In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dave hearnden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >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 Indeed. I am aware of people who voted once for each email addy, once on each mobile and once on the land line. If I'd got round to doing that Black Country might have won :-)}
Seriously though I think there was an inevitability about the Sustrans project winning. Given that most people voting probably didnt have such a vested interest as us I suspect that the word "cycling" would have had a wider appeal than any of the others. Also as has been said that project had a much wider geographical spread than the other projects. I wonder how many people thought that what they were voting for would help to get cyclists off their pavements rather than providing long distance routes for "serious" cyclists. On the whole not a very fair way to choose how to spend lottery money IMHO. Just a thought! Guy -- Guy Morgan nb Virgo, WFB, Stockton GU Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
