‘I hate it': Manchester commuters back ban out-loud music on public transport
'Dread' might not be the first word Mancunians reach for to describe their daily commute, but for Ross Kenyon, 45, reluctantly waiting at a tram stop on a cloudy morning in central Manchester, it's the feeling clawing at his body.
Why? He hates the tram. So much so, he refuses to take it to work, preferring a half-hour walk to his office instead. He says the the buses are even worse. He avoids them completely.
The reason, he says, is antisocial behaviour. He's become increasingly bothered by people playing music out loud or vaping on public transport.
'You get on the trains or trams, especially on a Friday or Saturday night, and there are people with the speakers and music and it's just impolite … It just aggravates me,' said Kenyon, who works in trading. 'I go to Dubai quite a lot and everything's all nice. But here, it's like there's no rules any more. It's not that I'm the fun police. I just find it annoying.'
Music to his ears, however, was the news that the Liberal Democrats are proposing to ban playing music and TV shows out loud on public transport.
Under the plans announced on Wednesday, people booming out their favourite tunes or shows from their phone on public transport, or while at stations or bus stops, could face a maximum fine of £1,000.
Reena, 41, a journalist sitting on a tram heading out of the centre towards the city's media hub, shared Kenyon's disdain for loudspeakers.
'I hate it. I think it's really unsociable,' she said. 'I have less tolerance for it now that I've got kids … I do understand when you're young and you want to listen to music together, but I just don't think it should be when there's lots of other people, especially if I'm with my kids and they're having a nap or something. It's unnecessarily loud.'
For Sarah Hastings, a music teacher in her 50s, it was not playing music out loud that was the problem but the lyrics.
'If it's just background music, mood music, whatever, that's not going to offend anybody. It's not the music. It's the words. Sometimes there are young kids around and it's loud and it's language that they could do without hearing,' she said.
To implement the ban, the Liberal Democrats are proposing amendments to the bus services bill, which is going through parliament. As transport policy is devolved, the move would only apply to England.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Jessie Were, 28, who works for the local council, described his commute into the centre as relatively quiet. On the occasion he does hear music on a tram or a bus, it doesn't bother him.
'Sometimes I like music. If it's a song I like, I vibe with it,' he said. 'I think they [the Liberal Democrats] should have other things to focus on. Music on buses and trams. It's really a non-issue.'
He was not the only one who felt at odds with the proposal. Kayes Syed, 48, a lawyer, said: 'I don't have a problem with it. It's not rude. It's quite nice, actually. I'm a bit grumpy in the morning, so things like that just cheer me up. I'd rather them [the Liberal Democrats] focus on homelessness, drug abuse or crime rather than playing music.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 hours ago
- The Independent
MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation
The Government risks repeating the mistakes of Grenfell unless safety regulations on battery storage units are brought forward, an MP has warned. Liberal Democrat John Milne said there were 'alarming parallels' with the systemic failure which led to the west London tower block fire. Currently there are no laws which specifically govern the safety of battery energy storage systems (Bess), according to the House of Commons library. However, individual batteries could be subject to product safety regulations. Speaking in the Commons, Mr Milne accused the Government of being 'too complacent' as he called for enforceable regulations for the design and construction of the storage systems. The MP for Horsham said: 'The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at its heart it was a failure of regulation. 'The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, and that is exactly what happened. 'Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology, in this case cladding, was being used at scale for the first time without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now.' He continued: 'The Government itself has responded to all questions from myself and others to say that it considers the present regulatory regime to be robust. I am tempted to say pride comes before a fall. 'In the last few weeks a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman has stated that battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK, we already have high standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan. 'This is just too complacent. 'Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell.' Mr Milne said the industry would benefit from clear guidance, before adding: 'Any guidance needs to cover-off a number of areas, including transport of batteries to the site, design and construction, fire-fighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning. 'In the short term, if the Government is for any reason still reluctant to regulate, perhaps it could issue clear national guidelines which are capable of being updated annually. 'Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, who would be likely to insist that any new applications followed such guidelines, as no project can go ahead without insurance, it is enforcement by the back door. 'Grenfell was a wholly predictable tragedy. A similar fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, which killed six people, should have made us understand the risk, but the warning wasn't heeded and history took its course. 'We can't go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems.' Elsewhere in the debate, Conservative MP for Mid Buckinghamshire Greg Smith said there should be minimum distances between battery storage sites and housing. Mr Smith said: 'This is not a debate about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but today's debate, which is deeply concerning, and what this House must urgently address, are the real, growing, and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages, and rural road networks ill-equipped to support them.' He added: 'At the very least the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of Bess installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments and restrictions on placing these facilities on, or near, rural roads.' SNP MP for Aberdeen North, Kirsty Blackman, said developers should pay towards fire mitigation measures. She said: 'If we're saying to those organisations that are creating the battery storage sites, you will need to pay for the fire safety assessment, you will need to consult the local fire and you will need to pay for the training of those local fire teams in tackling fires at battery energy storage sites, I think that would be the most reasonable way forward. 'Ask them to pay for that training, because it's them that are going to be making a huge profit off it.' Energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said: 'It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. This is simply untrue. 'The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government is therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed.' She added there is 'scope to strengthen' the planning process.
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
'What Nigel Farage can teach Keir Starmer about politics'
Winter fuel payments. National insurance increases. Cutting the benefits of the disabled. All of them hard to sell at the best of times, but currently being sold to the voter with the same élan as Del Boy trying to offload alarm clocks that run backwards. Throw into the mix some u-turns that should have involved screeching brakes and smoking tyres, but have instead become a gentle and deadly drift towards the central reservation, and you have a toxic metaphor cocktail that won't so much knock anyone's socks off as gradually remove your shoes, your wallet, and your will to live. Meanwhile a party so minor it has 14 times FEWER MPs than the Liberal Democrats is romping all over the opinion polls, grabbing all the airwaves, and highlighting all the problems. It's stealing policies from Left and Right, appealing across the social spectrum and even making Liz Truss reach for her calculator. The only thing Keir Starmer seems to be worried about is Nigel Farage's lead in the polls, but his decision to tackle the Reform leader head-on has only made the PM look weak and puffed up his opponent's importance. As usual, Keir's doing it wrong. There is an awful lot to learn from Nigel, if you just have a rummage. 1. Nigel is true to his brand. He doesn't deviate. He doesn't try to appeal to those who are opposed to him. He just doubles down, does what annoys them harder. It helps that his schtick is being a disruptive posh oik in yellow trousers, a role any idiot can play with insane ease and the right wardrobe. Plus, Britain likes an underdog - an annoying terrier on the ankles of power, a peasant's revolt, a flick at the nose of greatness. Lovely stuff, off you go Nigel and give 'em one from me. 2. Nigel rules or walks. Through sheer force of personality he's set up three political parties, and walked out of two of them when his power waned. If he ever gets to lead a Parliamentary group bigger than what can be handled by one end of the saloon bar, he'll have so many factions, rivalries and headaches he'll change his pub again. Until then, he's centre of attention, and the centre of power. Were he ever to be PM, a chief of staff would have to kowtow or hit the road. 3. Nigel has simple targets that don't cost him anything. Leave the European Union. Brexit or bust. Cut immigration and cut taxes, even if they were both high because of Brexit. Cut the green crap, even if it's the best way to capitalise on the technological revolution so many of Nigel's supporters resent. Nigel's not the first person on earth who's been able to sell stagnation and self-harm as 'reform', but imagine what he could achieve, if only he obeyed the dictionary. 4. Nigel ignores everything. Warnings. Maths.. History. Logic and facts are of as much relevance to the British Sideshow Bob as Fermat's last theorem has to a duck. If you don't let anything stop you, then eventually every obstacle disappears, through boredom or erosion or distraction. That this man and the voter are apparently in sync has nothing to do with his everyman charm, because he doesn't have any. He's succeeding only because everybody else is flailing, and even the cat has noticed. The problem for Keir is that he doesn't have a personal brand, and he's dropped the Labour one. He deviates, not to disrupt but to appease. There he is, Billy Big Majority, but he's governing like Theresa May being racked by a hung Parliament. So he's announced an expansion of free school meals, a great win for a fantastic Mirror campaign that would have delighted his party if only he'd done it last July. And he could have, as it's not being paid for by a single penny of fiscal headroom because there isn't any. Instead, it was rushed out, 10 months into a haphazard premiership, to block questions over the winter fuel u-meander, and in so doing absolutely kiboshed the headlines for a £15bn transport investment Rachel Reeves had announced not 5 minutes earlier. Two bits of good news have cancelled each other out, and the drumbeat of inevitable tax rises in the autumn to pay for it all has got louder. A win has become a political cost, with his party in despair and the voter barely aware of anything beyond the fact the PM screwed up taking away winter fuel payments and now is screwing up handing them back again. All he had to do was say the richer pensioners must pay for free school meals, and every granny in the country would have had to suck a sweet and put up with it. Keir is paying attention to everything, so decision-making slows from a crawl to a death-spiral. The one thing Keir ignores is the voter - that shallow coalition of Labour values and middle-class, urban graduates who both loathed the Tories. When the Labour manifesto held nothing of note, everyone assumed there was a grand plan too radical to reveal in full - in truth, the plan was just to not be the Tories. Even that failed, because for the past 300 or so days every Labour minister and spad has not even bothered to butt heads with the Whitehall machine. Computer said no, and politics withered on the spot. It's not small boats making Nigel stronger: it's because voting for the other guy made not a jot of difference. The solution to this is easy. Either Nigel should take over the Labour Party, or Keir has to start acting more like Nigel. For what do we think Nigel would do, if only he had Labour values at heart rather than his own? He'd lead not ask, smash the machine not file a complaint, ghost the politics reporters and go on the edgy podcasts, line up all the cuts first and then bang out the good news and wins, over and over, because someone who SOUNDS like a success IS a success. He couldn't do the same for Reform. He grifts rather than works, applies himself only to what pleases, and will ultimately always implode, either through incompetence, insanity, or in a huff. The biggest lesson Starmer can take from Farage is that he, too, has no real policies. Both Reform and its leader are empty vessels, but voters still feel it's Labour that is hollow. They committed to nothing to get elected, and now are so non-committal that it's like watching fog thicken. Who'd vote for gruel, when there's red meat on offer? Those empty entrails will choke Starmer's premiership as surely as they will one day envelop Farage. Starmer has to learn, fast, how to bottle Eau de Nigel and leave him spluttering in his wake.
Daily Record
a day ago
- Daily Record
New '60-day' rule could be introduced in all UK supermarkets
MPs have urged the Government to pass a new law forcing retailers to tell customers when items have shrunk in size but not on price Retailers might soon have to warn customers about instances of "shrinkflation" under proposed legislation aimed at protecting shoppers from being short changed during the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. The Liberal Democrats are pushing for an amendment to government legislation that would compel big supermarkets to alert consumers when the contents of pre-packaged products are reduced – effectively making shoppers pay more per unit of measurement for the same item. The proposal, attached to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, suggests that retailers display the details of changes next to affected products for 60 days. Previous research by Compare the Market in 2024 identified various popular products – including digestive biscuits, butter, crisps and chocolate bars – that had shrunk in size while their unit costs rose. The proposed amendment was expected to come to a vote in the House of Commons on June 4, when the Bill reached its report stage, reports the Manchester Evening News. Lib Dem trade spokesman Clive Jones stated: "The scourge of shrinkflation needs to be exposed. Shoppers have been hammered during a cost-of-living crisis all while massive companies and big supermarket chains are forcing them to pay more for less to protect their bottom lines. "They need to be called out on it and for shoppers to know when they are at risk of being ripped off." When discussing consumer protection policy, the MP for Wokingham added: "The government should accept this Liberal Democrat amendment so that we can help protect shoppers and their already stretched household budgets from another round of shrinkflation." The existing Bill extends regulatory authority to ministers for the advertisement and usage of goods in the UK in the post-Brexit period. Prior changes to the Bill in the House of Lords successfully instated safeguards for the imperial pint measurement, alleviating concerns regarding its potential disuse. Following government approval, the Bill's updated provisions restrict ministerial authority to limit or prohibit the use of pints as a measurement unit for draught beer, cider and milk sold in returnable containers. For legislative clarity, a precise definition of the imperial pint at 0.56826125 cubic decimetres has been incorporated into the amendment. According to a Department for Business and Trade spokesman: "We're committed to protecting consumers from unfair commercial practices and making sure they have all the information they need to make informed decisions on purchases. "That's why we're bringing in strict new laws next year to make sure businesses use clearer labelling for prices on supermarket shelves, and retailers show all unit prices in either kilograms or litres to improve clarity for shoppers."
