Newsnight tonight BRAKE & Monbiot v Captain Gatso..?
Discussion
I gather from a friend in the BBC that Newsnight are covering BRAKEs campaign to halt the speed camera decline tonight.
Not finalised yet apparently, but BRAKE are due to be joined by George Monbiot - a car hating BRAKE apologist, and either Captain Gatso, or Claire Armstrong from SAFESPEED.
Not sure if they have one or not - but they should have a BiB representative since they will still operate speed checks even without the cameras - if the budget allows!
It's a shame that PH don't have a spokesperson to go to the table, but no doubt we can debate it here at length after the program!
Not finalised yet apparently, but BRAKE are due to be joined by George Monbiot - a car hating BRAKE apologist, and either Captain Gatso, or Claire Armstrong from SAFESPEED.
Not sure if they have one or not - but they should have a BiB representative since they will still operate speed checks even without the cameras - if the budget allows!
It's a shame that PH don't have a spokesperson to go to the table, but no doubt we can debate it here at length after the program!
. 
Jasandjules said:
Boosted LS1 said:
Isn't pitsmansboots steve callaghan? So he's part of the industry anyway.
I believe (certainly judging by his rather strange view point) that he works for an SCP or somesuch, as I don't think many people of the intellect he appears to exhibit actually hold the views he espouses.http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/20...
Daily Record said:
At the appeal hearing at Penrith Magistrates' Court yesterday, Mr Freeman seized on the background of expert witness Steven Callaghan.
He was used by the prosecution to vouch for the reliability of the speed gun.
Mr Callaghan, 50, was not a member of the Engineering Council as he had stated, having left four years ago.
Mr Freeman said: "If an expert comes to court and misrepresents the nature of his qualifications, that must taint the nature and weight of his evidence.
"There is a question over whether he is an expert."
He was used by the prosecution to vouch for the reliability of the speed gun.
Mr Callaghan, 50, was not a member of the Engineering Council as he had stated, having left four years ago.
Mr Freeman said: "If an expert comes to court and misrepresents the nature of his qualifications, that must taint the nature and weight of his evidence.
"There is a question over whether he is an expert."
. 
Stubby Pete said:
So the Judge ignored Freeman's argument that Callaghan was not "an expert" and accepted his testimony. Freeman should've gone outside and called any random member of the public to give evidence as qualifications obviously don't matter!
I'm more concerned at his quickness to mislead the court over his membership than his opinion on the LTI 20/20. Why lie about his membership, and was this the first time???The case was not won because the LTI didn't work as it should, it was because the operator was a prat who ignored the guidelines as to it's use!
streaky said:
I'm convinced that Callaghan likes to think of himself as "Inspector 'Dirty Steve' Callaghan", pointing a scamera at the prone figure of the criminal motorist and saying, "You've got to ask yourself one question, 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?" That scene probably creams his underwear.
Streaky
Streaky
. Have you read this then Streaky....?
http://web.archive.org/web/20051223083205/http://w...
Seems like he didn't realise (like the appeal judge) that his operators were not quite up to the standard he claimed they were!
mybrainhurts said:
So, why did the BBC put Monbiot up against Claire?
Monbiot has no expertise in the field of road safety. Indeed, he has little driving experience. He is a self appointed environmentalist, journalist and writer.
BRAKE would have been the obvious choice, rather than Monbiot, and I'd risk a big bet that BRAKE would have relished the opportunity.
Could it be that the BBC worried that Claire would demolish the lightweights from BRAKE, so decided to pit her against Monbiot's sneering style of talking over opponents, in order to intimidate Claire?
I think so, but it backfired. Congratulations to Claire for standing her ground against this big headed, odious little meddler.
My source who kept me informed of the Newsnight program tells me that the Newsnight article was set up by BRAKE, who furnished the BBC with "facts and figures" to make a case for speed cameras to be retained... as far back as Wednesday evening/Thursday night - hence the Newsnight team being at BRAKE's Wiltshire stunt.Monbiot has no expertise in the field of road safety. Indeed, he has little driving experience. He is a self appointed environmentalist, journalist and writer.
BRAKE would have been the obvious choice, rather than Monbiot, and I'd risk a big bet that BRAKE would have relished the opportunity.
Could it be that the BBC worried that Claire would demolish the lightweights from BRAKE, so decided to pit her against Monbiot's sneering style of talking over opponents, in order to intimidate Claire?
I think so, but it backfired. Congratulations to Claire for standing her ground against this big headed, odious little meddler.
I believe they (BRAKE) suggested that left wing car hating George Monbiot could be relied upon to support their case, without the public realising that a charity was acting as a political pressure group!
The Beeb were looking to Captain Gatso to argue against Monbiot, but he was unavailable because of other commitments, and he suggested that Clare from SAFESPEED was up to the job!
I don't know if either of the invited anti camera parties were made aware of BRAKE's seeding with statistics - presumably this was an attempt to ambush the anti camera lobby - but Monbiot's sneering arrogant bullying style would appear to have back fired and certain parties at the Beeb are not happy at BRAKE's attempts to manipulate the argument with dodgy figures, or Monbiot's attempts to shout down the arguments put forward by Clare!
I think we are sadly lacking some decent investigative journalism at the moment - the crooked use of statistics by the DfT and the "Safety" Camera Partnerships is slowly becoming uncovered, and the arguments unraveling, but only slowly being revealed to the wider general public, who don't usually go looking until they get caught out.
What we need is a willingness by various news media to actually unearth stories, instead of simply reporting what they are told by the likes of BRAKE, and for the BBC to excersise their impartiality by not simply following the administrations line!
heebeegeetee said:
I also noticed that Clare Brixey said that speed was one of the major contributory factors in road deaths, and that the only way to reduce deaths was to reduce speed.
The ONLY way a camera could have prevented this accident would have been IF the driver was compliant enough to slow down in front of a camera, placed at the point at which he lost control.Anywhere else, and the best that could have resulted would have been a glossy 10 x 8 photograph showing this unfortunate mothers son's last moments, apparently enjoying himself shortly before he died!
In fact, even a police officer would probably have been faced with a driver who would have run to try and evade being caught given that he was under the influence of both drink and drugs.
However, if police numbers had not been reduced over the past few years by increasing numbers of speed cameras, then the driver might have thought more about being foolish enough to drive while impaired, or at those speeds. It is fear of being CAUGHT which gives non compliant drivers an extra reason to be cautious - yet very few expect to get caught by a speed camera which they merely slow down for!
The driver was clearly a law breaker BIG TIME and a danger to not just himself, but everybody else on the road or in the swimming pool!
All I can say is thank heavens nobody else got in the way, shame his passenger was not minded to dissuade him from his reckless actions, and at least we are spared his actions on the road until he gets out of jail.
heebeegeetee said:
Mill Wheel said:
heebeegeetee said:
I also noticed that Clare Brixey said that speed was one of the major contributory factors in road deaths, and that the only way to reduce deaths was to reduce speed.
The ONLY way a camera could have prevented this accident would have been IF the driver was compliant enough to slow down in front of a camera, placed at the point at which he lost control.I feel very sorry for Mrs Brixey, and she rightly says that her son was killed by an irresponsible driver. But wasn't her son irresponsible to allow himself to be driven by a drunk driver, and if he was drunk himself, did that make him an irresponsible passenger?
She is campaigning for better road safety, not better behaviour of offspring.
She is either misguided, or misinformed by BRAKE if she swallows the pro camera propaganda!
The woman in Swindon was of the same mind - thought a speed camera would be better than the road being re-engineered!
Johnnytheboy said:
SafeSpeedv2 said:
It seemed strange that a member of the public is calling for police patrols and the head of ACPO wasn't !
That's a very good point. What planet are they on?more Trafpol patrols would be worht the effort on those grounds alone!
carinaman said:
Was registered as a Technician at Stage 2 on the Engineering Council register a few years ago.
Does that mean I am as well qualified as Callaghan?
Probably - but telling the court that you ARE a member when you are not would give more credence to anything you told them - and make you a liar if your statement were untrue.Does that mean I am as well qualified as Callaghan?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 25th August 00:20
Some people are just more practiced at it than others!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff