Labour buying votes?

[Al R]

BBC News - Labour wants new law for attacks on armed forces (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24204253)

Attacking a member of the armed forces should be a "specific criminal offence", the shadow defence secretary has said. The move would give British troops "the protection their bravery deserves", he told delegates at the party's annual conference in Brighton.

Among the party's plans are proposals to name streets after those killed in action, new legal entitlements to "in-service education" and personalised health support for those with life-changing injuries.

Increasing child support probably wouldn't help military spouses; the issue there is more professional turbulence created by regular relocation. That detail is a bit thin.

[Not_a_boffin]

Call me a moron, but isn't attacking someone (whether HMF or not) a criminal offence already?

Or is this the party of lawyers trying to make work for their mates by creating yet more laws requiring interpretation of whether said person was on or off duty and therefore subject to the act or not? Or whether service personnel being "off-limits" to attack infringes the yooman rights of some flavour of protestor?

Gimmickry of the worst kind.

[Wensleydale]

Interesting to know what the charges would be if a squaddie attacked one of his "mates". Would the new law apply to "Blue on Blue"?

Also wonder whether the new law would be similar to current laws relating to minority "hate" crimes: the military being added to race and gender offences for example. Just a thought.

[Biggus]

Given the current size of the armed forces, it won't buy many votes!! :(

[SOSL]

I quite agree, Biggus.

But they (Labour Party) seem not to have noticed that many, many more attacks are carried out on the Police Force, Ambulance Service, Fire Service and Highways Agency guys day in and day out. No mention of specific offences for them.

The uneducated, ignorant and cowardly thugs responsible are not deterred by laws. They would struggle to understand what a law is!

On the other hand they might be deterred by the certainty of arrest, conviction and punishment.

But that won't happen will it?

Rgds SOS

[Courtney Mil]

SOSL,

Wasn't there a lot of discussion about creating a specific offence for attacks against police officer - about 2 or 3 months ago? Can't recall where it ended up.

Courtney

[clicker]

While I welcome the idea in general I think there is a couple of points to make.

Most of the public doesn't even know what you guys do for us. Will they be that bothered? I don't think it would bring in votes.

If they think some people should get more protection from the law why is it not in force now or at the very least waiting to go thru parliament to be made law.

[Martin the Martian]

'The protection their bravery deserves'

Why do the words 'body' and 'armour' keep shouting at me?

[air pig]

It's not that there is or is not a law, it would just be good if the present laws were both used and enforced in the courts. Until that happens nothing will change. As an example, if you have people shouting on the streets screaming at people in the armed forces why aren't they arrested for a public order offense, charged and brought before the courts.

[blimey]

At some stage in the future, we'll all be part of a protected minority, so as it should be: equal in the eyes of the law (unless, a you're transgender, ginger-haired, one-legged, muslim, obese, traveller in uniform, in which case you'll have won life's legal protection/thought crime lottery). :hmm:

[Heathrow Harry]

just getting some coverage in case the Daily Mail is planning a headline

"Labour Hates our Brave Soldiers!" in the future

[skydiver69]

Wasn't there a lot of discussion about creating a specific offence for attacks against police officer - about 2 or 3 months ago? Can't recall where it ended up

Ms T May tried sucking up to the police at the Police Federation conference earlier this year and proposed the idea that anyone who kills a PC will receive a mandatory life sentence. That was the first and last time I heard about the idea and to be honest she would have to do a lot more than that to get the rank and file back on side after the constant stream of insult and attacks inflicted by HMG in the name of 'reform.'

It's not that there is or is not a law, it would just be good if the present laws were both used and enforced in the courts. Until that happens nothing will change. As an example, if you have people shouting on the streets screaming at people in the armed forces why aren't they arrested for a public order offense, charged and brought before the courts.

Unfortunately the trouble you run into when trying to get a conviction in court is that some words and actions are protected by freedom of speech. I'll give you an example of a male who I arrested for ripping up a Koran in front of a group of Muslims whilst telling them that their religion was 'bollocks.' I arrested him for s.4 public order and he was duly charged but pleaded not guilty and elected to go to crown court. Pre trial the CPS almost dropped the case, then when it went to trial the jury could not return a verdict before being discharged with the male being found not guilty. The prosecuting lawyer told me that the male's actions and words were an acceptable freedom of speech. Now if it had been a Muslim insulting a soldier you would find exactly the same issue.

[air pig]

Skydiver 69:Unfortunately the trouble you run into when trying to get a conviction in court is that some words and actions are protected by freedom of speech. I'll give you an example of a male who I arrested for ripping up a Koran in front of a group of Muslims whilst telling them that their religion was 'bollocks.' I arrested him for s.4 public order and he was duly charged but pleaded not guilty and elected to go to crown court. Pre trial the CPS almost dropped the case, then when it went to trial the jury could not return a verdict before being discharged with the male being found not guilty. The prosecuting lawyer told me that the male's actions and words were an acceptable freedom of speech. Now if it had been a Muslim insulting a soldier you would find exactly the same issue.

What about S5 or conduct liable to alarm distress or harass or is that S4.

[Courtney Mil]

Why do the words 'body' and 'armour' keep shouting at me?

I'm not sure how to take your post there, Martin. Are you suggesting that soldiers wear body armour and are, therefore, not being brave, or that they should continue to wear in the UK in case someone attacks them for what they are, or that body armour is all the protection they deserve? In second thoughts, probably just a play on words. Sorry.

[Army Mover]

I think it's the lack of supply of body armour by the previous Labour Government prior to GW2.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, of course. Thank you. I was having a thick moment there. :ok:

[skydiver69]

What about S5 or conduct liable to alarm distress or harass or is that S4.
I arrested him for religiously aggravated section 4 public order uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, but apparently he was using freedom of speech.

[NutLoose]

Among the party's plans are proposals to name streets after those killed in action, new legal entitlements to "in-service education" and personalised health support for those with life-changing injuries.


Dedicated personalised health support, isn't that what the Military hospitals used to give for both serving and ex servicemen before they shut them all?

In-Service education, again didn't we used to have that? Must be a bitch part away through your course to find yourself sitting in a drainage ditch up to your armpits in sh*te in some fleapit of a country.

As for having a street named after you, one would have thought the local council already do that...... Shallow words from a shallow party.

I arrested him for religiously aggravated section 4 public order uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, but apparently he was using freedom of speech.

As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier, well those on Remembrance Day in London were not arrested, though I would like to point out they were sadly misguided as Muslims also gave their lives during the wars.

[racedo]

Let armed forces use whatever they use in normal job...................ok would make parking at Sainsbury fun tank commander but would never get a parking ticket.

[skydiver69]

As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier, well those on Remembrance Day in London were not arrested, though I would like to point out they were sadly misguided as Muslims also gave their lives during the wars.

Personally I agree with you however legally speaking, freedom of speech might take precedence over whatever insult or bad feeling was caused by the protesters to the spectators or armed forces.

[Courtney Mil]

Quote:
As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier, well those on Remembrance Day in London were not arrested, though I would like to point out they were sadly misguided as Muslims also gave their lives during the wars.
Personally I agree with you however legally speaking, freedom of speech might take precedence over whatever insult or bad feeling was caused by the protesters to the spectators or armed forces.

...but It may not work like that the other way round. Freedom of speech doesn't appear to work as a defence for making a racist (other minority groups are available) remark.

BTW, could we start to put the identity of the quoted poster or the source into our quotes. It makes so much sense and it's easy to do. I would have done so for the first quote above, but as he wasn't named in the quote it gets too difficult to do. Thanks:ok:

[Basil]

What do legislators do? They legislate! :*

[SOSL]

When I was a cadet, being prepared to join an officer's mess, I was taught not to discuss religion, politics or sex in the mess.

When I joined my first mess I found that the mess members were scrupulous about not discussing religion and politics. However... sex was not entirely off the menu (if you see what I mean).

You didn't have to bring religion into this thread.

Rgds SOS

[NutLoose]

And when I joined the RAF I was taught to read through everything thoroughly to avoid any errors.

If you read the thread, specifically posts 13, 14 and post 17 that actually brought religion into it, you will realise you are wiggling your finger in the wrong direction, I simply added a juxtapose, to counter their point.

:)



.

[SOSL]

Post #13 is a quote from skydiver69 re-posted by airpig which mentions religion.

Post #14 by Courtney Mil doesn't.

Post #17 by skydiver69 doesn't.

On re-reading your post at #18 I get your point. Sorry if I got it wrong.

You must agree that this thread isn't about religion, its about politics, we'll deal with sex on another thread I hope.

Rgds SOS

[NutLoose]

Apologies, my typo, should have been 12, gawd knows where I got the other two from.

[Melchett01]

As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier, well those on Remembrance Day in London were not arrested, though I would like to point out they were sadly misguided as Muslims also gave their lives during the wars (Courtney Mil).

Personally I agree with you however legally speaking, freedom of speech might take precedence over whatever insult or bad feeling was caused by the protesters to the spectators or armed forces (Skydiver69).


I think it was Stephen Fry who, in his own inimitable way, opined that 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fxxxxx what?'

And surely that is the problem with the concepts behind s4 and taking it on from there, verbally attacking or abusing anybody, whether or not they wear uniform. At it's heart, this will always come down to a contest between 2 opinions: namely the right of one person to exercise freedom of speech in stating an opinion i.e. as in skydiver's example and the right of the person listening or hearing that opinion to be offended simply because they don't agree with it. We have somehow allowed the principles of not being threatened to become mixed with the principles of not being offended. The 2 are subtley different, but as is implicit in Fry's argument, these 2 separate principles have merged and we now all too often hear of individuals being citing some sort of offence simply because they have lost an argument.

I'd like to think that in a grown up world, the principles behind both sides of the argument (freedom of speech vs the concept of offence) could prompt an interesting philosophical discussion, but sadly, in our current shallow day and age I can only see it deteriorating into a playground argument between 2 individuals stamping their feet. And from there, taking it back to the original thread, I can see that the only people that will realistically benefit from any such move are the lawyers who will spend days and weeks in court having such philosophical discussions whilst the legal bills get steadily higher.

[teeteringhead]

Also wonder whether the new law would be similar to current laws relating to minority "hate" crimes: the military being added to race and gender offences for example. Just a thought. My understanding is that that is the plan.

So military will have the same (extra?) rights as ethnic minorities, LGBT and the disabled. Hmmmmmmmm.

[NutLoose]

Sadly the way the world has gone, totally over the top PC wise.
Look at TV, you used to get the odd warning quite correctly that this programme may contain flashing images to warn those effected by such.
but now we have "this may contain scenes of violence, of a sexual nature etc, disturbing to some viewers..
If I was going to watch on TV a film called say "Black lesbian bloodbath gangbang" I would expect to see some content based on that and do not need to be warned beforehand.
Heck you even get it on the news these days.

PS SOSL, got the subject in for you ;)

Why should we have extra rights for anyone??
My premiss has always been if you are in this country, you should abide by the laws of this county, Sharia law etc is not the law of this country, if you wish to live under such a rule of law there is nothing to stop you leaving and going to a Country where that law exists.
It should be one law dealt fairly regardless of religion, creed, colour, persuation or standing.
The we will give you life if you kill a policeman was a case in point, that instantly put those killed that do not fall into that category as a second class citizen, because the law will not treat the perpetrator the same, a life is a life no matter what your employment and the law should reflect that.

[Wensleydale]

I would expect to see some content based on that and do not need to be warned beforehand.



As on the packet of peanuts that I bought in the USA with the large legend on the pack stating "warning - may contain nuts". Mind you, I have bought a milkshake in a Burger King on a USAF base with "Contains no dairy products" written on the cup.

[SOSL]

This government and previous governments, for the last 20 years or more have enacted so much "knee jerk" legislation, mostly driven by venal press barons and other media interests.

It seems to me that the long standing common law (It is an offence to harm another innocent person: their body; their mind; their reputation or their property) has become diffused into all sorts of specific categories of harm such as racially aggravated, religiously aggravated, sexually aggravated etc etc.

This may be confusing to the public and probably to lawyers and even judges.

I don't think the mindset (Mens Rea) of the offender should define the harm suffered by the victim but it should be taken into account when sentencing.

Sorry for the rambling post. My point is we already have all the laws we need for this type of crime. New laws don't cut it. Only enforcement works.

Rgds SOS

[Basil]

NL,"Black lesbian bloodbath gangbang"
When's that on? :E

[SOSL]

Basil. I was going to ask too :O

Rgds SOS

[NutLoose]

It's on Sky 580

[Courtney Mil]

Melchett,

In your post 27 you attribute the first quote to me ("As for the would the Muslim be treated the same for attacking a soldier..."). I just want to point out that I did not make that statement, I was quoting a previous post.

I know I didn't identify the poster, that was because the previous person that quoted him didn't include =Poster_name] on his quote - hence my asking if we could ID quotes and sources.

[teeteringhead]

This government and previous governments, for the last 20 years or more have enacted so much "knee jerk" legislation, mostly driven by venal press barons and other media interests.

Exactly so. IIRC the Dr who tried to car bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago was done under the Explosive Substances Act 1883!!!

I think the Birmingham 6 were too.....

[Heathrow Harry]

the English Statute book does not go back to 1215 for nothing - they can get you for just about anything if they want

[ShotOne]

Exactly, as if there arent enough laws already. Attacking someone has always been an offence whatever they do for a living. Pathetic gesture politics!

[Courtney Mil]

Dr who tried to car bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago

What? I thought he was here to save us from the Daleks!

[Avionker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by teeteringhead
Dr who tried to car bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago


Given the fact that he is a time traveler that statement should read:-

Dr who tried to/will try to bomb Glasgow airport a few years ago.

[SOSL]

I have just made a small edit to my post at #23. I know it's a bit of a sneaky thing to do, but I just wanted to make my point clearer.

Rgds SOS

[thing]

My premiss has always been if you are in this country, you should abide by the laws of this county, Sharia law etc is not the law of this country,

Neither is Beth Din, the civil law of the Jews. However it has been practised for centuries in the UK and is in daily use. What's the difference?

[smujsmith]

I've just found this thread and have to ask, does anyone else feel what a sad indictment of our country it is when politicians are using the promise of legislation, to protect our own armed forces, in our own country, to garner votes? Bugger religion or any other whimsy people may have. The simple offensive thought that "members" of our society would want to harm the very protectors of our so called democracy. The pollies have a lot to answer for.

Smudge

[NutLoose]

No prob SOSL.

Totally agree Smudge, I also think anything they promise should be made legally binding, fed up of them promising the earth but not following through with those pledges..

As for the latest fuel price freeze, another sounds good to get votes but will never happen, or if it does it will simply drive up the UK debt.
Then we have the threats of power outages because these Companies want to cream off the profits and not invest in new UK power stations, indeed, rather than convert existing coal power stations to gas, they would and did choose to the cheaper route of closing them hoping to force the UK to pay for it.
Not a great fan of it, but they should have the balls to stand up to them and say, either spend some of the profits you are earning to rectify the situation and build the infrastructure, ie power stations, or we will renationalise you.
The main problem is no party will invest in a project that will take longer than their term as it will probably lose them the election, and the likes of the railways require a sustained 15 year spend on it to bring it out of the Victorian era

[Heathrow Harry]

"we will renationalise you."

If you mean re-nationalise then your going to have to pay them for the assets - unless we go down the Argentinean route and just expropriate their assets

and then who will have to put up the money for the new power stations etc etc - the taxpayer again......................

I can remember when vast swathes of UK activity were nationalised and I'm damned if I can think of a single one that doesn't perform better and give better service after privitisation.................

[ShotOne]

To come back to the thread title, it's only a cheap soundbite which didnt cost anything so its not really "buying" votes. Buying votes is what they do for Unite and their giant welfare client state.

[OutlawPete]

I can remember when vast swathes of UK activity were nationalised and I'm damned if I can think of a single one that doesn't perform better and give better service after privitisation.................

How about the railways Harry. Vast profits creamed off and lining the pockets of many. Very little reinvestment leading to accidents due to a failing infrastructure, closely followed by government bailouts.

I'm not saying I agree with nationalisation, I don't. What is needed though, in many industries, is some form of regulation that ensures reinvestment and growth and that cannot be circumvented by any means.

[Al R]

Pete,

I wonder though, if you'd then get the same measure of investor interest?

[Biggus]

I thought that one of the reasons that the water industry was privatized was that a massive amount of reinvestment was needed to replace leaking water systems - most of the sewer system was still Victorian - and the government couldn't afford to do it....

Successive governments hadn't invested in a long term programme of refurbishment, so much for reinvestment in nationalized industries!

Governments and private companies can both be as bad as each other in terms of what they do with "profits", but at least private companies expect to be around for more than 5 years, and don't try to bribe people with their own money!!

At least in my opinion... ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

In private industry the first thing that gets the chop in tough times is R&D, followed by training followed by recruitment

In Govt circles maintenance is always first for the chop - Ministers (and Councillors) love announcing & opening new projects and don't see any votes in the dull but essential job of maintenance

[Al R]

Biggus,

Yes - and it was (at best) cheap and dishonest rabble rousing/playing to the gallery to suggest prices are where they are because of profiteering. The margins have stayed the same, return on capital has stayed the same and there have been umpteen investigations by Ofgem. Prices are rising as much as anything because of regulations brought in by previous governments – not least when Miliband was energy secretary; such as the carbon price floor and renewable policies. If Centrica etc cannot make any money supplying electricity to the retail market then they won’t supply it. The lights will go off, the economy will slow down. Miliband has torpedoed any chance of decent inward investment between now and 2015. And as for the share price - what about those millions of pensioners who depend on increasing returns from the utility companies?

[Heathrow Harry]

One thing you could argue is that the gas/oil producers shouldn't be allowed to supply - there is always the chance that profits are shunted around the system through internal pricing and maybe finish up in the Exploration & production arm rather than the retail sales group

But then why stop with Energy........

What IS a disgrace in that neither of the main parties will force the gas suppliers to keep a reasonable amount in storage - it's only about 7 days supply in the UK whereas Germany & France have more like a month in store

[Melchett01]

and it was (at best) cheap and dishonest rabble rousing/playing to the gallery

Indeed it was. I was almost taken in by it for a moment as I am in the middle of switching energy suppliers due to costs going up, but then sanity kicked in. The problem that Milliband now has is that he has come out as being anti-business, so one might suspect a rather large chunk of business funding that had gone to Nooo Liarbour under Bliar to start looking elsewhere for a home. And he's done that just at the same time as he looks to reform Trade Union funding of the Labour party, which will also likely result in a downturn in funding.

From what I can see, this Milliband chap might have his Oxford PPE and Economics MSc, but he clearly wasn't at the front of the queue when common sense and tactical nouse was being handed out. He might very well have got the crowd on its feet at conference, but a large proportion of his party's funding could now theoretically drain away in the 20 months running up to the election - the time when you need funding the most.

I have to agree with both Al and Heathrow Harry. Energy prices are going up massively because of Govt meddling in so called 'Green' taxes that will supposedly put our energy supply on a sustainable footing (as well as a bit of profiteering - which I can't complain too much about as my Centrica dividends are always well received!). But as Heathrow Harry also points out, it's damned near impossible to generate a sustainable supply if you have no capacity to build up a reserve for the hard times and when you have allowed foreign companies to buy your supply system. So, we buy much of our gas in and don't have the capacity to store it. Funny old thing, when we get desperate, do you really think the foreign owners of our energy companies and the overseas suppliers are going to a. come to our rescue or b. put the prices up? Not a difficult one to work out.

It's interesting to note that the 2 areas of daily life where constant and inexorable price rises are guaranteed, namely domestic energy and petrol prices, both have high levels of Government interference and taxation. Or should that read the Government is the common factor in both problem sets.

[NutLoose]

I read an article somewhere that said due to the UK's lack of storage ability part of the gas produced was shipped to the continent for storage during the summer when it is cheap, and shipped back to the UK and sold back to us over the winter months

[Roland Pulfrew]

What IS a disgrace in that neither of the main parties will force the gas suppliers to keep a reasonable amount in storage - it's only about 7 days supply in the UK whereas Germany & France have more like a month in store

Strangely enough there was an article only this week (can't remember whether in the Evening Standard or the BBC website) saying that Centrica were pulling out of a massive gas storage facility because the government wouldn't invest the £1.5B required. As I understand it (and I may have got the wrong end of the stick) the idea was to use an "empty" oil field to store gas for when it was needed.

I have long felt that we have cocked up as a nation with our energy storage plans. Remember growing up where every reasonable sized town had a "gasometer" or 5? We obviously need a much bigger facility that the gas suppliers can fill up when when prices are low (every summer) and then sell to us, without massive seasonal price rises, when we need it - over winter. I can't help wondering whether £1.5B or maybe £3B or £4.5B of Govt money might be a better national investment than £50B to get from London to Birmingham 10 minutes faster!!

[NutLoose]

yup here

Centrica counts £240m cost of abandoning gas storage projects - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10327792/Centrica-counts-240m-cost-of-abandoning-gas-storage-projects.html)

[Fareastdriver]

Miliband promises to freeze prices for 20 months if he gets elected in March 2015. That is until November 2016.

FANTASTIC!!!!!!!!!

You can go to Npower NOW and get a fixed price deal until March 2017.

[Melchett01]

An the election is when in 2015? Why does the cynic in me see big rises either just before or just after to tide the companies over the period. Don't know who Milliband thinks he's kidding.

[Al R]

With currency volatility and much higher inflation forecast, that has to be worth looking into.

You can go to Npower NOW and get a fixed price deal until March 2017.

[NutLoose]

Indeed I went and had a look when I saw that.

[glad rag]

You want your blood pressure raised ?

listen to this, from today this morning.

BBC Radio 4 - Today, 27/09/2013 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bg4v5)

minute 15 in, takes 15-20 seconds for the "debate" to develop.

These clowns want to take us back to the stone ages.

[NutLoose]

But glad rag, he is the managing director and founder of

Solar Panels | Photovoltaic Solar Panels | Solar PV | Solarcentury (http://www.solarcentury.com/uk/)

So what else is he going to say, it's a bit like asking a Vegan food producer to speak about beef burgers, he's going to tell you all day long they're bad for you, as for the no more oil etc, well without the plastics, what is he going to make his solar panels out of?

I myself am a great believer in landfill, I do not think plastic recycling is sufficiently far enough advanced to utilise plastics to their fullest capability, 50, 60 or 100 years from now I can forsee all the plastics buried in landfill being "mined" to recycle them when the price of oil etc has rocketed and the technology exists to utilise this legacy we have left behind.

[glad rag]

Nutty, it was the total shift from fossil that got me going [@ 06:15] absolutely targeting the energy industries, they really do want us back in the stone age!

[NutLoose]

Those and the Green Party yes, though one does wonder how long their principals would stack up sitting in the dark looking at the none working gas fire mid winter whilst the TV sits collecting dust... outside their car rusting in the drive and stores now have less on the shelves than Russian ones pre Glasnost. The range of fruits alone we had from the world over now simply dreams and those we have simply seasonal again.

When you think of the rationing we had during WW2 because the ability to import sufficient goods was severely hampered and the UK couldn't self sustain itself then.
Top that off with the UK population being over 13 million more and you would have total meltdown and anarchy.

Suprising the reliance on fossil fuels.

[Lomon]

Looks like the condems are also trying to buy the military vote

BBC News - Armed forces offered interest-free home loans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24314794)

[smujsmith]

I would glady agree to keep paying the ECO tax on my energy bills if they would stop subsidising useless "bird killing" windmills, and build loads of chuffing nukes. Once we are self sufficient in nukes the "oil providers" can take a walk, the Gazproms of this world can turn their flames down. Sort the countries energy out, not the world economy.

Smudge

[Bill4a]

It strikes me that when the railways were nationally owned they made a considerable loss, then almost as soon as they were privatised they made enourmous profits. That seems to work pretty much across the board. Something odd going on here? Or didnt they tell us about the profits?
I must also agree with Smuj, Im not convinced that the CBA of windmills has been properly thought through, neither has the 'Green Agenda'. Nuclear is really the only option for us to be self sufficient in power. :hmm:

[tarbaby]

"Contains no dairy products" written on the cup.

Most probably a true statement.

[NutLoose]

It strikes me that when the railways were nationally owned they made a considerable loss, then almost as soon as they were privatised they made enormous profits. That seems to work pretty much across the board. Something odd going on here? Or didnt they tell us about the profits?


More like
Rolling programme of repairs and upgrades we are carrying out to the assets, who needs them, scale them right back... ker-ching.....
New trains to replace old rolling stock left over from pre war.. who needs them, scale them right back.... ker-ching..
Cost of maintaining and improving the track infrastructure... far too expensive, tell the Government to farm that off to another company...... Ker-ching...
Support UK industry, might be a bit more expensive, but hey ho... who needs them, scale that right back and buy cheaper abroad.... Ker-ching

Woohooo we are now making huge profits... Ker-ching, ker-ching, Ker-ching..