Bicester level crossing petition supported by thousands
In the most recent consultation, which received more than 6,000 responses and closed in January, EWR had proposed a new footbridge or underpass for pedestrians and cyclists.But a letter from CEO David Hughes later suggested the plans were under review.Following a meeting with Mr Miller and Baron Peter Hendy, the Minister for Rail, on 7 April, Mr Hughes wrote that "further work" had been undertaken as a result of feedback.He said: "I can confirm that since our meeting we have held discussions with both Network Rail and the local council to understand the feasibility of developing the design to incorporate some form of vehicular access."Mr Miller previously told BBC Radio Oxford it would be "very hard" to put a bridge in place.His office said that in addition to the thousands of signatures it had gathered across Bicester, community volunteers had also taken it door-to-door in areas such as Langford.Mr Miller, who launched the petition a few weeks ago, said the amount of collected signatures "in a very short period of time demonstrates just how strongly people feel about it"."East West Rail is a project of national significance – but it must not come at the cost of existing residents in our town," he said."The impact of cutting off this crucial artery would be a disaster for Bicester, no one wants the town cut in two."He said the petition was "a way of highlighting the issue" and said he would continue to press the government and EWR "to commit to deliver the solution that Bicester people want to see".The Department for Transport has been approached for comment.
You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is accused of bid to rig next election as it is set to announce votes for 16-year-olds... but HALF don't want ballot box rights
Labour has been accused of attempting to rig future elections by giving the vote to 16-year-olds. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is expected to set out a plan to enfranchise under-18s today. But the move, a manifesto pledge from the party, has been criticised as a cynical ploy since a large proportion of young voters support Labour. In a blow to the party, however, it has emerged that almost half of teenagers do not even want to be given the vote. In a poll, some 49 per cent of those questioned said they disagreed with the move. Only a few more of the 500 youths questioned by Merlin Strategy, 51 per cent, backed Labour's proposal. In addition, only 18 per cent of the 16 and 17-year-olds polled said they would definitely cast a ballot if there was an election tomorrow – with 13 per cent saying they would not take part. A Tory source said tonight: 'This is bare-faced ballot box stuffing. It's a sign of desperation this failing Labour government is resorting to underhand tactics and rigging extra votes to try and cling on to power for longer.' Labour vowed in its manifesto that it would give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote to 'increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy'. But the required legislation was a surprise omission from the King's Speech for Keir Starmer's first year in power. Tory communities spokesman Kevin Hollinrake told the Mail tonight: 'This poll proves what many of us have long argued – even 16 and 17-year-olds don't think they're ready to vote. 'With only 18 per cent saying they'd definitely take part in an election, it's clear that rushing to lower the voting age risks undermining the democratic process. 'Voting should be a considered, informed responsibility – not a political stunt.' Currently only those who are over 18 can take part in general elections, although 16 and 17-year-olds are allowed to vote for the devolved Scottish and Welsh parliaments. It is estimated another 1.5 million teenagers will be enfranchised for the next election – though Labour has dropped controversial plans to give millions of EU nationals the vote. The survey of young people – commissioned by ITV News – found 33 per cent of teenagers would vote Labour. And while 20 per cent said they would choose Reform, only 10 per cent would vote Conservative. Scarlett Maguire, director of Merlin Strategy, said: 'We would expect Labour to be out ahead with younger generations. I think maybe Labour would like to have a bigger lead among these people, but they still have quite a convincing lead over the challenging party, Reform UK.' Reform leader Nigel Farage said: 'It's an attempt to rig the political system but we intend to give them a nasty surprise.'
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
MPs launch two probes into Government's secret immigration scheme for Afghans
Two Parliamentary inquiries were launched yesterday into the Government's secret immigration scheme for Afghans that it deemed 'at risk of death'. The defence select committee will scrutinise how the data breach happened and why it was kept under wraps for so long, after ministers used an unprecedented super-injunction to gag the Press. Meanwhile the powerful commons' public accounts committee is set to grill defence chiefs over the 'confusion' surrounding the true costs of the scheme and the numbers of Afghans airlifted to Britain. Defence Secretary John Healey said 6,900 Afghans were being relocated to the UK because of the data beach. And he said the money spent was £400million so far, with a projected final cost of about £850million. However, these figures seem starkly at odds with the numbers given to the High Court during the super-injunction case which involved more than 20 secret hearings over two years. In court, while the gagging order silenced journalists including from the Mail, Mr Justice Chamberlain was told how ministers had agreed on £7billion to extend the scheme over five years and bring in tens of thousands of Afghans. Last night Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chairman of the public accounts committee, said: 'I am concerned about aspects of the super-injunction and the length of time that it was applied. I'm also concerned about the cost of the scheme. 'Figures of £800million-plus have been given by the secretary of state, but there still seems to be confusion of where the much higher figure of £7billion, used in the court case, relates to. 'We at the PAC have already made preliminary arrangements to ask officials from the MoD to come and explain all of this.' The MoD is now claiming the £7billion figure is in fact £6billion and that it relates to all of its Afghan resettlement schemes, not just the one launched in response to the data disaster. Last night Tan Dhesi MP, chairman of the defence committee, said there were questions about 'not only a catastrophic data breach that jeopardised the safety of brave Afghans who served alongside British forces, but also the fact that this breach had been kept secret for years. 'These shocking events now deserve proper, thorough parliamentary scrutiny.' He said his committee intended to hold a probe after the summer recess. At Prime Minister's Questions yesterday, Keir Starmer tried to deflect blame for the episode, which began in 2023 under the former government, saying it was Tory ministers who had 'serious questions to answer'. Former Tory defence secretary Ben Wallace yesterday said he made 'no apology' for how the situation was handled, given the potential threat to thousands of Afghans who had helped UK forces. Sir Ben said reporting of the data leak would have 'put in peril those we needed to help out'.
Daily Mail
16 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour's move to create official definition of Islamophobia is condemned as 'nonsensical'
Labour 's move to create an official definition of Islamophobia is about 'policing thinking and speech' rather than protecting Muslims, Sir Trevor Phillips has said. The former chairman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission said it was 'nonsensical' to introduce a government-backed definition because there were plenty of existing laws protecting Muslims from hate crimes. He branded it a 'Leninist manoeuvre' because it could be used to shut down free speech and legitimate criticism about some aspects of Islam. Speaking at a debate in Parliament, he added: 'If you are a Muslim in Britain are you [already] protected? Yes. End of story. We don't need a definition. We have perfect legal remedies against discrimination. There are much more important things to deal with.' He said it was 'illiterate' to suggest that Muslims are 'a race' for the purposes of drawing up a definition. Tory MP Claire Coutinho, a former Cabinet minister, said a definition was being drawn up by the 'back door' without 'democratic consent'. She warned it is likely to be counterproductive because it could spark a 'backlash' against Muslims rather than help to protect them, in the same way trans activists were derided after the Supreme Court 's landmark ruling on gender being based on biological sex in April went against them. 'This is not commanding public support. It's a push from radical activists,' she added. She warned it could lead to public sector workers, as well as university staff or students, living in fear of facing disciplinary action if accused of doing or saying something that falls foul of the definition. While there is a definition for anti-Semitism, set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Sir Trevor and Ms Coutinho said this made sense because it was launched specifically to deal with the issue of Holocaust denial. But there was no equivalent purpose for defining Islamophobia, they added. The Tories' housing and local government spokesman, Kevin Hollinrake, said Labour's move was purely 'for political reasons' and would be a 'disaster' for free speech. Baroness Spielman, the former boss of schools watchdog Ofsted, said it threatened to entrench ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam. She told how she had once backed a primary school headteacher who did not want six and seven-year-old girls being forced into wearing hijabs in the classroom, adding: 'But I had 1,100 letters accusing me of Islamophobia for backing the headteacher of the primary school. It had a chilling effect on other schools.' She said creating an official definition of Islamophobia would make it harder to tackle such attitudes because it could be used to silence legitimate concerns. The cross-party debate was hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Freedom of Speech, led by Tory MP Richard Holden. He warned that introducing an official definition could create a 'two-tier' system that 'protects some people's views above some other people's views'. Labour commissioned the work to devise a 'non-statutory' definition of Islamophobia in what it says is a move to combat anti-Muslim abuse. But there are fears it could lead to a blasphemy law by the back door and stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. Critics suspect the move is politically motivated to hang on to the large Muslim vote Labour enjoys in swathes of the country. The party has set up a working group, whose chairman is former Tory Dominic Grieve, to devise the definition. Its call for evidence closes on Saturday.
