Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday



Tony Raven wrote:
> Marc Brett wrote on 24/05/2007 22:43 +0100:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 19:59:59 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I put in an FoI request to the DSA asking for just the internal
>>> memos, e-mails and minutes about the change in wording between
>>> February and March. They have responded that they can't supply it
>>> without payment as it would take more than the statutory 3 man days
>>> to provide. I feel a challenge via the Information Commissioner
>>> coming on.

>>
>> They have 20 days to respond to a FoI request.
>>

>
> But you get the first 24 man hours of effort free after which you have
> to pay £25/hr.


SO much for the "Freedom" of Information Act.
Who decides how much work is involved, surely if they don't want to give
out this to a third party, they will just say it will take n+5 man
days to do.

The FoI act is typical of neolabour, first they brought in the act, then
they used it to publish as much dirty stuff about the tories they could
find, now they are trying to curtail its powers so that it does not
pertain to their own MPs memos, emails, minutes etc.

Martin.
 
Tim Woodall wrote:
>>

> Within reason (and it's up to me to define reason :) I'll make up any
> shortfall if it turns out to be expensive.
>


Ditto

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Andrew Chadwick wrote on 24/05/2007 21:43 +0100:
>
>>
>> Could we get the text of your FoI request online anywhere, Tony?

>
>
> The text is:
>
> Dear Mr Law
>
> Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I am requesting copies of all
> internal and intergovernmental meeting notes, memos, e-mails, letters
> and other communications related to the changes to the wording for
> cyclists in the draft Highway Code between the version laid out for
> consultation in February 2007 and the version laid before Parliament in

Are you sure you mean 2007 for the consultation version - I thought the
previous version was a year ago?

Julian Gallop

> March 2007, as set out in pages 7 and 8 of the "Report on the Public
> Consultation for the New Highway Code - March 2007" published by your
> agency.
 
On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:24:12 +0100 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Good News?
>
>see:
>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070523/
>halltext/70523h0010.htm#07052361000005
>
>Mr. Tom Harris is "The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
>Transport"


I am told that what the transcript does not show is that the
Minister was very aggressive towards those who spoke in the debate
and gave the impression that he was fed up with opposition to the
changes and CTC.

If that is the reason he was aggressive that is good. Feedback is
getting through to him. If he adopts the wording others have
suggested, so much the better. Cycle "facilities" may make a journey
safer and/or faster. Consider using them if they will.


--
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
 
In message <[email protected]>
"AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim Woodall wrote:
> >>

> > Within reason (and it's up to me to define reason :) I'll make up any
> > shortfall if it turns out to be expensive.
> >

>
> Ditto
>

Yes I'd be happy to contribute as well.

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7
 
In message <[email protected]>, Mike
Clark <[email protected]> writes
>In message <[email protected]>
> "AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim Woodall wrote:
>> >>
>> > Within reason (and it's up to me to define reason :) I'll make up any
>> > shortfall if it turns out to be expensive.
>> >

>>
>> Ditto
>>

>Yes I'd be happy to contribute as well.
>

Et moi.

--
Bob Downie
Devotee of the wheel
please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
 
Mike Sales twisted the electrons to say:
> Most motorists assume it belongs to them, of course.


Well of course, they "paid for it" didn't they? ;-)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
Alex Ingram <[email protected]> wrote:
> My MP (Greg Hands, Con) has replied rather swiftly to my faxyourmp
> missive and says he won't sign EDM 1433 but that "the Conservative party
> will force a debate on the draft Highway Code in the House of Lords"
>
> I didn't cite the CTC in my letter but his reply makes it clear he is
> aware of their examples of "poorly maintained and ill-thought out cycle
> paths".


I have a letter containing near-identical phrases from John Penrose, Con
WsM. It doesn't mention the EDM at all, but does contain "I am a great
supporter of cycling" which seems to invite follow-up.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 

Similar threads