EU Directive 91/440 required that organisations operating the infrastructure and those operating services are separate. There was no requirement in the legislation requiring privatisation.

You know full well that that was NOT the advice given to Ministers by officials at the time.

But you said the government had no choice. They did have the choice.

Indeed. Nobody held a gun to Major's head and forced a privatization of British Rail.

Additionally, even if the rail infrastructure had to be privatized, it could have been done in a manner that wasn't so half-assed with stronger regulation and ability to fund itself. What happened was that regulation was weak and Railtrack allowed the network to be under-maintained. When the shit hit the fan after Hatfield, it simply didn't have the resources to deal with the situation.

Sorry, I have fallen into your usual trap and did not notice.

The discussion was about deficits and debt. If you wish to discuss something else, please tell me what and I shall see whether I wish to engage.

It really is a bit childish to change the subject every time you cannot provide an answer. But I think we are all getting used to that.

As above.

I didn't change the subject - I joined in on a conversation you were having regarding rail privatisation. In fact, it was you who introduced rail privatisation into the thread in Post 53

I think a phrase from a mod I saw earlier elsewhere on these forums was "cut out the personal comments guys, attack the subject, not the poster". It's one of the site rules you see - in fact it's Number 1.

As above.

Perhaps you should read that post before you quote it. It does not mention privatisation at all.

I didn't start the conversation regarding rail privatisation, or Network Rail, or anything else regarding the greater topic of UK railways. You chose to introduce this into the thread, and even if you don't believe you introduced the greater topic of UK railways, you at least continued the conversation with another poster - before I joined in.

You couldn't handle being wrong in your statement regarding the Major government having no choice in privatising the infrastructure (or rail services).

Because you couldn't handle this, you then turned the conversation into an attack on me, calling it childish to change the subject because I couldn't provide an answer. However as we can see:

a) I did not change the subject, I joined in on an ongoing subject
b) I pointed out that you were wrong in your statement that the Major government had no choice in privatising the railways
c) You accuse me of changing the subject (ref Point a) and effectively called me childish because of this incorrect judgment (ref Site Rules - attack the subject, not the poster)

So you were wrong again. there is simply no point in conversing with you. Whenever anyone points out your errors, you either ignore it, attack them, or threaten to call the moderators.

Goodbye.

I really have no idea what you mean by this post. Perhaps you should read Post 85.

Biggles, seriously it isnt worth it, best to ignore

No one has mentioned the billions of pounds worth of PFI "initiatives" that Gordon Brown and his gang floated. These are already crippling hospitals and NHS Trusts with many more to "come out of the woodwork". Schemes that are costing the tax payers very dearly and will continue to do so for the next 40 years or so. Hospitals are already going bankrupt. Where will it end ? I think folks should be more concerned about this aspect.

Planting the seeds of a co-pay/deductible system?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-suggests.html