Cheeky s*d

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

£5 to drive into London. Not £5 to drive into the charging zone - £5 to

drive

Quoted message said:

into *London*. Never let the facts get in the way of an overblown story.

So I

Quoted message said:

wrote to the BBC, naming programme, date & time. Note - 17th February

2003,

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

which have not yet been transmitted. When this programme has been shown,

if

Quoted message said:

you believe it may have infringed generally-acceptable broadcasting standards please write to us
again giving full details and we will look

into

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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....

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

£5 to drive into London. Not £5 to drive into the charging zone - £5 to

drive

Quoted message said:

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

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> 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.

Peter B said:

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

--
raven-family.comraven-family.comOpen ↗

"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