Will Lib Dem support for Road Pricing face riders with new charges although Motorcycles and Scooters don’t congest?

Let me start by saying that this blog is not triggered by a desire to pore scorn on any of the three major parties. But it is fuelled by a deep frustration that despite the fact that motorcyclists and scooterists are a small but significant group of road users and the electorate, all of the main parties have addressed rider’s concerns and issues in the run up to the election with a deafening silence so far…

So. Spotting significant differences between the key proposals for transport by the three main UK political parties is, as far as I can see, close to a needle in haystack hunt. But when it comes to trying to decide which one of the main parties may have the most to offer riders of motorbikes, mopeds or scooters, it gets even more difficult – even after or perhaps especially after the second ‘gloves off’ televised leaders debate – where a clear winner was difficult for anyone to pick who was looking at it without a preconceived political inclination.

Clearly, after the first TV debate a new ‘I agree with Nick‘ craze began, and now it seems that the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg may still just be top of the pops in style for TV debate viewers. But, as I have none of the party leaders on offer for me to vote for on May the 6th, I’m more interested in what their party polices are and whether they are likely to improve the way motorcycling related issues are addressed or make them worse.

Sadly as far as I’m concerned, there seems to be space in each party’s manifestos; Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem, for a few ‘politically correct’ lines on the wonders of  walking and cycling, although many of those who make up the nationwide totals are actually too young to vote – whereas there is no manifesto place for mention of powered two wheeler rider’s issues – even though there are well over 1.5 million of us, and the fact is that most Riders ARE Voters.

This leaves me with no alternative for now but to dig deeper into what the three main parties are saying about their policies for road users in general. And there lies at least one potential bombshell for the future of UK motorcycling.

There is one difference above all that could be a key factor in ending the ‘I agree with Nick’ craze that kicked off after the first televised leaders debate – and this could have a decisive impact on some key marginal seats including Richmond in London where transport and ‘motoring taxes’ are big bones of contention…

The Lib Dems want to “use road pricing revenue to cut fuel duty” according to an ePolitx.com summary in a concise and accurate list of key transports policy proposals by the three parties.

To be fair, the Lib Dems seem to think they have found a way to prevent a potentially devastating wave of objections to this proposal among a big majority of voters. Buried at the back of their manifesto on page 80, they say road pricing will not be introduced straight away but in “a second parliament” and that it would be “revenue neutral“.

But Lib Dem hopes that the UK electorate will trust any assurances about a new nationwide motoring tax, flies in the face of all the hard evidence of public opinion to date. The simple facts are that every time that the great British public have had a chance to vote on a proposal for a Road Pricing aka Congestion Charging scheme; 75% of them have said no.

Despite the massive efforts and even ‘bullying‘ by the current Labour government to push such schemes in Edinburgh and Manchester, (which I investigated and reported on extensively during my time at LTT) all hopes to impose such schemes were emphatically crushed.

And, lest we forget or you didn’t know, all the truly well informed experts on this issue agree that the main reason that Livingstone got away with imposing his Congestion Charge in London was that he had none of the trappings of a major political party to bother with when he steamrollered the scheme onto the streets during his first term in office – as he had been chucked out of the Labour party before his election as mayor for daring to defy their choice of more biddable mayoral candidate.

It is also a fact that Londoners only had two opportunities to vote on a Western Extension of the central London scheme and 70+% said no on both occasions. The first was on whether to go ahead with it which Ken Livingstone ignored, and the second was to keep it or remove it which Boris Johnson respected.

Now, the Conservatives have distanced themselves from any plans for nationwide road pricing – apart from a scheme for lorries which presumably they hope will not grab widespread attention or adverse reactions. And although Labour have said they will not try to introduce road pricing in during the next parliament, there are responses to Freedom of Information Act questions to show they may be secretly plotting to introduce it if they could in due course.

All this leaves Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem parliamentary candidate colleagues standing alone as manifesto advocates of nationwide road pricing – with Labour quietly waiting in the wings with hopes of joining forces to introduce it. But, there is at least one place where there there is a good chance of this turning into a big clanger for the Lib Dems, namely Richmond. Since the creation of this constituency the seat has been held by Lib Dem stalwart, Susan Kramer, who is to my personal knowledge a very big fan of the whole Road Pricing idea. However, her opponent in this election is none other than the Scooterist Conservative Zac Goldsmith who I know from recent conversations is extremely focused on trying to deliver a win for him and the Tories.

In the interests of balance I should say that I know there are a few key figures in the upper echelons of the Conservative party who are still very keen on the road pricing idea, but at least the party whips and policy wonks have the political sense to ensure they stay schtum for now.

So, never mind how many politicians ‘agree’ with Nich Clegg, the Lib Dem link to a new nationwide motoring tax may disincline a significant number of voters from joining that gang…

One set of rules for riders and another for our rule-makers and enforcers?

I frequently walk by this M/C parking bay, but the scene I saw this week got me thinking about rules. Who makes ‘em, what for – in theory and really – and who has to abide by The Rules and who can get away with flouting them…

The first thing that started me thinking in that direction was the surprise of seeing how full this bay was on a dark cold drizzly night – having approached it from behind the sign. And, I guess I should explain that the bay is usually fairly empty these days, but not because riders in London don’t go out in the cold or at night. In fact this bay used to be rammed full to overflowing pretty much 24/7. But that all stopped when Westminster began their ‘experimental’ scheme to try and force all scooter and motorbike riders to pay a new parking tax – which they did by changing the rules in all of the few M/C bays in the central area of London where the council make the rules. And to keep the picture clear despite the murky photos, bays like this one that were designated for bike parking without risk of fines for ‘illegal’ parking, are inadequately scattered amongst the acres of road space that are covered by parking rules which are to ‘manage traffic’ in theory. But in reality of course, the main reason for these rules is to keep the money flowing in from the Cash Cow that parking enforcement has become.

Anyway, it is also clear from these pictures, and loads more here, that the scallywags who have defaced the new scheme signs have broken some rules in a rebellious effort to invalidate the enforcement of a bike parking tax in that location. And I gather that this particular type of signage customisation/ vandalism is called ‘Rathboning’ as these acts are attributed to a mysterious ‘Captain Rathbone’ – and a loose collection of pirates who keep doing these dastardly deeds. However, as I said before, I am not in a position to condone such rule-breaking for various reasons, not least of which is my concern that such activities could harm the reputation of ‘bikers’ and scooterists in London. But what I can and will say is that these Rathboners are not the only bunch involved with this new riders’ tax who seem to be breaking rules.

I have seen the full range of formalised complaints against the pioneers of this new bike parking tax scheme, and the evidence to back such claims. Most of this has been gathered and submitted by a dedicated few in the NTBPT. But the claims and evidence that triggered an EU Commission investigation has come from very big international players in the parking enforcement business who are very aggrieved by what they claim is very serious rule-breaking indeed. So, from what I’ve seen, I can say that all sorts of rules may well have been bent or broken, in order to get this new tax imposed for the moment on the central streets of London.

But now it seems we’re at a point where reactions to rules and rule-breaking are getting complicated. Having seen the initial rounds of formal responses from the organisations who are supposed to investigate claims about rule breaking and take action to stop it, or chuck out anything that is wrongly achieved by it, it looks like some of them are trying to wriggle out of doing their job. Currently, it would seem that the Office of Fair Trading is suggesting that it would be best if they let the EU Commissioners  investigate complaints that the bike park tax pioneers at WCC may have flouted rules to ensure that trading in Britain is actually fair. Frankly I’m not convinced about that but not being an expert on fair trading laws I’m not qualified to say, but I gather that the NTBPT are in touch with bods who can.

Currently, the OFT are not alone in resisting calls for action. Other official bodies who have been asked to investigate potential rule-breaking behind the scenes by the bike tax pioneers, are also trying to buy some time before getting on with investigations. And, in a way this is understandable as they are run by civil servants in outfits like like the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Audit Commission, where all will be wondering if they’ll still have a job after the next election.

So, for now, it is clear that some rules about defacing signs are being broken on the street by individuals who feel that such actions are their best or perhaps only path left for expressing their views about a new bike parking tax. What is far less clear though is whether those who have made new rules to tax riders have broken even more behind the facade of Westminster City Hall. We will also have to wait and see if the public servants who are responsible for investigating rule breakers do their job as well and fairly as they should. Personally, I very much hope they do in due course. But I will not be holding my breath in the mean time – and will be doing what I can to encourage all concerned to respect the rules that deserve respecting most…

Westminster go-ahead for controversial M/C Parking Tax that is set to hit all UK riders – but it also opens doors for serious legal challenges…

So, Westminster City Council (WCC) have finally decided to go-ahead with plans to make their ‘experimental’ and unprecedented pay-by-phone M/C parking tax a permanent measure. The decision by Cllr Danny Chalkley (right) to authorise new Traffic Orders to do this – as recommended by officers led by ‘this is not a revenue stream’ Alistair Gilchrist (left), will take effect on 25th January. Of course this is potentially very bad news for all UK riders as it could trigger a nationwide roll-out of new bike parking charges. If such charges do go nationwide it could cost the motorcycling community a staggering £93,000,000 per year, according to the Tax Payers Alliance who support objectors to what they see as a tax in all but name. But there is some good news. The leading opponents of the move NTBPT say that the WCC decision also opens doors for legal challenges on a number of fronts.

So, although WCC may regard the matter as closed by their decision, this is not the case as far as I am concerned and i am delighted to report that I am far from being alone in that view. And as I’ve reported a few days ago, some scallywags in our midst have been so angered by what they see as a totally unfair and unjustifiable scheme, that they have gone to the extremes of taking the law into their own hands. Within two days of me and other biker bloggers breaking news about this move, many signs explaining how the scheme works at M/C parking bays had been defaced. And, as regular visitors here will know, these shocking acts made the controversial charges technically unenforceable within UK Traffic Act regulations. But the facts as I see them are that the vast majority of protests and objections have been made in legitimate forms and superbly led by the NTBPT and their thousands of supporters who are the focal point for opposition to Westminster’s regressive scheme.

And, although I and others concerned with this nasty rider’s tax must stress that we can’t condone actions that cross the line into any forms of illegal activity, it was cheering to hear NTBPT chairman Warren Djanogly’s initial response to news of the WCC decision, which in his in his generally robust campaigning style was to say to me. “Let battle commence!” Now though, Warren has spoken in more measured tones to identify the basis for further challenges and work to get the charging scheme scrapped. “Cllr Chalkley’s decision to make the scheme permanent has opened a window for us to launch a full legal challenge.” In a nutshell what this means is that NTBPT are now proceeding with legal challenges having already raised the magnificent sum of £30,000 for a ‘fighting fund’ to cover legal costs.

One challenge is in the form of a formal demand for an official Public Inquiry into the legitimacy of the ‘experiment’ on which WCC based their decision to press ahead with the scheme. Other NTBPT challenges have prompted the District Audit Office and the Office of Fair Trading to investigate their claims and outlines of evidence that the council has breached various regulations that govern procurement and tendering procedures for UK local authorities. And, as my news story for MSL magazine highlighted, the EU Commissioners are also investigating what WCC may have been up to that wasn’t quite the way it should have been.

Yesterday I did the decent investigative thing and called WCC to get the latest on what Danny Chalkley had to say about his latest move . As you’d expect, he defended his decision and told me that he ‘understands’ that “charging to park is not popular with some motorcyclists”, but he also claimed that “it is fair and reasonable that motorcyclists, contribute to the cost of improvements and the maintenance of transport infrastructure.” But I have a big problem trying to accept this line of argument. In fact, as far as I can see, Danny has a big problem with it too. After all, as we all know now, thanks to diligent probes and many Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, the facts of life about the money already extracted from rider’s pockets show that this argument is unsustainable to say the least – and complete and utter tosh to be a tad more accurate.

The relentless barrage of  FOI requests forced the council to admit that they have already taken over £2 million from riders during the ‘trial’ of the charges. And even by their well spun calculations, WCC Inc. have already trousered a net surplus of at least £500,000 after all costs of ‘improvements’ and setting up their ultra sophisticated pay-by-phone system have been paid for.

So where are we now? Well, in the course of my attempts to scrape a living from writing about the stuff that bothers UK riders today, I did a round up of what the key players in our rider’s rights groups think and have to say.

What do Rider’s Rights groups and the Motorcycling industry say and call for now?

Updated Friday 15 Jan, 08.45 The first comments on this blog have been about the UK Motorcycle Industry’s position during the course of this campaign and now. In the light of that I have added a link to the MCIA page explaining their position in full and add what I regard as the most pertinent section immediately below and prior to my summary posted last night. I will be talking to the MCIA spokesman for Public Affairs soon,  hopefully today, and will encourage the industry to update it’s position now that WCC have decided to go-ahead with their scheme whilst retaining the ‘demand management’ objective as an official reason to impose new extra charges for the use of motorcycles and scooters in Westminster.

From MCIA Policy statement

“MCI is concerned that the justification for the parking charge may have moved from being one of paying for improved parking service provision for motorcyclists, to one of ‘demand management,’ intended to deter motorcycle use. WCC officials have sought to assure the Association that the basis of the charge is service provision.

However, the current Westminster CC ‘Unitary Development Plan’ (UDP) specifically states that parking charges for motorised vehicles are levied on the basis of ‘demand management’. MCI is opposed to many of the principles of the ‘demand management’ philosophy, as this has often been used as an excuse to discourage powered vehicles and in particular PTWs, and is urging WCC to clarify and resolve this apparent contradiction.”

Back to original summary…

Let’s start with the The Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCIA). And yes I know that there are some riders & campaigners who have been a bit frustrated by a somewhat restrained level of action regarding the M/C parking tax issue so far. But the MCIA position as I understand it is quite clearly that it wants the scheme withdrawn because a key official objective for the charges, in Westminster’s core policy document called the UDP,  is to ‘manage demand’ for M/C bays by introducing ‘fees’ to deter riders from parking and therefore using PTWs on central London streets.

MAG’s General Secretary, Nich Brown, put the debate over bike parking fees into a clear perspective earlier today and offers good advice about what riders can do and says this. “The argument that riders should pay to park on roads operated by local councils, is fundamentally flawed. Riders pay far more in taxes than the benefit they receive when using the roads. Every year the councils raid the money they should be spending to make roads safer for motorcycles by ensuring road repairs last more than five minutes and providing non-slip manhole covers and access to bus lanes.” He then added that “Until all councils ‘think bike’, there can be no question of charging to park on the street.” Nich then suggests that “MAG’s RAV campaign (supported by BMF and MCI) is giving thousands of riders an opportunity to quiz would-be MPs and councillors. ‘Why should I give you my vote?’ is one of the most powerful ways to get what we want.” (http://www.ridersarevoters.org)

Now as far as chairman of the NTBPT Warren Djanogly is concerned he has said this. “Cllor Chalkley’s decision to make the scheme permanent has opened a window for us to launch a full legal challenge. It’s going to be expensive but if just 5,000 bikers contributed £10 each (less than a tank of fuel), we can beat this evil stealth tax.” In response, the BMF has called on all UK motorcyclists to chip in whatever they can. Chris Hodder, the BMF’s Government Relations Executive said. “These parking charges run contrary to the Government’s aim to ‘mainstream’ motorcycling but the only option now available is to overturn the scheme in the courts. If we don’t, this could spell the nationwide end of free parking for motorcycles. Now is the time to stand up and be counted and support the NTBPT fighting fund.” Currently the fund stands at £30,000, but needs at least another £20,000 to meet the expected minimum legal costs of £50,000.

Finally, MAG’s campaigns co-ordinator Paddy Tyson summarises the current situation in a way that I agree with wholeheartedly. “The serious nature of this situation really shouldn’t be underestimated. MAG understands that all local councils are underfunded, but motorcycling is certainly not the resource they should turn to as an extra source of revenue.” He adds. “PTWs can help local authorities actually reduce costs, by reducing congestion and infrastructural damage as well as emissions, so motorcycle and scooter riders shouldn’t be penalised and discouraged. MAG fully supports NTBPT and urges councils around the country not to  adopt a policy which in essence is counter productive.”

Westminster’s top dog Colin Barrow leads Tory Cllrs who want a ‘Magna Carta for localism’ but is this good for the people or good for them?

News is breaking today that top Tory Cllrs are making their final push to get a  ’Magna Carta for localism‘ embedded in the Conservatives pre-election manifesto.

This could be very good news for UK riders in my view but not in a way that Cllr Barrow would like it. It is only fair to assume that many conservative councillors and MPs are in favour of a ‘localist’ emphasis – on the basis that it will help ensure that policy decisions are made in the best interests of people where they have greatest impact – namely at local level. But, and I have to say it’s a very big but in my view, there is often a very big gap between the real motives that politicians have for increasing political power at local level, and the seemingly well meant theories that can reassure us that everything they plan will be as lovely as it can be.

The last time I spoke to Barrow was before an exceptionally well attended full council meeting in which the ‘experimental’ motorbike parking charges/tax scheme was to be reviewed. He told me that his officers (led no doubt by Alastair Gilchrist ‘this is not a revenue raising exercise’ ) said that Westminster had ‘problems’ with meeting demand for bike parking in the borough. I told him that there was a simple solution to all these ‘problems’ and that is to look at what all comparable cities do. Throughout the EU and most of the developed world, local authorities recognise the invaluable positive role that scooters and motorcycles play in modern towns and cities – and do not see riders as a potential target for new taxes. Very sensibly and rightly, most transport authorities outside the UK allow riders to park without extra charges in the abundance of places they can use without causing inconvenience to anyone or cost to the council. Barrow looked nonplussed at my suggestion and could find nothing to say apart from “Oh, I see” Not quite true of course because it was clear to me that neither he nor his officers had bothered looking for ’solutions’ that didn’t involve creating a new tax.

Now though, in addition to various other challenges ahead for Barrow he may have a new and real problem. His fellow top Tory Councillors and key parliamentarians may start taking a very dim view of his council’s plans to pioneer a brand new local tax – to ’solve’ a bike parking ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist in any other world city. The real problem for Barrow and us all is that Westminster council has always led the way in screwing all the money they can, from any group of road users they can, in the form of parking ‘management’ and highly profitable privatised enforcement. But if the new Tory Magna Carter ends up being seen as a charter for councillors to impose more localised taxes, and especially on vulnerable road users in the form of PTW riders, it may not seem quite as attractive to the electorate as it’s promoters hope. This latest development of a new ‘Magna Carter’ and controversial measures for enforcement also begs other questions. Not least important of these concerns the way Cllr Barrow will be seen by his fellow politicians and the great British public. Will he be hailed as a ‘people power’ Baron or slide into disfavour as a greedy King John?

Protesters fightback against Westminster’s attempts to get cash flowing in again from bike parking tax

Westminster’s attempts to keep it’s ‘Stealth Tax’ for scooter  and motorbike riders is being subject to stealthy attacks by a secret army of angered citizens. I am reliably informed that protesters have already been out in force in London to fightback against Westminster’s attempts to get cash flowing in again from their controversial and widely hated bike parking tax scheme. And these latest events are happening only days after go-ahead was given to try and make the ‘trial’ charging scheme permanent. Reports are coming in from Visordown (thanks for latest pic) & the NTBPT campaign group to confirm that within hours of the council sending contractors out to replace defaced signs, the new signs have been rendered useless.

Fresh applications of paint have already been applied to many of the new signs to cover crucial details about the charging scheme and this means that charges or parking tickets can not be legally enforced by Westminster City Council.  As I have said before, I cannot condone acts of protest that can be regarded as vandalism. However, the facts of life in a democracy work like this. When officials with government powers end up disregarding a massive swath of legitimate objections to their plan for a new tax on a specific section of the public – and all legitimate paths for meaningful objection by individual citizens are closed – some individuals will take action that is outside those legitimate channels of communication from which they feel shut out.

In my view this current plan for a new parking tax is exceptionally ill-conceived and regressive, and I have done my best along with many others to explain why this is so to the bods who are responsible for creating the current mess. In essence, the key problem with this stealth tax and cause of so much anger is this. It is targeted at a specific group of citizens who work, live and shop in the central district of London who are all doing their bit to cut congestion problems by making essential journeys by motorbike or scooter. Penalising such a group with a new tax is IMHO, indefensible and mad!

And, the main reason that I can’t see objections to the tax ceasing in the foreseeable future, is that the target group for turning into a new local government revenue stream includes an extraordinary cross section of people. Powered Two Wheeler (PTW) riders range from nurses & other essential low paid workers to hospital consultants and couriers who are ensuring that the pace of business in the capital remains competitive with other world cities. So, the current situation looks like this to me. The income from the ‘trial’ of this parking tax scheme in the heart of the the capital run by Westminster Council has far exceeded any ‘benefits’ that the council originally said would justify new charges and fines to be imposed on riders. Correspondingly the only real reason for Westminster officials to try and keep this charging and fines scheme in place is to extract a bit more cash from a minority group of vulnerable road users aka bikers & scooterists.

Lastly, for now, I think there is one other thing to keep in mind. Although the defacing of signs is the most obviously ’sensational’ aspect of the latest events that can and I’m sure  will be labeled as vandalism by some who will tut accordingly, other very legitimate lines of protest are now open and are as I understand it ready to be actioned – including formal investigations by the EU Commissioners and the Audit Commission and at least two other legal challenges regarding the legitimacy of tendering processes etc, during the set-up phases for the scheme.

Revolting bikers and scooter riders escalate reactions to bike parking tax

Oh deary me. It looks like some motorcycle and scooter riders are revolting again in the central area of London called Westminster. But the latest reports indicate that recent action is being conducted with more vigour than ever to show feelings of disapprobation with the motorcycle and scooter parking tax that is currently still ‘on trial’ in the richest borough in Britain.

As you can see here (new window) or, with an uber soothing soundtrack here, reports abound with news that things are not going well for the pioneers of this tax. On the other had of course I have to say that these acts of vandalism/changing sign of the times may well be construed as revolutionary art by some but others may take a dimmer view.

Whatever view of these events you may take, I can’t imagine feeling especially comfortable if I was councillor somewhere else and was considering the introduction of this new type of tax scheme in my neck of the woods. But hey, what do I know about the inner workings of local government policy shaping forces? Could be that this is just the sort of goad an elected member might need to feel lucky and just go for it – and hang the consequences…

RATS bikers protest group blockade Westminster City Hall with motorbikes … while the EU Commission opens an investigation into pay-by-mobile phone M/C parking fees & fines scheme.

Earlier this morning a riders group who are new to me made something of an impact in downtown Victoria in the heart of the Westminster area of central London. The RATS (Riders Against Tory Stealth-taxes) managed to delay a meeting of the Partnership in Parking PIP consortium at Westminster City Hall by chaining a number of bikes together in protest. This lot are, incidentally, an entirely separate bunch from the No to Bike Parking Tax NTBPT group.

Anyway, I gather that these rascals are a splinter group of activist opponents to the controversial attempt by Westminster City Council to pioneer a new pay-by-mobile-phone parking fees and fines scheme – and to sell the system to any other local authority who wants to extract a few more quid from bikers if they can. And this may be a tempting prospect when you notice that the Westminster trial scheme has already extracted more than £2m from riders pockets More pics here

Later today, another demonstration is scheduled to take place but this one is organised by the official NTBPT group so it will be interesting to see what happens then. It will also be interesting to see whether the mainstream news media take the opportunity to report what is really happening these days on the streets of London or stick to their more conventionally oriented coverage of output from never ending streams of PR and well spun versions of what our governers would like us to get as ‘news’.

But back to this morning’s events, an eyewitness tells me that the police arrived on the scene and engaged in a highly professional investigation and amicable spot of negotiations. All of which resulted in a conclusion that no criminal activity or damage had occurred, a bunch of disaffected bikers had exercised their rights to take to the streets in protest, and the meeting then went ahead albeit two hours later than planned.

I also gather that meeting was rather uneventful, or as one member of the public gallery put it boring as f**k – until the end. Some council members of the London-wide consortium had no idea that opposition to bike parking charges was so vigorous and voiced major concerns about the very idea of charging riders of congestion busting motorcycles to park – let alone having their consortium take the lead on spreading it nationwide.

…Meanwhile, I learned late on Friday that the EU Commission will investigate whether regulations have been flouted or laws broken during the set-up phase of the bike parking tax scheme being pioneered in Westminster…

EU Commissioners have served notice on the UK government’s representative in Brussels that they are opening a formal investigation into an official complaint that EU regulations were flouted in setting up the controversial bike parking fees scheme being trailed in Westminster. The complaints were lodged in 2008, and made regarding some of the behind-the-scene activities by the Partnership in Parking (PIP) consortium that was originally set up with tax payers money. It is alleged, by the complainant and opponents of the scheme, that the way that PIP went about setting up the pay-by-mobile-phone scheme involved several violations of EU law on procurement.

The case for investigation, No.SG-CDC-2008A-7695, was formally opened on 20th November and the UK government has eight weeks to reply to notification of the investigation.

The key allegations are that PIP coordinators set up the scheme in a way that could not only be rolled out throughout the UK by any authorities who wanted to introduce a new pay-by-mobile-phone bike parking charging and enforcement regime – but that PIP encouraged councils to deploy the new fees and fines system without a tender process by merely joining the PIP consortium.

The complainant cannot be named because it has asked the EU Commission to protect their identity during the course of the investigation. However, I have now seen a copy of the submission of complaints and can say that in my view it is very understandable why the Commission are taking the complaints sufficiently seriously to open a formal investigation…

The sun has got its hat on in London…

The sun has got its hat on again in my beloved London Town. This is a yet another welcome end to a few days of torrential rain and wind – in what I suspect will be an ongoing series of sun & rain episodes that will continue long after I am around to ride through them.

Anyway, I am also delighted by two bits of news from Stephen Fry.  First, he has passed a landmark in the strange man & woman-made world of the world wide web. To be clear, this is landmark is actually only ‘in’ one of the techno networks to have evolved in the electronic ether. And, this virtual but effective space for chat is just one of the generally positive outcomes from the fine addiction that many humans have to try new ways to communicate and share experiences with each other.

He now has over a million followers on Twitter. Having only joined in with this medium for communication last week I am still very much at novice stage. Nevertheless, I have already found some new common ground between me and one or two of the people I engage with in the real world. Now though, as stephenfry ‘follower’ number 999,123, I am pleased to have made my own tiny contribution to his achievement –one millionth to be reasonably precise.

The second bit of good news relates to my recent suggestion that trousers are far more important than we may currently think. If you have the inclination and strength of mind to listen to nearly all of Stephen’s 3 minute Tweetz Back from the Future you will see and hear what I mean – albeit in an appropriately virtual kind of way of course. So I hope this all brings a bit of light into the darkness for all who are burdened by ongoing fears and concerns about the weather.

Sadly, I think that this group of particular burden-carriers includes my fellow Groucho Club member Stephen, who is not only far more illustrious than me but he also wrote the club rules. I also imagine that the likelihood of him reading any of this potential source of cheer is rather less than a million to one. But Hey Ho! It is a sunshiny day where I am and I hope it is, or will, be where you are too.