Signatures 39 total
Page: 1
-
1
Name: Ian Hush on Aug 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Katherine Welch on Aug 11, 2007Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Anonymous on Aug 16, 2007Comments: I work in the manufacturing industry and the imposition of the parking tax will addFlag
-
4
Name: Anonymous on Aug 16, 2007Comments: I work in the manufacturing industry and the imposition of the parking tax will addFlag
-
5
Name: Genna Parkes on Oct 1, 2007Comments:Flag
-
6
Name: Paul Humber on May 13, 2008Comments: Typical of labour dimwits, in a time when inflation is starting to run riot, they impose another tax on the average working person. Lets see what happens come the next election, hope you have all got other jobs to go to, o and by the way, theres a parking charge for you by then.Flag
-
7
Name: Alan Phillips on May 13, 2008Comments: It is mainly people from the County travelling into the City who will be paying the WPL. These same people living in the County will also be paying again for the tram as the County pays a contribution towards John Collins Tram.Flag
-
8
Name: Mr B J Mann on May 13, 2008Comments:Flag
-
9
Name: Anonymous on May 13, 2008Comments: Council officials admitted at the public examination last October - which spoke against the WPL - that this levy will NOT reduce congestion in any meaningful way and that it was all about raising money to try to pay for their white elephant tram. Those same officials agreed that if the WPL did reduce congestion because people stopped using their cars, it would not then produce the money they wanted to raise. Clearly that would mean they had failed in their objective. So the claimed justification for the WPL is just a smokescreen.Flag
-
10
Name: Gordon Wheeler on May 14, 2008Comments: WPL will hurt both Industry and those that work for them. Jobs will be lost as Employers relocate. And all this for a white elephant of a tram system that will financially cripple our city. Stop the tram extension plans now.Flag
-
11
Name: Gordon Wheeler on May 14, 2008Comments: WPL will hurt both Industry and those that work for them. Jobs will be lost as Employers relocate. And all this for a white elephant of a tram system that will financially cripple our city. Stop the tram extension plans now.Flag
-
12
Name: David Powell on May 14, 2008Comments:Flag
-
13
Name: Anonymous on May 14, 2008Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Anonymous on May 14, 2008Comments:Flag
-
15
Name: Anonymous on May 14, 2008Comments: I think this is a poor idea to generate more money. It won't get people off the roads and on public transport and companies will move if its feasible for their business to do so!Flag
-
16
Name: Anonymous on May 15, 2008Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Anonymous on May 18, 2008Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Anonymous on Jun 5, 2008Comments: If Nottingham City Council want businesses to leave the City Centre, they are going the right way about it!Flag
-
19
Name: Anonymous on Jun 16, 2008Comments: This is a totally unfair levy. I will get no benefit at all from the proposed tram extension so why should I have to pay and others pay nothing! It is yet another tax on the lower paid workers of society who are trying to make ends meet!Flag
-
20
Name: Lewis Hankin on Jun 16, 2008Comments:Flag
-
21
Name: Anonymous on Jun 16, 2008Comments:Flag
-
22
Name: John Hunter on Jun 20, 2008Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Anonymous on Jun 30, 2008Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: Craig Tobin on Jul 2, 2008Comments: Just another tax, as if we aren't paying enough already. With increasing prices at the pumps, this could double the monthly cost of getting to work. Should this be implemented, where will the Council find it's future investments coming from - there won't be a single Company outside of this county wanting to move into the City Centre.Flag
-
25
Name: Anonymous on Oct 7, 2008Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Xquimn on Feb 5, 2010Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Meadow on Jul 3, 2011Comments: At last! Someone who udnestrnads! Thanks for posting!Flag
-
28
Name: Meadow on Jul 3, 2011Comments: At last! Someone who udnestrnads! Thanks for posting!Flag
-
29
Name: Lola on Jul 3, 2011Comments: Cool! That's a clever way of looknig at it!Flag
-
30
Name: Anonymous on Feb 8, 2012Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Kirstie Macdonald on Feb 9, 2012Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Dwi on Jul 22, 2012Comments: Couple of things.Your moral gunord would be higher if you explained why it was misleading for the Post to report what it did. It's not enough to just say that your emails are covered by FoI, we all know that (although some may be exempt if they are personal data that's not in the public interest to reveal). What was it that the Post got wrong or misrepresented? Are you going to the PCC over it?Secondly you might want to consider the implications of the Post providing full disclosure of information they hold on you. It may include details of whistleblowers, or information that the Post knows is incorrect and therefore would be libelous to publish. You presumably respect the Post's right and duty to protect its sources? Or is that why you've made the request?Still, it's unlikely that all the info the Post has is covered by the journalism exemption so it would be worth your while going to the ICO.Flag
-
33
Name: Mrarqwfdyn on Jul 22, 2012Comments: NRTyFB tfoxrvfabzchFlag
-
34
Name: Vabawllfm on Jul 23, 2012Comments: ywA7ms , iadaqkgezalo, yhrbxeijwqpw, http://azhttmhrilkh.com/Flag
-
35
Name: Jsknctgo on Jul 24, 2012Comments: Bc0gjr asalbrbbgenzFlag
-
36
Name: Hyuyjihzpl on Jul 24, 2012Comments: 7KvdjR , xbuvwptaimpq, hrcwslxxvgjx, http://hwuirgaioniu.com/Flag
-
37
Name: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2012Comments: Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and I am impressed! Very helpful information particularly the last part :) I care for such information much. I was seeking this certain information for a long time. Thank you and best of luck.Flag
-
38
Name: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2012Comments: I do agree with all the concepts you've offered for your post. They're really convincing and can definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. May you please lengthen them a little from next time? Thank you for the post.Flag
-
39
Name: Matthew on Mar 4, 2013Comments: Dear Mrs. Minge,At first, I thought it odd that annoye would want to marry someone named Loose Minge but now I understand. You are a total Minge.Cheers!EveryoneFlag
Page: 1