Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Beware: Pickpocket Operating on Public Transport

hat tip thingy: Ken for London


Anonymous said...

It does not matter which government you have, both have screwed londoners on bus and tube fares.

May be Ken wants to go back to Venezuela?

Anonymous said...

An ex-labour Councillor in Tower Hamlets makes fraudulent claim for housing benefits for a second time.

There have to be SERIOUS questions on how the Labour party selects its candidates.

John Gray said...

Hi Anon

No, nonsense. Ken is on record for reducing public transport costs and pushing the burden on the rich.

Note "Ex-Labour Cllr" who I hope gets what she deserves for fraud. There are rotten apples in all forms of life (including anon commenter's)

matt,somewhere said...

ok, cant say i'd vote for either. BUT, came across this http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100129252/ken-livingstone-another-meltdown-and-another-lie/
when i was looking about at various claims about public transport. Personally i cycle however!

Michael Parr said...

Please identify in percentage terms how much a weekly zones 1-2 travelcard increased in price between

a) 2004-2008

b) 2008-2012

John Gray said...

Hi Matt
Ken and Gilligan are let us say not best mates so I won’t pay much attention either of them says about each other to be honest. Gilligan writes for the Torygraph –so does Boris (remember the fuss about when he said the £250,000 per year he got from them was “chicken feed”? So don’t pay any attention to anything they print. A really horrible and biased paper. Bigoted little England at its very worse.

Hi Michael
Top of my head I don’t know – please tell me your truth and I will tell mine. By all means have a go at Ken over various things you disagree with him over but don’t expect anyone to agree that fares under Ken will be more than under Boris. Water does not flow uphill.

Anonymous said...

"Please tell me your truth and I will tell mine."

Hmm. To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

The idea that we can have our own 'truths' is nonsensical.

Michael Parr said...

You find find the percentage increases by using the link which Matt provided. Not difficult methinks. But since you haven't done that, the answers are a) 19.8% and b) 20.7%. Therefore, your claim that Livingstone is on record for reducing public transport costs does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Other changes were made during the Livingstone era including the scrapping of the weekend travelcard, substantial hikes in cash fares on the tube, and the scrapping of single zone period travelcards. In 2004, the price of a cash zone 1 single on the Underground rose by 25%, and by 2008 had doubled. Anyone without an Oyster card was therefore heavily penalised. Nor were Oyster card holders altogether fortunate, given that in 2008 (for example) the daily price cap for bus and tram users rose by 10% to £3.30.

You are also certainly ignorant of the fact that Boris introduced free travel on TFL services and rail services in the capital for war veterans.

What is your truth then?

John Gray said...

Hi Macuser

I may be a little flippant but there is a difference I think about "truth" and "facts". "Truth" is subjective while "facts" should not be/are not. But who decides what is a fact? What is a truth?

I am convinced of the truth that fares under Ken have been always lower and will be when he is re-elected. The average commuter will save £1000 under Ken over the next 4 years. But am I a Statistician who could evidence it? What about inflation? What about government financial support levels? What about problems such as private contractors going bust? I could cut and paste loads of stuff but again no-one can truthfully argue in my view that Boris is terribly interested in looking after the low paid and the fares they pay.

Michael (or whoever you really are) check out this report and interview of floundering Boris.

Sorry, I am partisan I admit, but the truth of this matter is that your bloke is pretty completely useless. How on earth can anyone support him? I think on the video evidence that this is an undeniable fact :)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"There have to be SERIOUS questions on how the Labour party selects its candidates."

Political parties aren't allowed to look at personal and confidential stuff held by public bodies - unless they require aspiring candidates to sign a form giving the Council permission to let their party's chief whip see such stuff. That is done by Labour in some places.

Meanwhile, both coalition parties allow people to be members in places where they neither live nor are registered to vote.

John Gray said...

fair point anon

Anonymous said...


I think you are confusing belief with truth. Truth is not subjective. It is the statement of facts, of verifiable observations about how things are. It is entirely objective.

I have no idea what the truth is about fare increases under Boris and under Ken, but the matter could easily be settled by reference to the facts.

But that is not, in any case, my point. And I don't care. I'm not going to vote for Boris either way.

The reason for my interjection was to despair at the prevalence in modern politics (and in religion, among other places) of the notion that truth is somehow relative (or subjective, as you put it): "My truth is as valid as your truth."

This is, if you will pardon my language, bollocks. In the absence of factual evidence to the contrary your opinion is as valid as mine. But when it comes to the truth there is only one and that is the one supported by the facts.

Apologies for the excessive pedantry, but this sort of thing gets up my nose - the more so the older I get.

John Gray said...

Hi Macuser

The more I think about it, the more I think you are wrong (not that you are being at all untruthful or even possible inaccurate).

There are very few "facts" (if any) that are unchallengeable. "Truth" is surely "subjective". How can you have a discussion on any political or religious belief without agreeing to accept this?

It is a problem in our age that we have too many people who believe that their "truth" is correct and "yours" is not. Their facts back up their truth. Everything is black and white, night and day. When often it is not.

They will argue to the death that they are right and you are wrong.

There is in fact too much certainty and not enough honest doubt.

Too much "I am right and I have the facts to back this" and far less "well, while I think I'm right but I still willing to listen and change my mind"?

Anonymous said...

How can I meet Ken? They don't say. They only announce afterwords.

John Gray said...

Hi anon

Where do you live? Ken will be in Newham soon. Email me with your proper details and I will try and get you to meet him.

Socrates said...

My opinion is: Truth must be absolute and that you Cllr. Gray, are absolutely in error. Since this is indeed my opinion, then you must concede that it is true according to your philosophy.

John Gray said...

Come and tell Ken

Hi Socrates

Not really. To repeat the comment that has annoyed macuser (I have some sympathy with his VIEW)

"Please tell me your truth and I will tell mine".

Socrates said...

Are you joking? Do you really believe there is a truth for you and a truth for me and both are equally valid?

Anonymous said...

You have said "Ken is on record for reducing public transport costs and pushing the burden on the rich". If he is indeed on record for this, then you should be able to quote some concrete examples. Can you do this or not?

John Gray said...

Hi Socrates

I could be flippant again and say my truth is right and yours in wrong.

But have you ever come across a "discussion" between two different religious believers? Both of them convinced of the truth of their scriptures?

Hi anon

How about http://www.kenlivingstone.com/kens-record-glc/ Kens record of reducing fares at the GLC by 32% or Fair fares


Who introduced the congestion zone and who cancelled the extension and the charge on Chelsea tractors?

Socrates said...

How can you assert that your truth is right and mine is wrong when you appear to promote relativism? And, you are wrong.

A “discussion”, as you put it, about belief has no bearing on the truth other than one, or both, of the protagonists will be wrong. As Macuser rightly points out, the truth is a statement of verifiable fact(s).

Of course, nothing can be determined to be a fact until all possible lines of enquiry that may refute it have been pursued, but there are some facts that are unequivocal truths… the fact that, you cannot submit entries to this blog without access to the Internet, for example.

Could it be that your relativism explains your reluctance to follow through with scrutiny of the Mayor of Newham’s decisions? He is right, you are right and his critics are right… so what’s the point?

You do realise that you stance suggests equal weight should be given to both the ideology of Adolf Hitler and the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. And your philosophy is contradicted by your refusal, on this blog, to accept the “truth” of those you oppose politically.

John Gray said...

Hi Socrates

It was supposed to be irony. I know you don’t get humour very well. But there you go.

Your argument is also nonsense I am afraid. Facts are different from truths. There are many facts but relatively few “truths”. While I would argue that there is universal “truths” such as democracy, free speech and freedom of religion, others may disagree.
For example I think that it is a truth and a fact that rich people in this country do not pay their fair share in taxes? While I would disagree with someone who does not share this view I accept that this issue could never be decided upon by a statement of verifiable fact(s). I worry about people who think they can.

I also think it is a bit of a blooming cheek to have go about truth, facts, scrutiny etc from someone who not only fibs about their name but also hides their identify! "έτσι είναι η ζωή"

John Gray said...


I thought that "Socrates" was "Big Bad Mikey".


What typical pompous and self righteous nonsense. Once again, it's "Mikes way or no way".

He has no comprehension whatsoever that anyone can dare to differ from his views and his undeniable "facts" and "truths". Such is life.

John Gray said...

And there is more....

Big Bad Mikey has been on his pulpit again I see.

Now I recognise I have been a tiny weenie bit naughty about BBM in the past, when I know he is a sensitive soul. My only excuse is that folk who live in glass houses should really not be throwing stones.

While he thinks that it is perfectly acceptable for him to call anyone who does not agree with him (a long, long list) all the names under the sun – idiots is a particular favourite, but also lazy, corrupt, thieves, lairs, ar****les etc (and sexist swear words).

Yet, when anyone has a pop back, then you have obsessive rants and mega sulks!

Oh well, it all adds to the gaiety of life I suppose.

There is some good since the extra hits (not that many) this post is getting from his site helps get the “Boris the Pickpocket” message out...

John Gray said...


BBM is further obsessing about me with yet another post on his blog. I note that he is very selective about what he quotes from my comments above.

I’d suggest that he goes to see his local councillors at their surgery if he has any questions about the Council. I’m not going to play his games.

To clear up one matter. I have only (occasionally) referred to his preference for “short hair” (I am a fan of No 2 myself) because the first contact I ever had with him was a post I did during a local by-election when I “innocently” (believe me or not) mentioned that I thought that the haircut of the Tory candidate on his leaflet made him look like a skinhead. Which it clearly did.

Out of nowhere BBM made a series of typical OTT and bombastic comments about haircuts and skinheads. Which has continued to this day.

To be clear. I have never suggested or implied he is racist no matter how abusive, aggressive and indeed thuggish his remarks are at times.