MP not getting it!

[Sara_H]

Despite being generally regarded as a bit of a politician botherer, I wrote to my new MP for the first time since she was elected in the most recent general election.

I wrote to her by email about the loophole in the law that allows motorists to evade justice for serious criminal offences by claiming they didn't know who was driving at the time of the offence, instead being prosecuted for the less serious offence of failing to name the driver.

To illustrate the point, I provided a link to the case that has been in the press over the last week or so of the cyclist in Nottingham who was very seriously injured when a driver rea ennded him, yet despite having very clear footage the police/CPS failed to secure a conviction due to the above loophole.

My MP wrote back, thanking me for bringing the matter to her attention and that she would forward my message to the minister responsible for CYCLING!!!!

I've written back respectfully pointing out that this is not a cycling matter and asking her to forward it to whoever is responsible for road traffic legislation, but feel very disappointed that someone in her position surmised from my correspondence that this was a cycling issue.

Maybe I should have been more explicit, but how does anyone come to that conclusion in these circumstances.

 

[PeteXXX]

Slopey shoulders.. Someone else's job to sort.
Typical politicians response.
Well done for trying though.

 

[Arrowfoot]

The second note highlighting that it is not a cycling matter would be a good idea.

 

[martint235]

That's an MP for you. Scans the letter, hands it to someone else saying "Draft me a response to this, it mentions cycling". Signs it and sends it to you. If you're really lucky, they'll respond by email rather than letter. Now your MP has sent it on to the minister responsible for cycling, they won't even see your letter. It'll be responded to by an official and then signed by the minister. They may even use a stock letter for the first response.

Always worth chasing them up to stress it's not a cycling issue.

 

[mjr]

Probably a reply drafted by an assistant that was close enough that the MP didn't spot the error at a quick glance at the two before signing Yes, please write again to clarify and ask if they'll take a more appropriate action

 

[Dogtrousers]

Do you know of an instance where the victim of the offence was not a cyclist? Cite that.

 

[martint235]

Just as an aside, I spent some time as a Private Secretary to a minister. My boss took a call from our Correspondence Unit and I got called in to see her.

Her: You've sent a letter back to be redrafted.
Me: Yes. The grammar was incorrect and I didn't want the minister to sign and send it like that.
Her: But it's a stock letter. We don't redraft them.
Me: But it's incorrect grammar. Did no one check it before it became a stock response?
Her: Yes I did.
Me: Well at least it's ok from now on.

 

[Sara_H]

Do you know of an instance where the victim of the offence was not a cyclist? Cite that.

I did point out in my reply that the victim could just as easily have been any kind of road user, including another motorist.

 

[midliferider]

And we voted that MP

 

[Drago]

The title suggested to me that an MP somewhere was being deprived of sex!

 

[Sara_H]

The title suggested to me that an MP somewhere was being deprived of sex!

I'm sure she's very busy.

 

[Tim Hall]

Just as an aside, I spent some time as a Private Secretary to a minister. My boss took a call from our Correspondence Unit and I got called in to see her.

Her: You've sent a letter back to be redrafted.
Me: Yes. The grammar was incorrect and I didn't want the minister to sign and send it like that.
Her: But it's a stock letter. We don't redraft them.
Me: But it's incorrect grammar. Did no one check it before it became a stock response?
Her: Yes I did.
Me: Well at least it's ok from now on.

<tries to imagine Tall Martin being played by Derek Fowlds. Nope>

 

[martint235]

<tries to imagine Tall Martin being played by Derek Fowlds. Nope>

I was once on a visit to a hospital with the minister and was asked if I was his bodyguard

 

[steveindenmark]

Just as an aside, I spent some time as a Private Secretary to a minister. My boss took a call from our Correspondence Unit and I got called in to see her.

Her: You've sent a letter back to be redrafted.
Me: Yes. The grammar was incorrect and I didn't want the minister to sign and send it like that.
Her: But it's a stock letter. We don't redraft them.
Me: But it's incorrect grammar. Did no one check it before it became a stock response?
Her: Yes I did.
Me: Well at least it's ok from now on.

Did you write the scripts for Yes Minister

 

[CopperCyclist]

Maybe I should have been more explicit, but how does anyone come to that conclusion in these circumstances.

My guess would be - by not bothering to actually read the email...