![]() |
reducing congestion
|
reducing congestion
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.]
In article , JNugent wrote: Except that you then wrote: A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles (probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a motorway interchange). Indeed. But the car journey to which I was referring was a journey *within the area within a one hour commute from Central London* If that's what you meant, then you have mislead more than one person. Robin (and everyone else) took that to mean that you were limiting it to commuting by car. Their error, I fear, since I did not claim that - did I? No, but the implication was there, or so I thought. However, that's moot: I still think that you're 'one hour's commute' is over-optimistic. I used to commute from a small village just south of Guildford (about 30 miles from London), and it'd take me more than an hour to reach Waterloo, let alone a place of work in central London. This was mostly because getting from home to Guildford station used to take me 20 minutes or so; by the time you add a reasonable time to get from Waterloo to the office, and it was nearer 120 minutes door-to-door. While Finchley isn't exactly Central London I think the point is clear enough even so. -- Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no sneaky eating each other. -- FW (should I worry?) |
reducing congestion
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:15:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote: Even people whose favourite method of getting around is by car would think twice about using it to commute to Charing Cross. You'd want your head examined. So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is still a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one office block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park. Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
reducing congestion
"Duncan McNiven" wrote in message
... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating" wrote: Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house (which I regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can certainly afford to be screwed for every penny by the tax man. Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does that make us rich? Hardly. We have our family home. We also own the home which, before our marriage, I shared with my mother; my mother still lives there. My wife also rents an apartment near her work (1000 miles from home). Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother homeless? Should my wife commute daily? If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what people choose to spend their money on. -- Duncan My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing more than a tax on already-taxed income. |
reducing congestion
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:15:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron" wrote: Even people whose favourite method of getting around is by car would think twice about using it to commute to Charing Cross. You'd want your head examined. So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is still a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one office block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park. Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted. Merely respnsing to the previous post, if you have anything to add to any aspect of the thread I'm happy to resume. |
reducing congestion
"Silk" wrote in message
... Conor wrote: Millions were in the same boat. Strangely they seemed to be those who worked the hardest for the least rewards. For the first time in years, it was plain to see that the lazy whingebags in society weren't quite as hard-working as they said they were. The unions were ****ing up this country by making unreasonable demands on employers. Thatcher made sure these people could no longer hold the country to ransom. I suppose it must have come as a shock to some, when they realised the union-negotiated tea-break was over and there was work to be done. Still, you'll be glad to know that the ****ed up society we now live in is a direct result of the Thatcher "me first, **** the rest" policies. I think you'll find that's more to do with the loony left rewarding the lazy and irresponsible through state benefits. My only criticism of Thatcher was she didn't go far enough. Like most Thatcher critics, you confuse individual responsibility with selfishness. If it weren't for unions, most of us would be working 18 hours a day, with 1 ****e break, and earn just enough money to afford bread, water, and a cardboard box to live in. Of course, sometimes the unions went too far; I'll grant you that. :-) |
reducing congestion
Ian Smith wrote:
"Duncan McNiven" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating" wrote: Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house (which I regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can certainly afford to be screwed for every penny by the tax man. Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does that make us rich? Hardly. We have our family home. We also own the home which, before our marriage, I shared with my mother; my mother still lives there. My wife also rents an apartment near her work (1000 miles from home). Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother homeless? Should my wife commute daily? If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what people choose to spend their money on. -- Duncan My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing more than a tax on already-taxed income. Yup, I'd go for that. I'm sure most pensioners and other non income tax payers would welcome it. |
reducing congestion
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote: So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is still a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one office block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park. Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted. Merely respnsing to the previous post, By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars when none were mentioned. greg -- Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland. I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan. You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide. |
reducing congestion
Ian Smith wrote:
If it weren't for unions, most of us would be working 18 hours a day, with 1 ****e break, and earn just enough money to afford bread, water, and a cardboard box to live in. What more do you need? Some people are just plain greedy. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk