Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, (Aidan Stanger) wrote:



AIUI there is one country where the supply of cars has been almost as
limited as the supply of British houses.

That would be singapore.

I was there on business in late 1995, one of the local expats was telling
me he'd just paid the equivalent of 45K stg for a 3 year old toyota
corolla.

That said, I've never seen as many S class Mercs in one place at one time
ever.

The Singapore situation is somewhat different - it is registering the
cars that is the expensive part. However, I think the cost of that has
fallen slightly now that they've got their complicated congestion charge
scheme BICBW.

In article ,
says...
Conor wrote:


Really? I suppose the railways are better than they used to be?
Especially in respect to track maintenance.

What's that got to do with Thatcher?

Please do try to keep up. May I suggest a news client that sorts
threads properly unlike yours.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

In article ,
says...
Conor wrote:


I seem to remember getting my arse truly reamed by Thatchers policies
in the late 80's.

Perhaps you deserved it.

Millions were in the same boat. Strangely they seemed to be those who
worked the hardest for the least rewards. 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.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

In article ,
says...
Purditer wrote:

General Secretary of the RMT

Never heard of him.

You're kidding.


--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

In article ,
says...

It's **** or be ****ed, unfortunately.

Ah, the standard ideology of the Thatcher years...

--
Conor

"Cogito Eggo Sum" - "I think, therefore I am a waffle"

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
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.

Of course some people commute to that area by car. However, I'd expect
most (if not all) of those people to be commuting from other parts of
London.

London has an extremely large "travel to work" area that extends well beyond
its boundaries, so yes some people who work in central London certainly
commute from other parts of London, but there is a significant number who
live well outside.

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.

Purditer wrote:


I was always surprised by the sudden increase in value of these houses, who
in their right mind would want to buy a house on a council estate unless the
price was artificially low.


Er... I would and did. I tried the poorly built matchbox house private
estate. Now live in a house twice as big, ten times as well built and in
an area where people speak to you in the street. Also, crime is
virtually unheard of on our "council" estate when it was a weekly
occurance in the "posh" end of town.

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

The previous question was "Are you suggesting that there are open
fields within that area?" ("that area" being a one-hour commute from
Charing Cross). There are plenty of open fields in "that area", and
my response about being able to travel 60 miles in an hour in "that
area" would reflect that even literally, but in any case, the PP's
question was not about agriculture but was about whether you can get
outside the inner London built-up area within an hour, and you can.

Well in that case I owe Robin (and others) an apology: Sorry, I
assumed JNugent's statement was sensible and inconsistent. It appears
I was wrong on both counts.

(Except possibly if he's referring to commuting in the small hours and
is prepared to risk getting gatsoed).

A. Who is "Robin"?

B. What is wrong with the statement: "The previous question was "Are you
suggesting that there are open fields within that area?" ("that area" being
a one-hour commute from Charing Cross). There are plenty of open fields in
"that area", and my response about being able to travel 60 miles in an hour
in "that area" would reflect that even literally, but in any case, the PP's
question was not about agriculture but was about whether you can get outside
the inner London built-up area within an hour, and you can"?

You see (as has already been explained by more than one poster), the
"commuting" in question was *not* limited to commuting by car - a minor
detail which you failed to observe and which you allowed to completely
mislead you.

JNugent wrote:

wrote:

JNugent wrote:

The previous question was "Are you suggesting that there are open
fields within that area?" ("that area" being a one-hour commute from
Charing Cross). There are plenty of open fields in "that area", and
my response about being able to travel 60 miles in an hour in "that
area" would reflect that even literally, but in any case, the PP's
question was not about agriculture but was about whether you can get
outside the inner London built-up area within an hour, and you can.

Well in that case I owe Robin (and others) an apology: Sorry, I
assumed JNugent's statement was sensible and inconsistent. It appears
I was wrong on both counts.

(Except possibly if he's referring to commuting in the small hours and
is prepared to risk getting gatsoed).

A. Who is "Robin"?

Robin May.

B. What is wrong with the statement: "The previous question was "Are you
suggesting that there are open fields within that area?" ("that area" being
a one-hour commute from Charing Cross). There are plenty of open fields in
"that area", and my response about being able to travel 60 miles in an hour
in "that area" would reflect that even literally, but in any case, the PP's
question was not about agriculture but was about whether you can get outside
the inner London built-up area within an hour, and you can"?

You see (as has already been explained by more than one poster), the
"commuting" in question was *not* limited to commuting by car - a minor
detail which you failed to observe and which you allowed to completely
mislead you.

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).
:
: So what are you talking about?

Robin (and everyone else) took that to mean that you were limiting it to
commuting by car. I initially took it to mean that you'd missed the point
of the question you were responding to, but you appeared to deny it in the
article I was responding to (id ) so
either you're being deliberately misleading or you missed the point and
forgot that you did!

I suspect the former.