Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Hostile and entitled man hijacking my table

596 replies

BluntPlumHam · 14/08/2025 16:22

I stopped to have some lunch at a busy market where there is a lot of seating however often taken up so some waiting around.

Often a woman dining on her own or having coffee may ask to share a table which I always agree to.

I was sat at a table for 4 already eating.

Man and woman approach and ask if they can share my table.

I asked is it just you two and pointed at the seats opposite me and he nodded. So I said ok because it was super busy.

Seconds later a third person joins and I’m now encircled by their group. I took my headphones out and said hang on you didn’t say there were three of you?

He immediately got hostile and red in the face and said you need to go find a table for one person.

I put my cutlery down and said you need to move. He started blathering on about being allowed to voice his opinion and I just said no and firmly said leave because I wasn’t about to engage in a discussion or argument with this man child.

He started throwing a tantrum exclaiming that he’s not leaving puffing his chest out etc and his wife was trying to calm him down and kept apologising to me. He was clearly ready to have a stand off with me. I just turned to her, your husband is hostile, harassing me now and I want you to all leave to which she eventually said ok and that we will go find another table. He reluctantly left but not without trying to start a fight with me I just remained firm and resilient. Just kept repeating sternly you all need to leave now and find another table.

Wife was visibly embarrassed by his behaviour and grabbed my arm and sincerely apologised.

I just feel that a certain culture of general hostility towards women is being normalised in this day and age. Although I initially allowed him to sit there when I realised this was a group I revoked that permission but men can’t take a no for an answer.

Despite me doing them a favour and letting them sit there he had the audacity to get angry with me when I questioned the third person and tell me to go find another table midway my food. They did not have their food yet.

Men feel entitled to encroach and stay in women’s personal space even when bluntly told to go. Would it have been different had I been a man, absolutely.

AIBU for making them leave.

OP posts:
PotatoRato · 17/08/2025 22:25

llizzie · 17/08/2025 22:16

I am astounded that you should show such ? ? in public, even though no one can identify you.

For the sake of posters needing information and clarification, I will explain more, but it grieves me to do so when I know I am being trolled.

It was the first and last time I would employ them, because I felt outnumbered, intimidated in my own home. I would never do it again. You seem to think I was unreasonable. I did not know I would feel outnumbered: why would I, not having done that before?

I employed a cleaning company to clean my house. They quoted a price for the job, not an hourly rate, but I still employ them. I didn't know that they didn't speak a word of English so I could not tell them what to do. That was suspicious.

Did you know that you can be blamed for employing someone if it turns out they did not have a permit to work in UK? Employers can be held liable for employing individuals who lack the legal right to work in UK, regardless of whether they are casual or permanent employees. This includes situations where the employer didn't conduct proper ''right to work'' checks, even if the lack of authorisation was unintentional. Penalties can include significant fines, and in some cases, even criminal prosecution.

I have employed self employed carers/cleaners for a long time. My best carers are immigrants from other countries. I have to know where they come from and whether they have the right to work here. They have to be certified as having a driving licence, insurance, and a clean criminal record certificate from the Police.

They need that in order to work in other people's houses.

Carers usually need a care certificate. I am prepared to train the right person to my own needs, so long as they are legally able to work in UK. I like also to satisfy myself that they are self employed. They don't have to tell me how much they earn or how much tax they pay, but I am able to know if they are known to the DWP.

Nothing has changed from my original post. I employed someone to clean who came with two other people. I was expecting three, you are right. I also indicated in my first post that I felt outnumbered in my own house and would never employ three - or even two - again.

That was the whole point, my empathy with the OP, how she felt, because I felt the same when I employed that trio. I made it clear I would not employ them again.

Edited
Show quote history

You did not employ them. You don’t appear to know what “employ” means. If I use a babysitter, I am not employing them. If I use a cleaning business, I am not employing them. If I use a gardener, I am not employing them.

You did not employ them. I guarantee that you did not register them for tax purposes or pay into pensions for them. You did not employ them.

If they are a business, you did not employ them. You cannot employ a business. If they quoted you an amount, you did not employ them. You would pay them on your pay scale if you employed them. If they are self-employed then you did not employ them because they are SELF EMPLOYED!!! You did not employ them.

99.999999% of your post is irrelevant because you don’t know the difference between being an employer and paying a company for a service.

You cannot be held liable for anything because, as above. YOU DID NOT EMPLOY THEM.

Given you don’t appear to know what “employ” or “outnumbered” means, it’s bloody rich to be tantrumming that you couldn’t understand their English! Maybe it was better than yours?

thing47 · 17/08/2025 22:32

I can only conclude that some posters are totally unfamiliar with this type of food market\food court set up - fair enough, maybe it doesn't occur that often outside big cities. What I do know is that the one I frequent in central London at lunchtimes, all seating is communal - it's first come, first served to ONE seat (or more if there are more of you, obviously), but no one has the right to deny other people spare seats at a table, however much you might want to.

Seriously, anyone trying to police other seats would just be ignored. The newcomer(s) would just shrug and sit down anyway. Short of trying to physically move them, what can you do about it? A claim that someone was in the toilet (whether true or not) would most likely be met with a ' that's fine, I'll move when they get back.'

Asking to use a seat is not the social norm in a food market, as it might be elsewhere. If you can't grasp that principle, you're probably better off choosing a different location entirely for your lunch.

llizzie · 17/08/2025 22:39

PotatoRato · 17/08/2025 22:25

You did not employ them. You don’t appear to know what “employ” means. If I use a babysitter, I am not employing them. If I use a cleaning business, I am not employing them. If I use a gardener, I am not employing them.

You did not employ them. I guarantee that you did not register them for tax purposes or pay into pensions for them. You did not employ them.

If they are a business, you did not employ them. You cannot employ a business. If they quoted you an amount, you did not employ them. You would pay them on your pay scale if you employed them. If they are self-employed then you did not employ them because they are SELF EMPLOYED!!! You did not employ them.

99.999999% of your post is irrelevant because you don’t know the difference between being an employer and paying a company for a service.

You cannot be held liable for anything because, as above. YOU DID NOT EMPLOY THEM.

Given you don’t appear to know what “employ” or “outnumbered” means, it’s bloody rich to be tantrumming that you couldn’t understand their English! Maybe it was better than yours?

Show quote history

You are being pedantic, but you know that, don't you? It may be classified as not employing a domestic help if they are self employed, in that you do not have t o pay income tax for them or NI contributions, because they are liable for that themselves, but you still have responsibilities towards them, whether technically called employment or not.

You have to ensure they have the right to work in the UK, and paying them regularly for set hours - a salary - potentially including payslips (I pay mine through paypal so there is always a record of what they have received if I am asked, because the police and DWP can demand access to bank records)

Perhaps in your knowledgeable wisdom, you can supply me with a more appropriate term than 'employing them'?

PotatoRato · 17/08/2025 22:46

llizzie · 17/08/2025 22:39

You are being pedantic, but you know that, don't you? It may be classified as not employing a domestic help if they are self employed, in that you do not have t o pay income tax for them or NI contributions, because they are liable for that themselves, but you still have responsibilities towards them, whether technically called employment or not.

You have to ensure they have the right to work in the UK, and paying them regularly for set hours - a salary - potentially including payslips (I pay mine through paypal so there is always a record of what they have received if I am asked, because the police and DWP can demand access to bank records)

Perhaps in your knowledgeable wisdom, you can supply me with a more appropriate term than 'employing them'?

Show quote history

All of your second paragraph is incorrect. All of it. You don’t have to do any of that at all.

”Use” is more appropriate in general usage. You “use” a cleaner. “Contract” is the technical term. You “contract” a self-employed cleaner.

As I said, you don’t have to do anything at all in the second paragraph you wrote. You solely have to pay them what you agreed to pay them in whatever contract you agreed to (and, even if you don’t, it’s not a criminal offence and no regulatory/government entity can do anything).

TinyIsMyNewt · 17/08/2025 22:52

llizzie · 17/08/2025 22:39

You are being pedantic, but you know that, don't you? It may be classified as not employing a domestic help if they are self employed, in that you do not have t o pay income tax for them or NI contributions, because they are liable for that themselves, but you still have responsibilities towards them, whether technically called employment or not.

You have to ensure they have the right to work in the UK, and paying them regularly for set hours - a salary - potentially including payslips (I pay mine through paypal so there is always a record of what they have received if I am asked, because the police and DWP can demand access to bank records)

Perhaps in your knowledgeable wisdom, you can supply me with a more appropriate term than 'employing them'?

Show quote history

She's not being pedantic, you're just spouting nonsense.

NewYearSameMe16 · 17/08/2025 23:16

PotatoRato · 17/08/2025 21:39

😂😂😂😂😂

Now. Imagine that OP is at the table and someone tries to sit at a completely empty table next to her. OP lies to them and says “oh, please don’t sit there, the mother and baby there have just gone to the baby change”. Now, those people would sit elsewhere and the table next to OP would remain empty. Are you saying, by your logic that OP could lie about imaginary people in the toilet, she has the right to dictate the whole restaurant?

Obviously not. Because the whole point you’ve made is nonsense.

Show quote history

I hope you realise how insane you sound 😂 This is thread is the definition of ‘I love pancakes/so you hate waffles then?’ internet stupidity 😅

Why the hell would OP care about tables that have nothing to do with her?? The whole conversation is about these three people sitting in close proximity to her.

My example of a scenario where the OP could’ve lied about non existent friends occupying the seats and preventing the group sitting there was to counter the view that she has absolutely no say when in fact, sitting there first means she is the initial decision maker on who else sits there (like the BF mum who rightly or wrongly said no when asked). They could ignore her obviously but that’s just how it goes in normal settings like this; GET OVER IT.

bigsnootenergy · 17/08/2025 23:45

People who are complaining about one person taking up a 4x table are absolute idiots.

just because someone is on their own, doesn’t deny them the right to a table. If there’s a 4x table free, should they just stand and wait around until a smaller table becomes available?

absolute bollocks.

llizzie · 18/08/2025 03:32

PotatoRato · 17/08/2025 22:46

All of your second paragraph is incorrect. All of it. You don’t have to do any of that at all.

”Use” is more appropriate in general usage. You “use” a cleaner. “Contract” is the technical term. You “contract” a self-employed cleaner.

As I said, you don’t have to do anything at all in the second paragraph you wrote. You solely have to pay them what you agreed to pay them in whatever contract you agreed to (and, even if you don’t, it’s not a criminal offence and no regulatory/government entity can do anything).

Show quote history

Have you any idea how daft that sounds? Do you really think people who ''employ'' domestic, gardeners, carers tell other people they are ''using'' a cleaner, or ''using a gardener'' and so on?

When have you ever heard that said? In general parlance, 'employ' is usual.

If the DWP were to ask me how I use my independence benefit, (they wouldn't, because they don't want to know what you spend it on) but supposing, for the sake of argument they were to do that, would you think it better to say ''I use a carer for 8 hours a week'' or ''I employ a carer for 8 hours a week''?

It rolls off the tongue better, and everyone knows what you mean.

Incidentally, if you 'use' someone for 10 or more hours a week, or are paying them over £10K a year (now I haven't looked it up before I started this so it could be more or less), unless they show you that they are genuinely self employed, you get into payroll then, with all that entails, and if they are not self employed, you cannot ask them to become self employed to save you the payroll hassle of NI, tax, holiday and sick pay and so on.

TinyIsMyNewt · 18/08/2025 04:57

llizzie · 18/08/2025 03:32

Have you any idea how daft that sounds? Do you really think people who ''employ'' domestic, gardeners, carers tell other people they are ''using'' a cleaner, or ''using a gardener'' and so on?

When have you ever heard that said? In general parlance, 'employ' is usual.

If the DWP were to ask me how I use my independence benefit, (they wouldn't, because they don't want to know what you spend it on) but supposing, for the sake of argument they were to do that, would you think it better to say ''I use a carer for 8 hours a week'' or ''I employ a carer for 8 hours a week''?

It rolls off the tongue better, and everyone knows what you mean.

Incidentally, if you 'use' someone for 10 or more hours a week, or are paying them over £10K a year (now I haven't looked it up before I started this so it could be more or less), unless they show you that they are genuinely self employed, you get into payroll then, with all that entails, and if they are not self employed, you cannot ask them to become self employed to save you the payroll hassle of NI, tax, holiday and sick pay and so on.

Show quote history

I've never heard someone use "employ" in the sense you do.

Personally, I would use "hire", day-to-day.

Your last para is not close to accurate. The number of hours you engage someone for, or the amount you pay them, is not what determines if an employee-employer relationship exists.

TottyMaude · 18/08/2025 07:00

After reading even more of this thread, I am absolutely never going anywhere near a food court or any kind of communal seating to eat. Who wants to watch strangers chewing? Just book a table somewhere civilised. Having a bit of lunch out should be enjoyable, not fraught with danger.

llizzie · 19/08/2025 02:17

TinyIsMyNewt · 18/08/2025 04:57

I've never heard someone use "employ" in the sense you do.

Personally, I would use "hire", day-to-day.

Your last para is not close to accurate. The number of hours you engage someone for, or the amount you pay them, is not what determines if an employee-employer relationship exists.

Show quote history

I am very sorry that I have written something which is grievous to you to read.

However, what I have written, I have written.

I don't 'hire' or 'day to day'. I don't think any other disabled people use those terms either. I could go on Scope and ask them. When I have discussed that with anyone, they use 'employ a carer'. Everyone knows what they mean, because very few of us, unless we are living on some sort of compensation making us well off, can afford to ''employ'' someone in that sense of the word.

God knows it is hard enough paying £200 a week for 8 hours, (£10,500 a year). I guarantee they would not like me to say I 'use them'. It smacks of old slavery talk. They like to know they are worth it.

TinyIsMyNewt · 19/08/2025 02:38

I am saying "hire" is the word I would use in an every day (day-to-day) sense, not that I use "day-to-day" to mean "hire".

It isn't just that you are using the word "employ" in a colloquial sense, you are asking people for work permits or similar in the mistakenly belief that you might actually be their employer in a legal sense, and are then misapplying applicable laws (or, as best I can tell, making some up).

PotatoRato · 19/08/2025 09:08

llizzie · 19/08/2025 02:17

I am very sorry that I have written something which is grievous to you to read.

However, what I have written, I have written.

I don't 'hire' or 'day to day'. I don't think any other disabled people use those terms either. I could go on Scope and ask them. When I have discussed that with anyone, they use 'employ a carer'. Everyone knows what they mean, because very few of us, unless we are living on some sort of compensation making us well off, can afford to ''employ'' someone in that sense of the word.

God knows it is hard enough paying £200 a week for 8 hours, (£10,500 a year). I guarantee they would not like me to say I 'use them'. It smacks of old slavery talk. They like to know they are worth it.

Show quote history

No one cares if you use it colloquially. The problem is when you use the term “employ” when it’s not technically correct and then insist you have the legal obligations of an actual employer.

The problem is that you insisted you are a formal, legal employer of these people. Saying “I employ a cleaner” when you actually “hire/contract/use a cleaner” is fine. Saying “I employ a cleaner and therefore am bound by the legal obligations of an employer” when you actually “hire/cleaner/use a cleaner” is nonsensical.

Using the word incorrectly isn’t the problem in itself. The problem is using the word incorrectly and then making up total bollocks because you’ve used it incorrectly.

Imagine someone renting out a house, they’re the landlord. If they said “I rent a house to some tenants” then they’re not using “rent” properly. It should be “I let a house to some tenants” but it doesn’t matter that they used the wrong word because everyone knows what they mean. But, if they (like you) went on the internet and found that it says that if you “rent” a house then you’re entitled to access the house at any time, can change the locks without notice and are entitled to exclusive access then it’d be absolute nonsense for them to argue that they, as the landlord, “renting” the property have the right to do that.

That is what you’ve done with the word “employ”. No one cares if you use a word that’s technically incorrect in general conversation - they care about you spreading lies by claiming to be legally and technically doing something that you are not doing.

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 11:16

Fiddy1964 · 16/08/2025 20:37

You shouldn't hog a seat with your bag. Your not paying for a ticket, for your bag to get a seat.
People shouldn't need to ask other people to remove bags so they can sit down, I find it extremely selfish and rude behaviour on pubkic transport.

Edited
Show quote history

I literally said I move it if asked OR if the train is filling up and it's obvious it might be needed. If there are lots of spare double seats I would find it a little odd that someone would insist on getting in to the one beyond me at the window but wouldn't protest. I might move myself... depends on the booking situation but . FFS...are we really now living in a world where "excuse me " and a gesture to a bag is beyond people? If you're capable of navigating public transport alone you need to be capable to advocate for yourself to the mildest degree.

TheignT · 19/08/2025 13:24

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 11:16

I literally said I move it if asked OR if the train is filling up and it's obvious it might be needed. If there are lots of spare double seats I would find it a little odd that someone would insist on getting in to the one beyond me at the window but wouldn't protest. I might move myself... depends on the booking situation but . FFS...are we really now living in a world where "excuse me " and a gesture to a bag is beyond people? If you're capable of navigating public transport alone you need to be capable to advocate for yourself to the mildest degree.

Show quote history

I travel by train regularly and I think what you do is normal. Also on crowded .trainsthere is usually a message asking people to take bags of seats, maybe that's just CrossCountry?

My personal issue is people getting on with huge suitcases, often more than one plus a rucksack. There is a maximum size case included with your ticket if people check. I've had a case fall on me from an over crowded luggage rack, struggled to move into a carriage as the aisle is blocked with suitcases.

TheignT · 19/08/2025 13:27

bigsnootenergy · 17/08/2025 23:45

People who are complaining about one person taking up a 4x table are absolute idiots.

just because someone is on their own, doesn’t deny them the right to a table. If there’s a 4x table free, should they just stand and wait around until a smaller table becomes available?

absolute bollocks.

Should 3 people stand with a tray of food waiting to find a free table when there are 3 seats empty, particularly when OP says she claims a table before getting her food.

Fiddy1964 · 19/08/2025 17:57

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 11:16

I literally said I move it if asked OR if the train is filling up and it's obvious it might be needed. If there are lots of spare double seats I would find it a little odd that someone would insist on getting in to the one beyond me at the window but wouldn't protest. I might move myself... depends on the booking situation but . FFS...are we really now living in a world where "excuse me " and a gesture to a bag is beyond people? If you're capable of navigating public transport alone you need to be capable to advocate for yourself to the mildest degree.

Show quote history

I certainly have no problem advocating for myself but still find it rude and selfish that I need to ask someone to remove theur bag/jacket etc so I can sit down. I use public transport a lot ,now that I had to give up driving due to health issues. I see more and more selfish/entitled behaviour on buses/trains. More bus drivers than ever are having to make announcements to ask passengers to please remove any items they have placed on an empty seat next to them as passengers boarding are being ignored when looking for a seat to sit down.
I just find in general people are becoming very self centred and entitled when sharing public spaces and transport.

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 18:20

Why is asking a three or four word question such an issue? Its not wrong to set yourself up comfortably, not put your bag on a filthy floor or have it hunched on your lap when there is no need. Unless they refuse to move it, pretend to be asleep or are otherwise obstructive when the seat is needed, I don't see why its rude, entitled or selfish to use the empty seat until then.

PotatoRato · 19/08/2025 18:57

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 18:20

Why is asking a three or four word question such an issue? Its not wrong to set yourself up comfortably, not put your bag on a filthy floor or have it hunched on your lap when there is no need. Unless they refuse to move it, pretend to be asleep or are otherwise obstructive when the seat is needed, I don't see why its rude, entitled or selfish to use the empty seat until then.

Because having to ask for basic decency is degrading and having to be asked before displaying basic decency is rude.

There are a million examples of that.

People who talk on their phones in the quiet carriage are rude even if no one has asked them to stop, and they would stop if asked. People to block entire aisles in supermarkets so people can't get past are rude even if no one has asked them to move, and they would move if asked. People who play loud music on campsites late in the evening are rude even if no one has asked them to stop, and they would stop if asked. Leaving your litter in someone's car is rude even if they haven't asked you to take it with you, and even if you would take it with you if they asked.

Putting your bag on the seat of a busy train when people are standing is rude. Doing so already demonstrates rudeness, selfishness and an inability to consider others. Forcing someone to initiate a confrontation with someone to get something they're entitled to is rude. It's even ruder to force them into that confrontation with someone who has already demonstrated that they're rude, selfish and inconsiderate.

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 19:25

PotatoRato · 19/08/2025 18:57

Because having to ask for basic decency is degrading and having to be asked before displaying basic decency is rude.

There are a million examples of that.

People who talk on their phones in the quiet carriage are rude even if no one has asked them to stop, and they would stop if asked. People to block entire aisles in supermarkets so people can't get past are rude even if no one has asked them to move, and they would move if asked. People who play loud music on campsites late in the evening are rude even if no one has asked them to stop, and they would stop if asked. Leaving your litter in someone's car is rude even if they haven't asked you to take it with you, and even if you would take it with you if they asked.

Putting your bag on the seat of a busy train when people are standing is rude. Doing so already demonstrates rudeness, selfishness and an inability to consider others. Forcing someone to initiate a confrontation with someone to get something they're entitled to is rude. It's even ruder to force them into that confrontation with someone who has already demonstrated that they're rude, selfish and inconsiderate.

Show quote history

Christ almighty....it's not a confrontation to say "excuse me". The other scenarios you are describing are entirely different..blocking aisles, talking loudly automatically impinge on someone. A bag on a seat on half empty train does not. I already said I pre-empt requests by moving it when train gets busy and it would be a problem but even if by some chance I didn't it's not "demeaning" to have to ask. Why in earth would it be? I sometimes wonder why half the population is "stressed" and "has anxiety" ...I think I have my answer.
No amount of "whataboutery" with inflated scenarios makes MY scenario inconsiderate, selfish or entitled.

PotatoRato · 19/08/2025 19:31

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 19:25

Christ almighty....it's not a confrontation to say "excuse me". The other scenarios you are describing are entirely different..blocking aisles, talking loudly automatically impinge on someone. A bag on a seat on half empty train does not. I already said I pre-empt requests by moving it when train gets busy and it would be a problem but even if by some chance I didn't it's not "demeaning" to have to ask. Why in earth would it be? I sometimes wonder why half the population is "stressed" and "has anxiety" ...I think I have my answer.
No amount of "whataboutery" with inflated scenarios makes MY scenario inconsiderate, selfish or entitled.

Show quote history

Stopping someone sitting in a seat obviously impinges on them. Obviously.

I like that the busy train is now half-empty.

If someone behaves in a way that makes clear that they're selfish, rude and inconsiderate then, yes, having to make a reasonable request to that person is a confrontation. That's demonstrated by the OP - she's one of those people. She turned a reasonable request into a huge confrontation. A decent person moves their bag - not moving the bag indicates that they aren't a decent person, having to ask someone who isn't a decent person to do the decent thing doesn't often end well. Another passenger cannot mind-read - they don't know the person will move the bag without issue or repercussions until it's too late. The only information they have to go on is their prior behaviour - which was unreasonable behaviour.

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 20:18

I don't think I ever said anything about a busy train. I said I'll leave my bag on a seat until it seems likely the seat will be needed. I'd never leave it there if people were standing. You've extrapolated from that into scenarios where people rudely refuse, stop people sitting down and bring "repercussions". That's totally different. And what's the worst that will happen..you ask, get told no and either remonstrate, sit on the bag or move on.

PotatoRato · 19/08/2025 20:45

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 20:18

I don't think I ever said anything about a busy train. I said I'll leave my bag on a seat until it seems likely the seat will be needed. I'd never leave it there if people were standing. You've extrapolated from that into scenarios where people rudely refuse, stop people sitting down and bring "repercussions". That's totally different. And what's the worst that will happen..you ask, get told no and either remonstrate, sit on the bag or move on.

I don’t know why you’re acting like I’ve accused you of doing anything wrong. I said why it was rude on a busy train.

If you don’t agree that it’s rude on a busy train, why do you move your bag when it gets busy?

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 20:53

I DO agree its rude on a busy train. You replied to my original comment to say that I was being rude and entitled as my bag hadn't paid for a seat. I'd said in that comment that I move it if and when the seat is needed but you went on to say that bags on seats are selfish just like playing loud music or blocking aisles because (horror) you might have to ASK for it to be moved. I disagreed with your analogies and said needing to ask is not a big deal - in my ACTUAL scenario its also irrelevant since I always anticipate a train getting busier. If you have no problem with a bag on a seat on a not busy train, I'm not sure why you had a problem with my first post.

PotatoRato · 19/08/2025 20:58

RhaenysRocks · 19/08/2025 20:53

I DO agree its rude on a busy train. You replied to my original comment to say that I was being rude and entitled as my bag hadn't paid for a seat. I'd said in that comment that I move it if and when the seat is needed but you went on to say that bags on seats are selfish just like playing loud music or blocking aisles because (horror) you might have to ASK for it to be moved. I disagreed with your analogies and said needing to ask is not a big deal - in my ACTUAL scenario its also irrelevant since I always anticipate a train getting busier. If you have no problem with a bag on a seat on a not busy train, I'm not sure why you had a problem with my first post.

I never, ever called you rude or entitled or mentioned anything about paying for a seat. I said: "Putting your bag on the seat of a busy train when people are standing is rude". And I didn't accuse you of having even done that.

It is rude to make people explicitly ask for something that they're entitled to. It is rude to display selfish, inconsiderate behaviour and then expect people to approach and expect decency.