LondonMix

Agree entirely with this post. Torben Pieknik Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But James you keep on with the myth that it was > SLL v ELL. It wasn't and isn't. The South London > Line is being removed due to the London Bridge > redevelopment. ELL Phase 2 would be happening > whether the SLL was being removed or not. Network > Rail timetable changes occur twice a year hence > the changes happening at the same time. > > Of course it would be great to have both services, > but the ELL will open up lots of journey options > with new connections to the Tube. > > London Overground services have done lots for the > new areas the line now serves and it will for our > part of London. Yes the removal of SLL is a loss, > but you should be encouraging your constituents to > take a look at the options the East London Line > opens up not dismissing it outright.

It depends on who you get. The service can be very churlish but also wonderful depending on who you are dealing with. I have to say, the experience was such that I probably won't ever use them again.

There was a thread on this a little while ago. Apparently they are selling to a developer who will turn it into flats and possibly a library. Do a search and you can find the old thread.

The substance test (ie. can you be claim to be based somewhere else) involves costs such as having an office with employees there and all management decisions need to take place there-- so board meetings are often held in tax havens to substantiate this. Green and Blue could do it if they thought it would save them enough money to be worthwhile. However, small businesses do get other tax breaks so its often not worth it until they are of significant enough size. You'd be surprised how many small to medium sized companies are domiciled in the Isle of Man. This is not a practice limited to large firms. Sounds like you are in favour of stronger anti-trust laws. What you are describing is already illegal but its hard to prove.

I agree on Amazon. But a unilateral change in the broader tax system would have other repercussions. It?s difficult to change the tax rules so they only apply to specific companies. Truth be told, in the US, once companies really come to dominate one sector too much (particularly a vital one) so that it threatens competition they are broken up. This most famously happened with AT&T back in the day.

You are still drawing a false analogy between companies doing something that?s legal but still ?bad behavior?. It?s not bad behavior. The government essentially tells these companies, we want you to do this so you can have a lower cost basis and expand and contribute to employment growth. They do it and then you demonize them, which is ridiculous. david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To those who say it's not illegal, you are > correct. > > Then again, neither is being a dick. But no one > will ever thank you for it.

Also DaveCarnell, while I get why you believe the only outcome would be lower profitability I think that if you think it through you will realize that the impact will be different for different types of businesses. Businesses for which demand is fairly inelastic because the good is a ?necessity? will be able to pass on any new costs (such as higher taxes) to the consumer if there are no international substitutes that can be imported at a lower price. For businesses where demand is very elastic, if there are no huge barriers to entry, real economic profits are zero (from a microeconomics perspective). That simply means that if the profits for doing something are higher than what someone considers the minimum required, more and more people will crowd into the field until competition drives profits down to a level at which no new businesses consider it worth the effort to open unless one has close. At this point the sector has matured as it?s no longer expanding. That equilibrium rate of profit is different for each sector (very risky businesses need to produce a high rate of return to compensate for risk). If the profits fall too low (even without it making a company insolvent) people would rather invest their money in other things rather than running a business (for example, if your profit margin for running your local coffee shop fell close to the government bond interest rate, wouldn?t you rather just fold it up, stick your money in a government bond and collect your interest?). The new cost will mean that businesses will exit the sector until profits increase again due to reduced competition and a new equilibrium will be created. Practically, this means higher prices and fewer shops offering a service. The scenario in which profits will decrease is for industries that operate with profit margins that would normally attract new businesses to open except that there are huge barriers to entry which prevents the competition mechanism from working properly. These are industries that usually require a lot of money start, though there are many other barriers to entry. These are the only businesses where profits would simply fall and there is still a limit on how far they can fall before there are repercussions.

Sorry but the UK etc. create tax treaties with tax havens (Isle of Man) to enable exactly this. This is not accidental or sneaky or just technically legal. Saying it?s unethical to use tax law as its intended is in my view missing the point. There is absolutely no cheating going on and everyone is entirely aware (meaning the authorities) of what they are doing. The behavior is not just legal but specifically encouraged. For instance, when the law recently changed to stop people from acquiring residential properties via offshore vehicles in the Isle of Man, many lawyers etc. spoke to the tax authorities to understand if they wanted to prevent commercial real estate transactions from being able to benefit from the existing tax rules as well. The answer from the authorities was "no" commercial real estate transactions were different because they want to encourage business. The very existence of this complicated tax system is so the politicians can say one thing to the public while intentionally doing / saying something else to the business community.

Antantanat if your train gets cancelled why don't you take the district line from Victoria to Blackfriars and then straight on to Peckham Rye? I think you'll find that should still be a fairly quick non-bus alternative when the Victoria service gets cancelled. James, where is your evidence for claiming that the new transport changes will create a net social and economic harm? Also can you elaborate on the viaducts and splitting communities? The South London stations (Denmark Hill, Peckham Rye, Queens Road Peckham) will be better connected to each other than before as they will have 8 trains an hour running between them with really well spaced gaps. A two minute train to Peckham Rye usually every 5 minutes opens up additional connections / transfer opportunities to the wider community. Regarding antantants question, according to travel watch the redevelopment of London Bridge over the next few years for the Thameslink means that the SLL won?t be able to call there. That seems to be fairly well accepted logistical constraint and this will temporarily affect lots of train lines abilities to call at London Bridge over the medium term. What some rail groups were proposing was to supplement to connections to Victoria that would be lost by closing the SLL by creating a Victoria ? Bellingham route that would provide an additional 2 trains including in the evenings and Sunday. This was abandoned apparently because of funding issues. The question is should the government fund the creation of this new Victoria- Bellingham route. The ELLX might reduce demand on Victoria line services depending on how many users of the line will benefit by being able to get to places like Westminster for example on the Jubilee line instead. It won?t be clear until we see what new travel patterns emerge as a result of the new connections that will now be available. While I would prefer to have the ELLX and the new Victoria-Bellingham route, I think the responsible thing would be to wait and see how necessary it is before spending the capital. I wish our politicians, instead of simply condemning a complex change, would lay out what realistic alternatives they want to push for and what case they have for it. For example, do they believe that there is in fact capacity at London Bridge during the Thameslink work and if there isn?t, do they believe there is another service into London Bridge that could be sacrificed without causing more disruption than the current proposal? Or do they think Thameslink shouldn?t go ahead? Regarding the Victoria-Bellingham line, have they asked for any cost benefit analysis to be produced? The attitude of nothing can ever change no matter how rational the changes are is irresponsible. The costs and benefits need to be considered and the whole thing needs to be discussed in a way designed to inform the people affected rather than just trying to rile them up.

Its times like this that I love the EDF. A complex subject being discussed with nuance and reason! There is a huge difference between tax evasion and tax planning. Tax planning is in no way immoral. The government intentionally creates ways for businesses to reduce tax and any who don't take advantage would be at a disadvantage. Most companies are using tax law exactly as the authorities intend them to rather than exploiting the law for ends never intended by the government. In fact most investment firms if they are concerned that they might be abusing a new law will go for a tax ruling from the authorities to clarify intent (this is very common). Even when people moan about tax havens they fail to realise countries often have tax treaties to enable this. If you want to increase corp tax then advocate for a change in the tax laws but again be aware of the consequences. Some low margin businesses might be squeezed too far, or prices will increase or profits might fall. Profits falling might sound fine until you look to see who really owns shares (largely institutional investors like pension funds). For rich individuals, their income will be less and income tax will go down. Small business owners who I have worked for do this as well as they don't want to pay tax on their business and then again as dividend taxes when they takeout the profit. Depending on the various marginal tax rates they manipulate how much they pay themselves as salary vs dividends vs corp tax.

Also, let's not pretend that the fact a line has existed means it must always exist and nothing can ever change. Lots of tube and train stations have closed. The question is if transport changes are a objective benefit including use of tax payer money and interactions with the broader network.

This is the point. We act like these decisions have no financial repercusions. I personally propose helicopters for all. There is still Victoria service. Do we need more Victoria trains and off peak Victoria service with the ELLX? Let's wait and see but many used Victoria as a means to get elsewhere on the city and there simply may no longer be the justifiable need for more trains despite the off-peak inconvenience. No one can argue the overcrowding at Victoria is dangerous and this threatens the overall service of those that do rely on it because they work in Victoria proper. Those still travelling to Victoria might find better service and the trains that remain.

Yes, during the rush hour I totally agree. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The problem with buses is not just the journey > time, but also the waiting time and the overall > unpredictablilty.

Yes, I imagine if you're by Denmark Hill it might be faster to take the bus a couple of minutes down the road to East Dulwich station and get on a train to London Bridge rather than dealing with the transfer at Peckham (if you have a travel card so the cost isn't a problem). We'll have to wait and see how it all pans out!

More than the day at home with your daughter what would concern me was being away from my support network in a new place with a young baby. Everyone will deal with such a dramatic change differently. I would say try to think about what objectively makes you happy / unhappy. If you find your current financial situation very stressful and it makes you unhappy then the promotion would be a great step forward. Are you really unhappy living in a flat and slowly building your savings though or is it just one of those things you feel like you are meant to want? If you get a tremendous amount of satisfaction from interesting and stimulating work and the idea of the role genuinely excites you then likely you will be happy with your choice. However, if you simply enjoy work and are happiest around your friends and family and rely on them a lot for emotional support / help with child care and see them regularly, you might find being cut off from them more wrenching than the benefits gained. Also, the additional day spent with your daughter I'm sure is very special and you have to wonder if the additional fulfillment from work will offset what you will be giving up! If the city you are moving to is less hectic though you might end up working less hours during the week / have a shorter commute and therefore the difference in time you spend with her might not be as much as it looks. Do you make friends easily and do you enjoy getting to know new places? All of these things will play a role. Good luck with what must be a very difficult decision!

By a trade-off I simply mean that the impact of gaining the ELL while losing the SLL will have pros and cons for the wider community and might represent a net benefit despite certain specific commuters losing out.

James, is it impossible for you to wait to see the impact before condemning the changes? There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to the changes and no one can claim to know the net benefit / loss with total certainty until it?s up and running. You act like the ELL that Denmark Hill is gaining is totally useless. It?s a tradeoff, and it?s a tradeoff that is likely to benefit a number of local residents. Why don?t you wait to see passenger numbers on the remaining Victoria service and then advocate for an increase in service / frequency when you actually have some data behind you that its necessary to implement the Victoria-Bellingham option? The new route options provided by the ELL will change travel patterns and should reduce the demand on the Victoria line service.

Unless your final destination is within walking distance of Victoria station, most people already have to make a transfer, which is why using the ELL plus the Jubilee line for many will be as quick / as cheap as their current journey via Victoria. If you do work within walking distance of Victoria station, then continue to use the Victoria line up until 7pm in the evening and on Saturdays. If you want to go to London Bridge as your final destination, take the train from Denmark Hill to Peckham and then get on a LB train- this will still be charged as one journey so no extra costs. If you are one of the people who unfortunately work within walking distance of Victoria station and have to commute after 7pm you can take a single pay as you go journey on the bus which that time of the evening is fairly quick and reliable (and cheaper than the train). If you really hate the bus, then you might have to pay a bit more to get home when you work late of a weekday evening. I know people hate change but the opening of the ELL is hardly the disaster some of you are making it out to be! Edited to add that free transfers within a specified period should be implemented and is pretty standard in other major cities.

Mistakes, breaches of protocol, and malpractice do exist everywhere to some degree. I think the reason why this case has garnered so much attention and elicited such a strong reaction is that if the husband is to be believed in even the most basic elements of his claim, there was an ideological / religious component to this tragedy. Doctors being human beings are sometimes negligent and sometimes make errors and this is always tragic when it leads to someone?s death. However, denying a requested abortion during a painful miscarriage (and potentially endangering the mother?s life) is abhorrent. The idea that someone else?s religious beliefs could lead to unnecessary suffering or even risk of life for a pregnant woman will strike many as shocking. It?s a breach of the most basic trust we have in doctors. Without this sort of reaction from the public, it is unlikely that an inquiry would have been organized so the public outcry is not only totally reasonable but a valuable part of the process.

I know we shouldn't jump to conclusions but if she did in fact ask for an abortion because the slow miscarriage was causing her agony as her husband has suggested, I'm not really sure on what grounds they could deny even that request. If the pregnancy is not viable, is there a legal requirement in Ireland to wait until its clear the mother might die. What is the watershed? Is it justifiable to take any action that might even marginally increase the risk to the mother under these circumstances?

That's horrific. Even the most ardent pro-life activists in the US agree that abortions should be allowed if the mother?s life is in danger. This is probably the most extreme position I?ve ever seen on the issue and such a tragic death.

Why muddled thinking? People travelling into Victoria will only need to rely on the bus off-peak. The Victoria line will continue to run during peak hours and Saturdays...

Let's keep this in perspective. Regarding the Victoria service, this only affects people who actually work in Victoria itself or Pimlico who can't leave the office of a weekday before 7pm and Sundays. At that time of the evening, bus service is much more reliable and faster than during rushour. Also, as Renata already mentioned, for those who really hate the bus, they can travel to Blackfriars in 10 minutes and then take a 10 min train the Denmark Hill etc. This additional journey time of an evening and Sunday vs. the much shorter commuting times all day for people who work / play in Canary Wharf and East London might be better characterized as a trade-off rather than daft decision making.

Look at Rightmoves market report for East Dulwich. There hasn't been a dramatic uptick in sold prices this year compared to last. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-my-area/marketTrendsTotalPropertiesSoldAndAveragePrice.html?searchLocation=se22&sellersPriceGuide=Start+Search

To the guys who says he's never seen a steet cleaner in ED I can assure at least in some parts they still exisit (though perhaps fewer hours or wider remit). Must say that I haven't seen any deterioration where I live in ED so perhaps some areas have new cleaners that just aren't up to scratch?