On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:46:10 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:00:06 +0100, Dave Arquati wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:43:39 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:00:49 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:


If it's not fit for purpose, it's 'niceness' is irrelevant. LT is there to
provide public transport, nothing else, it's assets are not there for the
benefit of train spotters, architecture wonks or unaccountable quangos who
don't have to pick up the tab for specious contradictory regulation.
So LU shouldn't do anything to reflect its heritage, its history and its
design excellence?
A straw man.

We (those LU employees who work there) should just be shoved in some
modern office equivalent of a battery hen shed should we?
There is absolutely no reason why you or any other public sector employee
should be provided with facilities which have higher operating costs than
equivalent ones elsewhere.

Does your logic also apply to the private sector? If this is the case
then I trust we will see bankers and corporate lawyers sharing the same
facilities as privatised dustmen.
(snip)

Paul, your argument has already failed here because you're asking for logic.

Obviously - I don't think I have come across anyone post such utter
patronising clap trap on the group.

Pointing out logical fallacy after logical fallacy posted in lieu of
addressing the point is now 'patronising clap trap'. ROTFL!

Neither of you have proved capable of explaining why LT or any other
publicly funded organisation should be somehow immune from minimising their
overheads and maximising the return on what are in the case of St James
exceedingly valuable assets.



Strawmen about dustmen and ambulance chasers not withstanding.



greg
--
Müde lieg ich lieg in der Scheisse,
und niemand weiss, wie ich heisse.
Es gibt nur einen, der mich kennt,
und mich bei meinem Namen nennt.