NationStates

The Blaatschapen wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fuck off with that shit. I quite often have meals on the bus and trains to and from work, as sometimes it's the only free time between things that I have.

And most of the buses and trains I am on have zero children sat anywhere near me, with no children on them at all depending on the time of day, so how is my eating affecting the behaviour of nonexistent children?

If, if, this ever happens, I am going to carry on eating and drinking on public transport regardless.

And if you don't pay the fine, then you will even get served

The New California Republic wrote:

Snacking should be banned on public transport and extra taxes placed on unhealthy foods to tackle child obesity, England's outgoing chief medical officer says.

This is squarely aimed at children on the way to and from school and so will only apply on local transport - trains, buses, trams and metro networks.

The ban will also apply to adults - she wants them to model good behaviour to children.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49975720

Fuck off with that shit. I quite often have meals on the bus and trains to and from work, as sometimes it's the only free time between things that I have.

And most of the buses and trains I am on have zero children sat anywhere near me, with no children on them at all depending on the time of day, so how is my eating affecting the behaviour of nonexistent children?

If, if, this ever happens, I am going to carry on eating and drinking on public transport regardless.

The New California Republic wrote:

Snacking should be banned on public transport and extra taxes placed on unhealthy foods to tackle child obesity, England's outgoing chief medical officer says.

This is squarely aimed at children on the way to and from school and so will only apply on local transport - trains, buses, trams and metro networks.

The ban will also apply to adults - she wants them to model good behaviour to children.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49975720

Fuck off with that shit. I quite often have meals on the bus and trains to and from work, as sometimes it's the only free time between things that I have.

And most of the buses and trains I am on have zero children sat anywhere near me, with no children on them at all depending on the time of day, so how is my eating affecting the behaviour of nonexistent children?

If, if, this ever happens, I am going to carry on eating and drinking on public transport regardless.

Salandriagado wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fuck off with that shit. I quite often have meals on the bus and trains to and from work, as sometimes it's the only free time between things that I have.

And most of the buses and trains I am on have zero children sat anywhere near me, with no children on them at all depending on the time of day, so how is my eating affecting the behaviour of nonexistent children?

If, if, this ever happens, I am going to carry on eating and drinking on public transport regardless.

So what the fuck am I supposed to do on a 14 hour train journey? Somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 fatal ones, plus about half a million non-fatal ones.

Salandriagado wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fuck off with that shit. I quite often have meals on the bus and trains to and from work, as sometimes it's the only free time between things that I have.

And most of the buses and trains I am on have zero children sat anywhere near me, with no children on them at all depending on the time of day, so how is my eating affecting the behaviour of nonexistent children?

If, if, this ever happens, I am going to carry on eating and drinking on public transport regardless.

So what the fuck am I supposed to do on a 14 hour train journey? Somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 fatal ones, plus about half a million non-fatal ones.

Salandriagado wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fuck off with that shit. I quite often have meals on the bus and trains to and from work, as sometimes it's the only free time between things that I have.

And most of the buses and trains I am on have zero children sat anywhere near me, with no children on them at all depending on the time of day, so how is my eating affecting the behaviour of nonexistent children?

If, if, this ever happens, I am going to carry on eating and drinking on public transport regardless.

So what the fuck am I supposed to do on a 14 hour train journey? Somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 fatal ones, plus about half a million non-fatal ones.

This is squarely aimed at children on the way to and from school and so will only apply on local transport - trains, buses, trams and metro networks.

Inter-city trains with buffet cars will not be covered, the CMO said.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
So what the fuck am I supposed to do on a 14 hour train journey? Somewhere between 25,000 and 35,000 fatal ones, plus about half a million non-fatal ones.

This is squarely aimed at children on the way to and from school and so will only apply on local transport - trains, buses, trams and metro networks.

Inter-city trains with buffet cars will not be covered, the CMO said.

The New California Republic wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:

There are many inter-city trains/buses without buffet cars where the journey can still take several hours...

Fartsniffage wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It's not racism that software developers didn't think to find dark skinned people to test their facial recognition software with? It's not racism that they didn't even have a black colleague try it out? I dunno, man.

It also doesn't work with very light skinned people. Facial recognition software just doesn't work well if there isn't much contrast in the face. It's the B8 problem of the 21st century.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:There are many inter-city trains/buses without buffet cars where the journey can still take several hours...

And they won't be covered by the ban. So you take a sandwich or whatever, just like you do now.

The New California Republic wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
And they won't be covered by the ban. So you take a sandwich or whatever, just like you do now.

Why won't they be?

This is squarely aimed at children on the way to and from school and so will only apply on local transport - trains, buses, trams and metro networks.

Inter-city trains with buffet cars will not be covered, the CMO said.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
It also doesn't work with very light skinned people. Facial recognition software just doesn't work well if there isn't much contrast in the face. It's the B8 problem of the 21st century.

Handy to know for rioters. Someone should tell the people in Hong Kong.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Why won't they be?

This is squarely aimed at children on the way to and from school and so will only apply on local transport - trains, buses, trams and metro networks.

Inter-city trains with buffet cars will not be covered, the CMO said.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:If railway operators get their way, and have driver only trains, who exactly is going to be enforcing snack bans?

Fartsniffage wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Why won't they be?

This is squarely aimed at children on the way to and from school and so will only apply on local transport - trains, buses, trams and metro networks.

Inter-city trains with buffet cars will not be covered, the CMO said.

Salandriagado wrote:The longest-duration local bus route in the country is 4 hours and 40 minutes long.

The New California Republic wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:The longest-duration local bus route in the country is 4 hours and 40 minutes long.

Because I'm in a rural area the "local" buses can take almost 2 hours to get to the destination.

The Free Joy State wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Fuck off with that shit. I quite often have meals on the bus and trains to and from work, as sometimes it's the only free time between things that I have.

And most of the buses and trains I am on have zero children sat anywhere near me, with no children on them at all depending on the time of day, so how is my eating affecting the behaviour of nonexistent children?

If, if, this ever happens, I am going to carry on eating and drinking on public transport regardless.

On BBC Breakfast, the outgoing Chief Medical Officer made an explicit comparison to the smoking ban -- when asked if that meant fines, she didn't deny it.

And I agree. It's bullshit. Most of the time, when I use public transport, there are no children around. They even say it will have a tiny impact on children's health. Why waste time with pointless new regulations, rather than focus time, money and energy on the things that will help?

If it ever happens, I plan to keep snacking on the bus if I need to.

Massacrey wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:It's a choice issue for me again. I shouldn't be forced to pay for health coverage which I don't want, or to contribute to the health of people I have no responsibility for.

You resent that you are required to part with a meagre ~4% of your income to not only pay for your own treatment, but also to help the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in society? Perhaps you would find the situation in the USA to be far more preferable: none of your hard-earned money would go towards those lazy do-nothings such as pregnant women or disabled folk, instead you simply pay an admittedly larger 10% of your income on insurance, and that provides cover for your entire household. Sure, it costs more and it's horribly inefficient, but at least the undesirable members of society won't be benefiting from the sweat of your own brow! After all, it's all about looking after your own. And fuck everybody else.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Massacrey wrote:
You resent that you are required to part with a meagre ~4% of your income to not only pay for your own treatment, but also to help the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in society? Perhaps you would find the situation in the USA to be far more preferable: none of your hard-earned money would go towards those lazy do-nothings such as pregnant women or disabled folk, instead you simply pay an admittedly larger 10% of your income on insurance, and that provides cover for your entire household. Sure, it costs more and it's horribly inefficient, but at least the undesirable members of society won't be benefiting from the sweat of your own brow! After all, it's all about looking after your own. And fuck everybody else.

At the moment there's...I'd say about 10 disabled people I care about, and no pregnant women. Nobody living below the poverty line either, I think. So yeah, I don't want to pay to support people I don't care about. Why would I?

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:If railway operators get their way, and have driver only trains, who exactly is going to be enforcing snack bans?

North German Realm wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:At the moment there's...I'd say about 10 disabled people I care about, and no pregnant women. Nobody living below the poverty line either, I think. So yeah, I don't want to pay to support people I don't care about. Why would I?

It doesn't matter what you "want" to pay for though. You don't pay taxes because "it helps others", you pay taxes because you live inside the State's territory. It's the state's business how your tax is used, you have no right to refuse it and live inside its territory.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

North German Realm wrote:It doesn't matter what you "want" to pay for though. You don't pay taxes because "it helps others", you pay taxes because you live inside the State's territory. It's the state's business how your tax is used, you have no right to refuse it and live inside its territory.

That's why it's perfectly moral to avoid it any way the law will allow. The state is just one big protection racket, it's like a criminal gang which says 'pay us money or get out of town, otherwise bad things will happen to you.'

Ifreann wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:That's why it's perfectly moral to avoid it any way the law will allow. The state is just one big protection racket, it's like a criminal gang which says 'pay us money or get out of town, otherwise bad things will happen to you.'

When the state does it, it's bad. When the private hospital does it, it's freedom.