Putting The Boot In To The BPA on Their Turf

notts_phil

[QUOTE=vax2002;54414697]It is not perky and hasbeen who need to read it, but your MP who has been lied to in to voting for a law change.
I have forwarded the link to mine, who else has the guts to do the same.[/QUOTE]

I will but he always ignores me

Hasbeen

notts_phil wrote: »

Really well written speech.

I wonder if perky and hasbeen have read it

Not usually on this forum, more looking at Grabbits, but why should I have read it? Great speech though.

Is there an other hasbeen out there.

notts_phil

Hasbeen wrote: »

Not usually on this forum, more looking at Grabbits, but why should I have read it? Great speech though.

Is there an other hasbeen out there.

Oops sorry has been is the name we give to a manager of a parking company

ManxRed

He's referring to Peter Haswell, or Peter Hasbeen as he is known on here. He's one of the PPC bosses who trolls on here from time to time.

Hasbeen

ManxRed wrote: »

He's referring to Peter Haswell, or Peter Hasbeen as he is known on here. He's one of the PPC bosses who trolls on here from time to time.

Thanks for info. Was searching forums for similar names to mine. But did not find anyone

peter_the_piper

Copy of pdf sent to Amber Rudd, MP for HASTINGS.

LincolnshireYokel

Printed out, and mailed with a letter of complaint to my MP.

Now, someone needs to send a copy to that brainless bimbo at Disability Moitoring UK as well.

ruth_winchester

surely this would be easier to put right than some of their other current troubles...

sent link to my MP Steve Brine

R

HO87

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Now, someone needs to send a copy to that brainless bimbo at Disability Moitoring UK as well.

If you are referring to Helen Dolphin she sits on the BPA Board. If Patrick Troy was there, she'll know about it. I suggest that the speeach needs to be made more widely known around the Disabled Motoring UK forums - as much as anywhere else.

Martin has dropped what amounts to a steaming t*rd into the laps of the BPA. With the usual shuffling aplomb of former civil servants one suspects it will be filed away as the ramblings of an eccentric and biased critic. Hopefully, the passing of it to MP's and its being widely publicised will prompt the regulatory policy committee into action.

We cannot expect the DVLA to act. It has already proven itself to be incapable of decisive action as far as the current situation (the truth behind the BPA's figures and the VCS upper tax tribunal case) is concerned, indeed they are implicated in it as they prepared the impact assessment. They are also well aware of the VCS judgment and its implications for the the "reasonable cause" argument but continue to sit on the fence, citing a need to obtain independent legal advice as the reason for their inaction. In other situations the surfeit of caution approach to the protection of personal data (that is what registered keeper details amount to) has seen the taps turned off before the circumstances were examined whereas the complete opposite is being applied here.

The ICO sits silently, it seems, on the sidelines and, perhaps, fondly imagines that it will avoid any of the brown and sticky fall-out. We should not lose sight of the fact that it was the ICO who gave the nod to the establishment of the BPA's approved operator scheme as a replacement for the provision of the evidence of "reasonable cause" in each individual application for RK details. The ICO is not blameless and has presided over this mess with barely a whimper.

There is only a few weeks before RK liability comes into force and in Swansea, Haywards Heath and Wilmslow there must be certain people who are starting to hold their breath, hoping that this sneaks through under the radar.

Finally, we really ought to be asking who on earth accepted the impact assessment in the first place? And, is it reasonable to have based what represents a serious affront to justice on the basis of anecdote? The evidence adduced in support of the assessment's recommendation is based wholly on what the document describes as "informal consultation with the BPA" and frankly could not have been more favourably written from the PPC's perspective if they had written it themselves. Perhaps they did?

Despite the BPA's attempts to dilute bargepole's FOI figures, the real irony is that the author of the impact assessment actually approached the Ministry of Justice for their views. What he/she didn't do was to attempt to stand up any of the assertions of the BPA upon which the rest of the documents rests. Had they acted more impartially perhaps they might have sought the same figures as bargepole did?

The civil service - upon which we are all utterly reliant - has been caught out worshipping the great God Private Corporation - again - and is now exposed, underpants around its ankles. What is worse is that our elected representatives have blithely accepted what they have been fed both by its servants and those who court them with weasel-words and expensive corporate hospitality. [/rant mode]

Excellently put, Martin. Thanks, again to Nev, bargepole and the others I know are beavering away in the background to bring this sorry state of affairs to a halt.

steve1500

Gone to mine also gave him a link to this board just in case