Rant About Rail Ticketing

So much for the railways’ heralded simpler fares and tickets system. I have for the last two days been trying to book tickets for one adult and one young person (WITH A 16-25 RAILCARD) to travel tomorrow from Preston to Birmingham University and back the same day.

No problem you would think. Journey planner says cheapest fare (Saver return) is £65.90 though there are restrictions which mean they can’t leave before 9.30.. (though apparently you can get that price on the earlier train if you split the journey with tickets to Crewe, then from Crewe to Brum though then there are more restrictions about time of return travel). No matter; we’ll settle for a 9.30 start.

But will the site link to a ticket retailer … No..!! So I then try to log in to thetrainline.com where I usually buy tickets, type in all the details afresh only to be told that it cannot sell be the tickets giving a whole page of possible reasons none of which seem to give an explanation.

So I then take time out to go to the ticket office at Preston station. Fortunately no queue. Now I ask if I can buy two savers for tomorrow, one of them to be used by my son with his railcard> Guess what ... they say no. He has to turn up in person, show the railcard and apparently can’t buy the ticket in advance. Of course there is a problem, we want to pay for the ticket on a bank card and he being less than 18 does not have one. So that means we have to send him with cash on the day (no reserved seat possible I guess on a busy service), or go to the station with him so we can buy on our credit card.

Can you tell me why? And where does it say in big letters that if you have a 16-25 railcard you have to turn up on the day you travel with cash in your hand?

Dear Mr Dentist : On deserting the NHS

our family dentist has just told us he is going private only and wants us to sign up to pay £150 per person per year just for regular checkups. Following a recent unpleasant extraction this is what I wrote to him:

 

 

Dear Mr Dentist,

 

I enclose a cheque for £45 being payment for recent dental treatment. You will notice this is 40p more than your bill. I trust you will donate this to the charitable fund for financially distressed dental practitioners. Until you decided to send me a reminder of the unpaid bill in the post only 24 hours after the bill itself, I had not realised the gross economic hardship you and colleagues must be facing. If things get worse for you I can recommend a visit to the soup kitchen at The Salvation Army each Friday lunchtime where no one in need is turned away unfed.

 

Previously I had considered withholding payment as a protest against your immoral decision to withdraw from the NHS. I believe what you and many other dentists are doing in turning to exclusive private practice is totally reprehensible. In the first place you have acquired your skills and built up your practice with subsidy from the state but are now deserting the NHS because you seem to be more interested in filling wallets than teeth.  The official figures show that dentists in the NHS are not badly paid in comparison with most jobs, and are much better off than the vast majority of their patients http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/dentalearnexp0506 

 

In leaving the NHS your are seeking to extract, or should I say extort, money from people who cannot afford it yet are desperate because of actual or possible dental pain. Though I personally can just about afford treatment under the NHS, millions of people who are on low pay or on benefits cannot. The shortage of NHS dentists in this region appears to be a cavity that cannot be filled so there is little possibility of finding treatment. The consequences of this for the overall dental health of the nation will be immense, as many of us will not have the opportunity for regular checkups or non-emergency treatment.

 

If you have a conscience I would urge you to reconsider in the light of some wisdom from the Bible.

Proverbs 22:1 A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.

 

Proverbs 27:24 (obviously a verse specially for dentists!)
for riches do not endure forever, and a crown is not secure for all generations.

 

 

I'm protected by SpamBrave

More information on the Alma

I've had the followingf feedback from someone involved in the Resident's Action group

As I was at the last meeting I can update you on how PC Carl Ingram reported the facts of the case, he said he and his colleagues had collected a thick file full of witness testimonies and evidence of different incidents that accumulated into an unanswerable case - and the residents who turned up did not dispute that there had been large numbers of drug related incidents and of disorder inside and outside the building, arguing instead that these incidents had now stopped.

Carl Ingram was quizzed closely about the fate of those who were evicted at the last BRAG/PACT meeting - it isn't true that there was only 1 hours notice, as several residents were at the court case itself to contest the closure (the landlord didn't bother turning up!) and knew that the place was to be closed. The landlord was also served a closure notice. A few of the most vulnerable people living there were rehoused, mostly in better accomodation, and this was set up before the eviction.

This is of course not true for everyone who was living there - some were treated as being 'intentionally homeless because of their lifestyle' in Carl's words. No doubt these are the half dozen you talk about who are now sleeping rough.

He also said he had worked hard to sort out accomodation for other residents, though some in his words just sat there drunk while he worked hard to find them somewhere to live - he said "These people were adults, but were doing nothing to help themselves while we worked hard for them, I'll sleep soundly in my bed knowing I did everything I could to find accomodation for those people".

A couple of plain clothes Nimrod police were there, they said that their work had resulted in the conviction of several people from the Alma for drugs offences.

A figure who escapes criticism in your article is the owner of the hotel, who basically encouraged the sub-letting culture by charging a £25 a week surcharge to the residents, unlike most other hotels. In my opinion, it was his willingness to exploit this group of people and his failure to employ proper managers that contributed the most to the problems of the hotel.

All he loses is 3 months rent. Neighbours lost out in terms of quality of life because of the disruption to their everyday life by the activities in the hotel, and some of the residents, as you  point out, have lost a place to live.

I can also report that the mood of the meeting was overwhelmingly supportive of Carl Ingram and the eviction, though some people were concerned about the people who had been made homeless.

I'm glad to hear the other side of the story...and that at least there was some effort made... I  therefore have to change quite a bit of my piece in the light of this information before

 

Apologies Carl that I didn't have the full facts or appreciate the care you'd taken in the process.

 

On the other hand I would still say...

 

1. a provocative argument such as the bit I posted has the virtue of showing that there are different ways to see such a situation and that its dangerous to simply accept the views of the press and the herd.. Challenge at least means people have to justify what they have said and done in public.

 

2. I still stand by the basic points that

• closing the Alma in this way seems to have caused at least as many new problems in terms of rough sleeping as it has solved
• the process of bringing in a closure order is morally if not legally suspect as residents are evicted and punished without any evidence being brought against them individually.

 

 

I'm protected by SpamBrave

Closing the Alma Hotel

This week Lancashire Police applied to the courts for and were granted a closure order on the Alma Hotel on Fishergate Hill opposite County Hall.

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/39Drug39-hotel-shut-by-courts.4149203.jp

Undoubtedly many local residents were pleased as they saw this building as a blot on the landscape and were fearful and disapproving of many of the residents and of the activities alleged to take place there. Clearly it was one of the least attractive dwelling places in the city, it was the home for about twenty people who were at the bottom of the social scale, mostly workless and virtually penniless, and in many cases with complex social needs and histories involving addiction to drugs and alcohol.

The first indication of a move to close the Alma seems to have been in an report from the local police to the Broadgate Residents action group about a month ago. About a fortnight ago a closely typed legal notice was pasted to the door announcing an application had been lodged for a court order to close the place, later amended to indicate the date of the hearing as 3^rd. June. According to one of the former residents who I spoke to today on Wednesday the residents were given an hour's notice to collect their possessions and then evicted on to the street. I am told about half a dozen of the residents were given shelter in another property managed by the landlord, several of the others have found temporary "sofa surfing" places with friends, while at least half a dozen are for the time being at least sleeping rough.

It remains to be seen whether closing this unpleasant lodging house will improve the tone of the neighbourhood. Usually such actions do little more than displace the anti social activity to other neighbouring areas.

Whatever, the truth or otherwise of the allegations concerning drug dealing, and whatever the legalities of the process there are at least two things I found outrageous.

1. To evict poor and vulnerable residents at short notice while making no attempt to assist them to find alternative, suitable accommodation is inhuman in a way that recalls the "clearances" of the Scottish Highlands following Culloden. In that case the resentment has festered for two centuries. In the case of the Alma this may be more short lived but it is hardly likely to encourage them to co-operate with the authorities or to attempt to turn their lives around. And it is not fair on local charities like the Salvation Army and Fox Street Night-Shelter to expect them to deal with the human fall out.

2. To act against individuals in such a summary manner without bringing any of the individuals concerned before the courts seems to be against basic human rights. Surely if there was evidence of possession or trading of illegal drugs in the Alma hotel it should lead to arrests and prosecutions of the offenders. In British law a person is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and should not be punished by the state unless found guilty by the courts. While it may prove popular with the locals to close down a "crack house" it seems to me that in this case the police have acted unjustly and without bothering to prove their case.

It worries me as yet another example of a political and cultural climate that is moving each day closer to fascism.