Re: HS1 Domestic trains are a bit busy
1506
> I know some will say "I told you so" but it seems the peak runs on the
> South Eastern preview service are proving popular.
>
> http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/index.php/news/news_items/view/101
>
> "Following the successful launch of the ‘preview’ High Speed services on
> Monday 29 June, passenger numbers using the service have required
> Southeastern to double the length of the train on some services.
>
> The service has proven so popular with passengers that Southeastern
> today were required to double the length of the 0748 from Ashford
> International to St Pancras and the 1737 from St Pancras International
> to Ashford International from six to 12 cars." [more in press release]
>
> It'll be interesting to see if the "preview service" expands before
> December.
>
> --
> Paul C
Do fares for these services carry a premium? If so it may indicate
that some passengers are prepared to pay more for a markedly improved
service. That certainly used to be the case. Think Pullman cars on
the Metropolitan.
James Farrar
5b9a99...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Do fares for these services carry a premium?
Yes.
Ashford to London single �26.60 on HS1 (�17.50 regular).
http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/index.php/cms/pages/view/325
Paul Scott
"James Farrar" <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C411B283C301ja...@130.133.1.4...
Wrong James.
You have compared the Anytime single fare with supplement to the Offpeak
single without.
The correct comparison is �26.60 (�22.20 regular). The Ashford supplement
being �4.40 peak single. There are no offpeak single fares or supplements
shown for Ashford yet, as the preview service is peak only (so far).
However there are off peak versions of the supplements for Ebbsfleet where
there are already all day HS1 services.
Paul S
James Farrar
news:I-6dnbLp1quYuM7X...@bt.com:
>
> "James Farrar" <james.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C411B283C301ja...@130.133.1.4...
>> 1506 <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:a52f7c74-0f0e-4166-92a7-
>> 5b9a99...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Do fares for these services carry a premium?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Ashford to London single �26.60 on HS1 (�17.50 regular).
>>
>> http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/index.php/cms/pages/view/325
>
> Wrong James.
>
> You have compared the Anytime single fare with supplement to the
> Offpeak single without.
OK, oops. But there's still a premium, even if I overstated its amount.
1506
> "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> wrote innews:I-6dnbLp1quYuM7X...@bt.com:
>
>
>
>
> > "James Farrar" <james.s.far...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9C411B283C301ja...@130.133.1.4...
> >> 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:a52f7c74-0f0e-4166-92a7-
> >> 5b9a99ec6...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>> Do fares for these services carry a premium?
>
> >> Yes.
>
> >> Ashford to London single £26.60 on HS1 (£17.50 regular).
>
> >>http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/index.php/cms/pages/view/325
>
> > Wrong James.
>
> > You have compared the Anytime single fare with supplement to the
> > Offpeak single without.
>
> OK, oops. But there's still a premium, even if I overstated its amount.
None-the-less, I think this may indicate a way forward for suburban
rail development. It seems that the market will pay more for a
superior product.
Martin Petrov
Remember, if you live in Ashford and work in London, chances are:
a) you have kids
b) you have a fairly decent job
If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?
Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.
Mizter T
On Jul 9, 9:14 pm, Martin Petrov <philjm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 8 July, 20:57, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > None-the-less, I think this may indicate a way forward for suburban
> > rail development. It seems that the market will pay more for a
> > superior product.
>
> Remember, if you live in Ashford and work in London, chances are:
>
> a) you have kids
> b) you have a fairly decent job
>
> If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
> with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
> whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
> you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?
>
> Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.
Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
something like £5 billion, which was basically covered by government
loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR - loans that the
government eventually decided to write off recently (and by 'write
off' I basically mean 'pay off', by providing state aid to L&CR to
enable them to do so, before then taking ownership of the company with
a view to splitting it up and selling it off later).
I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
such a development - and I don't think the country (in the form of
taxpayers) is willing to pay for it either (at least not again!),
especially if the end result is basically subsidising the lifestyle
choices of the more affluent! Those commuters in and around Ashford
and on the route of SE HS services have got something of a bargain...
especially as their house prices will likely go up as well (as it will
for non-commuters too).
£5 billion can buy a lot of light rail systems, improvements in
suburban rail services and bus services, cycle and walking route
improvements and other more general improvements to towns and cities
that boost the quality of life for all.
Willms
<mizt...@gmail.com> auf uk.railway :
> > If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
> > with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
> > whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
> > you was �8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?
> >
> > Just �4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.
>
> Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
> something like �5 billion, which was basically covered by government
> loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR
> I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
> such a development
hey, man! Do you really suggest that 2 hours extra time for a family
man should be subject to "market forces"?
And what, if the "market forces" decide that the re-introduction of
slavery would help to increase the profits of the big banks, what
then?
Should "the market" prevail over human beings?
Is this the dragon which ruled over the town and who asked a virgin
sacrified to it every year in order not to destroy town and castle?
L.W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
recommended reading about Iran
> <http://babakzahraie.blogspot.com/2009/06/whither-iran.html>
Paul Scott
You may have missed it in one of the other threads on the HS1 and its fares,
but even with the supplement Ashford to London via HS1 is still comparably
priced to other similar length journeys on a pence/mile basis. In the final
analysis current 'Southeastern' fares may just have been generally low
compared to other parts of the London commuter area.
Paul
Arthur Figgis
> Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:39:37 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
> <mizt...@gmail.com> auf uk.railway :
>
>>> If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
>>> with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
>>> whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
>>> you was �8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?
>>>
>>> Just �4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.
>> Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
>> something like �5 billion, which was basically covered by government
>> loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR
>
>> I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
>> such a development
>
> hey, man! Do you really suggest that 2 hours extra time for a family
> man should be subject to "market forces"?
Depends how many hours extra work the workers-n-peasants have to put in
to subsidise the railway which gives the capitalist extra time with his
family.
> And what, if the "market forces" decide that the re-introduction of
> slavery would help to increase the profits of the big banks, what
> then?
There is a theory that abolition was about perceived inefficiencies and
redeploying the ships on more profitable ventures.
> Should "the market" prevail over human beings?
>
> Is this the dragon which ruled over the town and who asked a virgin
> sacrified to it every year in order not to destroy town and castle?
But the Virgin was replaced by a bus at weekends.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Mizter T
On Jul 9, 10:09 pm, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:39:37 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
> <mizte...@gmail.com> auf uk.railway :
>
> > > If someone offered you an extra 2 hours (approx?) every day to spend
> > > with your kids or playing 5-a-side or lying in bed in the morning (or
> > > whatever the hell you do with your spare time....), and all it cost
> > > you was £8 (approx?) a day, you'd do it, right? Who wouldn't?
>
> > > Just £4.40 for an extra hour in bed every day? Priceless.
>
> > Agreed - but it's worth bearing in mind that the HS1 line cost
> > something like £5 billion, which was basically covered by government
> > loan guarantees to the company that built it, L&CR
> > I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
> > such a development
>
> hey, man! Do you really suggest that 2 hours extra time for a family
> man should be subject to "market forces"?
>
> And what, if the "market forces" decide that the re-introduction of
> slavery would help to increase the profits of the big banks, what
> then?
>
> Should "the market" prevail over human beings?
>
> Is this the dragon which ruled over the town and who asked a virgin
> sacrified to it every year in order not to destroy town and castle?
Luko, did you even read my whole post? I was suggesting that I don't
think people are really going to be willing to subsidise the
construction of very expensive new high-speed lines which benefit
already affluent commuters so as to enable them to make 100 mile plus
daily journeys. Of course, inevitably any new high-speed line would
increase the incidence of long-distance commuting , it's an inevitable
by-product - but specifically designing and constructing such lines
for commuting purposes isn't on (and of course is never going to
happen). Instead I'd be in favour of spending some of that money to
help all the family men and women who already live in towns and
cities, and to encourage families to live in the towns and cities in
which members of that family work, etc etc etc.
Before blundering in and criticising my comments, I suggest you
acquaint yourself with some of the basics with regards to the
Southeastern Highspeed service (which I've abbreviated as SE HS, and
also is/ has been called "CTRL-DS", "Kent domestics" and other
permutations thereof - and is sometimes erroneously called "Javelin")
- there's some information on the Southeastern website here:
http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/index.php/highspeed
Some of the people using SE HS could indeed have 2 or more extra hours
of family time if they (a) lived in London or (b) worked nearer where
they live and earnt less. That's simplifying things dramatically of
course, and there's an awful lot of different factors at play here
with regards to careers, lifestyles, quality of life (or at least
perceived quality of life), schooling etc etc - but people already
make these decisions, and one of the things on their calculus is
family time and to what extent they are prepared to play that off
against other factors such as career building or earning potential.
I'm not making massive definitive judgements on all these various
factors one way or the other, though I do have some thoughts on them -
but if someone was to propose an expensive new high-speed line from
Brighton to London (again a distance of about 50 miles) just to make
life easier for commuters, I'm not going to be there at the front of
the line campaigning in favour of it!
(Come to think of it, didn't the Brighton mainline RUS recently
pondered on some fairly radical/ 'way-out' ideas about tunnels to take
fast trains from Croydon under built up south London into central
London... not quite the same thing as a new high-speed line, but not
totally disconnected either.)
Mizter T
On Jul 9, 10:31 pm, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> Willms wrote:
>
> > Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:39:37 UTC, schrieb Mizter T
> > <mizte...@gmail.com> auf uk.railway :
Arthur... sorry - hey,man!... why can't I just construct a high-speed
pithy response like you!
Mizter T
On Jul 9, 10:06 pm, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
Certainly in the London zonal fares area, the gradual process of
equalising all rail-only season ticket fares across all TOCs in London
over three years (process will be complete come January 2010) has
meant that the season ticket prices from Southeastern stations have
had to rise.
Tony Polson
>
>I was suggesting that I don't
>think people are really going to be willing to subsidise the
>construction of very expensive new high-speed lines which benefit
>already affluent commuters so as to enable them to make 100 mile plus
>daily journeys. Of course, inevitably any new high-speed line would
>increase the incidence of long-distance commuting , it's an inevitable
>by-product - but specifically designing and constructing such lines
>for commuting purposes isn't on (and of course is never going to
>happen). Instead I'd be in favour of spending some of that money to
>help all the family men and women who already live in towns and
>cities, and to encourage families to live in the towns and cities in
>which members of that family work, etc etc etc.
There's a problem here. There will be a lot of opposition to the
construction of high speed lines that cause a lot of noise and
disruption during construction and a lot of noise in operation, if
people along the route don't benefit in some tangible way from the
services that run on those lines.
I think, if they go ahead at all, we'll have to end up with four track
routes that carry freight and more "local" services as well as up to 350
km/h long distance services. And that will only encourage long distance
commuting.
You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
long distance daily commute. I agree that this makes no sense at all,
and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.
Arthur Figgis
and a lot of noise in operation,
In that case, copy foreign lines. Problem solved.
Roland Perry
07:54:39 on Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Arthur Figgis
<afi...@example.com.invalid> remarked:
>Tony Polson wrote:
>
> and a lot of noise in operation,
>
>In that case, copy foreign lines. Problem solved.
How do they reduce the operating noise? Is it by running mainly through
open countryside, tunnelling under towns, or what?
--
Roland Perry
Tom Barry
The Stuttgart-Ulm project in Germany contains a staggering amount of
tunnel - it's virtually a long-distance Tube line. The bits that aren't
in tunnel are alongside an autobahn.
Tom
John B
> You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
> using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
> already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
> long distance daily commute. I agree that this makes no sense at all,
> and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.
...although there's an entirely plausible argument that the large
amounts of money earned by, and hence taxed from, professional people
working in London on long commutes easily offset the subsidy that
their commute is given (compared to a scenario where they live in
countrysideyness and take the kind of lower-paying job that's
generally available outside global financial centres).
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
Mizter T
On Jul 10, 12:57 am, Tony Polson <docnews2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I was suggesting that I don't
> >think people are really going to be willing to subsidise the
> >construction of very expensive new high-speed lines which benefit
> >already affluent commuters so as to enable them to make 100 mile plus
> >daily journeys. Of course, inevitably any new high-speed line would
> >increase the incidence of long-distance commuting , it's an inevitable
> >by-product - but specifically designing and constructing such lines
> >for commuting purposes isn't on (and of course is never going to
> >happen). Instead I'd be in favour of spending some of that money to
> >help all the family men and women who already live in towns and
> >cities, and to encourage families to live in the towns and cities in
> >which members of that family work, etc etc etc.
>
> There's a problem here. There will be a lot of opposition to the
> construction of high speed lines that cause a lot of noise and
> disruption during construction and a lot of noise in operation, if
> people along the route don't benefit in some tangible way from the
> services that run on those lines.
>
> I think, if they go ahead at all, we'll have to end up with four track
> routes that carry freight and more "local" services as well as up to 350
> km/h long distance services. And that will only encourage long distance
> commuting.
Interesting point. The land take would obviously be that much greater,
as would the cost, but nonetheless I can see your point - if a right-
of-way is being constructed, one might as well put in the extra work
and get four tracks out of it rather than two.
>
> You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
> using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
> already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
> long distance daily commute. I agree that this makes no sense at all,
> and that long distance commuting should be discouraged.
That said, I am in favour (I think!) of the massively expensive
Crossrail project... for a long time I didn't really have any properly
considered thoughts on it because I thought it was unlikely to ever
happen, but it seems it is now happening (as ever there's some
uncertainty of course). Though Crossrail won't facilitate long-
distance commuting per-se directly, but inevitably that will be a side-
effect.
I should just add that I'm not anti-professional people (whatever that
means!), nor anti-commuting as such. I certainly appreciate the
complex and multi-layered reasoning at play behind the decision of
people to do more lengthy commutes. Though I (obviously) do take some
issue with long-distance daily commuting (FSVO "long-distance", which
is of course debatable!).
And sometimes I think I might implode under the mass of my own
internal contradictions... and then just propose that everyone should
go off and live off the land, being crofters and woodsmen, where the
big journey is into the next town but one! But the genie of travel is
of course out of the bottle.
Roland Perry
Jul 2009, Tom Barry <il...@blueyonder.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Tony Polson wrote:
>>>
>>> and a lot of noise in operation,
>>>
>>> In that case, copy foreign lines. Problem solved.
>> How do they reduce the operating noise? Is it by running mainly
>>through open countryside, tunnelling under towns, or what?
>
>The Stuttgart-Ulm project in Germany contains a staggering amount of
>tunnel - it's virtually a long-distance Tube line.
Weren't we also trying to work out why the UK spent twice as much as any
foreigners on new lines. Are we spending twice as much as that line?
>The bits that aren't in tunnel are alongside an autobahn.
--
Roland Perry
Miles Bader
>> How do they reduce the operating noise? Is it by running mainly
>> through open countryside, tunnelling under towns, or what?
>
> The Stuttgart-Ulm project in Germany contains a staggering amount of
> tunnel - it's virtually a long-distance Tube line. The bits that aren't
> in tunnel are alongside an autobahn.
The Chuo (maglev) Shinkansen (now in planning stage) is supposedly going
to be 60% underground. The chosen route is 286km long, and very
mountainous.
...
The primary reason for the project's huge expense is that it is
planned to run in a tunnel for more than 60% of the entire line, and
40 m underground (deep underground) for a total of 100 km in the
Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka areas.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūō_Shinkansen)
From what I understand, one big reason for constructing the new line,
instead of trying to increase speeds on the existing tokaido line, is
aerodynamic noise in populated areas. I guess building 40m underground
through sparsely populated areas should give them a bit of relief from
that problem; sure it costs 50 billion dollars, but... :)
-Miles
--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without
individual responsibility.
Mizter T
That's a fair point, at least for some such commuters. In which case
one could argue that they should simply directly pay more for their
journeys instead of having their commute subsidised (and one could
argue that London might benefit from their presence... one could also
argue it might not as well - higher house prices etc!). Though the
notion that these folk should pay more of the full cost of their
commute might conflict to a certain extent with the notion that
subsidising shorter distance commutes is a legitimate thing to do,
because it means people have access to more reasonably priced property
- or the flip-side of the coin, employers in the centre have access to
a larger pool of potential employees.
I do comprehend it's a rather complex overall picture to say the
least, with a great number of arguments that can be made in favour of
taking all manner of various stances.
Tony Polson
>
>That said, I am in favour (I think!) of the massively expensive
>Crossrail project... for a long time I didn't really have any properly
>considered thoughts on it because I thought it was unlikely to ever
>happen, but it seems it is now happening (as ever there's some
>uncertainty of course). Though Crossrail won't facilitate long-
>distance commuting per-se directly, but inevitably that will be a side-
>effect.
An article I read a few years ago suggested that Crossrail would enable
the affluent professionals who are living to the west of London to get
to their highly paid jobs in the City with ease, and the poorer people
from the East End to get to their (not much more than) minimum wage jobs
in the West End in less time than now. :-(
>I should just add that I'm not anti-professional people (whatever that
>means!), nor anti-commuting as such. I certainly appreciate the
>complex and multi-layered reasoning at play behind the decision of
>people to do more lengthy commutes. Though I (obviously) do take some
>issue with long-distance daily commuting (FSVO "long-distance", which
>is of course debatable!).
Yes, I suppose I opened up a can of worms. ;-)
>And sometimes I think I might implode under the mass of my own
>internal contradictions... and then just propose that everyone should
>go off and live off the land, being crofters and woodsmen, where the
>big journey is into the next town but one! But the genie of travel is
>of course out of the bottle.
We cannot hope to address climate change without taking a good hard look
at transport.
But I am pleased to report that sales of videoconferencing systems are
holding up well in spite of the recession. Companies are at last
beginning to see it as a genuine alternative to expensive and time
consuming travelling to meetings.
I have no doubt academia will lag years behind commerce, with the usual
underworked scientists insisting (to the few who listen) that the
scientific value of face to face networking far exceeds the economic and
environmental cost of their time and travel to and from the meetings. Of
course these are the same guys who will be lecturing us on changing our
travel habits, indeed our whole way of life, in the papers they present
at their far-flung and highly repetitive conferences. ;-)
I used to be lectured by a scientific colleague who strongly criticised
my use of a car for leisure trips because of the CO2 it emitted. The
same guy was a regular visitor to the Galapagos Islands, often more than
once in a year, and drove over 30,000 business miles a year in a car
with a 2.7 litre V6 that drank petrol like it was going out of fashion.
If he had used a more economical car, such as mine, he would have saved
far more CO2 than all my annual car use emitted, leisure *and* business.
Aren't scientists wonderful.
Willms
<docne...@googlemail.com> auf uk.railway :
> But I am pleased to report that sales of videoconferencing systems are
> holding up well in spite of the recession. Companies are at last
> beginning to see it as a genuine alternative to expensive and time
> consuming travelling to meetings.
Physical presence is irreplaceable.
A fact which does not preclude that we communicate via mail
(physical and electronic), telegraph, telephone, fax, video-conference
etc.
But in the end: physical presence is irreplaceable.
Cheers,
L.W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Willms
<rol...@perry.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
> >The Stuttgart-Ulm project in Germany contains a staggering amount of
> >tunnel - it's virtually a long-distance Tube line.
>
> Weren't we also trying to work out why the UK spent twice as much as any
> foreigners on new lines. Are we spending twice as much as that line?
No, probably only twices as much as the French light weight HSLs
with their volatile ballast, where only lightweight trains can run.
Cheers,
L.W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Willms
<docne...@googlemail.com> auf uk.railway :
> You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability of
> using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums than the
> already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise professional people's
> long distance daily commute.
You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?
Cheers,
L.W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Willms
<mizt...@gmail.com> auf uk.railway :
> I do comprehend it's a rather complex overall picture to say the
> least, with a great number of arguments that can be made in favour of
> taking all manner of various stances.
Right.
Every step in increasing travel speed has also increased the
distance surmountable in a fixed time of, say one hour.
This has lead, and will continue to lead, to an increasing number of
people making short trips over longer distances which would have taken
too much time to overcome. Be it a short visit of relatives and
friends, a trip to the seaside or the mountains, or the daily commute.
The world is growing together, the human race is again become a
single family.
Recliner
news:czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de
> Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, schrieb Tony Polson
> <docne...@googlemail.com> auf uk.railway :
>
>> You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
>> of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
>> than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
>> professional people's long distance daily commute.
>
> You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?
In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
such as lawyers and accountants.
Mizter T
On Jul 12, 11:51 am, "Recliner" <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Am Thu, 9 Jul 2009 23:57:05 UTC, schrieb Tony Polson
> > <docnews2...@googlemail.com> auf uk.railway :
>
> >> You have made some very good points regarding the (un)acceptability
> >> of using colossal sums of taxpayers' money - vastly greater sums
> >> than the already huge amounts spent on rail - to subsidise
> >> professional people's long distance daily commute.
>
> > You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?
>
> In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
> such as lawyers and accountants.
Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.
Mizter T
And I managed to write that sentence without thinking about how Luko
might pick up on it!
(For those not in the know, I think it's broadly fair to say that Luko
is a committed socialist, albeit a subscriber to a particular brand of
socialism that others might take issue with. Oh dear, what kind of can
of worms am I opening here...!)
Willms
<recline...@yahoo.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
> In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
> such as lawyers and accountants.
I am sure that many carpenters, engineers, and other not so well
paid workers perform their work in a much more professional way than
those named above.
I was confronted with this socially motivated perversion of language
for the first time in the US-american computer company which at one of
the frequent re-organisations decided to split the service department
into to: the "professional service" and the other service. What an
insulting disgrace!
Mizter T
On Jul 12, 1:18 pm, "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Am Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:51:04 UTC, schrieb "Recliner"
> <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
>
> > In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
> > such as lawyers and accountants.
>
> I am sure that many carpenters, engineers, and other not so well
> paid workers perform their work in a much more professional way than
> those named above.
>
> I was confronted with this socially motivated perversion of language
> for the first time in the US-american computer company which at one of
> the frequent re-organisations decided to split the service department
> into to: the "professional service" and the other service. What an
> insulting disgrace!
I tend to agree with you on that broad point.
Roland Perry
<czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>, at
14:18:39 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Willms <l.wi...@domain.invalid> remarked:
>> In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
>> such as lawyers and accountants.
>
> I am sure that many carpenters, engineers, and other not so well
>paid workers perform their work in a much more professional way than
>those named above.
Both descriptions above are a little off the mark.
"Professional" implies that the person has passed an academic
qualification, and is a member of some "body/association" where the
public can go to check up upon their qualification if necessary.
To that extent, whatever a CORGI engineer is called this week may well
qualify.
--
Roland Perry
Alistair Gunn
> Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
> professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
> talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.
<nods> Another way to look at it, which doesn't suffer from this problem
is when professional means "gets paid to to do it". Thus you can have
professional $X and amateur $X, without implying that one is of higher
quality than the other ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Andy
> In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
> > professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
> > talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.
>
> <nods> Another way to look at it, which doesn't suffer from this problem
> is when professional means "gets paid to to do it". Thus you can have
> professional $X and amateur $X, without implying that one is of higher
> quality than the other ...
This is professional in the 'old' sense of the word, being someone who
can counter-sign your passport application. Helpfully the Government
has a list of professional people here
<http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Passports/
Applicationinformation/DG_174151> which is a wonderful mix of
professions!! So the landlord at your local can countersign, but not
your plumber (unless he is a director of his self-employed PLC!)
Mizter T
On Jul 12, 3:10 pm, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > Which is pretty stupid usage, as my plumber is genuinely a
> > professional (unlike many!). It's perhaps something of a foil for
> > talking about class, which we're still to obsessed by.
>
> <nods> Another way to look at it, which doesn't suffer from this problem
> is when professional means "gets paid to to do it". Thus you can have
> professional $X and amateur $X, without implying that one is of higher
> quality than the other ...
I'm not sure how much I spoiled by argument with the typo "to" instead
of "too" - the grammar snobs will have me! (Actually, I am keen on
good grammar, despite copious evidence to the contrary in past posts -
plus, it was a typo, I do know the difference... really, I do!)
Tom Anderson
That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional meaning
is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have come to be
called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine, architecture,
accountancy, the priesthood.
They were once the only jobs that required qualifications, and i think
there was also a meaning that they involved being a freelance contractor
rather than a salaried employee, but i don't think you can carry that old
definition forward and include plumbers and gas fitters - or indeed
consulting software architects such as myself. No disrespect intended to
plumbers or gas fitters, but that's just what common usage of the word
means.
The complaint i'd make against the use of the word in this context is that
i don't think it includes bankers or managers, who i imagine make up a
larger share of the Ashford commuter market than lawyers, architects, etc.
tom
--
these are my testing supplies
Mizter T
On Jul 12, 5:05 pm, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > In message <czd2LKcn8EGd-pn2-5PHUw4Mdd...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de>,
> > at 14:18:39 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Willms <l.wil...@domain.invalid> remarked:
Common usage changes over time. These bankers and managers would
commonly be called "professional people", even if they aren't
"professionals" in the old school sense. And anyway, one doesn't have
to subscribe to any of this "professional" versus 'other' (by
implication "non-professional") malarkey anyway - I don't. And if
enough people disregard it, the commonly understood meaning will
change. (It comes across to me as somewhat pompous and status seeking,
at least if one places an emphasis on it.)
Viva the (plumbers) revolution.
Roland Perry
17:05:36 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Tom Anderson <tw...@urchin.earth.li>
remarked:
>> "Professional" implies that the person has passed an academic
>>qualification, and is a member of some "body/association" where the
>>public can go to check up upon their qualification if necessary.
>>
>> To that extent, whatever a CORGI engineer is called this week may
>>well qualify.
>
>That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional
>meaning is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have come
>to be called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine,
>architecture, accountancy, the priesthood.
But you've just listed jobs that fit my definition.
>i don't think you can carry that old definition forward and include
>plumbers and gas fitters - or indeed consulting software architects
>such as myself.
Is your qualification registered centrally? Maybe not, but CORGI
engineers are.
>The complaint i'd make against the use of the word in this context is
>that i don't think it includes bankers or managers, who i imagine make
>up a larger share of the Ashford commuter market than lawyers,
>architects, etc.
And then you have the property programmes' "young professionals" whoever
they are.
--
Roland Perry
Martin Edwards
teachers and quite low paid people like nurses.
Martin Edwards
In teaching it used to be a scam to fool non-graduates, but it is still
in use, for some reason.
Recliner
news:2LA6m.56889$NK.2...@newsfe26.ams2
No, I don't think so -- maybe headteachers, but not your average junior
teacher, and certainly not nurses. I'm not saying they aren't dedicated,
hard-working professionals, just that the colloquial British use does
have a status/class/wealth implication. I was just trying to correct
Luko, who seemed to think that anyone not in this vaguely defined this
category is therefore being insulted in some way. I also made the point
that this was UK usage; it's different in the US.
TimB
> In message <alpine.DEB.1.10.0907121654380.30...@urchin.earth.li>, at
> 17:05:36 on Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Tom Anderson <t...@urchin.earth.li>
There's also the distinction between those on a salary (annual) and a
wage (by the hour). Somewhat diluted by the growth in self-employment
and freelancing, but still a common mindset, I think.
Tim
Willms
<tw...@urchin.earth.li> auf uk.railway :
> That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional meaning
> is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have come to be
> called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine, architecture,
> accountancy, the priesthood.
Originally they were called "the liberal professions", i.e.
professions which were exercised by people with a higher education
hanging out shingle and working on their own, not as part of a larger
organisation.
Freelance, self-employed, private practice are other words
applicable in this field.
The German word is "Freie Berufe", the adjetive or adverb
"freiberuflich". This is of relevance for VAT -- those who are working
"freiberuflich" don't pay VAT. In some professions, one can chose if
one works "freiberuflich" or as commercially as a business. In the
latter case, one has to pay VAT, or rather, charge VAT to one's
customers.
Roland Perry
<5f9c9f9a-40a5-4bdb...@j21g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, at
09:30:54 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, TimB <timbu...@onetel.net> remarked:
>There's also the distinction between those on a salary (annual) and a
>wage (by the hour). Somewhat diluted by the growth in self-employment
>and freelancing, but still a common mindset, I think.
I'm not sure how well that maps onto real life. Last week I was
discussing an issue with someone with a manual job on not much more than
minimum wage, but they were paid a salary, not by the hour.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
news:czd2LKcn8EGd-p...@lueko.willms.dialin.t-online.de
> <tw...@urchin.earth.li> auf uk.railway :
>
>> That's not the traditional meaning, though, is it? The traditional
>> meaning is basically a group of upper-middle-class jobs which have
>> come to be called 'the professions' through custom - law, medicine,
>> architecture, accountancy, the priesthood.
>
> Originally they were called "the liberal professions", i.e.
> professions which were exercised by people with a higher education
> hanging out shingle and working on their own, not as part of a larger
> organisation.
>
> Freelance, self-employed, private practice are other words
> applicable in this field.
>
> The German word is "Freie Berufe", the adjetive or adverb
> "freiberuflich". This is of relevance for VAT -- those who are working
> "freiberuflich" don't pay VAT. In some professions, one can chose if
> one works "freiberuflich" or as commercially as a business. In the
> latter case, one has to pay VAT, or rather, charge VAT to one's
> customers.
In Britain, you don't get the choice if "taxable supplies" (revenue)
exceed �67k.
Roland Perry
Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Recliner <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> The German word is "Freie Berufe", the adjetive or adverb
>> "freiberuflich". This is of relevance for VAT -- those who are working
>> "freiberuflich" don't pay VAT. In some professions, one can chose if
>> one works "freiberuflich" or as commercially as a business. In the
>> latter case, one has to pay VAT, or rather, charge VAT to one's
>> customers.
>
>In Britain, you don't get the choice if "taxable supplies" (revenue)
>exceed �67k.
I wonder if an MP has to take account of the monies paid to him to run
his office, as a "taxable supply", or whether they are entirely exempt
from the VAT system.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'll assume all the "expenses" are valid
ones.
Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random example:
Ms Diane Abbott claimed around �131k, *none* of which was for a second
home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
news:vIFxXnbT...@perry.co.uk
If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I
don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just
to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for
things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than
via the MP's books.
I know that when I invoice my customers, I have to charge VAT even on
things like reimbursed public transport fares that are not themselves
subject to VAT. Of course, it's all a waste of time, as the money I
charge my customers just moves in a loop: they pay me, I pass it on to
HMRC, and my customers claim it back from HMRC. And, of course, from
time to time the VAT people audit me, even though any errors I might
have made would simply cancel out. So, lots of time and effort incurred
by all concerned, for zero net revenue to HMG.
Roland Perry
>> example: Ms Diane Abbott claimed around �131k, *none* of which was
>> for a second home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm
>
>If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I
>don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just
>to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for
>things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than
>via the MP's books.
One of the proposed changes is that the staff will be paid direct from
Westminster. (Which sounds to me like something that will require a
whole new layer of admin, so they can be assured what hours those people
have actually worked).
--
Roland Perry
Arthur Figgis
> Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, I am in favour (I think!) of the massively expensive
>> Crossrail project... for a long time I didn't really have any properly
>> considered thoughts on it because I thought it was unlikely to ever
>> happen, but it seems it is now happening (as ever there's some
>> uncertainty of course). Though Crossrail won't facilitate long-
>> distance commuting per-se directly, but inevitably that will be a side-
>> effect.
>
>
> An article I read a few years ago suggested that Crossrail would enable
> the affluent professionals who are living to the west of London to get
> to their highly paid jobs in the City with ease, and the poorer people
> from the East End to get to their (not much more than) minimum wage jobs
> in the West End in less time than now. :-(
>
>
>> I should just add that I'm not anti-professional people (whatever that
>> means!), nor anti-commuting as such. I certainly appreciate the
>> complex and multi-layered reasoning at play behind the decision of
>> people to do more lengthy commutes. Though I (obviously) do take some
>> issue with long-distance daily commuting (FSVO "long-distance", which
>> is of course debatable!).
>
>
> Yes, I suppose I opened up a can of worms. ;-)
>
>
>> And sometimes I think I might implode under the mass of my own
>> internal contradictions... and then just propose that everyone should
>> go off and live off the land, being crofters and woodsmen, where the
>> big journey is into the next town but one! But the genie of travel is
>> of course out of the bottle.
>
>
> We cannot hope to address climate change without taking a good hard look
> at transport.
>
> But I am pleased to report that sales of videoconferencing systems are
> holding up well in spite of the recession. Companies are at last
> beginning to see it as a genuine alternative to expensive and time
> consuming travelling to meetings.
>
> I have no doubt academia will lag years behind commerce, with the usual
> underworked scientists insisting (to the few who listen) that the
> scientific value of face to face networking far exceeds the economic and
> environmental cost of their time and travel to and from the meetings. Of
> course these are the same guys who will be lecturing us on changing our
> travel habits, indeed our whole way of life, in the papers they present
> at their far-flung and highly repetitive conferences. ;-)
No doubt the pen-pushers and postal clerks with be able to produce video
conferencing without needing anything produced by scientists. They'll
just need to bang the rocks /really/ hard.
> I used to be lectured by a scientific colleague who strongly criticised
> my use of a car for leisure trips because of the CO2 it emitted. The
> same guy was a regular visitor to the Galapagos Islands, often more than
> once in a year, and drove over 30,000 business miles a year in a car
> with a 2.7 litre V6 that drank petrol like it was going out of fashion.
> If he had used a more economical car, such as mine, he would have saved
> far more CO2 than all my annual car use emitted, leisure *and* business.
>
> Aren't scientists wonderful.
You lost that argument at some point in the eighteenth century or so, if
not far earlier.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Willms
<recline...@yahoo.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
> I have to charge VAT even on things
> like reimbursed public transport fares
> that are not themselves subject to VAT.
interesting. In Germany, different rates of VAT apply depending on
if its long distance (full rate, 19%) or regional which is supposed to
be a public service (lower rate, 7%).
Mizter T
On Jul 13, 8:00 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <LO2dnSvGEsXGHMbXnZ2dnUVZ8tqdn...@bt.com>, at 19:47:46 on
> Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Recliner <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
> >> Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random
> >> example: Ms Diane Abbott claimed around £131k, *none* of which was
> >> for a second home.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm
>
> >If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I
> >don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just
> >to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for
> >things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than
> >via the MP's books.
>
> One of the proposed changes is that the staff will be paid direct from
> Westminster. (Which sounds to me like something that will require a
> whole new layer of admin, so they can be assured what hours those people
> have actually worked).
Which is fine by me, if it stops dodgy MPs 'employing' their children
who somehow do all the work whilst they're 300 miles away at
university, and other such scams.
Some MPs work very hard - my understanding is that Diane Abbott is one
such example - and I'm all for providing them with the proper back up
of researchers and staff (I was going to call this a 'private office',
which it is commonly called, but actually I don't think that's a very
appropriate phrase).
Mizter T
On Jul 13, 3:15 pm, "Recliner" <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Recliner wrote:
> >> "Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> >>> You think that only unprofessional people should commute to work?
>
> >> In the UK, "professional" implies reasonably or very well-off people,
> >> such as lawyers and accountants.
>
> > Not necessarily. It sometimes refers to moderately paid people like
> > teachers and quite low paid people like nurses.
>
> No, I don't think so -- maybe headteachers, but not your average junior
> teacher, and certainly not nurses. I'm not saying they aren't dedicated,
> hard-working professionals, just that the colloquial British use does
> have a status/class/wealth implication. I was just trying to correct
> Luko, who seemed to think that anyone not in this vaguely defined this
> category is therefore being insulted in some way. I also made the point
> that this was UK usage; it's different in the US.
And I'm agreeing with Luko that the colloquial British usage of the
term is crap, and furthermore is actually perhaps something of a foil
for talking about class, status and wealth in an indirect fashion -
and is therefore worth challenging, rather than benignly accepting.
There's a whole number of common phrases that I avoid for various
reasons, one being that I think they carry with them a whole subtext,
another reason being that I think they';re intellectually lazy, and
yet another reason being that I think the phrase is stupid and doesn't
make any sense.
Charles Ellson
wrote:
>Am Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:47:46 UTC, schrieb "Recliner"
><recline...@yahoo.co.uk> auf uk.railway :
>
>> I have to charge VAT even on things
>> like reimbursed public transport fares
>> that are not themselves subject to VAT.
>
> interesting. In Germany, different rates of VAT apply depending on
>if its long distance (full rate, 19%) or regional which is supposed to
>be a public service (lower rate, 7%).
>
Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:-
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm
which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and
zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able
to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say
much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their
own customers at a non-zero rate.
Martin Edwards
employers are trying to get something for nothing out of them, but the
matter is forgotten when a pay claim comes up.
Martin Edwards
I agree. When I was a teacher, I often tried to point out the
incongruity of the term with our pay and, especially, conditions, but to
no avail.
Recliner
news:bikn555cf5r17ptrk...@4ax.com
The point is that the travel by train or plane has a zero VAT rate, but
the service I bill my customer for has a standard VAT rate (currently
15%), regardless of the VAT rates on the inputs.
Recliner
news:09fab5b9-02dc-4aa0...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
I don't disagree with you, and it wasn't me who used the term. I was
simply explaining the subtle British (mis)use of a term to Luko, who had
quite reasonably assumed it had the literal English meaning.
As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse
even other native English speakers, for example:
- "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This
really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones
provided by the state.
- "Middle class", which actually refers to rather well-off and often
snobby people (similar to "professionals"), not the middle-income group
that foreigners might reasonably assume.
- "Working class", many of whom don't actually work (as exemplified in
the recent Prescott documentary).
We also hand out large numbers of medals for membership (etc) of the
non-existent British Empire, and life-long (but no longer hereditary)
grand titles to retired or would-be politicians, as well as to large
donors to political parties. I though it a particular scandal that the
disgraced Michael Martin almost immediately becomes Lord Martin.
Roland Perry
Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Recliner <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse
>even other native English speakers, for example:
>- "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This
>really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones
>provided by the state.
Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay
etc) just like "public transport".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<c46a1099-bdf7-452a...@h30g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, at
16:03:33 on Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> >> Looking down the list and picking the first person as my random
>> >> example: Ms Diane Abbott claimed around �131k, *none* of which was
>> >> for a second home.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8044207.stm
>>
>> >If they ran their offices as self-employed businesses, they would, but I
>> >don't doubt that they exempted themselves (not to save money, but just
>> >to simplify their paperwork). In fact, I don't know if the money for
>> >things like staff costs isn't paid directly to the staff, rather than
>> >via the MP's books.
>>
>> One of the proposed changes is that the staff will be paid direct from
>> Westminster. (Which sounds to me like something that will require a
>> whole new layer of admin, so they can be assured what hours those people
>> have actually worked).
>
>Which is fine by me, if it stops dodgy MPs 'employing' their children
>who somehow do all the work whilst they're 300 miles away at
>university, and other such scams.
It's odd how one is usually deafened by "can't you do teleworking" all
over Usenet, and yet in this instance suddenly only working at the MP's
elbow will do! I don't condone the scams, obviously, but how a central
paymaster can monitor who is doing what and where is obviously quite
tricky. If it was just a a matter of the MP signing off a timesheet,
then we aren't any further forward.
>Some MPs work very hard - my understanding is that Diane Abbott is one
>such example
I picked her only because she's first in the alphabetical list.
>- and I'm all for providing them with the proper back up
>of researchers and staff (I was going to call this a 'private office',
>which it is commonly called, but actually I don't think that's a very
>appropriate phrase).
The MP has a public office (of MP) and people in his private office
assist him. Sounds like riddles, I know.
--
Roland Perry
Mizter T
On Jul 14, 1:43 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <9-2dnVRI8bkvy8HXnZ2dnUVZ8tqdn...@bt.com>, at 10:57:22 on
> Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Recliner <recliner2-n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
> >As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse
> >even other native English speakers, for example:
> >- "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This
> >really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones
> >provided by the state.
>
> Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay
> etc) just like "public transport".
You don't have to pass a formal intelligence or aptitude test as such
before being allowed on public transport though - the qualifier there
being mainly related to fares I'd say! (But also to other more basic
stuff like understanding the timetable, buying tickets before
boarding, reading the sometimes inadequate signage and instructions
etc.) Of course some "public schools" seem as though they'll take any
child whose parents can cross their palms with silver.
Roland Perry
<177f8970-b855-4acd...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, at
08:33:49 on Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay
>> etc) just like "public transport".
>
>child whose parents can cross their palms with silver.
This thread seems to be suffering from the impression that Public
Schools have severe entry requirements. Some might, but not all of them.
--
Roland Perry
Tom Anderson
And, as you are in the process of explaining, hence the term 'public', as
opposed to the only other schools which existed before them, the grammar
schools (although i'm not sure if they were called that then), which had
entrance exams (and mostly still do).
tom
--
Everyone has to die sooner or later, whether they be killed by germs,
crushed by a collapsing house, or blown to smithereens by an atom bomb. --
Mao Zedong
Charles Lindsey
>In message <9-2dnVRI8bkvy8HX...@bt.com>, at 10:57:22 on
>Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Recliner <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>- "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This
>>really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones
>>provided by the state.
>Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay
>etc) just like "public transport".
But so, usually, are "private schools" :-) .
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: c...@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
Charles Lindsey
>And, as you are in the process of explaining, hence the term 'public', as
>opposed to the only other schools which existed before them, the grammar
>schools (although i'm not sure if they were called that then), which had
>entrance exams (and mostly still do).
Strictly speaking, I think the term "public school" is defined as
A private school whose headmaster (or now mistress) is a member of the
Headmasters' Conference.
There may also be a requirement/expectation that it is a not-for-profit
(and likely also a registered charity).
Tim Roll-Pickering
> As you say, there are many other British class-based terms that confuse
> even other native English speakers, for example:
> - "Public" schools, which are actually expensive private schools. This
> really confuses Americans, for whom public schools are the free ones
> provided by the state.
Well they in turn confuse us with "prep school" (and "preppie" for someone
who's been to one) as in the US these schools are for getting people into
prestigious universities whereas in the UK they're for c6-13 to get them
into the public and higher private schools.
> We also hand out large numbers of medals for membership (etc) of the
> non-existent British Empire,
I know the name's not mentioned but don't our overseas territories and
possesions still count? I saw one explanation of time zones that shows the
sun still hasn't set on it!
> I though it a particular scandal that the disgraced Michael Martin almost
> immediately becomes Lord Martin.
Blame your MP for that one. Retiring Speakers get a peerage not on the
recommendation of the government but because the House of Commons passes a
resolution to directly ask the monarch to give them one. The motion always
goes through unopposed.
Tim Roll-Pickering
> Strictly speaking, I think the term "public school" is defined as
> A private school whose headmaster (or now mistress) is a member of the
> Headmasters' Conference.
> There may also be a requirement/expectation that it is a not-for-profit
> (and likely also a registered charity).
There isn't a single universal definition and it's confused further by a lot
of the schools in question seemingly going out of their way to avoid using
the term and instead declaring they are an "independent school", which is
really synonomous with "private school". Not all private schools are in the
HMC, which also contains some non private schools (e.g. the London Oratory).
And not all are registered charities - a significant number (including my
old prep school) are run as businesses by Cognita.
A "public school" is generally one that teaches from about 13 upwards, with
the earlier tiers being "preparatory school" (or "prep school") from about
c7-13 (called prepatory because they are preparing pupils for the entrance
exams) and "pre-prep" from c3-7. Note this contrasts with the US where "prep
schools" are for university preparation (a specific concept that doesn't
really exist in the UK) and in their class system ex prep school pupils
occupy a similar place to "public school old boys".
However not all c13 upwards private schools are considered "public
schools" - it's very rare to hear the term used for any all-girls school.
And quite a lot of people will argue that a particular school is or isn't a
"public school" on the basis of one list or another, usually from the 19th
century (thus excluding all 20th and 21st century establishments) such as
the Clarendon Commission or the Public Schools Yearbook.
Peter Masson
"Tim Roll-Pickering" <T.C.Roll-...@qmul.ac.uk> wrote
>
> However not all c13 upwards private schools are considered "public
> schools" - it's very rare to hear the term used for any all-girls school.
Though many of the top independent girls' day schools come under the aegis
of the Girls Public Day Schools Trust.
Peter
Tim Roll-Pickering
>> However not all c13 upwards private schools are considered "public
>> schools" - it's very rare to hear the term used for any all-girls school.
> Though many of the top independent girls' day schools come under the aegis
> of the Girls Public Day Schools Trust.
...which dropped "Public" from its title back in 1998. Most of the GDST
schools have a much broader age range from about 3 to 18, reflecting
different arrangements in the girls' private sector (I think these were
largely driven by the GDST itself). "Public Day School" is a phrase that
seems to be almost exclusively linked to the GDST and of course these are
day schools whereas public schools have traditionally been associated with
boarding. It all just adds to the chaos and confusion.
Roland Perry
2009, Charles Lindsey <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk> remarked:
>>Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay
>>etc) just like "public transport".
>
>But so, usually, are "private schools" :-)
Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport?
--
Roland Perry
Tim Fenton
>>>Public schools in the UK are open to the public (who can afford to pay
>>>etc) just like "public transport".
>>
>>But so, usually, are "private schools" :-)
>
> Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport?
I would refer the Hon. Usenaut to the case of Pink Ladies in Warrington
(case to be resolved later this month) which is a mambers' club.
--
Tim
http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net/
http://zelo-street.blogspot.com/
Mizter T
On Jul 15, 3:16 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <KMtH2o....@clerew.man.ac.uk>, at 09:30:24 on Wed, 15 Jul
Yes. And No. Hope everyone's satisfied with that answer!
Charles Lindsey
> Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport?
Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate
transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage").
Roland Perry
>
>Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate
>transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage").
Can you walk up to a railway station and "hail" a train for immediate
transport in the same way?
I think not.
The important property of "Public" transport, is that anyone [with
money] can use it. But sometimes you have to book it in advance.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Fitzgerald
<recline...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:-
>> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm
>> which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and
>> zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able
>> to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say
>> much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their
>> own customers at a non-zero rate.
>
>The point is that the travel by train or plane has a zero VAT rate, but
>the service I bill my customer for has a standard VAT rate (currently
>15%), regardless of the VAT rates on the inputs.
15%? Isn't VAT 17.5%?
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)
Mizter T
On Jul 16, 4:54 pm, "Charles Lindsey" <c...@clerew.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> In <Z14GUXHVTeXKF...@perry.co.uk> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport?
>
> Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate
> transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney Carriage").
Erm, back in the day in the London of pre-minicab regulation that was
nonetheless a very common occurrence (much to the ire of black cab aka
Hackney Carriage drivers), and it's hardly unknown today either.
Recliner
news:dyKfHuLc...@g7kkh.demon.co.uk
> In message <DoGdnSIBhd8WzsHX...@bt.com>, Recliner
> <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>>> Public transport in the UK is subject to VAT but at 0%:-
>>> http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/start/introduction.htm
>>> which also has a paragraph "The difference between exempt and
>>> zero-rated" although some of our resident VAT-handlers might be able
>>> to improve on the explanation as the HMRC page does not really say
>>> much about those who might "buy" at 0% but then have to charge their
>>> own customers at a non-zero rate.
>>
>> The point is that the travel by train or plane has a zero VAT rate,
>> but the service I bill my customer for has a standard VAT rate
>> (currently 15%), regardless of the VAT rates on the inputs.
>
> 15%? Isn't VAT 17.5%?
No
Peter Masson
"Recliner" <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:M6qdnZ5_lrhGGsLX...@bt.com...
> "Steve Fitzgerald" <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote
>>
>> 15%? Isn't VAT 17.5%?
>
> No
Temporarily reduced from 17.5% for just over a year from December 2008 to
December 2009. This was suggested by former Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke as a
way of reducing the effect of the recession; the Labour Government jumped at
the idea without thinking it through themselves; and the Tory Opposition now
says it was a stupid idea that isn't working.
Peter
Basil Jet
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London
taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve
the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which
approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being
permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one.
Certain minicab companies march short distance passengers to the nearest
taxi rank in the knowledge that the taxis are legally compelled to take
these money-losing rides. By increasing the proportion of money-losing rides
picked up at that rank, they deter taxis from using that rank in future,
ultimately bankrupting and emptying the taxi rank. This allows the minicab
company to then take back those short rides but charge much more than the
taxis used to charge, GBP20 now being the minimum fare for some minicab
companies at night - if the passenger can fit in a car, that is, those
wheelchair users can all go to hell once the taxis are gone. The minicab
ethos is about as far from the public transport ethos as you can get.
MIG
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.
Roland Perry
<13308827-06d9-4bca...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
05:59:59 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, MIG <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk>
remarked:
>Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
>The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
>Evil.
So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?
--
Roland Perry
MIG
> 05:59:59 on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk>
> remarked:
>
> >Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
> >The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
> >Evil.
>
> So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
> bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?
That's an excellent example of the Good that the Market has to offer
to Customers. Other examples welcome.
Recliner
Obviously that won't happen, but I wonder what the exact mechanism for
the transfer will be? Will the new DfT ECML operating company simply
take over NXEC, complete with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts,
etc, or will there be some messy transfer of all of these to the new
company?
EE507
>
> I don't quite think the market is prepared to pay the true costs of
> such a development - and I don't think the country (in the form of
> taxpayers) is willing to pay for it either (at least not again!),
> especially if the end result is basically subsidising the lifestyle
> choices of the more affluent! Those commuters in and around Ashford
> and on the route of SE HS services have got something of a bargain...
> especially as their house prices will likely go up as well (as it will
> for non-commuters too).
>
> £5 billion can buy a lot of light rail systems, improvements in
> suburban rail services and bus services, cycle and walking route
> improvements and other more general improvements to towns and cities
> that boost the quality of life for all.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Totally agree.
Roland Perry
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
>>> The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
>>> Evil.
>>
>> So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
>> bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?
>
>Obviously that won't happen,
Because it's regulated, and not a free market.
> but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
>the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete with
>all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be some
>messy transfer of all of these to the new company?
It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.
--
Roland Perry
Richard Hunt
<DcCdnZ-rYYAh4v3X...@bt.com> uk.railway
As I understand it, the actual service is called "InterCity East Coast"
and it's currently /operated/ by NXEC. When/if the DfT's pet company
takes over, it will still be "InterCity East Coast".
--
Richard Hunt
Recliner
> In message <DcCdnZ-rYYAh4v3X...@bt.com>, at 14:41:06 on
> Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
>> with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
>> some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?
>
> It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.
That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
contract before NX won the new franchise. This case is more like Connex
SE, but even there, the situation was different (ie, they were sacked).
I think the NXEC case is a first, where the SPV will be left by its
owner to just run out of cash. Maybe it'll be put into administration,
with the DfT swiftly taking it over?
Roland Perry
>>> but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
>>> the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
>>> with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
>>> some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?
>>
>> It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.
>
>That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
>contract before NX won the new franchise.
So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a while?
Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready to go.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
news:1247840...@news.merula.net
But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC, as I
presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine Holt's new
outfit?
Paul Terry
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> writes
>The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
>the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
>drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
>convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six months
rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical certificate
supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have the
appropriate and current insurance for public hire.
--
Paul Terry
Mizter T
On Jul 17, 4:46 pm, Paul Terry <p...@musonix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <CwZ7m.31114$tU4.17...@newsfe19.ams2>, Basil Jet
The six-monthly vehicle check has been scrapped by Boris, and it's now
back to a year.
Tim Fenton
"Paul Terry" <pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s5qCoeCs...@musonix.demon.co.uk...
>
>>The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to
>>serve
>>the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
>>drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
>>convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
>
> There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six months
> rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical certificate
> supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have the appropriate
> and current insurance for public hire.
And they have to have The Knowledge ...
Basil Jet
> "Paul Terry" <pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:s5qCoeCs...@musonix.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
>>> to serve
>>> the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
>>> drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
>>> been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
>>
>> There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
>> months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
>> certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
>> have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.
Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from ending
or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he actually provides
a service to the customer or the city. For instance a minicab office which
tells a tourist that such and such is miles away when it's really around the
corner, and then charges the tourist a fortune for a circuitous ride, would
be in no danger of losing its "PCO approved" status.
> And they have to have The Knowledge ...
Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even a map.
Mizter T
Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
six-monthly check referred to.
Paul Terry
<9dcca743-9f69-4e04...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> writes
>Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
>Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
>six-monthly check referred to.
Are private hire vehicles now on a 12-monthly check? It was 6-monthly
when a friend had his Merc relicensed in April.
--
Paul Terry
Bruce
<jo...@journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
>the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
>drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
>convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London
>taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve
>the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which
>approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being
>permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one.
The turning circle requirement does not alone double the cost of the
vehicle. An objective comparison could be made between the costs of
the EcoCity Vehicles London Cab based on a Mercedes Vito, and a
similarly specified vehicle that lacks only the modification to the
standard steering system to give a smaller turning circle.
Obviously, these figures are not readily available, but I find it
difficult to believe that a single, albeit fairly complex modification
would actually double the cost of the EcoCity vehicle.
Bruce
<recline...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
>And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC, as I
>presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine Holt's new
>outfit?
The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".
There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.
Bruce
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.
The reason for the move was the exceptionally high cost of complying
with Aylesbury's requirements.
Apparently, the annual cost of complying with the requirements in
Middlesex (I cannot recall which Borough) is much less than half that
in Aylesbury.
Whether the enhanced requirements of one local authority over another
are intended serve the interest of the public rather than enhance the
accounts of the council's finance department is moot.
Mizter T
On Jul 17, 7:22 pm, Paul Terry <p...@musonix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <9dcca743-9f69-4e04-8860-39424a92d...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
> >Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
> >six-monthly check referred to.
>
> Are private hire vehicles now on a 12-monthly check? It was 6-monthly
> when a friend had his Merc relicensed in April.
I've no idea, sorry! I may try and find out though, now you've piqued
my interest in such matters.
Paul Scott
Doesn't TUPE only cover the staff transfer?
Paul