On 26 May, 23:17, Tom Anderson wrote:
Is my understanding right, though? Do TfL own the DLR assets? The the
tracks and stations? The trains? The other chattels? If not, would they
revert to them if the concession was terminated? Would they have any kind
of right to buy them at set price?

TfL own most of the track/stations. The recent extensions are owned
by CGL, CARE and WARE, the PFI holding companies that built them, and
will be handed over to TfL in thirty year's time essentially once the
mortgage is paid. Not sure who owns the trains.

Serco, the operations/maintenance concessionaire, appear to own bugger
all.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On May 26, 9:24 pm, James Farrar wrote:
The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

If Chavez were a dictator, rather than the repeated winner of
elections certified as free and fair by international observers, you
might have a point.

Democracy and pro-Americanism in the developing world are not the same
thing, much as right-wing ideologues might like them to be...

[no, I don't particularly support his populist economic or social
policies, but the people of Venezuela do and they're the ones whose
choice it is...]

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On 26 May, 12:50, "John Rowland"
wrote:


Good old Southwark (Labour) Council.- Hide quoted text -

Er...Lib Dem/Tory coaliton actually...

On 27 May, 12:05, Aardvark wrote:
Good old Southwark (Labour) Council.- Hide quoted text -

Er...Lib Dem/Tory coaliton actually...

Yes, but right-wing ideologues don't need pesky *facts*...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:49:00PM -0700, Mr Thant wrote:

Anyway, the premise that Sky TV is a luxury item is flawed. It's
always been targeted as being affordable to low income groups. It's a
fraction of the cost of a monthly bus pass for one person, for
instance.

It doesn't matter how it's marketed or how much it costs. Having a
litre of ice cream every week is a fraction of the cost of a monthly bus
pass, but is still a luxury.

Incidentally, when I got rid of Sky a few years ago (not because of
cost, but because it was all a load of ****e) it cost about 50 quid a
month. Which is *exactly the same* as a monthly bus pass. I suppose
that strictly speaking 1/1 is indeed a fraction.

Never mind *Sky* being a luxury item. A *television* is a luxury item.
Arguably even more so than a computer - at least a computer is useful
and can help the owner to, eg, study or get a job.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Graham J wrote:

Indeed, though I've always also been uncomfortable with the use of the
funding as I don't think it is TfL's place to be involved in the benefits
system.

Yeah, free tickets for old people is a really bad idea.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

While researching this email, I was forced to carry out some
investigative work which unfortunately involved a bucket of
puppies and a belt sander
-- after JoeB, in the Monastery

On Tue, 27 May 2008, John B wrote:

On 27 May, 12:05, Aardvark wrote:
Good old Southwark (Labour) Council.- Hide quoted text -

Er...Lib Dem/Tory coaliton actually...

Yes, but right-wing ideologues don't need pesky *facts*...

Of course not. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Rather, the right wing build their worldview on a solid foundation of
truthiness:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbert...?videoId=24039

And disparagingly refer to us as the "reality-based community":

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/ma...er=rssuserland

tom

--
The few survivors on ousfg's side ended up in a monastery of immortal
monks who yearned for a life better than street-fighting social groups,
learning to grow extra hands and feet on the way to immortality. --
Lyndsey Pickup

On Tue, 27 May 2008, John B wrote:

On May 26, 9:24 pm, James Farrar wrote:
The timing of the announcement was poor, yes.

But breaking the link with a reprehensible South American dictator is
to be applauded.

If Chavez were a dictator, rather than the repeated winner of elections
certified as free and fair by international observers, you might have a
point.

"Certified as free and fair by international observers" might be a bit
strong. Just going on what's in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez

It seems he's better than SLORC, but probably not a lot better, if any,
than Mugabe.

tom

--
The few survivors on ousfg's side ended up in a monastery of immortal
monks who yearned for a life better than street-fighting social groups,
learning to grow extra hands and feet on the way to immortality. --
Lyndsey Pickup

David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Graham J wrote:

Indeed, though I've always also been uncomfortable with the use of the
funding as I don't think it is TfL's place to be involved in the benefits
system.

Yeah, free tickets for old people is a really bad idea.


Not to mention the continuing New Deal discount. I think it's perfectly
in TfL's remit to be involved like this.

tom

On 27 May, 15:26, Tom Barry wrote:
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Graham J wrote:

Indeed, though I've always also been uncomfortable with the use of the
funding as I don't think it is TfL's place to be involved in the benefits
system.

Yeah, free tickets for old people is a really bad idea.

Not to mention the continuing New Deal discount. *I think it's perfectly
in TfL's remit to be involved like this.


Yeah. The comment might as well have been that cinemas shouldn't be
involved in the benefits system when they give concessions to
pensioners or unemployed.