NationStates

The New California Republic wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So the East Coast Main Line is being re-nationalised again.

Can't we just keep it like that given that it generated a net profit for the treasury last time?

I do firmly believe that it is in the public interest to keep transportation like rail in the public sector.

Since privatization, investment has gone up nine-fold, from £698m in 1994–95 to £6.84bn in 2013–14. However, reliability and punctuality has not improved at all during that time, staying at around 90%. Ergo, British Rail offered far better value for money in terms of cost to maintain reliability and punctuality.

Keep in mind that the infrastructure is still nationalised; Network Rail is an arms length public body of the Department for Transport.

Vassenor wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I do firmly believe that it is in the public interest to keep transportation like rail in the public sector.

Since privatization, investment has gone up nine-fold, from £698m in 1994–95 to £6.84bn in 2013–14. However, reliability and punctuality has not improved at all during that time, staying at around 90%. Ergo, British Rail offered far better value for money in terms of cost to maintain reliability and punctuality.

Keep in mind that the infrastructure is still nationalised; Network Rail is an arms length public body of the Department for Transport.

I'm aware of that, but those statistics are mainly taking the entirety of British Rail privatization into consideration, rather than the role of Network Rail infrastructure in regards to reliability and punctuality specifically.

Vassenor wrote:So the East Coast Main Line is being re-nationalised again.

Can't we just keep it like that given that it generated a net profit for the treasury last time?

pfft

what is this, a sensible reason-based government?

I'm sure I've said this before, but I've got a bunch of "competency example" guidance from the government for civil service job applications. It's stuff like "managing a quality service" or "making effective decisions", with a column for what "effective" people and "ineffective" people do for different staff levels and management tiers.
The "effective" column is just meme-tier corporate buzzwords and the "ineffective" tier sums up all government departments since Thatcher because they have no sense of irony.

Bet you the daily mail bends itself backwards to suck off the tory's over this but would go fucking ape shite if it was that labour did it.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Bet you the daily mail bends itself backwards to suck off the tory's over this but would go fucking ape shite if it was that labour did it.

A BETTER DEAL FOR BRITISH TAXPAYERS

Labour, in another room:
"Hey, that's my line!"

the trains will always be one of the more blatant scams in modern british history.

Souseiseki wrote:the trains will always be one of the more blatant scams in modern british history.

Corbin: “If elected, I will put fares back to what they were in 1972!”

The New California Republic wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Im near certain i saw a fucking newspaper cover about the length of her fucking fingers.

To be honest the only Royal news that I'd really care about is if one of them is in a same-sex relationship. Maybe one day.

'Maybe one day'?

Edward II and James VI & I don't count?

The Archregimancy wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:To be honest the only Royal news that I'd really care about is if one of them is in a same-sex relationship. Maybe one day.

'Maybe one day'?

Edward II and James VI & I don't count?

What were you doing in a tryst with James VI and Edward II??

Imperializt Russia wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
'Maybe one day'?

Edward II and James VI & I don't count?

What were you doing in a tryst with James VI and Edward II??

First pass: Pretty sure the regnal numbers convention didn't come in to play until Brenda.

Second pass: My eyes my eyes the goggles they do nothing

Imperializt Russia wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
'Maybe one day'?

Edward II and James VI & I don't count?

What were you doing in a tryst with James VI and Edward II??

Given the gap of 320 years between Edward II and James VI...

Are you judging my necrophilia?

Shame on you.

The Archregimancy wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:What were you doing in a tryst with James VI and Edward II??

Given the gap of 320 years between Edward II and James VI...

Are you judging my necrophilia?

Shame on you.

Quick question for you. Are what point does it stop being necrophilia and start being archaeological research?

Fartsniffage wrote:

The Archregimancy wrote:
Given the gap of 320 years between Edward II and James VI...

Are you judging my necrophilia?

Shame on you.

Quick question for you. Are what point does it stop being necrophilia and start being archaeological research?

History is written by the winnersweirdos.

The Archregimancy wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:To be honest the only Royal news that I'd really care about is if one of them is in a same-sex relationship. Maybe one day.

'Maybe one day'?

Edward II and James VI & I don't count?

I meant current British royalty.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:To be honest the only Royal news that I'd really care about is if one of them is in a same-sex relationship. Maybe one day.

Well statistically.....

Wasn’t Prince Andrew always said to be gay?

Thermodolia wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Well statistically.....

Wasn’t Prince Andrew always said to be gay?

It's unsubstantiated, but I am of the opinion that it isn't true. However, I have no doubt that at least one of the royals is LGBT. I mean, since society is now more accepting there isn't really any reason to stay in the closet, except maybe privacy issues etc...? Maybe they fear the wrath of judgmental and opinionated Prince Philip...

The New California Republic wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Wasn’t Prince Andrew always said to be gay?

It's unsubstantiated, but I am of the opinion that it isn't true. However, I have no doubt that at least one of the royals is LGBT. I mean, since society is now more accepting there isn't really any reason to stay in the closet, except maybe privacy issues etc...? Maybe they fear the wrath of judgmental and opinionated Prince Philip...

Pip spent his time the the Royal Navy, he knows what's what.

Fartsniffage wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:It's unsubstantiated, but I am of the opinion that it isn't true. However, I have no doubt that at least one of the royals is LGBT. I mean, since society is now more accepting there isn't really any reason to stay in the closet, except maybe privacy issues etc...? Maybe they fear the wrath of judgmental and opinionated Prince Philip...

Pip spent his time the the Royal Navy, he knows what's what.

“Bugger all” -Philip

Thermodolia wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Well statistically.....

Wasn’t Prince Andrew always said to be gay?

Don't you mean Edward? Andrew was said to have had sex with underage girls.

Britain's New Porn Law Is Insanely Stupid, according to Cracked.

The New California Republic wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Couldnt give a toss about the Royals, let them have their damn wedding in peace.

Yes. I don't care about Harry and Meghan, and I am sick of hearing about it on the news. The fact that Meghan's father may not be going to the wedding was headline news. Headline news.

I very much agree, I don't understand the Royalist cult. I wish this establishment would go and it's constitutional Monarchy structure.

Practice taken over by Virgin goes from outstanding to inadequate in 18 months

https://www.gponline.com/practice-taken ... le/1464820

this is not a drill. we have a category 2 :thinking: on our hands. this is not a drill.

Hurdergaryp wrote:Britain's New Porn Law Is Insanely Stupid, according to Cracked.

Yes, we discussed this issue on the thread several pages ago. We also concluded that the new law is moronic.

Souseiseki wrote:Practice taken over by Virgin goes from outstanding to inadequate in 18 months

https://www.gponline.com/practice-taken ... le/1464820

this is not a drill. we have a category 2 :thinking: on our hands. this is not a drill.

Under Virgin Care Services Ltd, the CQC rated Sutherland Lodge inadequate on four of the five key measures looked at by the regulator - the safe, effective, responsive and well-led categories - and rated it 'requires improvement' in the 'caring' category.

Service with a smile.

Alvecia wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:Practice taken over by Virgin goes from outstanding to inadequate in 18 months

https://www.gponline.com/practice-taken ... le/1464820

this is not a drill. we have a category 2 :thinking: on our hands. this is not a drill.

Under Virgin Care Services Ltd, the CQC rated Sutherland Lodge inadequate on four of the five key measures looked at by the regulator - the safe, effective, responsive and well-led categories - and rated it 'requires improvement' in the 'caring' category.

Service with a smile.

Medicines and equipment 'were not always in date or stored at the correct temperature' and staff did not take action when temperatures were above recommended levels, it warned.

Reminder that I work in a restaurant and if I was caught by the health inspector not taking care of temperature requirements, protocols, records and taking action, I'd probably be fired on the spot.