Highway Code Issues - Parliamentary Response

Ekul Namsob said:

Danny Colyer said:

Pyromancer asked:

Quoted message said:

Thoughts and comments?

You missed the all important url:
<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-05-08a.135682.h>

Which invites comments and has a poll "Does this answer the above
question?". Voting in which will probably make no difference
whatsoever, but it will certainly do no harm.

30 votes against so far...

Luke

49 now

Jan

Jan said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Danny Colyer said:

Pyromancer asked:
> Thoughts and comments?

You missed the all important url:
<http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-05-08a.135682.h>

Which invites comments and has a poll "Does this answer the above
question?". Voting in which will probably make no difference
whatsoever, but it will certainly do no harm.

30 votes against so far...

Luke

49 now

Jan

53 now.

This is sinister, intense lobbying is going on.

spindrift said:

Jan said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Danny Colyer <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Pyromancer asked:
>> Thoughts and comments?
>
> You missed the all important url:
> <http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-05-08a.135682.h>
>
> Which invites comments and has a poll "Does this answer the above
> question?". Voting in which will probably make no difference
> whatsoever, but it will certainly do no harm.

30 votes against so far...

49 now

Jan

53 now.

This is sinister, intense lobbying is going on.

72 now, none in favour. Perhaps he will get the message that his non-answer
is not acceptable?
--
Chris

"From the moment I picked your book up until I put it down I was convulsed
with laughter. Some day I intend reading it." - Groucho Marx, "The Book of
Insults"

A notch of progress here. After doing several rounds with his
researcher, my local MP, Dr Andrew Murrison, seems to have got the point.

Received this <http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg> today (on
proper House of Commons notepaper).

Hope scan is readable.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Amey
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Received this <http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg> today (on
proper House of Commons notepaper).

Hope scan is readable.

Not by me. I just get a blank page.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Amey
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Received this <http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg> today (on
proper House of Commons notepaper).

Hope scan is readable.

Not by me. I just get a blank page.

Very readable here.

We now know where you live.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 15:13:05 +0100 someone who may be Peter Amey
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Received this <http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg> today (on
proper House of Commons notepaper).

Hope scan is readable.

Not by me. I just get a blank page.

You using lynx or summat? It's a jpg...

cheers,
clive

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:24:25 +0100 someone who may be Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

We now know where you live.

It is very easy to discover where I live, by using a search engine.
I have not tried to hide it, even when the motoring lobby made death
threats against me. I am also in the telephone directory.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:25:46 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You using lynx or summat?

No.

Quoted message said:

It's a jpg...

Doesn't display for me. Perhaps the person scanning it has made it a
huge file size for some reason. No matter, if it doesn't display on
my browser I can't be bothered to find out why.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:25:46 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You using lynx or summat?

No.

Quoted message said:

It's a jpg...

Doesn't display for me. Perhaps the person scanning it has made it a
huge file size for some reason. No matter, if it doesn't display on
my browser I can't be bothered to find out why.

Just 263kb 996x1710 pixels.

Crucial essence:

"I recognise the concerns you raise about the wording of the new Code
and completely understand your frustration that the impressive response
from cyclists to the [...] consultation has not been reflected as you
would wish in the final version. It is, of course, important that the
wording of the code does not inadvertantly give rise to claims for
contributory negligence.

I know my colleagues in the Shadow Tranport Team are currently
considering the version of the Code [...] and our response to it. I
will make sure that they are aware of your concerns, so that they can be
taken into account as we hold the Goverment to account.

In addition I will write to [...] Ladyman [...]"

Murrison is shadow minister of health.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk

Peter Amey wrote on 22/05/2007 15:13 +0100:

Quoted message said:

A notch of progress here. After doing several rounds with his
researcher, my local MP, Dr Andrew Murrison, seems to have got the point.

Received this <http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg> today (on
proper House of Commons notepaper).

Hope scan is readable.

Peter

His response is word for word identical to that from Andrew Lansley the
Shadow Minister for Health.

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven said:

Peter Amey wrote on 22/05/2007 15:13 +0100:

Quoted message said:

A notch of progress here. After doing several rounds with his
researcher, my local MP, Dr Andrew Murrison, seems to have got the
point. Received this <http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg> today
(on
proper House of Commons notepaper).

Hope scan is readable.

Peter

His response is word for word identical to that from Andrew Lansley
the Shadow Minister for Health.

And Tim Yeo, who is my local Tory MP.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Tony Raven said:

Peter Amey wrote on 22/05/2007 15:13 +0100:

Quoted message said:

A notch of progress here. After doing several rounds with his
researcher, my local MP, Dr Andrew Murrison, seems to have got the point.

Quoted message said:

Received this <http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg> today (on
proper House of Commons notepaper).

Quoted message said:

Hope scan is readable.

Quoted message said:

Peter

His response is word for word identical to that from Andrew Lansley the
Shadow Minister for Health.

Which goes to show that the tories write a better class of fob off
letter than the nulabs

...d

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Amey
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 22 May 2007 16:25:46 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

You using lynx or summat?

No.

Quoted message said:

It's a jpg...

Doesn't display for me. Perhaps the person scanning it has made it a
huge file size for some reason. No matter, if it doesn't display on
my browser I can't be bothered to find out why.

Just 263kb 996x1710 pixels.

Displays in IE but not Firefox, so probably one of those bits of
Microsoft pseudo-HTML that IE copes with but Firefox refuses on
principle.

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Displays in IE but not Firefox, so probably one of those bits of
Microsoft pseudo-HTML that IE copes with but Firefox refuses on
principle.

It's just a jpg! No HTML at all.

cheers,
clive

Rob Morley said:

Displays in IE but not Firefox, so probably one of those bits of
Microsoft pseudo-HTML that IE copes with but Firefox refuses on
principle.

My firefox has no problem with it.
If your computer won't display jpgs, I think it needs fixing.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Clive George said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Displays in IE but not Firefox, so probably one of those bits of
Microsoft pseudo-HTML that IE copes with but Firefox refuses on
principle.

It's just a jpg! No HTML at all.

Sadly, no. "View Source" and you'll see lots of HTML markup.

The HTML page
http://www.amey.org.uk/temp/murrison_hc.jpg

....points to the JPEG at
http://ccgi.peteramey.plus.com/temp/murrison_hc.jpg

What demonic HTML editor created this mess, I have no idea!

In article <[email hidden]>, Clive
George
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Rob Morley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Displays in IE but not Firefox, so probably one of those bits of
Microsoft pseudo-HTML that IE copes with but Firefox refuses on
principle.

It's just a jpg! No HTML at all.

I meant HTTP not HTML. Not very alert today.

In article <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

Displays in IE but not Firefox, so probably one of those bits of
Microsoft pseudo-HTML that IE copes with but Firefox refuses on
principle.

My firefox has no problem with it.

Neither does mine now.

Quoted message said:

If your computer won't display jpgs, I think it needs fixing.

What are jpgs? Do you mean JPEGs? :-)

On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:35:27 +0100 someone who may be Rob Morley
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Displays in IE but not Firefox, so probably one of those bits of
Microsoft pseudo-HTML that IE copes with but Firefox refuses on
principle.

Quite likely. I don't think it worth activating Internet Explorer to
see for myself.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54