Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:31:50 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:20:52PM +0000, d wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 12:16:15 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
No, a student is one who studies.
So a 5 year old in primary school is a student then?

I wouldn't really say that they study, so no.

No? So what do you consider studying then?

So what?

So, obviously, they can't afford full price fares, and so in the
interests of encouraging them to continue their education, they can get
cheaper travel.

If their parents didn't give them any money they couldn't afford ANY fares
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Oct 6, 4:39*pm, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:31:50 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
[snip]
So, obviously, they can't afford full price fares, and so in the
interests of encouraging them to continue their education, they can get
cheaper travel.

If their parents didn't give them any money they couldn't afford ANY fares
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On 06/10/2010 19:03, Mizter T wrote:

On Oct 6, 4:39 pm, wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 16:31:50 +0100
David wrote:
[snip]
So, obviously, they can't afford full price fares, and so in the
interests of encouraging them to continue their education, they can get
cheaper travel.

If their parents didn't give them any money they couldn't afford ANY fares
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

Unless it gets axed, which is where we came in :)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 11:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter T wrote:
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

If they're so poor they can't afford a bus fare then their family is
probably already on benefits. Theres no justifiable reason for kids to
have free or subsidised travel on public transport.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On 07/10/2010 09:54, d wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 11:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Mizter wrote:
so since its their parents paying theres no reason they can't cough up a
full fare.

What? 16-18 year old Londoners in further edukashun (sixth form etc)
get free bus travel. It makes a world of difference to some.

If they're so poor they can't afford a bus fare then their family is
probably already on benefits. Theres no justifiable reason for kids to
have free or subsidised travel on public transport.

Encouraging the habit for later? Supporting extra-curricular education?
Giving them something to do other than insert whatever the Daily
Express says young people today do with their time?

Perhaps it might also be a small help to kids faced with the "when I was
your age I was down pit[1] earning money to support my 10 siblings, not
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day people
fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not to get
much help but not generally supportive of education.

[1]or whatever the London equivalent is.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day people
fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not to get
much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In message , at 08:50:35 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

People's circumstances change. Even Concorde pilots eventually get laid
off. Although he could always get one of Norman's bikes and live in a
bedsit if he can't sell his house in Surrey.

And if you are a divorcee with two kids (that you used to be able to
afford), and marry another divorcee with two kids (that they used to
able to afford), which of them do you expect to go hungry?

It seems to me there's an awful lot of "one size fits all-ism" in the
air at the moment, which is ironic given that much of the debate is
about a one-size-fits-all benefit payment.
--
Roland Perry

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day
people fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not
to get much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't
have them.

Kids can arrive unplanned, even with what should be the right precautions
taken.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:30:21 -0500
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:45:12 +0100
Arthur Figgis wrote:
wasting time with that namby-pamby education nonsense". In My Day
people fell into a bit of hole if their families were rich enough not
to get much help but not generally supportive of education.

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't
have them.

Kids can arrive unplanned, even with what should be the right precautions
taken.

Abortions have been legal for decades. No kid should arrive "unplanned"
any more even if contraception fails.

B2003

Crossrail and Tube upgrades spared the axe - NCE
 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:11:28 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:50:35 on Fri, 8 Oct
2010, d remarked:

Having kids isn't required by law. If you can't afford them , don't have them.

People's circumstances change. Even Concorde pilots eventually get laid
off. Although he could always get one of Norman's bikes and live in a
bedsit if he can't sell his house in Surrey.

And if you are a divorcee with two kids (that you used to be able to
afford), and marry another divorcee with two kids (that they used to
able to afford), which of them do you expect to go hungry?

Well that you can't predict. I was refering to people who plan a family
without being able to afford to have children from the start other than
via benefits. There are 7 billion people on this rock and over 60 million
on this little island. Effectively paying people in kind to have kids is
bordering on the criminal IMO.

B2003