Re: Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday
- From: W.Warburton@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 24 May 2007 06:46:41 -0700
On 24 May, 13:45, Ian Smith <i...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<- snippety snip ->
..... I can see how they
thought it wouldn't cause bother.
Quite why they still thought that after 70% of respondents objected
to it in the first draft, I can't explain.
It was a consultation: They publish a preliminary draft, invite
comments and then publish the draft for ratification. They don't
necessarily expect to even read the responses, let alone take them
into account, because they are the experts in the field. The point of
the consultation exercise is to appease, not to inform.
Does that help? I think your expectations may be too high: It's quite
difficult to keep expectations sufficiently low in these situations,
because that level of pessimism is normally associated with clinical
depression.
Cheers,
W.
(with apologies to any depressives reading)
.
- References:
- Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday
- From: J. Chisholm
- Re: Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday
- From: David Hansen
- Re: Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday
- From: Ian Smith
- Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday
- Prev by Date: Re: new and cheap safety gear?
- Next by Date: Re: UCI & Doping- Soution???
- Previous by thread: Re: Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday
- Next by thread: Re: Westminster Hall Debate on Cycling yesterday
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
