Hence Ken was directly to blame for the service reductions and Routemaster
^^^^^^^^
demise that followed.

As a barrister, would you term this chain of events as 'directly'?


Helen,

Maybe "directly" is putting it a bit strongly, but I would, as a barrister
(which I am) certainly say it was foreseeable.

Introducing a massive subsidy scheme that is bound to fail (I'd love to know
which Q.C.s, if any, advised Ken that his scheme would succeed!) which itself
causes much more disruption than if things had just been left alone, is bound
eventually to result in some compensating reallocation of funds, i.e. robbing
Peter to pay Paul.

Quite apart from this, the costs of the legal action iself would have been
better! Not that I am averse to lawyers earning their keep, but every time a
politician dreams up a looney scheme (the present Government is on a hiding to
nothing with its latest asylum announcements - all of which will be curbed on
Human Rights grounds, thus earning more money for immigration lawyers - I am
not one, being a criminal barrister!) lawyers are bound to make money.

A good reason for leaving things alone unless absolutely essential to meddle.

Marc.