Brunstrom WILL allow you to speed in North Wales
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
off_again said:
Oh FFS - do you believe everything they print / publish in the Daily Wail?
Please point out which part they made up...or go awayDaily Mail said:
Addressing a cross-party committee of the Welsh Assembly, he said: ‘If we start enforcing the law rigorously on the A55, we run a risk of severe economic damage to the port of Holyhead because the traffic will transfer to Liverpool if there was a lighter touch there.’
So, he comments, quite correctly, that enforcing the law as rigourously as he is known to, is potentially counter productive. However, he also tempers this with a little bit at the end. Now correct me if I am wrong here, but the "we run a risk of sever economic damage" part is fair. But then he goes on to say "the traffic will transfer to Liverpool if there was a lighter touch there". For me the critical part here is "....Liverpool IF there was a lighter touch there".It seems to me that he is saying that there is a risk of economic damage if there was a perceived lighter Police presence for the trucks, rather than from Holyhead. There is no direct mention of "my policies are stupid", or that "I am forcing away truck drivers" or anything like that. In fact he is making a perfectly fair and reasonable comment - openly about the risks and threats of policing. If you enforce it too much then you run the risk of forcing it elsewhere. Yes, its not on your patch anyway, but the criminal activity still goes on. Which then leads to the age-old discussion of what is best? Force the crime elsewhere or try and combat it?
The Daily Mail (as often discussed here) is particularly good at printing inflammatory articles without stepping over the bounds of the law. They have an business built on getting peoples backs up and are rather good at it. If you actually read the Daily Mail and agree with the articles then I would strongly recommend reading it again - its is trying to push its own political views. Personally, I would be happier reading stuff from the Torygraph or Grauniad - at least there tends to be some form of accuracy with them.
Yertis said:
off_again said:
If you actually read the Daily Mail and agree with the articles then I would strongly recommend reading it again - its is trying to push its own political views.
Can you point me in the direction of a paper which doesn't do that?(BTW I hate the DM)
But you are correct - its just that most of the others have some form of fact in their articles.
Most alarming point in that article for me was:
The Mail said:
"The scale of the problem was highlighted last month when the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency staged its biggest ever campaign against unsafe lorries. Inspectors stopped 3,628 vehicles – of which 2,273 were foreign-registered – and 1,889 were immediately taken off the road."
Over 3000 lorries is a big enough sample to get a reasonable statistic from. So, are half of all lorries (and almost two thirds of foreign lorries) unroadworthy?!timbob said:
Most alarming point in that article for me was:
As usual though, its CONTEXT.The Mail said:
"The scale of the problem was highlighted last month when the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency staged its biggest ever campaign against unsafe lorries. Inspectors stopped 3,628 vehicles – of which 2,273 were foreign-registered – and 1,889 were immediately taken off the road."
Over 3000 lorries is a big enough sample to get a reasonable statistic from. So, are half of all lorries (and almost two thirds of foreign lorries) unroadworthy?!So VOSA stopped 3000 vehicles last month. What were they stopping? Were they targeting illegal or dangerous vehicles? Well, actually they typically stop vehicles that they are suspicious about anyway, so as a sample its more than probable that there will be some issues with them. The interesting part is that there were a proportion of foreign registered ones. But again, how many of these were UK companies with EU registered vehicles?
Lets have some context to the numbers and statistics. The media do a very good job of setting the message first and then trying to attach some data or statistics to it to justify their opinion. I will agree that foreign registered vehicles do alarm me, but show me some statistical proof of this though.
off_again said:
mybrainhurts said:
off_again said:
Oh FFS - do you believe everything they print / publish in the Daily Wail?
Please point out which part they made up...or go awayDaily Mail said:
Addressing a cross-party committee of the Welsh Assembly, he said: ‘If we start enforcing the law rigorously on the A55, we run a risk of severe economic damage to the port of Holyhead because the traffic will transfer to Liverpool if there was a lighter touch there.’
So, he comments, quite correctly, that enforcing the law as rigourously as he is known to, is potentially counter productive. However, he also tempers this with a little bit at the end. Now correct me if I am wrong here, but the "we run a risk of sever economic damage" part is fair. But then he goes on to say "the traffic will transfer to Liverpool if there was a lighter touch there". For me the critical part here is "....Liverpool IF there was a lighter touch there".It seems to me that he is saying that there is a risk of economic damage if there was a perceived lighter Police presence for the trucks, rather than from Holyhead. There is no direct mention of "my policies are stupid", or that "I am forcing away truck drivers" or anything like that. In fact he is making a perfectly fair and reasonable comment - openly about the risks and threats of policing. If you enforce it too much then you run the risk of forcing it elsewhere. Yes, its not on your patch anyway, but the criminal activity still goes on. Which then leads to the age-old discussion of what is best? Force the crime elsewhere or try and combat it?
The Daily Mail (as often discussed here) is particularly good at printing inflammatory articles without stepping over the bounds of the law. They have an business built on getting peoples backs up and are rather good at it. If you actually read the Daily Mail and agree with the articles then I would strongly recommend reading it again - its is trying to push its own political views. Personally, I would be happier reading stuff from the Torygraph or Grauniad - at least there tends to be some form of accuracy with them.
I read the story, and managed to grasp the message here...
Controversial police chief Richard Brunstrom has suggested that his officers are not enforcing traffic laws on one of Britain’s busiest roads . . . The North Wales Chief Constable....appears to have admitted turning a blind eye to some offences committed by truckers on the A55 to Holyhead.
Not too difficult there, no great attempt to pull the wool over our eyes...
Then we move on to him addressing a committee of the Welsh Assembly...
If we start enforcing the law rigorously on the A55, we run a risk of severe economic damage to the port of Holyhead because the traffic will transfer to Liverpool if there was a lighter touch there.
If you suggest good old Dickie didn't mean he was prepared to be lenient, what was he getting at..?
The only alternative is the Welsh Assembly telling him to be lenient, and Dickie rejecting their idea and providing the reason for his rejection.
This boils down to who is more stupid, Brunstrom or the Welsh Assembly. Close call, but I know where my money is.
Then we have this little gem...
Last night North Wales Police refused to discuss Mr Brunstrom’s observations. A force spokesman said: ‘I’ve been told to say we will not be making any comment.’ Asked whether Mr Brunstrom disputed the remarks, the spokesman said: ‘It’s nothing to do with us. You’ll have to discuss that with the Welsh Assembly.
If this story were untrue, why would they say that...?
So there we have it...
MPs, Roadpeace and the Welsh Assembly believe that Brunstrom is, or intends, not reporting foreign truckers.
The paper says this is probably true...
And all you can see is the Daily Mail whipping up hysteria..
All I can see is you doing precisely what you accuse the paper of doing...
The puzzle and worry here is whether your motivation was blind prejudice against a newspaper, or closet support for Richard Brunstrom.
off_again said:
So, he comments, quite correctly, that enforcing the law as rigourously as he is known to, is potentially counter productive. However, he also tempers this with a little bit at the end. Now correct me if I am wrong here, but the "we run a risk of sever economic damage" part is fair. But then he goes on to say "the traffic will transfer to Liverpool if there was a lighter touch there". For me the critical part here is "....Liverpool IF there was a lighter touch there".
It seems to me that he is saying that there is a risk of economic damage if there was a perceived lighter Police presence for the trucks, rather than from Holyhead. There is no direct mention of "my policies are stupid", or that "I am forcing away truck drivers" or anything like that. In fact he is making a perfectly fair and reasonable comment - openly about the risks and threats of policing. If you enforce it too much then you run the risk of forcing it elsewhere.
Since when has the threat of economic damage come before enforcing the law or are you finally admitting that the police are now a politically motivated organisation.?It seems to me that he is saying that there is a risk of economic damage if there was a perceived lighter Police presence for the trucks, rather than from Holyhead. There is no direct mention of "my policies are stupid", or that "I am forcing away truck drivers" or anything like that. In fact he is making a perfectly fair and reasonable comment - openly about the risks and threats of policing. If you enforce it too much then you run the risk of forcing it elsewhere.
If you took off your anti mail blinkers for a second you would realise how stupid your remarks sound.
What next? Lets not arrest muggers in Stoke Newington in case they start mugging people in Islington instead.
Your logic seems to forget that ingnoring a problem is no better than forcing the issue elsewhere.
Guybrush said:
Pesty said:
I wonder if he would like to explain his new policy to relatives of the welsh family killed by a foriegn truck driver a few weeks ago.
I doubt the crash had anything to do with "speed".Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff