In message , at 10:21:41 on Sun, 29 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:

The bus stops round here have loads of kids queuing at go to school time.
The odd one might also go out of the house other than going to school.

I've never said there was zero patronage of public transport.

You've not actually said anything constructive.

I've clarified which London fares have been frozen, which benefit from a
subsidy, and what the magnitude of the subsidy is, and where it comes
from.

You would appear to object to any 'subsidy' you don't directly benefit
from.

Is that why I wrote: "I wasn't judging whether the subsidy was right or
wrong" ??

And: "I recognised that my ability to drive was significantly enhanced
by the number of others who had been incentivised to use [subsidised
services]".

A view you're entitled to have,

except I don't.

but have you really thought through the consequences of this applied to
everything?

The goalposts then moved to a discussion of whether it was in fact a
lopsided subsidy:

"If would be a very rare council tax payer who doesn't, didn't and
won't ever use PT to a greater or lesser extent. Or those in the
household the council tax is levied on."

Which is an attempt to justify the subsidy by saying it's *not*
lopsided. But I disagree with the concept that households are paying in
and getting out in roughly equal measure.

Doesn't that suggest that in fact I'm not unhappy about it being
lopsided, but merely unhappy that people try to claim otherwise.
--
Roland Perry