AXE ATTACK on Speed Camera Operator and van!
Discussion
CherylPetersen said:
Apache said:
CherylPetersen said:
Guam said:
CherylPetersen][i said:
Spindrift- yet another giveaway that its you.
Paul Smith never bullied anyone to my knowledge. Funny how you can only sg him now he cant respond- im wondering if youve ever been mistaken for a man? [i/]
1/
I've already said who I am. I even postd my picture FFS! Wake up!
2/
Smith was a bully and a liar. See for yourself and search on my name. He allowed nasty filth on his site and banned dissent of any kind if it criticised his own campaign. I've debated with him when he was alive many, many times until he drew up the drawbridge and put his fingers in his ears going "la la la, can't hear you!".
He was a coward, he ran away when asked awkward questions and displayed blatant double standards with regard to pesonal abuse. The man was an inadequate blow hard. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself.
Thoroughly disgusting disrespectful post about someone no longer alive to defend themselves, and no less than I have come to expect in your posting history in SPLPaul Smith never bullied anyone to my knowledge. Funny how you can only sg him now he cant respond- im wondering if youve ever been mistaken for a man? [i/]
1/
I've already said who I am. I even postd my picture FFS! Wake up!
2/
Smith was a bully and a liar. See for yourself and search on my name. He allowed nasty filth on his site and banned dissent of any kind if it criticised his own campaign. I've debated with him when he was alive many, many times until he drew up the drawbridge and put his fingers in his ears going "la la la, can't hear you!".
He was a coward, he ran away when asked awkward questions and displayed blatant double standards with regard to pesonal abuse. The man was an inadequate blow hard. But don't take my word for it, check for yourself.
Edited by CherylPetersen on Friday 27th June 18:48
On the subject of multiple identity trolls who deliberately disrupt fora:
Begin quote:
Kriss posted as NTC - my wife and she is a vet - honest. "tame" - er
yeah - er- right - er - um .....
I am Mike - and I was the Frenzied Feline and only registered as FF to
bail her out of trouble...
We did not post anything as this pair afte last January when we were
finally locked up in the dungeons here.
We did not know these guys waded in after us - did not think anyone
would to be honest....
Brandy - Yikes - where do I start?
We were not sure ourselves for some time - guy we suspected was
working at times some of these posts were registered onto the site.
Seems he roped in some of his chums So we had Swiss Andreas (lawyer)
and his pal also called Andreas (German originally from Dresden also a
lawyer and now working abroad again) and a UK lawyer chum called
Andrew. Honestly knew nothing for a while and of course they started
to compete with each other out smart-alec each other - made it worse
really. (Oh dear... you'll all go ballistic....mercy please)
LLS? Billy-Bob - Pal of yet another of the Swiss - English and an
accountant - lives in a very pretty Lancashire hill village, He really
is that tall by the way.
Sport Mad - Billy-Bob's cycling chum - Willi - Swiss and an
accountant. He nearly did come a cropper at a pinch point and got into
a tizz at a large roundabout on his bike.
Head Boy - Siegfried - eldest of the Swiss males. Lawyer - lives in
Berlin. Owns two properties over here where he lets out to holiday
makers - one in Horncliffe and one in Horndean . Some may recall that
Geography is not his strong point
So er - now you know. We have no idea who CC is - not one of this
bunch to my knowledge.
End quote.
This is snipped from a very long thread of rambling nonsense which was
written in an attempt to justify their electronic attacks on C+ staff
and their attempt to close down the C+ forum.
This person/genetically challenged family group accounts for over
6,000 posts of the SS forum. Rather than banning dissenters, the SS
management would do well to block loons from posting. A casually
interested dip into the SS forum would provide enough rambling smiley
infested posts to put most normal people off.
That's over fifteen seperate identities of disruptive, abusive Swiss freaks who describe themselves variously as "vets" "surgeons" "barristers" "lawyers".
Smith's acolytes did their level best to close down a cycling forum.
What are they so terrified of?
So youy are spindrift
Tell me why did Future publishing ban you over und over?
Why do does Farelly's bike radar not accept you over und over?
Libel .. yet again. You were engaged in debate. You resort to libel. Legitimate complaint made. C+ consider you persona non grata.
We invited to post to the forum now known as bike radar. We had e-maiul begging us to join in fact. But we train to ride more.
We actually RIDE
YOU DO NOT as you spend ALL YOUR TIME .. 24/7 lurking und posting on motoring fora when banned by the cycling sites.
I have never forgotten Petol Ted's parting shot to you on 8 July 2005. I ask him to make this same response to you. It was polite.. reasoned /.. everything one expects from someone with a sense of fairness..justice.. decency.
BUT YOU do not possess such character. Your posts und your deceit by pretending to be other folk show this.
Tell me .. since you post as folk hailing from Venuezuela.,. the Gabon.. bath.. londoninnit.. norfolk.. sheffield.. manchester.. under various names und falsified avatars in profiles..
what are you hiding from? Be careful now.. we now know more about YOU than you would like me to post und I would not really call my bluff on this one given what you did to Kriss.
the wurzel said:
Guam said:
Thoroughly disgusting disrespectful post about someone no longer alive to defend themselves, and no less than I have come to expect in your posting history in SPL
Ah, the current SS policy - you're not allowed to criticize it any more, however ridiculous it is, because the guy who came up with most of the crap on there is dead.Paul's death doesn't suddenly make any of his beliefs any more credible or likely to be taken seriously than ever.
Play the ball, not the man.
Apache said:
CherylPetersen said:
You also ignore points you don't like
For tyhe third time, tell me what freaking question I'm supposed to have ignored and I'm happy to answer it.
You can hardly accuse me of answeering questions if you keep refusing to say what the Greek buggery question is.
ok, did you get banned from C+?For tyhe third time, tell me what freaking question I'm supposed to have ignored and I'm happy to answer it.
You can hardly accuse me of answeering questions if you keep refusing to say what the Greek buggery question is.
bump
Edited by Apache on Friday 27th June 19:36
I discount the 8 times we aware of from this forum und the 20 times from Paulie's forum as "itchy bottom.. speed kills.. mitchum.. Napier.. potter.." amongst others..
Then there have been EDP.. sheffield.. bolton.. manchester general news sites which it hijacked und the mods banned.
Then Gti .. Ford .. Jaguar.. BMW .. Mercedes.. Evo.. und other motor sites which banned.. along with Sod U Ken.. und all the cycling fora.
None of the mods on these sites can be wrong here
Note .. he got banned from the ones which should welcome extreme points of view.. Now all this tell plenty about this personality.
I fear I am feeding it. It what it want.. what it need to survive. I think.. maybe we starve this virus which remind me of the alien which destroyed the things it loved because of a craving for salt.
(The actress was a bit part actress who was the dymnamic character in many a USA TV show. I fear our troll models himself on this actress
Edited by WildCat on Friday 27th June 20:40
WildCat said:
10 Pence Short said:
Oh, and you were crap as Brother Mycroft, too.
That was not spindrift. We chatted off line. It was. errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!if you understand me.
a doo-dah which clean the Klo might give a clue here
Doesn't like the normal quote system.
2/ Numbers points
and
3/ Likes to start posts with "4th time I've asked. No Answer"
10 Pence Short said:
WildCat said:
10 Pence Short said:
Oh, and you were crap as Brother Mycroft, too.
That was not spindrift. We chatted off line. It was. errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!if you understand me.
a doo-dah which clean the Klo might give a clue here
Doesn't like the normal quote system.
2/ Numbers points
and
3/ Likes to start posts with "4th time I've asked. No Answer"
Bogbrush ist not spinny. He fight our cause.. but get too carried aways.
You could say spinny the same type .. but for the cyclists.
We always think these two a polarisation of extremity.
But there one BIG difference..
Bogush J Mann ist who he say he ist. All the time. He not hide. He does at least stand up for who he ist. I do not dislike bogey bogbrush bogush .. I think he go off on one too much though
I lose track. I ceased to read asI not able to follow properly .. maybe because of foreign slant. I try to be polite to bogush as I think he lurks. I mean him no offence.. but I think his style alienate. Likewise spinny. If he toned it down to more politeness.. then maybe he get his point across und discussed.But the way he posts.. the way he insult the late Paulie und continue libel about my family on this site..
A point of view was posted.. what it was about was some idiot on C+ posting that he had to "give way to two old pedestrian trouts on a shared cycle/ped path"
Andreas ( a German whose daughter has permanent limp und whose then pregnant wife lost their child) posted up that ... regardless.. a person on wheels .. has by German law to give way to a pedestrian.
He called spindrift a hypocrite. Spinny's so called pal was a moderator. He locked the account und pasted up a stikcy inviting vitriol. Family contacted Future to complain. They sacked the mods responsible. They made trouble and someone then posted something libellous about Lance Armstrong .. was banned und somehow Andreas was held responsible by a deranged clique of posters who regularly post about kicking und keying paintwork on "nasty motorcars"
I do have proof of all this .. We went legal.. which why C+ vanish und bikeradar emerge. Farelly keep this board fairly clean. Trolls like spinny do not last long. He has all the audit trail history after all
CherylPetersen said:
10 Pence Short said:
CherylPetersen said:
It doesn't explain why you're posting under a false, female name, does it?
Quite right "10 pence short"!
Wanna post a photo of yourself?
My full name is in my publicly viewable profile. A picture is less useful than a full name in identifying people, believe it or not.Quite right "10 pence short"!
Wanna post a photo of yourself?
There are websites where you can contact other men if that floats your boat.
By the way.. all the websites this "person" post to show history of bans und re-registers.
One website say they got fed up of banning as it just re-registers. They (EDP) prayed no one replied to it.
10 Pence Short said:
I bet the cock even has an Excel file setup so he can keep track of which usernames and passwords he uses on different forums.
I bet "Internet Troll 2003-Present" looks great on his CV.
When he's not falling off his bike, that is.
He does. It how he pastes his strops too.I bet "Internet Troll 2003-Present" looks great on his CV.
When he's not falling off his bike, that is.
I really should not post. It feed him und to be crude ,.. it only way he or she get an orgasm.
grumbledoak said:
the wurzel said:
Ah, the current SS policy - you're not allowed to criticize it any more, however ridiculous it is, because the guy who came up with most of the crap on there is dead.
Paul's death doesn't suddenly make any of his beliefs any more credible or likely to be taken seriously than ever.
I suspect you are getting your logins confused.Paul's death doesn't suddenly make any of his beliefs any more credible or likely to be taken seriously than ever.
We think of you as an ostrich now..
the wurzel said:
Paul's death doesn't suddenly make any of his beliefs any more credible or likely to be taken seriously than ever.
No, his death doesn't, but the data he collated is credible. Unless you have a source which disagrees etc. If you have, please post up the links and the data.
Speaking in such a way denegrates your position quite dramatically in my eyes.
Jasandjules said:
the wurzel said:
Paul's death doesn't suddenly make any of his beliefs any more credible or likely to be taken seriously than ever.
No, his death doesn't, but the data he collated is credible. Unless you have a source which disagrees etc. If you have, please post up the links and the data.
Speaking in such a way denegrates your position quite dramatically in my eyes.
I know you hate me, and past comments indicate that this is because
I was one of many who pointed out Smith's idiocies, but that's
really your problem not mine - inability to tolerate dissent is the
mark of zealots in all fields, and you're a very long way from being
one of the more significant zealots.
Smith took credit for ideas that weren't his own, passed off others research as his and misrepresented credible road safety researchers- ask yourself why Jonksch demanded Smith take down his misrepresentations of Jonksch's work on the safespeeding website.
We asked smith to prove his thesis and gave him plenty of opportunities to do so. He declined and retreated to his nodding dog forum of fake coppers and deranged swiss freaks.
For example, Smith was still publishing the false 12mph claim after the
scientist ( Jonksch)on whose work it was based pointed out that it was a
completely invalid argument and asked him to remove all reference to
his name and work.
Paul Smith wouldn't have known a proper
standard of scientifically/statistically compelling evidence if it had
come up and bitten him on the nose, for all the reasons we've known for
several years now.
But you do have a problem: your belief in your guru apparently
requires that you deny all evidence that contradicts his holy writ,
and that means it's your belief system that is at fault, not the
real world. In the real world, theories developed by working back
from the conclusions and untested by any form of peer-review, are
rightly dismissed, and the harder they are promoted the more likely
they are to be derided.
I'm quite happy to put my name to the limited analysis I've done of
Smith's crackpot theories, because his theories have no credible
scientific basis, and because proving this requires no specialist
expertise. When /Which?/ called, they did not take my word for
anything, instead I showed them where to get the source data and how
I had reached my conclusions. They repeated the work and agreed.
Smith, by contrast, showed them a chart and asserted that he was
right because he'd thought about it and because some other people
agreed. That's fallacious reasoning, and proved spectacularly
unpersuasive.
Pseudoscience, unlike protoscience, does not get published in the
journals, because it lacks scientific rigour. Yes, his purported
qualification as an engineer also turned out to be sophistry, and
his hilarious abuse of the Jocksch empirical equation was
sufficiently fatuous as to have Jocksch ask him to remove all
reference to it, but it was Smith's failure to follow a line of
logic or reasoning that could be independently tested, that led to
his theories being ignored by the professional road safety
community. Science allows for kooks, but is intolerant of
charlatans. Professionals stopped taking Smith seriously (if they
ever did take him seriously) because it became increasingly obvious
that he was a monomaniac interested only in asserting his theory,
not in investigating or challenging it. That's a pretty reliable
way of ensuring that /even if you are right/ (which Smith was not,
of course) you will not persuade scientists.
A specific point: Smith refused even to consider the possibility
that his supposed change in trend might be related to increasing
mobile phone use, even knowing the proven effect of mobile phone use
on driving performance, insisting instead that it was due to speed
cameras, but without any comparable figures for the number, extent,
location or activity of cameras.
We know that mobile phone use exploded over this period (though again without credible figures for use on the move), while on the other hand camera use appears, from the limited data available, to have increased over a much longer period and have started a long time before.
You can state a theory,
"I believe it is due to X", but if you state "it is caused by X" and
are unable to show even the most basic data to support that, and
your inference is drawn by comparing very small numbers of data
points in a stochastic system, and is shown not to apply at all to
the kinds of roads most subject to the intervention you claim to be
the cause, and is shown to apply primarily to motorcyclists, not the
car drivers you assert are affected, then it is hardly a surprise if
your theory is not simply rebutted, but actively ignored by the
relevant professional community.
Attempts to ascribe to Smith some kind of ownership of the issue of
regression to the mean are also false. I have references to
regression to the mean in reports going back to, I think, the 1950s,
and it's covered in some detail in books on my shelf written in 1988
and 1992 - both books for the general, not the specialist audience.
Safespeed is, and always was, a speed
apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
with road deaths. Everybody who is /genuinely/ concerned with
reducing road deaths seems remarkably consistent in supporting the
conclusion, robustly scientifically proven, that both frequency and
severity of collisions rises with speed.
The anti-camera lobby uses vague finger-pointing and "oh, here's an
alternative explanation" rather than being *scientific* about it. When
they produce peer-reviewed papers that demolish, or even weaken, the
pro-camera case, then they deserve serious consideration. That's what
was so good about the Which? article: it let both sides give it their
best shot. Only one turned out to have ammunition that had heft.
That issue of Which?, the Consumers' Association publication, has a
fascinating examination of the arguments for and against speed
cameras. There are lots of loud people who have quasi-arguments
against them; two of those being "deaths are going up, not down", and
"they're just put there to make money".
The first argument is potentially stronger, until you examine the
deaths in detail. Which? does. Most cameras are installed on urban and
rural A roads. Few are on minor rural roads, none on motorways. Since
1992 when the first cameras were installed, deaths on urban and rural
A roads have fallen rapidly, from around 2,600 in 1994 to around 2,300
in 2002. The number of deaths on motorways and minor rural roads has
risen, from around 700 in 1994 to over 800 in 2002. Conclusion:
something is making a different to casualties on urban and rural A
roads, yet not minor rural roads and motorways. Hypothesis: speed
cameras. Evidence: heavily in favour.
What about "they're just there to make money"? Actually new cameras
can only be put in places where there have been four road deaths.
And on the article goes with a relentless, yet completely fair (in
that it lets both sides make their best points) manner.
Again and again, the science favours speed cameras.
Driving in the speed limit is safer.
The piece ends with Professor Rod Kimber of the Transport Road
Laboratory saying
"I can't take seriously the arguments put forward by SafeSpeed and the
Association of British Drivers unless they step into the scientific
domain and produce data or arguments that are subject to scientific
analysis. Everyone else does - I don't see why they don't."
We now know Smith refused to allow a single word of his "research" to
be examined and/or validated because it was worthless scribbles.
The man was hopelessly out of his death, and the fact that he alone
moderated a forum where traffic wardens and police officers were
called "nazis" and posters were given free reign to insult any and
everyone who disagreed with them speaks volumes.
Smith allowed posters on his forum to call the police "cxnts".
He allowed posters to say it would be good to burn police officers to
death.
He allowed posts that fantasised about killing cyclists.
He encouraged people to pervert justice and break the law with
immunity.
Your leader was an unpleasant, blinkered, dangerously ignorant man who
rarely stepped outside his domain at the safespeeding website where
his ringpiece could be polished by the fake policemen he allowed on
his site.
Can't offer any counterarguments?
Only a complete idiot would claim using a mobile whilst driving isn't
dangerous.
Oh, look:
Paul Smith, of campaign group Safe Speeding, said careless driving -
the current charge - is not an offence that most drivers commit
deliberately.
Mr Smith said extreme care should be taken when deciding to prosecute
a driver.
"You cannot say because someone had a mobile phone they were driving
dangerously. There must be evidence they were actually posing a danger
to other people."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1...
Humans rely on lots of non-verbal clues in face to face conversation.
Telephones remove these, so people concentrate more on the
conversation, making drivers on mobiles 4 times as likely to crash.:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bruzcOyIGeg#
Another example:
For example, Smith presented this graph:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
in support of an assertion that the correlation between an increase in
speed camera convictions and apparent increase in road deaths is
evidence that the increase in road deaths is caused by the the
increased speed camera convictions. This simple post hoc, ergo propter
hoc fallacy of reasoning (with which, unfortunately, your site is
characteristically littered) will be quickly identified by anyone
familiar with errors of reasoning associated with confusing cause and
effect, and of affirmations of the consequent.
(For anyone not familiar with this type of failure of reasoning, you
should note that it would be possible to employ Paul's reasoning to
'prove' that because death's from Bird Flu will rise after vaccination
is generally administered, the vaccinations have caused the deaths and
that therefore vaccination should be made as unacceptable as drink
driving. In fact, it will be the increase in deaths that prompts the
administration of the vaccine, and while vaccination will be unable to
prevent all deaths, the overall death rate will be lower than if
vaccine is not administered. Same data - entirely different
conclusion. It doesn't prove there is no correlation - it simply says
the correlation has not been proven).
Once those issues have been straightened out, you enter the more
interesting area of establishing peer review in the absence of
comparable research. My concern (and, I suspect yours) is that once
all the simple errors of reasoning have been stripped out, there will
be nothing left to challenge conventional research.
apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
with road deaths. Everybody who is /genuinely/ concerned with
reducing road deaths seems remarkably consistent in supporting the
conclusion, robustly scientifically proven, that both frequency and
severity of collisions rises with speed.
The anti-camera lobby uses vague finger-pointing and "oh, here's an
alternative explanation" rather than being *scientific* about it. When
they produce peer-reviewed papers that demolish, or even weaken, the
pro-camera case, then they deserve serious consideration. That's what
was so good about the Which? article: it let both sides give it their
best shot. Only one turned out to have ammunition that had heft.
That issue of Which?, the Consumers' Association publication, has a
fascinating examination of the arguments for and against speed
cameras. There are lots of loud people who have quasi-arguments
against them; two of those being "deaths are going up, not down", and
"they're just put there to make money".
The first argument is potentially stronger, until you examine the
deaths in detail. Which? does. Most cameras are installed on urban and
rural A roads. Few are on minor rural roads, none on motorways. Since
1992 when the first cameras were installed, deaths on urban and rural
A roads have fallen rapidly, from around 2,600 in 1994 to around 2,300
in 2002. The number of deaths on motorways and minor rural roads has
risen, from around 700 in 1994 to over 800 in 2002. Conclusion:
something is making a different to casualties on urban and rural A
roads, yet not minor rural roads and motorways. Hypothesis: speed
cameras. Evidence: heavily in favour.
What about "they're just there to make money"? Actually new cameras
can only be put in places where there have been four road deaths.
And on the article goes with a relentless, yet completely fair (in
that it lets both sides make their best points) manner.
Again and again, the science favours speed cameras.
Driving in the speed limit is safer.
The piece ends with Professor Rod Kimber of the Transport Road
Laboratory saying
"I can't take seriously the arguments put forward by SafeSpeed and the
Association of British Drivers unless they step into the scientific
domain and produce data or arguments that are subject to scientific
analysis. Everyone else does - I don't see why they don't."
We now know Smith refused to allow a single word of his "research" to
be examined and/or validated because it was worthless scribbles.
The man was hopelessly out of his death, and the fact that he alone
moderated a forum where traffic wardens and police officers were
called "nazis" and posters were given free reign to insult any and
everyone who disagreed with them speaks volumes.
Smith allowed posters on his forum to call the police "cxnts".
He allowed posters to say it would be good to burn police officers to
death.
He allowed posts that fantasised about killing cyclists.
He encouraged people to pervert justice and break the law with
immunity.
Your leader was an unpleasant, blinkered, dangerously ignorant man who
rarely stepped outside his domain at the safespeeding website where
his ringpiece could be polished by the fake policemen he allowed on
his site.
Can't offer any counterarguments?
Only a complete idiot would claim using a mobile whilst driving isn't
dangerous.
Oh, look:
Paul Smith, of campaign group Safe Speeding, said careless driving -
the current charge - is not an offence that most drivers commit
deliberately.
Mr Smith said extreme care should be taken when deciding to prosecute
a driver.
"You cannot say because someone had a mobile phone they were driving
dangerously. There must be evidence they were actually posing a danger
to other people."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1...
Humans rely on lots of non-verbal clues in face to face conversation.
Telephones remove these, so people concentrate more on the
conversation, making drivers on mobiles 4 times as likely to crash.:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bruzcOyIGeg#
Another example:
For example, Smith presented this graph:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
in support of an assertion that the correlation between an increase in
speed camera convictions and apparent increase in road deaths is
evidence that the increase in road deaths is caused by the the
increased speed camera convictions. This simple post hoc, ergo propter
hoc fallacy of reasoning (with which, unfortunately, your site is
characteristically littered) will be quickly identified by anyone
familiar with errors of reasoning associated with confusing cause and
effect, and of affirmations of the consequent.
(For anyone not familiar with this type of failure of reasoning, you
should note that it would be possible to employ Paul's reasoning to
'prove' that because death's from Bird Flu will rise after vaccination
is generally administered, the vaccinations have caused the deaths and
that therefore vaccination should be made as unacceptable as drink
driving. In fact, it will be the increase in deaths that prompts the
administration of the vaccine, and while vaccination will be unable to
prevent all deaths, the overall death rate will be lower than if
vaccine is not administered. Same data - entirely different
conclusion. It doesn't prove there is no correlation - it simply says
the correlation has not been proven).
Once those issues have been straightened out, you enter the more
interesting area of establishing peer review in the absence of
comparable research. My concern (and, I suspect yours) is that once
all the simple errors of reasoning have been stripped out, there will
be nothing left to challenge conventional research.
VortexRing said:
Nice copy-paste, I'm guessing someone helped you with that one!
I make that twenty four evasions. Twenty four examples in the last few pages of people refusing to engage with the debate or respond to the points and rather simply post ad hominem or pointlss dribbling bum gravy.Is your argument really that weak
You asked for examples of Smith's dishonesty, you got it.
Smith released a press relase saying speed bumps kill 500 people a
year.
We explained to him on one of his rare forays outside his nodding dog
domain that the story was a crock:
http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorc...peedhumps.h...
The story was not true, even the head of the LAS confirmed this.
Smith refused to remove the page, despite promising to remove errors.
Jenny Jones, the Green Deputy Mayor of London has welcomed
clarification from the Chair of the Ambulance Service that road humps
do not cause 500 deaths, as well as evidence from serving officers
that congestion is the primary cause of delays in ambulance response
times.
After hearing evidence at the London Assembly, Jenny has withdrawn her
call for the Chair of the London Ambulance Service, Mr Sigurd Reinton,
to resign after he stated that, " I'm being accused of saying that
lives are lost and I'm actually saying is lives may be lost... We are
not saying that all traffic calming is bad... Obviously, speed cameras
cause no problem for us at all."
Jenny Jones asked, "So you have never said that road humps cause 500
deaths?" Sigurd Reinton replied, "I don't recall saying that."
Smith used his website to propogate myths, falsehoods and downright
lies.
Actually, I didn't ask for evidence of anyone's dishonesty, though yours seems to have been adequately illustrated in this very thread. Do you think bogging down the thread with sheer volume of accusations, against a dead man who cannot argue his own case, which have obviously written by others, copy-pasted by you, and no doubt have been dealt with countless times before, actually lends any credence to your case?
What is your case, by the way? It seems that you want to b
h and moan about other road users, whilst ignoring the shortcomings of you and yours, and you want to conduct this bhing and moaning in the face of those you are deriding, without any comeback? Do you have any goal in mind, or do you just enjoy stirring?
I'm not quite sure what, if anything, I've said could be classified as 'bum-gravy'? It seems to me that everything I've said to you has been entirely accurate, and you've yet to show otherwise. I'm guessing this 'bum-gravy' accusation is one of those indications you talk about that no counter-argument exists?
What is your case, by the way? It seems that you want to b
h and moan about other road users, whilst ignoring the shortcomings of you and yours, and you want to conduct this bhing and moaning in the face of those you are deriding, without any comeback? Do you have any goal in mind, or do you just enjoy stirring?I'm not quite sure what, if anything, I've said could be classified as 'bum-gravy'? It seems to me that everything I've said to you has been entirely accurate, and you've yet to show otherwise. I'm guessing this 'bum-gravy' accusation is one of those indications you talk about that no counter-argument exists?
purveyor of false information said:
Most cameras are installed on urban and
rural A roads. Few are on minor rural roads, none on motorways.
NONE? There are speed camera sites on the M6 in Cumbria, Staffordshire, the M4 etc. etc.rural A roads. Few are on minor rural roads, none on motorways.
If you paid for somebody to write that for you, you should ask for your money back!
It kind of puts a dampner on any enthusiasm I might of had to read and respond to the rest of the drivel, if you cannot get a basic fact right.
Edited by MillWheel on Saturday 28th June 13:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff