Resurfacing or a storage compound for other works reducing the number of spaces?  Last time I was there Tiverton Parkway had several large car parks and it's hard to imagine them all full, though Google maps shows one as "Permanently Closed" which may explain things.

I'm intrigued by the 3rd photo, which reminds me slightly of the intimidating anti-terrorist barriers we sadly see a lot of nowadays, here apparently intended to stop a large warship ramming the lock in the distance.  I'm guessing they are just some old and hard-to-remove bridge supports, though if the bridge was as substantial as the supports look then why is it no longer needed?

I suspect that other than very small outlets they would probably throw in the towel and shut up shop anyway.  Their stock control systems and tills would rely on that same power supply, few staff members would be able to add up prices in their head or even on paper, and they probably wouldn't have the capacity to store/bank large volumes of cash.  Then there's the lights and heating/cooling not working and so on.

I don't think there has been a widespread change since the concept of permitted routes was brought in as part of rail privatisation, though there has been some tightening up such as various journeys now being only "VIA YORK" as part of the LNER^» (London North Eastern Railway - about) single tickets-only change which previously had much greater flexibility.  Easements do change, but generally on a temporary basis to take account of engineering work. 
It is I would say increasingly hard to spot useful alternatives to the obvious route, thanks to the National Rail Journey Planner being dumbed down to look pretty on a phone.  Even if you know an alternative route exists, it can be quite a battle to fool the algorithms to show the journey by using via points as just a few minutes extra on the journey time can render alternatives invisible.  In fairness most people would just be confused or irritated by being shown times they don't need, but perhaps a "show me everything however ludicrous" option should be offered.  Otherwise it can be a case of wading through the whole Routing Guide documentation, now held at https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/travel-information/routeing-guide/.

I do wonder if the four individuals might just have continued driving without a licence (or, presumably, insurance) anyway given that they had already each been warned that they were not safe to drive but chose to do so.  We already hear of people driving who have actually been disqualified but were still not deterred.

Given the station's remote location and rough surrounding terrain I would question the likelihood of any visiting passenger finding tactile paving useful, which perhaps points to a lack of pragmatism in Network Rail's approach to the whole thing.  It may of course be a legal requirement during any platform upgrade if the legislation isn't flexible, despite the money almost certainly being better spent on a safety improvement elsewhere.

It's a pity there isn't a better way to deal with it that covers things from a legal viewpoint allowing statements given to be used as evidence and so on but doesn't appear to point a finger of suspicion - the memory of which will linger online and possibly more widely long afterwards - at someone who is probably traumatised by the event.  I'm put in mind of a friend whose wife went missing suffering depression and was found dead, who was immediately arrested on suspicion of her murder but later exonerated.

Can anyone provide a link please as various searches have failed to find it.  I assume this is someone from GTS Rail Operations Ltd, the consortium who take over the contract for running the line in May this year?

Possibly not much point running an excess of trains to/from Heathrow today, as it might just encourage intending passengers to turn up and wait in vain.  Still staff needing to get there though some may have been told not to bother coming in, and it's also quite a useful coach travel hub for non-air travel, assuming the bus/coach station has enough power to operate (ditto of course the various rail stations).

City Thameslink and Farringdon aren't the same.  London Terminals from the south does extend as far north as City Thameslink.  From the north you need a "London Thameslink" ticket to reach either of them if travelling on Thameslink, or generally a ticket to "Zone U1" on other routes though tickets showing the specific station name may occasionally pop up.  It's all logical (but admittedly not simple) if you know the background and history of the various lines, and is explained at https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/travel-information/travelling-in-london/ though even the compiler of that page seems to accept that it's not straightforward given the inclusion of a "The below diagrams may help with understanding" apology.

...All admittedly some way off the topic of rail fares in North Devon!

I see the article quotes the somewhat clumsy description of "Non-subsurface stations" so on that basis a book exchange would still be allowed at Rayners Lane for example.  Books are actually pretty hard to set light to, particularly when packed close together, so low risk at an above-ground station.  Try it some time with an unloved book! They would eventually burn if the station building went up in flames but would be a trivial part of the overall blaze rather than the cause.  One reason piles of Metro newspapers (clearly visible in one of the photos) are allowed. 

The book exchanges are not on the train where there might be rather more concern, so the (almost certainly dodgy) e-bike is very different in that respect, though modified/non-compliant ones ought to be dealt with on a wider level than just by LU as they're a safety hazard wherever they are.

I'm guessing that subsidised routes in particular don't get promoted. The funding authority will only see it as their role to make sure a service is provided to meet proven need rather than encouraging extra travel, and the operator won't be interested as they're getting paid anyway. 
Cynically I'd say that on occasion the local authority may deliberately keep awareness as low as possible in the hope that low usage will demonstrate that the service isn't needed and the subsidy can be dropped.  I've certainly come across cases where the only timetables on the ground have been put up by local residents worried that no-one knows the bus runs so it isn't getting used.

All very well pricing out second home-owners, but would a local move in or would it just stay empty as lack of local employment means no-one needs to live there anyway?  Holiday lets are a bit different.  Arguably holidaymakers bring in more income to the area than a permanent resident would spend each week, plus there's employment for cleaners, tradespeople etc (in my experience they're generally maintained to a higher standard than a family home so provide regular work, and often that work will be off-season).  I've also often felt that the holiday homes I've stayed in are no longer realistic for living in permanently; a bijou (or if you're not a letting agent, cramped) cottage with little storage space, hidden up a steep narrow alley with parking 5 minutes walk away and few local services is fine for a week but many aspects would become less appealing over time.

All part of a bigger and complicated picture that I doubt will ever be fully addressed.

Does for me (or possibly, link now corrected?)

I suspect much of this is existing guidelines included in a new document, and a lot of it will be for internal company use rather than PA^▸ (Public Address (broadcast loudspeaker announcements) or Passenger Assist (railway staff providing physical assistance to passengers with mobility issues), depending on context) announcements or public-facing printed/online text.  I doubt that "mankind" or "Christian name" and some other expressions referred to have been used for years as they sound very dated so I'd be surprised if the content is all new.
 
Without seeing the document it's hard to know if it really said that "you" should be used instead of "passenger" to be gender-neutral as that wouldn't make sense, or if the Telegraph just put that interpretation on what is just an attempt to be more direct.  Some of the simplification is a bit naff, but indeed why say "purchase" instead of just "buy", or "mother and father" rather than the shorter "parent" which covers both?  A few woke-ish suggestions perhaps (and avoiding mention of Christmas with "happy holidays" overlooks the original meaning of the word "holiday"!) but mostly the Telegraph molehill-building.