In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at 13:22:35 on
>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on Sun, 19
>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>establish it won't happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>assume that Labour will have a different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>including private concessions. Even if many things remain
>>>>>>>>little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>private sector to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>undoubtedly different to what the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>it's the latter whose will will probably prevail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>
>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>
>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>
>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very studious
>>>>> student.
>>>>
>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>
>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>
>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>
>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>> Cambridge).
>>>
>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>
>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>
>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>
>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there was an
>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>> politician".
>> They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would pursue
>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly paid
>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>
>
>Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>birth in No 10.

But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
when travelling to work on Thameslink.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at 13:22:35 on
>>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on Sun, 19
>>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>> establish it won't happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>> assume that Labour will have a different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>> including private concessions. Even if many things remain
>>>>>>>>> little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>> private sector to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly different to what the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>> it's the latter whose will will probably prevail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>>
>>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>>
>>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very studious
>>>>>> student.
>>>>>
>>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>>
>>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>>> Cambridge).
>>>>
>>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>>
>>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>>
>>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there was an
>>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>>> politician".
>>> They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would pursue
>>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly paid
>>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>> round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>> If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>> birth in No 10.
>
> But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
> when travelling to work on Thameslink.

The ticket machine wouldn't accept her credit card, she couldn't find the
Blackfriars ticket office, and she wasn't able to pay on the train. So she
paid on arrival, plus a £10 fine.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/jan/11/cherieblair.politics

But there's a sting in the tail/tale [both spellings work in this context]
— the gripper who fined her was later sacked for an unrelated matter.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1379966/Sack-for-ticket-inspector-who-fined-Cherie-Blair-10.html

THE ticket inspector who made Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister's wife, pay
a £10 penalty fare for travelling on a train without a ticket has been
sacked.

Arthur Harriott, 39, claimed in an interview yesterday with The Telegraph
that he had been victimised by Thameslink, his employer, because his
confrontation with Mrs Blair had damaged the train company's image.

Mr Harriott, from Luton, Bedfordshire, is taking the company to an
industrial tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal. He said: "I have gone from
hero to zero. At first Thameslink was quite happy to leak the Cherie Blair
story to the media and exploit it as a public relations exercise to show
they treated all customers alike, no matter how rich or famous.

"They preened and congratulated themselves but now they have dropped me
like a stone because they feel I have served my purpose. They are worried
that the attention I get will stop them keeping their franchise, which is
coming up for renegotiation."

Mr Harriott asked Mrs Blair to pay the £10 penalty, as well as the £7.90
fare, when she arrived at Luton station from Blackfriars, London, in
January without a ticket. Mrs Blair had been on her way to Luton Crown
Court on her first day as a crown court recorder.

Mr Harriott said that he had found himself resented by colleagues and
senior executives and targeted by members of the public who tried to goad
"the Cherie Blair guy". He said: "Whenever I tried to give out a penalty
fare people would say I was only doing it because I caught Cherie Blair and
thought that I was something special."

Mr Harriott was moved to a desk job at King's Cross. He said that he had
been sacked a month later over his failure to take a second urine test
after unsubstantiated claims that he had been taking drugs. Mr Harriott
called it a "totally trumped-up charge". He was sacked two weeks after
buying a house in Bedford. "I can't afford to move in and I'm already
behind with the payments," he said.

Mr Harriott said that the abuse and intimidation he had suffered since the
Cherie Blair incident, including anonymous phone calls, had placed "an
enormous strain" on him and on his 63-year-old mother, with whom he lives.
He said that Mrs Blair had been "absolutely fine".

He said: "She knew she was in the wrong and she accepted it. But her life
has gone on as normal while mine has been ruined by one incident in which I
did everything correctly." A Thameslink spokesman last night denied that Mr
Harriott had been sacked because of any resentment at the Cherie Blair
incident.

The spokesman said: "Initially, Mr Harriott was well supported by us but
since then there have been other incidents that have led to his dismissal."
The spokesman declined to say what the "other incidents" had been,
describing them as "classified". A Downing Street spokesman refused to
comment.

On 25/11/2023 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>> On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>> 13:22:35 on
>>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>> <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on
>>>>>>>> Sun, 19
>>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>> establish it won't  happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>> assume that Labour will have a  different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>> including private concessions. Even if many  things remain
>>>>>>>>> little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>> private sector  to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly different to what  the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>> it's the latter whose will will probably  prevail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>>
>>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>>
>>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very
>>>>>> studious
>>>>>> student.
>>>>>
>>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>>
>>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>>> Cambridge).
>>>>
>>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>>
>>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>>
>>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there
>>>> was an
>>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>>> politician".
>>>  They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would
>>> pursue
>>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly
>>> paid
>>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>> round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>> If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>> birth in No 10.
>
> But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
> when travelling to work on Thameslink.

Wasn't that something to do with tapping in and out at an interchange?
Confused a lot of people.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/11/2023 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>> On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>> 13:22:35 on
>>>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on
>>>>>>>>> Sun, 19
>>>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>>> establish it won't  happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>>> assume that Labour will have a  different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>>> including private concessions. Even if many  things remain
>>>>>>>>>> little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>>> private sector  to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly different to what  the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>>> it's the latter whose will will probably  prevail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very
>>>>>>> studious
>>>>>>> student.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>>>> Cambridge).
>>>>>
>>>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>>>
>>>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there
>>>>> was an
>>>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>>>> politician".
>>>>  They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>>>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would
>>>> pursue
>>>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly
>>>> paid
>>>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>>> round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>>> If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>>> birth in No 10.
>>
>> But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
>> when travelling to work on Thameslink.
>
> Wasn't that something to do with tapping in and out at an interchange?

Not back in 2000. But it might today.

> Confused a lot of people.
>

No, it was simply that she couldn't find the Blackfriars ticket office, the
TVM wouldn't accept her card and she was unable to buy a ticket on the
train. So she went to a gripper on arrival at Luton and admitted that she
hadn't been able to buy a ticket.

On 25/11/2023 11:18, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2023 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>>>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>> 13:22:35 on
>>>>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on
>>>>>>>>>> Sun, 19
>>>>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>>>> establish it won't  happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Labour will have a  different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>>>> including private concessions. Even if many  things remain
>>>>>>>>>>> little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>>>> private sector  to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly different to what  the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>>>> it's the latter whose will will probably  prevail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very
>>>>>>>> studious
>>>>>>>> student.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>>>>> Cambridge).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>>>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there
>>>>>> was an
>>>>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>>>>> politician".
>>>>>  They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>>>>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would
>>>>> pursue
>>>>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly
>>>>> paid
>>>>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>>>> round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>>>> If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>>>> birth in No 10.
>>>
>>> But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
>>> when travelling to work on Thameslink.
>>
>> Wasn't that something to do with tapping in and out at an interchange?
>
> Not back in 2000. But it might today.
>
>> Confused a lot of people.
>>
>
> No, it was simply that she couldn't find the Blackfriars ticket office, the
> TVM wouldn't accept her card and she was unable to buy a ticket on the
> train. So she went to a gripper on arrival at Luton and admitted that she
> hadn't been able to buy a ticket.
>

So a lot of fuss about very little.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/11/2023 11:18, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2023 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>>>>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>> 13:22:35 on
>>>>>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Sun, 19
>>>>>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>>>>> establish it won't  happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Labour will have a  different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>>>>> including private concessions. Even if many  things remain
>>>>>>>>>>>> little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>>>>> private sector  to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly different to what  the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's the latter whose will will probably  prevail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very
>>>>>>>>> studious
>>>>>>>>> student.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>>>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>>>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>>>>>> Cambridge).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>>>>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>>>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there
>>>>>>> was an
>>>>>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>>>>>> politician".
>>>>>>  They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>>>>>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would
>>>>>> pursue
>>>>>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly
>>>>>> paid
>>>>>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>>>>> round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>>>>> If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>>>>> birth in No 10.
>>>>
>>>> But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
>>>> when travelling to work on Thameslink.
>>>
>>> Wasn't that something to do with tapping in and out at an interchange?
>>
>> Not back in 2000. But it might today.
>>
>>> Confused a lot of people.
>>>
>>
>> No, it was simply that she couldn't find the Blackfriars ticket office, the
>> TVM wouldn't accept her card and she was unable to buy a ticket on the
>> train. So she went to a gripper on arrival at Luton and admitted that she
>> hadn't been able to buy a ticket.
>>
>
> So a lot of fuss about very little.

Yup. The Tory press hated her and ran every negative story about her they
could.

Also in her defence, she'd just got back from holiday, was four months
pregnant, and was on her way to do her first stint as a Recorder (junior
judge). I don't think she was familiar with the route (hence her inability
to spot the Blackfriars ticket office) and she did volunteer to the ticket
collector that she'd travelled without a ticket. So there was no intent to
evade payment, and she paid the penalty without complaining.

On 25/11/2023 11:59, Recliner wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2023 11:18, Recliner wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 25/11/2023 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>>>>>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>> 13:22:35 on
>>>>>>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sun, 19
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish it won't  happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Labour will have a  different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> including private concessions. Even if many  things remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> private sector  to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly different to what  the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's the latter whose will will probably  prevail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very
>>>>>>>>>> studious
>>>>>>>>>> student.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>>>>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>>>>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>>>>>>> Cambridge).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>>>>>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>>>>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there
>>>>>>>> was an
>>>>>>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>>>>>>> politician".
>>>>>>>  They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>>>>>>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would
>>>>>>> pursue
>>>>>>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly
>>>>>>> paid
>>>>>>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>>>>>> round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>>>>>> If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>>>>>> birth in No 10.
>>>>>
>>>>> But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
>>>>> when travelling to work on Thameslink.
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't that something to do with tapping in and out at an interchange?
>>>
>>> Not back in 2000. But it might today.
>>>
>>>> Confused a lot of people.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, it was simply that she couldn't find the Blackfriars ticket office, the
>>> TVM wouldn't accept her card and she was unable to buy a ticket on the
>>> train. So she went to a gripper on arrival at Luton and admitted that she
>>> hadn't been able to buy a ticket.
>>>
>>
>> So a lot of fuss about very little.
>
> Yup. The Tory press hated her and ran every negative story about her they
> could.
>
> Also in her defence, she'd just got back from holiday, was four months
> pregnant, and was on her way to do her first stint as a Recorder (junior
> judge). I don't think she was familiar with the route (hence her inability
> to spot the Blackfriars ticket office) and she did volunteer to the ticket
> collector that she'd travelled without a ticket. So there was no intent to
> evade payment, and she paid the penalty without complaining.
>

So not confused at all, as was claimed.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 12:38:42 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 25/11/2023 11:59, Recliner wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2023 11:18, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 25/11/2023 09:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ujsc91$2o7l3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:46:25 on Sat, 25 Nov
>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 24/11/2023 22:36, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <iid1mihtd4inruitqk0a7ra1s5ehmvf7ln@4ax.com>, at 14:47:58 on
>>>>>>>>> Fri, 24 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:47:53 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <qbnmlihagpm3glqo3vorfgcpqa7o35ou7f@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>> 13:22:35 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Mon, 20 Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:32:53 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>> <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <RYw6N.48674$bGkf.48127@fx12.ams1>, at 23:35:13 on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sun, 19
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we think the plan still has legs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that a good thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The GBR plan superseded it, but the legislation to fully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> establish it won't  happen before the election. It's safe to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Labour will have a  different plan, presumably not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including private concessions. Even if many  things remain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little changed, the jargon will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Tories haven't really worked out what role they want the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private sector  to play in the passenger railway, but it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undoubtedly different to what  the DfT civil servants want. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's the latter whose will will probably  prevail.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope they will, because they are professionals with lots of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> institutional memory and access to rail operators. Whereas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> politicians are here-today, gone-tomorrow, folk whose main
>>>>>>>>>>>>> qualification is which Oxford college they studied classics at.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PPE. surely?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Don't call me Shirley.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Boris studies Classics, Ancient Literature and Classical Philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's rare among politicians
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Theresa May, Geography
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also rare among politicians
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cameron did PPE (although widely credited as not being a very
>>>>>>>>>>> studious
>>>>>>>>>>> student.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He got a first, so he either worked hard or is smarter than Boris, who
>>>>>>>>>> got a 2:1.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Most Oxford politicians did PPE (the second P is a clue), which lets
>>>>>>>>>> them claim to have degrees in economics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't seem to do Liz "batshit crazy" Truss much good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Her bagman Kwasi Kwarteng, studied Classics and History (but at
>>>>>>>>> Cambridge).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Shapps only got as far as doing an HND (from Manchester Poly). Williams
>>>>>>>>> got an undisclosed degree from Liverpool.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Modern History" seems to win the straw poll, however.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm very surprised at that. Sunak and Truss have PPEs. Of course, many
>>>>>>>>>> MPs are lawyers, and typically read law (eg, Blair).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A very early social media profile for one cheriebo (perhaps there
>>>>>>>>> was an
>>>>>>>>> 8-character limit) said "I'm a lawyer living in Islington, married to a
>>>>>>>>> politician".
>>>>>>>>  They were both leftie lawyers with political ambitions. They had an
>>>>>>>> agreement that the first of them to become a Labour candidate would
>>>>>>>> pursue
>>>>>>>> the political career, while the other would aim at becoming a highly
>>>>>>>> paid
>>>>>>>> QC. Both succeeded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting to speculate the outcome if it had been the other way
>>>>>>> round! Booth was actually no mean politician (with a small p) herself.
>>>>>>> If nothing else she would have been the first Prime Minister to give
>>>>>>> birth in No 10.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But famously didn't understand railway ticketing, so got charged a PF
>>>>>> when travelling to work on Thameslink.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wasn't that something to do with tapping in and out at an interchange?
>>>>
>>>> Not back in 2000. But it might today.
>>>>
>>>>> Confused a lot of people.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it was simply that she couldn't find the Blackfriars ticket office, the
>>>> TVM wouldn't accept her card and she was unable to buy a ticket on the
>>>> train. So she went to a gripper on arrival at Luton and admitted that she
>>>> hadn't been able to buy a ticket.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So a lot of fuss about very little.
>>
>> Yup. The Tory press hated her and ran every negative story about her they
>> could.
>>
>> Also in her defence, she'd just got back from holiday, was four months
>> pregnant, and was on her way to do her first stint as a Recorder (junior
>> judge). I don't think she was familiar with the route (hence her inability
>> to spot the Blackfriars ticket office) and she did volunteer to the ticket
>> collector that she'd travelled without a ticket. So there was no intent to
>> evade payment, and she paid the penalty without complaining.
>>
>
>So not confused at all, as was claimed.

I suppose it could be said that her inability to spot the ticket office or to operate the TVM indicated some sort of
fluster or confusion (perhaps she was late?). But it wasn't confusion about the ticketing system or tapping in, etc.

On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets in
>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>
>>Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>employment legislation?
>
> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
> wind.
>
>>>Its not state employment.
>>>
>>It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still in
>>effective control.
>
> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
> to be working for the government?

How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
they work for the government?

In message <ksi5bkFj09aU1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:14:43 on Mon, 27
Nov 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets in
>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>
>>>Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>employment legislation?
>>
>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>> wind.
>>
>>>>Its not state employment.
>>>>
>>>It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still in
>>>effective control.
>>
>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>> to be working for the government?
>
>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>they work for the government?

There's loads of edge cases, for example employees at the Palace of
Westminster, or the Parliamentary Bookshop across the road (not to be
confused with the tourist-tat shops inside the Palace).
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:43 +0000
Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets in
>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>
>>>Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>employment legislation?
>>
>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>> wind.
>>
>>>>Its not state employment.
>>>>
>>>It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still in
>>>effective control.
>>
>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>> to be working for the government?
>
>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>they work for the government?

Serco. Next.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:43 +0000
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets in
>>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>>
>>>> Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>> employment legislation?
>>>
>>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>>> wind.
>>>
>>>>> Its not state employment.
>>>>>
>>>> It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still in
>>>> effective control.
>>>
>>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>>> to be working for the government?
>>
>> How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>> they work for the government?
>
> Serco. Next.
>
>

If they work in a non privatised prison, prison officers are civil
servants.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:27:24 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:43 +0000
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets
>in
>>>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>>> employment legislation?
>>>>
>>>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>>>> wind.
>>>>
>>>>>> Its not state employment.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still in
>>>>> effective control.
>>>>
>>>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>>>> to be working for the government?
>>>
>>> How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>> they work for the government?
>>
>> Serco. Next.
>>
>>
>
>If they work in a non privatised prison, prison officers are civil
>servants.

If its non privatised then it won't be run by Serco.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 09:35:10 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:43 +0000
>Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets in
>>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>>
>>>>Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>>employment legislation?
>>>
>>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>>> wind.
>>>
>>>>>Its not state employment.
>>>>>
>>>>It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still in
>>>>effective control.
>>>
>>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>>> to be working for the government?
>>
>>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>they work for the government?
>
>Serco. Next.
>
or G4S
https://www.g4s.com/en-gb/what-we-do/care-and-rehabilitation-services/care-and-rehabilitation-services

or Sodexo.
https://uk.sodexo.com/industry/justice.html

Next.

On 27 Nov 2023 07:28, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ksi5bkFj09aU1@mid.individual.net>, at 00:14:43 on Mon, 27
> Nov 2023, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets in
>>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>>
>>>>Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>>employment legislation?
>>>
>>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>>> wind.
>>>
>>>>>Its not state employment.
>>>>>
>>>>It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still
in
>>>>effective control.
>>>
>>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>>> to be working for the government?
>>
>>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>they work for the government?
>
> There's loads of edge cases, for example employees at the Palace of
> Westminster, or the Parliamentary Bookshop across the road (not to be
> confused with the tourist-tat shops inside the Palace).

Clearly State employees but not Government employees

On 27 Nov 2023 09:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:43 +0000
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets in
>>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>>
>>>>Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>>employment legislation?
>>>
>>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>>> wind.
>>>
>>>>>Its not state employment.
>>>>>
>>>>It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still
in
>>>>effective control.
>>>
>>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>>> to be working for the government?
>>
>>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>they work for the government?
>
> Serco. Next.

So holding public office and performing a public service isn't state
employment.

So how would you characterise state employment?

On 27 Nov 2023 16:00, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 10:27:24 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:43 +0000
>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>> On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets
>>in
>>>>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>>>> employment legislation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>>>>> wind.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its not state employment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still in
>>>>>> effective control.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>>>>> to be working for the government?
>>>>
>>>> How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>>> they work for the government?
>>>
>>> Serco. Next.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If they work in a non privatised prison, prison officers are civil
>>servants.
>
> If its non privatised then it won't be run by Serco.

How about gaolers in a police station?

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:44:24 +0000
Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>On 27 Nov 2023 09:35, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2023 00:14:43 +0000
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>On 23 Nov 2023 09:52, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 18:42:58 +0000
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 16:17:54 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Naturally Man of the People Starmer says he'll revoke it when he gets
>in
>>>>>>>> power proving he's as out of touch as the rest of westminster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Like previous LAB governments repealed all the preceding Tory
>>>>>employment legislation?
>>>>
>>>> Who knows what he'll do, his opinions and policies seem to change with the
>>>> wind.
>>>>
>>>>>>Its not state employment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>It is a state function that has been outsourced. The state is still
>in
>>>>>effective control.
>>>>
>>>> So what? Its still not state employment. Would you consider BBC employees
>>>> to be working for the government?
>>>
>>>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>>they work for the government?
>>
>> Serco. Next.
>
>So holding public office and performing a public service isn't state
>employment.
>
>So how would you characterise state employment?

Being employed by the state. Not sure why you're having a comprehension issue
here.

In message <uk7onj$tfds$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:27 on Wed, 29 Nov
2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:

>>>>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>>>they work for the government?
>>>
>>> Serco. Next.
>>
>>So holding public office and performing a public service isn't state
>>employment.
>>
>>So how would you characterise state employment?
>
>Being employed by the state. Not sure why you're having a comprehension issue
>here.

The elephant in the room here is whether you mean *directly* employed,
or employed by a state-funded subcontractor.

Your turn <grabs popcorn>.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 13:12:08 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <uk7onj$tfds$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:27 on Wed, 29 Nov
>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>
>>>>>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or do
>>>>>they work for the government?
>>>>
>>>> Serco. Next.
>>>
>>>So holding public office and performing a public service isn't state
>>>employment.
>>>
>>>So how would you characterise state employment?
>>
>>Being employed by the state. Not sure why you're having a comprehension issue
>>here.
>
>The elephant in the room here is whether you mean *directly* employed,
>or employed by a state-funded subcontractor.

Directly employed. My current company does some government work but in no sense
am I employed by HM Government.

On 1 Dec 2023 15:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 13:12:08 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>In message <uk7onj$tfds$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:27 on Wed, 29 Nov
>>2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>
>>>>>>How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or
do
>>>>>>they work for the government?
>>>>>
>>>>> Serco. Next.
>>>>
>>>>So holding public office and performing a public service isn't state
>>>>employment.
>>>>
>>>>So how would you characterise state employment?
>>>
>>>Being employed by the state. Not sure why you're having a
comprehension issue
>>>here.
>>
>>The elephant in the room here is whether you mean *directly*
employed,
>>or employed by a state-funded subcontractor.
>
> Directly employed. My current company does some government work but in no sense
> am I employed by HM Government.
>

So that clearly means GPs are not state employees. Good. Now we are
getting somewhere.

Most teachers aren't state employees either then.

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2023 15:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 13:12:08 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uk7onj$tfds$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:27 on Wed, 29 Nov
>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>> How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or
> do
>>>>>>> they work for the government?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Serco. Next.
>>>>>
>>>>> So holding public office and performing a public service isn't state
>>>>> employment.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how would you characterise state employment?
>>>>
>>>> Being employed by the state. Not sure why you're having a
> comprehension issue
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> The elephant in the room here is whether you mean *directly*
> employed,
>>> or employed by a state-funded subcontractor.
>>
>> Directly employed. My current company does some government work but in no sense
>> am I employed by HM Government.
>>
>
> So that clearly means GPs are not state employees. Good. Now we are
> getting somewhere.

Yes, GPs are in an odd situation - despite being the first line of the NHS
they are generally not NHS employees. They may or may not get NHS
discounts from shops and services.

> Most teachers aren't state employees either then.

I don’t think we’ve defined the state yet, have we?

Sam

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

On 02/12/2023 11:01, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2023 15:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2023 13:12:08 +0000
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <uk7onj$tfds$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:26:27 on Wed, 29 Nov
>>> 2023, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>
>>>>>>> How about prison officers. Are they simply employees of Serco or
> do
>>>>>>> they work for the government?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Serco. Next.
>>>>>
>>>>> So holding public office and performing a public service isn't state
>>>>> employment.
>>>>>
>>>>> So how would you characterise state employment?
>>>>
>>>> Being employed by the state. Not sure why you're having a
> comprehension issue
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> The elephant in the room here is whether you mean *directly*
> employed,
>>> or employed by a state-funded subcontractor.
>>
>> Directly employed. My current company does some government work but in no sense
>> am I employed by HM Government.
>>
>
> So that clearly means GPs are not state employees. Good. Now we are
> getting somewhere.
>
> Most teachers aren't state employees either then.
>
>

Up here there are ten GP practices. Of these 9 are NHS run practices
with doctors directly employed by the NHS, only one (Hillswick) where
the GP is a self-employed contractor to the NHS.

So "that clearly means GPs are not state employees" depends upon where
you are - not clearly at all!!

--
Colin

On 02/12/2023 11:22, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Yes, GPs are in an odd situation - despite being the first line of the NHS
> they are generally not NHS employees. They may or may not get NHS
> discounts from shops and services.

Didn't their trade union (though not called that at the time) campaign
against the NHS?

On 02/12/2023 11:58, JMB99 wrote:
> On 02/12/2023 11:22, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Yes, GPs are in an odd situation - despite being the first line of the
>> NHS
>> they are generally not NHS employees.  They may or may not get NHS
>> discounts from shops and services.
>
>
>
> Didn't their trade union (though not called that at the time) campaign
> against the NHS?
>
>

An interesting article:
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2023/07/13/the-founding-of-the-nhs-75-years-on/

"Six months before the Appointed Day it looked as though the whole
edifice might crash through lack of support from the medical profession;
but a near-last-minute agreement saved the structure."

But whilst the NHS is always touted as a Labour Party success, it was a
policy of the coalition, wartime government with Labour just being the
administration of the day who got it going. The well-known phrase of
"from the cradle to the grave" was actually said by Churchill.

--
Colin