On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:41:17 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> said in
<vZGdnScUsqAjgF3VnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>And the government commissioned a report into what could be done control 
>the costs off all this, which led to the closure of a chunk of the network.

It is said (though I can't remember by what authority right now)
that the good Dr. Beeching was a shareholder in Tarmac.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:56:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:41:17 +0100, Arthur Figgis
><afiggis@example.com.invalid> said in
><vZGdnScUsqAjgF3VnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>
>>And the government commissioned a report into what could be done control 
>>the costs off all this, which led to the closure of a chunk of the network.
>
>It is said (though I can't remember by what authority right now)
>that the good Dr. Beeching was a shareholder in Tarmac.

I hadn't heard that, but transport minister Ernest Marples' family
firm was Marples Ridgeway. Who built the roads.

After he retired to Spain there was a Panorama (or similar) program
about him that concluded the only reason he wsn't a guest of Her
Majesty, was that there was no extradition treaty with spain.

>Guy

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:41:17 +0100, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> said in
> <vZGdnScUsqAjgF3VnZ2dnUVZ8trinZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
> 
>> And the government commissioned a report into what could be done control 
>> the costs off all this, which led to the closure of a chunk of the network.
> 
> It is said (though I can't remember by what authority right now)
> that the good Dr. Beeching was a shareholder in Tarmac.

There were allegations of corruption because Ernest Marples had a stake 
in a road company. However that is a terrible slur, as to avoid a 
conflict he disposed of his interests.

To his wife.
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote

> It is said (though I can't remember by what authority right now)
> that the good Dr. Beeching was a shareholder in Tarmac.

And that Ernest Marples, the then Minister for Transport, was a director of 
a road haulage concern.

John.

"Arthur Figgis" wrote

> There were allegations of corruption because Ernest Marples had a stake in 
> a road company. However that is a terrible slur, as to avoid a conflict he 
> disposed of his interests.

He may have disposed of his interests, but to whom?  Also it's highly unlike 
that someone with a substantial interest in road transport (whether through 
road building or haulage) would divest himself of his friends in the 
industry or his industry allegiances.

John.

"beamendsltd"  wrote in message 
news:dec6f7d94f%beamendsltd@btconnect.com...
<snip>
>
> Beeching was given a brief by the Tory government. All he did was
> enact it, as that was his job. As the brief made no provision for
> suggesting alternatives the result was inevitable - he just took
> the can for doing the government's dirty work, he had no leeway.
>

"Sorry Sir Ernest Marples, due to conflicts of interest, terms of 
reference and a general wish not to end my days being seen as both the 
fail-guy for this administration and (due to my other interests - 
namely Tarmac) a criminal I can not take up this appointment. Good-day 
Sir."

'nough said....
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...

John Turner wrote:
> "Arthur Figgis" wrote
> 
>> There were allegations of corruption because Ernest Marples had a stake in 
>> a road company. However that is a terrible slur, as to avoid a conflict he 
>> disposed of his interests.
> 
> He may have disposed of his interests, but to whom? 

His wife...

  Also it's highly unlike
> that someone with a substantial interest in road transport (whether through 
> road building or haulage) would divest himself of his friends in the 
> industry or his industry allegiances.

Not directly related, but one of the contradictions we have is that if a 
  politician has no experience of their field, we complain they can't 
know what they are doing. But if they do have direct experience, we 
complain they must be corrupt because of their past and no doubt future 
links to the industry!

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis"  wrote

> Not directly related, but one of the contradictions we have is that if a 
> politician has no experience of their field, we complain they can't know 
> what they are doing. But if they do have direct experience, we complain 
> they must be corrupt because of their past and no doubt future links to 
> the industry!

So very true.

John.

John Turner wrote:
> "Arthur Figgis"  wrote
> 
>> Not directly related, but one of the contradictions we have is that if a 
>> politician has no experience of their field, we complain they can't know 
>> what they are doing. But if they do have direct experience, we complain 
>> they must be corrupt because of their past and no doubt future links to 
>> the industry!
> 
> So very true.

Which all proves that the only answer is to make me Lord Protector :-)

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK