"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...
In message , at 09:09:49 on Thu, 26 Jul 2018, michael adams
remarked:

As to your other point about Londoners enjoying a fares freeze,
I'm rather astonished to learn that you weren't aware that this
freeze only applies to single journeys. There is no such freeze
on the cost of travel cards or on Oyster card daily and monthly
caps.

It's not a universal freeze, but you've got the formula wrong.

I haven't mentioned any formula.

All I said was that the freeze applies to single fares only.

And that it does *not* apply to travel cards and oyster caps.



The freeze turned out to be only applicable to fares set by TfL (which includes
TfL-only singles, of course); however tickets which are within London, but
inter-available with National Rail (which includes some singles but especially
Travelcards and Oyster capping which emulates Travelcards), have an element set by
those National Rail TOCs, and haven't been frozen.

Where have I, or anyone else for that matter, ever said that travel cards and
oyster top-ups of any kind, by whomsoever issued, *were* frozen ? An incorrect
assumption in that respect may well have been current among the less well -
informed, or the ideologically deranged, but then they may well consider
all sorts of nonsense as being true, if it serves their own purposes .


michael adams

....

"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

All council tax payers subsidise the fares of the subset who choose to use TfL.

While council tax payers who chose to use Tfl are subsidising themselves.

That's the bit I was having difficulty with.

People subsidising themselves.




michael adams

....

On 28/07/2018 08:52, michael adams wrote:

You seem there to be equating net fiscal contribution with contribution to
the UK economy. I thought one usually looked at total public spending as
a proportion of a region's GDP (or more probably GVA).

One might indeed normally do that. But in this case had one been
reading the newspapers over the past two years - ever since the
referendum in fact - one might have been struck by continual
references to the fact of London's contributing such a large
percentage of the GVA both of the UK and of England.

Of course had one forgotten this, although I find it hard to
imagine how one possibly could, one might I suppose need to
refresh one's memory.

Total GVA (£ million) GVA per head
UK 1,747,647 26,339
England 1,498,221 27,108
London 408,479 46,482
South East 258,902 28,683
North East 50,675 19,218
North West 166,542 23,068

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...duk/1998to2016

All those figures are positive. So if you knew all that I fail to
understand why you claimed that "London, followed by the South East, and
to a very small degree the East of England are the only areas of the UK
which actually make a positive contribution to the UK economy".

Otherwise workers who receive, say, £3,000 p.a.
net more in benefits and public services than they pay in taxes,
duties etc score as a "net loss" to the economy, even if they are
responsible for a net positive £10,000 p.a. contribution to GVA/GDP.

That would only make sense were one able to produce any kind of
satisfactory explanation as to why people who receive more in
benefits than they pay in taxes should be consistently more
productive than anyone else.

So can one ?

No - because my example of the worker contributing £10,000 to GVA makes
no such claim about productivity. Look at your own figures above for
GVA per head - which are per head of population including the
economically inactive population. So the £10,000 worker (even if only
working part-time) is less productive than the average. But is still
making a net contribution to the economy. This was not an accident.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message , at
09:13:04 on Sat, 28 Jul 2018, michael adams
remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:09:49 on Thu, 26 Jul
2018, michael adams
remarked:

As to your other point about Londoners enjoying a fares freeze,
I'm rather astonished to learn that you weren't aware that this
freeze only applies to single journeys. There is no such freeze
on the cost of travel cards or on Oyster card daily and monthly
caps.

It's not a universal freeze, but you've got the formula wrong.

I haven't mentioned any formula.

All I said was that the freeze applies to single fares only.

It doesn't apply to National Rail single tickets within London.

And that it does *not* apply to travel cards and oyster caps.

Indeed, although they are cheaper than they would otherwise have been,
because a major element of them (the TfL fares *has* been frozen).

The freeze turned out to be only applicable to fares set by TfL
(which includes
TfL-only singles, of course); however tickets which are within London, but
inter-available with National Rail (which includes some singles but
especially
Travelcards and Oyster capping which emulates Travelcards), have an
element set by
those National Rail TOCs, and haven't been frozen.

Where have I, or anyone else for that matter, ever said that travel cards and
oyster top-ups of any kind, by whomsoever issued, *were* frozen ?

The Mayor implied that they would be.

An incorrect assumption in that respect may well have been current
among the less well - informed, or the ideologically deranged, but then
they may well consider all sorts of nonsense as being true, if it
serves their own purposes .

There is indeed a certain derangement afoot regarding which "heavy rail"
services come within the purview of National Rail (and hence neither
frozen nor subsidised by TfL), and which (the *O*verground) within TfL's
purview.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
09:17:46 on Sat, 28 Jul 2018, michael adams
remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

All

LONDON

council tax payers subsidise the fares of the subset who choose to use
TfL.

While

LONDON

council tax payers who chose to use Tfl are subsidising themselves.

That's the bit I was having difficulty with.

People subsidising themselves.

Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services,
some of the money is indeed goinf round in a circle (from taxpayer to
himself via lower fares) but overall, on average, or whatever similar
concept floats your boat, all of them are subsidising the minority who
are benefiting from the lower fares.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services,

Can you provide figures to substantiate this? Including those members of
the household etc the council tax applies to?

My gut feeling is you are very very wrong.

--
*When did my wild oats turn to prunes and all bran?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 11:05:30 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services,

Can you provide figures to substantiate this? Including those members of
the household etc the council tax applies to?

My gut feeling is you are very very wrong.

My gut feeling is that you are basing your comments on a very restricted
demographic and/or part of London.

Nationally, the average modal share of bus is 5% and train 2%. Obviously
it's going to be higher in London, but then the 25% modal share of
"walking" may well be higher too, because facilities you are travelling
to are much more concentrated in a mainly urban area.

Out in the leafy suburbs, most people won't be seen dead outside of a
car (or those living in WC1, outside of a black cab).
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:05:30 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services,

Can you provide figures to substantiate this? Including those members of
the household etc the council tax applies to?

My gut feeling is you are very very wrong.

My gut feeling is that you are basing your comments on a very restricted
demographic and/or part of London.

Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years.
Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week - but
that's not what you said.

Nationally, the average modal share of bus is 5% and train 2%. Obviously
it's going to be higher in London, but then the 25% modal share of
"walking" may well be higher too, because facilities you are travelling
to are much more concentrated in a mainly urban area.

National figures have nothing to do with TFL. As you've stated, you've
move to somewhere with useless PT. That was your choice.

Out in the leafy suburbs, most people won't be seen dead outside of a
car (or those living in WC1, outside of a black cab).

That comment says you don't know 'most people'.

BTW, making PT decent and affordable also benefits those who do travel
mainly by car. As you'd know by the congestion when there is a PT strike
or whatever.

--
*Drugs may lead to nowhere, but at least it's the scenic route *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 13:28:13 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services,

Can you provide figures to substantiate this? Including those members of
the household etc the council tax applies to?

My gut feeling is you are very very wrong.

My gut feeling is that you are basing your comments on a very restricted
demographic and/or part of London.

Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years.

Who could still be from a restricted demographic or part of London.

Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week - but
that's not what you said.

Using TfL once in a blue moon isn't sufficient to sway a discussion like
this.

Nationally, the average modal share of bus is 5% and train 2%. Obviously
it's going to be higher in London, but then the 25% modal share of
"walking" may well be higher too, because facilities you are travelling
to are much more concentrated in a mainly urban area.

National figures have nothing to do with TFL.

And I recognised that. Care to cite London stats which show what you are
trying to prove?

As you've stated, you've move to somewhere with useless PT. That was
your choice.

That's a dead subthread, which happened because someone carelessly
omitted to add LONDON in front of "Council Tax Payers".

Out in the leafy suburbs, most people won't be seen dead outside of a
car (or those living in WC1, outside of a black cab).

That comment says you don't know 'most people'.

It only confirms we disagree about what "most people" are like.

BTW, making PT decent and affordable also benefits those who do travel
mainly by car. As you'd know by the congestion when there is a PT strike
or whatever.

I covered that in an earlier posting (agreeing with you - now there's a
first for Usenet).
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years.

Who could still be from a restricted demographic or part of London.

Or not. Since you have no idea where my work colleagues etc lived.

Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week - but
that's not what you said.

Using TfL once in a blue moon isn't sufficient to sway a discussion like
this.

I ask again. Do you think kids of the average London council tax payer
only use PT once in a blue moon?

Or do you wish to restrict it to single hermits who pay council tax?

--
*Snowmen fall from Heaven unassembled*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 15:45:06 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years.

Who could still be from a restricted demographic or part of London.

Or not. Since you have no idea where my work colleagues etc lived.

I can deduce from your conclusions that you have a limited range of
inputs. Well done grilling your work colleagues about their domestic
travel arrangements though.

Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week - but
that's not what you said.

Using TfL once in a blue moon isn't sufficient to sway a discussion like
this.

I ask again. Do you think kids of the average London council tax payer
only use PT once in a blue moon?

Kids of taxpayers are a small section of the market, but if they walk to
school (or get a lift with mum/dad) why would they need TfL public
transport? My children grew up in an area with good public transport,
but they walked/cycled everywhere with their chums (to the shops, the
parks etc) until they were at least 14, at which point they did the
occasional trip further afield with most parents (not us though)
fretting about the axe-murders they might encounter en-route.

Or do you wish to restrict it to single hermits who pay council tax?

No, I'm looking at the wider picture where people either live in dense
bit of London and everything is in walking distance, or the leafy
suburbs where taxi-dad is the preferred mode of transport for the family
(including of course mum and dad themselves).
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:45:06 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years.

Who could still be from a restricted demographic or part of London.

Or not. Since you have no idea where my work colleagues etc lived.

I can deduce from your conclusions that you have a limited range of
inputs.

But not so limited as you in not even knowing a place you once lived had
an overground station within the TFL area?

Well done grilling your work colleagues about their domestic
travel arrangements though.

I take it you only talk to people about Eastenders, then?

Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week - but
that's not what you said.

Using TfL once in a blue moon isn't sufficient to sway a discussion like
this.

I ask again. Do you think kids of the average London council tax payer
only use PT once in a blue moon?

Kids of taxpayers are a small section of the market, but if they walk to
school (or get a lift with mum/dad) why would they need TfL public
transport? My children grew up in an area with good public transport,
but they walked/cycled everywhere with their chums (to the shops, the
parks etc) until they were at least 14, at which point they did the
occasional trip further afield with most parents (not us though)
fretting about the axe-murders they might encounter en-route.

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.

Or do you wish to restrict it to single hermits who pay council tax?

No, I'm looking at the wider picture where people either live in dense
bit of London and everything is in walking distance,

You must lead a very quiet life. If everything you could want from living
in London is within easy walking distance.

or the leafy
suburbs where taxi-dad is the preferred mode of transport for the family
(including of course mum and dad themselves).

I rather pity those kids being cosseted in such a way.

--
*A plateau is a high form of flattery*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
says...


I've often wondered why TFL chose to name that newish service the
overground. It's essentially just a re-vamped railway service, using
mainly existing tracks and stations.


Probably to highlight that it is now a TfL service, rather
than a National Raiways franchise. I think they must have just
about exhausted the possible derivatives of Great Eastern over
the years ...

At least crossrail says what it is.

I think you mean what it was as it is now the Elizabeth Line.

(Although, personally, I thought Crossrail was a better name.)

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article ,
says...

Out in the provinces I think the "bus pass" schemes are paid for much
more directly linked to actual ridership data.

Yes, though I'm not sure how it works. We use two operators -
Stagecoach and a local firm called PC Coaches.

Stagecoach card readers just read the ITSO card but PC Coaches
drivers ask for the destination - which is then printed on the
ticket.

Unlike London, both operators issue zero charge tickets.

Very few are valid for any form of rail travel though.

The current scheme replaced numerous local schemes funded by
local councils and cover all bus travel in the country you
live in but there is nothing to stopp the local authority
adding extra benefits to the national scheme in their area
such as in London and Newcastle (and probably other areas I
don't know of.)

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article ,
Terry Casey wrote:
I've often wondered why TFL chose to name that newish service the
overground. It's essentially just a re-vamped railway service, using
mainly existing tracks and stations.


Probably to highlight that it is now a TfL service, rather
than a National Raiways franchise. I think they must have just
about exhausted the possible derivatives of Great Eastern over
the years ...

But as I said round here everyone talks about the overground to
differentiate from the tube. Since many journeys can be done by either.
But don't mean the TFL one which is relatively new.

--
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services,

Can you provide figures to substantiate this?

That should be easy to do by comparing the number of council
tax payers to the number who use TfL services.

Including those members of
the household etc the council tax applies to?

My gut feeling is you are very very wrong.

"Robin" wrote in message
...
On 28/07/2018 08:52, michael adams wrote:

You seem there to be equating net fiscal contribution with contribution to
the UK economy. I thought one usually looked at total public spending as
a proportion of a region's GDP (or more probably GVA).

One might indeed normally do that. But in this case had one been
reading the newspapers over the past two years - ever since the
referendum in fact - one might have been struck by continual
references to the fact of London's contributing such a large
percentage of the GVA both of the UK and of England.

Of course had one forgotten this, although I find it hard to
imagine how one possibly could, one might I suppose need to
refresh one's memory.

Total GVA (£ million) GVA per head
UK 1,747,647 26,339
England 1,498,221 27,108
London 408,479 46,482
South East 258,902 28,683
North East 50,675 19,218
North West 166,542 23,068

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gross...duk/1998to2016

All those figures are positive. So if you knew all that I fail to understand why you
claimed that "London, followed by the South East, and to a very small degree the East
of England are the only areas of the UK which actually make a positive contribution to
the UK economy".

Indeed. My original post on this topic was in response to

"Andrew" wrote in message
news

You also have massively subsidised tube, bus and Overground
rail alternatives.

To which you at one stage replied

" Grants by central government for TfL's operations[1] are being phased
out."

Which was the subsidy being talked of. Such grants will have originated
in the Treasury and so in that context I should more correctly have
referred to their contributions to the UK Treasury, rather than
to the UK economy. Fair point. Other taxes will of course have been
generated as a result of their employment, corporation tax, VAT on
goods they produce or services they provide, etc. etc. but these
again will be in proportion to the GVA contribution made by their
region.


Otherwise workers who receive, say, £3,000 p.a.
net more in benefits and public services than they pay in taxes,
duties etc score as a "net loss" to the economy, even if they are
responsible for a net positive £10,000 p.a. contribution to GVA/GDP.

That would only make sense were one able to produce any kind of
satisfactory explanation as to why people who receive more in
benefits than they pay in taxes should be consistently more
productive than anyone else.

So can one ?

No - because my example of the worker contributing £10,000 to GVA makes no such claim
about productivity. Look at your own figures above for GVA per head - which are per
head of population including the economically inactive population. So the £10,000
worker (even if only working part-time) is less productive than the average. But is
still making a net contribution to the economy. This was not an accident.

But what's being discussed here are relative contributions both to UK
Treasury and the economy as a whole, of whole regions not just
individuals. You may well quibble that GVA per head takes no account
of the respective percentage of economically inactive individuals -
comprising among others OAP's,children, the chronically sick,
students, and the unemployed across each region. Thinking about it
its totally meaningless in this context in any case, and was only
introduced at all in order to score cheap points at the expense of
our friends in the north.


But the hold on ! What am I saying ? All along I've been attempting to
prove by using one measure or another that people in other regions
can't possibly be subsiding Londoners because basically we're
doing so much better than they are. So how could they possibly be
subsiding us ?

But then one comes across headlines such as this, and it all comes
flooding back

quote

EU farming subsidies: One in five biggest recipients are billionaires
and millionaires on the UK rich list

Sir James Dyson's farming business was the biggest private recipient
of EU basic payments in the UK in 2016, receiving £1.6 million, Greenpeace says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7815871.html

/quote

The question on everybody's lips of course, is will the UK
Govt carry on paying these subsidies after Brexit ?

I think we should be told.

The rich didn't get to be rich by subsidising the poor.
Precisely the opposite in fact.

And of course that's how it actually works . Housing benefit
in effect subsidises landlords at the taxpayers expense as it
underpins the level of market rents for those sectors to which
it applies

Income support subsidises those employers, at the taxpayers
expense who are unwilling to pay a sufficiently high wage.


michael adams

....

"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

Where have I, or anyone else for that matter, ever said that travel cards and
oyster top-ups of any kind, by whomsoever issued, *were* frozen ?

The Mayor implied that they would be.

Yes but that was all before he got to see the actual books.

You didn't really expect Boris to show him the actual figures
beforehand did you ?

Not that Boris himself necessarily had any idea what they
were himself, but that's another matter.

Lobby.

"Sadiq old chap, Hi !"

Customary handshake ensues.

" I know what you're here for and of course you're entitled
to all the relevant information, only I've had a word with our
Chief Financial Officer chappie and it seems there's been a bit of
a SNAFU with this year's final accounts. Absolutely nothing
to worry about Sadiq old chap, you have my word on it,
everything will be absolutely fine"

Slaps Kahn on the back, followed by another handshake,
and then waddles off to the other side of the lobby.

Zac old chap, Hi !



michael adams

....

"ganga" wrote in message ...


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
Because only a minority of LONDON council tax payers use TfL services,

Can you provide figures to substantiate this?

That should be easy to do by comparing the number of council
tax payers to the number who use TfL services.

I must say you sound very familiar with this stuff considering
you live thousands of miles away. You'll be giving everyone
the lowdown on Oyster top-ups in no time at this rate.

Boing, boing, boing.

There goes another one !


michael adams

....

In message , at 17:38:18 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years.

Who could still be from a restricted demographic or part of London.

Or not. Since you have no idea where my work colleagues etc lived.

I can deduce from your conclusions that you have a limited range of
inputs.

But not so limited as you in not even knowing a place you once lived had
an overground station within the TFL area?

I can spot a distraction technique like that a mile off.

Of course it had a National Rail station, I mentioned that - but as the
tickets on that line aren't subsidised by TfL it's utterly irrelevant to
the topic.

Meanwhile, even if it had been TfL subsidised no-one in our household
would have used it more than once in a blue moon.

Well done grilling your work colleagues about their domestic
travel arrangements though.

I take it you only talk to people about Eastenders, then?

Don't watch it.

Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week - but
that's not what you said.

Using TfL once in a blue moon isn't sufficient to sway a discussion like
this.

I ask again. Do you think kids of the average London council tax payer
only use PT once in a blue moon?

Kids of taxpayers are a small section of the market, but if they walk to
school (or get a lift with mum/dad) why would they need TfL public
transport? My children grew up in an area with good public transport,
but they walked/cycled everywhere with their chums (to the shops, the
parks etc) until they were at least 14, at which point they did the
occasional trip further afield with most parents (not us though)
fretting about the axe-murders they might encounter en-route.

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.

Or do you wish to restrict it to single hermits who pay council tax?

No, I'm looking at the wider picture where people either live in dense
bit of London and everything is in walking distance,

You must lead a very quiet life. If everything you could want from living
in London is within easy walking distance.

There's plenty to do in each Borough without having to travel to the
next. If it's further, remember: I would drive.

or the leafy suburbs where taxi-dad is the preferred mode of
transport for the family (including of course mum and dad themselves).

I rather pity those kids being cosseted in such a way.

It's modern life I'm afraid. The days when children would be let out to
roam distant streets all day are long gone.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:38:18 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the years.

Who could still be from a restricted demographic or part of London.

Or not. Since you have no idea where my work colleagues etc lived.

I can deduce from your conclusions that you have a limited range of
inputs.

But not so limited as you in not even knowing a place you once lived had
an overground station within the TFL area?

I can spot a distraction technique like that a mile off.

Of course it had a National Rail station, I mentioned that - but as the
tickets on that line aren't subsidised by TfL it's utterly irrelevant to
the topic.

They may not be subsidised but the Mayor has a measure of control on the
services get into Greater London. Our suburban service now stops at
Earlsfield after, pressure from Ken Livingstone.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

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.

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

A view you're entitled to have, but have you really thought through the
consequences of this applied to everything?

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
Of course it had a National Rail station, I mentioned that - but as the
tickets on that line aren't subsidised by TfL it's utterly irrelevant to
the topic.

They may not be subsidised but the Mayor has a measure of control on the
services get into Greater London. Our suburban service now stops at
Earlsfield after, pressure from Ken Livingstone.

Same here. Far more trains now stop at my local station than once was the
case. Making the frequency of the service not much different to the tube.
And a much more pleasant way to travel on journeys that both do.

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 17:38:18 on Sat, 28 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Not so. A wide range of people that I know or have known over the
years.

Who could still be from a restricted demographic or part of London.

Or not. Since you have no idea where my work colleagues etc lived.

I can deduce from your conclusions that you have a limited range of
inputs.

But not so limited as you in not even knowing a place you once lived had
an overground station within the TFL area?

I can spot a distraction technique like that a mile off.

Of course it had a National Rail station, I mentioned that - but as the
tickets on that line aren't subsidised by TfL it's utterly irrelevant to
the topic.

Meanwhile, even if it had been TfL subsidised no-one in our household
would have used it more than once in a blue moon.

Well done grilling your work colleagues about their domestic
travel arrangements though.

I take it you only talk to people about Eastenders, then?

Don't watch it.

Of course they may not use TFL facilities every day of the week -
but
that's not what you said.

Using TfL once in a blue moon isn't sufficient to sway a discussion
like
this.

I ask again. Do you think kids of the average London council tax payer
only use PT once in a blue moon?

Kids of taxpayers are a small section of the market, but if they walk to
school (or get a lift with mum/dad) why would they need TfL public
transport? My children grew up in an area with good public transport,
but they walked/cycled everywhere with their chums (to the shops, the
parks etc) until they were at least 14, at which point they did the
occasional trip further afield with most parents (not us though)
fretting about the axe-murders they might encounter en-route.

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.

Or do you wish to restrict it to single hermits who pay council tax?

No, I'm looking at the wider picture where people either live in dense
bit of London and everything is in walking distance,

You must lead a very quiet life. If everything you could want from living
in London is within easy walking distance.

There's plenty to do in each Borough without having to travel to the next.
If it's further, remember: I would drive.

or the leafy suburbs where taxi-dad is the preferred mode of transport
for the family (including of course mum and dad themselves).

I rather pity those kids being cosseted in such a way.

It's modern life I'm afraid. The days when children would be let out to
roam distant streets all day are long gone.

No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday
hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a
hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.

In article ,
Jock Green wrote:
It's modern life I'm afraid. The days when children would be let out to
roam distant streets all day are long gone.

No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday
hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a
hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.

In a civilised country, they don't allow children to drive such scooters.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 19:26:36 on Sun, 29
Jul 2018, Jock Green remarked:

The days when children would be let out to roam distant streets all
day are long gone.

No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday
hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a
hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.

Hardly children, and most relevant: not on public transport.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:06:22 on Sun, 29 Jul
2018, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

It's modern life I'm afraid. The days when children would be let out to
roam distant streets all day are long gone.

No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday
hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a
hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.

In a civilised country, they don't allow children to drive such scooters.

The worst are motorised skateboards, which do usually have younger
children on them. But I've not very often seen those outside the USA.
--
Roland Perry

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jock Green wrote:
It's modern life I'm afraid. The days when children would be let out to
roam distant streets all day are long gone.

No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday
hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a
hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.

In a civilised country, they don't allow children to drive such scooters.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jock Green wrote:
It's modern life I'm afraid. The days when children would be let out to
roam distant streets all day are long gone.

No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday
hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a
hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.

In a civilised country, they don't allow children to drive such scooters.

Yes they do with ones like these.
https://www.target.com.au/p/cyclops-...ooter/60192264

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 19:26:36 on Sun, 29 Jul
2018, Jock Green remarked:

The days when children would be let out to roam distant streets all day
are long gone.

No it isnt, plenty still do that. Just noticed a pair of them on Saturday
hooning around on their scooters, only because one of them had a
hell of a loud cackle revving up his mate as he zoomed past him.

Hardly children,

Yes they were. Must be about 7 or 8.

and most relevant: not on public transport.

I was commenting on your roam the streets.