Adrian Stott wrote: Somebody - I've lost track in the verbiage of who it was, said (quoting Adrian, who has managed to lose any attribution in his grand post conflation): > >>> Poorer people generally don't drive, so they will be little affected >>> by road pricing. > >> "Poorer people" generally DO drive, > > By "poorer", I mean those who can't afford a car. There are lots of > those.
Wonderful. There you have it chaps. Tell me Adrian, just what point do you think you were originally trying to make with a statement that "people who can't afford cars, can't afford cars?". For the interest of anyone who has the stamina to still be here, the original claim (which has, of course, been snipped away and replaced by a posting from someone else) was that charging a lot more to drive would affect poorer people. So, Adrian, will you return to it and explain why your scheme won't harm those who are earning ten pence a week (or should that be specified in an unknown dollar currency of 10 years ago, as you did to me a few days ago?) more than those who "can't afford a car". Anyone want to make me a bet? That's it. For reasons I've previously pointed out in a couple of recent posts, I'm going to have to continue to respond to Adrian's rubbish. But there is no point in attempting to talk sensibly to someone who plays this sort of slimy politicians game.
