"simon"  wrote:
>
>Thats 3 things they completed as intended then.
>
>Cheers,
>Simon
>(hint got in power and taxed us to the hilt) 


Yes, they promised us they weren't like Old Labour (tax and spend,
beholden to the trade unions, interfering nanny state) and then took
11 years to prove that is *exactly* what they are like.

There is nothing new about "New" Labour, except possibly the
Branson-style grin of the previous Prime Minister.  Yuk!  :-(

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:o918645d3usabq7qpe2g68t89465eqe8go@4ax.com...

> Yes, they promised us they weren't like Old Labour (tax and spend,
> beholden to the trade unions, interfering nanny state) and then took
> 11 years to prove that is *exactly* what they are like.
>
> There is nothing new about "New" Labour, except possibly the
> Branson-style grin of the previous Prime Minister.  Yuk!  :-(

ALL parties say one thing then do another, and are of the tax-and-spend and 
interfering-nanny-state persuasion; it's what they do, and we don't have a 
real alternative. Power corrupts, etc etc.

Labour are beholden to the unions (though less than they were) whereas the 
Tories keep more of the taxes for themselves.

I see no worthwhile difference.

To get the conversation slightly back on topic, how this affects the 
railways is that they all find the public remarkably resistant to having 
great swathes of land converted to rail routes.

Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of "preserving 
rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is an 
aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road 
tweaks as the local political climate allows.

Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand 
improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Brian Watson"  wrote:
>
>To get the conversation slightly back on topic, how this affects the 
>railways is that they all find the public remarkably resistant to having 
>great swathes of land converted to rail routes.
>
>Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of "preserving 
>rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is an 
>aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road 
>tweaks as the local political climate allows.
>
>Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand 
>improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.


That's because most people use the roads, and everyone benefits from
them, because that's how goods get into the shops and how services get
to your home.

Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
direct benefit from them.

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:read64h28el0v5b5lc3beu9o6s538floeh@4ax.com...
> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>>
>>To get the conversation slightly back on topic, how this affects the
>>railways is that they all find the public remarkably resistant to having
>>great swathes of land converted to rail routes.
>>
>>Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of 
>>"preserving
>>rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is an
>>aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road
>>tweaks as the local political climate allows.
>>
>>Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand
>>improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.
>
>
> That's because most people use the roads, and everyone benefits from
> them, because that's how goods get into the shops and how services get
> to your home.
>
> Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
> understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
> rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
> greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
> they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
> direct benefit from them.
>
Which is why BR tried to build its Channel Tunnel route by expanding on 
existing routes via Ashford/Tonbridge/Croydon, rather than cutting a new 
swathe through the garden of England. And look what happened!

MaxB

"Batman55"  wrote:

>
>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:read64h28el0v5b5lc3beu9o6s538floeh@4ax.com...
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>>>
>>>To get the conversation slightly back on topic, how this affects the
>>>railways is that they all find the public remarkably resistant to having
>>>great swathes of land converted to rail routes.
>>>
>>>Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of 
>>>"preserving
>>>rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is an
>>>aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road
>>>tweaks as the local political climate allows.
>>>
>>>Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand
>>>improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.
>>
>>
>> That's because most people use the roads, and everyone benefits from
>> them, because that's how goods get into the shops and how services get
>> to your home.
>>
>> Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
>> understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
>> rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
>> greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
>> they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
>> direct benefit from them.
>>
>Which is why BR tried to build its Channel Tunnel route by expanding on 
>existing routes via Ashford/Tonbridge/Croydon, rather than cutting a new 
>swathe through the garden of England. And look what happened!


OK, what happened?  Do tell.

(This should be good for a laugh!)

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:read64h28el0v5b5lc3beu9o6s538floeh@4ax.com...
> "Brian Watson"  wrote:

>>Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of 
>>"preserving
>>rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is an
>>aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road
>>tweaks as the local political climate allows.
>>
>>Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand
>>improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.
>
>
> That's because most people use the roads, and everyone benefits from
> them, because that's how goods get into the shops and how services get
> to your home.
>
> Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
> understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
> rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
> greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
> they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
> direct benefit from them.

I'm inclined to agree with that, but putting more long distance freight onto 
rail (always assuming better RORO facilities at the towns and cities at each 
end) would give the roads, and therefore motorists, some relief from 
congestion.

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:ta4g641tn0g0g327cek2fhg6gpo3ia5m9l@4ax.com...
> "Batman55"  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>>news:read64h28el0v5b5lc3beu9o6s538floeh@4ax.com...
>>> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>To get the conversation slightly back on topic, how this affects the
>>>>railways is that they all find the public remarkably resistant to having
>>>>great swathes of land converted to rail routes.
>>>>
>>>>Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of
>>>>"preserving
>>>>rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is 
>>>>an
>>>>aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road
>>>>tweaks as the local political climate allows.
>>>>
>>>>Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand
>>>>improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's because most people use the roads, and everyone benefits from
>>> them, because that's how goods get into the shops and how services get
>>> to your home.
>>>
>>> Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
>>> understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
>>> rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
>>> greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
>>> they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
>>> direct benefit from them.
>>>
>>Which is why BR tried to build its Channel Tunnel route by expanding on
>>existing routes via Ashford/Tonbridge/Croydon, rather than cutting a new
>>swathe through the garden of England. And look what happened!
>
>
> OK, what happened?  Do tell.
>
> (This should be good for a laugh!)
>

They built a completely new line cutting a swathe through Kent (with barely 
a protest) to St. Pancras instead. Surprised you haven't noticed.

MaxB

"Batman55"  wrote:
>
>They built a completely new line cutting a swathe through Kent (with barely 
>a protest) to St. Pancras instead. Surprised you haven't noticed.


I hadn't noticed.  That is probably because the key point of your
statement is completely untrue; the protests were extremely effective.
They came at the consultation stage.

They apparently resulted in a very significant increase in the
proportion of the of the route being put into tunnel, as well as the
provision of extensive earthworks to reduce the noise and visual
impact of the surface sections.  The cost of this added greatly top
the cost of the project.

I'm not surprised you didn't know this; it was quite clear that you
didn't have the faintest idea about what you are talking about.  

But thanks for the laugh.  ;-)

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:95bh645foc5ftms7vpss5n49d4jnkb60h8@4ax.com...
> "Batman55"  wrote:
>>
>>They built a completely new line cutting a swathe through Kent (with 
>>barely
>>a protest) to St. Pancras instead. Surprised you haven't noticed.
>
>
> I hadn't noticed.  That is probably because the key point of your
> statement is completely untrue; the protests were extremely effective.
> They came at the consultation stage.
>
> They apparently resulted in a very significant increase in the
> proportion of the of the route being put into tunnel, as well as the
> provision of extensive earthworks to reduce the noise and visual
> impact of the surface sections.  The cost of this added greatly top
> the cost of the project.
>
> I'm not surprised you didn't know this; it was quite clear that you
> didn't have the faintest idea about what you are talking about.
>
> But thanks for the laugh.  ;-)
>

Apart from being a pompous twat, you are obviously easily amused - by 
yourself.

MaxB

"Brian Watson"  wrote:

>
>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
>news:read64h28el0v5b5lc3beu9o6s538floeh@4ax.com...
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>
>>>Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of 
>>>"preserving
>>>rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is an
>>>aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road
>>>tweaks as the local political climate allows.
>>>
>>>Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand
>>>improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.
>>
>>
>> That's because most people use the roads, and everyone benefits from
>> them, because that's how goods get into the shops and how services get
>> to your home.
>>
>> Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
>> understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
>> rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
>> greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
>> they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
>> direct benefit from them.
>
>I'm inclined to agree with that, but putting more long distance freight onto 
>rail (always assuming better RORO facilities at the towns and cities at each 
>end) would give the roads, and therefore motorists, some relief from 
>congestion.


At what cost?  And who is going to pay?  Forcing companies to transfer
freight from road to rail is not the answer to anything.  

If you are concerned about road congestion, we should be dissuading
the use of private cars to allow fuel-efficient lorries an uncongested
run from origin to destination.  After all, the motorways were
originally constructed to help speed the flow of freight.  

But motorways became attractive to private car owners who expect to be
able to use them for ever-longer distance commuting.  It is this
commuting by car that should be vigorously discouraged.  Apart from
CO2 emissions, other pollution leading to respiratory problems, and
the sheer waste of diminishing fossil fuel resources, it is also a
very poor use of road space. 

I am a strong supporter of congestion charging and also road pricing,
with the revenue being ploughed into improving public transport.
However the cowardly "New" Labour Government has chickened out of road
pricing.  The inevitable result will be traffic chaos that will endure
for the foreseeable future.

"Sailor"  wrote in message 
news:03143d8c-13ae-4b7b-bf72-a4fab58045cb@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 12:24 pm, Tony Polson  wrote:
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> If you are concerned about road congestion, we should be dissuading
>> the use of private cars to allow fuel-efficient lorries an uncongested
>> run from origin to destination.  After all, the motorways were
>> originally constructed to help speed the flow of freight.
>
>> As long as school runs exist the urban blockage will continue in their
> wake.
>
> Regards

Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances since 
introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school places ?

Would make some happy bunnies if they had to pay a congestion charge to 
deliver children 5 miles away instead of few hundred yards up the road. 
insult on top of injury ?

Cheers,
Simon

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:ulbh64pjto21tmi7s5st5c4lfu22tunggb@4ax.com...
> "Brian Watson"  wrote:

>>> Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
>>> understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
>>> rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
>>> greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
>>> they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
>>> direct benefit from them.
>>
>>I'm inclined to agree with that, but putting more long distance freight 
>>onto
>>rail (always assuming better RORO facilities at the towns and cities at 
>>each
>>end) would give the roads, and therefore motorists, some relief from
>>congestion.
>
>
> At what cost?  And who is going to pay?

The customer, ultimately, but a transitional subsidy would only be diverting 
money that would otherwise be spent on the roads.

>  Forcing companies to transfer
> freight from road to rail is not the answer to anything.

I agree. I am for encouragement and persuasion.

> If you are concerned about road congestion, we should be dissuading
> the use of private cars to allow fuel-efficient lorries an uncongested
> run from origin to destination.  After all, the motorways were
> originally constructed to help speed the flow of freight.

...among other things. There was considrable marketing put into enocouraging 
motorists to use motorways, and HOW to use motorways.
>
> But motorways became attractive to private car owners who expect to be
> able to use them for ever-longer distance commuting.  It is this
> commuting by car that should be vigorously discouraged.  Apart from
> CO2 emissions, other pollution leading to respiratory problems, and
> the sheer waste of diminishing fossil fuel resources, it is also a
> very poor use of road space.

I agree more use of mass transport systems should be strongly encouraged 
too.
>
> I am a strong supporter of congestion charging and also road pricing,
> with the revenue being ploughed into improving public transport.
> However the cowardly "New" Labour Government has chickened out of road
> pricing.  The inevitable result will be traffic chaos that will endure
> for the foreseeable future.

That will eventually become sufficient persuasion. And let us not forget it 
was a Labour bloke who brought in congestion charging.
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"simon"  wrote in message 
news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...

>
> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances since 
> introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school places ?

It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who are 
convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if they are 
allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Brian Watson"  wrote:
>
>There was considrable marketing put into enocouraging 
>motorists to use motorways, and HOW to use motorways.


Nonsense.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:00:01 +0100, "Brian Watson"
 wrote:

>It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who are 
>convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if they are 
>allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.

For which utter nonsense the gutter press are largely responsible.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6curj4F3is4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "simon"  wrote in message 
> news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
>>
>> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances 
>> since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school 
>> places ?
>
> It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who are 
> convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if they 
> are allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.
>
> -- 
> Brian
> "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
>
I knew someone would take off in that direction. :-)

However was asking about the increase not the cause of insisting on 
accompanying. Plus there are situations where children dont go on their own 
such as sending a 4 year old on a 5 mile bus journey or where it requires 
several busses to cover several miles.

Cheers,
Simon

simon wrote:
> "Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6curj4F3is4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "simon"  wrote in message 
>> news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances 
>>> since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school 
>>> places ?
>> It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who are 
>> convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if they 
>> are allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.
>>
>> -- 
>> Brian
>> "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
>>
> I knew someone would take off in that direction. :-)
> 
> However was asking about the increase not the cause of insisting on 
> accompanying. Plus there are situations where children dont go on their own 
> such as sending a 4 year old on a 5 mile bus journey or where it requires 
> several busses to cover several miles.

You realise you will now have triggered a huge "I travelled to Timbuktu 
by bus three years before I was born and it never did me any harm" thread?

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:JtydneYzSrJJBPfVRVnyvQA@posted.plusnet...
> simon wrote:
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
>> news:6curj4F3is4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "simon"  wrote in message 
>>> news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>>> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances 
>>>> since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school 
>>>> places ?
>>> It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who 
>>> are convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if 
>>> they are allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Brian
>>> "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
>>>
>> I knew someone would take off in that direction. :-)
>>
>> However was asking about the increase not the cause of insisting on 
>> accompanying. Plus there are situations where children dont go on their 
>> own such as sending a 4 year old on a 5 mile bus journey or where it 
>> requires several busses to cover several miles.
>
> You realise you will now have triggered a huge "I travelled to Timbuktu by 
> bus three years before I was born and it never did me any harm" thread?
>
> -- 
> Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Of course, I have all my experiences typed up and ready to copy.

cheers,
Simon

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:56:10 +0100, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:


>You realise you will now have triggered a huge "I travelled to Timbuktu 
>by bus three years before I was born and it never did me any harm" thread?

I believe I travelled considerable distances by bus (and train) in the
nine months before I was born, and it never did me any hard.

(You did ask!)



-- 
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com
md@rossrail.com

Bill Hayles wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:56:10 +0100, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
>> You realise you will now have triggered a huge "I travelled to Timbuktu 
>> by bus three years before I was born and it never did me any harm" thread?
> 
> I believe I travelled considerable distances by bus (and train) in the
> nine months before I was born, and it never did me any hard.
> 
> (You did ask!)

I was careful to suggest something >9 months for that very reason :)

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
news:qejk64l02d92krm9cl640a5p4ben3cjrdd@4ax.com...
> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>>
>>There was considrable marketing put into enocouraging
>>motorists to use motorways, and HOW to use motorways.
>
>
> Nonsense.

Curious. I saw several examples being replayed on television only last week 
in a series called The Secret Life Of The Motorway.

But then, I suppose you would have it that they were showing modern footage 
that had been artificially aged in the studio.

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:fa822b84f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
>          Tony Polson  wrote:
>
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>> >
>> >There was considrable marketing put into enocouraging
>> >motorists to use motorways, and HOW to use motorways.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>
> Somebody hasn't been watching the History of the Motorway series currently 
> on
> the BBC, they've shown several clips of COI films doing exactly what Brian
> said.  There's been absolutely zero mention of the idea that the motorways
> were primarily for freight.

And there I was, thinking I may have imagined it.

:-)

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:486a8c09.349991363@news.individual.net...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 15:00:01 +0100, "Brian Watson"
>  wrote:
>
>>It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who are
>>convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if they 
>>are
>>allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.
>
> For which utter nonsense the gutter press are largely responsible.

True.

The remainder of the blame lies with those stupid parents who believe it.
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"simon"  wrote in message 
news:xLidnWRsyodfDvfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6curj4F3is4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "simon"  wrote in message 
>> news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances 
>>> since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school 
>>> places ?
>>
>> It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who are 
>> convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if they 
>> are allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.

> I knew someone would take off in that direction. :-)

Ok, sorry.

> However was asking about the increase not the cause of insisting on 
> accompanying.

I have no authortative figures but there SEEM to be a lot more paranoid 
parents driving in their children now as the illegal stopping to drop-off 
has certainly increased, as has the frequency of letters home about bad 
parking and driving close to the school.

Of course it may be JUST that the standard of driving has deteriorated.

> Plus there are situations where children dont go on their own such as 
> sending a 4 year old on a 5 mile bus journey

Why is that a problem? I went three miles to school on a bus when I was 5 - 
not all that different.

> or where it requires several busses to cover several miles.

Might that be as a result of parental choice being exercised without 
thinking the thing through?

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:JtydneYzSrJJBPfVRVnyvQA@posted.plusnet...
> simon wrote:
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
>> news:6curj4F3is4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "simon"  wrote in message 
>>> news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>>> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances 
>>>> since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school 
>>>> places ?
>>> It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who 
>>> are convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if 
>>> they are allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.

>>>
>> I knew someone would take off in that direction. :-)
>>
>> However was asking about the increase not the cause of insisting on 
>> accompanying. Plus there are situations where children dont go on their 
>> own such as sending a 4 year old on a 5 mile bus journey or where it 
>> requires several busses to cover several miles.
>
> You realise you will now have triggered a huge "I travelled to Timbuktu by 
> bus three years before I was born and it never did me any harm" thread?

Funny you should mention my own schooldays...

:-)
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Sue McNaughton"  wrote in message 
news:mXA5plxkf+aIJwXJ@wandleys.demon.co.uk...

>
> Mum and Dad used to go to the cinema several times a week just to keep 
> warm!)

That's what they told you...

;-)

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:37ffc2b84f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
>          "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Graeme Wall"  wrote in message
>> news:fa822b84f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
>> > In message 
>> >          Tony Polson  wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Brian Watson"  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >There was considrable marketing put into enocouraging
>> >> >motorists to use motorways, and HOW to use motorways.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nonsense.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Somebody hasn't been watching the History of the Motorway series
>> > currently  on the BBC,
>
> As someone else has posted the correct title is Secret Life of the 
> Motorway
>
>> > they've shown several clips of COI films doing
>> > exactly what Brian said.  There's been absolutely zero mention of the
>> > idea that the motorways were primarily for freight.
>>
>> And there I was, thinking I may have imagined it.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
> Part two has actually referred to the fact that motorways were primarily
> intended for the fast movement of goods, but right at the end.

Yes, but I didn't say they weren't.

I DID say that there was considerable marketing put into encouraging 
motorists to use motorways, and HOW to use motorways, which is also true.
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6d27sbFg0u4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "simon"  wrote in message 
> news:xLidnWRsyodfDvfVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
>> news:6curj4F3is4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "simon"  wrote in message 
>>> news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances 
>>>> since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school 
>>>> places ?
>>>
>>> It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who 
>>> are convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if 
>>> they are allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.
>
>> I knew someone would take off in that direction. :-)
>
> Ok, sorry.
>
>> However was asking about the increase not the cause of insisting on 
>> accompanying.
>
> I have no authortative figures but there SEEM to be a lot more paranoid 
> parents driving in their children now as the illegal stopping to drop-off 
> has certainly increased, as has the frequency of letters home about bad 
> parking and driving close to the school.
>
> Of course it may be JUST that the standard of driving has deteriorated.
>
>> Plus there are situations where children dont go on their own such as 
>> sending a 4 year old on a 5 mile bus journey
>
> Why is that a problem? I went three miles to school on a bus when I was 
> 5 - not all that different.
>
>> or where it requires several busses to cover several miles.
>
> Might that be as a result of parental choice being exercised without 
> thinking the thing through?
>
> -- 
> Brian
> "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
>
>
Of course thats the question I really wanted to ask but was unsure how to 
phrase it. Thank you, here we are :-
Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances as a 
result of parental choice being exercised without thinking the thing through 
since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school places 
?

You are a quibbler extrordinaire.

Cheers,
Simon

"Graeme Wall"  wrote in message 
news:3f2f9b84f%Rail@greywall.demon.co.uk...
> In message 
>          "Brian Watson"  wrote:


>> > Part two has actually referred to the fact that motorways were 
>> > primarily
>> > intended for the fast movement of goods, but right at the end.
>>
>> Yes, but I didn't say they weren't.
>
> I realise that, I was just updating my earlier comment in the interests of
> accuracy.

Fair 'nuff.

-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

"simon"  wrote in message 
news:2cSdnWhd7oyOk_HVnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6d27sbFg0u4U1@mid.individual.net...

>> Might that be as a result of parental choice being exercised without 
>> thinking the thing through?
>>
> Of course thats the question I really wanted to ask but was unsure how to 
> phrase it. Thank you, here we are :-
> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances as a 
> result of parental choice being exercised without thinking the thing 
> through since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of 
> school places ?
>
> You are a quibbler extrordinaire.

Cheers! (I think).

The whole "parental choice" thing is a nonsense, of course.

In fact "choice" is a characteristic that is now offered as always being a 
"good thing" by both the main parties.

It is, or has been, proposed in support of privatisation when actually one 
doesn't want (say) three trains to choose from for a given journey; one 
wants one train that turns up more or less on time and gets to its 
destination more or less on time without any adverse incidents along the 
way.

Oh sorry, was this about schools...?

:-)
-- 
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

Batman55 wrote:
> "Tony Polson"  wrote in message 
> news:ta4g641tn0g0g327cek2fhg6gpo3ia5m9l@4ax.com...
>>"Batman55"  wrote:
>>
>>>"Tony Polson"  wrote in message
>>>news:read64h28el0v5b5lc3beu9o6s538floeh@4ax.com...
>>>>"Brian Watson"  wrote:
>>>>>To get the conversation slightly back on topic, how this affects the
>>>>>railways is that they all find the public remarkably resistant to having
>>>>>great swathes of land converted to rail routes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nimbyism has rebranded itself to claim the moral high ground of
>>>>>"preserving
>>>>>rural England." All bollocks of course, but the British householder is 
>>>>>an
>>>>>aggressive bugger when challenged, so the planners fob us off with road
>>>>>tweaks as the local political climate allows.
>>>>>
>>>>>Get a road sufficiently bunged up and even the locals will demand
>>>>>improvements to it, but not a rail alternative.
>>>>
>>>>That's because most people use the roads, and everyone benefits from
>>>>them, because that's how goods get into the shops and how services get
>>>>to your home.
>>>>
>>>>Comparatively very few people use the railways, so it is quite
>>>>understandable that there would be a lot of opposition to building new
>>>>rail routes.  The opposition to building high speed lines will be even
>>>>greater, because only a very tiny proportion of the people whose homes
>>>>they pass and whose views they spoil will ever gain any significant
>>>>direct benefit from them.
>>>>
>>>Which is why BR tried to build its Channel Tunnel route by expanding on
>>>existing routes via Ashford/Tonbridge/Croydon, rather than cutting a new
>>>swathe through the garden of England. And look what happened!
>>
>>OK, what happened?  Do tell.
>>
>>(This should be good for a laugh!)
>>
> 
> They built a completely new line cutting a swathe through Kent (with barely 
> a protest) to St. Pancras instead. Surprised you haven't noticed.

Not entirely accurate, it quite closely follows the A2/M2 (even more 
closely with the realignment of the A2 between Gravesend and Cobham) and 
M20 for much of its length.

Robin

Graeme Wall wrote:
> In message <JtydneYzSrJJBPfVRVnyvQA@posted.plusnet>
>           Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>simon wrote:
>>>"Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
>>>news:6curj4F3is4mmU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>"simon"  wrote in message 
>>>>news:1KCdna8UEMlwo_TVnZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances 
>>>>>since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of school 
>>>>>places ?
>>>>It's bugger-all to do with that in my village. It's paranoid Mums who are 
>>>>convinced their little darlings will be kidnapped by paedophiles if they 
>>>>are allowed to walk a quarter of a mile to and from school.
>>>>
>>>>-- 
>>>>Brian
>>>>"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
>>>>
>>>I knew someone would take off in that direction. :-)
>>>
>>>However was asking about the increase not the cause of insisting on 
>>>accompanying. Plus there are situations where children dont go on their own 
>>>such as sending a 4 year old on a 5 mile bus journey or where it requires 
>>>several busses to cover several miles.
>>You realise you will now have triggered a huge "I travelled to Timbuktu 
>>by bus three years before I was born and it never did me any harm" thread?
>>
> 
> But was it an RT or RF?

It was GM "new look" for me :-)

Robin

"Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
news:6d3f2bFl1beU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "simon"  wrote in message 
> news:2cSdnWhd7oyOk_HVnZ2dnUVZ8qrinZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Brian Watson"  wrote in message 
>> news:6d27sbFg0u4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> Might that be as a result of parental choice being exercised without 
>>> thinking the thing through?
>>>
>> Of course thats the question I really wanted to ask but was unsure how to 
>> phrase it. Thank you, here we are :-
>> Would it be interesting to know the increase in school run distances as a 
>> result of parental choice being exercised without thinking the thing 
>> through since introduction of labours social policies in allocation of 
>> school places ?
>>
>> You are a quibbler extrordinaire.
>
> Cheers! (I think).
>
> The whole "parental choice" thing is a nonsense, of course.
>
> In fact "choice" is a characteristic that is now offered as always being a 
> "good thing" by both the main parties.
>
> It is, or has been, proposed in support of privatisation when actually one 
> doesn't want (say) three trains to choose from for a given journey; one 
> wants one train that turns up more or less on time and gets to its 
> destination more or less on time without any adverse incidents along the 
> way.
>
> Oh sorry, was this about schools...?
>
> :-)
> -- 
> Brian
> "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

I'll put you down as a 'NO' then.

Cheers,
Simon

"Sue McNaughton"  wrote in message 
news:Ri5k0$GGembIJw7z@wandleys.demon.co.uk...
> In article 
> , 
> i.g.batten@batten.eu.org writes
>>
>>Another factor is far more women with school-age children working, and
>>therefore dropping children on their way to work.
>>
> Thank you Ian - that is probably a lot more significant than many men are 
> prepared to give it credit for.
>
> -- 
> Sue
> The Sir Nigel Gresley Locomotive Preservation Trust is now at
> http://www.sirnigelgresley.co.uk
> Including - 00 gauge Hornby and Bachmann models for sale.
>
But some brave (foolhardy) person may then ask how many of those wives 
should be staying at home where they belong instead of earning the extra 
money so they can afford the 4 wheel monster and polluting holidays abroad ?

Anon

"Sue McNaughton"  wrote in message 
news:sGgrtVM$JQcIJwGo@wandleys.demon.co.uk...
> In article , simon 
>  writes
>
>>>>
>>>>Another factor is far more women with school-age children working, and
>>>>therefore dropping children on their way to work.
>>>>
>>> Thank you Ian - that is probably a lot more significant than many men 
>>> are
>>> prepared to give it credit for.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sue
>
>>>
>>But some brave (foolhardy) person may then ask how many of those wives
>>should be staying at home where they belong instead of earning the extra
>>money so they can afford the 4 wheel monster and polluting holidays abroad 
>>?
>>
> He might, if he's prepared to risk being called an unreconstructed MCP. 
> :-)
>
> -- 
> Sue
> The Sir Nigel Gresley Locomotive Preservation Trust is now at
> http://www.sirnigelgresley.co.uk
> Including - 00 gauge Hornby and Bachmann models for sale.
>
Can cope with that, esp having just spent usual 20 hours in sole charge of 
tot over the w/e as well as putting in a fair share of daily pleasure during 
the week.
Also no one knows who sent this :-)

CHeers,
Anon