First time in London after C-day

[Just Zis Guy]

Paul Smith wrote:

>>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to
>>>>> fund public transport improvement?

>>>> Conceived, yes - Bob Kiley came up with an excellent and well-proven scheme: bond issue.
>>>> Approved? Not on your nelly. PFI is the only allowable route, despite its obvious stupidity.

>>> I've heard about skating on thin ice, but... <crack!> <splosh>

So, you mention other schemes, I mention another scheme which was shot down in flames,
demonstrating the fact that Ken is somewhat boxed in (remember, he didn't ask for the congestion
charging law, he is merely a beneficiary). Apparently this is "100% insupportable." You choose not
to give a reason why, but to use insults. That suggests that you have no argument to advance. As is
so often the case.

> I even offered to call for help, but you snipped that bit.

It is an acceptable convention of usenet that you don't bother quoting stuff to which you are not
replying. As you know.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Paul Smith]

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 14:45:18 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to
>>>>>> fund public transport improvement?

>>>>> Conceived, yes - Bob Kiley came up with an excellent and well-proven scheme: bond issue.
>>>>> Approved? Not on your nelly. PFI is the only allowable route, despite its obvious stupidity.

>>>> I've heard about skating on thin ice, but... <crack!> <splosh>

>So, you mention other schemes, I mention another scheme which was shot down in flames,
>demonstrating the fact that Ken is somewhat boxed in (remember, he didn't ask for the congestion
>charging law, he is merely a beneficiary). Apparently this is "100% insupportable." You choose not
>to give a reason why, but to use insults. That suggests that you have no argument to advance. As is
>so often the case.

It's simply obvious that if the will exists, a way will be found. There's even a proverb about it.

You've claimed that no other scheme COULD have been approved, which clearly cannot be supported, and
simply because we cannot know what other schemes might have been conceived. This logical failure led
to the "thin ice" comment.

And I recommend you stop digging.

>> I even offered to call for help, but you snipped that bit.

>It is an acceptable convention of usenet that you don't bother quoting stuff to which you are not
>replying. As you know.

Of course, the offer to call for help supported the friendly nature of my response, which you chose
to interpret as an "ad hominem" attack.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Just Zis Guy]

Paul Smith wrote:

> You've claimed that no other scheme COULD have been approved, which clearly cannot be supported,
> and simply because we cannot know what other schemes might have been conceived. This logical
> failure led to the "thin ice" comment.

And I showed the highest profile attempt at coping up with another scheme, which was quickly
squashed. So, bond schemes not allowed, raising local taxes not allowed (funding formula),
congestion charging specifially allowed, PFI specifically allowed but strongly criticised by the
Audit Commission. Timescales short, needs pressing, your suggestion?

Oh, and I actually travel in central London quite frequently. Do you? I don't take a car, though, as
it would be a waste of time and oil.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

[Dransfield]

> Verdict: congestion charging has made riding in London more dangerous than it used to be. I don't
> think the clearer streets compensate for this.
>
I wondering if there's no ideal - on those couple of protest days a few years ago when there was no
traffic at all - i'd say that was the slowest and most near-missy day I've had in the city as the
peds just walked off the payment without a thought.

Have you noticed any increase in bike use? Now that would be progress. Drans