NM wrote:

JohnB wrote:


But it is clear you don't know the place and have just made your interjection to be
mischeivous.


You are right to an extent, I used to fly from a small airfield just
north of winchester (Old Sarum) and

I note the used to.

start aside I regularly call in at nearby Popham airfield on the bike - excellent
tearoom, very popular with cyclists and bikers ...and I used to fly gliders, but not
there end aside

I was going by what some of the
locals were moaning about, but Hell John, what do they know, they only
live there

Perhaps things have changed for the better since those days.

BTW, Winchester is my 'home town', and I also work there a fair bit with several
businesses as well as the LA.

John B

Ade V wrote the following in:
news:MPG.1993872121a5a8bd989df4@slave

I *hate* shopping without the car (actually, I hate shopping
regardless, but it's a magnitude worse without the motor). It
means only buying stuff which is small/light enough to cart around
on buses/trains for extended periods of time, and that's not very
much stuff I can assure you. Certainly not a weeks worth of
food/beer.

So are you proposing that people did their grocery shopping in Central
London and have been prevented from doing it because of the CC? If it
discourages that then all I can say is thank God!

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

(Huge) wrote in :

Steve writes:
Ade V wrote in
news:MPG.1990e1503aa60134989df0@slave:

It would seem that Ken has had to pay Crapita £31 mill, because the
poor ickle darlings weren't making as much money as they'd hoped for.
Why? Because (a) the in-zone traffic as fallen by 16%, not the 10-15%
forecast, and (b) less penalty fines are being dished out (whether due
to the fundamental honesty of British drivers, or due to Crapita's
legendary incompetence, is not made clear)

Full story he
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_804435.html



"Steve Norris, the Tory candidate for London Mayor, said: "There was
always a paradox at the heart of the scheme: the more successful it was
in deterring drivers, the less money would be available for public
transport."

Doh-oh! Steve, if people are not paying the charge but still coming into
London perhaps they are paying to use public transport.

Err, no. They're just not coming, period.

See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/pdfdocs/cc/cc-...nth-report.pdf

i.e.

2.5. The majority of ex car-users have transferred to public transport

The same article had a list
of PT projects which have been postponed or scrapped because of lack of
funds. Oddly, you didn't quote that.

Err no there isn't

There are a number of people on these newsgroups, myself included, who
simply will not visit a town where cars are discouraged. You only have
to look at the festering pit that is central Bedford to see that I am
not alone.

Whatever, not really relevant when "The majority of ex car-users have
transferred to public transport" though. So PT benefits from extra revenue
and better journey times.

So in what way does your reply help Norris?

(Huge) wrote the following in:


Steve writes:
(Huge) wrote in
:
The same article had a list
of PT projects which have been postponed or scrapped because of
lack of funds. Oddly, you didn't quote that.

Err no there isn't

Perhaps the Evening Standard were lying as well, then?

Would this be the same Evening standard which showed a picture of a
perfectly safe Victoria line power rail and then insisted that not only
was it dangerous and a bodge, but also that train wheels ran over it
and that it carried the weight of the train?

I'd guess that they were lying.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

In article , Huge wrote:
Perhaps the Evening Standard were lying as well, then?

Yeah, we all know that *never* happens...

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

In message , Robin May
writes
Would this be the same Evening standard which showed a picture of a
perfectly safe Victoria line power rail

Is that the one which was jammed together with a few bits of wood?

--
CJG

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:48:07 +0100, CJG
wrote:

In message , Robin May
writes
Would this be the same Evening standard which showed a picture of a
perfectly safe Victoria line power rail

Is that the one which was jammed together with a few bits of wood?
You mean the centre rail on the northbound Victoria track at Victoria
that has a piece of wood forming the isolating section to enable
runback detection - which is not "jammed together" but is fixed
following established safety procedures?

That's the one.

Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

(Huge) wrote the following in:


Robin May writes:
(Huge) wrote the following in:


Steve writes:
(Huge) wrote in
:
The same article had a list
of PT projects which have been postponed or scrapped because of
lack of funds. Oddly, you didn't quote that.

Err no there isn't

Perhaps the Evening Standard were lying as well, then?

Would this be the same Evening standard which showed a picture of a
perfectly safe Victoria line power rail

That'll be the one held in place with a bit of wood and bent nails,
will it?

Not "held in place" with wood and nails, the wood was an isolating
section of the rail, used as part of Victoria line automatic train
operation. And one bent nail on the side of the wood hardly means that
the whole piece of wood is insecure. At worst, it is a cosmetic problem
that looks a bit bad. If we're going to worry about cosmetic problems
like that, perhaps you'd suggest they paint the rails pretty colours
and plant some nice flowers around the sleepers? Perhaps fill in the
suicide pits to create flower beds?

and then insisted that not only
was it dangerous and a bodge,

Which it was.

So on the evidence of one picture in the paper, you know enough about
the rail in question and rail safety procedures to assert that it was
dangerous, despite the fact that people whose job it is and who are
experts on the matter say that it's safe?

but also that train wheels ran over it
and that it carried the weight of the train?

Which it wasn't, of course.

So therefore that's a massive, massively misleading lie.

I'd guess that they were lying.

Given the choice between believing TfL and the E.S., I'll take
the E.S. *every* time.

So given the choice between believing professionals who know the system
and an ignorant journalist out to sell a few copies with some cheap
sensationalism, you'd believe the ignorant journalist? Feel free to
make that choice, just don't expect me to respect it.

--
message by Robin May, founder of International Boyism
"Would Inspector Sands please go to the Operations Room immediately."

Unofficially immune to hangovers.

Huge wrote:
Robin May writes:
(Huge) wrote the following in:


Steve writes:
(Huge) wrote in
:
The same article had a list
of PT projects which have been postponed or scrapped
because of lack of funds. Oddly, you didn't quote that.

Err no there isn't

Perhaps the Evening Standard were lying as well, then?

Would this be the same Evening standard which showed a
picture of a perfectly safe Victoria line power rail

That'll be the one held in place with a bit of wood and
bent nails, will it?

and then insisted that not only
was it dangerous and a bodge,

Which it was.

So much so that it had been in use for 20 odd years.


but also that train wheels ran over it
and that it carried the weight of the train?

Which it wasn't, of course.


I'd guess that they were lying.

Given the choice between believing TfL and the E.S., I'll
take
the E.S. *every* time.

Really?

(Huge) wrote in :

Steve writes:
(Huge) wrote in :

[25 lines snipped]

Err, no. They're just not coming, period.

See http://www.tfl.gov.uk/pdfdocs/cc/cc-...nth-report.pdf

I simply don't believe them.

Since you are not coming in any more *period* I doubt you are remotely
qualified to comment.

2.5. The majority of ex car-users have transferred to public transport

Lies.

Since you are not coming in any more *period* I doubt you are remotely
qualified to comment.



The same article had a list
of PT projects which have been postponed or scrapped because of lack of
funds. Oddly, you didn't quote that.

Err no there isn't

Perhaps the Evening Standard were lying as well, then?

Are you ****ed?

The story posted here was http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_804435.html

*not* the Evening Stanard and there is no list of PT projects.

So aside from claiming the everybody *period* is not coming in, which is
some what the opposite to reality you then talk about some other newspaper
(on which perhaps has an agenda regarding the CC).

You are no having a very good time in this thread.

There are a number of people on these newsgroups, myself included, who
simply will not visit a town where cars are discouraged. You only have
to look at the festering pit that is central Bedford to see that I am
not alone.

Whatever, not really relevant when "The majority of ex car-users have
transferred to public transport" though. So PT benefits from extra
revenue
and better journey times.

Except when it's a lie.

Since you are not coming in any more *period* I doubt you are remotely
qualified to comment.