Eric and Ernie

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

IMO, it would be fairer if the tax was increased by an order of
magnitude for vehicles registered to residences within 2 miles of a
London Underground station, irrespective of their annual mileage, and
eliminated for other vehicle owners entirely. Those are people who
don't need to use private transport but choose to do so and should
rightly subsidise those who rely on private transport.

No, it's their choice.

Precisely - they *have* a choice, and should subsidise those who don't.

Everyone's got the choice of learning to drive and getting some wheels.

Bill

David Kennedy wrote:

The public transport dimension is irrelevant to most business travellers.


Then tax the *******s harder.

So the wealth creators are *******s are they? Bite the hand that feeds
you eh?

Bill

In article , Bill Wright
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

IMO, it would be fairer if the tax was increased by an order of
magnitude for vehicles registered to residences within 2 miles of a
London Underground station, irrespective of their annual mileage,
and eliminated for other vehicle owners entirely. Those are people
who don't need to use private transport but choose to do so and
should rightly subsidise those who rely on private transport.

No, it's their choice.
Precisely - they *have* a choice, and should subsidise those who
don't.

Everyone's got the choice

No they don't - some only have some choices.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 17:03:23 +0000, Kennedy McEwen wrote:


IMO, it would be fairer if the tax was increased by an order of
magnitude for vehicles registered to residences within 2 miles of a
London Underground station, irrespective of their annual mileage, and
eliminated for other vehicle owners entirely. Those are people who
don't need to use private transport but choose to do so and should
rightly subsidise those who rely on private transport.

Why are you being so selective here? Many Underground stations are in rural
areas and of little use to anybody other than commuters.

Why single out the residents of Epping and Amersham, for example, but
ignore people who live in NW Kent with its intensive network of railways -
but no underground.

You also make the assumption that everybody who uses the underground is
capable of walking up to four miles a day in all weathers - not all
stations are well served by buses and most defininely not to all points of
the compass and at times to suit all travellers.

You also seem to overestimate the number of car owners who would be caught
up in your stupid scheme. An order of magnitude, you say, so ~£1500, which
will pay for all other road users - and implies that 10% of the car owning
public live within 2 miles of an underground station ...

You're not by chance a polititian, are you ...?

--

Terry

Bill Wright wrote:
David Kennedy wrote:

The public transport dimension is irrelevant to most business
travellers.


Then tax the *******s harder.

So the wealth creators are *******s are they? Bite the hand that feeds
you eh?

At the moment we seem to be feeding the hand that bites us...

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On Tuesday, January 11th, 2011 at 10:11:48h +0000, Terry Casey explained:

Many Underground stations are in rural areas and of
little use to anybody other than commuters.

Epping to Ongar. Once a thriving extension to the LT Central Line but
now privately operated except

QUOTE
Sorry! But the railway is closed until further notice due to engineering
and remodelling works. No date for reopening has as yet been announced.
UNQUOTE

Why single out the residents of Epping and Amersham, for example, but
ignore people who live in NW Kent with its intensive network of railways
- but no underground.

These people are being discriminated against by the totally exorbitant
rail fares and season tickets.

and implies that 10% of the car owning public live within 2 miles
of an underground station

Within Inner London this is surely the case, and is probably true for
most of Greater London, with the only the extremeties not being
within this range.

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
Within Inner London this is surely the case, and is probably true for
most of Greater London, with the only the extremeties not being
within this range.

There are vast areas of Greater London not within 2 miles of the
underground. Probably the majority of south of the river. The overground
is the primary public transport system there. And infinitely preferable to
the underground. Apart from when it snows, obviously.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

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

Our first TV was one of these, an HMV, model 1803 I think
http://rabstaff.99k.org/hmv.jpg

Then when ITV came along we stayed loyal to HMV with this 1871
http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/hismasters_hmv_1871.html

This was probably the first set I ever did any work on. I certainly remember
replacing the "Fireball" tuner.


Turret tuner, surely? The Fireball came much later, around the same time as 110 degree
tubes IIRC ...

It was a fireball type, definitely. Full compliment of 13 coil sets arranged radially on
a disk, otherwise similar to a turret tuner.

Another slightly strange thing was the colour coding of the channels, which was
produced by the pilot light shining through a filter in the knob.
AFAICR 1-4 green 5&6 orange 7-11 red 12&13 orange I've probably got that wrong but there were definitely
3 colours so it wasn't a simple band I / band III split.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Michael Aspel was briefly Mike.

I thought his first name was Ask.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message ...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Calum
saying something like:

I remember Mike Oldfield wanted to be known as Michael Oldfield for a while
when he got older

Wasn't so much that as he was ****ed off with his contractual obligation
to Virgin Records at the time. So he released his last album for Virgin
("Heaven's Open") with a few scathing songs and under the name "Michael"
rather than "Mike", so as to somewhat distance the result from his
previous body of work. He reverted to "Mike" for his subsequent,
post-Virgin album.

It was all a load of the same old tubular bells anyway.

Tubular bells was good, but he should never have allowed that Blue Peter
theme with the tempo all over the place to be used every week.


--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%