Charlie the Paperlad wrote:
The OFT recomendations are not welcome here either, they should have been clearer in providing their evidence and there should have been no need for a review by a select committee from the DfT.
You seem to think that you're talking for everyone in England Charlie, but I can assure you that that's not the case.
You seem to be labouring under one or two other minconceptions as well.
The Select Committee is not from the DfT - the DfT is effectively the Govt, and the Select Committees are made up of MPs who are charged with scrutinising the Govt.
You also seem to think that the Committee only got involved because of some deficiency in the OFT report - not at all, that's the kind of thing they do in any case, although admittedly there was fairly clear evidence of political bias in this case.
As for the Committee hearing itself, some of the evidence presented beggared belief, and even from the start it was clear that there was evidence of bias.
For example, there are several union-sponsored MPs on the committee. They didn't call any consumer groups to give evidence, nor did they call anyone who is disadvantaged by the current system and would like a plate.
LOs were represented by NATPHLEO, and its representative said he would have to sit on the fence, but shortly after said the derestriction would be a disaster. But a NATPHLEO paper a few years ago said totally the opposite. And the Institute of Licensing recommended de-restriction in response to OFT, but of course they weren't called.
It's all in the Annex to our Myth and Reality paper Charlie - have a good read and then we can take it further on here.
Login
Register
FAQ
