Chris the Fish wrote:
Brummie Cabbie to answer your two questions without quoting either of us yet again...
1. I will ask the middle man in Plymouth if his source is happy to be named, I think it doubtful, I will obviously respect whatever decision is reached.
2. The question on Plymouth and it's own act will be broached, if I get an answer I won't be shy about posting it up here.
My own "feeling" is that Plymouth will be included in any new legislation and, controversially, so will London, as it will be a pill for the whole nation to swallow. I stress that is just my thoughts on the matter.
Whatever happens there will be winners and there will be losers. Just because the report is in still does not mean anything. Lobbying of MP's and even Lords will then commence. At all stages amendments can (and will) be made - the final "Act" (if it happens at all) will be vastly different from the report that we will see next week. In effect the report is just the first salvo in what will be "a hell of a war".
The naming of your source is probably not as important as knowing what sphere of the world he or she revolves in, i.e. politician, civil servant, married to one of the above etc., etc.
The chances are that what ever name you might or might not post on the Forum, the reaction could be WTF is he/she!!
And as I keep banging on about, within reason it does not matter what is in any new statute that might be enacted. What matters, as we have all found out to our cost since the 1976 Act, is what will be the new regime of enforcing the Act and if it's as weak as the present regime, then any new Act will fail!!