Cheeky s*d

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Wafflycathcsdir, Mar 3, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Back on Feb 17, the London congestion charge figured heavily in the news. Watching the BBC 1
    lunchtime news, the newsreader kept saying how it now costs £5 to drive into London. Not £5 to drive
    into the charging zone - £5 to drive into *London*. Never let the facts get in the way of an
    overblown story. So I wrote to the BBC, naming programme, date & time. Note - 17th February 2003,
    BBC1 lunchtime news. I got a reply today - here it is :)

    "Dear Ms Simmons

    Thank you for your e-mail of 17 February 2003.

    I am afraid our Unit is not able to investigate complaints about programmes which have not yet been
    transmitted. When this programme has been shown, if you believe it may have infringed
    generally-acceptable broadcasting standards please write to us again giving full details and we will
    look into the matter.

    Yours sincerely

    Fraser Steel Head of Programme Complaints FS/DLV/12752"

    Cheeky s*d. A definite Go away you are a delusional woman - we've not broadcast the programme - it
    doesn't exist response.

    Needless to say I've sent a response to Mr Steel. I think he's a candidate for the paving slab
    treatment ;-)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Tags:


  2. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Back on Feb 17, the London congestion charge figured heavily in the news. Watching the BBC 1
    > lunchtime news, the newsreader kept saying how it now
    costs
    > £5 to drive into London. Not £5 to drive into the charging zone - £5 to
    drive
    > into *London*. Never let the facts get in the way of an overblown story.
    So I
    > wrote to the BBC, naming programme, date & time. Note - 17th February
    2003,
    > BBC1 lunchtime news. I got a reply today - here it is :)
    >
    > "Dear Ms Simmons
    >
    > Thank you for your e-mail of 17 February 2003.
    >
    > I am afraid our Unit is not able to investigate complaints about
    programmes
    > which have not yet been transmitted. When this programme has been shown,
    if
    > you believe it may have infringed generally-acceptable broadcasting standards please write to us
    > again giving full details and we will look
    into
    > the matter.
    >
    > Yours sincerely
    >
    > Fraser Steel Head of Programme Complaints FS/DLV/12752"
    >
    > Cheeky s*d. A definite Go away you are a delusional woman - we've not
    broadcast
    > the programme - it doesn't exist response.
    >
    > Needless to say I've sent a response to Mr Steel. I think he's a candidate
    for
    > the paving slab treatment ;-)
    >
    > Cheers, helen s
    >

    Dave.
    p.s. - I'd suggest perhaps a letter to his boss also. I should imagine that his career objectives
    and targets, as agreed with his manager, do not include sending flippant responses to
    clients....
     
  3. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Back on Feb 17, the London congestion charge figured heavily in the news. Watching the BBC 1
    > lunchtime news, the newsreader kept saying how it now
    costs
    > £5 to drive into London. Not £5 to drive into the charging zone - £5 to
    drive
    > into *London*.

    'Bit like a story in yesterdays Times that stated that parking fines were down in one of the
    boroughs since the congestion charge so rather than lay off parking wardens they were raising the
    fines to £100. The journalist then commented that the motorist was being hit in the pocket again!
    Now, excuse me, but I never factored parking fines into my motoring costs whether they be 20p or a
    hunded quid so couldn't give a fig.

    Parking fines aren't a consequence of motoring, they're a consequence of leaving a big lump of
    personal property on the road thus denying others the facility of that road or parking space.

    Pete
     
  4. "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote: ( Parking fines aren't a consequence of motoring, they're
    a consequence of ) leaving a big lump of personal property on the road thus denying others the (
    facility of that road or parking space.

    Shush! You'll encourage Paul Smith to campaign against the enforcement of parking restrictions,
    without of course lifting parking restrictions.

    Ah, hang on a mo. Perhaps that's how it is at present.
     
  5. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Peter B <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > Parking fines aren't a consequence of motoring, they're a consequence of leaving a big lump of
    > personal property on the road thus denying others the facility of that road or parking space.
    >

    Not necessarily in London. They are rather devious in some boroughs. There tends to be a large
    number of out of action parking meters and you get ticketed if you park at one - if they were really
    after controlling parking they would repair the meters but tempting parking in a space with a broken
    meter gets them £80 instead of the few quid. Even more insidious is while you can park outside hours
    for free at a working parking meter, if it is an out of service meter it is an offence and they can
    ticket you.

    Tony

    --
    http://www.raven-family.com

    "I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
    their job."

    Samuel Goldwyn
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...