In article , (Ben Nunn) wrote:

I thought it was simply transfering some of the cost from a voluntary
payment to an involuntary contribution.

Well, I never realized that paying a bus or train fare was voluntary. If I had known that I would have declined to pay.

--
Peter Beale

On 28 Oct 2003 15:06:05 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:



The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do)
which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords.

What was unlawful about it? I remember Fares Fair and that it was was
withdrawn shortly after being introduced but can't remember why it was
supposedly unlawful.

The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do)
which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords.

What was unlawful about it? I remember Fares Fair and that it was was
withdrawn shortly after being introduced but can't remember why it was
supposedly unlawful.


It was unlawful because the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords said it
was unlawful. It was judicially reviewed by the High Court, then the Court of
Appeal then finally it reached the House of Lords which upheld the original
complaint by Bromley.

In a nutshell, the scheme was unlawful because the ratepayers of Bromley were
being asked to subsidise a transport system to a disproportionate extent from
which they derived little benefit (there being no Underground within the
borough).

Marc.

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.

In article , (Mait001) wrote:

I am
not one, being a criminal barrister!

I didn't realize criminals were allowed to practise at the Bar! :-)

--
Peter Beale

"Nes" wrote in
:
Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn?

At the risk of being controversial, isn't it about time the remainder were
scrapped?

I'm not a frequent visitor to the metropolis, but the last RML I saw was
dirty, noisy, dented and tired.

Frankly, it was making London look untidy.

On 28 Oct 2003 15:06:05 GMT, (Mait001) wrote:

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

And also, it's not the first time that mass Routemaster withdrawals have
resulted from Ken's misguided ideas: remember "Fares Fair"?

Marc.

Yes, cheaper public transport and the travelcard - wasn't that a terrible
idea.

Jonn

Jonn,

Cheaper public transport, subsidised in a lawful way is not a bad idea.

The problem with Ken's scheme was that it was unlawful, and led to its
challenge by Bromley Council (which owed a duty to its ratepayers so to do)
which challenge was, ultimately, upheld by the House of Lords.



Although the legal logic of the Lords decision is not exactly
clear....


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

On 28 Oct 2003 20:58:26 GMT, Peter Wright Overground wrote:

I'm not a frequent visitor to the metropolis, but the last RML I saw was
dirty, noisy, dented and tired.

Frankly, it was making London look untidy.

They're fun, but they're not comfortable inside (the only place I can
sit is at the front or on the side-facing seats unless I take up 2
seats), and standing is best not attempted unless under 5' 6" in
height.

From the passenger's point of view, I think a combination of large
single-deck buses, bendies and modern double-deckers is really better.
The only thing I'd add is 100% off-bus ticketing (already a reality in
Central London) and boarding by any door for ticket-holders with an
increased penalty fare (how about gbp60 with 50% discount for prompt
or on-the-spot payment - like a parking fine) and regular inspections
- on all buses, not just bendies.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

Although the legal logic of the Lords decision is not exactly
clear....


Rob.

There are many other Judgements, some of which run to hundreds of pages, which
are far more opqaue than the Bromley case! But then, I'm a barrister!

Marc.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:19:31 +0000 (UTC), "Nes"
wrote:

Sorry if this has been taclked before!

Just wondering why are all the RM-type crew buses being withdrawn? First the
94, then 15 and now the 11? I know there are others, but those routes are
what first comes to mind.


They're going because they're old, unreliable, cramped, cold, dirty
and rather embarassing museum pieces in a supposedly world class
capital city.

But I'll still enjoy seeing them in museums!