NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 21^st, 2009 at 6:24pm:
Seems the event was cancelled:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_091879

<<
Consultation event

Please note that the public meeting scheduled for 19 March 2009 has been cancelled because of the low number of people registering to attend. Please note that everyone who originally accepted the invitation to attend the afternoon (public) session has been contacted to inform them of this change and to make alternative arrangements to hear their views. The morning session (industry) will proceed as originally planned.
>>

NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 21^st, 2009 at 11:25pm:


Many see this, as indeed other consultation processes, as a waste of time and effort. I understand that the Department of Health took reasonable steps to invite all those who had expressed a clear interest in the process, from all points of view. I understand that the reason for there being two events planned initially was to enable technical discussion of issues relating to the way in which advanced telephone features can be delivered in the one session, with other and general issues to be discussed in the other. I understand that there were no specific qualifying criteria, other than a readiness and ability to contribute.

For those engaged in and following the consultation process, a public announcement of the meetings was seen on the consultation web page. This was brought to the attention of print and broadcast media likely to have an interest. A posting was also made on the thread in this forum covering the consultation process, as follows:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Mar 6^th, 2009 at 3:12pm:


What turned in a single event was nothing more than a further opportunity for those with something to say to contribute to the public consultation process. All these contributions, which were made after other contributers had agreed to respect confidentiality, will be noted alongside responses made in writing.

I would not be betraying any confidence to offer my assurance that the Department of Health is fully aware of what is going on. There are many in the telecomms industry who are able to point out that the only serious reason for a GP using a 084 telephone number is to benefit from the revenue share. I can say that they would have had an opportunity to express this view in very strong and clear terms at the event.

We must recognise that this is a public forum and so those who are constrained by a commitment to confidentiality must honour this commitment. Please indulge what could be seen as a roundabout way of answering questions that cannot be addressed directly.

I can reveal that representatives of a well known provider of surgery telephone systems were present at the location and had registered to participate in the event before I arrived. Just before the meeting began there were no representatives of this company present. I am genuinely unaware of any reason for this change of mind having been offered.

I can only report that the purpose of the meeting was simply to receive input from the participants on issues relevant to the consultation, using only the generally published material. In the context of a public consultation exercise it would not have been appropriate for the DH to release any further information about its thinking than was placed in the public domain anyway.

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 19^th, 2009 at 9:06pm:

Is this the proposal that the national speed limit will be reduced to 50mph or is the proposal to introduce more 50mph limits where currently they are national speed limit?

NGMsGhost wrote on Apr 21^st, 2009 at 12:39pm:

This was not what was reported on BBC News at One today. They said that local authorities are being given stronger advice on speed limits and in that they are encouraged to put 50mph limits where previously it would have been national speed limit. 

The Telegraph reports it as NSL on single carriageway being reduced to 50mph.  Perhaps they are suggesting a few high quality long distance A roads with less accidents can stay at 60mph but these will now be signed 60mph instead of NSL.

See www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5191001/A-road-speed-limits-t...

The costs of resigning loads of currently NSL roads to 50mph would be huge so highways authorities will want to avoid that.