e17

Which bit is rubish? You haven't refuted my points with anything of substance. He's a public figure, if he wants privacy he shouldn't have run in national elections. He had an injunction on the McIntyre child, that sounds like disownment to me. "I love you, child, but nobody can know about you" He has no contact with any of his children apart from the new one, that's a deadbeat dad. We do not know how many children he has. Does he?

I'm not sure this is true, the prime minister of the United Kingdom is literally a deadbeat dad. He went to court to disown one of his children and it's not public knowledge how many children he actually has.

Nor in the UK

I thought Hello was invented with the telephone. Prior to that, English greetings were good morning/evening. What do Italians and French say when they pick up the phone? Allora?

> The train driver is the most susceptible to die. You're better assisted by a remote operator

The driver didn't die in any of the recent incidents, so they would still be in place to manage the situation.

Interestingly, 7/7/05 isn't on the list, presumably because it wasn't an accident. That's exactly the kind of incident that is relevant in the context of this parent thread.

This subthread you are commenting on is about head-on collisions. There have been none since 1975 and I think you will agree that given that passengers on that train were wearing hats and smoking pipes, it's not particularly relevant to any kind of modern railway.

If there are still strikes then it is the same situation. Your plan solves nothing, for reasons both the article and I have outlined already. If we put you in charge tomorrow to execute your plan of moving from £70k drivers to £30k hi-vis vest-wearers, you would cause weeks of strikes, massive disruption and solve nothing.

Assuming you've read the list, you will know that the answer is no. No head-on tube collisions in my lifetime or in any other relevant modern era of any definition.

When I was a kid in the 90s we were taught that the tongue had specific zones that tasted specific tastes. There was a diagram and everything. I think it was long debunked even then.

Anything from a more relevant era, perhaps one in which passengers aboard an underground train weren't allowed to smoke a cigar?

As the article explains, the train managers will strike just the same as drivers do, leaving us in exactly the same situation as before.

That's in the very narrow situation of a head-on collision, something I don't think has happened on the tube in my lifetime. I'm talking about any kind of general emergency. I remember 7/7/05 like it was yesterday.

As the article also states, there will be no point at all in moving to onboard attendants because the onboard attendants will strike just the same as drivers do.

Yes, one of the reasons would be to keep the 1200 people on the train calm. It's important in an emergency for someone to be in charge of the situation. What's wrong with that?

Using a rough number for a yearly travel card, 1200 * £2000 = £2.4m yearly revenue from those passengers aboard that train. I think we can spare £60k for the driver.