|
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
|
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 7 Jan, 14:38, "John Rowland" wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece Fourth thread today on uk.railway on this topic! Admittedly it's the first on uk.transport.london. Might I direct those interested in this (including utl-ers) to the uk.railway thread entitled "Parliamentary rail replacement service" started Jan 7 at 00:58 by Roy Badami. It's got lots of interesting / boring comments (delete according to taste) about this esoteric issue. Google Groups link to the aforementioned thread he http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....e4d2e87fdc5a4/ Usenet message ID of the original post: |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 7 Jan, 14:38, "John Rowland"
wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece Just shows how DfT continues to micromanage every aspect of the railways. Mind you, selecting Arriva to run cross country wasn't the brightest of moves, unless profit was the only consideration. And, of course, it was. I like the G&S quote in the article: "The idiot who, in railway carriages, Scribbles on window-panes, We only suffer To ride on a buffer On Parliamentary trains" On the parliamentary buses, they ride on the rear axle. -- Andrew "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
Andrew Heenan wrote:
On 7 Jan, 14:38, "John Rowland" wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece Just shows how DfT continues to micromanage every aspect of the railways. Mind you, selecting Arriva to run cross country wasn't the brightest of moves, unless profit was the only consideration. The route had already been effectively binned by the time AXC were given the franchise. The 'NewXC' ITT made this quite clear... Paul |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On Jan 7, 2:38*pm, "John Rowland"
wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece Weird stuff; I would think the departure next Tuesday would be quite full. Does anyone know if one can board at Ken Olymp? And if so, where? |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
``
On 8 Jan, 10:14, Offramp wrote: On Jan 7, 2:38*pm, "John Rowland" wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece Weird stuff; I would think the departure next Tuesday would be quite full. Does anyone know if one can board at Ken Olymp? And if so, where? No - it's just between Ealing Broadway and Wandsworth Road. The idea is that the bus substitutes for a train service and covers a few stretches of line (two in the Acton/Willesden Jn area, one in Battersea) that are no longer served by a passenger train service - the pretence is that the replacement bus continues to provide a service over these lines (which is, to my mind at least, rather absurd). If you take a look at the uk.railway thread that I referred to in my earlier reply on this thread [1] then you might get some more insight into what's actually going on here that from just reading the newspaper article - in particular there's a very interesting comment from 'Andy' where he basically says that he thinks the DfT's interpretation of the law is wrong, and also that he doesn't "think that the law makes any mention of bus substitution being acceptable." [2] Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! ----- [1] "Parliamentary rail replacement service" thread on uk.railway (via GG): http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....e4d2e87fdc5a4/ [2] Andy's specific post where he mentions this (via GG): http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....ddf3f792bacca7 |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
"Mizter T" wrote in message
Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they would strengthen the service? If they need several buses to cope with this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the unwanted traffic off the busy London roads? |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 12:14, Mizter T wrote:
`` On 8 Jan, 10:14, Offramp wrote: On Jan 7, 2:38*pm, "John Rowland" wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece Weird stuff; I would think the departure next Tuesday would be quite full. Does anyone know if one can board at Ken Olymp? And if so, where? No - it's just between Ealing Broadway and Wandsworth Road. The idea is that the bus substitutes for a train service and covers a few stretches of line (two in the Acton/Willesden Jn area, one in Battersea) that are no longer served by a passenger train service - the pretence is that the replacement bus continues to provide a service over these lines (which is, to my mind at least, rather absurd). If you take a look at the uk.railway thread that I referred to in my earlier reply on this thread [1] then you might get some more insight into what's actually going on here that from just reading the newspaper article - in particular there's a very interesting comment from 'Andy' where he basically says that he thinks the DfT's interpretation of the law is wrong, and also that he doesn't "think that the law makes any mention of bus substitution being acceptable." [2] Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! ----- [1] "Parliamentary rail replacement service" thread on uk.railway (via GG):http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....thread/ceae4d2.... [2] Andy's specific post where he mentions this (via GG):http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....ddf3f792bacca7 I did read the posts at the other place and that was where I saw "09:45 Ealing Broadway, 10:25 Kensington Olympia, 10:55 Wandsworth Road Returns at: 13:15Wandsworth Road 13:45 Kensington Olympia 14:25 Ealing Broadway" and I thought perhaps it stopped at K Olymp and took passengers. Also I suppose the service is free. I hope the gawkers on Tuesday 13th don't ruin it for people like me who may go later in the year as a matter of curiosity! I didn't want to travel all the way out to Ealing, and I was hoping to get on at Kensington, but I may get on at Clapham and jump off at a set of lights. Alan |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 14:43, Offramp wrote: On 8 Jan, 12:14, Mizter T wrote: `` On 8 Jan, 10:14, Offramp wrote: Weird stuff; I would think the departure next Tuesday would be quite full. Does anyone know if one can board at Ken Olymp? And if so, where? No - it's just between Ealing Broadway and Wandsworth Road. The idea is that the bus substitutes for a train service and covers a few stretches of line (two in the Acton/Willesden Jn area, one in Battersea) that are no longer served by a passenger train service - the pretence is that the replacement bus continues to provide a service over these lines (which is, to my mind at least, rather absurd). If you take a look at the uk.railway thread that I referred to in my earlier reply on this thread [1] then you might get some more insight into what's actually going on here that from just reading the newspaper article - in particular there's a very interesting comment from 'Andy' where he basically says that he thinks the DfT's interpretation of the law is wrong, and also that he doesn't "think that the law makes any mention of bus substitution being acceptable." [2] Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! I did read the posts at the other place and that was where I saw "09:45 Ealing Broadway, 10:25 Kensington Olympia, 10:55 Wandsworth Road Returns at: 13:15Wandsworth Road 13:45 Kensington Olympia 14:25 Ealing Broadway" and I thought perhaps it stopped at K Olymp and took passengers. My utmost apologies - I had completely failed to notice the mention of the apparent Kensington Olympia stop in that post. If that information is correct then yes it looks like it does stop an Kensington Olympia. To be honest I think the whole interpretation of this law, if not the law itself, is a bit fuzzy, but if a replacement bus is deemed as an acceptable substitute for a railway service (which is debatable) then in a sense one could argue that it need not stop at KO. That said, stopping it at KO does perhaps emphasise the two separate areas where the bus is acting as a substitute for a train - the first to the north west of KO (the Acton/Willesden Jn area lines) and the second being the 'Ludgate Lines' south of the river. Also, the KO stop does arguably make the whole thing a little less nonsensical, at least when it comes to journeys to and from Reading - notionally a passenger from the west could change at Reading onto a service that stops at Ealing B'way, take the bus to KO and then continue their journey south on the Southern service (say to East Croydon, or changing there for Brighton). The KO to Wandsworth Road stretch however still remains pretty nonsensical in my book as AFAIAA there has never been a train service that stops at Wandsworth Road and then continues down through Brixton, Herne Hill, Tulse Hill etc towards East Croydon - so a passenger taking the replacement bus from KO to Wandsworth Rd won't then be able to recreate the route of the journey that the Crosscountry train took from Wandsworth Road to points south - sure, they can go via Peckham Rye and change, but that's not quite the same thing. Also I suppose the service is free. No, at least not officially - in effect it's a railway replacement service and in essence passengers are expected to have a ticket before they board if there were ticket issuing facilities available at the starting station. In practice whether the driver actually asks to see passengers' tickets is another matter - however I definitely don't think one should take it as a given that they won't, as given that this is an unusual service I can well imagine the driver taking an interest in their prospective passengers. I hope the gawkers on Tuesday 13th don't ruin it for people like me who may go later in the year as a matter of curiosity! I didn't want to travel all the way out to Ealing, and I was hoping to get on at Kensington, but I may get on at Clapham and jump off at a set of lights. Interesting that you place Wandsworth Road station in Clapham - to me it's in a kind of hinterland between Clapham, Battersea, Stockwell and South Lambeth. We had a discussion about it a while ago when John Rowland suggested it should be renamed if ELLX phase 2 ever happens so as to try and avoid passengers getting confused and thinking it's in Wandsworth, which it ain't - for that matter it's not in the Borough of Wandsworth either, it's just the road to Wandsworth. |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 14:43, Offramp wrote: On 8 Jan, 12:14, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 10:14, Offramp wrote: Weird stuff Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! I hope the gawkers on Tuesday 13th don't ruin it for people like me who may go later in the year as a matter of curiosity! I didn't want to travel all the way out to Ealing, and I was hoping to get on at Kensington, but I may get on at Clapham and jump off at a set of lights. Interesting that you place Wandsworth Road station in Clapham - to me it's in a kind of hinterland between Clapham, Battersea, Stockwell and South Lambeth. We had a discussion about it a while ago Batterclapstock! tom -- Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 16:14, Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 14:43, Offramp wrote: On 8 Jan, 12:14, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 10:14, Offramp wrote: Weird stuff Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! I hope the gawkers on Tuesday 13th don't ruin it for people like me who may go later in the year as a matter of curiosity! I didn't want to travel all the way out to Ealing, and I was hoping to get on at Kensington, but I may get on at Clapham and jump off at a set of lights. Interesting that you place Wandsworth Road station in Clapham - to me it's in a kind of hinterland between Clapham, Battersea, Stockwell and South Lambeth. We had a discussion about it a while ago Batterclapstock! How could I forget! But no South Lambeth in there - Lambatterclapstock or even Slambatterclapstock - though perhaps South Lambeth starts far enough up the road for any further modifications to /mangling of your original to be unnecessary... |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 16:53, Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 16:14, Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 14:43, Offramp wrote: On 8 Jan, 12:14, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 10:14, Offramp wrote: Weird stuff Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! I hope the gawkers on Tuesday 13th don't ruin it for people like me who may go later in the year as a matter of curiosity! I didn't want to travel all the way out to Ealing, and I was hoping to get on at Kensington, but I may get on at Clapham and jump off at a set of lights. Interesting that you place Wandsworth Road station in Clapham - to me it's in a kind of hinterland between Clapham, Battersea, Stockwell and South Lambeth. We had a discussion about it a while ago Batterclapstock! How could I forget! But no South Lambeth in there - Lambatterclapstock or even Slambatterclapstock - though perhaps South Lambeth starts far enough up the road for any further modifications to /mangling of your original to be unnecessary...- Pronounced "Slaahk"? |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 17:32, MIG wrote: On 8 Jan, 16:53, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 16:14, Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Mizter T wrote: (snip) Interesting that you place Wandsworth Road station in Clapham - to me it's in a kind of hinterland between Clapham, Battersea, Stockwell and South Lambeth. We had a discussion about it a while ago Batterclapstock! How could I forget! But no South Lambeth in there - Lambatterclapstock or even Slambatterclapstock - though perhaps South Lambeth starts far enough up the road for any further modifications to /mangling of your original to be unnecessary...- Pronounced "Slaahk"? Ha ha, yes, that's the one. In fact we might as well use the contraction for the new name of the station, and we can rebrand the area at the same time. It'll become London's hottest new district, replete with great transport links including a once weekly bus to the mysterious lands of west London - though you'll have to stay there all week until you can catch one the other way - that's as long as you've avoided falling off the edge of the world of course. |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
Thank you for a tremendous response. I hope you don't think I was
peeved in any way... I wasn't ! I only really said Clapham because of the title of the thread. |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote:
If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they would strengthen the service? *If they need several buses to cope with this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the unwanted traffic off the busy London roads? What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on the bus? Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? Sounds like this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they don't want people using this farce, er service. |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
"Offramp" wrote in message ... I did read the posts at the other place and that was where I saw "09:45 Ealing Broadway, 10:25 Kensington Olympia, 10:55 Wandsworth Road Returns at: 13:15Wandsworth Road 13:45 Kensington Olympia 14:25 Ealing Broadway" and I thought perhaps it stopped at K Olymp and took passengers. I wonder why the bus needs to wait at Wandsworth Road for 2 hours+ instead of returning immediately? It seems a rather inefficient way to provide a replacement service. Peter Smyth |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
Stephen Furley wrote:
On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote: If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they would strengthen the service? If they need several buses to cope with this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the unwanted traffic off the busy London roads? What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on the bus? Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? Sounds like this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they don't want people using this farce, er service. I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road: Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR. If that means you get to Wandsworth Road later, then you'd probably have to claim for a delayed journey to XC in the normal way. |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 18:51, Mark Morton wrote: Stephen Furley wrote: On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote: If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they would strengthen the service? *If they need several buses to cope with this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the unwanted traffic off the busy London roads? What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on the bus? *Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? *Sounds like this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they don't want people using this farce, er service. I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road: Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR. Or Underground all the way to Victoria - the District line goes direct. If that means you get to Wandsworth Road later, then you'd probably have to claim for a delayed journey to XC in the normal way. Looking over the (intentional) absurdity of the very question, I've a feeling that XC aren't actually involved in this arrangement whatsoever, not even by name - I read somewhere that the revised law now allows for this obligation to fall back on the franchising authority (i.e. DfT or Transport Scotland) though I've no idea if this is actually correct. |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 18:41, "Peter Smyth" wrote: "Offramp" wrote: I did read the posts at the other place and that was where I saw "09:45 Ealing Broadway, 10:25 Kensington Olympia, 10:55 Wandsworth Road Returns at: 13:15Wandsworth Road 13:45 Kensington Olympia 14:25 Ealing Broadway" and I thought perhaps it stopped at K Olymp and took passengers. I wonder why the bus needs to wait at Wandsworth Road for 2 hours+ instead of returning immediately? It seems a rather inefficient way to provide a replacement service. Enough time for a couple of pints in the badlands of south London, surely... My recommendations... Tim Bobbin http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs...Bobbin/Clapham Bread and Roses http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs..._Roses/Clapham |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 18:51, Mark Morton wrote: Stephen Furley wrote: On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote: If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they would strengthen the service? If they need several buses to cope with this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the unwanted traffic off the busy London roads? What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on the bus? Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? Sounds like this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they don't want people using this farce, er service. I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road: Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR. Or Underground all the way to Victoria - the District line goes direct. Would a NR ticket from Ealing to WWR be valid for Ealing to Victoria on the Underground? |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On Jan 8, 7:22*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 18:41, "Peter Smyth" wrote: "Offramp" wrote: I did read the posts at the other place and that was where I saw "09:45 Ealing Broadway, 10:25 Kensington Olympia, 10:55 Wandsworth Road Returns at: 13:15Wandsworth Road 13:45 Kensington Olympia 14:25 Ealing Broadway" and I thought perhaps it stopped at K Olymp and took passengers. I wonder why the bus needs to wait at Wandsworth Road for 2 hours+ instead of returning immediately? It seems a rather inefficient way to provide a replacement service. Enough time for a couple of pints in the badlands of south London, surely... My recommendations... Tim Bobbinhttp://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/13/1385/Tim_Bobbin/Clapham Bread and Roseshttp://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/14/1455/Bread_and_Roses/Clapham- Hide quoted text - Yes, it's obviously intended to allow for days out if you want to do Wandsworth Road properly. |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
|
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 16:14, Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 14:43, Offramp wrote: On 8 Jan, 12:14, Mizter T wrote: On 8 Jan, 10:14, Offramp wrote: Weird stuff Agreed that after all this publicity I can well see a bunch of awkward- squad bods turning up next Tuesday to ride on it! I hope the gawkers on Tuesday 13th don't ruin it for people like me who may go later in the year as a matter of curiosity! I didn't want to travel all the way out to Ealing, and I was hoping to get on at Kensington, but I may get on at Clapham and jump off at a set of lights. Interesting that you place Wandsworth Road station in Clapham - to me it's in a kind of hinterland between Clapham, Battersea, Stockwell and South Lambeth. We had a discussion about it a while ago Batterclapstock! How could I forget! But no South Lambeth in there - Lambatterclapstock or even Slambatterclapstock - though perhaps South Lambeth starts far enough up the road for any further modifications to /mangling of your original to be unnecessary... Steve Dulieu's original. Looking over that thread [1], it's striking how exactly the same points were made by exactly the same people in this one. I like John's suggestion of Larkhall as a placename. Someone should really start compiling a gazetteer of alternative and lost London placenames. Ossulstone, anyone? tom [1] http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....eb21d114294971 -- Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 8 Jan, 19:12, Mizter T wrote:
On 8 Jan, 18:51, Mark Morton wrote: Stephen Furley wrote: On 8 Jan, 13:58, "Recliner" wrote: If enough (fare-paying) people show up next Tuesday, I wonder if they would strengthen the service? *If they need several buses to cope with this unexpected demand, will they need to put a train on to get the unwanted traffic off the busy London roads? What would happen if more people turned up than could be carried on the bus? *Would some simply be left behind, with a rather long wait for the next bus, or would taxis be provided for them? *Sounds like this could start to get even more expensive; maybe that's why they don't want people using this farce, er service. I guess you'd just be told to take the next service to Wandsworth Road: Train to Paddington, Underground to Victoria, then train to WWR. Or Underground all the way to Victoria - the District line goes direct. If that means you get to Wandsworth Road later, then you'd probably have to claim for a delayed journey to XC in the normal way. Looking over the (intentional) absurdity of the very question, I've a feeling that XC aren't actually involved in this arrangement whatsoever, not even by name - I read somewhere that the revised law now allows for this obligation to fall back on the franchising authority (i.e. DfT or Transport Scotland) though I've no idea if this is actually correct Yes, Responsibility is with the "funding body" or something like that - so nothing to do with XC. I do know that at least one other bid for XC retained the Brighton trains, with the bid actually pointing out to the DfT how this would save it the hassle and cost of going through the closure process. You can find all the details on the ORR website - which includes what the DfT should have done, even in introducing the replacement bus, and you can therefore work out what it hasn't done legally. The crazy thing, as Barry Doe reported in Rail, and as I also got from the ORR (same quote we reckon), is that the ORR reckons it can't tell the DfT if it is breach of the Railways Act 2005 unless the DfT asks it if it is in breach of the Act!! So in the week before the services ended several of us rang the ORR (at that point the DfT hadn't even contracted the bus operation) and said "Is the DfT about to breach the Railway Act 2005" and we all got the reply that the ORR couldn't say because the DfT hadn't asked it. When we pointed out the list of things that the DfT had failed to do etc. the ORR basically said "Nothing to do with us until the DfT refers the matter to us..." In a conversation I had with the ORR they even said "If the DfT has acted in the way you describe then it 'would' be acting illegally, but we cant rule on this until the DfT asks us to.." How crazy is that? Tony |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 9 Jan, 12:04, Charlie Hulme wrote:
If asked, would the ORR have ruled the bus service to be legal? If so, why, since a rail passenger service has still been withdrawn. Why is it, at the very least, not required to run between stations where the XC trains actually called? Purely conjecture on my part, but I think the legal fiction is that the XC service has been curtailed to a Wandsworth Road-Ealing Broadway shuttle, which doesn't require any closure procedures. This new train service (which obviously has never existed as a train) is currently "temporarily" substituted by a bus, which again, doesn't require any closure procedures. U |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
|
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
In message , Paul Corfield
writes On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 03:54:59 -0800 (PST), wrote: In a conversation I had with the ORR they even said "If the DfT has acted in the way you describe then it 'would' be acting illegally, but we cant rule on this until the DfT asks us to.." Insane. I thought ORR were supposed to be "independent"? That's by no means unusual, sadly. In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out whether it was illegal or not. How crazy is that? About as crazy as it can get. That was my reaction. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
[still off topic]
"Ian Jelf" wrote : In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out whether it was illegal or not. That's been a feature of English law since approximately 1066 Laws are usually made for specific purposes, but the phrasing tends to pull in related items that may require the courts interpretation as to whether or not the law really applies in that case. Virtually all new legislation has areas that need 'testing'. A good example is the business of banks routinely overcharging customers as the mood takes them - it's been tough to get a ruling because whenever someone tries to sue under a recent act of parliament, the banks keep settling out of court (I wonder why? Thieving *******s!). And it's all cash in hand by the million for squads of lawyers ... -- Andrew "She plays the tuba. It is the only instrument capable of imitating a distress call." |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
Ian Jelf wrote [off topic] In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out whether it was illegal or not. No way of avoiding a court decision but you don't have to risk prosecution. Consider the court applications about what "assisted suicide" means and whether buying a ticket to Switzerland is "aiding and abetting". -- Mike D |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
In message 01c974bc$f7a79b00$LocalHost@default, Michael R N Dolbear
writes Ian Jelf wrote [off topic] In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out whether it was illegal or not. No way of avoiding a court decision but you don't have to risk prosecution. Given that it was a criminal matter, I can't see how I could have "tested" anything without an attempted prosecution. Consider the court applications about what "assisted suicide" means and whether buying a ticket to Switzerland is "aiding and abetting". Can you just go to a court and ask them to rule on something before (possibly) committing an offence, then? I assume that's likely to be an expensive process? -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
In message , Andrew Heenan
writes [still off topic] "Ian Jelf" wrote : In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out whether it was illegal or not. That's been a feature of English law since approximately 1066 Laws are usually made for specific purposes, but the phrasing tends to pull in related items that may require the courts interpretation as to whether or not the law really applies in that case. Then the phrasing should be clearer. Virtually all new legislation has areas that need 'testing' Well, I for one didn't want to be the guinea pig. . A good example is the business of banks routinely overcharging customers as the mood takes them - it's been tough to get a ruling because whenever someone tries to sue under a recent act of parliament, the banks keep settling out of court (I wonder why? Thieving *******s!). Isn't that a Civil matter, though? And it's all cash in hand by the million for squads of lawyers ... Quite. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
There is an update of the great article on the topic from
theticketcollector, it seems the DfT are looking to reinstate the service!!!! http://theticketcollector.wordpress....rvice-part-ii/ |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
Ian Jelf wrote Michael R N Dolbear writes Ian Jelf wrote [off topic] In an unrelated matter I once asked the (then) Disability Rights Commission whether or not something was within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act. I was told that only a court could answer that question, ie I would have to risk being prosecuted before finding out whether it was illegal or not. No way of avoiding a court decision but you don't have to risk prosecution. Given that it was a criminal matter, I can't see how I could have "tested" anything without an attempted prosecution. IANAL but there are ways. I think the below was a Judicial Review against the Crown Prosecution Service / DPP on their prosecution policy, pressure groups have sued to get a declaration that something was illegal and should be considered for prosecution and in reverse if someone was making threats to prosecute if you do something you can try for a declaration that no offense will be committed. Consider the court applications about what "assisted suicide" means and whether buying a ticket to Switzerland is "aiding and abetting". Can you just go to a court and ask them to rule on something before (possibly) committing an offence, then? I assume that's likely to be an expensive process? The Courts don't like hypotheticals but since the ECHR/ Human Rights Act 1998 and indeed before under the common law a sufficiently unclear law may not be enforcable. If the point looks important you may be able to get a "pro bono" lawyer to do it free or cheap ("Freedom to cycle", below). Some coverage at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports Google [ "Joshua Rozenberg" site:telegraph.co.uk] for a selection, example, on topic for the NG. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...uarozenberg/27 12798/Do-you-need-police-permission-to-cycle-down-the-streets-now.html (Whether a regular cycle ride with no fixed route is a "procession" that requires notification to the police). -- Mike D |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
On 7 Jan, 14:38, "John Rowland"
wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5462099.ece Did anything happen yesterday (Tuesday)? Was there a flood of unwashed fighting to board at Ealing Broadway? |
Ealing to Clapham "parliamentary" bus
wrote ...
There is an update of the great article on the topic from theticketcollector, it seems the DfT are looking to reinstate the service!!!! http://theticketcollector.wordpress....rvice-part-ii/ No, they're not. They're looking to remove the story from the news. That's all. If they say they intend to reinstate (with no specifics at all), who can prove them liars? £15 to a charity of your choice (not Boris), says nothing *significant* will happen for a year or more (probably much more, but bets go stale!), though there may be a few more 'hints' as the story gently dies. It's sound policy to start from the assumption that the DfT is lying, until you get evidence to the contrary. Much safer than assuming they speak the truth. These are the people who ordered FGW to return a dozen 158s to the lessor, then blamed GWT* when the service collapsed. And there's 357 other examples of micromismanagment, all 100% denied by the DfT, even to parliamenary committees. -- Andrew "If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein *But don't take it that I'm defending FGW; they're a bunch of idiots, too. But on that one point, DfT is to blame. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk