wiped 
her kids face.  She wasn't amused when I picked it up and gave it her back 
:)

I also saw an older chap drop a fag end, a couple of thirty-somthing 
'ladies' also smoking and dropping their fag ends.  They were complaining at 
the noise the drunken teenagers were making, which, I guess, could also ne 
called a kind of pollution, but at least the drunk teenagers took their 
empty cans with them in their Tesco plastic bag!  Not elegant or pleasant, 
but at least not anti-social enough to litter the place up for others to 
sniff at.

OK, so my Landrover isn't the height of elegance, but I don't have to wipe 
my boots off when I get out of it.

-- 
Dogpoop
http://www.glass-uk.org/
"You would probably do better not to bother with renewable
energy"  Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.

On 11 Jul, 07:26, "Dogpoop"  wrote:
> Heh, what a waste.  Coming home on the train yesterday and had a look
> around, almost empty, three carriage local train, and noticed all carriages
> were defaced with graffitti.  Looked further and the carriages were actually
> very dirty.  Not just soiled and littered but ingrained, deep-seated dirt
> ....... and these are mostly new (I believe) for last year carriages.
>
> Makes you wonder what people get out of littering and graffitti, it's
> something I simply don't understand.  I've always been taught to bring
> anything that's waste home with me, whether it's an inconvenience for me to
> do so or not, so who litters?  who graffittis?  I always thought it was
> teenagers, but nope.  I observed a young mother casually feed her baby, then
> drop the yogurt pot to the floor, followed closely by the napkin that wiped
> her kids face.  She wasn't amused when I picked it up and gave it her back
> :)
>
> I also saw an older chap drop a fag end, a couple of thirty-somthing
> 'ladies' also smoking and dropping their fag ends.  They were complaining at
> the noise the drunken teenagers were making, which, I guess, could also ne
> called a kind of pollution, but at least the drunk teenagers took their
> empty cans with them in their Tesco plastic bag!  Not elegant or pleasant,
> but at least not anti-social enough to litter the place up for others to
> sniff at.
>
> OK, so my Landrover isn't the height of elegance, but I don't have to wipe
> my boots off when I get out of it.
>
No, instead everyone else has to breathe your nasty pollution and put
up with your contribution to congestion and noise while desperately
hoping that you don't run into them at speed.

BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on, and
stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti artists
shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:

> BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
> hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on, and
> stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti artists
> shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.

So you'll be quite happy for some yobs to come along and cover your house 
with paint?

Doug wrote:
> On 11 Jul, 07:26, "Dogpoop"  wrote:
>> Heh, what a waste.  Coming home on the train yesterday and had a look
>> around, almost empty, three carriage local train, and noticed all carriages
>> were defaced with graffitti.  Looked further and the carriages were actually
>> very dirty.  Not just soiled and littered but ingrained, deep-seated dirt
>> ....... and these are mostly new (I believe) for last year carriages.
>>
>> Makes you wonder what people get out of littering and graffitti, it's
>> something I simply don't understand.  I've always been taught to bring
>> anything that's waste home with me, whether it's an inconvenience for me to
>> do so or not, so who litters?  who graffittis?  I always thought it was
>> teenagers, but nope.  I observed a young mother casually feed her baby, then
>> drop the yogurt pot to the floor, followed closely by the napkin that wiped
>> her kids face.  She wasn't amused when I picked it up and gave it her back
>> :)
>>
>> I also saw an older chap drop a fag end, a couple of thirty-somthing
>> 'ladies' also smoking and dropping their fag ends.  They were complaining at
>> the noise the drunken teenagers were making, which, I guess, could also ne
>> called a kind of pollution, but at least the drunk teenagers took their
>> empty cans with them in their Tesco plastic bag!  Not elegant or pleasant,
>> but at least not anti-social enough to litter the place up for others to
>> sniff at.
>>
>> OK, so my Landrover isn't the height of elegance, but I don't have to wipe
>> my boots off when I get out of it.
>>
> No, instead everyone else has to breathe your nasty pollution and put
> up with your contribution to congestion and noise while desperately
> hoping that you don't run into them at speed.

Wow, what a good comment on train graffiti.
> 
> BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
> hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on, and
> stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti artists
> shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.
> 

So you are still an antisocial idiot then.
But according to your 'logic' as corporations are allowed big cars then 
everybody should be allowed big cars.
Perhaps it would be different if  your bike & trailer was painted the 
same way.



> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
> 

And BTW, it has been mentioned before that some people will not use PT 
because of the dirty state of it, don't your feet hurt after shooting 
them so many times?
-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:cd692df0-2fa8-4b0d-8aad-0c746315832b@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...

> BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
> hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on, and
> stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti artists
> shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.

Advocating illegal activities again? Nothing new there, then.

The graffiti "artists" are quite free to rent advertising space and use it 
for their work, just as commercial organisations and advertisers do.

On 11 jul, 08:26, "Dogpoop"  wrote:
> Heh, what a waste.  Coming home on the train yesterday and had a look
> around, almost empty, three carriage local train, and noticed all carriages
> were defaced with graffitti.  Looked further and the carriages were actually
> very dirty.  Not just soiled and littered but ingrained, deep-seated dirt
> ....... and these are mostly new (I believe) for last year carriages.
>
> Makes you wonder what people get out of littering and graffitti, it's
> something I simply don't understand.  I've always been taught to bring
> anything that's waste home with me, whether it's an inconvenience for me to
> do so or not, so who litters?  who graffittis?  I always thought it was
> teenagers, but nope.  I observed a young mother casually feed her baby, then
> drop the yogurt pot to the floor, followed closely by the napkin that wiped
> her kids face.  She wasn't amused when I picked it up and gave it her back
> :)
>
> I also saw an older chap drop a fag end, a couple of thirty-somthing
> 'ladies' also smoking and dropping their fag ends.  They were complaining at
> the noise the drunken teenagers were making, which, I guess, could also ne
> called a kind of pollution, but at least the drunk teenagers took their
> empty cans with them in their Tesco plastic bag!  Not elegant or pleasant,
> but at least not anti-social enough to litter the place up for others to
> sniff at.

Just yesterday I was having the same discussion with a train lover on
UK.Railway, he will not accept that trains are filthy, talk about rose
tinted specs.
>
> OK, so my Landrover isn't the height of elegance, but I don't have to wipe
> my boots off when I get out of it.

Neither is mine but what crap there is in it is my crap (or more
precisly ér indoors's crap) and my choice to tolerate it or not.

NM

On 11 jul, 09:12, "Brimstone"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
> > hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on, and
> > stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti artists
> > shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.
>
> So you'll be quite happy for some yobs to come along and cover your house
> with paint?

'taint his house it's the councils.

NM wrote:

> Just yesterday I was having the same discussion with a train lover on
> UK.Railway, he will not accept that trains are filthy, talk about rose
> tinted specs.

I was up until recently doing some work up in Newcastle, which involved 
a train journey of about an hour; a bit less than taking the car but 
cheaper when you factored in the parking charges. So I took the train.

The trains on that service are a disgrace. The OP is right about the 
ingrained dirt but the state of disrepair of the carriages was very 
noteable.

On a lot of them the fold down seats did not operate; not a problem for 
most but at 6'2" I prefer to sit on the seats facing into the carriage 
rather than along, as I struggle to get my legs in comfortably due to 
the number of the seats.

But there were bigger problems a lot of the time. For example, the door 
on one train were so fucked they made a loud banging noise as the train 
rattled along, and you could see them opening and closing as they did 
so. Another time the driver had to stop the train, get out and check 
something at the front of the train. Maybe we hit something which caused 
damage, maybe something fell off. I also experienced problems with the 
exhaust silencer (diesel train), which resulted in noise levels inside 
the carriage which were so high that ear defenders would be required if 
it were happening in e.g. a factory.

-- 
Abo

Abo wrote:
> NM wrote:
>
>> Just yesterday I was having the same discussion with a train lover on
>> UK.Railway, he will not accept that trains are filthy, talk about
>> rose tinted specs.
>
> I was up until recently doing some work up in Newcastle, which
> involved a train journey of about an hour; a bit less than taking the
> car but cheaper when you factored in the parking charges. So I took
> the train.
> The trains on that service are a disgrace. The OP is right about the
> ingrained dirt but the state of disrepair of the carriages was very
> noteable.
>
> On a lot of them the fold down seats did not operate; not a problem
> for most but at 6'2" I prefer to sit on the seats facing into the
> carriage rather than along, as I struggle to get my legs in
> comfortably due to the number of the seats.
>
> But there were bigger problems a lot of the time. For example, the
> door on one train were so fucked they made a loud banging noise as
> the train rattled along, and you could see them opening and closing
> as they did so. Another time the driver had to stop the train, get
> out and check something at the front of the train. Maybe we hit
> something which caused damage, maybe something fell off. I also
> experienced problems with the exhaust silencer (diesel train), which
> resulted in noise levels inside the carriage which were so high that
> ear defenders would be required if it were happening in e.g. a
> factory.

Such are the features of handing the railway over to people whose motivation 
is profit. Please note, I'm not equating features with benefits. As Abo's 
tale indicates, they're very different.

"Brimstone"  wrote in message news:M-
>
> Such are the features of handing the railway over to people whose 
> motivation is profit. Please note, I'm not equating features with 
> benefits. As Abo's tale indicates, they're very different.
Sorry to blow your streed cred Brimy but I agree with you :-)

All things being equal  (and that takes a big  "give") then it stands to 
reason that a nationalised industry IF run properly and not for the sake of 
the unions or any other faction  (for example) can be run more efficiently 
and economically.

Its bonkers to see on some stations one companies staff deal with a train on 
one platform and another companys staff deal with the other platform  (and 
their bosses tell them NOT to help other companies customers - down to 
customer satisfaction league tables  I guess)

A public company has to run at a profit (in the longer term) its easy to 
re-employ staff at lower wages,lower benefits, no pensions aand fewer staff 
working fewer hours whilst the Gov. still hands over huge bundles of dosh - 
I don't know of any company that gets into running what was  a state run 
organisation without aiming for around a 25% ROC  PA (hospitals included)
Some may think there's nothing wrong in that - I'm not against 
entrepreneurship but lets be honest - unlike proper business there is no 
risk, no downside

Brimstone wrote:
> Abo wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>
>>> Just yesterday I was having the same discussion with a train lover on
>>> UK.Railway, he will not accept that trains are filthy, talk about
>>> rose tinted specs.
>> I was up until recently doing some work up in Newcastle, which
>> involved a train journey of about an hour; a bit less than taking the
>> car but cheaper when you factored in the parking charges. So I took
>> the train.
>> The trains on that service are a disgrace. The OP is right about the
>> ingrained dirt but the state of disrepair of the carriages was very
>> noteable.
>>
>> On a lot of them the fold down seats did not operate; not a problem
>> for most but at 6'2" I prefer to sit on the seats facing into the
>> carriage rather than along, as I struggle to get my legs in
>> comfortably due to the number of the seats.
>>
>> But there were bigger problems a lot of the time. For example, the
>> door on one train were so fucked they made a loud banging noise as
>> the train rattled along, and you could see them opening and closing
>> as they did so. Another time the driver had to stop the train, get
>> out and check something at the front of the train. Maybe we hit
>> something which caused damage, maybe something fell off. I also
>> experienced problems with the exhaust silencer (diesel train), which
>> resulted in noise levels inside the carriage which were so high that
>> ear defenders would be required if it were happening in e.g. a
>> factory.
> 
> Such are the features of handing the railway over to people whose motivation 
> is profit. Please note, I'm not equating features with benefits. As Abo's 
> tale indicates, they're very different. 
> 
> 
Even when the motive wasn't "profit" it was still a crap railway system.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Abo wrote:
>>> NM wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just yesterday I was having the same discussion with a train lover
>>>> on UK.Railway, he will not accept that trains are filthy, talk
>>>> about rose tinted specs.
>>> I was up until recently doing some work up in Newcastle, which
>>> involved a train journey of about an hour; a bit less than taking
>>> the car but cheaper when you factored in the parking charges. So I
>>> took the train.
>>> The trains on that service are a disgrace. The OP is right about the
>>> ingrained dirt but the state of disrepair of the carriages was very
>>> noteable.
>>>
>>> On a lot of them the fold down seats did not operate; not a problem
>>> for most but at 6'2" I prefer to sit on the seats facing into the
>>> carriage rather than along, as I struggle to get my legs in
>>> comfortably due to the number of the seats.
>>>
>>> But there were bigger problems a lot of the time. For example, the
>>> door on one train were so fucked they made a loud banging noise as
>>> the train rattled along, and you could see them opening and closing
>>> as they did so. Another time the driver had to stop the train, get
>>> out and check something at the front of the train. Maybe we hit
>>> something which caused damage, maybe something fell off. I also
>>> experienced problems with the exhaust silencer (diesel train), which
>>> resulted in noise levels inside the carriage which were so high that
>>> ear defenders would be required if it were happening in e.g. a
>>> factory.
>>
>> Such are the features of handing the railway over to people whose
>> motivation is profit. Please note, I'm not equating features with
>> benefits. As Abo's tale indicates, they're very different.
>>
>>
> Even when the motive wasn't "profit" it was still a crap railway
> system.

I agree it could have been better, but new trains weren't dirty in the 
manner described.

Brimstone wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Abo wrote:
>>>> NM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just yesterday I was having the same discussion with a train lover
>>>>> on UK.Railway, he will not accept that trains are filthy, talk
>>>>> about rose tinted specs.
>>>> I was up until recently doing some work up in Newcastle, which
>>>> involved a train journey of about an hour; a bit less than taking
>>>> the car but cheaper when you factored in the parking charges. So I
>>>> took the train.
>>>> The trains on that service are a disgrace. The OP is right about the
>>>> ingrained dirt but the state of disrepair of the carriages was very
>>>> noteable.
>>>>
>>>> On a lot of them the fold down seats did not operate; not a problem
>>>> for most but at 6'2" I prefer to sit on the seats facing into the
>>>> carriage rather than along, as I struggle to get my legs in
>>>> comfortably due to the number of the seats.
>>>>
>>>> But there were bigger problems a lot of the time. For example, the
>>>> door on one train were so fucked they made a loud banging noise as
>>>> the train rattled along, and you could see them opening and closing
>>>> as they did so. Another time the driver had to stop the train, get
>>>> out and check something at the front of the train. Maybe we hit
>>>> something which caused damage, maybe something fell off. I also
>>>> experienced problems with the exhaust silencer (diesel train), which
>>>> resulted in noise levels inside the carriage which were so high that
>>>> ear defenders would be required if it were happening in e.g. a
>>>> factory.
>>> Such are the features of handing the railway over to people whose
>>> motivation is profit. Please note, I'm not equating features with
>>> benefits. As Abo's tale indicates, they're very different.
>>>
>>>
>> Even when the motive wasn't "profit" it was still a crap railway
>> system.
> 
> I agree it could have been better, but new trains weren't dirty in the 
> manner described. 
> 
> 

Being new it would be surprising if they *were* dirty.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

NM wrote:
>
> Just yesterday I was having the same discussion with a train lover on
> UK.Railway, he will not accept that trains are filthy, talk about rose
> tinted specs.

It varies by area. When I moved from N London to S London, I was shocked by 
the state of the trains there.

Doug  typed:
> I see no reason why graffiti artists
> shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.

Good grief.

-- 
Dogpoop
http://www.glass-uk.org/
"You would probably do better not to bother with renewable
energy"  Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.

On 11 Jul, 08:40, "Graculus" 
wrote:
> "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> news:cd692df0-2fa8-4b0d-8aad-0c746315832b@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
> > hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on, and
> > stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti artists
> > shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.
>
> Advocating illegal activities again? Nothing new there, then.
>
> The graffiti "artists" are quite free to rent advertising space and use it
> for their work, just as commercial organisations and advertisers do.

Most of them couldn't afford to and don't have the clout of
corporations, except Banksy perhaps, whose graffiti, aka street art,
is welcomed anyway cos its worth thousands.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

"Doug"  wrote


Banksy perhaps, whose graffiti, aka street art,
> is welcomed anyway cos its worth thousands.




A piece of dogshit is worth thousands if two people agree it is.


-- 
Regards, Vince.

Long Distance Diary 30th May 2008-  Switzerland

http://trucknetuk.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=32454

Doug wrote:
> On 11 Jul, 08:40, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:cd692df0-2fa8-4b0d-8aad-0c746315832b@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
>>> hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on,
>>> and stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti
>>> artists shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.
>>
>> Advocating illegal activities again? Nothing new there, then.
>>
>> The graffiti "artists" are quite free to rent advertising space and
>> use it for their work, just as commercial organisations and
>> advertisers do.
>
> Most of them couldn't afford to and don't have the clout of
> corporations, except Banksy perhaps, whose graffiti, aka street art,
> is welcomed anyway cos its worth thousands.

So just because they too idle to get a job and pay for some space to scrawl 
their meaningless scribbles it's OK for them to wreck other people's 
property?

On 12 Jul, 07:05, Doug  wrote:
> On 11 Jul, 08:40, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>
> > "Doug"  wrote in message
>
> >news:cd692df0-2fa8-4b0d-8aad-0c746315832b@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > BTW, while corporate advertisers are allowed to erect their odious
> > > hoardings all over the place, particularly the ones with cars on, and
> > > stick their adverts on trains I see no reason why graffiti artists
> > > shouldn't be allowed to do something similar.
>
> > Advocating illegal activities again? Nothing new there, then.
>
> > The graffiti "artists" are quite free to rent advertising space and use it
> > for their work, just as commercial organisations and advertisers do.
>
> Most of them couldn't afford to and don't have the clout of
> corporations,

Interesting logic.  I would like to own a Patek Phillipe watch, but
cannot afford to.  However, there is one in a jewellers store near
me.  Would it be OK for me to go and hoy a brick through the window
and just take it?

"BrianW"  wrote in message 
news:b752d5f2-e27f-4860-9516->
> Interesting logic.  I would like to own a Patek Phillipe watch, but
> cannot afford to.  However, there is one in a jewellers store near
> me.  Would it be OK for me to go and hoy a brick through the window
> and just take it?

What's a "hoy"?

I'd have said you're more of a Rollexx man ;-)

On Jul 14, 8:17 am, "Tommy"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:b752d5f2-e27f-4860-9516->
>
> > Interesting logic.  I would like to own a Patek Phillipe watch, but
> > cannot afford to.  However, there is one in a jewellers store near
> > me.  Would it be OK for me to go and hoy a brick through the window
> > and just take it?
>
> What's a "hoy"?
>
> I'd have said you're more of a Rollexx man ;-)

Brian was not using the word 'hoy' (sic) as a noun, therefor you can
not ask "What's a hoy?"

Doug

On 14 Jul, 08:17, "Tommy"  wrote:
> "BrianW"  wrote in message
>
> news:b752d5f2-e27f-4860-9516->
>
> > Interesting logic.  I would like to own a Patek Phillipe watch, but
> > cannot afford to.  However, there is one in a jewellers store near
> > me.  Would it be OK for me to go and hoy a brick through the window
> > and just take it?
>
> What's a "hoy"?

It's a verb, not a noun.  Still, I'm sure the distinction is lost on
the retard who wrote: "BUT The you are fuxxin dangerous little angry
manwho does not like "discussion" but threatning and killing people
who do not agree with your POV"