another MP/HC update

2 letters in House of Commons envelopes this morning...

Opening the first, it is from Jim McGovern, my (Lab., Dundee West)
MP, and in summary says: won't sign the EDM as I think it's too
heavy handed to remove all the new stuff, but I do agree with your
concerns and await a proper reply from the minister and will act
when I get one.
Second one, also from J McG but dated a couple of days later, in
summary reads: have had the reply from Stephen Ladyman (enclosed)
and find it so unsatisfactory I have signed the EDM anyway, in
spite of what I said in my last letter, and will continue to press
the government on the issue because I think they need to change
their position.

So, Government: nul points; local labour MP: result!

The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse. Choice paragraphs
include...

"The final version makes it clear that it is at the discretion of
each cyclist to decide whether or not it is indeed possible for
them to use any specific cycle facility."

"Cyclists themselves also have a responsibility to ensure their own
safety where they can. The Highway Code informs and advises them
as to how they can do so."

*Whaaaaaaaaaaaat*!?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:
The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse.

I received a presumably identical (apart from the first paragraph being
personalised with my name and address) this morning, forwarded by my MP.

My reply is mostly drafted and will be in the post this evening.

--
Danny Colyer URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2

On Sat, 19 May 2007 09:12:59 +0100,
Peter Clinch wrote:
2 letters in House of Commons envelopes this morning...

Opening the first, it is from Jim McGovern, my (Lab., Dundee West)
MP, and in summary says: won't sign the EDM as I think it's too
heavy handed to remove all the new stuff, but I do agree with your
concerns and await a proper reply from the minister and will act
when I get one.
Second one, also from J McG but dated a couple of days later, in
summary reads: have had the reply from Stephen Ladyman (enclosed)
and find it so unsatisfactory I have signed the EDM anyway, in
spite of what I said in my last letter, and will continue to press
the government on the issue because I think they need to change
their position.

So, Government: nul points; local labour MP: result!

The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse. Choice paragraphs
include...

"The final version makes it clear that it is at the discretion of
each cyclist to decide whether or not it is indeed possible for
them to use any specific cycle facility."

"Cyclists themselves also have a responsibility to ensure their own
safety where they can. The Highway Code informs and advises them
as to how they can do so."

*Whaaaaaaaaaaaat*!?

Yup I got that one from the DfT as well. It's posted on the camcycle
website:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigni...e/ladyman.html


I've also had a reply from TfL:

Dear Mr Woodall

CYCLING

Many thanks for your correspondence dated 21st April and please accept
my apologies for the delay in replying.

We have inherited a complex situation with many mixed messages and
different perspectives. It is a top priority for TfL to make cycling
safer and to give everyone the infgormation then need to help us meet
this challenge. Our focus is to stop the collisions happening.

There is nothing we can do to stop people making counter claims of
contributory negligence. It is a matter for the courts to determine what
is reasonable (and relevant).

I hope this information answers some of your concerns. Once again thank
you for raising this issue - TfL is always keen to receive feedback.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Towne

I'm not quite sure what to say. I'd expected something either along the
lines of "nothing to do with us" or "we can't do anything" or, just
possibly, "we're concerned and are talking to the DfT".


Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Danny Colyer wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse.

I received a presumably identical (apart from the first paragraph being
personalised with my name and address) this morning, forwarded by my MP.

My reply is mostly drafted and will be in the post this evening.


Having previously posted that my MP had not replied nor signed the EDM,
I can now say that I have had an email reply to the effect that he isn't
in a position yet to sign, as he wants to investigate the issues
further. So it's not over yet in this constituency.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

On May 19, 9:12 am, Peter Clinch wrote:
2 letters in House of Commons envelopes this morning...

Opening the first, it is from Jim McGovern, my (Lab., Dundee West)
MP, and in summary says: won't sign the EDM as I think it's too
heavy handed to remove all the new stuff, but I do agree with your
concerns and await a proper reply from the minister and will act
when I get one.
Second one, also from J McG but dated a couple of days later, in
summary reads: have had the reply from Stephen Ladyman (enclosed)
and find it so unsatisfactory I have signed the EDM anyway, in
spite of what I said in my last letter, and will continue to press
the government on the issue because I think they need to change
their position.

So, Government: nul points; local labour MP: result!

The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse. Choice paragraphs
include...

"The final version makes it clear that it is at the discretion of
each cyclist to decide whether or not it is indeed possible for
them to use any specific cycle facility."

"Cyclists themselves also have a responsibility to ensure their own
safety where they can. The Highway Code informs and advises them
as to how they can do so."

*Whaaaaaaaaaaaat*!?


I got what is probably a very similar letter from Jim. I was very
impressed with the reply. He does seem to take it seriously.

There is a discontinuity with the ministers position as presented in
the form letter, and the position of the government as stated in the
Lords debate http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...7-05-17a.288.2

I will be responding to Mr McGovern bringing this debate to his
attention.

...d

Tim Woodall wrote on 19/05/2007 15:10 +0100:

I'm not quite sure what to say. I'd expected something either along the
lines of "nothing to do with us" or "we can't do anything" or, just
possibly, "we're concerned and are talking to the DfT".


I read it as we don't like it but we can't do anything as its nothing to
do with us.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article , junk@ardo-
howe.co.uk says...
Danny Colyer wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse.

I received a presumably identical (apart from the first paragraph being
personalised with my name and address) this morning, forwarded by my MP.

My reply is mostly drafted and will be in the post this evening.


Having previously posted that my MP had not replied nor signed the EDM,
I can now say that I have had an email reply to the effect that he isn't
in a position yet to sign, as he wants to investigate the issues
further. So it's not over yet in this constituency.

That sounds a bit like the reply I got from Alistair Darling
this morning, quote "I would like to make some enquiries and I
shall write to you again as soon as I can.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

in message , Brian G
') wrote:

Danny Colyer wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse.

I received a presumably identical (apart from the first paragraph being
personalised with my name and address) this morning, forwarded by my MP.

My reply is mostly drafted and will be in the post this evening.


Having previously posted that my MP had not replied nor signed the EDM,
I can now say that I have had an email reply to the effect that he isn't
in a position yet to sign, as he wants to investigate the issues
further. So it's not over yet in this constituency.

And I wish to report that Russell Brown MP (Lab) still hasn't replied to
either of my letters on the subject.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; this is not a .sig

On May 19, 5:27 pm, Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , Brian G

') wrote:
Danny Colyer wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:
The letter from Ladyman is indeed complete arse.

I received a presumably identical (apart from the first paragraph being
personalised with my name and address) this morning, forwarded by my MP.

My reply is mostly drafted and will be in the post this evening.

Having previously posted that my MP had not replied nor signed the EDM,
I can now say that I have had an email reply to the effect that he isn't
in a position yet to sign, as he wants to investigate the issues
further. So it's not over yet in this constituency.

And I wish to report that Russell Brown MP (Lab) still hasn't replied to
either of my letters on the subject.

There is the hopeful sound of rattling of bars and marie antoinette
(is that how you spell Stephen Ladyman) saying 'let them eat cake
where possible' as they realise that not only are the peasants
revolting, they are quite disgusted as well.

So, frantically trying to avoid an embarassing U-turn, there will have
to be something done. Party lines make signing the EDM difficult for a
lot of MP's. Had it been more reasonable/restricted I think it would
have been more popular.

...d

Had it been more reasonable/restricted I think it would
have been more popular.

I seem to remember someone saying that the only way MPs could stop it was
by 'praying against' the new draft. This is what the EDM does. Anything
less would achieve nothing.