Cooperman on Cumbria Silly Site
Discussion
Just thought I would bring people's attention to this excellent post by cooperman on the Cumbria Camera site
www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=587&st=30
I do wonder what Steve's reply (if any) will be
Cheers
Paul
www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=587&st=30
I do wonder what Steve's reply (if any) will be
Cheers
Paul
Heres the cooperman text for the lazy ones!
My best friend's daughter, a delightful and active young lady, had to have a comprehensive liver transplant at Addenbrook's, Cambridge, a couple of years ago. One can criticise the NHS all one wants, but the dedication of the entire team and their associates in other regions was absolutely fantastic and deserves the highest praise.
For the Lincolnshire scammers to target a member of this team whilst he was delivering a transplant organ to Addenbrooks is a disgrage beyond all reasonable comprehension. The organ was wanted in a hurry, there is no doubt about that.
Yes, the guy pinged a camera and the scammers may have wanted to proceed, that's up to them, but as soon as they realised the true situation they should have exercised their discretion and stopped the NIP, as Cambridgeshire did and will always do in such cases. Lincs didn't and the Chief Constable then compounded the situation by insisting that the law must take its course. What a stupid man he was then perceived to be, and rightfully so.
If this current speeding obsession has reached this point then it's time all the Silly Camera Partnerships were disbanded, for this only goes to show how silly and small-minded they really are.
It's clear this is nothing to do with saving lives, or even with common sense, it's to do with the dogma which emanates from the partnerships and the stupidity of those in higher office who forget that they are there to serve the public and the public interests. Their arrogance is staggering.
No amount of common sense seems to apply to this entire speed camera situation, the partnerships continue to use flawed data and those employed can't or won't answer reasonable questions, falling back on sarcasm when pressed for a reasoned response (as in the Monitored v Unmonitored site figures).
It seems that over 90% of ordinary drivers now believe that it's just about the money and not about safety. The levels of 'anti' feeling are really reaching new heights and anyone who genuinly believes otherwise must be really out of touch with reality. But then, how often do the scammers personnel meet and speak with ordinary drivers.
The problem is how to get these feelings across to the scammers and their accolytes. It's difficult as they won't listen to sensible arguments concerning gthe real causes of about 95% of accident causation.
Steve says that the levels of abuse are increasing and, sadly, he is undoubtedly correct in that. Has he asked himself why? Could it be a level of frustration by those who have continually tried to tell him that it's not about speed, it's about money and that road safety is not directly linked to exceeding the limit. The published figures prove that. He can't even accept that 'regression to the mean' exists, even though he won't publish the unmonitored site figures for the same periods.
Unless this entire Safety Cameras is stopped soon, the disquiet already being expressed on here will continue to escalate.
Steve and the others, I regret any abuse, but you really must try to answer the reasonable questions which have been asked or we will have to draw our own conclusions as to why you won't, and job/overtime preservation will be high on the list.
Sorry for such a long post.
My best friend's daughter, a delightful and active young lady, had to have a comprehensive liver transplant at Addenbrook's, Cambridge, a couple of years ago. One can criticise the NHS all one wants, but the dedication of the entire team and their associates in other regions was absolutely fantastic and deserves the highest praise.
For the Lincolnshire scammers to target a member of this team whilst he was delivering a transplant organ to Addenbrooks is a disgrage beyond all reasonable comprehension. The organ was wanted in a hurry, there is no doubt about that.
Yes, the guy pinged a camera and the scammers may have wanted to proceed, that's up to them, but as soon as they realised the true situation they should have exercised their discretion and stopped the NIP, as Cambridgeshire did and will always do in such cases. Lincs didn't and the Chief Constable then compounded the situation by insisting that the law must take its course. What a stupid man he was then perceived to be, and rightfully so.
If this current speeding obsession has reached this point then it's time all the Silly Camera Partnerships were disbanded, for this only goes to show how silly and small-minded they really are.
It's clear this is nothing to do with saving lives, or even with common sense, it's to do with the dogma which emanates from the partnerships and the stupidity of those in higher office who forget that they are there to serve the public and the public interests. Their arrogance is staggering.
No amount of common sense seems to apply to this entire speed camera situation, the partnerships continue to use flawed data and those employed can't or won't answer reasonable questions, falling back on sarcasm when pressed for a reasoned response (as in the Monitored v Unmonitored site figures).
It seems that over 90% of ordinary drivers now believe that it's just about the money and not about safety. The levels of 'anti' feeling are really reaching new heights and anyone who genuinly believes otherwise must be really out of touch with reality. But then, how often do the scammers personnel meet and speak with ordinary drivers.
The problem is how to get these feelings across to the scammers and their accolytes. It's difficult as they won't listen to sensible arguments concerning gthe real causes of about 95% of accident causation.
Steve says that the levels of abuse are increasing and, sadly, he is undoubtedly correct in that. Has he asked himself why? Could it be a level of frustration by those who have continually tried to tell him that it's not about speed, it's about money and that road safety is not directly linked to exceeding the limit. The published figures prove that. He can't even accept that 'regression to the mean' exists, even though he won't publish the unmonitored site figures for the same periods.
Unless this entire Safety Cameras is stopped soon, the disquiet already being expressed on here will continue to escalate.
Steve and the others, I regret any abuse, but you really must try to answer the reasonable questions which have been asked or we will have to draw our own conclusions as to why you won't, and job/overtime preservation will be high on the list.
Sorry for such a long post.
gopher said:
Just thought I would bring people's attention to this excellent post by cooperman on the Cumbria Camera site
www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=587&st=30
I do wonder what Steve's reply (if any) will be
Cheers
Paul
Coopermans' posts are both accurate and a good defence against the propanganda that 'Steve' enjoys pushing down the general public's throat. I await as usual a typically 'politician style' answer from Steve - 'The King Of Spin'.
This Scamera forum is an ideal place for people to put their questions and concerns on a public page for all to see, and slowly but surely the argument over cameras for revenue generation is being proven.
That forum could do with some support for Cooperman as he seems to be doing most of the 'fight' on his own. Well done that man. Hopefully the Cumbria Pratnership will realise that the public are not even slightly behind the scheme and will back off before there is trouble on a country-wide scale.
Don't for one minute think I am saying that anything to reduce road casualties is a bad thing, I am merely making my point on the revenue generation that the cameras provide for the government.
To sum up, if each camera costs about £45,000. I am pretty sure you employ more trafpol on a 'one trafpol per camera' basis.
Which would you prefer?
ultimasimon said:
To sum up, if each camera costs about £45,000. I am pretty sure you employ more trafpol on a 'one trafpol per camera' basis. Which would you prefer?
Get rid of all gatsos and at that rate they could employ 6000 trafpols at £45K, certainly a better argument than nazi sorry nasty gatsos.............
Dibble said:
employ... trafpols at £45K
I wish!!!
Kerrrrrr-chinggggggggggggggg!
Sounds not too far from a realistic figure to me - your salary is only part of the cost of employing you. There's the small matter of a vehicle to consider, for starters.
I know I'd rather see more trafpol than cameras, since they tend to move about a bit and catch the dangerous drivers, rather than those just a tiny bit over the limit at a certain spot.
ultimasimon said:
That forum could do with some support for Cooperman as he seems to be doing most of the 'fight' on his own. Well done that man. Hopefully the Cumbria Pratnership will realise that the public are not even slightly behind the scheme and will back off before there is trouble on a country-wide scale.
Yes I agree that Cooperman ( and a few others ) is (are) doing a really good job and he has ( thay have )my admiration . I go there with similar intentions but the level of hypocrisy, cant, supidity and witchfinder-like zeal emanating from Steve Callaghan in particular just gets to me. Is difficult to not post anything that is not sheer abuse in an OTT way.
Alongwith Cooperman, myself and a couple of others have been attempting to reason with Steve Callaghan and JJ (JJ appears to be employed by the CSCP). However, all sensible questions are totally ignored by Steve and JJ, in fact Steve's response is to accuse us of 'childish jibes' and 'telling lies'.
Cooperman is still waiting for an answer to his query about safe overtaking - is it safer to overtake in the shortest possible time, or to stick within the speedlimit? Also the question noted above.
Steve has still not answered my basic question of 'how many miles of roads are in the CSCP area?
Paul Smith (Safespeed) is also largely ignored.
This seems to me to be a case of the 'If it is a problem, ignore it and it may go away' syndrome.
Cooperman is still waiting for an answer to his query about safe overtaking - is it safer to overtake in the shortest possible time, or to stick within the speedlimit? Also the question noted above.
Steve has still not answered my basic question of 'how many miles of roads are in the CSCP area?
Paul Smith (Safespeed) is also largely ignored.
This seems to me to be a case of the 'If it is a problem, ignore it and it may go away' syndrome.
Let's not forget the editing style over there, if it's doesn't toe the party line, it gets deleted. One of my posts has gone this morning 
Steve seems to forget he bought the debate here and then appeared a little surprised when no-one offered to make him a cup of tea. What did he expect, a pat on the back?
The general public have had enough of being penalised financially for not wishing to endure the pile of shite that is labelled public transport.
If anyone is pro speed camera, please go and offer Steve your support :whistlingsmiley:
Steve seems to forget he bought the debate here and then appeared a little surprised when no-one offered to make him a cup of tea. What did he expect, a pat on the back?
The general public have had enough of being penalised financially for not wishing to endure the pile of shite that is labelled public transport.
If anyone is pro speed camera, please go and offer Steve your support :whistlingsmiley:
Dibble said:
There's the small matter of a vehicle to consider, for starters.
I'll take that in the spirit in which I'm sure it was meant, not a dig at my profile pics, I'm sure...
I'd forgotten about that! I meant the costs in general, not specifically replacing cars you've wrecked beyond all repair
softwaresorcerer said:
JMGS4 said:
employ... trafpols at £45K
I wish!!!
Kerrrrrr-chinggggggggggggggg!
Sounds not too far from a realistic figure to me - your salary is only part of the cost of employing you. There's the small matter of a vehicle to consider, for starters.
And the the lovely white hats!! Don't forget the lovely white hats!!
For 45k you could employ 2x 5 year response officers, equip them fully and STILL have enough change to buy a nasty old focus...
Yeeaaaah I am famous me Mr.Silly has quoted me on that silly site where he spouts silly stuff. He didn't really do a very good job on the subject of the post starting this thread. Does he agree with the ridiculous prosecution of the driver of the organ transplant car??? A simple yes or no will do. Please no waffle, no spin, just his honest opinion. Not "policy", his own honest opinion please. My opinion is that it is wrong and the Chief Constable has shown himself to be totally lacking in judgement, common sense and decency. It really has all gone too far.
Mr.Silly thinks Cooperman started all the abuse and poking fun. Err, no, he just told us where to find the small minded jobsworths so we can tell them what we think. We always thought it, just now you are getting to know and you don't like it do you ???
The public are sick and tired of the lies, evasive answers, distorted statistics and the total failure to deal with the real problem which isn't speed, it is BAD DRIVING. Start dealing with that and you will have my complete support. Continue stinging our wallets and our licences and you better get used to abuse and ridicule because whether it is right or not it is what will happen.
Straight answers to straight questions, stop quoting drivel as supposed defence of the distorted figures and you may get less stick.
>> Edited by ftasb on Friday 16th July 09:36
'Speedfinder-General' Steve obviously doesn't like the PH'ers on 'his' site, does he.
However, we must press for answers to the sensible questions already asked, and continue to ask more.
Any who have not already looked could do worse than look now and, hopefully, register to make your own points (not my points, you understand).
However, we must press for answers to the sensible questions already asked, and continue to ask more.
Any who have not already looked could do worse than look now and, hopefully, register to make your own points (not my points, you understand).
Cooperman said:
It's getting even better - take a look!
The man is numptista of the highest order. Cooperman, maybe best not play with these people 'cos they are bad losers when they don't succeed in their brainwashing tactics. Overtake within the speed limit? hmmmmmm. So when a large vehicle comes into view, best to carry on creeping past?? or boot it? think we all know the sensible option. It's called using your brain and reducing T.E.D...... after all, stick to SC's rules, and it'll be forever to get past things which equals the end to overtaking. What a foolish man. But don't provoke too much, he is on the side of "the law", no matter how stupid the law is. Drive safe.
arrrghh. been reading more of SC's stuff. What a plonker. Rides a bike does he? one of these wusses who never uses it? do me a favour and stop riding bikes mate - you're bringing our 'ard bastard image into nancydom. Get a proper job, maybe asking people if they want fries with that burger. Just stop pretending that it's about safety.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff