On 30 Apr 2007 02:48:22 -0700 someone who may be
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-
Quoted message said:I've got this horrible feeling that we've been done over by the DfT.
The wording is exactly the wording they wanted but they deliberately
didn't put it into the original draft. They're now relying on inertia
to get this through parliament, especially with the local elections
coming up.
I asked the DfT who had advocated these anti-cycling measures. If
they were individuals the total number of individuals, if they were
organisations the name of each organisation.
They have told me that this is a "difficult" question because it
involves policy formulation. They are thus going to think about
answering it some more and then decide whether to answer it or not.
If they don't I will be taking it up with whoever the English
regulator is, or perhaps the Scottish one as he has a clue about
open government.
So much for open government. Every "consultation" I have been
involved in makes it clear that any comments I make will be made
available to anyone who asks, something I am entirely happy with. It
should have been easy for them to answer my question by simply
producing the appropriate part of a report. Indeed it should have
been easy for me to answer my question by looking up the report
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