Louisa

KK the summary of this thread so far. I say as a society we have become selfish. Eating, talking on phones, applying makeup, all social acts now considered normal on a bus/train public space. I say change social norms or ban said pastimes. DJKQ, WM et al say that it isn't rude, it's about personal taste. Don't ban it, it can't be policed. Louisa.

If we are going to talk about the potential dangers of leather, rubber and PVC to many in society - then what about high heels? Imagine the untold dangers arising from people wearing them and going to the upstairs deck of a bus. Interesting to note for DJKQ, I have come across numerous websites all of which have good examples of how foods, cosmetics and certain materials can lead to health and safety issues in a public space. You only have to look on google to find untold numbers of websites with this information. Feel free to have a look. I'm not going to entertain and feed DJKQ with the information, because it will no doubt be used to once again trivialise what for me and many others remains a deeply serious issue. Louisa.

DJKQ is now apparently so intelligent and expertly equipped on the topic of cosmetics that I'm bamboozled into a corner and don't have the relevant gloves to punch my way back into this contest (so to speak). Not to mention patronising, if somewhat tongue in cheek, your lame response to my last answer sums up your utter desperation at not being able to answer my original question suitably. Logical reasoning you call for? Well perhaps you had better take a long look in the mirror and wonder why you are up at 3.23 in the morning posting in the lounge about makeup? You clearly feel quite strongly about my views and would be enormously 'put out' if any such ill conceived banning order was put in place on public transport. It appears DJKQ has lost this argument, thrown in the towel, and is now digging at the base of the honey pot by asking me for totally bizarre facts regarding what is obviously and clearly a rude pastime which can anger lots of people, make lots of mess, and trigger allergic reactions in some. We all know this, we don't need proof do we? Louisa.

And where are is the evidence to back up your argument? Oh, there isn't any. You see DJKQ, I'm not one to blow my own trumpet, but you make yourself appear a hypocrite. I don't even have to do the work, you're doing it all yourself. Louisa.

DJKQ you are missing the point entirely here. If you read back to my earlier posts, much of this isn't about demanding banning things - it's a question of morality pure and simple. It's about changing the way people think, feel, perceive. It would be better for people on a bus to just not do this stuff, make it as socially unacceptable as breaking wind or swearing loudly. It really is that simple. Then if and only if this fails to work, a law, enforceable or not should be brought in to at least deter people from committing these unsociable offences. Some councils send out wardens fining serial litter offenders, it's no different. Louisa.

DJKQ unfortunately I cannot supply you with information regarding complications related to deaths triggered by leather jackets and or moisturiser or any other product used on public transport or elsewhere. I could quite easily search google and band around some dubious figures most of which would be unverifiable. So I won't do that. But I can conclude from your pressing of me on this point that my basic argument remains a strong one and you are unable to tell me in what ways selfish and immoral acts are not dangerous to others in the public arena. Dulwich 2020 I'm glad someone here sees the logic behind my argument, and is able to openly support it rather than just private message me. KK do you see where I am coming from with my loose comparison between smoking and the obvious damage it was causing to people without science or the law helping to remove it from public places for many years and how this tenuously links in with my argument about eating/using mobiles and applying makeup? Just because we don't have the support of science or the law doesn't make it morally right to invade another persons space on a train/bus for our own selfish ends without even a thought being spared for potential allergy victims. Louisa.

seemster, sometimes groping is unavoidable in a cramped space. Even with poorly applied makeup unfortunately. Louisa.

Science and the law make the same distinction NOW - but go back fifty years or less and neither believed smoking to be a bad thing. I refer back to an earlier argument about changing times and opinions - perhaps if we came back in fifty years from now we would have a different opinion. It takes pioneers such as myself to stand up and explain to people where we are going wrong in society and law and science eventually adapts. And as I stated before, these aren't just my personal views. A lot of people back them. I think your losing this argument DJKQ and you are clutching at straws. Louisa.

NO! Louisa.

KK I've heard of instances of groping on all forms of public transport. I think trains are more likely than buses, especially if the incidence of standing passengers. *Bob* fortunately for me I've not been at the receiving end of a grope to date, but the thought of having grubby hands on me makes me feel violently ill. Makeup wearing may even be temporarily acceptable in replacement for grubby handed groping. Louisa.

DJKQ, by your argument, smoking would be allowed on a bus because its a personal experience and just because it might contribute to a serious illness in another person, doesn't mean it should be banned? Well, it was banned, and for the very reasons you claim other antisocial forms of behaviour shouldn't be. Eating peanuts is fine, even though it might set off a life threatening reaction in another person? Why not just ban eating altogether and the problem is removed. Saves dirty interior of public transport seating too. I don't need to back up my argument with any facts, because you've failed to back up yours and yet you believe I am the patronising one in this debate? Is that because you are losing the argument by any chance? And who are these "others" who have presented a "well reasoned and logical debate"? As far as I can see we have two sides to a very clear cut argument. This isn't about MY personal tastes, it's about public thoughtfulness and decency for everyone. You either support my argument, which is that manners cost nothing and certain forms of behaviour should be prohibited in a confused public space - because in many people's view (including posters on this thread) they are selfish and annoying, and my further point that they can let off a strong odour and potentially cause people with allergies to react is just an additional reason as to why certain activities should be refrained from. Not to mention this isolated and hideous bubble created around the individual preventing social cohesion and a community spirit. Or we support your argument - which is basically saying we can't ban everything which is antisocial because we can't police or enact it properly, and it's a matter of personal taste so if you don't like it then that's your problem. I know which side I support. Louisa.

lameduck - bus groping happens a lot and its a very unpleasant experience for anyone at the receiving end of it. I drive my car because I like my own space and my own rules. I personally wouldn't want grubby hands all over me, nor wold I want to risk siting next to a peanut muncher or a loud handheld device user. Louisa.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well there's an example of insanity > > By your logic Louisa we should also ban the > following...... > > Flowers or any pollen bearing plant > > Animals > > The wearing and/or use of any kind of deoderant, > makeup, perfume or chemical based beaty product. > > Nylon, rubber and parafin based products > > I could go on. > > But as someone else posted, there's no point using > reasoned debate with someone who has no conception > of it. I think up until this point this discussion was starting to become a bit polarised, but now you've brought all these other potentially life threatening acts of public indecency to my attention lets address them one by one, because DJKQ, just as WM has this fascination with breast feeding, you now seem to be able to go over and above medical opinion and conclude that makeup and moisturiser are perfectly safe for everyone and you have no evidence to back it up! Astonishing! You not only thoroughly legitimise unsavoury public acts in confined spaces, you now justify them by claiming to know that everyone who talks about any known allergies within 2/3 metres to be completely wrong! Allelujah, we have a scientist within our midst! I would ban leather jackets and rubber/PVC from buses and trains but that's just because I wouldn't want anyone to have a flare up of an ongoing allergy. Obviously we can't ban everything everywhere but we can go a long way towards saving lives and encouraging some thoughtful morality in a public space at the same time. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I'm genuinely confused. This thread has now taken on a whole new dimension. It isn't just a discussion amongst lay men and women, we have experts here too. Louisa.

Voyageur Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Louisa Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the > > number 3 and grope one another and partake in > > sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and > > rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's > > personal space. The same applies to makeup and > > moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is > > different because unless the person is taking a > > cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly > > avoidable - knowingly taking potentially > harmful > > products (for some people) onto a bus and using > > them without consideration for others is > selfish. > > DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet > > which give plenty of details about people > > suffering allergic reactions to makeup and > other > > products. I personally have an issue with nuts, > > and if someone sat next to me on a bus and > pulled > > out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them > it > > would be close enough for me to react to that > and > > I would have to move. Why should I be forced to > > move because another person wishes to have a > > munch? > > > > Louisa. > > Actually Louisa - I think you are a little bit > nuts :( > > Your posts are getting more bizarre by the minute > and, on that basis, there seems little point in > continuing to try to have a reasoned discussion. Oh so now because you disagree with me and feel you are losing the argument you pull the bizarre card out of the pack and dismiss me as slightly insane. I came up with a good example of why food should be banned, nut allergies are potentially life threatening to some people and even being near to someone eating them could result in a severe reaction. But clearly you think my case is flawed and because it suits you and others to indulge yourself on public transport people who disagree with you are seen as slightly bizarre. It don't wash with me! Louisa.

If myself and Mr Louisa were to pop onto the number 3 and grope one another and partake in sexual liaisons people would be up in arms and rightly so. It's an invasion of other people's personal space. The same applies to makeup and moisturiser. The question of a pet allergy is different because unless the person is taking a cat onto a bus, it's something which is hardly avoidable - knowingly taking potentially harmful products (for some people) onto a bus and using them without consideration for others is selfish. DJKQ there are numerous pages on the Internet which give plenty of details about people suffering allergic reactions to makeup and other products. I personally have an issue with nuts, and if someone sat next to me on a bus and pulled out a bag of peanuts and started dining on them it would be close enough for me to react to that and I would have to move. Why should I be forced to move because another person wishes to have a munch? Louisa.

seemster, not just the handful of private messages, other too on this thread are with me on the general rule of thumb that makeup application on a bus is unfair. You make it sound as though I am the only one here and everyone else is mocking me for some bizarre stance. How would you feel if you had a skin allergy and I sat next to you slopping on copious amounts Johnson's dreamy skin lotion? (Other moisturisers are available). Louisa.

Voyageur, you'd be surprised how even at a distance of say 2/3 metres away, some poor unsuspecting person could be at risk from the fumes carried by your application of makeup/moisturiser. It might not be a big deal to you, but to others it could cause health issues to flare up and equally is unfair in the cramped shared space to subject them to the smells and slopping sounds of the application. It's just generally quite rude, surely you can appreciate this? Louisa.

WM we do not know what goes into moisturiser, there could be any number of hidden dangers which to some people may well cause rashes and other allergies to flare up. Being sat in this shared space indulging in a behind closed doors act is, IMO no better than having sex in a public place, on the morality scale of selfishness. Therefore how can you say moral and physical health is not at stake? Sorry my reference to restaurants doesn't always include alcohol, unless they're licensed to sell/all people to consume it on the premises. Louisa.

WM, much fairer. Immorality rears its ugly head in many forms, often in ways which surprise some people. Your example of breast feeding in public isn't an example of immorality, it's more a matter of taste. However, my point would be that as an individual we all have choices in life, and society in general sets those boundaries which most of us follow. Society and its toleration of immorality is to blame here. If we believe something to be ok, acceptable, more often we will partake in it. People used to believe smoking and drinking alcohol in restaurants and on public transport was acceptable until we put fines in place and made it clear those pastimes were not. The same should apply to makeup, and mobile phones. Financial penalties are sometimes the only way to encourage people to give up bad habits. Louisa.

WM - unfortunate thread title but that was the only thing so far I've found to be even remotely offensive. You have also, conveniently, taken my points about other anti social acts, dog poo and spit, totally out of context and used them to justify your own flawed point. Are you a politician? Louisa.

My frigidity has nothing to do with my ongoing campaign against rudeness and makeup application on public transport. I've used this forum to expose rudeness in the past and I don't see why I can't continue to encourage others to do the same now. My ideas of fines may seem extreme to some of you, but I guarantee given a generation London would become a much happier place. The fact is, this thread was setup by someone else equally shocked by this rude act, and just to point out ive received numerous private messages supporting my views and ideas so far - so please less of the smug self roghteousness oh vocal ones. And woodrot call me a troll one more time and I will suggest banning you from public transport too! Louisa.

KidKruger this is no wind up. Read back over the previous posts and you'll see that in this day and age people seem to think its completely the 'norm' to indulge in self righteous activities which should be kept in a private space and not shared in the public arena. Application of various makeup products is an immoral act and the judgement to do it on a packed bus/train/tram is completely and utterly selfish minded. Going back to my previous comments, why can't we replace these selfish individual acts with some sort of community spirited events. Perhaps signs on buses encouraging people to talk to the person sat next to them rather than get the phone out and risk a fine? I think I am onto something here which could get people together and encourage community cohesion. Louisa.

Yes illegal drug taking is against the law and rightly so, but my point is that other lesser selfish acts should also be made illegal on public transport with hefty fines for those who choose to partake. It seems the only way in this age of immorality to get the message across to the people that the toleration of selfish behaviour is not permitted on any level, full stop, on a shared experience such as public transport, is by forcing fines on them. I personally would apply fines to a number of the different forms of antisocial behaviour observed. Mobile phones should be strictly prohibited and only used in emergencies. Music of any kind silent or not should be banned, as should eating and talking loudly. Alcohol goes without question and I Think that's banned already? Makeup application should in theory be a moral judgement for the individual, but I fear many would continue to abuse this option so I'd make it illegal too given half a chance. I'm sure lots of people would agree with me on this too. It would make for a much more pleasant experience. It would also go some way to helping those with skin allergies. Louisa.

How does that make me bonkers? Makeup might be the starting point but what next? Shall we allow people to sniff drugs on public transport and brush it off as one of those things? We are on a slippery slope here into complete immorality. You cannot justify selfish behaviour on any level in the context of a public service which is being paid for by the people using it. Louisa.

Sense of humour alert DJKQ. I would have thought Mick Macs point would be more offensive to you considering all the politically correct rhetoric regarding an immoral free for all on public transport. Louisa.