In message <ua0iad$28tm1$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:11:25 on Fri, 28 Jul
2023, Bob <no_email@invalid.invalid> remarked:

>> 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.

So perhaps we need a region called "Cambridgeshire Hinterland" because
what they need is very different to the cities of Cambridge and
Peterborough.

>>> 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.

When it was announced local taxpayers were assured it would not cost the
community a penny, but would be paid for by a combination of central
grants and contributions from developers en-route. It's the usage
afterwards that's supposed to be paid for by fares from passengers.

>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.

People still have to pay their (rather high for the region) fares to
travel on the Peterborough/March/Cambridge corridor.

>>> 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.

Is my council tax bill a hoax?

>>> 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.

Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether to
improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely different
pot on "improving public transport".
--
Roland Perry

On 06/08/2023 16:33, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ua0iad$28tm1$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:11:25 on Fri, 28 Jul
> 2023, Bob <no_email@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>
>>> 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.
>
> So perhaps we need a region called "Cambridgeshire Hinterland" because
> what they need is very different to the cities of Cambridge and
> Peterborough.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> When it was announced local taxpayers were assured it would not cost the
> community a penny, but would be paid for by a combination of central
> grants and contributions from developers en-route. It's the usage
> afterwards that's supposed to be paid for by fares from passengers.
>
>> 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.
>
> People still have to pay their (rather high for the region) fares to
> travel on the Peterborough/March/Cambridge corridor.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Is my council tax bill a hoax?
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether to
> improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely different
> pot on "improving public transport".

The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering building
it themselves.

What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
cash on transport projects.

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 16:23:10 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>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.
>
You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.

In message <uaog6u$2bqbj$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:38 on Sun, 6 Aug
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:

>> Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether
>>to improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely
>>different pot on "improving public transport".
>
>The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering building
>it themselves.

The Battle is about the "future generations" (or whatever) legislation
in Wales, and whether conservationists or road users carry greater
weight.

>What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
>cash on transport projects.

Given the cost of even small railway projects, I'm not sure that money
would go very far. What else could the money be spent on: a project to
persuade the bus companies to run more services, perhaps. But that won't
reduce the traffic on the M4.
--
Roland Perry

In message <jvlvcitqa5g4tblb3gpl59res47nop38h7@4ax.com>, at 18:29:05 on
Sun, 6 Aug 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 16:23:10 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
>off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.

You can, if it says so in the employment contract between the employee
and the bank which is their employer.
--
Roland Perry

On 07/08/2023 06:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <uaog6u$2bqbj$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:38 on Sun, 6 Aug
> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>
>>>  Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether
>>> to  improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely
>>> different  pot on "improving public transport".
>>
>> The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering building
>> it themselves.
>
> The Battle is about the "future generations" (or whatever) legislation
> in Wales, and whether conservationists or road users carry greater weight.
>
>> What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
>> cash on transport projects.
>
> Given the cost of even small railway projects, I'm not sure that money
> would go very far. What else could the money be spent on: a project to
> persuade the bus companies to run more services, perhaps. But that won't
> reduce the traffic on the M4.

The M4 traffic has increased since the tolls were removed.

The money could have been used for electrification from Patchway to
Bristol Temple Meads railway station to improve that service to relieve
the M4.

On 07/08/2023 06:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jvlvcitqa5g4tblb3gpl59res47nop38h7@4ax.com>, at 18:29:05 on
> Sun, 6 Aug 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 16:23:10 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
>> off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.
>
> You can, if it says so in the employment contract between the employee
> and the bank which is their employer.

I don't think that would override GDPR. Some information from bank
accounts could be very sensitive indeed.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 07/08/2023 06:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uaog6u$2bqbj$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:38 on Sun, 6 Aug
>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>  Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether
>>>> to  improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely
>>>> different  pot on "improving public transport".
>>>
>>> The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering building
>>> it themselves.
>>
>> The Battle is about the "future generations" (or whatever) legislation
>> in Wales, and whether conservationists or road users carry greater weight.
>>
>>> What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
>>> cash on transport projects.
>>
>> Given the cost of even small railway projects, I'm not sure that money
>> would go very far. What else could the money be spent on: a project to
>> persuade the bus companies to run more services, perhaps. But that won't
>> reduce the traffic on the M4.
>
> The M4 traffic has increased since the tolls were removed.
>
> The money could have been used for electrification from Patchway to
> Bristol Temple Meads railway station to improve that service to relieve
> the M4.

JOOI how much over projections or trends has the M4 traffic increased since
the tolls were removed? IOW what influence has the toll removal had on the
traffic levels?

Sam

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

On 07/08/2023 15:43, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2023 06:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <uaog6u$2bqbj$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:38 on Sun, 6 Aug
>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>  Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether
>>>>> to  improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely
>>>>> different  pot on "improving public transport".
>>>>
>>>> The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering building
>>>> it themselves.
>>>
>>> The Battle is about the "future generations" (or whatever) legislation
>>> in Wales, and whether conservationists or road users carry greater weight.
>>>
>>>> What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
>>>> cash on transport projects.
>>>
>>> Given the cost of even small railway projects, I'm not sure that money
>>> would go very far. What else could the money be spent on: a project to
>>> persuade the bus companies to run more services, perhaps. But that won't
>>> reduce the traffic on the M4.
>>
>> The M4 traffic has increased since the tolls were removed.
>>
>> The money could have been used for electrification from Patchway to
>> Bristol Temple Meads railway station to improve that service to relieve
>> the M4.
>
> JOOI how much over projections or trends has the M4 traffic increased since
> the tolls were removed? IOW what influence has the toll removal had on the
> traffic levels?
>

I don't know. I just know that traffic is now much heavier than before
the tolls were removed.

Another negative benefit is that house prices have risen on the Welsh
side have risen more than the surrounding area.

In message <uaquua$2suum$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:26:18 on Mon, 7 Aug
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>On 07/08/2023 06:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <uaog6u$2bqbj$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:38 on Sun, 6 Aug
>>2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>>  Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether
>>>>to  improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely
>>>>different  pot on "improving public transport".
>>>
>>> The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering
>>>building it themselves.

>> The Battle is about the "future generations" (or whatever)
>>legislation in Wales, and whether conservationists or road users
>>carry greater weight.
>>
>>> What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
>>>cash on transport projects.

>> Given the cost of even small railway projects, I'm not sure that
>>money would go very far. What else could the money be spent on: a
>>project to persuade the bus companies to run more services, perhaps.
>>But that won't reduce the traffic on the M4.
>
>The M4 traffic has increased since the tolls were removed.
>
>The money could have been used for electrification from Patchway to
>Bristol Temple Meads railway station to improve that service to relieve
>the M4.

And that would take all the small vans and HGVs off the M4, how?
--
Roland Perry

In message <uaqv2l$2suum$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:37 on Mon, 7 Aug
2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
>>> off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.

>> You can, if it says so in the employment contract between the
>>employee and the bank which is their employer.
>
>I don't think that would override GDPR. Some information from bank
>accounts could be very sensitive indeed.

Then you think wrong. Explicit informed consent is a very powerful lever
to pull.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:07:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <uaqv2l$2suum$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:37 on Mon, 7 Aug
>2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
>>>> off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.
>
>>> You can, if it says so in the employment contract between the
>>>employee and the bank which is their employer.
>>
>>I don't think that would override GDPR. Some information from bank
>>accounts could be very sensitive indeed.
>
>Then you think wrong. Explicit informed consent is a very powerful lever
>to pull.
>
GDPR will post date many of those "explicit informed consents". Human
rights law might also over-ride if a ruling decides that such
contracts are an attempt to circumvent the law. Just because something
is in a contract it doesn't mean it is lawful or immune from being
restricted/modified by the courts.

Meanwhile, north of the border…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/08/nicola-sturgeon-snp-luxury-vip-travel-taxpayer-money/

On 08/08/2023 13:00, Recliner wrote:
> Meanwhile, north of the border…
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/08/nicola-sturgeon-snp-luxury-vip-travel-taxpayer-money/

The outrage machine in action again.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, north of the border…
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/08/nicola-sturgeon-snp-luxury-vip-travel-taxpayer-money/
>

This snippet from the article amused me:

Public funds were also used to buy 22 copies of a book titled How To Run a
Government

On 08/08/2023 16:42, Tweed wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, north of the border…
>>
>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/08/08/nicola-sturgeon-snp-luxury-vip-travel-taxpayer-money/
>>
>
> This snippet from the article amused me:
>
> Public funds were also used to buy 22 copies of a book titled How To Run a
> Government
>

Maybe they should donate some copies to Sunak.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 07/08/2023 15:43, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2023 06:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <uaog6u$2bqbj$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:38 on Sun, 6 Aug
>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>>  Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether
>>>>>> to  improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely
>>>>>> different  pot on "improving public transport".
>>>>>
>>>>> The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering building
>>>>> it themselves.
>>>>
>>>> The Battle is about the "future generations" (or whatever) legislation
>>>> in Wales, and whether conservationists or road users carry greater weight.
>>>>
>>>>> What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
>>>>> cash on transport projects.
>>>>
>>>> Given the cost of even small railway projects, I'm not sure that money
>>>> would go very far. What else could the money be spent on: a project to
>>>> persuade the bus companies to run more services, perhaps. But that won't
>>>> reduce the traffic on the M4.
>>>
>>> The M4 traffic has increased since the tolls were removed.
>>>
>>> The money could have been used for electrification from Patchway to
>>> Bristol Temple Meads railway station to improve that service to relieve
>>> the M4.
>>
>> JOOI how much over projections or trends has the M4 traffic increased since
>> the tolls were removed? IOW what influence has the toll removal had on the
>> traffic levels?
>>
>
> I don't know. I just know that traffic is now much heavier than before
> the tolls were removed.

OK, so there may not be a causal link between the traffic increase and the
toll removal. Or there might be.

> Another negative benefit is that house prices have risen on the Welsh
> side have risen more than the surrounding area.

Interesting. When I lived in Cardiff in the early 80s the general wisdom
was that the building of the Severn Bridge had raised house prices in the
Bristol area and caused industry to move to England because south Wales was
now easier to serve from the east.

Sam

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

On 09/08/2023 10:05, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2023 15:43, Sam Wilson wrote:
>>> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 07/08/2023 06:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <uaog6u$2bqbj$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:02:38 on Sun, 6 Aug
>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Apparently there's a massive battle going on in Wales over whether
>>>>>>> to  improve the M4 near Newport, or spend money from a completely
>>>>>>> different  pot on "improving public transport".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The battle is not in Wales but within HMG who are considering building
>>>>>> it themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Battle is about the "future generations" (or whatever) legislation
>>>>> in Wales, and whether conservationists or road users carry greater weight.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What they should have done is retained the bridge tolls and used the
>>>>>> cash on transport projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given the cost of even small railway projects, I'm not sure that money
>>>>> would go very far. What else could the money be spent on: a project to
>>>>> persuade the bus companies to run more services, perhaps. But that won't
>>>>> reduce the traffic on the M4.
>>>>
>>>> The M4 traffic has increased since the tolls were removed.
>>>>
>>>> The money could have been used for electrification from Patchway to
>>>> Bristol Temple Meads railway station to improve that service to relieve
>>>> the M4.
>>>
>>> JOOI how much over projections or trends has the M4 traffic increased since
>>> the tolls were removed? IOW what influence has the toll removal had on the
>>> traffic levels?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know. I just know that traffic is now much heavier than before
>> the tolls were removed.
>
> OK, so there may not be a causal link between the traffic increase and the
> toll removal. Or there might be.
>
>> Another negative benefit is that house prices have risen on the Welsh
>> side have risen more than the surrounding area.
>
> Interesting. When I lived in Cardiff in the early 80s the general wisdom
> was that the building of the Severn Bridge had raised house prices in the
> Bristol area and caused industry to move to England because south Wales was
> now easier to serve from the east.

The removal of the tolls has raised house prices on the Welsh side of
the bridge.

In message <ecd2dipgabiqfmommjnvf1fvueeq45od9f@4ax.com>, at 19:23:16 on
Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:07:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <uaqv2l$2suum$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:37 on Mon, 7 Aug
>>2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
>>>>> off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.
>>
>>>> You can, if it says so in the employment contract between the
>>>>employee and the bank which is their employer.
>>>
>>>I don't think that would override GDPR. Some information from bank
>>>accounts could be very sensitive indeed.
>>
>>Then you think wrong. Explicit informed consent is a very powerful lever
>>to pull.
>>
>GDPR will post date many of those "explicit informed consents". Human
>rights law might also over-ride if a ruling decides that such
>contracts are an attempt to circumvent the law. Just because something
>is in a contract it doesn't mean it is lawful or immune from being
>restricted/modified by the courts.

I'll trust their HR departments to know the law, rather more than you
who repeatedly demonstrate you don't.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ecd2dipgabiqfmommjnvf1fvueeq45od9f@4ax.com>, at 19:23:16 on
> Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:07:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <uaqv2l$2suum$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:37 on Mon, 7 Aug
>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
>>>>>> off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.
>>>
>>>>> You can, if it says so in the employment contract between the
>>>>> employee and the bank which is their employer.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that would override GDPR. Some information from bank
>>>> accounts could be very sensitive indeed.
>>>
>>> Then you think wrong. Explicit informed consent is a very powerful lever
>>> to pull.
>>>
>> GDPR will post date many of those "explicit informed consents". Human
>> rights law might also over-ride if a ruling decides that such
>> contracts are an attempt to circumvent the law. Just because something
>> is in a contract it doesn't mean it is lawful or immune from being
>> restricted/modified by the courts.
>
> I'll trust their HR departments to know the law, rather more than you
> who repeatedly demonstrate you don't.

HR departments often end up on the wrong side of the law, which is one
reason why employees win cases at tribunals. Half of employment tribunal
cases that aren’t settled in advance but are determined by the tribunal are
won by the employee.

On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:32:02 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> I'll trust their HR departments to know the law, rather more than you
>> who repeatedly demonstrate you don't.
>
>HR departments often end up on the wrong side of the law, which is one
>reason why employees win cases at tribunals. Half of employment tribunal
>cases that aren’t settled in advance but are determined by the tribunal are
>won by the employee.

The primary purpose of an HR dept is to protect the company, not the
employee.

In message <ub2vth$dolr$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:32:02 on Thu, 10 Aug
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ecd2dipgabiqfmommjnvf1fvueeq45od9f@4ax.com>, at 19:23:16 on
>> Mon, 7 Aug 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:07:46 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <uaqv2l$2suum$3@dont-email.me>, at 15:28:37 on Mon, 7 Aug
>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still can't look at your employees' bank accounts on the
>>>>>>> off-chance they might be diddling you out of a fiver.
>>>>
>>>>>> You can, if it says so in the employment contract between the
>>>>>> employee and the bank which is their employer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that would override GDPR. Some information from bank
>>>>> accounts could be very sensitive indeed.
>>>>
>>>> Then you think wrong. Explicit informed consent is a very powerful lever
>>>> to pull.
>>>>
>>> GDPR will post date many of those "explicit informed consents". Human
>>> rights law might also over-ride if a ruling decides that such
>>> contracts are an attempt to circumvent the law. Just because something
>>> is in a contract it doesn't mean it is lawful or immune from being
>>> restricted/modified by the courts.
>>
>> I'll trust their HR departments to know the law, rather more than you
>> who repeatedly demonstrate you don't.
>
>HR departments often end up on the wrong side of the law, which is one
>reason why employees win cases at tribunals. Half of employment tribunal
>cases that aren’t settled in advance but are determined by the tribunal are
>won by the employee.

That's small and medium sized employers usually. Banks are huge, and are
very well versed in a range of compliance issues. In any event, if this
practice is still in force, that case would have been heard, and caselaw
decided, years ago.
--
Roland Perry