The Truth Behind Traingate

And nothing about the details, truthful or otherwise, of this story will change that.

The truth is in the OP. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I don't imagine it makes much difference to those who get to choose the leader of the Labour party.
We know that Branson doctored the photos by removing the timeline, and that he kept hold of the photos for seven months despite having been asked for them, and the law saying any video put into the news should be given to those on it within four weeks of asking.
He tried hard to hide the truth, but knew he couldn't in the end, particularly from someone who edits video for a living.
He took off the dates and times and gave them separately, hoping to make it difficult.
I noticed that one of the photos shown in the newspapers at the time actually had a caption of the date given as the time it was taken. Not really meaning to mislead, were they? Or were they just incompetent?

Policy-wise I'd have no problem with a nationalised railway that was better and more efficient than what we have currently. Trouble is, the evidence that's been available to me in my own travels (which do not include commuter travel near London, thank goodness), the evidence available to me, as I said, suggests that things have improved for train passengers since the trains were denationalised.

Train travel I've done in the last ten years or so is a vast improvement on the train travel I did in the 1970s. Perhaps it would have been anyway—a lot of other things have also improved for people in the same time—but there's no way of knowing that.

I mention nationalised railways as I think JC wants to renationalise them (no objection to his wanting that; it's a political position that he's clear about) and that that want is and was, ultimately, the reason for the Traingate PR stunt.

It was a stunt whether or not Virgin or anyone else told lies. I think that is what some people are not understanding, or not wishing to understand, though why I can't imagine since PR stunts are lifeblood of politicians.

One would hope that whatever the train ownership situation there would have been some improvements in the last 40years Baggs What is interesting about the East Coast franchise is that it has only been a franchise for part of that time. It was taken back into public ownership, made a profit and was according to passengers better run. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/26/east-coast-mainline-why-privatise
But who cares what passengers think?
My DS who has made the journey hundreds of times (quite often without a reserved seat) says the only way to get a seat in London is to know the platform this train departs from, be on it before they announce it on the departure boards, and as they open the doors jump on and grab one. There are usually less than 15 unreserved available.
So Branson charges a fortune for rail travel, overcrowds the trains, pockets a load of cash that could be public money and people quibble about if Corbyn should have booked a seat or not. You couldn't make it up!

Why is showing up crowded trains for what they are a stunt?
It's political because Corbyn wants to renationalise the railways. So do most of the labour party.
He was travelling from London to Newcastle on a crowded train, and it was filmed, just like anywhere else he goes as he is leader of the labour party.
The East Coast mainline made a profit when it was owned by the goverment for five years after the franchise was handed back. Now Stagecoach are saying they paid the government too much to take it back.
All rail companies get a subsidy from the government anyway, so we are paying the profits for Virgin.
I hope, Baggs, that you do not mind subsidising the Dutch state-owned railway company, Abellio.

By the way, I know trisher has said this twice, but sorry, trisher, some people don't seem to believe that East Coast made a profit, they need to be told again.

Snap, trisher.

Of course, we just live on the East Coast mainline, so our opinions don't count.
My grandson can tell by the noise of the train approaching which company it is, when we are standing in a field near Durham, without even seeing the livery. He is always correct.

weownit.org.uk/public-ownership/railways

People only need to be told again if they ask to be told again, if they don't ask they don't need

Not sure what your grandson, being able to identify a passing train from its engine sound and without seeing it's livery, has to do with the discussion to be fair .? (Although I'm sure it's a very nice family anecdote.)

Not sure what your comment adds to the discussion Chewbacca.

"whatever the truth, the story does not reflect well on Corbyn"

And again. Please just tell me how it reflect on Virgin Trains?

You really cannot say this and expect me not to see it as pure prejudice because, obviously, if overcrowded trains are the truth that is the story and not your deflection onto the character of Corbyn.

"whatever the truth, the story does not reflect well on Corbyn"

And again. Please just tell me how it reflect on Virgin Trains?

You really cannot say this and expect me not to see it as pure prejudice because, obviously, if overcrowded trains are the truth that is the story and not your deflection onto the character of Corbyn.

Not sure why it posted twice - sorry.

Probably you don't trisher . I was just curious to know why durham imparted the information about being able to identify a train by the sounds of its engines, and not it's livery. It seemed a bit of a random statement to make, but no matter.

From looking at several newspapers and online media today, opinion seems to be split 50/50 as to who's telling the truth and who's telling porkies. Rather like on here.

And nothing about the details, truthful or otherwise, of this story will change that.

So what sort of view is that Bags.

It may have well been the truth that the train was very crowded, that is what pre booking of tickets is all about, guaranteeing a seat ,( as if Team Corbyn didn't know this.)
If anyone books a seat and then chooses to let others, elderly or not ,sit in them, that is their choice of action and no fault of the train company. Trains have been crowded for years and years particularly in England, and I remember standing or sitting on luggage in the 1970's.
Since then the population has grown.

GG I see that you love the word prejudice.?

Well as that majority of the press are seen by the population to be right-wing biased 50% of them seeing Corbyn as telling the truth is a very high level indeed.

*https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers/

So truth no longer matters- we are getting into 1984 territory here. I suppose what this proves is that if you get your story out first it doesn't matter if it is really what happened, if you manage to make a scapegoat of someone that is how they will stay.
And still no-one wonders why Branson did it and why it took 7 months to get the footage. Do they not realise that he has a vested interest in destroying Corbyn who might put an end to his empire expansion and NHS take over?

The population has grown and the number of passenger seats hasn't grown with it?
Made me laugh, lemongrove.

Virgin makes the same profit whether you sit or stand. The more they have standing the better, but there are more complaints for Virgin than any other rail service.

Why do you not want things to be better for your grandchildren than they were for us?
We used to stand on trains so why shouldn't they sounds rather curmudgeonly.
Line closures have happened a lot since then, too. Some people are trying to get lines opened up again. I doubt Virgin could cope with that.

The trains were privatised to make them more efficient , that's how bad things were when they were nationalised.
Too many people want to travel on trains around the UK especially England and at certain times.Pre booking of seats is essential unless young and fit.

You can argue for more trains, which could happen, although trains are a bit more complicated than simply putting more buses on.