Melksham tonight

[whole diary]

[swlines]

The evening down Southampton today had 8 getting off, and 1 getting on. These included the mysteriously banned Jim (who counts for 6) and the correctly banned Conner (who counts for 0.5).

(Genuinely there were 8!!)

Update: The up Chelt had 2 getting on (Conner and Jimothy (who now counts for 12 as he's had some burgers)) and 1 getting off.

[Phil]

People were banned from the train?

(I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of the point you're struggling to make there otherwise, Tom.)

[swlines]

I'm referring to the status of certain users on this forum.

[grahame]

It's very sad to see how what was intended by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to be a peak service from Swindon to West Wiltshire (Trowbridge, Melksham, Warminster and Westbury) has been reduced to such a sad service by the decision of the train operating company to run it far later that is optimum, and to run the corresponding morning service far earlier that is the optimum.   A true peak service that I descibed as "nesting" - nearly every seat taken - in 2006 - has been replaced by a service that's designed to meet the letter (but NOT the spirit) of the franchise specification.

With regard to the status of members on this forum, this particular situation has already been covered in some depth several months ago and the matter closed. It must remain so; further comment by third parties is inappropriate and would contravene privacy policy. It  should not be a mystery to any of the very few members upon whom we (the admins) have had to impose posting limits as to why we have done so in their case, and indeed we have gone to considerable length to ensure this, and to explain it to them directly and have them fully informed.

[swlines]

and to explain it to them directly and have them fully informed.

Then please do explain so as Jim does not know the ultimate reason why he was banned (when a few of us know the actual reason - and it seems rather pathetic).

[grahame]

Tom, I do not think you understood my previous post. I said that for privacy reasons this subject is closed and must remain so.  Any further post on the subject will be a clear contravention.

It does sound like you are not fully / properly informed on the reasons for the ban, and indeed that is as it should be. It might be that the member in question has chosen to confide his side of the story to you, but I have certainly not taken you into my confidence and told you everything - I couldn't do so even if I wanted to. Other members of the forum would be very worried indeed if they felt that third parties had full access to personal data, wouldn't they?

Edit to add that I can, of course, discuss the reasons for a member's bans direct with the members in question and would expect to do so to ensure that we clearly understand each other.

I would thank you, though, for helping to bring the plight of "TransWilts" passengers (or rather wannabe passengers) to light again ...