Plans for police privatisation (other privatisation)

[Daggers]

Even I have to concede that was an impressive post Daggers but you've clearly got too much time on your hands.

I hope that your situation isn't increasing the strain on the public purse.

Now I'm out of hospital I am self-employed, which means I'm always available to dick around on the computer or meet people for drinks at pubs.

But I'll take that comment in good grace and say thank you for the first part.

[skinnydipper]

Now I'm out of hospital I am self-employed, which means I'm always available to dick around on the computer or meet people for drinks at pubs.

But I'll take that comment in good grace and say thank you for the first part.

I don't know whether to be pleased or disappointed that my tax dollars aren't keeping you in housing, clothes and beer.

Anyway, glad that you took the comment as it was intended.

[Daggers]

Anyway, glad that you took the comment as it was intended.

Get us, building more bridges than a sweaty, emaciated Japanese prisoner of war.

[Zingari]

Blimey Daggers ,well done ! that is what I call a bit of a good hiding for the pro privatisationists ( there’s probably no such word )

I believed all that shite about how everything was going to be so much better and it really has not materialised and in many cases are demonstrably worse.

My dad always told me that these industries were nationalised in the first place because they were so crap in private hands and he said selling them back again was stupid ,

ps it's good to see skinny and daggers on good terms again

[dave the caveman]

One academic study which is well over a decade old on water, a few stats and quotes some of which are nearly 20 years old, and a seven year old article about a foreign electricity market and people are applauding a good post? As if this is in any way relevant to the current situation in the UK? Get a grip. You can find crap like that to prove anything if you look hard enough. No wonder it's so easy for newspapers to influence people. Just write something down on paper and it has to be true.

[skinnydipper]

Get us, building more bridges than a sweaty, emaciated Japanese prisoner of war.

Blimey Daggers ,well done ! that is what I call a bit of a good hiding for the pro privatisationists ( there’s probably no such word )

I believed all that shite about how everything was going to be so much better and it really has not materialised and in many cases are demonstrably worse.

My dad always told me that these industries were nationalised in the first place because they were so crap in private hands and he said selling them back again was stupid ,

ps it's good to see skinny and daggers on good terms again

Building bridges whilst each reserving the future right to throw a hissy-fit and call the other a c*^£

Anyway, can't be building those bridges too quickly. Don't want to make Finners and Bellend jealous

[Captain...]

One academic study which is well over a decade old on water, a few stats and quotes some of which are nearly 20 years old, and a seven year old article about a foreign electricity market and people are applauding a good post? As if this is in any way relevant to the current situation in the UK? Get a grip. You can find crap like that to prove anything if you look hard enough. No wonder it's so easy for newspapers to influence people. Just write something down on paper and it has to be true.

If it is that easy, why haven't you provided any sources to back up your point of view? You asked Daggers to back his views up, he did, now you do the same.

[Zingari]

One academic study which is well over a decade old on water, a few stats and quotes some of which are nearly 20 years old, and a seven year old article about a foreign electricity market and people are applauding a good post? As if this is in any way relevant to the current situation in the UK? Get a grip. You can find crap like that to prove anything if you look hard enough. No wonder it's so easy for newspapers to influence people. Just write something down on paper and it has to be true.

I think most people are applauding it because it’s a well worded easy to understand post with plenty of relevant information . i don't think anyone is saying it's game set and match , just yet

The challenge is for those in disagreement is surely to do the same and it’s not too late. I’d read it at least and I’m sure many others would and maybe you or someone else could provide us with a good alternative viewpoint

A your point about being easy for newspapers being easy to influence people works for both sides and I think I know which side most of them tended to be on during the sell off at least

[Daggers]

One academic study which is well over a decade old on water, a few stats and quotes some of which are nearly 20 years old, and a seven year old article about a foreign electricity market and people are applauding a good post? As if this is in any way relevant to the current situation in the UK? Get a grip. You can find crap like that to prove anything if you look hard enough. No wonder it's so easy for newspapers to influence people. Just write something down on paper and it has to be true.

Really, Chandler, is this the very best you can manage by way of a comeback.

Once upon a time you used to be a half decent WUM but this really has to rank as one of the crappest and most ignorant posts you have ever wasted thirty seconds on. More than that, you even had to edit it so fvck knows how shite it was before!

I clicked on the 'read this post' specially. I thought, now the bloke will have popped a tiny bit of effort into debunking the ideas, he'll have made an effort not to look a total cvnt by trying to dreg up some evidence to support his argument. Looked like that was a total waste of my time and I'll simply go back to ignoring you in future.

There again, Chandler - we always knew you were a bit of a fvckbrain who only ever came on here under various guises just to seek attention by attempting to pick efights with anyone on the forum who'd take your bait.

Go back to your little Travel Tavern room for one and cuddle your bitterness. You've been sussed for the sad case you are and managed (again) to do it in style.

I await my invitation to meet you in your favourite pub in Coventry near your dojo with as much anticipation as the last time you pathetically threatened me.

Toodlepip, disabled.

[dave the caveman]

If it is that easy, why haven't you provided any sources to back up your point of view? You asked Daggers to back his views up, he did, now you do the same.

Need i? Really? My assertion that Daggers so vehemently refuted was that we have some of the best infrastructure in the world in the UK. One only has to have visited a reasonable cross section of the world's countries to know that that is true.

Further more, you can find detailed, current information about energy and utility supplies on any regulator website. You can see data from tests rather than just somebodies opinion.

I appreciate Daggers' attempt to back himself up but the sources he uses only really serve to further highlight how little he knows of the subject. It's a bit like trying to prove that Nigel Pearson's 2012 Leicester City side are crap because Kevin Russell only started on the bench back in 1994.

[Zingari]

Building bridges whilst each reserving the future right to throw a hissy-fit and call the other a c*^£

Anyway, can't be building those bridges too quickly. Don't want to make Finners and Bellend jealous

He may have been building bridges with you , but it doesn't seem like he's lost much time burning some other bridges

edit;

I don't understand the last paragraph of the last post , anyone care to explain ?

Kevin Russell wasn't even playing for us in 1994.

[Webbo]

Rail

But let's skip the fact that privatised rail companies kill more people,

Not quite true Daggers, looking at a list of all rail accidents in the UK http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

and literally doing a bit of a back of an envelope calculation, the list of deaths and injuries in the 17 years since privatisation and the 17 years previous are as follows;

1978-1995 (Pre privatisation)

Deaths-138, Injuries 1145

1995-Present Day.

Deaths-89, Injuries 1079

Which I think proves your thesis to be incorrect.

[Zingari]

Not quite true Daggers, looking at a list of all rail accidents in the UK http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

and literally doing a bit of a back of an envelope calculation, the list of deaths and injuries in the 17 years since privatisation and the 17 years previous are as follows;

1978-1995 (Pre privatisation)

Deaths-138, Injuries 1145

1995-Present Day.

Deaths-89, Injuries 1079

Which I think proves your thesis to be incorrect.

Surely rail safety technology has improved in the intervening years in the same way that road / sea/ air vehicle safety technology has . So improvements are really probably just as likely to be down to this factor more than any political ideology .

[skinnydipper]

He may have been building bridges with you , but it doesn't seem like he's lost much time burning some other bridges

I think DTC can look after himself

Not quite sure why Daggers thinks he's Chandler though. I'd always thought that Chandler was masquerading as blue tory fox over on Bentleys

Anyway DTC, if you are Chandler/Radovan I'm still waiting for the concluding part to your theory in the Madeleine McCann thread.

[Zingari]

I think DTC can look after himself

Not quite sure why Daggers thinks he's Chandler though. I'd always thought that Chandler was masquerading as blue tory fox over on Bentleys

Anyway DTC, if you are Chandler/Radovan I'm still waiting for the concluding part to your theory in the Madeleine McCann thread.

Yes i must admit to being a bit disappointed by not getting the final resolution on that

Maybe admin warned him about libel etc

[Webbo]

Surely rail safety technology has improved in the intervening years in the same way that road / sea/ air vehicle safety technology has . So improvements are really probably just as likely to be down to this factor more than any political ideology .

Technology paid for by the private sector and that's ignoring the fact that rail passenger numbers have gone up so that the average post privatisation is even better. Whatever the reason the figures prove that privatisation hasn't led to more deaths.

[davieG]

Technology paid for by the private sector and that's ignoring the fact that rail passenger numbers have gone up so that the average post privatisation is even better. Whatever the reason the figures prove that privatisation hasn't led to more deaths.

Don't Network Rail receive massive government funding/subsidies and they're mainly responsible for the infrastructure?

[Webbo]

Don't Network Rail receive massive government funding/subsidies and they're mainly responsible for the infrastructure?

British Rail used to cost the govt money as well ,what's the difference?

[Zingari]

British Rail used to cost the govt money as well ,what's the difference?

payouts to shareholders ?

[davieG]

British Rail used to cost the govt money as well ,what's the difference?

Did I say there was a difference you said it was all private sector money I was questioning that.

[Daggers]

British Rail used to cost the govt money as well ,what's the difference?

Money paid to BR went to Brits who paid taxes and spent money in the UK.

Money paid to the regionalised monopolies goes into offshore tax havens and paid to shareholders.

I thought if been explicit on that one.

And I'll get back to you on deaths after kipping

[Webbo]

name='Zingari' timestamp='1330978411' post='2164649']

payouts to shareholders ?

Rail track is a not not for dividend company so I don't think (not certain) that they pay any shareholders. The rail companies do though. They have borrowed and invested money in their companies and so are entitled to some profit.

Did I say there was a difference you said it was all private sector money I was questioning that.

Sorry if that came across a bit abrupt, it wasn't meant to. I just meant a subsidy for a private company is no different to a loss for a nationalised one.

[Zingari]

i've just been trying to find out how much the taxpayer subsidises the railways and i've just read this little piece from this site

http://www.iea.org.u...icient-railways

Last week’s McNulty Review estimated that costs are about 40% higher on Britain’s railways than comparable European networks. Taxpayer subsidies, adjusted for inflation, have probably more than tripled since the British Rail era – reaching around £7 billion per annum. As McNulty explained, higher costs are to a large extent the result of the fragmentation of the industry. A vertically integrated industry was split up, with different firms managing the infrastructure, running the trains and leasing the rolling stock. As a result, transaction costs mushroomed.

[Webbo]

i've just been trying to find out how much the taxpayer subsidises the railways and i've just read this little piece from this site

http://www.iea.org.u...icient-railways

Last week’s McNulty Review estimated that costs are about 40% higher on Britain’s railways than comparable European networks. Taxpayer subsidies, adjusted for inflation, have probably more than tripled since the British Rail era – reaching around £7 billion per annum. As McNulty explained, higher costs are to a large extent the result of the fragmentation of the industry. A vertically integrated industry was split up, with different firms managing the infrastructure, running the trains and leasing the rolling stock. As a result, transaction costs mushroomed.

Err I think you may have inadvertently missed off the next 3 paragraphs;

It is a myth, however, that fragmentation was the result of privatisation per se. The government imposed an artificial structure on the industry from above. Indeed, when train operators subsequently approached the government with a view to taking ownership of the track, they were rebuffed. Moreover, the regulations imposed on the ‘private’ rail industry made it virtually impossible to close loss-making lines, while franchise agreements with train operators effectively forced them to continue running uneconomic services.

By contrast, the structure of a rail industry under genuine private control would be determined by market forces. Historical experience suggests that vertical integration would predominate. This may be explained both by the desire to minimise transaction costs and the relatively high degree of asset specificity on the railways (for example, rolling stock is often designed for use on particular routes). Moreover, genuine private owners would be free to close uneconomic lines and cancel loss-making services. Freed from government price controls, they could set fares to address overcrowding. Expensive new capacity would be funded by fares and land development rather than taxpayers (many of whom never use the railways).

A truly private railway would be efficient, innovative, responsive to consumer preferences and would not require taxpayer support. It is time the critics (such as Will Hutton) stopped blaming privatisation for problems caused by government intervention

[Zingari]

i did miss off the next paragraphs because i thought they were just his opinions as to why the rail network now cost so much whereas the report in the opening part was stated as the results of a proper review .

in truth , actually i stopped reading it after the first paragraph