As part of the "What Now? thread, I wanted to begin a new thread specifically focused on this issue.  Thanks to NGM and others for bringing this to our attention.  


wrote on Dec 4^th, 2005 at 11:48am:

Ofcom will try to ignore us unless we continue to shout very loudly to our MPs (especially the 45 MPs who have now signed the Parliamentary anti 0870 motion  whilst they are considering the consultation responses.

I'd encourage all readers of this post, who haven't already, to email their MP on this matter - it takes only a view minutes.

CLICK HERE to read the early day motion and see which MPs have already signed up

CLICK HERE to email your mp - simply enter  your postcode, click on your MP, and then enter a few words urging them to sign up to this motion deploring the use of 0870 numbers by government contact centres?

Would anyone who's already emailed their MP be willing to share examples of how such an email could be worded.  Others could amend in order to personalise and suite their own needs ?

Very helpful post.

I suggest everyone in this forum who finds that their own MP has not yet signed the anti 0870 Parliamentary Early Day Motion uses this service to send them an email message encouraging them to do so.

If this list goes up to 250 MPs whilst Ofcom is considering the responses to its consultations it will put a lot of pressure on Ofcom.

Excellent idea!

I've sent a message to my MP suggesting he should support the motion and pointing out the strength of feeling that prompted over 1,000 people to respond to Ofcom's consultation. (Also provided the links to the motion and Ofcom's responses to make things easier for him.)

I've also added a poll to this thread so that people can record whether they've sent a message to their MP. I'm hoping this will keep track of how many people have done so.

I've just emailed my MP too.  For what its worth, I've quoted my email below as an example:  


Quote:

Dear Lynne Jones, Please could I urge you to sign up to the Parliamentary Early Day Motion deploring the use of 0870 TELEPHONE NUMBERS BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS: http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28872%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&SESSION=875) You may be aware that there is a growing sense of injustice amongst the general public regarding these overpriced and misleading non-geographic numbers.  Ofcom has recently consulted on the future of such numbers and you can read some of the 1000+ public's responses here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/nts_forward/responses/ I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely,

My MP is not on the list. I will send an e-mail.

Why are some of the names in italics?

Have you followed the link to http://www.writetothem.com/ and entered your postcode ?  This should bring up your MP details - click the link and enter your email...

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 12:53pm:

Why are some of the names in italics?

Bold type is Primary Sponsor.
Italic is Sponsor.
Normal type means supporting the motion.

gdh82 wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 12:57pm:

Have you followed the link to http://www.writetothem.com/ and entered your postcode ?  This should bring up your MP details - click the link and enter your email...

I've not sent it yet, but I've entered my postcode and my MP has come up. I'm using your response as a basis for mine.


AJR wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 12:58pm:

Dave wrote on Dec 12th, 2005 at 12:53pm: Why are some of the names in italics? Bold type is Primary Sponsor. Italic is Sponsor. Normal type means supporting the motion.

AJR, what is the difference between these? Presumably the primary sponsor is the person who tabled it and the 'normal' ones are MPs who have signed it. What is a sponsor (in italics) then?

AJR wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 12:53pm:

Bold type is Primary Sponsor. Italic is Sponsor. Normal type means supporting the motion.

Don't read too much into the sponsors though.  Peter Bottomley is also a strong supporter of the cause but he is not another Ulster Unionist and so would not have been part of the original block of signatories.  Ditto with John Randall who has asked several parliamentary questions previously about the use of 084/7 numbers.

The list can also be easily resorted on a party political basis on the website.

From the site's help file, it seems that a sponsor is just one of the first six signatories. As NGM says, too much shouldn't be read into it.

Corbyn (trad left), Galloway (who knows!), Bottomley (centre right) and Winterton (right) all supporting the same motion! Is this a first? If these four can agree then there must be something rottten about 0870.

idb wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 1:18pm:

Corbyn (trad left), Galloway (who knows!), Bottomley (centre right) and Winterton (right) all supporting the same motion! Is this a first? If these four can agree then there must be something rottten about 0870.

0870 is both a massive distortion in the workings of the free telecoms market place and a massive capitalist plot to screw the poorest members of the population with extortionate phone charges they cannot afford all at the same time.

Perhaps that is why our Lib Dem friend Maclolm Bruce who sits in the middle is so in favour of the whole 084/7 racket?  More likely I reckon he must have a friend or relative somewhere who owns an 084/7 vending business.

I sent an e-mail to my MP earlier on today and I'll post here when I get a response.  :)

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 11:55pm:

I sent an e-mail to my MP earlier on today and I'll post here when I get a response.  :)

I sent an email to one of my two local councillors using that service last night and it still hasn't reached me yet. ;) ;D

I hope you have more luck with your MP.  Alternatively try an email to surnamex@parliament.uk (where x is the first letter of their first name) with a Read Receipt request and see if you have any more joy that way?

wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 1:38am:

I hope you have more luck with your MP.  Alternatively try an email to surnamex@parliament.uk (where x is the first letter of their first name) with a Read Receipt request and see if you have any more joy that way?

My MP is listed as not having an e-mail address here.

Dave wrote on Dec 13^th, 2005 at 2:01am:

My MP is listed as not having an e-mail address here.

Call 020 7219 3000   Ask for the name of your MP's Parliamentary secretary.  Send an email to the secretary using the format surnamex@parliament.uk  Virually all Parliamentary secretaries have a working email address.  Although perhaps not Sir Patrick Cormack who still lives in the day of the quill pen! :o

Might also have been a good idea to add an option to the vote for "My MP has already signed"

Not being familiar with EDM's do they need a minimum number of signatories before they are motioned?

Cheers, Des.

DesG wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 1:02am:

Might also have been a good idea to add an option to the vote for "My MP has already signed"

Good idea. I've added this.

AJR wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 8:28am:

DesG wrote on Dec 15th, 2005 at 1:02am: Might also have been a good idea to add an option to the vote for "My MP has already signed" Good idea. I've added this.

I voted that I had sent my MP an e-mail. At present you can only vote for one of the options. When my MP signs the EDM I would have to retract that vote and vote for EDM signed one. AFAIK you can't do that.

You could have it that you can vote for more than one, but that would mean people could vote for not sending an e-mail and sending one.

Dave wrote on Dec 15^th, 2005 at 4:15pm:

I voted that I had sent my MP an e-mail. At present you can only vote for one of the options. When my MP signs the EDM I would have to retract that vote and vote for EDM signed one.

Ok, I've changed the setup again. Now you can retract your vote (for up to a year, I think!) Then you can vote again and this time you can vote for two options.

However, I've just realised that the option for "My MP has already signed" is not going to give you a number of MPs who have signed but instead the number of forum users who have an MP who has signed. So even if it said 100 it might only refer to one MP and the 100 users all live in the same constituency. I don't suppose this matters very much as you can always look at the EDM site and see how many MPs have signed. It had already gone up by two, last time I looked.

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2005 at 11:55pm:

I sent an e-mail to my MP earlier on today and I'll post here when I get a response.  :)

I sent a message to my MP (Francis Maude) using this method on 11 Dec and received a reply dated 13 Dec (received today 20 Dec):

<<
As a rule I rarely sign Early Day Motions.  This is because there are many tabled every day and in parliamentary terms they have little or no effect.  I have, however, taken this mater up with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and, as soon as I have a response, I will write to you again.
>>

trevord wrote on Dec 21^st, 2005 at 12:26am:

As a rule I rarely sign Early Day Motions.  This is because there are many tabled every day and in parliamentary terms they have little or no effect.  I have, however, taken this mater up with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and, as soon as I have a response, I will write to you again.

What a pompous ass Mr Maude is.  The EDM's that get 300 or 400 signatures nearly always achieve something in terms of moving the debate along.

If they didn't achieve anything then why would so many other MPs so regularly sign them????.................................... ::)

Had a letter from my MP a couple of days ago in response to my message via the writetothem website.

The letter says: "I have read your letter carefully and reviewed EDM 622 and will be signing it.

"I hope that the Government will take notice of this expression of public feeling and end the use of these expensive numbers by the Government itself."

I've yet to get a reply from my MP and/or for him to sign. I received a confirmation that it had been received by his office. Today I received an email from Write to Them asking if my MP has responded. Looks like I'll be saying no, although maybe the Christmas break has left him with a backlog. :-/

The number of MPs who have signed has now reached 49. From memory, I think that's four more than when this thread was begun. Maybe more readers could click on the links at the top of the thread to email their own MPs.

I sent this to my MP before Christmas and am still waiting for a response and he hasn't signed up yet.  >:(  I notice that George Galloway has signed it though  ;D

Smasher wrote on Jan 11^th, 2006 at 11:03am:

I sent this to my MP before Christmas and am still waiting for a response and he hasn't signed up yet.  >:(

Mine too.  >:(

Smasher wrote on Jan 11^th, 2006 at 11:03am:

I sent this to my MP before Christmas and am still waiting for a response and he hasn't signed up yet.  >:(  I notice that George Galloway has signed it though  ;D

I think he should mention it to his fellow big brother housemates!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

53 MPs have now signed the motion, up from 45 when gdh82 started this thread. The increase is close to the number of people (nine) who say in the poll that they have emailed their MP. So perhaps the emails are having an effect.

AJR wrote on Jan 31^st, 2006 at 9:04am:

53 MPs have now signed the motion, up from 45 when gdh82 started this thread. The increase is close to the number of people (nine) who say in the poll that they have emailed their MP. So perhaps the emails are having an effect.

And allowing for my MP saying he wouldn't sign it,  [smiley=thumbdown.gif] that equates to the number who emailed their MP.

letter from my MP, the infamous henry bellingham (who gave passes to the commons invaders, got kicked out of chambers twice for using mobile and whos ancestor shot the PM) saying he would sign it.

"The argument against this practice is compelling and consequently I would gladly lend my support to the motion"

As of today his name isnt listed.

Hope you don't mind me asking a question.  

Why is the vote and discussion on NON geographical numbers being discussed under the section Geographical numbers chat?

Or have I missed something?

sixpence wrote on Feb 8^th, 2006 at 1:57pm:

Why is the vote and discussion on NON geographical numbers being discussed under the section Geographical numbers chat?

I had also wondered that previously.  Presumably because there isn't a forum for Non-Geographical numbers chat?   ::)  Dave / DaveM / Daniel?  :-?
This forum seems to be for anything that does fit specifically into the other forums.  :-/
But then - should this question have been raised in the Site Related forum?   :-/

Hi there, maybe the following would be of help - I follow the 'KISS' principle (keep it simple,silly), otherwise I get too verbose!   ::)


Friday 10 February 2006

Dear Paul Keetch,

"USE OF 0870 TELEPHONE NUMBERS BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS19.07.2005

Campbell, Gregory
That this House notes the proliferation of 0870 prefix telephone
numbers used by a range of Government Departments for members of the
public to get in touch; recognises the fact that they can cost up to
two and a half times more than regional numbers, and that in some cases
departments make substantial profits from such numbers; further notes
that last year the Government's Central Office of Information urged
Departments not to use 0870 numbers as the cost could act as a barrier
to communicating information that the citizen should have access to as
a right; and calls upon the Government to take action to end this
indefensible practice."

I notice that your signature is not among those who have signed - can
you tell me why?  To see further, go to the following link:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=28872%09%09%09%09%09%09%09&SESSION=875)

Yours sincerely,

Paula XXXX

For Paula, as we must share the same MP, I filled in the on line MP contact before Christmas and received Paul Keetch's letter dated 1st February 2006 saying that he had signed EDM 622 and enclosed a copy of the "pims" (parliamentary information management services) with 53 signatures including his own. I'm puzzled that you say that he has't signed. Bill

A couple more MPs have signed the motion, taking the total to 55, compared with 45 when this thread was started.

Let's hope some more readers of this thread click on the link to send an email to their MP.

AJR wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 9:53am:

A couple more MPs have signed the motion, taking the total to 55, compared with 45 when this thread was started.

Just checked and my MP hasn't signed despite me e-mailing his office in December. Since his election last year he has signed 7 EDMs and including 1 he chaired.  :'(

Dave wrote on Mar 4^th, 2006 at 6:34pm:

Just checked and my MP hasn't signed despite me e-mailing his office in December. Since his election last year he has signed 7 EDMs and including 1 he chaired.  :'(

Please name the offending MP in the hope it may shame him/her to take action on this issue.

Just got a letter from my MP and he confirms he has signed this EDM although I can't find him on it.

I'm not sure how long it takes to be updated so will wait a week and check again.

Progress continues, albeit slowly. 59 MPs have now signed the motion condemning 0870 numbers.