wrote:

JNugent wrote:

A. Who is "Robin"?

Robin May.

OK.

His post has now aged off my drive.

B. What is wrong with the statement: "The previous question was "Are
you suggesting that there are open fields within that area?" ("that
area" being a one-hour commute from Charing Cross). There are plenty
of open fields in "that area", and my response about being able to
travel 60 miles in an hour in "that area" would reflect that even
literally, but in any case, the PP's question was not about
agriculture but was about whether you can get outside the inner
London built-up area within an hour, and you can"?

You see (as has already been explained by more than one poster), the
"commuting" in question was *not* limited to commuting by car - a
minor detail which you failed to observe and which you allowed to
completely mislead you.

Except that you then wrote:
A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles
(probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a motorway
interchange).

Indeed. But the car journey to which I was referring was a journey *within
the area within a one hour commute from Central London* (ie, within a huge
swathe of the Home Counties, probably reaching to the coast on some railway
lines) - not the commuting journey itself. Nor did I claim otherwise. The
point was made in order to show that the SE of England (outside London and
immdiate environs) is not as crowded as *some* people claim it to be (though
no-one sensible - except Greg Hennessy - wants it to be any more crowded
than it is).

Robin (and everyone else) took that to mean that you were limiting it
to commuting by car.

Their error, I fear, since I did not claim that - did I?

I initially took it to mean that you'd missed
the point of the question you were responding to, but you appeared to
deny it in the article I was responding to (id
) so either you're being
deliberately misleading or you missed the point and forgot that you
did!

I suspect the former.

You must "suspect" what you wish. The evidence supports only what I have
written above. If there were other (erroneous) interpretations, the fault
lies with those who failed to read what was written and preferred to
extrapolate where extrapolatuion was neither necessary nor desirable.

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.transport.london.]
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
Except that you then wrote:
A one hour journey by car can take one (easily) up to 60 miles
(probably not a lot more, unless one lives adjacent to a motorway
interchange).

Indeed. But the car journey to which I was referring was a journey *within
the area within a one hour commute from Central London*

If that's what you meant, then you have mislead more than one person.

Robin (and everyone else) took that to mean that you were limiting it
to commuting by car.

Their error, I fear, since I did not claim that - did I?

No, but the implication was there, or so I thought.

However, that's moot: I still think that you're 'one hour's commute' is
over-optimistic.

I used to commute from a small village just south of Guildford
(about 30 miles from London), and it'd take me more than an hour
to reach Waterloo, let alone a place of work in central London.

This was mostly because getting from home to Guildford station used
to take me 20 minutes or so; by the time you add a reasonable time
to get from Waterloo to the office, and it was nearer 120 minutes
door-to-door. While Finchley isn't exactly Central London I think
the point is clear enough even so.

--
Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no
sneaky eating each other.
-- FW (should I worry?)

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:15:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Even people whose favourite method of getting around is
by car would think twice about using it to commute to Charing Cross.

You'd want your head examined.




So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is still
a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of
Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one office
block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park.



Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted.



greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:24:37 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote:

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, (Aidan Stanger) wrote:



AIUI there is one country where the supply of cars has been almost as
limited as the supply of British houses.

That would be singapore.

I was there on business in late 1995, one of the local expats was telling
me he'd just paid the equivalent of 45K stg for a 3 year old toyota
corolla.

That said, I've never seen as many S class Mercs in one place at one time
ever.

The Singapore situation is somewhat different - it is registering the
cars that is the expensive part.

Duties of several 100% on the purchase price + mandatory scrapping after 10
years + $35k of what's called IIRC a certificate of entitlement before you
can even drive it away off the forecourt + annual taxes of 1-2 sing $ per
cc.

This

http://www.aas.com.sg/carprice/usedcar.htm

puts the price of a 2001 1.6 corolla @ ~70k sing $. Which is over £23K

A mint example here would be under 5k.


Its little wonder that yank teen got his arse flayed after vandalising cars
over there in the early 90s.


However, I think the cost of that has
fallen slightly now that they've got their complicated congestion charge
scheme BICBW.


When I was there, that only applied to the CBD.


greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Duncan McNiven" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a second house
(which I
regard as the ultimate frivoulous activity), they can certainly
afford to be
screwed for every penny by the tax man.

Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does that make us
rich? Hardly. We have
our family home. We also own the home which, before our marriage, I
shared with my mother;
my mother still lives there. My wife also rents an apartment near
her work (1000 miles
from home).

Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother homeless?
Should my wife commute
daily?

If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what people choose
to spend their money
on.

--
Duncan

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base %, rich or
poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation, which are nothing more
than a tax on already-taxed income.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 13:15:09 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


Even people whose favourite method of getting around is
by car would think twice about using it to commute to Charing Cross.

You'd want your head examined.




So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is
still
a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of
Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one
office
block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park.



Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted.



Merely respnsing to the previous post, if you have anything to add to any
aspect of the thread I'm happy to resume.

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:


Millions were in the same boat. Strangely they seemed to be those
who
worked the hardest for the least rewards.

For the first time in years, it was plain to see that the lazy
whingebags in society weren't quite as hard-working as they said
they
were. The unions were ****ing up this country by making unreasonable
demands on employers. Thatcher made sure these people could no
longer
hold the country to ransom. I suppose it must have come as a shock
to
some, when they realised the union-negotiated tea-break was over and
there was work to be done.

Still, you'll be glad to know
that the ****ed up society we now live in is a direct result of
the
Thatcher "me first, **** the rest" policies.

I think you'll find that's more to do with the loony left rewarding
the
lazy and irresponsible through state benefits. My only criticism of
Thatcher was she didn't go far enough. Like most Thatcher critics,
you
confuse individual responsibility with selfishness.

If it weren't for unions, most of us would be working 18 hours a
day, with 1 ****e break, and earn just enough money to afford bread,
water, and a cardboard box to live in.
Of course, sometimes the unions went too far; I'll grant you that.
:-)

Ian Smith wrote:
"Duncan McNiven" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:54:37 -0000, "Oliver Keating"
wrote:

Because they if they are rich enough to be buying a
second house (which I regard as the ultimate frivoulous
activity), they can certainly afford to be screwed for
every penny by the tax man.

Between us, my wife & I own 2 homes & rent a 3rd. Does
that make us rich? Hardly. We have our family home. We
also own the home which, before our marriage, I shared
with my mother; my mother still lives there. My wife also
rents an apartment near her work (1000 miles from home).

Now should I sell my old home, thus making my mother
homeless? Should my wife commute daily?

If you want to tax rich people, tax income, not what
people choose to spend their money on.

--
Duncan

My sentiment exactly. Tax all income at the same base
%, rich or poor; and abolish all other forms of taxation,
which are nothing more than a tax on already-taxed income.

Yup, I'd go for that. I'm sure most pensioners and other non income tax
payers would welcome it.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:09:19 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:


So of all the people who commute into London by car (of which there is
still
a significant number I understand) none of them work in the vicinity of
Charing Cross? Seems a bit unlukely to me, especially as at least one
office
block along the Strand has it's own sub-surface car park.



Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted.



Merely respnsing to the previous post,


By attempting to introdce a straw man argument about cars when none were
mentioned.



greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Ian Smith wrote:

If it weren't for unions, most of us would be working 18 hours a
day, with 1 ****e break, and earn just enough money to afford bread,
water, and a cardboard box to live in.

What more do you need? Some people are just plain greedy.