Some very heart warming news from Macrame

demolitionred, 02 Dec 2005 09:37:20

I took this from his post on bondage.com I hope he doesn't mind.

"I finished my response to this last night and knowing the deadline is tomorrow I took it by hand to the Criminal Law Policy Unit this evening rather than hope that the royal mail would get it there on time.

One of the staff had to come down to the entrance to collect it from me so I asked him how the response had been.

He said considering it's just a consultation document it had received a very good response.

Somewhere in the region of 300 reasond responses of more than a single page of text with probably another 200 or so who just agreed or disagreed."


SnowdropExplodes, 02 Dec 2005 17:53:34

demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote: I took this from his post on bondage.com I hope he doesn't mind.

"I finished my response to this last night and knowing the deadline is tomorrow I took it by hand to the Criminal Law Policy Unit this evening rather than hope that the royal mail would get it there on time.

One of the staff had to come down to the entrance to collect it from me so I asked him how the response had been.

He said considering it's just a consultation document it had received a very good response.

Somewhere in the region of 300 reasond responses of more than a single page of text with probably another 200 or so who just agreed or disagreed."

Goodness!

That is a HUGE response.

It probably means that there's something like 400 responses from the general public, with the rest being various police forces, organisations and campaign groups.

Hard to guess how many of those responses are "ours", but I think it is fair to say that a large amount of that big figure is down to the tireless efforts of this campaign.

I think we can congratulate ourselves :-)

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Model Search - Could you be the next catwalk superstar? Check out the competition now

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Alan, 03 Dec 2005 10:30:23

Lets not count our chickens too soon eh?

Al
Author wrote:
> demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote: I took this from his post on bondage.com I hope he doesn't mind.
> "I finished my response to this last night and knowing the deadline is tomorrow I took it by hand to the Criminal Law Policy Unit this evening rather than hope that the royal mail would get it there on time.
> One of the staff had to come down to the entrance to collect it from me so I asked him how the response had been.
> He said considering it's just a consultation document it had received a very good response.
> Somewhere in the region of 300 reasond responses of more than a single page of text with probably another 200 or so who just agreed or disagreed."
> Goodness!
> That is a HUGE response.
> It probably means that there's something like 400 responses from the general public, with the rest being various police forces, organisations and campaign groups.
> Hard to guess how many of those responses are "ours", but I think it is fair to say that a large amount of that big figure is down to the tireless efforts of this campaign.
> I think we can congratulate ourselves :-)
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Model Search - Could you be the next catwalk superstar? Check out the competition now


SnowdropExplodes, 03 Dec 2005 15:34:15

alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Lets not count our chickens too soon eh?




Congratulate ourselves on our efforts, I meant, not on the results - I observed that we cannot tell how many of those responses are "ours".

And of course, there is more effort to be done still.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Model Search - Could you be the next catwalk superstar? Check out the competition now

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Thunder, 03 Dec 2005 20:52:47

In message <20051203153221.59263.qmail@web86210.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>,
-OJT- writes
>
>
>alan_slaughter2000@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Lets not count our chickens too soon eh?
>
>
>
>
> Congratulate ourselves on our efforts, I meant, not on the results - I
>observed that we cannot tell how many of those responses are "ours".
>
> And of course, there is more effort to be done still.

Macrame said that he was told "Somewhere in the region of 300 reasoned
responses of more than a single page of text with probably another 200
or so who just agreed or disagreed."


Without wishing to appear over optimistic I cannot see many reasoned
responses would be "for" the proposals other than agreeing with some of
the contents in the document or quoting those who have already said that
"something must be done"..
--
^Thunder^


Laurence, 03 Dec 2005 21:24:09

Author wrote:

> Without wishing to appear over optimistic I cannot see many reasoned
> responses would be "for" the proposals other than agreeing with some of
> the contents in the document or quoting those who have already said that
> "something must be done"..
> --
> ^Thunder^



Never underestimate the capacity for the Daily Mail reader to weave a litany of righteous indignation out of thin air m'dear.

Section 53
"3 years? Nowhere severe enough I tell you - they should be publicly strung up by their tender bits and whipped until their bones bleed then immersed in brine for a week, have all their fillings removed and be fed on a mixture of curried rice sugar and finely chopped silver paper with only iced water to drink then incarcerated in a deep windowless cell with rats and spiders and a bed made of fresh nettles ... Whaddaya mean we can't do that? Hypocritical - not in the least - I'll have you know that I don't hold with all this sex and violence - Bring back hanging - Oh, won't somebody PLEASE think about the children!"

Exit stage left whistling 'Colonel Bogy'!


Kind regards

Laurence


Paul C. Dickie, 03 Dec 2005 22:02:52

In message <5588819.1133645052563.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, lolsemail@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>Author wrote:
>> Without wishing to appear over optimistic I cannot see many reasoned
>> responses would be "for" the proposals other than agreeing with some of
>> the contents in the document or quoting those who have already said that
>> "something must be done"..
>
>Never underestimate the capacity for the Daily Mail reader to weave a litany of
>righteous indignation out of thin air m'dear.
>
>Section 53
>"3 years? Nowhere severe enough I tell you - they should be publicly strung up
>by their tender bits and whipped until their bones bleed then immersed in brine
>for a week, have all their fillings removed and be fed on a mixture of curried
>rice sugar and finely chopped silver paper with only iced water to drink then
>incarcerated in a deep windowless cell with rats and spiders and a bed made of
>fresh nettles ... Whaddaya mean we can't do that? Hypocritical - not in the
>least - I'll have you know that I don't hold with all this sex and violence -
>Bring back hanging - Oh, won't somebody PLEASE think about the children!"
>
>Exit stage left whistling 'Colonel Bogy'!

It's "Colonel Bogey" and, anyway, hanging's too good for 'em. Why can't
they bring back the pillory and the stocks and the ducking stool for
people like that, they're barely people at all anyway so why should we
let them have any human rights? Why, when I was a lad we were caned
three times a day if we were lucky and we were grateful for it and look
at me now, it never did me any harm. That's what's wrong with young
people today, they've not been beaten enough at school because of the
Government bringing in all these sociologists, social workers and do-
gooders, so they're going to have to bring back National Service and the
birch when those silly ASBOs have been found not to work...

(cue someone else writing about life in't mill or down't pit...)

--
< Paul >


Paul C. Dickie, 04 Dec 2005 03:59:01

In message , ^Thunder^
wrote:
>Macrame said that he was told "Somewhere in the region of 300 reasoned
>responses of more than a single page of text with probably another 200
>or so who just agreed or disagreed."
>
>Without wishing to appear over optimistic I cannot see many reasoned
>responses would be "for" the proposals other than agreeing with some of
>the contents in the document or quoting those who have already said that
>"something must be done"..

In another posting, I noted the changes made to the Home Office
'consultation document' page; the equivalent page at the Scottish Office
has not changed at all and still had a link to the on-line response form
when I checked a few minutes ago.



However, the Home Office page was changed on 21/11/05 (to remove the
ion-line form?) and again on 28/11/05 to insert the link to download a
PDF response form. Could it be that they will only consider submissions
that have been made on the on-line or printed versions of the official
response form?

If they tried that, it would certainly reduce their work-load although,
of course, any effect it had on the nature of the responses received
would -- no doubt -- be merely coincidental. Wouldn't they?

--
< Paul >


rosalee, 04 Dec 2005 13:06:24

I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement letter from them.

Ginny

----- Original Message -----
: Paul C. Dickie, 04 Dec 2005 13:06:24
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] Some very heart warming news from Macrame


In message , ^Thunder^
wrote:
>Macrame said that he was told "Somewhere in the region of 300 reasoned
>responses of more than a single page of text with probably another 200
>or so who just agreed or disagreed."
>
>Without wishing to appear over optimistic I cannot see many reasoned
>responses would be "for" the proposals other than agreeing with some of
>the contents in the document or quoting those who have already said that
>"something must be done"..

In another posting, I noted the changes made to the Home Office
'consultation document' page; the equivalent page at the Scottish Office
has not changed at all and still had a link to the on-line response form
when I checked a few minutes ago.



However, the Home Office page was changed on 21/11/05 (to remove the
ion-line form?) and again on 28/11/05 to insert the link to download a
PDF response form. Could it be that they will only consider submissions
that have been made on the on-line or printed versions of the official
response form?

If they tried that, it would certainly reduce their work-load although,
of course, any effect it had on the nature of the responses received
would -- no doubt -- be merely coincidental. Wouldn't they?

--
< Paul >




--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4136

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Graham Marsden, 04 Dec 2005 13:23:19

rosalee wrote:

> I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement
> letter from them.

Hmm, I posted my response to them but I've not had any acknowledgement.

Should I have?

Cheers,
Graham.


samantha, 04 Dec 2005 13:49:45

I submitted mine as a email and got an acknowledgement back.

The forms are a template. As far as I know they cannot just discard what
they have recieved regaring the document


"rosalee" , 04 Dec 2005 13:49:45
>To:
>Subject: Re: [backlash] Some very heart warming news from Macrame
>
>I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement letter
>from them.
>
>Ginny
>
> ----- Original Message -----
om: Paul C. Dickie, Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:03:51 -0000
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 3:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] Some very heart warming news from Macrame
>
>
> In message , ^Thunder^
> wrote:
> >Macrame said that he was told "Somewhere in the region of 300 reasoned
> >responses of more than a single page of text with probably another 200
> >or so who just agreed or disagreed."
> >
> >Without wishing to appear over optimistic I cannot see many reasoned
> >responses would be "for" the proposals other than agreeing with some of
> >the contents in the document or quoting those who have already said
>that
> >"something must be done"..
>
> In another posting, I noted the changes made to the Home Office
> 'consultation document' page; the equivalent page at the Scottish Office
> has not changed at all and still had a link to the on-line response form
> when I checked a few minutes ago.
>
>
>
> However, the Home Office page was changed on 21/11/05 (to remove the
> ion-line form?) and again on 28/11/05 to insert the link to download a
> PDF response form. Could it be that they will only consider submissions
> that have been made on the on-line or printed versions of the official
> response form?
>
> If they tried that, it would certainly reduce their work-load although,
> of course, any effect it had on the nature of the responses received
> would -- no doubt -- be merely coincidental. Wouldn't they?
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
>http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4136

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger 7.5 is now out. Download it for FREE here.
http://messenger.msn.co.uk


rosalee, 04 Dec 2005 14:00:59

How recently did you send it? It might be worth getting in touch with them to make sure they got it.

Ginny

----- Original Message -----
: graham, 04 Dec 2005 14:00:59
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] Some very heart warming news from Macrame




rosalee wrote:

> I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement
> letter from them.

Hmm, I posted my response to them but I've not had any acknowledgement.

Should I have?

Cheers,
Graham.




--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4140

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Graham Marsden, 04 Dec 2005 14:06:21

rosalee wrote:

> How recently did you send it? It might be worth getting in touch with
> them to make sure they got it.

It was several weeks back now. I may give them a call on Monday.

Cheers,
Graham.


Paul Tavener, 04 Dec 2005 19:49:16

I specificaly asked for an acknowledgement and recieved it the following day.

Author wrote:
> rosalee wrote:
> > I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement
> > letter from them.
> Hmm, I posted my response to them but I've not had any acknowledgement.
> Should I have?
> Cheers,
> Graham.


Graham Marsden, 04 Dec 2005 20:13:20

admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:

>>>I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement
>>>letter from them.
>>
>>Hmm, I posted my response to them but I've not had any acknowledgement.
>>Should I have?
>
> I specificaly asked for an acknowledgement and recieved it the
> following day.

Ah, maybe it makes a difference if you actually ask for one.

Cheers,
Graham.


Hessie, 04 Dec 2005 20:15:54

There's no requirement to acknowledge responses to consultations, unless
requested. This is very handy if you are running a consultation that
causes all your favourite green-ink friends to write in, as it means you
don't have to respond for once!

Hessie

admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
> I specificaly asked for an acknowledgement and recieved it the following day.
>
> Author wrote:
>
>>rosalee wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement
>>>letter from them.
>>
>>Hmm, I posted my response to them but I've not had any acknowledgement.
>>Should I have?
>>Cheers,
>>Graham.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4145
>
>


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.


Thunder, 04 Dec 2005 20:19:29

In message <43934E20.6070205@affordable-leather.co.uk>, graham
writes
>
>
>admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>
>>>>I didn't use an official response form and I got an acknowledgement
>>>>letter from them.
>>>
>>>Hmm, I posted my response to them but I've not had any acknowledgement.
>>>Should I have?
>>
>> I specificaly asked for an acknowledgement and recieved it the
>> following day.
>
>Ah, maybe it makes a difference if you actually ask for one.
>
>Cheers,
>Graham.

I didn't ask but got one .

What I didn't get, till I asked, was a reference number.
--
^Thunder^
For and on behalf of Unfettered Limited
Organisers of KinkFest
http://www.unfettered.co.uk


Thunder, 04 Dec 2005 20:24:19

In message , ^Thunder^
writes
>I didn't ask but got one .
>
>What I didn't get, till I asked, was a reference number.

Hello

I confirm your response has been logged with all the others we have
received.

I omitted your reference number - apologies for this. It is 143.

Regards

Neil Underwood
Home Office
Criminal Law Policy Unit
2nd Floor
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

Phone: 020 7035 6981
Fax: 0870 336 9141
--
^Thunder^


Paul C. Dickie, 05 Dec 2005 06:48:36

In message <43934E7E.50009@lineone.net>, Hessie
wrote:
>There's no requirement to acknowledge responses to consultations, unless
>requested. This is very handy if you are running a consultation that
>causes all your favourite green-ink friends to write in, as it means you
>don't have to respond for once!

Green ink?

As in 'C', 'M' or 'Q'?

--
< Paul >