Archive for the ‘Correspondence’ Category

Sounds easy but it’s hard to do: Writing Confirmation Emails

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

Thank you, thank you, a hundred times thank you!
Your order should ship in about 1-4 business days depending on whether or not it is in stock. Expect another email when your order ships with tracking information (where available).

****Please review your shipping address***

one last time if you would to make sure there’s nothing wonky,
improbable, or inappropriate. Once an order is out the door there’s not much
we can do short of breaking into the post office in the middle of the night, and they keep a real mean dog in there now. If there’s anything wrong with your address, or if you have any questions about your order, just reply to this email!

You can see what in the heck is going on with your order by pointing your internet at http://www.topatoco.com/whereisit/ . You can either log in to your account or enter your order number and billing email.

And remember, if you had any Pre-Order or Reprinting items in your
order, your entire order will ship when that one restocks.
If you have any questions or any special requests, please do not
hesitate to contact us by going to http://www.topatoco.com/help/
or emailing support@topatoco.com. We’re here just about
every day, except for Weekends and when it’s really nice out.

Thanks again! We are gonna ship this thing as hard as we can.

Go forth and purchase things tangenitally related to your favourite webcomics as hard as you can. It’s a remarkably pleasant experience.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Correspondence | 1 Comment »

Gareth Epps in Digital Economy Bill Response

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

Mr Gareth Epps, Liberal Democrat Candidate for Reading East responds to my letter concerning the Digital Economy Act

David,

Thanks for getting in touch with me on a subject that has clearly touched a very raw nerve indeed.

We have the most up-to-date and liberal policy on freedom, creativity and the internet of any of the parties (at our Spring conference last month, an emergency motion was passed setting out our Party’s views in the context of this Bill). That led to our vocal opposition to the web-blocking provisions of the Bill and our MPs voting against the whole Bill at 3rd Reading. By contrast, the Conservative candidate failed as our MP to turn up for the vote; his party’s position was to let the Bill go through.

Subsequently, Nick Clegg has confirmed that he would seek to have the Act repealed altogether. The use of affirmative resolution procedure would enable us to cast our votes to try and block the Regulations to use disconnection/interference. Our MPs said during the passage of the Bill that they will veto any implementation of disconnection powers until there has been full discussion and debate.

Our party’s position is not 100% against everything in the Bill, but we have more concerns than the other parties, and our MPs were the only ones whipped against the Bill at 3rd Reading. I was one of 25 Liberal Democrat candidates who signed an open letter which succeeded in strengthening the Party’s resolve to oppose this legislation. (see http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html)

The other points I would make are:
Web-blocking: the LibDems are opposing web blocking unlike Labour. Our stand would lift the threat of blocking from all manner of websites from community noticeboards to YouTube, and the fact that this was ever proposed shows how out of touch and illiberal Labour are. [The minister responsible, Stephen Timms has been ridiculed for getting the concept of an IP address (Internet Protocol) muddled with IP (Intellectual Property) in a standard letter to objectors. As someone who is far from an expert on these matters, even I understand the difference!].

Disconnection: there are widespread fears that the disconnection measures proposed are arbitrary and disproportionate. Many internet connections, from a family PC to a public wifi service, are shared so the Government will be imposing collective punishment for individual sins. While our position is not against all disconnection ever, we are firmly against disconnection as proposed by the Bill. We have a presumption against disconnection.
Our Peers moved the power to disconnect from the whim of the Secretary of State to the rigour of the courts.
LibDem MPs have set out specific conditions which would have to apply before any disconnection could be implemented, including a minimum of a year’s notice in writing (itself a challenge to write to an online user!) AND the need to prove guilt not simply accuse. This may not be as far as some opponents of disconnection would like to go, but it is the most comprehensive set of protections for internet users proposed by any of the main parties.

The reality has been that the arcane parliamentary procedure plus Labour’s majority meant there was a limit to what the Lib Dems could have achieved in the last Parliament, especially with the Tories supporting the Bill (the two old parties in action!). I genuinely believe that we are not the villains in tht we did not propose this legislation!

The important thing is to get as many Lib Dem MPs as possible in the next Parliament because they are web-users’ best safeguard against Labour introducing arbitrary disconnection powers. We are also the only party committed to reforming the voting system and the parliamentary process so that Labour’s railroading of this Bill can never happen again. In Reading East, the bookies’ odds and the advice of increasing numbers of commentators is that we can beat the Conservatives here. On this issue, it is clear that anyone wishing to see this ill thought-out and dangerous legislation halted in Reading East should vote Liberal Democrat.

I hope this helps. Happy to answer any further questions on this or any other issues.

Yours sincerely

Gareth Epps
Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary candidate for Reading EastPolitics, General Election, LibDems, digital economy bill,

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Correspondence | 2 Comments »

An open Letter to Mr Rob Wilson concerning the Digital Economy Bill

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

Dear Mr Rob Wilson

Thank you for your letter of 12 April.

I was gladdened to hear that you found the manner in which the Digital Economy Bill was passed ‘distasteful’. I wholeheartedly agree.

In your previous correspondence you explained that even if:

‘every Conservative and Liberal Democrat MP voted against the Bill, it still would have passed if every Labour MP had turned up to vote’

In and of itself, this is a factual statement. Taken in the context of your explaining why you did not even bother to turn up to the vote however, it takes on a rather disturbing implication.

If this is a valid position to take, (and I would strongly suggest that it is not), then it would follow from this that any non Labour MP voting on any bill for the last five years has not been the exercise of democracy, but merely an empty façade.

As the opposition party, it was your duty to oppose bills that are badly thought out or badly written. I would hold (and you have given me every indication that you agree) that the Digital Economy Bill was both of these things. Being in opposition to a government with a majority does not absolve you of your democratic responsibilities.

In your letter you went on to say that:

‘My party has pledged that, if we are elected to Government on May 6th this year, we will revisit the Bill and look at alternative options for a balanced solution as part of a broader update of copyright’

This is a start, but not nearly enough.

You are standing for re-election and asking for my vote. In order for me to consider this, given what has happened with regards to this bill in the last few months, I would ask you to personally pledge the following if elected, whether to Government or opposition:

To take all actions within your power, including but not limited to:

  • Speaking in the House of Commons
  • Voting there accordingly
  • Attempting to raise the priority of the issue within your own party

in order to accomplish the following:

  • Removing all reference to disconnection from the internet as a possible penalty.
  • Ensure that before any action can be taken, infringement must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Regards

David Miller

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Correspondence | No Comments »

I wrote to Rob Wilson about the Digital Economy Bill and all I got was this lousy letter

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

I wrote to Mr Rob Wilson, formerly MP for Reading East about his no-show for the Digital Economy Bill. This was the response:

Dear Mr David Miller,

Thank you for contact[sic] me about the Digital Economy Bill.

I would like to make it clear that this Bill is a piece of legislation introduced by the Labour Government, without prior discussion with my party. As the Labour Party was elected to Government in 2005, it dictates the legislative programme and has the mandate provided by the electorate to pass such bills – without opposition support if that is the case.

Conservatives took the decision to seek to remove those clauses of the Digital Economy Bill that we did not support or feel received proper legislative scrutiny. We were successful in several areas in this respect.

Even if every single Conservative and Liberal Democrat MP voted against the Bill, it still would have passed if every Labour MP had turned up to vote – regretfully it was Labour that was elected to Government back in 2005 with a majority of 66, not the Conservative Party.

My party has pledged that, if we are elected to Government on May 6th this year, we will revisit the Bill and look at alternative options for a balanced solution as part of a broader update of copyright.

Whilst I appreciate that this does not detract from the distasteful way in which this Bill was rushed through by Labour, I hope that it does offer some indication that we will not let matters rest.

I shall be continuing the conversation…

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Correspondence | 1 Comment »