Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- From: Stephen Farrow <stephen.farrow@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:14:02 +0100
matt wrote:
It would have been better if they had explained in a note that these
were typical scenarios, but not having such a note is a very long
way from a scandal no matter how much some people try and portray it
as such.
People will have to judge that for themselves.
However it does speak volumes about the mindset of the people behind
this campaign, and the sort of tactics they are prepared to employ to
make their case.
You know, I live in Greater Manchester, I received one of those leaflets through my letterbox, I'm basically supportive of the idea of congestion charging provided that the current (lousy) public transport systems here get a thorough overhaul first, and I took those examples for what they were: illustrated examples. I don't really care whether or not the people pictured are "real". In fact, in a piece of advertising - which is what this is - I pretty much assume they *aren't* unless I'm told otherwise.
That "scandal" was a lot of fuss and whining about nothing.
--
Stephen
So apparently, if you're handsome and famous enough, you can just lie under oath, and that's cool.
.
- References:
- Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- From: Michael Bell
- Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- From: matt
- Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- From: David Hansen
- Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- From: matt
- Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- Prev by Date: Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- Next by Date: Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- Previous by thread: Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- Next by thread: Re: Congestion charging "to go ahead" in Manchester
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|