Do you reckon he will?

Jon Senior said:

Chances of him being "in touch ... shortly"?

Small to vanishing, judging fomr past experience.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Jon Senior said:

<quote>

Thank you for your e-mail to Mr Darling which I'll pass to
him for his attention. He'll be in touch with you shortly.

I Forrester Assistant to Alistair Darling MP

</quote>

Sent by "BLAIR, Isobel [[email hidden]]"

Chances of him being "in touch ... shortly"?

Jon

You live in Edinburgh, don't you? Are you one of his
constituents? If so then the likelihood of a personal reply
is high because he should value your vote. My MP (OK he's
not a Minister) replies very quickly.

If you're not a constituent then I assume your
correspondence related to his transport or Scotland briefs
and you should get a reply from a civil servant in his
department. Although his assistant should have told you that
the correspondence would be forwarded to the department.

In any case, his assistant has promised a reply from him. If
it's not forthcoming then you can write a stroppy letter
pointing out his omission.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "They never open their
mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."
- Thomas Brackett Reed www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

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

Quoted message said:

You live in Edinburgh, don't you? Are you one of his
constituents? If so then the likelihood of a personal
reply is high because he should value your vote. My MP (OK
he's not a Minister) replies very quickly.

He is indeed my MP. He is also a cabinet minister, and
probably has far more important things to do with his time,
than speak to the people that voted (Or indeed, didn't
vote) him in!

Quoted message said:

If you're not a constituent then I assume your
correspondence related to his transport or Scotland briefs
and you should get a reply from a civil servant in his
department. Although his assistant should have told you
that the correspondence would be forwarded to the
department.

In any case, his assistant has promised a reply from him.
If it's not forthcoming then you can write a stroppy
letter pointing out his omission.

How long do you reckon I should give him, given that
no timescale is promised. Euan... ISTR that you
mentioned contacting Darling (Blackadder anyone?). Did
you get anywhere?

Jon

Jon Senior said:

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

Quoted message said:

You live in Edinburgh, don't you? Are you one of his
constituents? If so then the likelihood of a personal
reply is high because he should value your vote. My MP
(OK he's not a Minister) replies very quickly.

He is indeed my MP. He is also a cabinet minister, and
probably has far more important things to do with his
time, than speak to the people that voted (Or indeed,
didn't vote) him in!

They didn't say you could speak with him. But even though
he's a Minister I would think he still has constituency
surgeries where you could meet him. He's your elected
representative regardless of his ministerial commitments and
whether you voted for him so you should hear from him.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you're not a constituent then I assume your
correspondence related to his transport or Scotland
briefs and you should get a reply from a civil servant in
his department. Although his assistant should have told
you that the correspondence would be forwarded to the
department.

In any case, his assistant has promised a reply from him.
If it's not forthcoming then you can write a stroppy
letter pointing out his omission.

How long do you reckon I should give him, given that no
timescale is promised.

Two weeks. He has an assistant to write the reply for him.

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I've had a perfectly
wonderful evening. But this wasn't
it." -Groucho Marx www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Quoted message said:

But even though he's a Minister I would think he still has constituency surgeries where you could meet him. He's your elected representative regardless of his ministerial commitments

Are you allowed to bring up stuff at constituency surgeries that isn't directly related to your constituency?

I'm thinking of paying my own MP a visit. My MP is Julian Brazier, who Eric the Half a Brain said was supposed to be opposition spokesman for his bill - Fat Eric also claimed that Brazier supported him, but of course Brazier didn't even show up for the debate, which is typical of him. I still feel I ought to get in touch with him before June 18th, just in case he decides to show up in the House on that day and vote the wrong way.

d.

davek said:

Quoted message said:

But even though he's a Minister I would think he still has
constituency surgeries where you could meet him. He's your
elected representative regardless of his ministerial
commitments

Are you allowed to bring up stuff at constituency
surgeries that isn't directly related to your
constituency?

I wouldn't have any reservation about raising any matter
about which I thought my MP should represent my views. In
any case, a compulsion to wear cycle helmets would affect a
great many of any MP's constituents.

Quoted message said:

I'm thinking of paying my own MP a visit. My MP is Julian
Brazier, who Eric the Half a Brain said was supposed to be
opposition spokesman for his bill - Fat Eric also claimed
that Brazier supported him, but of course Brazier didn't
even show up for the debate, which is typical of him. I
still feel I ought to get in touch with him before June
18th, just in case he decides to show up in the House on
that day and vote the wrong way.

You might want to consider writing to him and asking him for
his opinion on the matter and his voting intention. If he
does not state that he opposes compulsory helments then is
the time to visit him.

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I feel so miserable
without you, it's almost like having you here." -Stephen
Bishop www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

"Michael MacClancy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:vqw0stdhfy15

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He is indeed my MP. He is also a cabinet minister, and
probably has far more important things to do with his
time, than speak to the people that voted (Or indeed,
didn't vote) him in!

They didn't say you could speak with him. But even though
he's a Minister I would think he still has constituency
surgeries where you could meet

him.

Quoted message said:

He's your elected representative regardless of his
ministerial commitments and whether you voted for him so
you should hear from him.

As far as I am aware he doesn't do drop-in sessions at his
constituency office, you have to write to him explaining
what you wish to speak to you about, and you will be given
an appointment "as necessary".

E

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:15:56 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

You live in Edinburgh, don't you? Are you one of his
constituents? If so then the likelihood of a personal
reply is high because he should value your vote. My MP
(OK he's not a Minister) replies very quickly.

He is indeed my MP. He is also a cabinet minister, and
probably has far more important things to do with his time,
than speak to the people that voted (Or indeed, didn't
vote) him in!

Quoted message said:

If you're not a constituent then I assume your
correspondence related to his transport or Scotland
briefs and you should get a reply from a civil servant in
his department. Although his assistant should have told
you that the correspondence would be forwarded to the
department.

In any case, his assistant has promised a reply from him.
If it's not forthcoming then you can write a stroppy
letter pointing out his omission.

How long do you reckon I should give him, given that no
timescale is promised. Euan... ISTR that you mentioned
contacting Darling (Blackadder anyone?). Did you get
anywhere?

Not yet. My 'I Forrester' email's dated 20/4/04.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Michael MacClancy said:

You live in Edinburgh, don't you? Are you one of his
constituents? If so then the likelihood of a personal
reply is high because he should value your vote. My MP
(OK he's not a Minister) replies very quickly.

My MP is a certified waste-of-space in a safe sinecure and
has never once troubled himself to reply to (even with a form-
letter acknowledgement) a single one of the (very few)
letters I have written to him.

Trouble is, teh seat is so safe that we're probably doomed
to useless, idle, pathetic wastes-of-space forever.

I've also met him. He's a prat.

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

Ian Smith said:

Michael MacClancy said:

You live in Edinburgh, don't you? Are you one of his
constituents? If so then the likelihood of a personal
reply is high because he should value your vote. My MP
(OK he's not a Minister) replies very quickly.

My MP is a certified waste-of-space in a safe sinecure and
has never once troubled himself to reply to (even with a
form-letter acknowledgement) a single one of the (very
few) letters I have written to him.

I've also met him. He's a prat.

My MP is Sir George Young Bt who spoke in favour of the
Martlew Bill. Despite that slip, a more decent (and
accessible) man you couldn't hope to meet.

John B

I would imagine you would get a reply. My Mother used to
correspond with the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Benn
on policy issues and that started after she (a member of the
public) wrote a letter!

Good luck,

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

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith said:

Michael MacClancy said:

You live in Edinburgh, don't you? Are you one of his
constituents?

If so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then the likelihood of a personal reply is high
because he should

value

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your vote. My MP (OK he's not a Minister) replies
very quickly.

My MP is a certified waste-of-space in a safe sinecure
and has never once troubled himself to reply to (even
with a form-letter acknowledgement) a single one of the
(very few) letters I have written to him.

I've also met him. He's a prat.

My MP is Sir George Young Bt who spoke in favour of the
Martlew Bill. Despite that slip, a more decent (and
accessible) man you couldn't hope to meet.

John B

Credit where credit's due. He replied.

--------

Dear Mr Senior

I refer to your e-mail about compulsory bicycle helmet
wearing for children under 16.

The Department for Transport commissioned an independent
review of the issue of compulsory bicycle helmet wearing,
which was published in November 2002 as Road Safety
Research Report Number 30. If you are interested, this
report can be found on the DfT's website at
www.roads.dft.gov.uk). The review concludes that overall
there is evidence that bicycle helmets can reduce the
incidence and severity of head, brain and upper facial
injuries and that they can be effective for users of all
ages, though particularly for children. The Department
therefore promotes the use of cycle helmets. On the other
hand, the report also concludes that compulsion may
discourage some cyclists leading to decreased bicycle use.

The Transport Research Laboratory measure bicycle helmet
wearing rates periodically. The latest survey we have, which
is for 2002, shows that cyclists are increasingly likely to
choose to wear helmets. The proportion of all cyclists
wearing helmets on major built up roads rose from 16% in
1994 to 25% in 2002. However, this was not true for teenage
boys, only 12% of whom wore helmets in 2002 compared with
16% in 1994.

As you know, Eric Martlew MP has introduced a Private
Member's Bill into Parliament, the purpose of which is to
make wearing helmets by children compulsory. It will be up
for debate by the House of Commons on 18 June following the
second reading debate on 23 April. The Government is
concerned that, at a time when we are seeking to encourage
people to take up cycling for health, environmental and
other reasons, such compulsion could have the paradoxical
result of discouraging it. There could also be real
difficulties for the police in enforcing compulsion when
such a low proportion of children currently choose to wear
helmets voluntarily.

I hope this explains the position but if you any questions
then please let me know.

--------

It very carefully explains the "official" position without
actually directly saying whether the Government will support
the bill or not.

Jon

On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:22:03 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The Department for Transport commissioned an independent
review of the issue of compulsory bicycle helmet wearing,
which was published in November 2002 as Road Safety
Research Report Number 30.

We really do have to do something about this "independent"
review. I know they've corrceted some of the more egregious
errors, but it remains a document written by pro-helmet
authors which reaches a pro-helmet conclusion largely by
ignoring or excluding all the balancing evidence.

For example:

Quoted message said:

The review concludes that overall there is evidence that
bicycle helmets can reduce the incidence and severity of
head, brain and upper facial injuries

And it does so by including TR&T, despite acknowledging
(some of) its fundamental errors.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

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

Quoted message said:

We really do have to do something about this "independent"
review. I know they've corrceted some of the more
egregious errors, but it remains a document written by pro-
helmet authors which reaches a pro-helmet conclusion
largely by ignoring or excluding all the balancing
evidence.

For example:

Quoted message said:

The review concludes that overall there is evidence that
bicycle helmets can reduce the incidence and severity of
head, brain and upper facial injuries

And it does so by including TR&T, despite acknowledging
(some of) its fundamental errors.

Research will be done and a letter will be written. But not
'til nightfall, 'so as soon as I'm out of work, I'm going
for a ride. The weather here is perfect!

Jon

In article <[email hidden]>,
jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove says...

Quoted message said:

Research will be done and a letter will be written. But
not 'til nightfall, 'so as soon as I'm out of work, I'm
going for a ride. The weather here is perfect!

Now, You can't argue with that logic :o)

did you have a good ride Jon?
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

paul [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove says...

Quoted message said:

Research will be done and a letter will be written. But
not 'til nightfall, 'so as soon as I'm out of work, I'm
going for a ride. The weather here is perfect!

Now, You can't argue with that logic :o)

did you have a good ride Jon?

No. I'd forgotten that I'd offered to help a friend move
house, and that kept me off the bike until after 19:00. I
checked the BBCi's weather forecast, saw the big bright sun
for today and figured I'd clean up the Giant first thing and
take it out for a spin.

So looking at the clouds and wondering why I bother. No long
rides around the country today since changing weather & a
headache (alright, mild hangover) are conspiring.

I got some serious bike control and strength training in by
riding the fixer back from the shops with two panniers
*full* of shopping. In a bit, I'll work out what the weight
was, but I have a feeling that it may have exceeded the
recommended load for the rack. The back end became really
mobile and kept threatening to run away without me.
Standing up was not an option so I remained seated in my
72" gear all the way!

On the bright side, when my mate gets back from work,
we'll go for a mad spin around town (~10miles hopefully).
Oh well. I'll just have to increase the commute again.
;-) Hope everyone else managed to make better use of the
good weather.

Jon

P.S 15kg or thereabouts, plus the weight of the sacs and
other gubbins, shoes, lock, wallet. A demonstration of
why heavyweight touring should be reserved for
heavyweight tourers!

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

On the bright side, when my mate gets back from work,
we'll go for a mad spin around town (~10miles hopefully).
Oh well. I'll just have to increase the commute again. ;-)
Hope everyone else managed to make better use of the good
weather.

Mate went for a walk instead so off I went. 19.5 miles in
1h07. Not a record beater, but it felt good. Especially as
it included Comiston Road (Edinburgh regulars will know this
one...) a long slog uphill, and a the short sharp climb of
the road that goes over Arthur's Seat. Managed to hit 45mph
this time, despite discovering that my gear adjustment
wasn't as good as I thought, since top gear is currently
skipping (Needs the end stop adjusting).

All in... not the long countryside ride I had originally
hoped for, but definately good fun.

Jon

On Sat, 1 May 2004 09:22:03 +0100, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

The Department for Transport commissioned an independent
review of the issue of compulsory bicycle helmet wearing,
which was published in November 2002 as Road Safety
Research Report Number 30.

<dft.gov.ukdocumenOpen ↗
ts/page/dft_rdsafety_507998.hcsp>

James

James Hodson said:

<dft.gov.ukdocumOpen ↗
ents/page/dft_rdsafety_507998.hcsp>

<marvin>I've seen it. It's rubbish.</marvin>

Guy