'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
4 posters
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
First topic message reminder :
Why a well-intentioned move would create more problems than it would solve.
In 1977 British Railways abolished a railway institution 132 years old: ladies-only train accommodation. With sex offences rising by 32 per cent on London's tube and train network to record levels last year, Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn this week proposed a consultation on having women-only carriages on the London Underground after 10pm. While well intentioned, history suggests that these would create more problems than they would solve.
In the 19th century the ladies-only carriage was a reflection of the gender-segregation of Victorian public life and the lack of autonomy women often had within it (an 1862 guide to using the railways had a section entitled 'sending females' by rail, which rather demonstrates popular attitudes). They were also a reaction against numerous and recurring cases of sexual assault. British carriages were usually divided into compartments from which escape in an emergency was difficult. Before 1868 emergency cords were not legally required, and thereafter frequently malfunctioned. Consequently, female passengers could be at risk of serious assault with little prospect of help.
The most infamous incident occurred in 1875. Colonel Valentine Baker was a noted army officer, brother of explorer Samuel Baker, and friend of the Prince of Wales. He was also a sexual predator. While sat in a first-class compartment with 22 year old Rebecca Dickinson, Baker indecently assaulted her. Dickinson, unable to raise the alarm, climbed out of the window of the moving train, remaining half outside and half inside as Baker clung on to her, travelling for five miles until the train stopped at the next station. Baker was arrested and charged with indecent assault, dismissed from the army, and publicly disgraced. Dickinson was largely physically unharmed, but in other incidents women suffered serious injuries or death. In the wake of these there were widespread demands for separate ladies-only accommodation to prevent attacks from happening.
However, demands usually came from paternalistic middle-class men, not women. An 1896 correspondent calling himself 'Paterfamilias' explained that 'scarcely a week passes without one's reading of some more or less horrible outrage on the railway, and it should be the spontaneous act of every company to provide reserved accommodation by every train and for every class of carriage.' But among women the accommodation was strikingly unpopular. In 1888 only 248 of 1,060 ladies-only seats in a given period on the Great Western were used, with 5,141 women travelling in smoking compartments instead. The London, Tilbury & Southend ran all their trains between 1877 and 1882 with 'women and children only' compartments, but removed them due to unpopularity. The majority of companies had abolished permanent ladies-only accommodation; instead female passengers could request a compartment be designated Ladies-only. But requests were rare. Despite demands following each 'outrage', women simply didn't want the accommodation.
This low use had multiple causes. Families competed for space with single women, many of whom did not want to share with children. One correspondent explained 'women are, as a rule, very fond of their own children, but I for one draw the line at other people's children […] when they behave like little monsters.' The compartments became associated with stereotypical old-fashioned spinsters, with young women especially avoiding them. Safety concerns remained. Most women preferred to travel in standard accommodation with a few other people than alone in ladies-only, where male attackers could and did still gain entry.
The compartments also generated a discourse that the modern reader would consider 'victim blaming'. An 1875 newspaper promoting Ladies-only argued 'It is incumbent upon the gentler sex not to lay themselves open to the gibes and sneers of the vulgar upon such a point as this, and the sooner they do so the better, or they will be the victims of retaliation.' In short, travel in a ladies-only carriage or you deserve what you get. This kind of attitude is utterly unacceptable today, but ladies-only carriages act to reinforce it. Emphasis is placed upon potential victims to avoid assault rather than dealing with the cause of the problem, a regular criticism of ladies-only carriages in operation in other countries.
Ladies-only also became the target of ire for male passengers, annoyed at having to squeeze into overcrowded carriages when the Ladies-only were empty. The Metropolitan abandoned Ladies-only after a year because of male complaints. Other men began to demand full gender segregation, with one correspondent arguing 'Men mostly travel in silence; women […] talk almost incessantly. In the name of humanity let them have carriages reserved to themselves, but also let us men have carriages reserved to ourselves.' While Ladies-only was intended to provide a refuge for women, the result was the actions of female passengers came under scrutiny, with many women reporting hostile reactions from male passengers when they tried to travel in other parts of the train.
The solution was to open up trains. The tube railways, with their open carriages and numerous staff, encouraged a safer environment in which gender separation was considered unnecessary. The continuance of compartment carriages meant ladies-only survived on the railways for a considerable time, but today, with compartments abolished, the prime reason for their existence is gone. Instead, the last two centuries suggest that sexual harassment is better targeted by a larger staff presence, open trains (such as the new walk-through trains on the Metropolitan), CCTV to identify suspects, and the strong prosecution of offenders. With congestion appearing to be a prime cause of harassment by allowing offenders a degree of anonymity in the rush hour crowds, a movement towards larger trains and more regular services is also likely to help.
There is no doubt that sexual harassment remains a serious issue on Britain's railways, but women-only carriages are unlikely to prove a 'silver bullet' and probably counterproductive. As Funny Folks reported on the end of Ladies-only on the Metropolitan in 1875, 'It would not do; the 'ladies only' compartments had to be given up to 'the mixture as before;' and man – proud man, got a lesson in the difficulties of legislating in the interests of the fair sex!'
Simon Abernethy is a historian at Cambridge looking at social class, gender, and public transport in London.
- See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/simon-abernethy/sending-females-rail-history-women-only-carriages#sthash.UiZyDdJ9.dpuf
Why a well-intentioned move would create more problems than it would solve.
In 1977 British Railways abolished a railway institution 132 years old: ladies-only train accommodation. With sex offences rising by 32 per cent on London's tube and train network to record levels last year, Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn this week proposed a consultation on having women-only carriages on the London Underground after 10pm. While well intentioned, history suggests that these would create more problems than they would solve.
In the 19th century the ladies-only carriage was a reflection of the gender-segregation of Victorian public life and the lack of autonomy women often had within it (an 1862 guide to using the railways had a section entitled 'sending females' by rail, which rather demonstrates popular attitudes). They were also a reaction against numerous and recurring cases of sexual assault. British carriages were usually divided into compartments from which escape in an emergency was difficult. Before 1868 emergency cords were not legally required, and thereafter frequently malfunctioned. Consequently, female passengers could be at risk of serious assault with little prospect of help.
The most infamous incident occurred in 1875. Colonel Valentine Baker was a noted army officer, brother of explorer Samuel Baker, and friend of the Prince of Wales. He was also a sexual predator. While sat in a first-class compartment with 22 year old Rebecca Dickinson, Baker indecently assaulted her. Dickinson, unable to raise the alarm, climbed out of the window of the moving train, remaining half outside and half inside as Baker clung on to her, travelling for five miles until the train stopped at the next station. Baker was arrested and charged with indecent assault, dismissed from the army, and publicly disgraced. Dickinson was largely physically unharmed, but in other incidents women suffered serious injuries or death. In the wake of these there were widespread demands for separate ladies-only accommodation to prevent attacks from happening.
However, demands usually came from paternalistic middle-class men, not women. An 1896 correspondent calling himself 'Paterfamilias' explained that 'scarcely a week passes without one's reading of some more or less horrible outrage on the railway, and it should be the spontaneous act of every company to provide reserved accommodation by every train and for every class of carriage.' But among women the accommodation was strikingly unpopular. In 1888 only 248 of 1,060 ladies-only seats in a given period on the Great Western were used, with 5,141 women travelling in smoking compartments instead. The London, Tilbury & Southend ran all their trains between 1877 and 1882 with 'women and children only' compartments, but removed them due to unpopularity. The majority of companies had abolished permanent ladies-only accommodation; instead female passengers could request a compartment be designated Ladies-only. But requests were rare. Despite demands following each 'outrage', women simply didn't want the accommodation.
This low use had multiple causes. Families competed for space with single women, many of whom did not want to share with children. One correspondent explained 'women are, as a rule, very fond of their own children, but I for one draw the line at other people's children […] when they behave like little monsters.' The compartments became associated with stereotypical old-fashioned spinsters, with young women especially avoiding them. Safety concerns remained. Most women preferred to travel in standard accommodation with a few other people than alone in ladies-only, where male attackers could and did still gain entry.
The compartments also generated a discourse that the modern reader would consider 'victim blaming'. An 1875 newspaper promoting Ladies-only argued 'It is incumbent upon the gentler sex not to lay themselves open to the gibes and sneers of the vulgar upon such a point as this, and the sooner they do so the better, or they will be the victims of retaliation.' In short, travel in a ladies-only carriage or you deserve what you get. This kind of attitude is utterly unacceptable today, but ladies-only carriages act to reinforce it. Emphasis is placed upon potential victims to avoid assault rather than dealing with the cause of the problem, a regular criticism of ladies-only carriages in operation in other countries.
Ladies-only also became the target of ire for male passengers, annoyed at having to squeeze into overcrowded carriages when the Ladies-only were empty. The Metropolitan abandoned Ladies-only after a year because of male complaints. Other men began to demand full gender segregation, with one correspondent arguing 'Men mostly travel in silence; women […] talk almost incessantly. In the name of humanity let them have carriages reserved to themselves, but also let us men have carriages reserved to ourselves.' While Ladies-only was intended to provide a refuge for women, the result was the actions of female passengers came under scrutiny, with many women reporting hostile reactions from male passengers when they tried to travel in other parts of the train.
The solution was to open up trains. The tube railways, with their open carriages and numerous staff, encouraged a safer environment in which gender separation was considered unnecessary. The continuance of compartment carriages meant ladies-only survived on the railways for a considerable time, but today, with compartments abolished, the prime reason for their existence is gone. Instead, the last two centuries suggest that sexual harassment is better targeted by a larger staff presence, open trains (such as the new walk-through trains on the Metropolitan), CCTV to identify suspects, and the strong prosecution of offenders. With congestion appearing to be a prime cause of harassment by allowing offenders a degree of anonymity in the rush hour crowds, a movement towards larger trains and more regular services is also likely to help.
There is no doubt that sexual harassment remains a serious issue on Britain's railways, but women-only carriages are unlikely to prove a 'silver bullet' and probably counterproductive. As Funny Folks reported on the end of Ladies-only on the Metropolitan in 1875, 'It would not do; the 'ladies only' compartments had to be given up to 'the mixture as before;' and man – proud man, got a lesson in the difficulties of legislating in the interests of the fair sex!'
Simon Abernethy is a historian at Cambridge looking at social class, gender, and public transport in London.
- See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/simon-abernethy/sending-females-rail-history-women-only-carriages#sthash.UiZyDdJ9.dpuf
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:This coming from the woman who was conspiring to get me banned and adament she would do so to her twitter friends lol
That was funny when you were busted on that and that is called an obsession, which proves you clearly need to see the doctor where you are that bothered by a poster online because he easily tears apart your arguiments and shows up your support for extremists. lol
None of which has any relevance to the fact that you made an error
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Nems wrote:Cuchulain wrote:This coming from the woman who was conspiring to get me banned and adament she would do so to her twitter friends lol
That was funny when you were busted on that and that is called an obsession, which proves you clearly need to see the doctor where you are that bothered by a poster online because he easily tears apart your arguiments and shows up your support for extremists. lol
None of which has any relevance to the fact that you made an error
You mean like your error on people posting signs in English Nems?
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:This coming from the woman who was conspiring to get me banned and adament she would do so to her twitter friends lol
That was funny when you were busted on that and that is called an obsession, which proves you clearly need to see the doctor where you are that bothered by a poster online because he easily tears apart your arguiments and shows up your support for extremists. lol
Don't lie, I said if they wanted a laugh there was an idiot who swallowed all the guff put out by Israel, because we were talking about people who were stupid enough to believe the hasbara. I never mentioned getting you banned. Poor didge, what an idiot you are.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Yes you did mention about getting me banned and proves you are an utter liar and gutless as seen by conspiring on twitter.
I see none of your mates have followed you here lol.
I am more than happy to make them look as stupid as you do on the subject
I see none of your mates have followed you here lol.
I am more than happy to make them look as stupid as you do on the subject
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
No I didn't, I said you nearly got banned because of your vile sexual comments, which you did. There's a naughty boy then.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
sassy wrote:No I didn't, I said you nearly got banned because of your vile sexual comments, which you did. There's a naughty boy then.
Bullshit alert. Ha ha ha
You said you would get Ben to Ban me which I know he would not listen to anyones trying to do that.
You are such a poor liar and as seen caught with your pants down conspiring because you are that obsessed a poster takes you to the cleaners on here.
You ned support you are that pathetic
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Nems wrote:
None of which has any relevance to the fact that you made an error
You mean like your error on people posting signs in English Nems?
I made no error
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Nems wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
You mean like your error on people posting signs in English Nems?
I made no error
Yes you did.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Nems wrote:
I made no error
Yes you did.
Poor deflection I made no error unlike you
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Nems wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
Yes you did.
Poor deflection I made no error unlike you
Yes you did, you thought people in Germany would not make signs in English a universal language, which refugees would be more likley to understand than they would German.
Anyone else and I would say I was mistaken, with sassy, I do not believe her, which I explain because she is a bad liar
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:sassy wrote:No I didn't, I said you nearly got banned because of your vile sexual comments, which you did. There's a naughty boy then.
Bullshit alert. Ha ha ha
You said you would get Ben to Ban me which I know he would not listen to anyones trying to do that.
You are such a poor liar and as seen caught with your pants down conspiring because you are that obsessed a poster takes you to the cleaners on here.
You ned support you are that pathetic
Now show me where I mention banning:
[list="expanded-conversation expansion-container js-expansion-container js-navigable-stream"]
@suspendedgreg @MelanieLatest @bu_zaq Love to have you on a forum I go on called http://www.newsfixboard.com/ nastly little zionist if fightHide summary 0 retweets 0 favourites
[*]
0 retweets 1 favourite
[*]
Gregg
0 retweets 0 favourites
[*]
Sandy Stark
0 retweets 1 favourite
[*]
Gregg
[/list]
0 retweets 1 favourite
[list="expanded-conversation expansion-container js-expansion-container js-navigable-stream"]
@suspendedgreg @MelanieLatest @bu_zaq He is truly vile! Goes through phases, at the moment he's doing an 'I'm reformed and I'm nice' bit0 retweets 1 favourite
[*]
Gregg
[/list]
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
lol you can pick the posts but I have seen where you did Sassy.
It was actually PM to me by someone independent and not onvolved in these spats and I even had Ben tell me also viw PM nobody would convince them to ban someone.
You are like I say a very bad liar.
It was actually PM to me by someone independent and not onvolved in these spats and I even had Ben tell me also viw PM nobody would convince them to ban someone.
You are like I say a very bad liar.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
That's all the posts that refer to you. You couldn't be more NPD if you were paid for it.
The only one lying is you. So now it's pm's is it, the story changes again. You are one sad shit.
The only one lying is you. So now it's pm's is it, the story changes again. You are one sad shit.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
I am not lying at all Sassy, as that is you and it was brought to my attention by two people where you were talking about having me banned, the funniest part is that you are too gutless to admit that you did say that.
I did get PM's and also Dean started a thread without consulting me, so he saw also. You can try and worm your way out but it proves how devious you are and just because you get a spanking on derbates lol
I did get PM's and also Dean started a thread without consulting me, so he saw also. You can try and worm your way out but it proves how devious you are and just because you get a spanking on derbates lol
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
There was nothing on the Twitter thing about having you banned Didge.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:There was nothing on the Twitter thing about having you banned Didge.
Yes there was before Rags
I have witnesses to this Rags
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:There was nothing on the Twitter thing about having you banned Didge.
Yes there was before Rags
I have witnesses to this Rags
Dean copied the stuff from there and pasted it here, and there was nothing like that.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Nems wrote:
Poor deflection I made no error unlike you
Yes you did, you thought people in Germany would not make signs in English a universal language, which refugees would be more likley to understand than they would German.
Anyone else and I would say I was mistaken, with sassy, I do not believe her, which I explain because she is a bad liar
I said no such thing!
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Nems wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
Yes you did, you thought people in Germany would not make signs in English a universal language, which refugees would be more likley to understand than they would German.
Anyone else and I would say I was mistaken, with sassy, I do not believe her, which I explain because she is a bad liar
I said no such thing!
So your point on them being in English?
Behave
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
Yes there was before Rags
I have witnesses to this Rags
Dean copied the stuff from there and pasted it here, and there was nothing like that.
Yes there originally was Rags
Again I have witnesses and all this proves is sassy is gutless
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Dean copied the stuff from there and pasted it here, and there was nothing like that.
Yes there originally was Rags
Again I have witnesses and all this proves is sassy is gutless
Post what she said then.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
Yes there originally was Rags
Again I have witnesses and all this proves is sassy is gutless
Post what she said then.
How can I when she has deleted it?
Again she was quick to cover her tracks but not quick enough, people saw.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Nems wrote:
I said no such thing!
So your point on them being in English?
Behave
Exactly my point was them being in English. I said nothing about who made them
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Nems wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
So your point on them being in English?
Behave
Exactly my point was them being in English. I said nothing about who made them
Ha ha ha ha pathetic.
That is not all what you said was it?
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Post what she said then.
How can I when she has deleted it?
Again she was quick to cover her tracks but not quick enough, people saw.
You mean someone claimed she said that.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
How can I when she has deleted it?
Again she was quick to cover her tracks but not quick enough, people saw.
You mean someone claimed she said that.
no I saw also as well as others
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
You mean someone claimed she said that.
no I saw also as well as others
You were following her Twitter account at the exact time?
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
no I saw also as well as others
You were following her Twitter account at the exact time?
For goodness sake.
Others saw, who informed me of which I saw also.
Anything else?
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
You were following her Twitter account at the exact time?
For goodness sake.
Others saw, who informed me of which I saw also.
Anything else?
You mean someone saw her say that, so they PMd you to have a look, and you then went and looked at her Twitter account?
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
For goodness sake.
Others saw, who informed me of which I saw also.
Anything else?
You mean someone saw her say that, so they PMd you to have a look, and you then went and looked at her Twitter account?
OMG beggars belief
Anyway its none of your buisness, I know she did conspire, whether you believe or not is up to you.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
You mean someone saw her say that, so they PMd you to have a look, and you then went and looked at her Twitter account?
OMG beggars belief
Anyway its none of your buisness, I know she did conspire, whether you believe or not is up to you.
So you didn't go and look, and you didn't see her say that.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
OMG beggars belief
Anyway its none of your buisness, I know she did conspire, whether you believe or not is up to you.
So you didn't go and look, and you didn't see her say that.
I suggest you read back, as you clearly need to go to specsavers
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
Post what she said then.
How can I when she has deleted it?
Again she was quick to cover her tracks but not quick enough, people saw.
Nothing has been deleted. I just checked what was originally taken from Twitter and there is no mention of getting you banned.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Raggamuffin wrote:
So you didn't go and look, and you didn't see her say that.
I suggest you read back, as you clearly need to go to specsavers
Well did you or didn't you see her say that on Twitter? You're being very evasive about it. I don't think you did see her say it.
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Nems wrote:Cuchulain wrote:
How can I when she has deleted it?
Again she was quick to cover her tracks but not quick enough, people saw.
Nothing has been deleted. I just checked what was originally taken from Twitter and there is no mention of getting you banned.
Yes there was and I will PM you
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:Nems wrote:
Nothing has been deleted. I just checked what was originally taken from Twitter and there is no mention of getting you banned.
Yes there was and I will PM you
I am agog
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Well I've just posted the full conversation, so he obviously daren't put on the thread what he thinks he has if he has to pm it. Sad sack.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Sad, this again coming from sassy who needed to slag me off on twitter because she loses so many debates ha ha ha ha ha
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
I didn't need to, we were talking about people who believed hasbara and you are the only one I know who swallows it whole and comes up for more.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
According to you, you win all debates, according to everyone else, you fall flat on your face every time.
NPD taken to the extreme.
NPD taken to the extreme.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
You clearly did need to ha ha ha
Seriously you contradict yourself more than George Bush
Seriously you contradict yourself more than George Bush
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
sassy wrote:According to you, you win all debates, according to everyone else, you fall flat on your face every time.
NPD taken to the extreme.
No I lose debates to others, but with you I always win, mainly because you are that clueless
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Seriously, you fool yourself more than anyone every has. Now I'm going to do something interesting with intelligent company, walk the dog.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
You are right the dog is more intelligent than you lol
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
You couldn't win a debate with me if you tried as hard as you can, except in you own head where the truth is never about.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Cuchulain wrote:You are right the dog is more intelligent than you lol
See, I said intelligent company, the dog, because you are the dimmiest arsehole I normally come across. I have come across others, but only in 'special' places. My grandaughter who has celebral palsy has more gumption and brains than you.
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Why would you bring up your grandaughter?
Why is it you always have to look the victim?
Why is it you always have to look the victim?
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
sassy wrote:Cuchulain wrote:You are right the dog is more intelligent than you lol
See, I said intelligent company, the dog, because you are the dimmiest arsehole I normally come across. I have come across others, but only in 'special' places. My grandaughter who has celebral palsy has more gumption and brains than you.
What do you mean by "special" places?
Guest- Guest
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
Raggamuffin wrote:Didge made his post at 2.13, and Sassy made her post at 2.55, two minutes after my post. I hardly think she'd take so long to reply to Didge.
We can all see that rags. All of us but didge.
And the silly thing is, that sassy wouldn't even have denied she was saying it to him anyway if it was intended for him??!!
eddie- King of Beards. Keeper of the Whip. Top Chef. BEES!!!!!! Mushroom muncher. Spider aficionado!
- Posts : 43129
Join date : 2013-07-28
Age : 25
Location : England
Re: 'Sending females by rail': the history of women-only carriages
So did that tweet exist then?
Raggamuffin- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10
Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Similar topics
» Labour shadow ministers ditch Jeremy Corbyn's 'barmy' women-only train carriages proposal
» If You Look, You’ll Find Fascinating Stories About Women in History -
» Beat The Ancestors: Byzantine Flame Throwing Boat | History Documentary | Reel Truth History
» Women In History Quiz: Can You Name These Ground-Breaking Women?
» Women are as tough as men, study suggests, as it finds extreme physical exercise doesn't have greater negative effects on females
» If You Look, You’ll Find Fascinating Stories About Women in History -
» Beat The Ancestors: Byzantine Flame Throwing Boat | History Documentary | Reel Truth History
» Women In History Quiz: Can You Name These Ground-Breaking Women?
» Women are as tough as men, study suggests, as it finds extreme physical exercise doesn't have greater negative effects on females
Page 2 of 3
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Sat Mar 18, 2023 12:28 pm by Ben Reilly
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
Wed Feb 22, 2023 5:14 pm by Tommy Monk
» Interesting COVID figures
Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:00 am by Tommy Monk
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
Sun Jan 01, 2023 7:33 pm by Tommy Monk
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
Thu Dec 15, 2022 3:59 pm by Tommy Monk
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
Mon Dec 12, 2022 1:21 am by 'Wolfie
» Quill
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:28 pm by Tommy Monk
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
Thu Oct 20, 2022 10:04 pm by Tommy Monk
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:19 am by Ben Reilly
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:02 pm by Maddog
» PHEW.
Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:33 pm by Syl
» And here's some more enrichment...
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:46 pm by Ben Reilly
» John F Kennedy Assassination
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:40 pm by Ben Reilly
» Where is everyone lately...?
Thu Sep 15, 2022 3:33 pm by Ben Reilly
» London violence over the weekend...
Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:19 pm by Tommy Monk
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:44 am by Tommy Monk
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
Mon Jul 11, 2022 1:11 pm by Tommy Monk
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:58 am by Tommy Monk
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:50 pm by Tommy Monk
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...
Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:31 pm by Original Quill