Purely out of interest, in law, how is a "massive" subsidy different
from a smaller one?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK

Ian, it is a matter of proportionality. If the ratepayers of Bromley ae paying
disproportionately for a service from which they do not benefit, no doubt they
would regard it (as did the Courts) a massive and illegal subsidy.

If it were a small amount, but even if it could have been proved that the
Bromley ratepayers received no direct benefit (for example, suppose there were
NO L.T. services whatsoever in that Borough), I think the G.L.C. might still
have won the case since it may have been provable that Bromleians when
travelling beyond their borough boundaries derive some benefit.

However, the scheme that Ken introduced required hugely disproportionate
contributions from some boroughs (maybe the richer ones, but also those South
of the Thames without Underground services) and this led to the challenge.

Marc.