Petition against car tracking

Gandelf · Post by **Gandelf** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:14 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6378571.stm

Post by **Lairiodd** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:46 pm

From the same page:

ROAD PRICING VIEWS
Which if any, of the following, would make the policy acceptable to you?
Total %
If money raised was used to improve public transport... 424 55
If money raised was used to cut other road taxes... 407 53
If the money went to the treasury... 56 7
Nothing would make that policy acceptable to me... 202 26
Based on responses of 768 people

Looks like some would accept it if the money went to public transport.

Post by **Lieva** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:15 pm

thats only cuz most of em would go to using buses and wouldnt have to pay it then

Gandelf · Post by **Gandelf** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:20 pm

Lairiodd wrote:From the same page:

Looks like some would accept it if the money went to public transport.

I agree. But in the Daily Mail Tony Blair was quoted as saying that he thought the public transport system was already adequate and that improving it was secondary to introducing the travel tax! He's so out of touch. Then he has the audacity to say that he's going to send an email to all those on the petition, to say that surely any plan to ease congestion must involve charging motorists for the mileage they drive. He's just totally off his rocker. So much so, that his own MPs are threatening to rebel unless he takes notice of a legitimate petition. He just can't brush aside 1.7 Million petitioners!

Post by **Xest** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:48 pm

Gandelf wrote:I agree. But in the Daily Mail Tony Blair was quoted as saying that he thought the public transport system was already adequate and that improving it was secondary to introducing the travel tax! He's so out of touch. Then he has the audacity to say that he's going to send an email to all those on the petition, to say that surely any plan to ease congestion must involve charging motorists for the mileage they drive. He's just totally off his rocker. So much so, that his own MPs are threatening to rebel unless he takes notice of a legitimate petition. He just can't brush aside 1.7 Million petitioners!

The news is making FAR too much of Tony Blair's "personal" e-mail in response to it. I've signed a few petitions there in the past and when every petition ends you receive a "personal" e-mail no matter what the petition. That said, I wonder how many people signed it just to get a "personal" e-mail off the PM

I have to say I'm a bit peed off about the response to some of the other petitions though to be honest so whilst I disagree with you on this one Gandelf, don't worry there's plenty of other issues out there. Perhaps the one that annoyed me most is the response to the petition about allowing Ghurka's citizenship in the UK if they so wish and a pension equal to all other British army personnel - they said that ghurka's don't need a fair pension because most of them retire to Nepal where their lower pension is worth more. Talk about idiotic, the reason they move to Nepal is because they a) can't get British citizenship and b) Couldn't afford to live anywhere else on the shitty pension they're given for risking their lives for a country that isn't even theirs!

Post by **Lieva** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:30 pm

id like to assume the reason theyre going on about the 'personal email' is because no matter how many people signed Mr Blair isnt backing down..

But that would require intelligence and since the main headlines today was 'a study shows that most women aged 18-32 are unhappy with their body' i wouldnt count on it

Tbh the first thing i thought was "omg the government has a spam email option button!!"

Post by **Lieva** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:32 pm

Gandelf wrote:I agree. But in the Daily Mail Tony Blair was quoted as saying that he thought the public transport system was already adequate and that improving it was secondary to introducing the travel tax! He's so out of touch!

no no hes completly correct.
When he travels on public transport he never has a problem..

mainly cuz he has hordes of police making sure everyone gets out the way. I wouldnt have a problem with my public transport if i had an army to clear the muppets on the road also

but umm..
does that mean as soon as he introduces the travel tax he will improve the public systems? Which is what everyone has asked for...

Post by **Lieva** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:34 pm

Xest wrote:Perhaps the one that annoyed me most is the response to the petition about allowing Ghurka's citizenship in the UK if they so wish and a pension equal to all other British army personnel - they said that ghurka's don't need a fair pension because most of them retire to Nepal where their lower pension is worth more. Talk about idiotic, the reason they move to Nepal is because they a) can't get British citizenship and b) Couldn't afford to live anywhere else on the shitty pension they're given for risking their lives for a country that isn't even theirs!

one thing ive noticed re this country.
The more law abiding you are the more you get f***ed about.
If the ghurkas had come over here illegally they would prolly be living in 3 bedroomed detatched houses and having everything paid for them...

Gandelf · Post by **Gandelf** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:05 pm

Lieva wrote:But that would require intelligence and since the main headlines today was 'a study shows that most women aged 18-32 are unhappy with their body' i wouldnt count on it"

I'd be happy with any 18-32-year-old woman's body any day!

dirty:

Satyn · Post by **Satyn** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:10 pm

Gandelf wrote:I'd be happy with any 18-32-year-old woman's body any day!

any? ....