Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ah, would this be the same Andrew Gilligan who is now Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner, being paid 58k p.a for a 3 day week, despite the fact that as a professional journalist, his only qualification for the made-up position appears to be he owns a bike? The same Gilligan who, since his appointment has seen deaths and injuries to cyclists on London's roads sky-rocket? The same Gilligan who, whilst working for the Evening Standard around the time of the 2008 election, did more to help Boris win then Boris himself did? The same Evening Standard which at that time was edited by one Veronica Wadley, who is now... Boris Johnson's Volunteering Adviser on £95k+ - despite the fact that as a professional journalist she is arguably even less qualified for the role than Gilligan? The same Evening Standard that published at the time a series of allegations, mostly written by Gilligan, of corruption that were investigated by the Met and Boris Johnson's own 'Forensic Audit Panel', neither of which found any conclusive evidence of wrongdoing to speak of? The chair of the FAP, by the way, was Patience Wheatcroft - who was a former editor on the Sunday Telegraph, the same group that pays Boris Johnson 250k a year for a weekly column. But don't just take my word - check the facts. I would suggest that it's worth investigating the backgrounds and qualifications of Boris' 127k Deputy Mayor for Housing (allegedly a junior gopher on his campaign staff), or his DM for Education (think tank ideologue), on the same salary. With regard to rewarding 'unqualified' chums, Boris is in a different league to Ken, l would also suggest. I'm no great fan of Ken, but the lack of balance in the reporting of Boris and Ken really sticks in my craw.
Moreover, it was Ken's 'unqualified' advisers who initiated and coordinated the whole Olympic bid, as well as much of the logistical planning, for the Games that London, not to mention the whole country, seemed quite happy with. Or even that whole thing where people came and stood outside their offices for 3 minutes after the 7/7 bombings in tribute or defiance or whatever people wanted it to be - that was thought up by those same advisers. There are more things l could mention, but l think my point is made. Especially when set against the current Mayor's record - the hugely successful Cable Car; overpriced Boris bus; the 'Barclays' cycle hire scheme that Barclays paid £25m to 'sponsor' while we taxpayers have coughed up £145m so far with more to come; wasting millions on getting rid of perfectly-serviceable almost-new bendy buses to replace them with lots more double-deckers that carry fewer people? All these things have cost millions and millions of pounds of public money, unnecessarily wasted. By Boris, not Ken. And l haven't even mentioned getting rid of the congestion charge extension to West London to appease his Tory friends there, while costing the rest of us £25m a year in lost revenue that could have been used to keep the fares down.
And one more point - the Mayor doesn't set his adviser's 100k salaries. Those are set by the same body that sets the PM's salary and that of his Cabinet. The Mayor merely appoints people, and as Ormiston rightly points out, every politician will appoint people they know and trust. To that end, the cronyism argument is something of a nonsense. Didn't deter Boris, Wadley and Gilligan using it repeatedly to win the election though, nor being too ashamed to take up paid positions in his administration.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
This is what you said: As for Boris well I do think hes all piss and wind but I still prefer him to Ken Livingstone the most mendacious, corrupt and vindictive politician of my time.
No he didn't.
Nothing like checking your facts eh Ormiston?
I have apologized to the other poster for the error so why you feel the need to stick your nose in is beyond me.
1) Because it is a big nose 2) Because Fiiish and my posts crossed in the ether a couple of hours before you posted an apology 3) Because I can and have posted already on this thread 4) Because Livingstone deserves all the abuse he gets and his apologists who constantly try to divert away from his missuse of power by suggesting that others have done/do worse - get right up that big nose of mine. Particularly those that get their facts wrong to suit. Just like your previous post.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ah, would this be the same Andrew Gilligan who is now Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner, being paid 58k p.a for a 3 day week, despite the fact that as a professional journalist, his only qualification for the made-up position appears to be he owns a bike? The same Gilligan who, since his appointment has seen deaths and injuries to cyclists on London's roads sky-rocket?
Point of order here - and it's an important one, since it seems to be almost universally misunderstood - Deaths and injuries to cyclists in London have NOT 'skyrocketed' they have, in fact, been significantly reduced over the past fifteen years. In addition, over this same period, cycle use has almost doubled in London - making the statistical reduction even more significant. The blip you saw in fatalities last November was just that - a blip. Statistical anomalies occur all the time - until such time as a recognisable trend can be identified, it's nonsense to suggest that one freakish month indicates an inexorable rise in the fatality rate. Witness the past three months, where there has been just cyclist killed on London's roads. That's another statistical anomaly - usually you would expect an average of around 1-2 per month in a city the size of London, with the number of inexperienced cyclists on the roads.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ah, would this be the same Andrew Gilligan who is now Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner, being paid 58k p.a for a 3 day week, despite the fact that as a professional journalist, his only qualification for the made-up position appears to be he owns a bike? The same Gilligan who, since his appointment has seen deaths and injuries to cyclists on London's roads sky-rocket?
Point of order here - and it's an important one, since it seems to be almost universally misunderstood - Deaths and injuries to cyclists in London have NOT 'skyrocketed' they have, in fact, been significantly reduced over the past fifteen years. In addition, over this same period, cycle use has almost doubled in London - making the statistical reduction even more significant. The blip you saw in fatalities last November was just that - a blip. Statistical anomalies occur all the time - until such time as a recognisable trend can be identified, it's nonsense to suggest that one freakish month indicates an inexorable rise in the fatality rate. Witness the past three months, where there has been just cyclist killed on London's roads. That's another statistical anomaly - usually you would expect an average of around 1-2 per month in a city the size of London, with the number of inexperienced cyclists on the roads.
Don't be so sensible.
We all know that Boris's favourite film is Death Race 2000 and his role model is David Carradine.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ah, would this be the same Andrew Gilligan who is now Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner, being paid 58k p.a for a 3 day week, despite the fact that as a professional journalist, his only qualification for the made-up position appears to be he owns a bike? The same Gilligan who, since his appointment has seen deaths and injuries to cyclists on London's roads sky-rocket?
Point of order here - and it's an important one, since it seems to be almost universally misunderstood - Deaths and injuries to cyclists in London have NOT 'skyrocketed' they have, in fact, been significantly reduced over the past fifteen years. In addition, over this same period, cycle use has almost doubled in London - making the statistical reduction even more significant. The blip you saw in fatalities last November was just that - a blip. Statistical anomalies occur all the time - until such time as a recognisable trend can be identified, it's nonsense to suggest that one freakish month indicates an inexorable rise in the fatality rate. Witness the past three months, where there has been just cyclist killed on London's roads. That's another statistical anomaly - usually you would expect an average of around 1-2 per month in a city the size of London, with the number of inexperienced cyclists on the roads.
This. Also, this was a rather daft point for someone to make in the same post that included a defence of bendy buses, which were so hated by London cyclists they campaigned to have them removed from the roads.
I don't agree with what Boris is doing BUT around 70% of the membership either voted no to strike action or didn't vote at all. Not much of a mandate for strike action.
More than 63.9% of the electorate didn't vote for Cameron. By the same reasoning, that's not much of a mandate for being Prime Minister.
With the rules for strike ballots and general elections being the way they are, the mandate for strike action and the forming of our Government are both completely valid.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ah, would this be the same Andrew Gilligan who is now Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner, being paid 58k p.a for a 3 day week, despite the fact that as a professional journalist, his only qualification for the made-up position appears to be he owns a bike? The same Gilligan who, since his appointment has seen deaths and injuries to cyclists on London's roads sky-rocket?
Point of order here - and it's an important one, since it seems to be almost universally misunderstood - Deaths and injuries to cyclists in London have NOT 'skyrocketed' they have, in fact, been significantly reduced over the past fifteen years. In addition, over this same period, cycle use has almost doubled in London - making the statistical reduction even more significant. The blip you saw in fatalities last November was just that - a blip. Statistical anomalies occur all the time - until such time as a recognisable trend can be identified, it's nonsense to suggest that one freakish month indicates an inexorable rise in the fatality rate. Witness the past three months, where there has been just cyclist killed on London's roads. That's another statistical anomaly - usually you would expect an average of around 1-2 per month in a city the size of London, with the number of inexperienced cyclists on the roads.
That's a point of information, not a point of order.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ah, would this be the same Andrew Gilligan who is now Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner, being paid 58k p.a for a 3 day week, despite the fact that as a professional journalist, his only qualification for the made-up position appears to be he owns a bike? The same Gilligan who, since his appointment has seen deaths and injuries to cyclists on London's roads sky-rocket?
Point of order here - and it's an important one, since it seems to be almost universally misunderstood - Deaths and injuries to cyclists in London have NOT 'skyrocketed' they have, in fact, been significantly reduced over the past fifteen years. In addition, over this same period, cycle use has almost doubled in London - making the statistical reduction even more significant. The blip you saw in fatalities last November was just that - a blip. Statistical anomalies occur all the time - until such time as a recognisable trend can be identified, it's nonsense to suggest that one freakish month indicates an inexorable rise in the fatality rate. Witness the past three months, where there has been just cyclist killed on London's roads. That's another statistical anomaly - usually you would expect an average of around 1-2 per month in a city the size of London, with the number of inexperienced cyclists on the roads.
This. Also, this was a rather daft point for someone to make in the same post that included a defence of bendy buses, which were so hated by London cyclists they campaigned to have them removed from the roads.
Not daft at all - entirely unrelated points. One was regarding the competence, or otherwise, of Boris' cycling commissioner. The other was not a 'defence', it was about the waste of public money arising from scrapping buses that had years of service in them to spend millions on even more, buses to replace them - 1.5 buses needing to be bought for every bendy removed. Nothing to do with the views of cyclists re bendies. They were direct responses to points raised in your post, which l note you haven't countered.
At the time, cyclists were more likely to be in favour of scrapping them, bus passengers in favour of keeping them. However, there was no clear, unanswerable majority either way because the polls at the time generally polled each group separately and were not particularly representative samples. Now, as there are thousands more bus passengers than cyclists, it could reasonably be argued that the majority of Londoners were in favour of keeping bendy buses, but strangely enough Boris/TfL never commissioned a comprehensive survey on this as they knew that most Londoners who held a view either way would be in favour of keeping them.
Leroy, l take your point about fatalities, however l was careful to say fatalities and injuries in my point having gone up markedly - not to mention the various polls with cyclists saying they feel less safe on the roads than they have done previously, which to my mind comes under Gilligan's remit. And so I stand by my original point that Gilligan is no way suitably qualified for the role that we are all paying for, as well as the other points l made in my post.
Ok, picking up on the last point you made for ease-I could pick them all one by one - can you give me some detail or factual evidence of the personal benefits he received from Venezuela?
The main thing was he got given a cushy position by Chavez as part of the deal, a deal which was both at the detriment of the Venezuelan people who were robbed of £16m of a natural resource as part of a politically motivated backhander between two socialists, and at the unease of Londoners who were not comfortable with their city doing business with a man who had a rather chequered human rights record.
If you want some other examples of dodgy dealings, Link 1 evidences where he gave his political chums 6-figure salary positions within his office despite the fact they were not qualified in the slightest for those positions, and they used those positions for political, rather than governing purposes. Link 2 evidences the review uncovering where public money was wasted and how Ken used the public purse as his own cheque book and that the review noted that they were unable to trace where much of the money wasted/misspent ended up due to records at the mayor's office conveniently going missing.
Ah, would this be the same Andrew Gilligan who is now Boris Johnson's Cycling Commissioner, being paid 58k p.a for a 3 day week, despite the fact that as a professional journalist, his only qualification for the made-up position appears to be he owns a bike? The same Gilligan who, since his appointment has seen deaths and injuries to cyclists on London's roads sky-rocket?
Point of order here - and it's an important one, since it seems to be almost universally misunderstood - Deaths and injuries to cyclists in London have NOT 'skyrocketed' they have, in fact, been significantly reduced over the past fifteen years. In addition, over this same period, cycle use has almost doubled in London - making the statistical reduction even more significant. The blip you saw in fatalities last November was just that - a blip. Statistical anomalies occur all the time - until such time as a recognisable trend can be identified, it's nonsense to suggest that one freakish month indicates an inexorable rise in the fatality rate. Witness the past three months, where there has been just cyclist killed on London's roads. That's another statistical anomaly - usually you would expect an average of around 1-2 per month in a city the size of London, with the number of inexperienced cyclists on the roads.
This. Also, this was a rather daft point for someone to make in the same post that included a defence of bendy buses, which were so hated by London cyclists they campaigned to have them removed from the roads.
Not daft at all - entirely unrelated points. One was regarding the competence, or otherwise, of Boris' cycling commissioner. The other was not a 'defence', it was about the waste of public money arising from scrapping buses that had years of service in them to spend millions on even more, buses to replace them - 1.5 buses needing to be bought for every bendy removed. Nothing to do with the views of cyclists re bendies. They were direct responses to points raised in your post, which l note you haven't countered.
At the time, cyclists were more likely to be in favour of scrapping them, bus passengers in favour of keeping them. However, there was no clear, unanswerable majority either way because the polls at the time generally polled each group separately and were not particularly representative samples. Now, as there are thousands more bus passengers than cyclists, it could reasonably be argued that the majority of Londoners were in favour of keeping bendy buses, but strangely enough Boris/TfL never commissioned a comprehensive survey on this as they knew that most Londoners who held a view either way would be in favour of keeping them.
Leroy, l take your point about fatalities, however l was careful to say fatalities and injuries in my point having gone up markedly - not to mention the various polls with cyclists saying they feel less safe on the roads than they have done previously, which to my mind comes under Gilligan's remit. And so I stand by my original point that Gilligan is no way suitably qualified for the role that we are all paying for, as well as the other points l made in my post.
when you say bendy buses, I take it that you mean those very long buses that most people never paid fares on? TFL lost millions in lost revenue on those things and even they referred to them as 'free' bus
I don't get it? Fatalities and injuries haven't gone up markedly - that's the precise point I was trying to make. In addition, surveys don't mean a thing - just because people don't 'feel' safer, doesn't mean they aren't safer. 90% of the reason people don't 'feel' safer is because the media spent two bloody months lying to them and telling them they weren't!!
Agreed - how people feel about things such as crime, immigration, public services etc is largely due to the hysterical media and usually not in sync with reality. The BBC did something last year where they surveyed the public on things such as crime, benefits and immigration and what the public thought were the figures. In most cases, the public' opinion on the stats were the polar opposite of the facts.
I don't get it? Fatalities and injuries haven't gone up markedly - that's the precise point I was trying to make. In addition, surveys don't mean a thing - just because people don't 'feel' safer, doesn't mean they aren't safer. 90% of the reason people don't 'feel' safer is because the media spent two bloody months lying to them and telling them they weren't!!
Leroy - apologies, the research l was referring to might not be in the public domain so l shouldn't have referred to it. I see quite a lot of data in my job, usually already published, so l must have assumed it was already out there. As it is, l won't attempt to refute your point again. At least, not yet!
CAFC999, general view is that the lost revenue argument was slightly exaggerated (spun?) in the debate. The vast majority of bendy users pre-paid, either via travelcards or Oyster. TfL weren't hugely concerned at the time as they didn't markedly increase the number of inspectors on those routes, and indeed the pre-paid argument was part of their justification for introducing them in the first place.
Also, the so-called new Routemaster, which l think will be on more routes than the bendies were by the time they finish rolling out, has as many entry points as the bendies did and have no conductors on at night due to safety concerns (perhaps due to Bob Crow, ironically, given where this started). So to all intents and purposes they are/will be as 'free' as the bendies were.
Didn't like the fella for his politics but he stood up for his Union. My condolences to his family but I guess in the wider world he won't be missed too much.
I think RMT members and the trade union movement will miss him terribly and will be weaker as a result. And as much as non TU members like to think otherwise, a weak trade union movement is bad for all workers. RIP What a day.
I'm glad the reaction from all political quarters so far has been respectful. Considering how disgusting the Left's reaction was to Maggie's demise, there is going to be the temptation from the Right to retaliate in kind. I don't want to see celebration of someone's death from any political wing - it's subhuman.
I'm glad the reaction from all political quarters so far has been respectful. Considering how disgusting the Left's reaction was to Maggie's demise, there is going to be the temptation from the Right to retaliate in kind. I don't want to see celebration of someone's death from any political wing - it's subhuman.
I imagine it will come. The difference the left had years to plan for Thatcher's death whereas this one has been a shock.
Comments
Moreover, it was Ken's 'unqualified' advisers who initiated and coordinated the whole Olympic bid, as well as much of the logistical planning, for the Games that London, not to mention the whole country, seemed quite happy with. Or even that whole thing where people came and stood outside their offices for 3 minutes after the 7/7 bombings in tribute or defiance or whatever people wanted it to be - that was thought up by those same advisers. There are more things l could mention, but l think my point is made. Especially when set against the current Mayor's record - the hugely successful Cable Car; overpriced Boris bus; the 'Barclays' cycle hire scheme that Barclays paid £25m to 'sponsor' while we taxpayers have coughed up £145m so far with more to come; wasting millions on getting rid of perfectly-serviceable almost-new bendy buses to replace them with lots more double-deckers that carry fewer people? All these things have cost millions and millions of pounds of public money, unnecessarily wasted. By Boris, not Ken. And l haven't even mentioned getting rid of the congestion charge extension to West London to appease his Tory friends there, while costing the rest of us £25m a year in lost revenue that could have been used to keep the fares down.
And one more point - the Mayor doesn't set his adviser's 100k salaries. Those are set by the same body that sets the PM's salary and that of his Cabinet. The Mayor merely appoints people, and as Ormiston rightly points out, every politician will appoint people they know and trust. To that end, the cronyism argument is something of a nonsense. Didn't deter Boris, Wadley and Gilligan using it repeatedly to win the election though, nor being too ashamed to take up paid positions in his administration.
2) Because Fiiish and my posts crossed in the ether a couple of hours before you posted an apology
3) Because I can and have posted already on this thread
4) Because Livingstone deserves all the abuse he gets and his apologists who constantly try to divert away from his missuse of power by suggesting that others have done/do worse - get right up that big nose of mine. Particularly those that get their facts wrong to suit. Just like your previous post.
Figures compiled by the CLG show the high earners are subsidised by the taxpayer by £4,200 a year through low rents.
We all know that Boris's favourite film is Death Race 2000 and his role model is David Carradine.
How many points was it for a cyclist?
Can only get, can only get
They get on from here
You know, I know that
Things can only get better
With the rules for strike ballots and general elections being the way they are, the mandate for strike action and the forming of our Government are both completely valid.
Sounds good. Do we need to form a queue or something?
At the time, cyclists were more likely to be in favour of scrapping them, bus passengers in favour of keeping them. However, there was no clear, unanswerable majority either way because the polls at the time generally polled each group separately and were not particularly representative samples. Now, as there are thousands more bus passengers than cyclists, it could reasonably be argued that the majority of Londoners were in favour of keeping bendy buses, but strangely enough Boris/TfL never commissioned a comprehensive survey on this as they knew that most Londoners who held a view either way would be in favour of keeping them.
Leroy, l take your point about fatalities, however l was careful to say fatalities and injuries in my point having gone up markedly - not to mention the various polls with cyclists saying they feel less safe on the roads than they have done previously, which to my mind comes under Gilligan's remit. And so I stand by my original point that Gilligan is no way suitably qualified for the role that we are all paying for, as well as the other points l made in my post.
CAFC999, general view is that the lost revenue argument was slightly exaggerated (spun?) in the debate. The vast majority of bendy users pre-paid, either via travelcards or Oyster. TfL weren't hugely concerned at the time as they didn't markedly increase the number of inspectors on those routes, and indeed the pre-paid argument was part of their justification for introducing them in the first place.
Also, the so-called new Routemaster, which l think will be on more routes than the bendies were by the time they finish rolling out, has as many entry points as the bendies did and have no conductors on at night due to safety concerns (perhaps due to Bob Crow, ironically, given where this started). So to all intents and purposes they are/will be as 'free' as the bendies were.
bit.ly/McNb25
Pretty much backs up what I was saying
Didn't like him, but RIP.
RIP
What a day.
Glad i'm working instead.
R.I.P Bob.
ITV spoke about a tribute to him in Saturday's programme ,don't think there will be any minute's silence.