Passengers who refuse to allow others to sit next to them

[Requeststop]

If the carriage was full and a person of "religion" objected to my sitting next to them I'd say..... "I'm a religious peron too" and flash my Celtic Cross at them and hope they'd spontaneously combust. I usually try that laser beam look on people I think are perfect S*#ts. Sadly it never works.

Being a person of "over-excessive" size, if I have to climb over a "asiler" rather than a "windower", I'd have tremendous excessive fun clambering over the smug "asiler" with my overwhelming ab (oh yes my 1-pack is really substantial) towards their face to squeeze my astonishing huge frame into the the once empty space they think they are entitled too. Any packages they have made into the "2nd" window seat should be flung into the asile. It's simple: They paid for one seat they occupy one seat.

 

[DiscoStu]

It seems to me that the OP and many responders are singling out muslim women for criticism, when in fact the majority of people who seat hog are not muslims ....

In his defence though, it was a muslim woman in the scenario that he experienced, so why should he not single them out?

 

[Johnuk123]

I would challenge the notion of criticising the behaviour of islamic women, when many of the restrictions are imposed by a male dominated social order in the Muslim community. If codes of honour aren't adhered to then the repercussions for women can be quite severe.

My guess is that if we give a particular group a hard time for following their own religion then we only perpetuate the mutual distrust. If we want immigrant communities to adopt our liberal western values then we need to engage with them on a positive level and show them the benefits of our liberal society. If the behaviour of some men on trains is anything to go by, we aren't doing very well on that front.

Let's get this right then:

Are you suggesting that because muslim women will get into trouble from men if they don't follow strict Islamic rules we should therefore have different rules for them ?

Sikhs and Hindus and others have accepted "our liberal society" as you call it for many years.

Muslims by and large have made no effort to integrate because to do so would be seen as weakness.

 

[Oswyntail]

.....Muslims by and large have made no effort to integrate because to do so would be seen as weakness.

Or perhaps because they are scared? Many groups who adopt an identity and severe rules to protect it are really just scared of the rest of the world. And do you blame them? Given the irrational hatred of other races or religions that was the mainspring of a large part of the British psyche until recently.
The thread is about passengers objecting to people sitting in empty seats. There are innumerable causes of this (and innumerable threads). Why has the thread latched on to one cause?

 

[maniacmartin]

There are other threads relating to other causes such as businessmen who spread their papers and briefcases around. Just because this thread is about a specific cause doesn't in itself weaken the argument.

 

[Coolguy22468]

Can we just leave the muslim's out of it now, It was just a question if something some did was acceptable which I am told is not, seat hoggers are awful whatever religion they are so there is no need to single out muslims for this.

 

[maniacmartin]

On a sidenote, does anyone know if there have been any cases of a guard trying to or succeeding in charging for luggage occupying a seat as per the term that was recently inserted into the NRCoC?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

When the Railway By-laws were first enacted and I see many postings upon different forum threads refer to parts of these going back well into the 1800's, were there ever mention made in these to cover the point that this thread was first started to discuss ?

What particular Railways By-law(s) should be quoted in posting answers, to cover the point that was first raised.

Its hard to analyse early Railway Byelaws without some social and cultural context:- These were the days when the Railways frequently provided three classes of passenger accomodation, but said so little about them in the regulations; there was no need - unlike today when the classes are offered as commercial choices with service levels exchanged for the tickets as bought, the classes of accomodation were related to the social standing of the passengers (which was not negotiable, not misapplied or misused, and nor could be bought).

Its also hard to analyse earlier Byelaws in terms of modern statute:- some did not create Offences, some were regulatory without being punitive.

Until later Byelaws provided more helpful elaboration, Byelaw 17 was generally used to capture behaviour which might affect another passenger:
No person shall while upon the railway . . . .behave in an offensive manner . . . . interfere with the comfort or convenience of any passenger.

Gender was referred to in Byelaw 9:
No person of the male sex above the age of 12 shall travel or attempt to travel or remain in any vehicle or place on the railway marked or notified as being reserved or appropriated for the exclusive use of the female sex.

Byelaw 22 made further provision for an Offence following from 'giving offence', and Byelaw 31 made some slight provision for restricting passengers from specified areas (including compartments and seats).

But there was not a specific offence under early Byelaws arising from a passenger 'refusing to allow others to sit next to them'.

 

[BestWestern]

Or perhaps because they are scared? Many groups who adopt an identity and severe rules to protect it are really just scared of the rest of the world. And do you blame them? Given the irrational hatred of other races or religions that was the mainspring of a large part of the British psyche until recently.

I'm sorry to drag over the faith thing again, but I had to do a double take after reading this. Implying that the British suffer an 'irrational hatred of other races or religions' is somewhat ironic in a discussion centered around a certain particularly enthusiastic religious group

Anyway, we've moved on from that. Probably best

 

[34D]

the classes of accomodation were related to the social standing of the passengers (which was not negotiable, not misapplied or misused, and nor could be bought).

To be fair, it would be nice to return to this, with the common people kept out of First Class.

 

[northwichcat]

with the exception of muslim women who refuse to because some won't sit next to men.

If they won't sit next to men they should stand or pay double their fare to keep a seat free.

Why should they get to keep a second seat while people who are schizophrenic or been the victim of an assault have to sit next to a complete stranger which they might actually be scared of?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On a sidenote, does anyone know if there have been any cases of a guard trying to or succeeding in charging for luggage occupying a seat as per the term that was recently inserted into the NRCoC?

I've seen guards go through trains on TPE services just before a service gets packed and ask for anything left on seats or in the aisles to be moved.

 

[Butts]

In some ways an even more annoying (to me at least) occurence is when you are the sole passenger sitting at a "4" and someone else gets on and sits right opposite you rather than sitting diagonally so you can both stretch your legs out.

 

[Morden Via CHX]

There are constraints on everyone who uses the railways as per the rules, regulations and byelaws and although I agree that people should be allowed to hold thier own personal beliefs. however distorted I may personally think they may be compared to my own, not every aspect of religious nonsense can be accomadated on a mass public tranport system. Set the rules and then we can all all abide by them - I do not want to be subject to anyone else's religious fascism when I use public tranpsort.

Completely agree

 

[SS4]

To be fair, it would be nice to return to this, with the common people kept out of First Class.

Sarcasm I hope?

 

[yorksrob]

In some ways an even more annoying (to me at least) occurence is when you are the sole passenger sitting at a "4" and someone else gets on and sits right opposite you rather than sitting diagonally so you can both stretch your legs out.

I find it worse when they sit next to you under similar circumstances. Definately not etiquette. Another one is when limbs encroach over your side of the line (had that yesterday morning and had to undertake some careful elbow manouvering to regain the upper hand).

 

[LE Greys]

I find it worse when they sit next to you under similar circumstances. Definately not etiquette. Another one is when limbs encroach over your side of the line (had that yesterday morning and had to undertake some careful elbow manouvering to regain the upper hand).

Or careful use of a large newspaper (with which I sometimes travel for that very reason). To be fair, it is sometimes a bit hard to tell where personal space begins and ends. Arm rests help, but sometimes it's impossible to find an excuse to get them down. Some people just like to squeeze over for some reason.

One reason I try to avoid reserving seats is so that I can avoid individuals I'd rather not sit next to (especially if I might be stuck with them for seven hours). Still, I'd like to think I wouldn't go as far as certain people at King's Cross. The story was that a lady and her daughter had a compartment to themselves until an express had almost departed, and a rather miserable-looking man walked in. The conversation goes like this:

Lady: Excuse me, I think you ought to know my daughter has just recovered from scarlet fever. She might still be infectious and I would suggest you find another compartment.
Gentleman: Oh, that's all right. I'm committing suicide when we get to the first tunnel.

The horrified woman fled with daughter in tow, but later saw the man looking much more cheerful sitting comfortably in the same compartment, very much alive.

 

[Flamingo]

I likee that

 

[12CSVT]

To be fair, it would be nice to return to this, with the common people kept out of First Class.

So the vast majority of the population treated as second class citizens ?

I'd rather have first class abolished.

 

[wijit]

being a Northern Guard our services during rush hour are to say the least extremely busy and as we do not have seat reservations I refuse to let seat "hoggers" get away with their usual tactics and have been known to announce on the pa that there is a seat free (carriage and position) and if the person continues to refuse to remove his bags he WILL be charged full standard fare and explain to his fellow passengers why they are not as important as his bad/coat/suitcase. but I do use it as a last resort and on more than one occasion I have embarressed perfectly fit and able people into giving up their seat for a disabled/elderly/pregnant *delete as appropriate, person

I'm going to find you and buy you a pint!

Just to nip back to the OP, for no real reason I'm currently most of the way through the Koran and have (just for this thread!) just made an unsociably houred phone call for clarification. What my friend, who knows Islam inside out, has said is that the guideline is for a Muslim woman to avoid where possible contact with a man who is of no relation. However, she is not obliged to do so and is not to be punished when this is unavoidable. (the use of the word "punish[ed] is frequent, and derivatives, and with certain interpretation can easily be used for purposes which in actual fact, go against Islamic teachings.
The bottom line, according to my friend, is that there is no excuse for such behaviour of a Muslim woman and that some interpretations could actually suggest she would be going against one of the basic teachings (there is one God but Allah, which teaches all people of religion believe in the same God but he presents himself differently to all).
Sorry for banging on a bit about it, I felt clarification may help. My friend doesn't like me at the moment though.

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks for that informative post.

I think that as an excuse, "It's against my religious beliefs" comes under the same category as "I can't put my suitcase anywhere else", or "I have a reservation for both seats as my friend didn't travel".

The bottom line is that people as a rule like a double seat to themselves, to the extent that they will stand rather than sit beside somebody (and then moan that the train is crowded and there are no seats, I see it daily). Some people are just a bit more selfish and rude about how they go about it - I have never observed any paticular religion, ethnic group or social class that stand out (with the possible exception of middle-aged Welsh women!).

 

[Coolguy22468]

I'm going to find you and buy you a pint!

Just to nip back to the OP, for no real reason I'm currently most of the way through the Koran and have (just for this thread!) just made an unsociably houred phone call for clarification. What my friend, who knows Islam inside out, has said is that the guideline is for a Muslim woman to avoid where possible contact with a man who is of no relation. However, she is not obliged to do so and is not to be punished when this is unavoidable. (the use of the word "punish[ed] is frequent, and derivatives, and with certain interpretation can easily be used for purposes which in actual fact, go against Islamic teachings.
The bottom line, according to my friend, is that there is no excuse for such behaviour of a Muslim woman and that some interpretations could actually suggest she would be going against one of the basic teachings (there is one God but Allah, which teaches all people of religion believe in the same God but he presents himself differently to all).
Sorry for banging on a bit about it, I felt clarification may help. My friend doesn't like me at the moment though.

Thanks for the clarification, I think its just some of the conservative Muslim women who object to men sitting next to them.

 

[wijit]

I think the problem comes with interpretation, as with many other religions Islam leaves itself wide open for people to interpret it to suit.

 

[F1Ken]

The train I regularly catch is often gets crammed and when this happens most people sitting in the aisle move over to the window seat if possible to let people sit down with the exception of muslim women who refuse to because some won't sit next to men. Can anyone tell me if 1, they are allowed to do this, 2 has anyone had this happen to them and 3, what is the best way to go about this?

Stuff her religion. She's on public transport so she should bloody well behave in a polite way like 90% off us do. I would as others have said climb over her and sit myself down next to her. If doesn't like then she can go and stand. :-x

Ken:roll:

 

[jon0844]

This is what I was talking about earlier...

 

[DiscoStu]

This is what I was talking about earlier...

What is?

 

[jon0844]

People who hear a story and then use it as a way to attack that group/person.

I find the wording to be rather hateful and only a small step away from saying 'if they don't like then they can get out of our/my country'.

 

[maniacmartin]

Can you clarify which wording exactly you find hateful?

 

[jon0844]

Can you clarify which wording exactly you find hateful?

The sentence itself didn't contain any hate speech - but it reads like being one step away from saying much worse. I already said that, and thought I'd written it quite clearly.

If I am wrong, I'm wrong but that's how I read it.

Stuff her religion. She's on public transport so she should bloody well behave in a polite way like 90% off us do. I would as others have said climb over her and sit myself down next to her. If (she) doesn't like then she can go and stand.

How do you read that - complete with the smileys? It sounds exactly like the reaction I heard on other forums to people hearing that we couldn't fly the England flag, or say 'Happy Christmas'.

I mean, come on, how many people would seriously do that? And what's the 'like 90% of(f) us do' mean? Does that mean 10% aren't polite? Perhaps she's one of those.

 

[maniacmartin]

My question was actually intended to ask which post you were referring to, as I wasn't completely certain you were referring to F1Ken's. If it came across otherwise then that wasn't my intention. Now that you've directed a question at me I feel compelled to respond:

I personally wouldn't have used the same words (and emoticons) that F1Ken used, because it makes the argument more likely to be dismissed as being hateful or bigoted. Nor would I be prepared to climb over another passenger to obtain a seat.

However I agree with the sentiment that passengers should not be granted extra privileges if they claim to require them for religious reasons, that other passengers do not receive. If there was a rule that prevented people of a certain religion or race from using a seat, then that would be discrimination, but that is not the case in this scenario. (Yes, this argument applies to Christianity too)

I don't believe we should be compelled to respect or be more cautious about some issues just because they involve religion. It seems to get a lot of respect that it doesn't deserve, partly because its a social taboo to criticise it. I believe that in the long term we'll have better social cohesion if we can discuss issues head-on without tip-toeing around them.

 

[DiscoStu]

No belief or religion should be immune from critisism.