Why do clubs have all the best bouncers?, or it's about a "public service ethos"

I can't resist commenting on the proposed drinking ban on trains and buses, as reported in all the papers, such as (for a change) here in the Indie.

I guess I only very occasionally drink on a train and probably never on a bus. I'd rarely miss it, but I'd still resent losing my right to drink in these places. For some people, having a few cans on a train seems an important part of their weekend. Or I'm sure many commuters look forward to a G&T in the bar at the end of the day.

I guess the government is flying a kite, as I suppose there are some sensible things that can be done, such as designated lager coaches (much like quiet zones). At least all the piles of cans of Stella would be in one place.

What seems wrong with it, though, is, well, at least 3 kinds of things:

- where did this idea come from? What's happened to carefully thought-through policies, pros and cons researched by teams of expert (or at least well-paid) civil servants (or hired consultants)? Seems it's just been dreamed up by someone in no.10. Be warned: this is the sort of mode of government that led to such trigger-reaction triumphs as the Dangerous Dogs Act.

- I always resent my choices being constrained because of a problem caused by a small minority. It always seems easiest for people in authority to come up with a solution that involves telling everyone what to do. It must satisfy a deep psychological desire. Every time I fly I'm reminded of the daft ban on sharp instruments. And if you do have something in your bag there's no way to keep it - why not have some padded envelopes and stamps available at the airport so you can post it to yourself? No, that would be customer service, not authority over other people.

- and this leads on to the main problem with this idea. It misses the point entirely. Before punishing the innocent perhaps someone should think about what's going on on the trains and buses. Here's what I observe on my travels: the purpose of the staff on trains has subtly changed over the years since privatisation so that they are there to protect the interests of the company and not those of the passengers. Back in the good old days, the ticket-collectors (guards?) would, for example, tell people to keep their feet off the seats. They don't any more.

Or take another example: I was on a train back from a football match in Southampton a few weeks ago. There were some fans (away fans, as it happens) shouting and swearing and clearly upsetting other passengers. We were eventually delayed while police were called. Was this because the guard told them to stop swearing and they refused? No, it's because one lad was travelling on a child's ticket. Never mind that there were barriers with staff watching and police in attendance at Southampton station where he should have been challenged. The guard decided to tell him to get off at the next station. Which was never going to happen. He swore and threatened her and the whole train ended up delayed. None of this was about the safety or comfort of other passengers on the train.

Later on the KX to Cambridge leg of the same journey, there was a security guard following the ticket-collector down the train - about a foot behind. I found this quite comical: the only person whose safety mattered seemed to be the ticket-collector.

And all the notices about prosecuting attacks on the staff. It's all "them and us".

Let's cut to the chase: this doesn't happen on planes, it doesn't happen in clubs. In both cases, the culture is different, but the operators take responsibility for their customers' security. Nightclubs don't stay in business long if there's trouble inside (outside is a different matter). What's happened on the railways, largely as a result, I believe of privatisation - let's be charitable to the incompetent Major government, as an unintended consequence - is that the operators' responsibilities have gradually eroded. Stephen Byers put his finger on it in this article in the Guardian: commenting on the renationalisation of Railtrack he notes that among the benefits: "perhaps most importantly the ethos of public service now runs through the very core of Network Rail."

So, there used to be an implicit responsibility on the British Rail to maintain order. Perhaps, before punishing the entire travelling public, and imposing new restrictions, the government should think about reimposing on the rail companies - I guess explicitly, with financial penalties for non-compliance - the responsibility for keeping order on the trains. If they just try to ban drinking, the result will simply be more delays like I experienced when a small minority flout the ban, while the police are called to deal with the problem.