DIYbanter - View Single Post

The Natural Philosopher

wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, said:
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.

In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
direction.

This is because public acceptance was manufactured by misrepresenting
it as a safety policy. Had the truth been told people woud have shouted
'no way.'

Basically the same could be said of any Nu Laber policy.

NT