>>101697
They've already announced a plan to jail cyclists for life. Reform have no chance.

Most headphone-dodgers are children in my experience. Can you fine a child? You can’t send them to prison so I assume they are above the law and cannot be punished for their vile misdeeds. Catholic priests used to dispense handsy justice to keep them quiet, but even that’s frowned on now thanks to wokeness.

I just want a nice clear piece of audio of a comedian doing a routine about how headphone-dodgers are cunts. Then we can passive-aggressively listen to it out loud while seated directly behind them.

>>101699
You can fine their parents which in some cases might result in a good firm spanking like Mr Richardson used to give us.

>>101700
I've managed to get Jim Davidson on the line now to do a whole routine about 'the darkies on public transport'.

>>101701
>a good firm spanking like Mr Richardson used to give us.
So that's why she divorced him

>>101701
I have long thought that while I don’t approve of parents smacking their own kids, it should absolutely be legal to smack other people’s kids.

>>101703
It should apply to children of all ages if you ask me. I find a lot of older businessmen don't put their hand over their mouth when they cough on public transport which begs for a good slipper treatment over someone's knee.

The old men crave the slipper, they even pay people good money for it.

>>101703
I don't think there's much wrong with parents smacking their kids, as long as they do it consistently.

If kids have proper boundaries and know how and when they'll be disciplined that's fine. If parents lash out at their kids because they can't control their emotions and the kid has no idea what's going to lead to a smack then we have issues. The latter has ruined it for everyone else.

>>101699
It's not so bad if the people playing music and/or videos on their device are doing so with the other people they're travelling with. It's the cunts who do it by themselves who are really annoying. The phone literally came with a set of earphones specifically for that exact purpose.

I was in an airport not too long ago and a fat old lad was scrolling through italian football TikToks with the volume on full blast. Given that there was a good chance I was never going to see him again I opened up youtube and played the loudest anime chinese pop trash I could find on full blast and stared at him dead pan the entire time. When he eventually got annoyed enough to look our eyes met and we kept up this excruciating eye contact for about 8 seconds before he blinked and looked back down at his phone. A few moments later he stopped, so I stopped. and possibly, just for a moment he knew how everyone else around him felt.

The song, in case you were wondering.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF9COdMuJr0

>>101709
I did something similar where I set a video playing quietly at work just to annoy a colleague who claimed to be unable to even switch off a video on their computer, and I have forever regretted not using this song instead, which is even more annoying:

>>101710
Pure class. 14:20 is where it starts to get really bad.

>>101697>>101707 Still - a THOUSAND POUND FINE. You get less than a tenth of that for dipping into the bus lane which is dangerous, and that's also less than the sin of dodging a train fare, which is not dangerous at all. The Lib Dems have my vote, and this won't get passed, but this is absurd and it's worth keeping an eye on which ever crackpot proposed this. They aren't liberal, whatever party they choose to run for.

It's annoying, people need to deal with it.

>>101697
Meanwhile the people who DON'T make their approach on their bikes known because they have no lights are fine to continue as they mow down fifteen children and catapult GTA style into the nearest tenth storey window.

I've got a grand bargain: this can be the law but only if they add a section to the bill mandating every phone sold in Britain has a headphone jack. Fair's fair, rights but with responsibilities, a hand up and not a handout.

>>101720
I think they should make all such misdemeanors - fare dodging, bus lane diving, headphone not-using, spitting in the drain in the street (shock horror), fidgeting in the sermons, falling asleep in PMQs, etc., should be subjected to a flat £40 fine first time round. That's it. Simple. Why? It's more proportionate to all the working class the politicians claim to love, includingsexual minorities, who they are very vocal and proud about ... er, treating with basic dignity. This ensures they don't have the piss taken out of them and kind of fits more with the theme. It's an exercise in actual conviction. It's one in the eye for petty bastards everywhere, and best of all, a £40 that they're a bit more aggressivve about enforcing is a bit more down to Earth, and you won't have people thinking 'yeah, a grand fine is the max, they'll never do it, I'll get like £50'. They might take it more seriously.

I mean I'd rather not have the headphone one at all, unless it's Chas and Dave, cause you're asking for it then. But that's still better than this.

Am I being petty and gassing on too much? Yes. Are these minor problems? Yes. But are they bloody everywhere, and do they say something about officialdom's lack of respect for us? Bloody hell yes.

>>101720

I remember when phones came not only with a headphone jack, but with an actual pair of headphones too. I've probably got three pairs of shitty earbuds knocking around if I dig through the drawers in this desk because of that. I always ignored them of course, and used a pair of Sennheiser CX300s that lasted me the better part of a decade.

Nowadays, my listening is mostly done through bluetooth to the speakers of whatever vehicle I am presently driving, but I theoretically still have a set of earbuds somewhere, probably in one of my coat pockets, and I have made a point of always choosing a phone that has a 3.5mm jack and an SD card slot just in case I go somewhere on public transport. It's been long enough that I don't remember what make or model they are and I would have to rifle through the coat cupboard to find them, in fact I don't think I have used headphones with my current phone even once. But it's the principle of the matter, isn't it.

Take note boringlad, this is how you make an old man rambling post with substance.

I wonder if we could now create a self-funding force to issue fines, possibly with an expanded remit to include other forms of anti-social behaviour with the tools to fight it and quotas. A kind of traffic warden for cunts. I bet Youtube could get pretty satisfying if we give them bodycams.

Is this how a British police state starts?

>>101720
>>101725
Bluetooth headphones cost nothing and the feature is ubiquitous on even dumb phones. Why are you two still banging rocks together when the problem is purely that some people just don't give a toss.

You might call me irrational but there are real design drawbacks to having a headphone jack on a phone with little benefit in 2025.

>>101728
>a self-funding force to issue fines, possibly with an expanded remit to include other forms of anti-social behaviour with the tools to fight it and quotas.
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
-Alexander Solzhenitsyn

What I'm saying is, you just know they'd come after you for some bullshit instead.

>>101728

The same reason I still have a wired keyboard and mouse when we've had wireless ones for decades.

>>101734

There's a use case for wireless keyboards and mice, but if like me you've got audio equipment from before Bluetooth was a thing, then non-wireless headphones or even earbuds still have their place.

One problem you always have with wireless headphones is that they use an audio codec within the A2DP bluetooth standard, because there just isn't enough bandwidth to directly stream 16- or even 24-bit uncompressed music. Decent wireless headphones now use codecs that are virtually indistinguishable from 16- or 24-bit PCM or lossless codecs like FLAC. But you don't always know what you get with cheap ones.

For the average smartphone user who just wants a bit of their favourite music on their bus commute, that's neither here nor there. Almost any mediocre set of earbuds or headphones will do in that setting, and the music you stream will likely be of equally mediocre sound quality. But if you mainly enjoy your music on a home hi-fi system (which brings me back to my point about vintage or older audio equipment), then you will still value your wired headphones. Because you are completely cutting out the sound quality bottleneck of iffy audio codecs.

Also, wireless earbuds in particular have a limited service life with their tiny batteries, which often aren't user replaceable, so you're producing e-waste every two to three years buy having to swap them out. While I'm still holding on to my excellent sounding AKG wired earbuds that I got with my Samsung Galaxy over six years ago.

>>101736

If you are doing any kind of music production wired headphones are still essential because even a small amount of latency is a major hassle. And especially if you remember the days of having to fuck around endlessly with custom ASIO drivers and whatnot, you're going to have a bias against anything that could even plausibly introduce it.

>>101730
Also how can you expect them to be anti-cunt if they're acting like traffic wardens?

Jenrick is getting in on the action:

I hope this ends with such petty criminal being met with disproportionate beatings. Although I'm undecided on which criminals in the video should be punished first. Say what you will about the Daily Express but they at least post videos without it mostly being talking head commentary.

>>101924
First thing I did when I saw this bellend acting the hard man was type "Robert Jenrick Owen Paterson" into my browser. Well, colour me suprised when not even four years ago our heroic crime fighter Jenrick was actually a certified crimes enjoyer! Voting to change the rules in Parliament so that MPs wouldn't even have to wait until they retired/lost their seats before becoming a paid lobbyist. Still, Paterson only grafted to get his employers public contracts valued in the hundreds-of-millions of pounds, whereas I assume these fare dodgers are ripping us off to the tune of quintillions. As such it's little wonder The Man in the Ugly Shirt is so exercised by it all.

>>101924
We might as well ban knives if that prick was right there and still nobody took the opportunity.