Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u9vplj$26e75$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:42 on Fri, 28 Jul
> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>> On 28.07.23 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <u9tn8e$1sf46$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:18 on Thu, 27 Jul
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at
>>>>> 12:46:50 on  Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are
>>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>>>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>>
>>>>>  Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push
>>>>> through Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham
>>>>> being entirely  in charge some things too.
>>>
>>>>>  That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about
>>>>> the  Balkanisation.
>>>
>>>>>  Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly
>>>>> confused about which aspects of life come under the City [it's
>>>>> actually a large Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>>>
>>>> The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess,
>>>> with no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think
>>>> there is a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create
>>>> English regions covering population districts of broadly comparable
>>>> population sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along
>>>> historical cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform
>>>> degree of devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation
>>>> of the more granular layers of local government (so abolish counties
>>>> and districts as political entities and consolidate their powers at
>>>> the regional level). Pretty well no other developed country has such
>>>> a mix of inconsistent layers of government as the UK.
>>> I had an interesting discussion with a local politician who was I
>>> think wondering about running for Mayor of Cambs+Peterborough (two
>>> very contrasting demographics, incidentally, and as I point out from
>>> time to time Peterborough is north of Wolverhampton, geographically).
>>> His view was it resembled a poisoned chalice, because Cambridge and
>>> the south were focussed on becoming "Outer Islington" and home to
>>> lovies and hi-tech industry (see also Gove this week who also seems
>>> to have discovered the buzzphrase "UK's Silicon Valley" 20yrs after
>>> everyone else), whereas everything to the mid/north was farmland
>>> whose inhabitants rather resent the "ripple effect" of house prices
>>> and so on, while all the development funds seemed to be spent in the south.
>>
>> A form of that problem exists in any level of government. They Mayor of
>> London has to deal with the differing needs of the super wealthy
>> neighbourhoods of Mayfair or Chelsea, the business districts of the
>> City or Canary Wharf, the poorer areas of places like Tottenham, and
>> the suburbanites of Bromley.
>>
>> The different demographic pressures you highlight between the needs of
>> those places that are within the sphere of influence of Cambridge and
>> its economic bubble, and those in rural areas or other more urban areas
>> in the vicinity won't go away just because some lines on a map are
>> drawn. By splitting Peterborough and environs away from Cambridge
>
> They can't make their mind up about this. Peterborough is half new town,
> half Midlands city, and has absolutely nothing in common with
> Cambridgeshire. But they try to force them together to get critical mass
> in certain services, such as the Police. Who recently decided to in
> effect throw in the towel and rather than have several divisions for
> different bits of their area, have reinvented an earlier model of
> "Peterborough City and suburbs" and "Everything else".
>
>> and environs has the effect that the residents of the former will still
>> experience the economic impact of the latter but will have no
>> democratic input into decisions made about the latter at anything below
>> the Westminster level.
>
> The economic impact of Cambridge itself on Peterborough is virtually
> zero. It's simply too far away and a completely different demographic.
> Although the ripple is getting closer: now that so many people from
> Cambridge commute to London, leaving vacancies for people living in
> mid-Cambs to commute there, with employers in mid-Cambs therefore hiring
> from as far away as Downham Market and March, eventually that will
> abstract workers and housing from Peterborough itself (unless the ripple
> never gets that far because of post-Covid issues).

The point of regional level government is not about a particular city or
pair of cities. It is about managing the broader area comprising cities and
the “hinterland” that are within the broader region in which they exist. In
the context of Cambridge and Peterborough, that includes places like
Huntington, March, St Neots etc. where the inhabitants are not exclusively
tied to one or other.

>> With modern levels of mobility, the economic influence of one town or
>> city on its neighbours in unavoidable, and for regional government to
>> actually be an effective way of balancing the needs and wants of people
>> living in a region, the regional government needs to have
>> representation for all of the relevant people. There is also the case
>> of the costs associaed with patterns of living being externalised. If
>> someone lives in somewhere in the Peterborough sphere but works in the
>> Cambridge sphere, they will be making demands of services provided by
>> the Cambridge sphere (transport infrastructure, as well as the utility
>> demands created by their workplace)
>
> Oddly enough, both of those are paid for at the point of delivery. And
> that should be sufficient.

The building of the misguided bus was not paid for at point of delivery.
The subsidy of socially necessary but uneconomic bus services in the
suburban and rural areas in Cambridgeshire and beyond are not paid for at
point of delivery. A whole raft of regional level infrastructure and
investment fails to happen because they need something bigger than a county
to provide but Westminster fails to provide.

>> without contributing to either the decision making or financial
>> arrangements to provide those facilities.
>
> That's the reason they sometimes try to charge local income tax in the
> USA based on where people's offices are, not where they live. I'm far
> from convinced that abstracting that revenue from the rural areas is a
> good idea.

The US has specific tax raising powers at federal, state and county/city
level so that regional investment can be made at a regional level. In the
UK everything has to go through Westminster.

>> If the local levels of government do not allow these regional level
>> issues or conflicts to be resolved at a regional level, then the only
>> venue they can be resolved at is the Westminster level. The fact that
>> places where there is a strong regional level government in the UK
>> (Wales, Scotland, London) have experienced significant levels of
>> investment in public services in a way that places not covered by such
>> a level of government (the rest of England) have not suggests that on
>> ballance the geographically larger but less homogeneous regional scale
>> does a better job than the county or district scale.
>
> No, it just means they get loads of subsidies paid for by the others.

They get things paid for by others because they have a strong enough
regional government to make that happen. Counties or districts are too
feeble politically to be able to achieve that.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:57:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <u9qjtm$1efnr$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:01:58 on Wed, 26 Jul
>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>On 26.07.23 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <u9qhcv$1e7mp$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:18:55 on Wed, 26 Jul
>>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 26.07.23 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <u9ovgc$15npg$3@dont-email.me>, at 19:07:24 on Tue, 25
>>>>>Jul 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 25.07.23 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <u9mfj6$omu5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:23:31 on Mon, 24
>>>>>>>Jul  2023, Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2023 19:05, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2023 17:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/rail-bosses-spend-10-000-a-wee
>>>>>>>>>>>> k-on-flights-because-it-s-cheaper-than-trains/ar-AA1eguGE?cvid=af435
>>>>>>>>>>>> 715321741b0c7c5fc006593d853&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=28
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Network rail executives spend £10000 a week on plane travel
>>>>>>>>>>>>mainly on  routes where they could have taken the train, e.g
>>>>>>>>>>>>Birmingham to  Glasgow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You couldn't make it up!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That link takes me to a completely (relevant) content free
>>>>>>>>>>>page full of  scream headlines and adverts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW is there a C missing from the subject line or is this a
>>>>>>>>>>>comment on  drinking habits?  I though most means of transport
>>>>>>>>>>>were  considerably less  generous in that area these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sm
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate the humour Sam.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The link works as intended just now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SOT was to acknowledge the post was indirectly rail
>>>>>>>>>>related but you can't please 'em all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Standard class travel on a long journey is miserable - cramped
>>>>>>>>>seating and  a fairly high chance of sharing your journey with
>>>>>>>>>some  anti social  specimens. First class travel is extremely
>>>>>>>>>expensive  unless you are very  lucky with Advance tickets. The
>>>>>>>>>Birmingham  Glasgow EasyJet flight is 40  minutes in the air and
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed, but most will see the irony in Notwork Rail execs
>>>>>>>>preferring  to travel by air rather than the product of the
>>>>>>>>industry they run!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  This is the "must use your own product" fallacy. Assembly line
>>>>>>>workers  at Rolls Royce would be a bit embarrassed it that was all
>>>>>>>they were  allowed to drive to work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt many assembly line workers at Rolls Royce own their own
>>>>>>jet aircraft, nuclear submarines, or fast ferries.
>>>
>>>>>  I didn't think Rolls Royce made any of those finished products.
>>>>
>>>> These are the uses to which Rolls Royce products are put. If you are
>>>>goign to make use of a Rolls Royce product, it will be as the
>>>>propulsion system in one of these types of vehcile.
>
>>> People can't commute to work on a propulsion component, rather than
>>>a finished product.
>>
>>The statement was "must use your own product" not "must use only your
>>own product".
>
>The statement is clearly not an indication that consumption of one's own
>product is compulsory, otherwise what would someone working for Ford who
>didn't have a driving licence do?
>
>>Ford doesn't make car tyres. I can't drive a Ford car without also
>>using tyres made by someone else in order for it to work.
>
>Irrelevant. And in any event the context is the reputational damage of
>using something other than one's own product, when ones own product is
>perceived by outsiders to be suitable.
>
>What I've been arguing is that rail travel is *not* always suitable for
>Network Rail execs, just as banning train drivers from using buses or
>taxis is absurd.

Is it true there is/was a requirement for bank employees to hold an
account with their own bank and not to hold an account with any other
bank?

On 28/07/2023 16:07, Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:57:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In message <u9qjtm$1efnr$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:01:58 on Wed, 26 Jul
>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 26.07.23 09:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <u9qhcv$1e7mp$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:18:55 on Wed, 26 Jul
>>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 26.07.23 08:52, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u9ovgc$15npg$3@dont-email.me>, at 19:07:24 on Tue, 25
>>>>>> Jul 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 25.07.23 07:07, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <u9mfj6$omu5$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:23:31 on Mon, 24
>>>>>>>> Jul  2023, Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2023 19:05, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/07/2023 17:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/rail-bosses-spend-10-000-a-wee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> k-on-flights-because-it-s-cheaper-than-trains/ar-AA1eguGE?cvid=af435
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 715321741b0c7c5fc006593d853&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=28
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network rail executives spend £10000 a week on plane travel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mainly on  routes where they could have taken the train, e.g
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Birmingham to  Glasgow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You couldn't make it up!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That link takes me to a completely (relevant) content free
>>>>>>>>>>>> page full of  scream headlines and adverts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW is there a C missing from the subject line or is this a
>>>>>>>>>>>> comment on  drinking habits?  I though most means of transport
>>>>>>>>>>>> were  considerably less  generous in that area these days.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate the humour Sam.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The link works as intended just now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The SOT was to acknowledge the post was indirectly rail
>>>>>>>>>>> related but you can't please 'em all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Standard class travel on a long journey is miserable - cramped
>>>>>>>>>> seating and  a fairly high chance of sharing your journey with
>>>>>>>>>> some  anti social  specimens. First class travel is extremely
>>>>>>>>>> expensive  unless you are very  lucky with Advance tickets. The
>>>>>>>>>> Birmingham  Glasgow EasyJet flight is 40  minutes in the air and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Agreed, but most will see the irony in Notwork Rail execs
>>>>>>>>> preferring  to travel by air rather than the product of the
>>>>>>>>> industry they run!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  This is the "must use your own product" fallacy. Assembly line
>>>>>>>> workers  at Rolls Royce would be a bit embarrassed it that was all
>>>>>>>> they were  allowed to drive to work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt many assembly line workers at Rolls Royce own their own
>>>>>>> jet aircraft, nuclear submarines, or fast ferries.
>>>>
>>>>>>  I didn't think Rolls Royce made any of those finished products.
>>>>>
>>>>> These are the uses to which Rolls Royce products are put. If you are
>>>>> goign to make use of a Rolls Royce product, it will be as the
>>>>> propulsion system in one of these types of vehcile.
>>
>>>> People can't commute to work on a propulsion component, rather than
>>>> a finished product.
>>>
>>> The statement was "must use your own product" not "must use only your
>>> own product".
>>
>> The statement is clearly not an indication that consumption of one's own
>> product is compulsory, otherwise what would someone working for Ford who
>> didn't have a driving licence do?
>>
>>> Ford doesn't make car tyres. I can't drive a Ford car without also
>>> using tyres made by someone else in order for it to work.
>>
>> Irrelevant. And in any event the context is the reputational damage of
>> using something other than one's own product, when ones own product is
>> perceived by outsiders to be suitable.
>>
>> What I've been arguing is that rail travel is *not* always suitable for
>> Network Rail execs, just as banning train drivers from using buses or
>> taxis is absurd.
>
> Is it true there is/was a requirement for bank employees to hold an
> account with their own bank and not to hold an account with any other
> bank?

Yes, though I think it was more to prevent fraud or accusations thereof
rather than to test the products.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:00:45 +0100, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:27:15 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 28/07/2023 00:21, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:37:01 +0100, Coffee
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at part two.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>>> to say so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>>
>>>> It would help. I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>>> England.
>>>>
>>> If it is the English MPs only then that is the English Grand
>>> Committee.
>>>
>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>
>>> That isn't all that many of them manage to be ignorant about.
>>
>>True.
>
>It's inevitable. In our system, politicians with no relevant work experience get parachuted into senior ministerial
>posts with no warning or time to prepare. They probably know little about the subject area, and have generally received
>no training in how to be a minister. It's not like a normal management position, so even those with management
>experience will be out of their depth.
>
There is a bit of a difference between initial inexperience and e.g.
fundamental errors such as reference to the "British legal system" by
a Home Secretary or not knowing that an alleged illegality is actually
lawful or vice versa.
<snip>

In message <ua0u1l$29t92$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:33 on Fri, 28 Jul
2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:

>>> What I've been arguing is that rail travel is *not* always suitable for
>>> Network Rail execs, just as banning train drivers from using buses or
>>> taxis is absurd.

>> Is it true there is/was a requirement for bank employees to hold an
>> account with their own bank and not to hold an account with any other
>> bank?
>
>Yes, though I think it was more to prevent fraud or accusations thereof
>rather than to test the products.

It was absolutely to ensure bank employees had nowhere to stash any
funds they stole/embezzled from the bank (or its customers).

Although the "law biding criminal" meme springs to mind. If they are
going to do either of those things, then they'd lose no sleep at all
opening a 'secret' bank account somewhere else.

Meanwhile, perhaps a better analogy would be bank employees barred from
having a National Savings Account, or ever buying a postal order to send
off to buy things.
--
Roland Perry

In message <0tv7cidthmqjr73rd4g4pbimk4fg3sg12c@4ax.com>, at 18:56:40 on
Fri, 28 Jul 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:00:45 +0100, Recliner
><recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:27:15 +0100, Coffee
>><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 28/07/2023 00:21, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:37:01 +0100, Coffee
>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>>>><charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's Angus
>>>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles even though
>>>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only feasible
>>>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's Edinburgh
>>>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather than a
>>>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed legislation
>>>>>>> to say so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>>>>>various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>>>>>different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>>>
>>>>> It would help. I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>>>> England.
>>>>>
>>>> If it is the English MPs only then that is the English Grand
>>>> Committee.
>>>>
>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>
>>>> That isn't all that many of them manage to be ignorant about.
>>>
>>>True.
>>
>>It's inevitable. In our system, politicians with no relevant work
>>experience get parachuted into senior ministerial
>>posts with no warning or time to prepare. They probably know little
>>about the subject area, and have generally received
>>no training in how to be a minister. It's not like a normal management
>>position, so even those with management
>>experience will be out of their depth.
>>
>There is a bit of a difference between initial inexperience and e.g.
>fundamental errors such as reference to the "British legal system" by
>a Home Secretary or not knowing that an alleged illegality is actually
>lawful or vice versa.
><snip>

It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through Parliament
themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it means to be an
employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a party politician.
--
Roland Perry

On 28/07/2023 15:11, Bob wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u9vplj$26e75$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:42 on Fri, 28 Jul
>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>> On 28.07.23 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <u9tn8e$1sf46$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:18 on Thu, 27 Jul
>>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>> 12:46:50 on  Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are
>>>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>>>>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>>>
>>>>>>  Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push
>>>>>> through Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham
>>>>>> being entirely  in charge some things too.
>>>>
>>>>>>  That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about
>>>>>> the  Balkanisation.
>>>>
>>>>>>  Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly
>>>>>> confused about which aspects of life come under the City [it's
>>>>>> actually a large Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>>>>
>>>>> The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess,
>>>>> with no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think
>>>>> there is a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create
>>>>> English regions covering population districts of broadly comparable
>>>>> population sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along
>>>>> historical cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform
>>>>> degree of devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation
>>>>> of the more granular layers of local government (so abolish counties
>>>>> and districts as political entities and consolidate their powers at
>>>>> the regional level). Pretty well no other developed country has such
>>>>> a mix of inconsistent layers of government as the UK.
>>>> I had an interesting discussion with a local politician who was I
>>>> think wondering about running for Mayor of Cambs+Peterborough (two
>>>> very contrasting demographics, incidentally, and as I point out from
>>>> time to time Peterborough is north of Wolverhampton, geographically).
>>>> His view was it resembled a poisoned chalice, because Cambridge and
>>>> the south were focussed on becoming "Outer Islington" and home to
>>>> lovies and hi-tech industry (see also Gove this week who also seems
>>>> to have discovered the buzzphrase "UK's Silicon Valley" 20yrs after
>>>> everyone else), whereas everything to the mid/north was farmland
>>>> whose inhabitants rather resent the "ripple effect" of house prices
>>>> and so on, while all the development funds seemed to be spent in the south.
>>>
>>> A form of that problem exists in any level of government. They Mayor of
>>> London has to deal with the differing needs of the super wealthy
>>> neighbourhoods of Mayfair or Chelsea, the business districts of the
>>> City or Canary Wharf, the poorer areas of places like Tottenham, and
>>> the suburbanites of Bromley.
>>>
>>> The different demographic pressures you highlight between the needs of
>>> those places that are within the sphere of influence of Cambridge and
>>> its economic bubble, and those in rural areas or other more urban areas
>>> in the vicinity won't go away just because some lines on a map are
>>> drawn. By splitting Peterborough and environs away from Cambridge
>>
>> They can't make their mind up about this. Peterborough is half new town,
>> half Midlands city, and has absolutely nothing in common with
>> Cambridgeshire. But they try to force them together to get critical mass
>> in certain services, such as the Police. Who recently decided to in
>> effect throw in the towel and rather than have several divisions for
>> different bits of their area, have reinvented an earlier model of
>> "Peterborough City and suburbs" and "Everything else".
>>
>>> and environs has the effect that the residents of the former will still
>>> experience the economic impact of the latter but will have no
>>> democratic input into decisions made about the latter at anything below
>>> the Westminster level.
>>
>> The economic impact of Cambridge itself on Peterborough is virtually
>> zero. It's simply too far away and a completely different demographic.
>> Although the ripple is getting closer: now that so many people from
>> Cambridge commute to London, leaving vacancies for people living in
>> mid-Cambs to commute there, with employers in mid-Cambs therefore hiring
>> from as far away as Downham Market and March, eventually that will
>> abstract workers and housing from Peterborough itself (unless the ripple
>> never gets that far because of post-Covid issues).
>
> The point of regional level government is not about a particular city or
> pair of cities. It is about managing the broader area comprising cities and
> the “hinterland” that are within the broader region in which they exist. In
> the context of Cambridge and Peterborough, that includes places like
> Huntington, March, St Neots etc. where the inhabitants are not exclusively
> tied to one or other.
>
>>> With modern levels of mobility, the economic influence of one town or
>>> city on its neighbours in unavoidable, and for regional government to
>>> actually be an effective way of balancing the needs and wants of people
>>> living in a region, the regional government needs to have
>>> representation for all of the relevant people. There is also the case
>>> of the costs associaed with patterns of living being externalised. If
>>> someone lives in somewhere in the Peterborough sphere but works in the
>>> Cambridge sphere, they will be making demands of services provided by
>>> the Cambridge sphere (transport infrastructure, as well as the utility
>>> demands created by their workplace)
>>
>> Oddly enough, both of those are paid for at the point of delivery. And
>> that should be sufficient.
>
> The building of the misguided bus was not paid for at point of delivery.
> The subsidy of socially necessary but uneconomic bus services in the
> suburban and rural areas in Cambridgeshire and beyond are not paid for at
> point of delivery. A whole raft of regional level infrastructure and
> investment fails to happen because they need something bigger than a county
> to provide but Westminster fails to provide.
>
>>> without contributing to either the decision making or financial
>>> arrangements to provide those facilities.
>>
>> That's the reason they sometimes try to charge local income tax in the
>> USA based on where people's offices are, not where they live. I'm far
>> from convinced that abstracting that revenue from the rural areas is a
>> good idea.
>
> The US has specific tax raising powers at federal, state and county/city
> level so that regional investment can be made at a regional level. In the
> UK everything has to go through Westminster.
>

Unfortunately everything does not go through Westminster, some goes
through Holyrood.

--
Colin

On 29/07/2023 10:47, ColinR wrote:
> On 28/07/2023 15:11, Bob wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u9vplj$26e75$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:42 on Fri, 28 Jul
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 28.07.23 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <u9tn8e$1sf46$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:18 on Thu, 27 Jul
>>>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>> 12:46:50  on  Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>>>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are
>>>>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>>>>>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>>>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push
>>>>>>> through  Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham
>>>>>>> being  entirely  in charge some things too.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>   That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about
>>>>>>> the  Balkanisation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly
>>>>>>> confused  about which aspects of life come under the City [it's
>>>>>>> actually a  large Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess,
>>>>>> with no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think
>>>>>> there is a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create
>>>>>> English regions covering population districts of broadly comparable
>>>>>> population sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along
>>>>>> historical cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform
>>>>>> degree of devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation
>>>>>> of the more granular layers of local government (so abolish counties
>>>>>> and districts as political entities and consolidate their powers at
>>>>>> the regional level). Pretty well no other developed country has such
>>>>>> a  mix of inconsistent layers of government as the UK.
>>>>> I had an interesting discussion with a local politician who was I
>>>>> think  wondering about running for Mayor of Cambs+Peterborough (two
>>>>> very  contrasting demographics, incidentally, and as I point out from
>>>>> time to  time Peterborough is north of Wolverhampton, geographically).
>>>>> His view was it resembled a poisoned chalice, because Cambridge and
>>>>> the  south were focussed on becoming "Outer Islington" and home to
>>>>> lovies and  hi-tech industry (see also Gove this week who also seems
>>>>> to have  discovered the buzzphrase "UK's Silicon Valley" 20yrs after
>>>>> everyone  else), whereas everything to the mid/north was farmland
>>>>> whose  inhabitants rather resent the "ripple effect" of house prices
>>>>> and so on,  while all the development funds seemed to be spent in
>>>>> the south.
>>>>
>>>> A form of that problem exists in any level of government. They Mayor of
>>>> London has to deal with the differing needs of the super wealthy
>>>> neighbourhoods of Mayfair or Chelsea, the business districts of the
>>>> City or Canary Wharf, the poorer areas of places like Tottenham, and
>>>> the suburbanites of Bromley.
>>>>
>>>> The different demographic pressures you highlight between the needs of
>>>> those places that are within the sphere of influence of Cambridge and
>>>> its economic bubble, and those in rural areas or other more urban areas
>>>> in the vicinity won't go away just because some lines on a map are
>>>> drawn. By splitting Peterborough and environs away from Cambridge
>>>
>>> They can't make their mind up about this. Peterborough is half new town,
>>> half Midlands city, and has absolutely nothing in common with
>>> Cambridgeshire. But they try to force them together to get critical mass
>>> in certain services, such as the Police. Who recently decided to in
>>> effect throw in the towel and rather than have several divisions for
>>> different bits of their area, have reinvented an earlier model of
>>> "Peterborough City and suburbs" and "Everything else".
>>>
>>>> and environs has the effect that the residents of the former will still
>>>> experience the economic impact of the latter but will have no
>>>> democratic input into decisions made about the latter at anything below
>>>> the Westminster level.
>>>
>>> The economic impact of Cambridge itself on Peterborough is virtually
>>> zero. It's simply too far away and a completely different demographic.
>>> Although the ripple is getting closer: now that so many people from
>>> Cambridge commute to London, leaving vacancies for people living in
>>> mid-Cambs to commute there, with employers in mid-Cambs therefore hiring
>>> from as far away as Downham Market and March, eventually that will
>>> abstract workers and housing from Peterborough itself (unless the ripple
>>> never gets that far because of post-Covid issues).
>>
>> The point of regional level government is not about a particular city or
>> pair of cities. It is about managing the broader area comprising
>> cities and
>> the “hinterland” that are within the broader region in which they
>> exist. In
>> the context of Cambridge and Peterborough, that includes places like
>> Huntington, March, St Neots etc. where the inhabitants are not
>> exclusively
>> tied to one or other.
>>
>>>> With modern levels of mobility, the economic influence of one town or
>>>> city on its neighbours in unavoidable, and for regional government to
>>>> actually be an effective way of balancing the needs and wants of people
>>>> living in a region, the regional government needs to have
>>>> representation for all of the relevant people. There is also the case
>>>> of the costs associaed with patterns of living being externalised. If
>>>> someone lives in somewhere in the Peterborough sphere but works in the
>>>> Cambridge sphere, they will be making demands of services provided by
>>>> the Cambridge sphere (transport infrastructure, as well as the utility
>>>> demands created by their workplace)
>>>
>>> Oddly enough, both of those are paid for at the point of delivery. And
>>> that should be sufficient.
>>
>> The building of the misguided bus was not paid for at point of delivery.
>> The subsidy of socially necessary but uneconomic bus services in the
>> suburban and rural areas in Cambridgeshire and beyond are not paid for at
>> point of delivery. A whole raft of regional level infrastructure and
>> investment fails to happen because they need something bigger than a
>> county
>> to provide but Westminster fails to provide.
>>
>>>> without contributing to either the decision making or financial
>>>> arrangements to provide those facilities.
>>>
>>> That's the reason they sometimes try to charge local income tax in the
>>> USA based on where people's offices are, not where they live. I'm far
>>> from convinced that abstracting that revenue from the rural areas is a
>>> good idea.
>>
>> The US has specific tax raising powers at federal, state and county/city
>> level so that regional investment can be made at a regional level. In the
>> UK everything has to go through Westminster.
>>
>
> Unfortunately everything does not go through Westminster, some goes
> through Holyrood.
>

On 29/07/2023 07:29, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <0tv7cidthmqjr73rd4g4pbimk4fg3sg12c@4ax.com>, at 18:56:40 on
> Fri, 28 Jul 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:00:45 +0100, Recliner
>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:27:15 +0100, Coffee
>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/07/2023 00:21, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:37:01 +0100, Coffee
>>>>> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/07/2023 11:28, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:58:39 +0100, Charles Ellson
>>>>>>> <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 10:47:37 +0100, Certes <Certes@example.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 26/07/2023 09:39, MB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 25/07/2023 10:52, Coffee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> They could do one about our UK Prime Minister's air miles at
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps just trying to catch up with the Edinburgh Assembly's
>>>>>>>>>> Angus
>>>>>>>>>> Robertson who seems to knock up a huge amount of air miles
>>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>>> no foreign responsibilities.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many parts of Scotland are so remote that a plane is the only
>>>>>>>>> feasible
>>>>>>>>> way to get home for the weekend, though much of Robertson's
>>>>>>>>> Edinburgh
>>>>>>>>> Central constituency is within walking distance of Holyrood.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, they prefer to think of themselves as a parliament rather
>>>>>>>>> than a
>>>>>>>>> mere assembly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even the Westminster government thinks so, having passed
>>>>>>>> legislation
>>>>>>>> to say so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's a pity that the same term was used for two of the
>>>>>>> various legislatures. It can only increase confusion. I
>>>>>>> think that either they should all (UK, Scotland, Wales, NI) use
>>>>>>> different terms, or all the regional bodies should all
>>>>>>> use the same term (not 'parliament').
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would help.  I still don't know how to refer to the English
>>>>>> government when referring to their responsibilities which cover only
>>>>>> England.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it is the English MPs only then that is the English Grand
>>>>> Committee.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are
>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't all that many of them manage to be ignorant about.
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>
>>> It's inevitable. In our system, politicians with no relevant work
>>> experience get parachuted into senior ministerial
>>> posts with no warning or time to prepare. They probably know little
>>> about the subject area, and have generally received
>>> no training in how to be a minister. It's not like a normal
>>> management position, so even those with management
>>> experience will be out of their depth.
>>>
>> There is a bit of a difference between initial inexperience and e.g.
>> fundamental errors such as reference to the "British legal system" by
>> a Home Secretary or not knowing that an alleged illegality is actually
>> lawful or vice versa.
>> <snip>
>
> It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
> occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
> minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
> immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through Parliament
> themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it means to be an
> employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a party politician.

It's also a sign of them not making proper use of their advisors.

On 24/07/2023 13:08, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
> Network rail executives spend £10000 a week on plane travel mainly on
> routes where they could have taken the train, e.g Birmingham to Glasgow.
> You couldn't make it up!

What surprises me is that no one further down the food chain asked
whether they thought it was a good idea because obviously they were
going to be criticised and ridiculed once it became more widely known.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 24/07/2023 13:08, Jack Harry Teesdale wrote:
>> Network rail executives spend £10000 a week on plane travel mainly on
>> routes where they could have taken the train, e.g Birmingham to Glasgow.
>> You couldn't make it up!
>
>
> What surprises me is that no one further down the food chain asked
> whether they thought it was a good idea because obviously they were
> going to be criticised and ridiculed once it became more widely known.
>

Read my postings in the thread. It's a distorted story with little
substance.

NR's actual spend on domestic flights was a small fraction of the £10k
figure. It was probably between £1k and £2k. Most of the spending was on
international flights.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 10:47:13 +0100, ColinR
<rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 28/07/2023 15:11, Bob wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u9vplj$26e75$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:42 on Fri, 28 Jul
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 28.07.23 07:27, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <u9tn8e$1sf46$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:18 on Thu, 27 Jul
>>>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 27.07.23 13:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>> 12:46:50 on  Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>>>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are
>>>>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>>>>>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>>>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push
>>>>>>> through Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham
>>>>>>> being entirely  in charge some things too.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about
>>>>>>> the  Balkanisation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly
>>>>>>> confused about which aspects of life come under the City [it's
>>>>>>> actually a large Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The system of sub-UK level government in the UK is a complete mess,
>>>>>> with no consistency from one location to another. Personally I think
>>>>>> there is a lot of sense in the original New Labour era plan to create
>>>>>> English regions covering population districts of broadly comparable
>>>>>> population sizes in the range of Scotland or Wales, aligned along
>>>>>> historical cultural as well as economic lines, to allow for a uniform
>>>>>> degree of devolution everywhere, combined with a rationalionalisation
>>>>>> of the more granular layers of local government (so abolish counties
>>>>>> and districts as political entities and consolidate their powers at
>>>>>> the regional level). Pretty well no other developed country has such
>>>>>> a mix of inconsistent layers of government as the UK.
>>>>> I had an interesting discussion with a local politician who was I
>>>>> think wondering about running for Mayor of Cambs+Peterborough (two
>>>>> very contrasting demographics, incidentally, and as I point out from
>>>>> time to time Peterborough is north of Wolverhampton, geographically).
>>>>> His view was it resembled a poisoned chalice, because Cambridge and
>>>>> the south were focussed on becoming "Outer Islington" and home to
>>>>> lovies and hi-tech industry (see also Gove this week who also seems
>>>>> to have discovered the buzzphrase "UK's Silicon Valley" 20yrs after
>>>>> everyone else), whereas everything to the mid/north was farmland
>>>>> whose inhabitants rather resent the "ripple effect" of house prices
>>>>> and so on, while all the development funds seemed to be spent in the south.
>>>>
>>>> A form of that problem exists in any level of government. They Mayor of
>>>> London has to deal with the differing needs of the super wealthy
>>>> neighbourhoods of Mayfair or Chelsea, the business districts of the
>>>> City or Canary Wharf, the poorer areas of places like Tottenham, and
>>>> the suburbanites of Bromley.
>>>>
>>>> The different demographic pressures you highlight between the needs of
>>>> those places that are within the sphere of influence of Cambridge and
>>>> its economic bubble, and those in rural areas or other more urban areas
>>>> in the vicinity won't go away just because some lines on a map are
>>>> drawn. By splitting Peterborough and environs away from Cambridge
>>>
>>> They can't make their mind up about this. Peterborough is half new town,
>>> half Midlands city, and has absolutely nothing in common with
>>> Cambridgeshire. But they try to force them together to get critical mass
>>> in certain services, such as the Police. Who recently decided to in
>>> effect throw in the towel and rather than have several divisions for
>>> different bits of their area, have reinvented an earlier model of
>>> "Peterborough City and suburbs" and "Everything else".
>>>
>>>> and environs has the effect that the residents of the former will still
>>>> experience the economic impact of the latter but will have no
>>>> democratic input into decisions made about the latter at anything below
>>>> the Westminster level.
>>>
>>> The economic impact of Cambridge itself on Peterborough is virtually
>>> zero. It's simply too far away and a completely different demographic.
>>> Although the ripple is getting closer: now that so many people from
>>> Cambridge commute to London, leaving vacancies for people living in
>>> mid-Cambs to commute there, with employers in mid-Cambs therefore hiring
>>> from as far away as Downham Market and March, eventually that will
>>> abstract workers and housing from Peterborough itself (unless the ripple
>>> never gets that far because of post-Covid issues).
>>
>> The point of regional level government is not about a particular city or
>> pair of cities. It is about managing the broader area comprising cities and
>> the “hinterland” that are within the broader region in which they exist. In
>> the context of Cambridge and Peterborough, that includes places like
>> Huntington, March, St Neots etc. where the inhabitants are not exclusively
>> tied to one or other.
>>
>>>> With modern levels of mobility, the economic influence of one town or
>>>> city on its neighbours in unavoidable, and for regional government to
>>>> actually be an effective way of balancing the needs and wants of people
>>>> living in a region, the regional government needs to have
>>>> representation for all of the relevant people. There is also the case
>>>> of the costs associaed with patterns of living being externalised. If
>>>> someone lives in somewhere in the Peterborough sphere but works in the
>>>> Cambridge sphere, they will be making demands of services provided by
>>>> the Cambridge sphere (transport infrastructure, as well as the utility
>>>> demands created by their workplace)
>>>
>>> Oddly enough, both of those are paid for at the point of delivery. And
>>> that should be sufficient.
>>
>> The building of the misguided bus was not paid for at point of delivery.
>> The subsidy of socially necessary but uneconomic bus services in the
>> suburban and rural areas in Cambridgeshire and beyond are not paid for at
>> point of delivery. A whole raft of regional level infrastructure and
>> investment fails to happen because they need something bigger than a county
>> to provide but Westminster fails to provide.
>>
>>>> without contributing to either the decision making or financial
>>>> arrangements to provide those facilities.
>>>
>>> That's the reason they sometimes try to charge local income tax in the
>>> USA based on where people's offices are, not where they live. I'm far
>>> from convinced that abstracting that revenue from the rural areas is a
>>> good idea.
>>
>> The US has specific tax raising powers at federal, state and county/city
>> level so that regional investment can be made at a regional level. In the
>> UK everything has to go through Westminster.
>>
>
>Unfortunately everything does not go through Westminster, some goes
>through Holyrood.
>
A lot doesn't go through Westminster; it goes in and simply
disappears.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 07:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ua0u1l$29t92$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:33 on Fri, 28 Jul
>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>
>>>> What I've been arguing is that rail travel is *not* always suitable for
>>>> Network Rail execs, just as banning train drivers from using buses or
>>>> taxis is absurd.
>
>>> Is it true there is/was a requirement for bank employees to hold an
>>> account with their own bank and not to hold an account with any other
>>> bank?
>>
>>Yes, though I think it was more to prevent fraud or accusations thereof
>>rather than to test the products.
>
>It was absolutely to ensure bank employees had nowhere to stash any
>funds they stole/embezzled from the bank (or its customers).
>
In pre-DPA/GDPR days it would have enabled their employer to check for
any potentially dodgy income.

>Although the "law biding criminal" meme springs to mind. If they are
>going to do either of those things, then they'd lose no sleep at all
>opening a 'secret' bank account somewhere else.
>
>Meanwhile, perhaps a better analogy would be bank employees barred from
>having a National Savings Account, or ever buying a postal order to send
>off to buy things.

In message <3ejacil6c9saq9gkj4586b69nlm0spndbq@4ax.com>, at 18:36:15 on
Sat, 29 Jul 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 07:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <ua0u1l$29t92$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:33 on Fri, 28 Jul
>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>
>>>>> What I've been arguing is that rail travel is *not* always suitable for
>>>>> Network Rail execs, just as banning train drivers from using buses or
>>>>> taxis is absurd.
>>
>>>> Is it true there is/was a requirement for bank employees to hold an
>>>> account with their own bank and not to hold an account with any other
>>>> bank?
>>>
>>>Yes, though I think it was more to prevent fraud or accusations thereof
>>>rather than to test the products.
>>
>>It was absolutely to ensure bank employees had nowhere to stash any
>>funds they stole/embezzled from the bank (or its customers).
>>
>In pre-DPA/GDPR days it would have enabled their employer to check for
>any potentially dodgy income.

I don't think there's anything in DOA/GDPR to prevent them still doing
that, as long as the have the compliance officer's approval.

>>Although the "law biding criminal" meme springs to mind. If they are
>>going to do either of those things, then they'd lose no sleep at all
>>opening a 'secret' bank account somewhere else.
>>
>>Meanwhile, perhaps a better analogy would be bank employees barred from
>>having a National Savings Account, or ever buying a postal order to send
>>off to buy things.

--
Roland Perry

In message <ua2tsk$2ju1g$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:07 on Sat, 29 Jul
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

>> It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
>>occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
>>minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
>>immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through
>>Parliament themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it
>>means to be an employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a
>>party politician.
>
>It's also a sign of them not making proper use of their advisors.

If you mean their SPADs, then that's a whole other can of worms (ie
what's their job description regarding the scope of their advice).

Ministers have an office full of civil servants, but often their advice
isn't listened to.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:40:55 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <3ejacil6c9saq9gkj4586b69nlm0spndbq@4ax.com>, at 18:36:15 on
>Sat, 29 Jul 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 07:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ua0u1l$29t92$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:33 on Fri, 28 Jul
>>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> What I've been arguing is that rail travel is *not* always suitable for
>>>>>> Network Rail execs, just as banning train drivers from using buses or
>>>>>> taxis is absurd.
>>>
>>>>> Is it true there is/was a requirement for bank employees to hold an
>>>>> account with their own bank and not to hold an account with any other
>>>>> bank?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, though I think it was more to prevent fraud or accusations thereof
>>>>rather than to test the products.
>>>
>>>It was absolutely to ensure bank employees had nowhere to stash any
>>>funds they stole/embezzled from the bank (or its customers).
>>>
>>In pre-DPA/GDPR days it would have enabled their employer to check for
>>any potentially dodgy income.
>
>I don't think there's anything in DOA/GDPR to prevent them still doing
>that, as long as the have the compliance officer's approval.
>
It needs compliance with the 7 data principles not just the say so of
their compliance officer. The police or other investigators would
require a warrant or court order for access so an employer should not
be getting any less restriction.

>>>Although the "law biding criminal" meme springs to mind. If they are
>>>going to do either of those things, then they'd lose no sleep at all
>>>opening a 'secret' bank account somewhere else.
>>>
>>>Meanwhile, perhaps a better analogy would be bank employees barred from
>>>having a National Savings Account, or ever buying a postal order to send
>>>off to buy things.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u9r9hr$1gt6m$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:11:07 on Wed, 26 Jul
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u9qsqe$1fgv4$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:33:50 on Wed, 26 Jul
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 24/07/2023 19:05, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/07/2023 17:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jack Harry Teesdale <noreply492000-medic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/rail-bosses-spend-10-000-a-we
>>>>>>>>> ek-on-flights-because-it-s-cheaper-than-trains/ar-AA1eguGE?cvid=af4
>>>>>>>>> 35715321741b0c7c5fc006593d853&ocid=winp2fptaskbar&ei=28
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Network rail executives spend £10000 a week on plane travel mainly on
>>>>>>>>> routes where they could have taken the train, e.g Birmingham to
>>>>>>>>> Glasgow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You couldn't make it up!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That link takes me to a completely (relevant) content free page full of
>>>>>>>> scream headlines and adverts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW is there a C missing from the subject line or is this a comment on
>>>>>>>> drinking habits? I though most means of transport were
>>>>>>>> considerably less
>>>>>>>> generous in that area these days.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sm
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I appreciate the humour Sam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The link works as intended just now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The SOT was to acknowledge the post was indirectly rail related but you
>>>>>>> can't please 'em all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Standard class travel on a long journey is miserable - cramped seating and
>>>>>> a fairly high chance of sharing your journey with some anti social
>>>>>> specimens. First class travel is extremely expensive unless you are very
>>>>>> lucky with Advance tickets. The Birmingham Glasgow EasyJet flight is 40
>>>>>> minutes in the air and the seats are comfortable.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed, but most will see the irony in Notwork Rail execs preferring to
>>>>> travel by air rather than the product of the industry they run!
>>>>
>>>> Some might say that they’re choosing the most appropriate form of
>>>> transport
>>>> for the task in hand. No one pretends that rail is the right transport for
>>>> any conceivable trip.
>>>
>>> I've used the example of fettling ticket machines on a line with 1tph.
>>>
>>> So the guy catches a train to the first station (with a trolley full of
>>> all the gear he needs), does the work, then sits there 50 minutes
>>> waiting for a train to take him to the next station (I'm also assuming
>>> all trains are all-shacks). And towards the end of his shift he has to
>>> get a train back to the depot he set off from.
>>>
>>> Presumably, for lunch and PNBs he has to bring sandwiches and use the
>>> facilities (assuming the train has any working ones) on the short trip
>>> between stations.
>>>
>>> At a push, he might do six stations a day. Give him a van, and he'd be
>>> able to do three times as many. But there would be the ignominy of
>>> driving round in a van with <TOC name> painted on the side.
>>
>> Conceivably there might be a pattern where shuttling backwards and forwards
>> might make his journey more efficient, but I agree with your point
>> completely. Similarly one wouldn’t expect CRT[1] maintenance staff to do
>> all their work from a single narrow boat.
>
> Indeed, and I met several earlier in the month doing a mixture of
> supervisory and maintenance roles. Here's a volunteer helper, and a
> staffer's van (and our boat, of course; a bit of a handful with only two
> able-bodied crew and wide staircase locks like that):
>
> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/Hanging_Gardens_of_the_Leeds_and_Liverpo
> ol.jpg>
>
> Being diagonal is official advice, if there's leaky top gates and your
> boat is more than 50ft long.
>
> ObRail: that evening we moored[**] a hundred yards from Leeds Station,
> which you can't get to via their posh new wharfside entrance, unless you
> already have a ticket. I would have only wanted a platform ticket, and I
> don't think they are available online.
>
>> [1] The wet kind, not the sparky kind.
>
> [**] Not least because Lock #1 on the canal is currently only open two
> hours a day to ration the water supply (Omnes: But I's been raining
> almost non-stop for weeks), and having been let through that, the next
> day, by the chap whose van that is [Oh, you lot again!] we got stuck at
> the confusingly named Leeds Lock #1 on the Aire because the power-
> operation gubbins was broken. So had to call out a different CRT chap
> (who had a pickup truck this time) to fix it. Long story short, because
> of various infrastructure issues on the Leeds and Liverpool + Calder and
> Hebble, the trip was last seen running 10 days late. And I don't think
> CRT does "Delay Repay".

Nice - thank you.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/07/2023 13:04, Recliner wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:56:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50 on
>>> Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>>
>>> Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
>>> Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being entirely
>>> in charge some things too.
>>>
>>> That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about the
>>> Balkanisation.
>>>
>>> Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
>>> about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a large
>>> Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>
>> I think that, in principle, devolution is a good thing; the UK is too
>> centralised. But I wish we did it more
>> consistently.
>
> There are two options, full devolution or full centralisation. The
> current mess has my Council blaming Edinburgh and Edinburgh blaming
> Westminster - so nowt ever gets done, the "blame game" is the only
> issue. Whilst I am not liking the idea, centralisation may well be the
> only way to remove the blame game issue.

For the most part it’s pretty clear which areas are devolved and which are
reserved. Either the things your Council are complaining about are in one
of the greyer areas, or someone’s just ignorant or playing games.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:42:59 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <ua2tsk$2ju1g$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:07 on Sat, 29 Jul
>2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>
>>> It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
>>>occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
>>>minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
>>>immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through
>>>Parliament themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it
>>>means to be an employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a
>>>party politician.
>>
>>It's also a sign of them not making proper use of their advisors.
>
>If you mean their SPADs, then that's a whole other can of worms (ie
>what's their job description regarding the scope of their advice).
>
>Ministers have an office full of civil servants, but often their advice
>isn't listened to.

There's another category of advisors as well: external consultants, on which governments spend a fortune. This is partly
as a result of cuts elsewhere, where external expertise has to be bought in to replace the in-house expertise that was
lost.

One recent, ridiculous example is the DfT, which has hired expensive external consultants to help interpret its own
legislation (to see how much of GBR can be implemented in the absence of further legislation in this parliament). The
DfT also spent more than £4m on external consultants to help with the Williams-Shapps Review.

On 31/07/2023 13:19, Recliner wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:42:59 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <ua2tsk$2ju1g$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:07 on Sat, 29 Jul
>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
>>>> occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
>>>> minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
>>>> immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through
>>>> Parliament themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it
>>>> means to be an employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a
>>>> party politician.
>>>
>>> It's also a sign of them not making proper use of their advisors.
>>
>> If you mean their SPADs, then that's a whole other can of worms (ie
>> what's their job description regarding the scope of their advice).
>>
>> Ministers have an office full of civil servants, but often their advice
>> isn't listened to.
>
> There's another category of advisors as well: external consultants, on which governments spend a fortune. This is partly
> as a result of cuts elsewhere, where external expertise has to be bought in to replace the in-house expertise that was
> lost.
>
> One recent, ridiculous example is the DfT, which has hired expensive external consultants to help interpret its own
> legislation (to see how much of GBR can be implemented in the absence of further legislation in this parliament). The
> DfT also spent more than £4m on external consultants to help with the Williams-Shapps Review.

There's a blockage in parliament for new legislation.

The answer is to increase the number of weeks parliament sits to 50
weeks with a two week break for Christmas and the new year. Give MPs 20
days annual leave with compulsory leave for Christmas and the new year.

Why should they be treated differently for other employees?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:41:46 +0100, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 31/07/2023 13:19, Recliner wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:42:59 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <ua2tsk$2ju1g$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:07 on Sat, 29 Jul
>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
>>>>> occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
>>>>> minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
>>>>> immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through
>>>>> Parliament themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it
>>>>> means to be an employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a
>>>>> party politician.
>>>>
>>>> It's also a sign of them not making proper use of their advisors.
>>>
>>> If you mean their SPADs, then that's a whole other can of worms (ie
>>> what's their job description regarding the scope of their advice).
>>>
>>> Ministers have an office full of civil servants, but often their advice
>>> isn't listened to.
>>
>> There's another category of advisors as well: external consultants, on which governments spend a fortune. This is partly
>> as a result of cuts elsewhere, where external expertise has to be bought in to replace the in-house expertise that was
>> lost.
>>
>> One recent, ridiculous example is the DfT, which has hired expensive external consultants to help interpret its own
>> legislation (to see how much of GBR can be implemented in the absence of further legislation in this parliament). The
>> DfT also spent more than £4m on external consultants to help with the Williams-Shapps Review.
>
>There's a blockage in parliament for new legislation.

That's not the issue here. The problem is that the DfT doesn't understand its own legislation.

>
>The answer is to increase the number of weeks parliament sits to 50
>weeks with a two week break for Christmas and the new year. Give MPs 20
>days annual leave with compulsory leave for Christmas and the new year.

They don't just work in the House of Commons. They also have constituencies that generate a lot of their work, and where
they're expected to spend significant time. Many also sit on committees or go on visits. They also have to attend their
party's events, and to campaign, both for themselves and the party in general. They are also expected to be active on
social media and to be available for media interviews. Overall, they spend very little time in the HoC chamber, which
isn't where they do most of their work.

>
>Why should they be treated differently for other employees?

You're asking for them to have much worse conditions than any other employees (not that they're employees). How do you
think your punitive ideas would get through parliament?

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 13:19, Recliner wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:42:59 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <ua2tsk$2ju1g$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:07 on Sat, 29 Jul
>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
>>>>> occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
>>>>> minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
>>>>> immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through
>>>>> Parliament themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it
>>>>> means to be an employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a
>>>>> party politician.
>>>>
>>>> It's also a sign of them not making proper use of their advisors.
>>>
>>> If you mean their SPADs, then that's a whole other can of worms (ie
>>> what's their job description regarding the scope of their advice).
>>>
>>> Ministers have an office full of civil servants, but often their advice
>>> isn't listened to.
>>
>> There's another category of advisors as well: external consultants, on
>> which governments spend a fortune. This is partly
>> as a result of cuts elsewhere, where external expertise has to be bought
>> in to replace the in-house expertise that was
>> lost.
>>
>> One recent, ridiculous example is the DfT, which has hired expensive
>> external consultants to help interpret its own
>> legislation (to see how much of GBR can be implemented in the absence of
>> further legislation in this parliament). The
>> DfT also spent more than £4m on external consultants to help with the
>> Williams-Shapps Review.
>
> There's a blockage in parliament for new legislation.
>
> The answer is to increase the number of weeks parliament sits to 50
> weeks with a two week break for Christmas and the new year. Give MPs 20
> days annual leave with compulsory leave for Christmas and the new year.
>
> Why should they be treated differently for other employees?

Because sitting in parliament is only part of the job?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 10:00:07 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/07/2023 13:04, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:56:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <l4m4cittn3tro32kjcpct6a0gloo0pq5rj@4ax.com>, at 12:46:50 on
>>>> Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't know how to refer to the English government when
>>>>>> referring to their responsibilities which cover only England.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even HMG ministers don't seem to understand what functions are delegated
>>>>>> to the other governments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, it's a confusing mess. The same minister may have UK-wide
>>>>> responsibilities in certain areas, England and Wales in
>>>>> others, and England-only in the rest.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to devolution. Aren't you relieved they didn't push through
>>>> Phase 2, which would have meant mayors like Andy Burnham being entirely
>>>> in charge some things too.
>>>>
>>>> That's not to knock their individual talents, but a comment about the
>>>> Balkanisation.
>>>>
>>>> Where I live the majority of the population are hopelessly confused
>>>> about which aspects of life come under the City [it's actually a large
>>>> Parish with a Mayor], District or County Councils.
>>>
>>> I think that, in principle, devolution is a good thing; the UK is too
>>> centralised. But I wish we did it more
>>> consistently.
>>
>> There are two options, full devolution or full centralisation. The
>> current mess has my Council blaming Edinburgh and Edinburgh blaming
>> Westminster - so nowt ever gets done, the "blame game" is the only
>> issue. Whilst I am not liking the idea, centralisation may well be the
>> only way to remove the blame game issue.
>
>For the most part it’s pretty clear which areas are devolved and which are
>reserved. Either the things your Council are complaining about are in one
>of the greyer areas, or someone’s just ignorant or playing games.
>
You can get a bit of tennis where local and national government both
have the power to do something but neither has a clear obligation to
do so. A council can have things it has a duty to do but, on top of
that, more things that they can lawfully do.

In message <2a9fci9bmd6c1plpl18buboagarfk7nb5l@4ax.com>, at 13:19:12 on
Mon, 31 Jul 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:42:59 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <ua2tsk$2ju1g$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:41:07 on Sat, 29 Jul
>>2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> It is not a requirement that Ministers are also pedants. So the
>>>>occasional slip of the tongue is permitted. However, a Home Office
>>>>minister not realising that they should check the credentials of their
>>>>immigrant cleaner *even if* it wasn't a law they put through
>>>>Parliament themselves, is more about general knowledge of what it
>>>>means to be an employer, and is entirely disjoint even from being a
>>>>party politician.
>>>
>>>It's also a sign of them not making proper use of their advisors.
>>
>>If you mean their SPADs, then that's a whole other can of worms (ie
>>what's their job description regarding the scope of their advice).
>>
>>Ministers have an office full of civil servants, but often their advice
>>isn't listened to.
>
>There's another category of advisors as well: external consultants, on
>which governments spend a fortune. This is partly
>as a result of cuts elsewhere, where external expertise has to be
>bought in to replace the in-house expertise that was
>lost.
>
>One recent, ridiculous example is the DfT, which has hired expensive
>external consultants to help interpret its own legislation (to see how
>much of GBR can be implemented in the absence of further legislation in
>this parliament). The DfT also spent more than £4m on external
>consultants to help with the Williams-Shapps Review.

Chicken feed. Last time I looked, Network Rail was spending £9m on
consulants to try to work out what to do with the Ely North Junction.
--
Roland Perry

In message <msvbcil3ko3b4mfsa37vg4l74f8n84d187@4ax.com>, at 07:20:11 on
Sun, 30 Jul 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 06:40:55 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <3ejacil6c9saq9gkj4586b69nlm0spndbq@4ax.com>, at 18:36:15 on
>>Sat, 29 Jul 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 07:25:00 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <ua0u1l$29t92$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:31:33 on Fri, 28 Jul
>>>>2023, Certes <Certes@example.org> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>> What I've been arguing is that rail travel is *not* always suitable for
>>>>>>> Network Rail execs, just as banning train drivers from using buses or
>>>>>>> taxis is absurd.
>>>>
>>>>>> Is it true there is/was a requirement for bank employees to hold an
>>>>>> account with their own bank and not to hold an account with any other
>>>>>> bank?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, though I think it was more to prevent fraud or accusations thereof
>>>>>rather than to test the products.
>>>>
>>>>It was absolutely to ensure bank employees had nowhere to stash any
>>>>funds they stole/embezzled from the bank (or its customers).
>>>>
>>>In pre-DPA/GDPR days it would have enabled their employer to check for
>>>any potentially dodgy income.
>>
>>I don't think there's anything in DOA/GDPR to prevent them still doing
>>that, as long as the have the compliance officer's approval.
>>
>It needs compliance with the 7 data principles not just the say so of
>their compliance officer.

The compliance officer who is looking at those 7 principles to see if
the activity is OK?

>The police or other investigators would require a warrant or court
>order for access so an employer should not be getting any less
>restriction.

Barking up the wrong tree, I'm afraid. There's different rules for
public authorities vs employers, and also numerous get-outs for
combating fraud.
--
Roland Perry