Toll Tax - My Response
22 February 2007, 02:20 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toll Tax - My Response
dear all,
having spent the last 48 hours quacking like a mad goose with avian flu at the misleading and meaningless email response from the smiley weasel in no.10, here's my snailmail to that nauseating, squeaky and evasive adolescent who pretends to be our secretary of state for transport this month, 'wee' dougie alexander.
if anyone feels it's up to the mark, please feel free to improve it and use it as you please ... if you want to cause some static, send a copy to your MP and/or stephen ladyboy, the minister for transport. plus a nod of thanks to warrenm2 for his his point about EU Directive 2004/52/EU (electronic road toll systems). i think we should be told.
plus, here's an interesting link on jamming (electronic not marley):
GPSHacking : Messages : 66-101 of 101
**
The Rt. Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP
Secretary of State for Transport
The House of Commons
Westminster
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Secretary of State,
Re: Toll Tax Road Pricing
I’ve just received a 1,200 word email from the Prime Minister attempting to explain HMG’s position on this issue. I’ve also been interested to hear your position that opponents of this scheme have somehow been sold a pup by pro-car lobbyists, keen to exploit a set of ‘myths’ for their own ends.
Let’s dissect this a little:
1.We already have a pay-per-mile tax in place every time we visit a fuel station. The more you drive, the more you pay in tax to the Treasury. What is wrong with this model as a means of a) raising tax revenue and b) encouraging people to think how they use their cars? No one is exempt: it’s a near-flawless system.
2. What is wrong with a national network of tollbooths, deployed where needed – backed by staggered commuting streams and flexible work times in urban areas? It’s far cheaper, simpler and not an invasion of our privacy.
3. When will you prise Treasury hands off VED and fuel tax and ensure that the funds generated are invested directly and totally into our collective transport infrastructure?
4. Please would you clarify the connection between EU Directive 2004/52/EC (Electronic Road Toll Systems), your planned policy on satellite-based road pricing and the EU’s need to generate revenue to pay for the Galileo GPS satellite network? What share of revenue from UK road users will HMG anticipate passing to the EU? Is satellite-based road pricing inevitable as a result of this directive and stated EU primacy over UK policy?
5. Is there not a clear conflict of interest between a satellite-based system that tracks one’s every move in a car and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – the right to respect for private life?
6. An oily rag or tin foil wrapped securely around an in-car mounted GPS antenna may disrupt the downwards signal from the satellite to the car transponder – ‘jamming’ at its cheapest and most cheerful. Check it with the scientists at TRL. Buildings and trees will also disrupt the signal, causing reception blackspots. How then do you intend to check the veracity of any given signal to anything up to 33 million transponders at any given time without an additional and hugely expensive network of roadside cameras?
7. Bearing in mind the woeful record of central government IT projects, what safeguards will be in place to prevent yet another grotesque taxpayer overspend on a project that will likely be late, bug-ridden, over-ambitious and not fit-for-purpose? (NATS, Benefits System, NHS network ad nauseam).
8. What will happen to the records of drivers’ movements? How long will data be stored? How will it be used? Who will have access to it? Who will you sell the data to?
9. Will MPs and selected civil service employees/government officials be exempt from these charges (either totally or remunerated through the expenses system)?
10. How do you intend to account for foreign vehicles on our roads?
11. There are approximately 2 million vehicles on our roads that are using them illegally for want of MOT, tax, insurance and theft – roughly six per cent of all vehicles in the UK. This is a significant number - why are these vehicles still on our roads, contributing to congestion and emissions? Would you not agree that removing them or reducing the number through a joined-up, long overdue approach by police and DVLA would be a very positive move?
That’s just a few of the legions of questions that have gone as yet unanswered – even unrecognised - by your department. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.
Yours sincerely,
HG
having spent the last 48 hours quacking like a mad goose with avian flu at the misleading and meaningless email response from the smiley weasel in no.10, here's my snailmail to that nauseating, squeaky and evasive adolescent who pretends to be our secretary of state for transport this month, 'wee' dougie alexander.
if anyone feels it's up to the mark, please feel free to improve it and use it as you please ... if you want to cause some static, send a copy to your MP and/or stephen ladyboy, the minister for transport. plus a nod of thanks to warrenm2 for his his point about EU Directive 2004/52/EU (electronic road toll systems). i think we should be told.
plus, here's an interesting link on jamming (electronic not marley):
GPSHacking : Messages : 66-101 of 101
**
The Rt. Hon. Douglas Alexander, MP
Secretary of State for Transport
The House of Commons
Westminster
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Secretary of State,
Re: Toll Tax Road Pricing
I’ve just received a 1,200 word email from the Prime Minister attempting to explain HMG’s position on this issue. I’ve also been interested to hear your position that opponents of this scheme have somehow been sold a pup by pro-car lobbyists, keen to exploit a set of ‘myths’ for their own ends.
Let’s dissect this a little:
1.We already have a pay-per-mile tax in place every time we visit a fuel station. The more you drive, the more you pay in tax to the Treasury. What is wrong with this model as a means of a) raising tax revenue and b) encouraging people to think how they use their cars? No one is exempt: it’s a near-flawless system.
2. What is wrong with a national network of tollbooths, deployed where needed – backed by staggered commuting streams and flexible work times in urban areas? It’s far cheaper, simpler and not an invasion of our privacy.
3. When will you prise Treasury hands off VED and fuel tax and ensure that the funds generated are invested directly and totally into our collective transport infrastructure?
4. Please would you clarify the connection between EU Directive 2004/52/EC (Electronic Road Toll Systems), your planned policy on satellite-based road pricing and the EU’s need to generate revenue to pay for the Galileo GPS satellite network? What share of revenue from UK road users will HMG anticipate passing to the EU? Is satellite-based road pricing inevitable as a result of this directive and stated EU primacy over UK policy?
5. Is there not a clear conflict of interest between a satellite-based system that tracks one’s every move in a car and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – the right to respect for private life?
6. An oily rag or tin foil wrapped securely around an in-car mounted GPS antenna may disrupt the downwards signal from the satellite to the car transponder – ‘jamming’ at its cheapest and most cheerful. Check it with the scientists at TRL. Buildings and trees will also disrupt the signal, causing reception blackspots. How then do you intend to check the veracity of any given signal to anything up to 33 million transponders at any given time without an additional and hugely expensive network of roadside cameras?
7. Bearing in mind the woeful record of central government IT projects, what safeguards will be in place to prevent yet another grotesque taxpayer overspend on a project that will likely be late, bug-ridden, over-ambitious and not fit-for-purpose? (NATS, Benefits System, NHS network ad nauseam).
8. What will happen to the records of drivers’ movements? How long will data be stored? How will it be used? Who will have access to it? Who will you sell the data to?
9. Will MPs and selected civil service employees/government officials be exempt from these charges (either totally or remunerated through the expenses system)?
10. How do you intend to account for foreign vehicles on our roads?
11. There are approximately 2 million vehicles on our roads that are using them illegally for want of MOT, tax, insurance and theft – roughly six per cent of all vehicles in the UK. This is a significant number - why are these vehicles still on our roads, contributing to congestion and emissions? Would you not agree that removing them or reducing the number through a joined-up, long overdue approach by police and DVLA would be a very positive move?
That’s just a few of the legions of questions that have gone as yet unanswered – even unrecognised - by your department. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.
Yours sincerely,
HG
Last edited by Holy Ghost; 22 February 2007 at 02:27 PM.
22 February 2007, 02:34 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 February 2007, 02:44 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent response - and I hope someone at DfT who can read actually bothers to do so.
The only extra point I'd add is another question, namely: how would the Government ensure that any infrastructure that is put in place to monitor motorists cannot be used in ways which would infringe privacy?
I don't honestly care what assurances the present government gives about how such data would be used - I'm interested in knowing how we could be sure that a future change in policy would never allow data collected through the system to be abused.
I suspect that such a gurantee would be impossible to give, which is why it is the creation of the infrastructure itself that we must oppose - regardless of the uses for which it is originally intended.
The only extra point I'd add is another question, namely: how would the Government ensure that any infrastructure that is put in place to monitor motorists cannot be used in ways which would infringe privacy?
I don't honestly care what assurances the present government gives about how such data would be used - I'm interested in knowing how we could be sure that a future change in policy would never allow data collected through the system to be abused.
I suspect that such a gurantee would be impossible to give, which is why it is the creation of the infrastructure itself that we must oppose - regardless of the uses for which it is originally intended.
22 February 2007, 03:01 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent response - and I hope someone at DfT who can read actually bothers to do so.
The only extra point I'd add is another question, namely: how would the Government ensure that any infrastructure that is put in place to monitor motorists cannot be used in ways which would infringe privacy?
I don't honestly care what assurances the present government gives about how such data would be used - I'm interested in knowing how we could be sure that a future change in policy would never allow data collected through the system to be abused.
I suspect that such a gurantee would be impossible to give, which is why it is the creation of the infrastructure itself that we must oppose - regardless of the uses for which it is originally intended.
The only extra point I'd add is another question, namely: how would the Government ensure that any infrastructure that is put in place to monitor motorists cannot be used in ways which would infringe privacy?
I don't honestly care what assurances the present government gives about how such data would be used - I'm interested in knowing how we could be sure that a future change in policy would never allow data collected through the system to be abused.
I suspect that such a gurantee would be impossible to give, which is why it is the creation of the infrastructure itself that we must oppose - regardless of the uses for which it is originally intended.
you're quite right. nice one. will save it for the reply-to-the-reply ...
Trending Topics
22 February 2007, 04:21 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't credit them too much alcazar. [spleen vent ON] - this is just another example among many of incompetent, badly-thought out, anti-libertarian kite-flying by daydreaming ministers and wobbly-eyed academics under pressure to feed the beast of gordon. all assisted by obliging IT companies and telcos wanting to start suckling on the anna nicole smith of public sector teats.
the idea's so full of holes you'd think it was a block of emmental.
Last edited by Holy Ghost; 22 February 2007 at 04:26 PM.
22 February 2007, 04:26 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the sentiment, I do however have a few points...
1.We already have a pay-per-mile tax in place every time we visit a fuel station. The more you drive, the more you pay in tax to the Treasury. What is wrong with this model as a means of a) raising tax revenue and b) encouraging people to think how they use their cars? No one is exempt: it’s a near-flawless system.
Fuel tax hasn't so far stopped the the increase in congestion. It also doesn't penalise those that use the most congested roads. It is however semi reasonable in terms of a "green" tax
2. What is wrong with a national network of tollbooths, deployed where needed – backed by staggered commuting streams and flexible work times in urban areas? It’s far cheaper, simpler and not an invasion of our privacy.
You movements can still be tracked via the booths you pass through, all be it not to the same extent. Also booths do disrupt the flow of traffic as they become pinch points.
3. When will you prise Treasury hands off VED and fuel tax and ensure that the funds generated are invested directly and totally into our collective transport infrastructure?
Excellent point, but it's never going to happen
4. Please would you clarify the connection between EU Directive 2004/52/EC (Electronic Road Toll Systems), your planned policy on satellite-based road pricing and the EU’s need to generate revenue to pay for the Galileo GPS satellite network? What share of revenue from UK road users will HMG anticipate passing to the EU? Is satellite-based road pricing inevitable as a result of this directive and stated EU primacy over UK policy?
5. Is there not a clear conflict of interest between a satellite-based system that tracks one’s every move in a car and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – the right to respect for private life?
No because of course the government would never use the data for that purpose
6. An oily rag or tin foil wrapped securely around an in-car mounted GPS antenna may disrupt the downwards signal from the satellite to the car transponder – ‘jamming’ at its cheapest and most cheerful. Check it with the scientists at TRL. Buildings and trees will also disrupt the signal, causing reception blackspots. How then do you intend to check the veracity of any given signal to anything up to 33 million transponders at any given time without an additional and hugely expensive network of roadside cameras?
You won't need a "massive" network of cameras. RFID is a more likely candidate for ensuring that your don't travel about with an inactive or jammed GPS device
7. Bearing in mind the woeful record of central government IT projects, what safeguards will be in place to prevent yet another grotesque taxpayer overspend on a project that will likely be late, bug-ridden, over-ambitious and not fit-for-purpose? (NATS, Benefits System, NHS network ad nauseam).
But they have learnt from their previous mistakes I'm sure
8. What will happen to the records of drivers’ movements? How long will data be stored? How will it be used? Who will have access to it? Who will you sell the data to?
[b]Whatever they answer to this will change as soon as the they get it in place you can be sure. Look forward to the day when insurance companies start to get it and your insurance gets cancelled becuase they see that you drive or park through a rough area[b]
9. Will MPs and selected civil service employees/government officials be exempt from these charges (either totally or remunerated through the expenses system)?
Of course
10. How do you intend to account for foreign vehicles on our roads?
Think I read they have a plan for this, but it all sounded a bit far fetched. But then foreign cars don't pay our road tax either
11. There are approximately 2 million vehicles on our roads that are using them illegally for want of MOT, tax, insurance and theft – roughly six per cent of all vehicles in the UK. This is a significant number - why are these vehicles still on our roads, contributing to congestion and emissions? Would you not agree that removing them or reducing the number through a joined-up, long overdue approach by police and DVLA would be a very positive move?
A most excellent point!
1.We already have a pay-per-mile tax in place every time we visit a fuel station. The more you drive, the more you pay in tax to the Treasury. What is wrong with this model as a means of a) raising tax revenue and b) encouraging people to think how they use their cars? No one is exempt: it’s a near-flawless system.
Fuel tax hasn't so far stopped the the increase in congestion. It also doesn't penalise those that use the most congested roads. It is however semi reasonable in terms of a "green" tax
2. What is wrong with a national network of tollbooths, deployed where needed – backed by staggered commuting streams and flexible work times in urban areas? It’s far cheaper, simpler and not an invasion of our privacy.
You movements can still be tracked via the booths you pass through, all be it not to the same extent. Also booths do disrupt the flow of traffic as they become pinch points.
3. When will you prise Treasury hands off VED and fuel tax and ensure that the funds generated are invested directly and totally into our collective transport infrastructure?
Excellent point, but it's never going to happen
4. Please would you clarify the connection between EU Directive 2004/52/EC (Electronic Road Toll Systems), your planned policy on satellite-based road pricing and the EU’s need to generate revenue to pay for the Galileo GPS satellite network? What share of revenue from UK road users will HMG anticipate passing to the EU? Is satellite-based road pricing inevitable as a result of this directive and stated EU primacy over UK policy?
5. Is there not a clear conflict of interest between a satellite-based system that tracks one’s every move in a car and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 – the right to respect for private life?
No because of course the government would never use the data for that purpose
6. An oily rag or tin foil wrapped securely around an in-car mounted GPS antenna may disrupt the downwards signal from the satellite to the car transponder – ‘jamming’ at its cheapest and most cheerful. Check it with the scientists at TRL. Buildings and trees will also disrupt the signal, causing reception blackspots. How then do you intend to check the veracity of any given signal to anything up to 33 million transponders at any given time without an additional and hugely expensive network of roadside cameras?
You won't need a "massive" network of cameras. RFID is a more likely candidate for ensuring that your don't travel about with an inactive or jammed GPS device
7. Bearing in mind the woeful record of central government IT projects, what safeguards will be in place to prevent yet another grotesque taxpayer overspend on a project that will likely be late, bug-ridden, over-ambitious and not fit-for-purpose? (NATS, Benefits System, NHS network ad nauseam).
But they have learnt from their previous mistakes I'm sure
8. What will happen to the records of drivers’ movements? How long will data be stored? How will it be used? Who will have access to it? Who will you sell the data to?
[b]Whatever they answer to this will change as soon as the they get it in place you can be sure. Look forward to the day when insurance companies start to get it and your insurance gets cancelled becuase they see that you drive or park through a rough area[b]
9. Will MPs and selected civil service employees/government officials be exempt from these charges (either totally or remunerated through the expenses system)?
Of course
10. How do you intend to account for foreign vehicles on our roads?
Think I read they have a plan for this, but it all sounded a bit far fetched. But then foreign cars don't pay our road tax either
11. There are approximately 2 million vehicles on our roads that are using them illegally for want of MOT, tax, insurance and theft – roughly six per cent of all vehicles in the UK. This is a significant number - why are these vehicles still on our roads, contributing to congestion and emissions? Would you not agree that removing them or reducing the number through a joined-up, long overdue approach by police and DVLA would be a very positive move?
A most excellent point!
22 February 2007, 04:39 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**
i'm a fan of that too - in wafferr thin slices! thanks for your points olly. can you expand on RFID vs cameras as an authentication method. are you thinking:
- an RFID tag on every vehicle picked up by roadside readers when it passes
- real or near real-time system cross-check against the status of the individual transponder to which the RFID tag is paired?
cheers,
HG
i'm a fan of that too - in wafferr thin slices! thanks for your points olly. can you expand on RFID vs cameras as an authentication method. are you thinking:
- an RFID tag on every vehicle picked up by roadside readers when it passes
- real or near real-time system cross-check against the status of the individual transponder to which the RFID tag is paired?
cheers,
HG
22 February 2007, 04:43 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**
i'm a fan of that too - in wafferr thin slices! thanks for your points olly. can you expand on RFID vs cameras as an authentication method. are you thinking:
- an RFID tag on every vehicle picked up by roadside readers when it passes
- real or near real-time system cross-check against the status of the individual transponder to which the RFID tag is paired?
cheers,
HG
i'm a fan of that too - in wafferr thin slices! thanks for your points olly. can you expand on RFID vs cameras as an authentication method. are you thinking:
- an RFID tag on every vehicle picked up by roadside readers when it passes
- real or near real-time system cross-check against the status of the individual transponder to which the RFID tag is paired?
cheers,
HG
e-Plates Homepage
22 February 2007, 04:56 PM
#15
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,707
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
And who pays for the RFID roadside readers when the tax paying public say enough is enough and smash them up each night???
This will be a never ending money pit as it will need constant monitoring and the infrastructure will need constant upgrading or repairing.
This will be a never ending money pit as it will need constant monitoring and the infrastructure will need constant upgrading or repairing.
22 February 2007, 05:01 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forreign vehicles - we just need to introduce the vignette system they have in switzerland and austria etc. No driving without paying the tax. If you live there you buy one for a year and stick it in your window and if not you can buy one that lasts a couple of weeks. Basically a tax disc with a short term expiry.
Make them cheap enough for tourists, £20 for two weeks travel but disallow foreign registrations from having a year deal. Basically force them to register the car in the UK and get an MOT and insurance.
At £20 every two weeks the costs soon add up and it will allow parkies etc to instantly check the front of all those nice polish cars to make sure they are legal.
5t.
Make them cheap enough for tourists, £20 for two weeks travel but disallow foreign registrations from having a year deal. Basically force them to register the car in the UK and get an MOT and insurance.
At £20 every two weeks the costs soon add up and it will allow parkies etc to instantly check the front of all those nice polish cars to make sure they are legal.
5t.
22 February 2007, 05:07 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 February 2007, 05:18 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forreign vehicles - we just need to introduce the vignette system they have in switzerland and austria etc. No driving without paying the tax. If you live there you buy one for a year and stick it in your window and if not you can buy one that lasts a couple of weeks. Basically a tax disc with a short term expiry.
Make them cheap enough for tourists, £20 for two weeks travel but disallow foreign registrations from having a year deal. Basically force them to register the car in the UK and get an MOT and insurance.
At £20 every two weeks the costs soon add up and it will allow parkies etc to instantly check the front of all those nice polish cars to make sure they are legal.
5t.
Make them cheap enough for tourists, £20 for two weeks travel but disallow foreign registrations from having a year deal. Basically force them to register the car in the UK and get an MOT and insurance.
At £20 every two weeks the costs soon add up and it will allow parkies etc to instantly check the front of all those nice polish cars to make sure they are legal.
5t.
neat. have a seegarrrrrrr!
22 February 2007, 05:26 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 February 2007, 06:02 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Northamptonshire
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was appalled to listen to the crapulent whining of Jack Straw on the radio when his response to the petition was
"Well of course this isn’t the way a democracy works, petitions are just a voicing of an opinion by some people, whilst we do take into account of what they say it doesn’t detract from 'US' democratically elected members from doing what’s right for the country"
I say "you arrogant ****"
It would have been a different story if the petition said what a cracking idea it was; he would have then said " there you see, democracy at work"
This shower of panhandling, bull****ting, bedwetting, dictators make my blood boil and the sooner they are feked off out of it the better.
Mind you Politicians are all in the same bag for me, shysters the lot of them
by the way cracking reply chap
"Well of course this isn’t the way a democracy works, petitions are just a voicing of an opinion by some people, whilst we do take into account of what they say it doesn’t detract from 'US' democratically elected members from doing what’s right for the country"
I say "you arrogant ****"
It would have been a different story if the petition said what a cracking idea it was; he would have then said " there you see, democracy at work"
This shower of panhandling, bull****ting, bedwetting, dictators make my blood boil and the sooner they are feked off out of it the better.
Mind you Politicians are all in the same bag for me, shysters the lot of them
by the way cracking reply chap
Last edited by rallying1; 22 February 2007 at 06:04 PM.
22 February 2007, 06:33 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Some country and western
Posts: 13,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What other nation is so excited about slashing its own minimal, inconsequential greenhouse gas emissions, and messing up its economy in the process, in the hope that China and India will admire the example and emulate it?
22 February 2007, 06:49 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HolyG, I made my disgust at the wording of the petition quite clear, but I would like to make clear that I applaud the wording of your letter to the Sec of State and am genuinely interested in any response you may (or may not) get.
The content is well structured, sensibly worded and pertinent and one of the best posts I've read for chuffin ages
Nice one
Abdabz
The content is well structured, sensibly worded and pertinent and one of the best posts I've read for chuffin ages
Nice one
Abdabz
22 February 2007, 07:13 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He'll get a response from it, but it will be very wishy washy and non committal. I wrote to my MP when this system was originally proposed and got a letter back saying that it would have benefits.... Not really the answer I was after...
23 February 2007, 04:49 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of replies to Bliar's email, I came across this on another forum.
"Thank you so much for your timely response to the petition.
I am delighted to know that it will be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically feasible. As we are discussing a scheme that is not yet technologically feasible, I have an alternative to suggest, which will solve many of the problems you are concerning yourselves with. I suggest we all start using the "hovercar". This useful device will allow us to travel around the country at varying heights of seven feet, twelve feet or sixteen feet. This will allow many many more vehicles to travel the same route at the same time. The hovercar will use biofuel and will not be guilty of producing carbon emissions, thus allowing for a cleaner environment. It will be cheap to run, easy to operate and come in a range of pleasing colours. I think you will find that the whole country will welcome this scheme. Like the suggested road pricing scheme, it is not technologically possible just yet, but so much more pleasant to discuss.
You are most welcome to my sage advice. "
"Thank you so much for your timely response to the petition.
I am delighted to know that it will be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically feasible. As we are discussing a scheme that is not yet technologically feasible, I have an alternative to suggest, which will solve many of the problems you are concerning yourselves with. I suggest we all start using the "hovercar". This useful device will allow us to travel around the country at varying heights of seven feet, twelve feet or sixteen feet. This will allow many many more vehicles to travel the same route at the same time. The hovercar will use biofuel and will not be guilty of producing carbon emissions, thus allowing for a cleaner environment. It will be cheap to run, easy to operate and come in a range of pleasing colours. I think you will find that the whole country will welcome this scheme. Like the suggested road pricing scheme, it is not technologically possible just yet, but so much more pleasant to discuss.
You are most welcome to my sage advice. "
23 February 2007, 08:58 PM
#30
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jobegold@hotmail.co.uk
ScoobyNet General
2
27 September 2015 09:44 PM