On 10/05/2020 10:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:54:13 on Sun, 10 May
2020, michael adams remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

If she went to work in a taxi, paid for by the BBC, then that would
clearly
be a complete waste of licence payers, i.e. our money.

Compared to her £200k salary, it's peanuts.

Is it really £200K ? Just for reading an autocue ? It really makes
you think doesn't it ?Â* Thats' £3.8 k a week. Even after tax that's
still £1.9 k. Every single week. Just for reading an autocue for a
few minutes.

The job's much more than that, but nice try.

You can see why some people are so upset. And its our
Licence Payer's money as well,


What I'm saying is she's *lucky* to have that time on her hands, so
what she does isn'tÂ* a particularly good role model for the rest of us.

According to your other post, she jogs six miles each way. Which at
a reasonable average speed of 4-6 mph shouldÂ* take between 2 and 3
hours per day.

Are you seriously suggesting that somebody who spends between 2 and 3
hours per day exercising, is a poor role model ?

It's a lot more than most people exercise, but that's not the point.

Few people can fit that type of commute around their work and home life
schedule, even if they weren't having the change/shower etc.

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.


What do you suggest she should be doing instead ?

She has a husband and three youngish children for starters, which is
going to keep all of them busy.

On £200k she can afford a nanny.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 10:54:16 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/05/2020 10:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:54:13 on Sun, 10 May
2020, michael adams remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

If she went to work in a taxi, paid for by the BBC, then that
would clearly
be a complete waste of licence payers, i.e. our money.

Compared to her £200k salary, it's peanuts.

Is it really £200K ? Just for reading an autocue ? It really makes
you think doesn't it ?* Thats' £3.8 k a week. Even after tax that's
still £1.9 k. Every single week. Just for reading an autocue for a
few minutes.
The job's much more than that, but nice try.

You can see why some people are so upset. And its our
Licence Payer's money as well,


What I'm saying is she's *lucky* to have that time on her hands, so
what she does isn't* a particularly good role model for the rest of


According to your other post, she jogs six miles each way. Which at
a reasonable average speed of 4-6 mph should* take between 2 and 3
hours per day.

Are you seriously suggesting that somebody who spends between 2 and 3
hours per day exercising, is a poor role model ?
It's a lot more than most people exercise, but that's not the point.
Few people can fit that type of commute around their work and home
life schedule, even if they weren't having the change/shower etc.

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.

Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've cited.

What do you suggest she should be doing instead ?
She has a husband and three youngish children for starters, which is
going to keep all of them busy.

On £200k she can afford a nanny.

Which few people can, and part of the reason why her behaviour isn't a
good aspirational model for the rest of society which can't.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/05/2020 11:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:54:16 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/05/2020 10:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:54:13 on Sun, 10 May
2020, michael adams remarked:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...

If she went to work in a taxi, paid for by the BBC, then that
wouldÂ* clearly
be a complete waste of licence payers, i.e. our money.

Compared to her £200k salary, it's peanuts.

Is it really £200K ? Just for reading an autocue ? It really makes
you think doesn't it ?Â* Thats' £3.8 k a week. Even after tax that's
still £1.9 k. Every single week. Just for reading an autocue for a
few minutes.
Â*The job's much more than that, but nice try.

You can see why some people are so upset. And its our
Licence Payer's money as well,


What I'm saying is she's *lucky* to have that time on her hands, so
what she does isn'tÂ* a particularly good role model for the rest of

According to your other post, she jogs six miles each way. Which at
a reasonable average speed of 4-6 mph shouldÂ* take between 2 and 3
hours per day.

Are you seriously suggesting that somebody who spends between 2 and 3
hours per day exercising, is a poor role model ?
Â*It's a lot more than most people exercise, but that's not the point.
Â*Few people can fit that type of commute around their work and home
lifeÂ* schedule, even if they weren't having the change/shower etc.

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.

Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've cited.

Probably just as many as I think.


What do you suggest she should be doing instead ?
Â*She has a husband and three youngish children for starters, which is
going to keep all of them busy.

On £200k she can afford a nanny.

Which few people can, and part of the reason why her behaviour isn't a
good aspirational model for the rest of society which can't.

Tall poppy syndrome.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

In message , at 12:55:01 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.
Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've
cited.

Probably just as many as I think.

What's the percentage you have in mind?

What do you suggest she should be doing instead ?
*She has a husband and three youngish children for starters, which
is going to keep all of them busy.

On £200k she can afford a nanny.

Which few people can, and part of the reason why her behaviour isn't
a good aspirational model for the rest of society which can't.

Tall poppy syndrome.

It's nothing to do with disparaging what she's achieved, just the
practical situation that employing a nanny is likely to cost more than
the average wage-earner's disposable income. I employed nannies for
about eight years, so I know a bit about the logistics.

Including that not many of them will want to stay up until an hour and
half after someone has finished reading the Ten O'clock news.
--
Roland Perry

On 10/05/2020 13:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:55:01 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.
Â*Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've cited.

Probably just as many as I think.

What's the percentage you have in mind?

For London, quite high.


What do you suggest she should be doing instead ?
Â*She has a husband and three youngish children for starters, which
isÂ* going to keep all of them busy.

On £200k she can afford a nanny.

Â*Which few people can, and part of the reason why her behaviour isn't
aÂ* good aspirational model for the rest of society which can't.

Tall poppy syndrome.

It's nothing to do with disparaging what she's achieved, just the
practical situation that employing a nanny is likely to cost more than
the average wage-earner's disposable income. I employed nannies for
about eight years, so I know a bit about the logistics.

Including that not many of them will want to stay up until an hour and
half after someone has finished reading the Ten O'clock news.

By which time her husband is home.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 10/05/2020 13:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:55:01 on Sun, 10 May 2020,
Graeme Wall remarked:

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.
Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've
cited.

Probably just as many as I think.

What's the percentage you have in mind?

For London, quite high.

As I said elsewhere the whole thing's an exercise in misreporting of
statistics

Roland's referenced item says that we make approx 1000 trips per year
travelling 7,000 miles, so that's 7 miles per trip (god knows where the oft
quoted 3 miles come from)

But it further says that:
61% of trips, 77% of distance is by car
27% of trips, 3% of distance by walking
2% of trip but 9% of distance by train

(negligible numbers by other modes)

So even without further figures, it should be obvious to anyone with a
degree in anything approaching a sensible subject that:

car and train journeys are disproportionately long

most trips at the shorter end of the scale are already done by walking

The possibility of modal change from car/train to walking, is therefore
negligible

tim

In message , at 13:51:15 on Sun, 10 May
2020, tim... remarked:
Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.
Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've
cited.

Probably just as many as I think.

What's the percentage you have in mind?

For London, quite high.

As I said elsewhere the whole thing's an exercise in misreporting of
statistics

Roland's referenced item says that we make approx 1000 trips per year
travelling 7,000 miles, so that's 7 miles per trip (god knows where the
oft quoted 3 miles come from)

But it further says that:
61% of trips, 77% of distance is by car
27% of trips, 3% of distance by walking
2% of trip but 9% of distance by train

(negligible numbers by other modes)

So even without further figures, it should be obvious to anyone with a
degree in anything approaching a sensible subject that:

car and train journeys are disproportionately long

most trips at the shorter end of the scale are already done by walking

The possibility of modal change from car/train to walking, is therefore
negligible

That's not the question. It's how many people spend 2-3hrs a day
commuting.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:24:08 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:
On 10/05/2020 13:16, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:55:01 on Sun, 10 May
2020, Graeme Wall remarked:

Many people spend (spent!) two to three hours a day commuting.
*Not as many as you probably think. See the transport survey I've cited.

Probably just as many as I think.
What's the percentage you have in mind?

For London, quite high.

OK, so quote what you had in mind for that, if you don't have anything
in mind for the national average (which we can then look up for
comparison).

[And remember, for a true comparison, we would need people living within
six miles of Oxford Circus too, but that's not a figure that will easily
come to hand]

What do you suggest she should be doing instead ?
*She has a husband and three youngish children for starters,
which is* going to keep all of them busy.

On £200k she can afford a nanny.

*Which few people can, and part of the reason why her behaviour
isn't a* good aspirational model for the rest of society which can't.

Tall poppy syndrome.

It's nothing to do with disparaging what she's achieved, just the
practical situation that employing a nanny is likely to cost more than
the average wage-earner's disposable income. I employed nannies for
about eight years, so I know a bit about the logistics.
Including that not many of them will want to stay up until an hour
and half after someone has finished reading the Ten O'clock news.

By which time her husband is home.

Maybe his work pattern needs a nanny just as much as hers. Or are we
adding yet another outlier "everyone can jog to work like that as long
as you have a nanny *and* a house husband".
--
Roland Perry