In message
26541933.34.1332648258322.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy1, at
21:04:18 on Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Offramp remarked:
I'm only just catching up on the series, and watched the one about
revenue inspectors yesterday. Doing some quick sums on the back of an
envelope, it seems it costs them about as much to run the revenue
inspectors as the fares they are failing to collect (£20m a year). In
any event that's 1% of their turnover, and not the complete financial
disaster they portray it as. Although I agree there's an element of
"encouraging the others" so you have to been seen to be doing
*something*.

It spoilt what's otherwise a very good show

I don't understand... WHAT has spoilt?

The way they claim that the £20m in question is the straw that would
break the camel's back, allow them to rebuild the network, buy hundreds
of new trains (which they admit cost £8m each) and so on. Even though it
must be costing them £20m to collect only part of that £20m.

It casts a shadow over all the other claims they make about why they are
doing stuff.
--
Roland Perry