M
Marc Brett
Guest
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:39:15 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Yes. Do you have any evidence that they 'bend over backwards to appease
>> cyclists'?
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that they 'wasted no time'?
>
>The petition closed 18 June 2007, the response contained the statement:
>"We have now carefully considered stakeholders views and on 15 June laid
>before Parliament revised versions of rules 61 and 63, as follows:..."[1]
>
>Now, if humbly changing the rules as demanded isn't "bending over
>backwards", and if getting it done three days before the petition closed
>isn't a good example of "wasting no time", I don't know what is! ;-)
Did they do it in response to the petition, or was it in response to the
pressure of the CTC, other cycling groups, fellow MPs, and the thousands
of letters from individuals? And where do you get "humbly" ?!? They
arrogantly claimed for weeks that there was no problem, and then did the
bare minimum requested of them. Badly. Crowed about it afterwards,
too.
A "cave in" rather than a "bending over backwards", methinks.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ekul Namsob wrote:
>> Yes. Do you have any evidence that they 'bend over backwards to appease
>> cyclists'?
>>
>> Do you have any evidence that they 'wasted no time'?
>
>The petition closed 18 June 2007, the response contained the statement:
>"We have now carefully considered stakeholders views and on 15 June laid
>before Parliament revised versions of rules 61 and 63, as follows:..."[1]
>
>Now, if humbly changing the rules as demanded isn't "bending over
>backwards", and if getting it done three days before the petition closed
>isn't a good example of "wasting no time", I don't know what is! ;-)
Did they do it in response to the petition, or was it in response to the
pressure of the CTC, other cycling groups, fellow MPs, and the thousands
of letters from individuals? And where do you get "humbly" ?!? They
arrogantly claimed for weeks that there was no problem, and then did the
bare minimum requested of them. Badly. Crowed about it afterwards,
too.
A "cave in" rather than a "bending over backwards", methinks.