In article , Mait001
writes
Purely out of interest, in law, how is a "massive" subsidy different
from a smaller one?
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK

Ian, it is a matter of proportionality. If the ratepayers of Bromley ae paying
disproportionately for a service from which they do not benefit, no doubt they
would regard it (as did the Courts) a massive and illegal subsidy.
No, I could perhaps understand them regarding it as an *unfair* subsidy
[1] but not as an *illegal* one.

If it were a small amount, but even if it could have been proved that the
Bromley ratepayers received no direct benefit (for example, suppose there were
NO L.T. services whatsoever in that Borough), I think the G.L.C. might still
have won the case since it may have been provable that Bromleians when
travelling beyond their borough boundaries derive some benefit.

However, the scheme that Ken introduced required hugely disproportionate
contributions from some boroughs (maybe the richer ones, but also those South
of the Thames without Underground services) and this led to the challenge.

I have a lot of difficulty with this "proportion" argument, though.
Something's either legal or illegal and I still can't see how a "small"
subsidy was enshrined in law as okay, while a "large" one was not.

That said, thanks for explaining the detail of the relevant act in your
other posting on this thread. I've never seen that done on this matter
in detail before and much appreciated it. I still don't think it's
right but then who am I as a mere mortal to argue with Lord Denning et
al? ;-)


[1] As you correctly point out in the following paragraph, just because
there were no Underground Services in Bromley doesn't mean that they had
no *LT* services. That said, Fares Fair should perhaps really have
applied equally to railway services, too. After all, the mode of
transport itself is irrelevant, only the service.

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk