dave hearnden wrote: > Richard wrote: > Complete and utter rubbish on the part of the Times, I'm afraid, > though I suppose one shouldn't expect much from a Murdoch paper.Black > Country and Sherwood partners were also urging people to vote as many > ways as possible. And the same rules, of course, applied to all four > competitors. > > Moose asks > > Why is it rubbish, as already been said others, we were urged to vote > more than once. > > The fact they won by multi voting is wrong but then the other groups > were playing by the same bent but not illegal rules. > > Moose
I think Richard's point was that it was not only the cyclists who voted more than once. I had an email from someone in Lichfield and Hatherton Canals Restoration Trust, urging me (and no doubt the rest of their circulation list) to vote as many times as possible. As I could not be bothered to register, I did not vote online, but voted from my land line and my mobile, and would have voted from my payg mobile if I had found it in time. So everyone was playing by the same rules, except it seems the cyclists are very organised. >From what I have heard of the sustrans bid, there will be some limited benefits for waterways, so it is not a total loss. Dorothy
