South Yorkshire Bus Service Needs Improvement

[RollingJ 2,017]

5 minutes ago, AKAMD said:

 

And health care and education doesn't?

I didn't they didn't  - merely that you (all of you) would end up paying more tax - as I've said elsewhere,  I'd prefer where and when to spend my  income - not leave the decision to some 'civil servant' - which is another misnomer, because some of them are not civil, and they think they are the masters.

[AKAMD 0]

4 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

I didn't they didn't  - merely that you (all of you) would end up paying more tax - as I've said elsewhere,  I'd prefer where and when to spend my  income - not leave the decision to some 'civil servant' - which is another misnomer, because some of them are not civil, and they think they are the masters.

So you would rather pay for medical attention when you need it; pay for the private education of your children and keep all the earnings from your labour to spend where and when  you prefer?  On your car no doubt.

[RollingJ 2,017]

2 minutes ago, AKAMD said:

So you would rather pay for medical attention when you need it; pay for the private education of your children and keep all the earnings from your labour to spend where and when  you prefer?  On your car no doubt.

Wrong, on all counts, but to be expected - I didn't make clear in that post that I was objecting to yet another slice of my income being denied me. The NHS and State schools already exist and are financed out of current taxation - which has a habit of rising anyway. I was specifically pointing out that to finance 'free' public transport, there would need to be a massive hike in the overall tax-take.

 

BTW - I haven't owned or driven a car for 45 years plus.

[Mr Allen 0]

9 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Wrong, on all counts, but to be expected - I didn't make clear in that post that I was objecting to yet another slice of my income being denied me. The NHS and State schools already exist and are financed out of current taxation - which has a habit of rising anyway. I was specifically pointing out that to finance 'free' public transport, there would need to be a massive hike in the overall tax-take.

 

BTW - I haven't owned or driven a car for 45 years plus.

I've had free or subsidised Tram and Bus transport for just over 10 years since I was 35  

 

No doubt the Daily Mail hates me because it's at the expense of their precious taxes but they can all swivel!  

 

 

[AKAMD 0]

 

11 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Wrong, on all counts, but to be expected - I didn't make clear in that post that I was objecting to yet another slice of my income being denied me. The NHS and State schools already exist and are financed out of current taxation - which has a habit of rising anyway. I was specifically pointing out that to finance 'free' public transport, there would need to be a massive hike in the overall tax-take.

 

BTW - I haven't owned or driven a car for 45 years plus.

My point is that we, as a society, also have choices on what we spend our income (taxes) on.  A century ago we spent nothing on health care or education; if you were poor, and most people were, you stayed ill and died early, and were very ignorant.  That has changed, not because governments cared about us but because we fought for change, including the make up of our parliament: from the noble and wealthy to a more representative complement.  That, unfortunately, is regressing as politics have become a career path rather that one of conviction.  As for paying more tax, again my point is about what our (present) taxes are spent on.  Unfortunately, at the moment, most is being spent on a pandemic but as I said in an earlier post, post-pandemic we have an opportunity to reassess our priorities, not revert back 'conservatively' to how everything was.  I hope you would agree with me that we should have a fairer, more equal society.

 

BTW - the only car I have ever had was a three-wheeler and I drove it less than 100yds; I'm a biker and where I live there are two buses a day!!!!

[RollingJ 2,017]

11 minutes ago, Mr Allen said:

I've had free or subsidised Tram and Bus transport for just over 10 years since I was 35  

 

No doubt the Daily Mail hates me because it's at the expense of their precious taxes but they can all swivel!  

 

 

With respect, @Mr Allen, although the DM (and similar loo-rolls) come out with this rubbish on a regular basis, it is not representative of my attitude at all - my other half is also severely disabled, for different reasons to you, and has similar fights with authorities. Just to give you annidea of what she has had to put up with from them - in her final 'PIP' 'assessment', she was expected to climb two 20-step flights - when  getting up a 2 step doorway takes close to a minute, then - when some kind individual unlocked the lift and allowed her to get to the assessment, the untrained, unintelligible assessor spent all the time ticking the wrong boxes on her computer.

16 minutes ago, AKAMD said:

 

My point is that we, as a society, also have choices on what we spend our income (taxes) on.  A century ago we spent nothing on health care or education; if you were poor, and most people were, you stayed ill and died early, and were very ignorant.  That has changed, not because governments cared about us but because we fought for change, including the make up of our parliament: from the noble and wealthy to a more representative complement.  That, unfortunately, is regressing as politics have become a career path rather that one of conviction.  As for paying more tax, again my point is about what our (present) taxes are spent on.  Unfortunately, at the moment, most is being spent on a pandemic but as I said in an earlier post, post-pandemic we have an opportunity to reassess our priorities, not revert back 'conservatively' to how everything was.  I hope you would agree with me that we should have a fairer, more equal society.

 

BTW - the only car I have ever had was a three-wheeler and I drove it less than 100yds; I'm a biker and where I live there are two buses a day!!!!

I  (kind of) see your point, but you studiously ignore mine - why should the state grab more of my income to finance something they are incapable of providing?

[Guest busdriver1]

8 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Ah, this old chestnut.

 

Having been very closely involved in SCC’s parking operations, I can tell you that there’s no such thing as a “politically sensitive” area. In many years of experience I have never experienced or heard of politicians in Sheffield telling Parking Services where to and where not to enforce. They will have some involvement in setting priorities, which are usually expressed in policy documents like a parking strategy, which is entirely correct and as you would expect.

 

Parking Services have their priorities and their enforcement resources are deployed accordingly. The CEO’s on the street are given specific areas to patrol and don’t vary from those unless told to do so. Which is exactly what you would expect.
 

If you are speaking to a CEO, they often don’t know the full picture, you need to speak to the managers. Parking Services are very open and transparent about where they enforce and why. If you ask them, they can give you the figures of how many penalties are actually issued. Just drop them a line and ask them if you really want to know the facts rather than relying on heresay. 

 

The fines not getting paid aspect is a problem with the legal framework and most enforcing authorities have the same issue, for example in London, people with diplomatic immunity rack up huge numbers of penalties which don’t get paid. The people who are getting these penalties usually understand the legal position and just ignore them.
 

What would you have the enforcement authorities do? They have finite resources, should they use them issuing pointless fines to people they know will ignore them and continue to offend, or concentrate resources elsewhere, where they actually make a difference?

A very typical and predictable response. Try telling the troops on the ground what the ivory tower inhabitants want then because it is NOT being carried out. 

As for the non payment we need a facility where offending vehicles are lifted. Believe me it works.

[Mr Bloke 1,445]

8 hours ago, Planner1 said:

What would you have the enforcement authorities do? They have finite resources, should they use them issuing pointless fines to people they know will ignore them and continue to offend, or concentrate resources elsewhere, where they actually make a difference?

Unbelievable!

[butlers 259]

Piece in the Examiner online that cars with multiple non payments against them will be able to be towed and impounded.

Same for ones causing obstruction .

This was dated in Feb this year

Edited May 17, 2021 by butlers

[Guest busdriver1]

4 hours ago, Mr Bloke said:

Unbelievable!

Agreed. But predictable. 

4 hours ago, butlers said:

Piece in the Examiner online that cars with multiple non payments against them will be able to be towed and impounded.

Same for ones causing obstruction .

This was dated in Feb this year

Don't start bringing facts in to it. 

[Planner1 431]

14 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

Try telling the troops on the ground what the ivory tower inhabitants want then because it is NOT being carried out. 

Lots of old chestnuts on this thread. “Ivory Tower” indeed. 
What exactly isn’t being carried out and what is your evidence to support this contention?

Edited May 18, 2021 by Planner1

[HeHasRisen 3,387]

14 hours ago, Mr Bloke said:

Unbelievable!

Its a fair point. If you were a traffic warden and you had the choice between:

 

a) going to a nice middle class area in Dore to handout a few tickets to rich yummy mummies in their Land Rovers parking on yellows outside a school; or

b) going to Page Hall to hand out a few tickets to the locals, with a high chance of being verbally and physically assaulted and people ringing up their mates to form a gang to kick the living daylights out of you

 

....where would you choose to go

Edited May 18, 2021 by HeHasRisen