Drivers to be red-faced if they don’t choose a green car
All they could be doing, and their first thought* is to throw how many
£million of my money at an ad agency and more than happy media
world to persuade me not to do buy something they permit to be sold?
Barking!!!!
I demand my money back.
*Assuming this report to be true.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Webcasting Nasturtiums
Qu: In the exchange on Newsnight with the Sun's 'representative', there was an argument about matters of fact on comments made once the petition became a hot political issue. Who was accurate in their statements?
Times - Nations unite to join a boycott of congestion charge - Well, at least something has brought 'em together at last.
Times - Without road pricing we face gridlock, says Blair
Right message. Wrong person and team to try and sell the solution.
If you can't, or won't, answer key questions with anything other than
defensiveness, denial, hype, spin and 'looking at it' nonsense waffle,
you will not get past the necessary trust levels to allow it to get where
it needs to go.
I await with interest the webcast Thursday pm with Dr.
'Ladymano a 1.8M manos' to see how this little exchange gets carried
out sensibly and then reported.
I'm still trying to figure out who you charge fairly and accurately
without tracking individual vehicle movements as they progress, by
the '2 to 3 ways' alluded to.
Times - Oh, unhappy me. I’m a car owner
Times - Pedal Power
'Road proceeds should be invested in repopularising the bicycle'
I couldn't agree more. However I rather fear as, say with unhiring 750,000 extra civil servants (quoted in these pages I think yesterday), the theory is good but the practice may prove less so.
I'd also like to ensure we are talking here of congestion charge proceeds in London, and not national road proceeds. You see there is a difference.
You may wish to cycle to avoid the smell and overcrowding and performance of an urban transport network that involves minute by minute buses and tubes. Plus the option of heavily subsidised (never understood why such a private enterprise is exempt from charges to carry just one person (ex: driver) in a not very clean diesel emitting all day and night long - maybe it's because the non-car brigade in power still need to get about without the hassle and hoi polloi?).
However, when it's freezing, heaving down, you have a large load and/or two kids, or an urgent appointment well, the trusty Raleigh is the very thing. Especially if the nearest anything is 15 miles away up hill and down dale as the tractor chugs.
And as statistics are a favoured tool of persuasion, may I simply ask (as I don't know) how far affordable housing is from the main urban places of work in the European examples cited? And ignoring the admittedly woeful current support to encourage it in London, what are the geographical challenges. Last time I looked, Amsterdam was pretty flat. I used to live in Wandsworth and there were a couple of hills there alone that would have done for me.
Or is this advocacy solely for young, single, non-parent, fit types?
Guardian - E-petitions: Marketing, or e-democracy?
While I appreciated the opportunity to make my case in London while not having to suffer the irony of drive there to do so (note that one, placard wavers), I'd have to say that what came back was not marketing.
As I do not think any alternative views will gain access to this valuable database, I'd say it falls more under propaganda.
Josef would have been proud.
Guardian - That email
Times - Nations unite to join a boycott of congestion charge - Well, at least something has brought 'em together at last.
Times - Without road pricing we face gridlock, says Blair
Right message. Wrong person and team to try and sell the solution.
If you can't, or won't, answer key questions with anything other than
defensiveness, denial, hype, spin and 'looking at it' nonsense waffle,
you will not get past the necessary trust levels to allow it to get where
it needs to go.
I await with interest the webcast Thursday pm with Dr.
'Ladymano a 1.8M manos' to see how this little exchange gets carried
out sensibly and then reported.
I'm still trying to figure out who you charge fairly and accurately
without tracking individual vehicle movements as they progress, by
the '2 to 3 ways' alluded to.
Times - Oh, unhappy me. I’m a car owner
Times - Pedal Power
'Road proceeds should be invested in repopularising the bicycle'
I couldn't agree more. However I rather fear as, say with unhiring 750,000 extra civil servants (quoted in these pages I think yesterday), the theory is good but the practice may prove less so.
I'd also like to ensure we are talking here of congestion charge proceeds in London, and not national road proceeds. You see there is a difference.
You may wish to cycle to avoid the smell and overcrowding and performance of an urban transport network that involves minute by minute buses and tubes. Plus the option of heavily subsidised (never understood why such a private enterprise is exempt from charges to carry just one person (ex: driver) in a not very clean diesel emitting all day and night long - maybe it's because the non-car brigade in power still need to get about without the hassle and hoi polloi?).
However, when it's freezing, heaving down, you have a large load and/or two kids, or an urgent appointment well, the trusty Raleigh is the very thing. Especially if the nearest anything is 15 miles away up hill and down dale as the tractor chugs.
And as statistics are a favoured tool of persuasion, may I simply ask (as I don't know) how far affordable housing is from the main urban places of work in the European examples cited? And ignoring the admittedly woeful current support to encourage it in London, what are the geographical challenges. Last time I looked, Amsterdam was pretty flat. I used to live in Wandsworth and there were a couple of hills there alone that would have done for me.
Or is this advocacy solely for young, single, non-parent, fit types?
Guardian - E-petitions: Marketing, or e-democracy?
While I appreciated the opportunity to make my case in London while not having to suffer the irony of drive there to do so (note that one, placard wavers), I'd have to say that what came back was not marketing.
As I do not think any alternative views will gain access to this valuable database, I'd say it falls more under propaganda.
Josef would have been proud.
Guardian - That email
The Charity Business
I may seem like I am always down on charities, but I'm not. Well, I'm OK with charity, but not so much the business most major 'charities' brands' have become.
My unease is typified by this poster in our local street. And it's worth noting there are about a dozen such shops competing with rate-paying commercial sales outlets.
WE DON'T ACCEPT OLD BOOKS.
That was what I liked about such shops. Old stuff reused and the money going where most needed. Now they are flogging new stuff (see the poster behind?) to send what % after deductions for admin and marketing?
Minsiter says no
He knows who he is. I mean the guy who told me; not the Minister (though if they have a modicum of brain or shame left, most might have a flicker that this is what they have isolated themselves from in their bunkers, with entire sub-level after level of no people (for outgoing) and yes-mench(for incoming and and up where de sun don' shine).
I was called to calm me down after a day's ranting and rolling online.
And in the course of the conversation I was told an anecdote about some Ministry consultancy work carried out that, upon completion, was flushed (but paid for) without being seen, used or acted upon before it ever got presented, with the immortal words 'The Minister Won't Like It'.
Well, that is an interesting way to run a department, and a country.
And while I personally think it's also a daft one, it doesn't seem to be working awfully well, if we look at, well, pretty every aspect of society and how it is being (mis- depending on your view) managed at present. Hmnn.
One final thought. Are our public servants, at any level, not surely tasked and paid to do what is right for the country and its population, not what a minister may or may not 'like'?
Answers on a voting slip, please, as soon as we can.
I was called to calm me down after a day's ranting and rolling online.
And in the course of the conversation I was told an anecdote about some Ministry consultancy work carried out that, upon completion, was flushed (but paid for) without being seen, used or acted upon before it ever got presented, with the immortal words 'The Minister Won't Like It'.
Well, that is an interesting way to run a department, and a country.
And while I personally think it's also a daft one, it doesn't seem to be working awfully well, if we look at, well, pretty every aspect of society and how it is being (mis- depending on your view) managed at present. Hmnn.
One final thought. Are our public servants, at any level, not surely tasked and paid to do what is right for the country and its population, not what a minister may or may not 'like'?
Answers on a voting slip, please, as soon as we can.
Repitition for effect, the sequel
Newsnight - Tuesday, 20 February, 2007
I'm repeating this as Newsnight is stretching the issue of the Petition over a few days (Very amusing Mr. D Ringer). And there are related matters on the environment to follow (cars do use oil right?)
As it has come up again here (6. Mr. G Edwards) , I'd like to add one more to my list of questions I posed yesterday, as it is a good one and I don't seem to have heard one word by way of an answer on this throughout the 'debate' (that's where people answer other's questions and not just those they fancy, right? And moderators ensure they do, and are truthful, right? Not deny, misinform or stay silent, right?).
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
I'm afraid to answer a previous poster I am having trouble with the current administration's abilities and record in translating revenue into result without 99% going on logistics.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Qu: Where is the place that says that by signing the email I would be exposed unilateral responses by what is, in essence, unsolicited, unanswerable (would I get a reply) mass email methods? Was this not a major critique of the methods used (without the benefit of a single database) by the pro-'lobby' as this played out over the last few weeks.
It's very hard to trust anything... when you don't believe anything any more.
I want sensible, fair, open, practical, cost-effective, fully future-proof enviROI steps taken to secure my kid's and their kids' lives and livelihoods. If road-pricing is part and parcel, so be it.
But not organised from a bunker in, for and by London.
On other matters....
ps: Interesting the comment/critique in the Ethical Man slot: 'What have you learned in the last year?'. It rather begs the next few:
1) With all the support (free kit, per diems, ex's etc) to get set-up with much that will save money as well as planet if capital costs are ignored (and most of us likely can't, when all's said and done), what have those of us without BBC-cred access to the Green Room at Climate Aid/Global Cool learned?
2) And as it seems you are on the last stretch, what will be retained, by way of capital kit and ongoing 'do-without' practices?
For instance, it sure helps a bit that the Bishop of London is taking over the mantle of one-year no-flying zzzzz-oh-how-good-an-example-izzat?, but it's really not so effective if the UK population does it as an annual relay (or does this just apply to celebs and green elites?).
pps: I was about to groan as Mr. Miliband went into full 'Oh golly, it's a question... duck and dive mode, now' when cocktail-stepped on Big Oil, and the 'It depends, we'll need to look into it..' defence brought out was looking typical, if tired. But I thought he recovered well.
Just... was his answer accurate? Maybe the bosses of Shell and BP, etc could provide an answer every bit as slick as the one they did to John Humphrys at Davos, to the same level of journalistic challenge and insight
Pretty please:)
ADDENDUM:
I guess it has passed from media interest already, and don't know how many revisit these pages over subsequent days, but following Newsnight's piece earlier in the week I was wondering if anyone else watched Dr. Ladyman's webcast on the road petition this day?
Actually, in addition to a few other questions that seem a bit shy on coherent answers, I am still wondering who of the two guests were correct on the matter of what was or what was not said by Dr. Ladyman at the outset of this issue: him or the Sun chap?
When the latter says it is on record and the former says it is not, I really like to know.
Telegraph - Blair to defy 1.8m who signed road petition
(Didn't feel like adding my 2p as it has been a long day, there are 147 at last count and they are a tad selective)
Telegraph - What have the past 10 years of Blair been for?
Just for this: 'But the extra taxes we have paid have been wasted, not least in putting 700,000 socially unproductive people on the public payroll, where they can gratefully vote for Gordon Brown in perpetuity'.
Buying votes? That's like buying positions in roles in the process of government.
Surely this is not possible in a democracy, with an effective opposition... er...oh.
Will the last person who trusts this leadership please switch out the.... click....
Telegraph - What's the real cost of congestion?
I'm already limbering up with all my questions for tomorrow's man-to-1.8M 'webcast' tomorrow.
Now, what are the odds?
I see a few more things getting busted tomorrow, along with a few - as you have pointed out - still unanswered 'myths'.
I would just be happy to know how you charge someone fairly, in London or out, for a journey that 'will not be tracked'.
But then, I am just a poor tool in the sway of those evil petitioner-pushers and am unable to understand what lies... er.. behind the self-evident truths and less evident between-the-lines fudges of 'the mighty email', which in no way is a spam campaign trying to twist the result.
If that was the best the finest brains in the Dept. of Hype 'n Spin under Wee Wully MacGoebbels (why are they all Scots??) could manage in the weeks they have had to prepare, then gawd help them as the revolution comes.
Guardian - That email
Telegraph - No 10's road toll reply ducks tax cut guarantee - there's a wonder. A few other areas dodged, too.
I'm repeating this as Newsnight is stretching the issue of the Petition over a few days (Very amusing Mr. D Ringer). And there are related matters on the environment to follow (cars do use oil right?)
As it has come up again here (6. Mr. G Edwards) , I'd like to add one more to my list of questions I posed yesterday, as it is a good one and I don't seem to have heard one word by way of an answer on this throughout the 'debate' (that's where people answer other's questions and not just those they fancy, right? And moderators ensure they do, and are truthful, right? Not deny, misinform or stay silent, right?).
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
I'm afraid to answer a previous poster I am having trouble with the current administration's abilities and record in translating revenue into result without 99% going on logistics.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Qu: Where is the place that says that by signing the email I would be exposed unilateral responses by what is, in essence, unsolicited, unanswerable (would I get a reply) mass email methods? Was this not a major critique of the methods used (without the benefit of a single database) by the pro-'lobby' as this played out over the last few weeks.
It's very hard to trust anything... when you don't believe anything any more.
I want sensible, fair, open, practical, cost-effective, fully future-proof enviROI steps taken to secure my kid's and their kids' lives and livelihoods. If road-pricing is part and parcel, so be it.
But not organised from a bunker in, for and by London.
On other matters....
ps: Interesting the comment/critique in the Ethical Man slot: 'What have you learned in the last year?'. It rather begs the next few:
1) With all the support (free kit, per diems, ex's etc) to get set-up with much that will save money as well as planet if capital costs are ignored (and most of us likely can't, when all's said and done), what have those of us without BBC-cred access to the Green Room at Climate Aid/Global Cool learned?
2) And as it seems you are on the last stretch, what will be retained, by way of capital kit and ongoing 'do-without' practices?
For instance, it sure helps a bit that the Bishop of London is taking over the mantle of one-year no-flying zzzzz-oh-how-good-an-example-izzat?, but it's really not so effective if the UK population does it as an annual relay (or does this just apply to celebs and green elites?).
pps: I was about to groan as Mr. Miliband went into full 'Oh golly, it's a question... duck and dive mode, now' when cocktail-stepped on Big Oil, and the 'It depends, we'll need to look into it..' defence brought out was looking typical, if tired. But I thought he recovered well.
Just... was his answer accurate? Maybe the bosses of Shell and BP, etc could provide an answer every bit as slick as the one they did to John Humphrys at Davos, to the same level of journalistic challenge and insight
Pretty please:)
ADDENDUM:
I guess it has passed from media interest already, and don't know how many revisit these pages over subsequent days, but following Newsnight's piece earlier in the week I was wondering if anyone else watched Dr. Ladyman's webcast on the road petition this day?
Actually, in addition to a few other questions that seem a bit shy on coherent answers, I am still wondering who of the two guests were correct on the matter of what was or what was not said by Dr. Ladyman at the outset of this issue: him or the Sun chap?
When the latter says it is on record and the former says it is not, I really like to know.
Telegraph - Blair to defy 1.8m who signed road petition
(Didn't feel like adding my 2p as it has been a long day, there are 147 at last count and they are a tad selective)
Telegraph - What have the past 10 years of Blair been for?
Just for this: 'But the extra taxes we have paid have been wasted, not least in putting 700,000 socially unproductive people on the public payroll, where they can gratefully vote for Gordon Brown in perpetuity'.
Buying votes? That's like buying positions in roles in the process of government.
Surely this is not possible in a democracy, with an effective opposition... er...oh.
Will the last person who trusts this leadership please switch out the.... click....
Telegraph - What's the real cost of congestion?
I'm already limbering up with all my questions for tomorrow's man-to-1.8M 'webcast' tomorrow.
Now, what are the odds?
I see a few more things getting busted tomorrow, along with a few - as you have pointed out - still unanswered 'myths'.
I would just be happy to know how you charge someone fairly, in London or out, for a journey that 'will not be tracked'.
But then, I am just a poor tool in the sway of those evil petitioner-pushers and am unable to understand what lies... er.. behind the self-evident truths and less evident between-the-lines fudges of 'the mighty email', which in no way is a spam campaign trying to twist the result.
If that was the best the finest brains in the Dept. of Hype 'n Spin under Wee Wully MacGoebbels (why are they all Scots??) could manage in the weeks they have had to prepare, then gawd help them as the revolution comes.
Guardian - That email
Telegraph - No 10's road toll reply ducks tax cut guarantee - there's a wonder. A few other areas dodged, too.
We are not alone
Is the BBC losing the plot?
Just as I send off my less than satisfied viewer/licence payer missive, I get this in my in-box:
Special request from Sophie Chalmers of Better Business
-------------------------------------------------------
Would you do me a favour? There was a section on
radio the Today Prog about working from home (8.50
for five minutes):
It was a ditzy piece with a writer and a journalist
saying how great/horrid it was to work from home.
Their conversations were unreal for most people.
Would you follow this link and write a couple of lines
about your experience/thoughts about working from home.
Solidarity!
Agree. It seems the BBC is not too keen on news journalism any more.
Shame it is just London luvvies and mates from the other media who they can drag in for a cosy 'are we not soooo 'in' chat', and even more so it gets to what was serious news shows like Today, Newsnight, etc, as well.
I won't write as I dread to think what they will choose to feature from my text. Nice to be mis- or at least poorly informed, and then stiffed in the edit suite by the guys whose salaries you pay. Not.
Just as I send off my less than satisfied viewer/licence payer missive, I get this in my in-box:
Special request from Sophie Chalmers of Better Business
-------------------------------------------------------
Would you do me a favour? There was a section on
radio the Today Prog about working from home (8.50
for five minutes):
It was a ditzy piece with a writer and a journalist
saying how great/horrid it was to work from home.
Their conversations were unreal for most people.
Would you follow this link and write a couple of lines
about your experience/thoughts about working from home.
Solidarity!
Agree. It seems the BBC is not too keen on news journalism any more.
Shame it is just London luvvies and mates from the other media who they can drag in for a cosy 'are we not soooo 'in' chat', and even more so it gets to what was serious news shows like Today, Newsnight, etc, as well.
I won't write as I dread to think what they will choose to feature from my text. Nice to be mis- or at least poorly informed, and then stiffed in the edit suite by the guys whose salaries you pay. Not.
Repitition for effect
Newsnight - Monday, 19 February, 2007
Well, I got my email. If this is the best the PM and his bright young things could come up with, I’d suggest they stick with the day job. Oh, wait a 'mo...
Here are some questions back (I am holding my breath). I posed them this morning via Breakfast TV to Douglas Alexander, but they ran out of time to ask more than, oo, two from the whole country, before having to worry about one' of their mate's dresses.
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Well, I got my email. If this is the best the PM and his bright young things could come up with, I’d suggest they stick with the day job. Oh, wait a 'mo...
Here are some questions back (I am holding my breath). I posed them this morning via Breakfast TV to Douglas Alexander, but they ran out of time to ask more than, oo, two from the whole country, before having to worry about one' of their mate's dresses.
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
(I was a tad concerned that the interviewer seemed way out of her depth and frankly allowed anyone come out with any accusation or fact they liked without check (see my last post no. 251 in my personal review of the 'debate' yesterday)
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are... fair?
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
Qu: Who put Transport 2000 in charge of representing moderate, practical and fair environmental advocacy?
Such organisations seem to get funded to drive even greater wedges between protagonists rather than bridge them.
Dear Peter... Love Tony
Well, I got mine.
I also decided to email BBC Breakfast (as requested), but out of the couple (!) they probably got to pose to Minister Douglas Alexander, they managed about two. Nice one, BBC (and if anyone can tell me where the 'Your Comments' button on the homepage is to see if they were logged at least online, I'd be grateful).
I have popped in mine within the text of Mr. Blair's email to me:
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are fair?
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
Further information
Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.
This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.
Qu: How were these selected? For instance how is Transport 2000 considered truly representative of the environmental movement? Why are they the only activist group ever featured?
You can also read the Eddington Report in full.
You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.
If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk
BBC - Could pay-as-you-drive work?
BBC - PM denies road toll 'stealth tax'
I also decided to email BBC Breakfast (as requested), but out of the couple (!) they probably got to pose to Minister Douglas Alexander, they managed about two. Nice one, BBC (and if anyone can tell me where the 'Your Comments' button on the homepage is to see if they were logged at least online, I'd be grateful).
I have popped in mine within the text of Mr. Blair's email to me:
The e-petition asking the Prime Minister to "Scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy" has now closed. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.
This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.
It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.
That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.
But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.
Qu: The claim is made that this is not a stealth tax. Without waffle and 'it will be looked into', what % of every £ will go from the tax directly to environmental-related improvements, how much to creating a whole new level of salaried and pensioned administrators, and how much to unspecified other government expenditures. With no guarantee or fair idea on the first we will assume the last two.
One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.
Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.
Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.
But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.
One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.
A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.
Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.
That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.
It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.
Qu: The other night on Newsnight, Stephen Ladyman claimed 2 to 3 methods for charging an individual vehicle traveling, one presumes, from A to B, without needing to track its location. How, exactly, do you monitor and charge something accurately without knowing where it was, is and how it got there?
I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.
Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.
Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.
Qu: What substantive consideration will be given to the situation and needs of those in non-urban (the bits outside Westminster, Islington, Fleet Street, Canary Wharf, where the BBC lives and Ken pedals to work) areas that are fair?
We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Blair
Further information
Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.
This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.
Qu: How were these selected? For instance how is Transport 2000 considered truly representative of the environmental movement? Why are they the only activist group ever featured?
You can also read the Eddington Report in full.
You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.
Qu: How does Dr. Ladyman propose to answer questions from 1.6M people in tomorrow's webchat?
Will the questions be vetted to provide the best set of answers to suit an established agenda?
If so, and in the absence one presumes of dissenting sides being able to put their case(s) in the same way as the No 10 email, how is this anything like sensible debate, or simply further propaganda?
There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.
If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk
BBC - Could pay-as-you-drive work?
BBC - PM denies road toll 'stealth tax'
We're listening. And then we're selecting what we want to hear.
It is not just politicians.
'Today on Breakfast TV, Declan Curry advised that Andy Bond of ASDA would be there to answer questions.
What I submitted was one of those responses featured, but only the preamble and not the question.
Preamble: Supermarkets are improving a lot environmentally. But most initiatives seem to still be either self-serving (alternative energy reduces fuel bills, which is great, but helps the bottom line mainly), or a response to official pressure (recycling is great to provide and meets targets, but still throws the onus on consumers to do the work and dispose of waste).
Question: What is planned to help consumers with reuse, from ways to make more of existing packaging design, to encouraging new designs and stimulating ideas that can find life beyond the additional energy consumption of recycling or, worse, the bin and landfill?
In fact most of what was covered from the public on this topic was more opinion - 'We love your store!' - than questions.
If you ask for questions, I expect the questions to be asked, not the out-of-context, and often more contentious (or hardly newsworthy or troubling to the guest) editted sections.'
He answered.
Is it just me or did he come off a tad defensive? Of course I had to reply:
Dear Declan,
Your question arrived AFTER the interview with Mr Bond. He was here to
answer questions at 0645 and 0745 this morning.
It may have arrived with you after 0745, but it was sent at - 21 February 2007 07:29:39 GMT, and in immediate response to your on-air request to pose questions to him.
If this is a problem, maybe it would help in future at this final 25% of slot run-down period, to clarify that no further questions will be posed on air?
As I thought you made an interesting point nonetheless,
Thank you. And it is true that I have a concern a lot of CSR coverage is on issues that look and indeed are often green...er, but actually serve the consumer less than the business' PR and bottom line.
I decided to include your email in my brief round up of comments at 0825.
Thank you.
The emphasis here is on the word brief. That slot was 60 seconds long, and I
needed to include around 6-8 remarks, so your comment had to be subbed
down because it was, frankly, much too long. But I think I captured the
essence of it.
I appreciate the need to edit for time, but agenda comes into play.
The first section was not a question, but established context.
Re:use was the question, which as opposed to commentary was what was asked for, and was identified by a question mark.
It is a small, but significant aspect of environmental good practice, barely addressed by anyone. A shame, because along with repair it can be the most personally rewarding and likely to get consumers and the general public on board.
Recycling, via government, local authorities, some very comfy contractors and various quangos and their comms budgets gets massive attention and support. But it is low down the re:hierarchy. And getting people to stand at the sink each night as unpaid sorters is not exactly rewarding. Nor is it that carbon neutral as it does require energy to collect and process. Biodegradability of packaging is also often mooted, but I do wonder what the by-products of biodegrading are, in a more immediate global warming gas sense. Reduction is best, but there's a lot of 'looking at' but not much I can see by way of 'doing'.
My reason for writing was because I was disappointed that the editorial preference was more for a commented negative, though constructive criticism (if valid, and nothing new), as opposed to a posed positive question that could have opened up new and worthwhile ways to improve matters.
I'd be interested in how you view news editors', and the BBC as a public service's responsibilities and duties in the way such issues get portrayed. Stir the pot and add spice? Or try and make it acceptable to all tastes at the table, and in so doing bring them closer together?
There wasn't much point in asking the specific question as the man
himself wasn't there any more. I had said many times when the interviews
would take place.
In light of the discrepancy between what I thought I heard and acted upon, and what you think you said and happened, this aspect is moot until we have access to a time-indexed transcript, so I will for now refrain from addressing it further. If I am wrong I will of course apologise.
The comments at 0825 reflected the balance of opinion that arrived in
our mailbox between the end of the previous business update and the
start of that one.
Repeat. In light of the discrepancy between what I thought I heard and acted upon, and what you think you said and happened, this aspect is moot until we have access to a time-indexed transcript, so I will for now refrain from addressing it further. If I am wrong I will of course apologise.
You may not like it that Asda has satisfied customers, but they're every bit as valid as the supermarket's critics.
I am unsure as to where I expressed any such view, and so do still wonder how what was read out counts as a question, as opposed to what was not. Maybe you would be kind enough to clarify? [Still waiting]
Round 3...?
STOP PRESS - Just heard back from Breakfast to thank me for my original post.
Time: 21 February 2007 14:09:29 GMT. Bless.
24 Feb - A reply from the BBC:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the 21 February edition of 'Breakfast'.
I understand that you were unhappy that your extensive question on supermarkets and the environment was not featured in its entirety. I also note that you feel that the questions sent in were edited to make them easier for the ASDA representative, Andy Bond.
However, I can assure you that there is absolutely no intention to edit feedback from 'Breakfast' viewers to make life easier for guests like Andy Bond. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. However, it is not feasible to include every message or question sent in by 'Breakfast' viewers on the programme itself.
Further information on the programme and means of discussing the issues covered is available on the following webpage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/breakfast/default.stm
Please be assured that your comments have been registered on our daily log for the attention of the 'Breakfast' production team and BBC Senior Management.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
____________
I am drafting my reply, which will be self-explanatory:
Thank you for your reply. It can be no fun having to catch up with such issues at the weekend.
I understand that you were unhappy...
Mr. Curry also made the point that it was too long, though you have done so more charmingly. However I do not recall suggesting at any point that I was upset that it was not featured in its entirety.
I also note that you feel ...
In fact, I think you will note that the reason for my complaint was the exact reverse. I was dissatisfied that the question, which was what was asked for, did not get posed, and the preamble, which was merely an opinion and entirely deletable, was. Also the question was an opportunity for a positive engagement and response by Mr. Bond. The opinion was negative, and that was what was chosen, which if different from editing the distinction will need to be further explained to me.
However, I can assure you ...
I note your assurance. Were all news media so free of subjective influence or ratings driven agenda.
However, it is not feasible ...
And I fully understand this constraint. Hence the need to ensure what is asked for is what gets broadcast in good faith.
Please be assured ...
I note this assurance, but would like to ask what happens next as I do not feel my complaint has been understood properly, which may explain my view on the adequacy of the reply.
I have had occasion to write before, and so far have noticed the procedure does seem to follow a certain path, and one that leads fairly quickly to a dead end. Which begs the questions as to why it exist at all. I will reply to this, but am sure will get a bounce instructing me to return to the start of the complaint procedure again, which raises questions on the structure and sincerity of the dialogue system.
Thank you again ...
You are welcome. It is good to know that a complaint is valued, especially if constructive and in the spirit of improvement. Because it shows the person who made it cares enough to take the time to offer such feedback. And not all have their time funded to do so.
I therefore look forward to seeing how this may be progressed and the answers I sought before, and the new answers I seek may be delivered.
So. Most questions ignored or points denied. Explanations just plain wrong or inadequate. The state of our publicly-funded media today. Round 3???
Bingo! - 'We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee. '
How does me not being able to reply directly to the person who wrote to me make this... more efficient?
Indy - Ads on BBC websites
ADDENDUM:
11 April - Again on the 'Declan does Big Biz' Commercials show', we had a full piece, with commercial, followed by a fawning slot with ASDA's boss about their changing their strapline. Who are the BBC trying to kid?
'Today on Breakfast TV, Declan Curry advised that Andy Bond of ASDA would be there to answer questions.
What I submitted was one of those responses featured, but only the preamble and not the question.
Preamble: Supermarkets are improving a lot environmentally. But most initiatives seem to still be either self-serving (alternative energy reduces fuel bills, which is great, but helps the bottom line mainly), or a response to official pressure (recycling is great to provide and meets targets, but still throws the onus on consumers to do the work and dispose of waste).
Question: What is planned to help consumers with reuse, from ways to make more of existing packaging design, to encouraging new designs and stimulating ideas that can find life beyond the additional energy consumption of recycling or, worse, the bin and landfill?
In fact most of what was covered from the public on this topic was more opinion - 'We love your store!' - than questions.
If you ask for questions, I expect the questions to be asked, not the out-of-context, and often more contentious (or hardly newsworthy or troubling to the guest) editted sections.'
He answered.
Is it just me or did he come off a tad defensive? Of course I had to reply:
Dear Declan,
Your question arrived AFTER the interview with Mr Bond. He was here to
answer questions at 0645 and 0745 this morning.
It may have arrived with you after 0745, but it was sent at - 21 February 2007 07:29:39 GMT, and in immediate response to your on-air request to pose questions to him.
If this is a problem, maybe it would help in future at this final 25% of slot run-down period, to clarify that no further questions will be posed on air?
As I thought you made an interesting point nonetheless,
Thank you. And it is true that I have a concern a lot of CSR coverage is on issues that look and indeed are often green...er, but actually serve the consumer less than the business' PR and bottom line.
I decided to include your email in my brief round up of comments at 0825.
Thank you.
The emphasis here is on the word brief. That slot was 60 seconds long, and I
needed to include around 6-8 remarks, so your comment had to be subbed
down because it was, frankly, much too long. But I think I captured the
essence of it.
I appreciate the need to edit for time, but agenda comes into play.
The first section was not a question, but established context.
Re:use was the question, which as opposed to commentary was what was asked for, and was identified by a question mark.
It is a small, but significant aspect of environmental good practice, barely addressed by anyone. A shame, because along with repair it can be the most personally rewarding and likely to get consumers and the general public on board.
Recycling, via government, local authorities, some very comfy contractors and various quangos and their comms budgets gets massive attention and support. But it is low down the re:hierarchy. And getting people to stand at the sink each night as unpaid sorters is not exactly rewarding. Nor is it that carbon neutral as it does require energy to collect and process. Biodegradability of packaging is also often mooted, but I do wonder what the by-products of biodegrading are, in a more immediate global warming gas sense. Reduction is best, but there's a lot of 'looking at' but not much I can see by way of 'doing'.
My reason for writing was because I was disappointed that the editorial preference was more for a commented negative, though constructive criticism (if valid, and nothing new), as opposed to a posed positive question that could have opened up new and worthwhile ways to improve matters.
I'd be interested in how you view news editors', and the BBC as a public service's responsibilities and duties in the way such issues get portrayed. Stir the pot and add spice? Or try and make it acceptable to all tastes at the table, and in so doing bring them closer together?
There wasn't much point in asking the specific question as the man
himself wasn't there any more. I had said many times when the interviews
would take place.
In light of the discrepancy between what I thought I heard and acted upon, and what you think you said and happened, this aspect is moot until we have access to a time-indexed transcript, so I will for now refrain from addressing it further. If I am wrong I will of course apologise.
The comments at 0825 reflected the balance of opinion that arrived in
our mailbox between the end of the previous business update and the
start of that one.
Repeat. In light of the discrepancy between what I thought I heard and acted upon, and what you think you said and happened, this aspect is moot until we have access to a time-indexed transcript, so I will for now refrain from addressing it further. If I am wrong I will of course apologise.
You may not like it that Asda has satisfied customers, but they're every bit as valid as the supermarket's critics.
I am unsure as to where I expressed any such view, and so do still wonder how what was read out counts as a question, as opposed to what was not. Maybe you would be kind enough to clarify? [Still waiting]
Round 3...?
STOP PRESS - Just heard back from Breakfast to thank me for my original post.
Time: 21 February 2007 14:09:29 GMT. Bless.
24 Feb - A reply from the BBC:
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the 21 February edition of 'Breakfast'.
I understand that you were unhappy that your extensive question on supermarkets and the environment was not featured in its entirety. I also note that you feel that the questions sent in were edited to make them easier for the ASDA representative, Andy Bond.
However, I can assure you that there is absolutely no intention to edit feedback from 'Breakfast' viewers to make life easier for guests like Andy Bond. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. However, it is not feasible to include every message or question sent in by 'Breakfast' viewers on the programme itself.
Further information on the programme and means of discussing the issues covered is available on the following webpage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/breakfast/default.stm
Please be assured that your comments have been registered on our daily log for the attention of the 'Breakfast' production team and BBC Senior Management.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
____________
I am drafting my reply, which will be self-explanatory:
Thank you for your reply. It can be no fun having to catch up with such issues at the weekend.
I understand that you were unhappy...
Mr. Curry also made the point that it was too long, though you have done so more charmingly. However I do not recall suggesting at any point that I was upset that it was not featured in its entirety.
I also note that you feel ...
In fact, I think you will note that the reason for my complaint was the exact reverse. I was dissatisfied that the question, which was what was asked for, did not get posed, and the preamble, which was merely an opinion and entirely deletable, was. Also the question was an opportunity for a positive engagement and response by Mr. Bond. The opinion was negative, and that was what was chosen, which if different from editing the distinction will need to be further explained to me.
However, I can assure you ...
I note your assurance. Were all news media so free of subjective influence or ratings driven agenda.
However, it is not feasible ...
And I fully understand this constraint. Hence the need to ensure what is asked for is what gets broadcast in good faith.
Please be assured ...
I note this assurance, but would like to ask what happens next as I do not feel my complaint has been understood properly, which may explain my view on the adequacy of the reply.
I have had occasion to write before, and so far have noticed the procedure does seem to follow a certain path, and one that leads fairly quickly to a dead end. Which begs the questions as to why it exist at all. I will reply to this, but am sure will get a bounce instructing me to return to the start of the complaint procedure again, which raises questions on the structure and sincerity of the dialogue system.
Thank you again ...
You are welcome. It is good to know that a complaint is valued, especially if constructive and in the spirit of improvement. Because it shows the person who made it cares enough to take the time to offer such feedback. And not all have their time funded to do so.
I therefore look forward to seeing how this may be progressed and the answers I sought before, and the new answers I seek may be delivered.
So. Most questions ignored or points denied. Explanations just plain wrong or inadequate. The state of our publicly-funded media today. Round 3???
Bingo! - 'We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee. '
How does me not being able to reply directly to the person who wrote to me make this... more efficient?
Indy - Ads on BBC websites
ADDENDUM:
11 April - Again on the 'Declan does Big Biz' Commercials show', we had a full piece, with commercial, followed by a fawning slot with ASDA's boss about their changing their strapline. Who are the BBC trying to kid?
It's not just the wind that can blow
I am an ad man at heart. I like to persuade subtly and make people want to act. And I like to see it done fairly, accurately and legally.
When it's not, I think it pushes the cause of cooperative environmental good practice backwards.
When it's not, I think it pushes the cause of cooperative environmental good practice backwards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)