Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 19:47

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 11:46 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1270
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
SafeSpeed wrote:
As a professional engineer I soon learned not to trust the judgement of others. I learned that I had to test claims, performance, functionality and so on for myself. In short, anyone who cares to ensure a functional result will take nothing on trust. It doesn't matter who says it. It doesn't matter if I say it...

Oy!! You've pinched my sig!! :twisted:

SafeSpeed wrote:
That's why the Safe Speed web site sets out the evidence for anyone to examine. I don't want anyone who can evaluate the evidence to take it on trust. I want them to evaluate it for themselves.

That's the way I see it as well.

I don't remember what brought me to the site originally, I think it may have been a mention on the BBC website, but my initial reading prompted me to do my own research using the assorted resources at Safe Speed as a pointer to original papers and notification of anything interesting being published.

My remaining a member, indeed "upping" my membership, was not so much a result of the information on the website as my own misgivings brought on by looking at the "official" information (TRL, DfT and assorted university / consultancy papers) upon which policy appeared to be based and the realisation both of the poor quality of much of the analysis that had been done and the "political spin" that appeared to have been given to its presentation. I suspect that many of the members of this forum who have scientific, engineering or mathmatical backgrounds do something similar.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
I'm of a similar mind to pogo.

I too came across SafeSpeed via a chance link, and have also made up my own mind based on my own analysis of the raw evidence. Indeed I have to say that having some official stamp of approval might even ring alarm bells - to me that says "we've approved this conclusion as we don't want you to look too closely yourself".

This whole thing is nothing more than a bit of malicious mischief-making by Monbiot in my opinion. He's come up with this criticism simply because he can't find any specific or substantive point on which to argue his case. I suspect that he's looked through the website, found it to be more or less bulletproof in terms of logic and references, and tried this attack instead. That needs pointing out the next time he has a go.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 13:51 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
Heck, I just love reading these threads and admiring the intellect of the posters.

Makes me feel all cosy and warm, if a little unworthy, the subject matter kind of loses relevance to the ebb and flow of discussion, sometimes a big wave comes and knocks 'em over but up they get and brace against the next onslaught. Great stuff! :wink: :lol:

But it needs to remain civil, and by and large it has done.

There is little point IMO in dragging up more radical stuff from years ago when the argument has moved on The quality of road safety debate IMO has grown exponentially in the last few years, and I believe the inherent strength of the counter-argument developed by Paul and his cohorts has been responsible. :thumbsup:

My own opinion?

Monbiot has made a mistake in his Guardian column to criticise campaigns and individuals based primarily on a misread of the DfT information. He should apologise for that. :popcorn:

Having looked at the facts and the statistics which are available.
Having looked at the way in which the DfT is seriously and surreptitiously trying to pedal backwards from their initial flawed assertions on camera benefits.
Having looked from the frontline at the practical realities of collision causation and analysed the specific causal user groups in KSI collisions.
Having looked at the negative effect of over zealous enforcement of peripheral speed offences.
having listened to motorists explaining the reprioritising of their driving methods to remain legal.
Having some understanding of the way that motorists behave and react to stimuli and hazards.

Taking all of these and many more factors into account, there is no doubt in my mind that the 'Safespeed model' is the best fit for all the road safety information presently available.

I don't need any peer review to tell me that. It makes complete sense to me.

I don't know what peer reviewing the DfT reviews have had to be subjected to, but to have to admit to fundamental basic flaws in their headline 'camera benefit' figures should surely indicate serious flaws in those kind of academic reviews.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 13:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
pogo wrote:
I don't remember what brought me to the site originally, I think it may have been a mention on the BBC website, but my initial reading prompted me to do my own research using the assorted resources at Safe Speed as a pointer to original papers and notification of anything interesting being published.

My remaining a member, indeed "upping" my membership, was not so much a result of the information on the website as my own misgivings brought on by looking at the "official" information (TRL, DfT and assorted university / consultancy papers) upon which policy appeared to be based and the realisation both of the poor quality of much of the analysis that had been done and the "political spin" that appeared to have been given to its presentation. I suspect that many of the members of this forum who have scientific, engineering or mathmatical backgrounds do something similar.


This very much my experience and view. However, as campaigns like SS gain in success and media attention, attacks like Monbiot's and sort of criticsm levelled at "old content" from the site will increase. As my critique of Paul's "deaths" page showed, there IS vaild criticism to make and whilst those of us who looked "further" and formed our own views might well see the content on SS pages as reasonable, there will be those who don't and room for criticism will be exploited fully by them. Care on things like wording around conclusions and contentions drawn from other people's data will become increasingly important.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 14:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 09:51
Posts: 90
I have to confess, that I'm not knowledgeable about the inner workings of scientific circles.

However, could one class Professor Mervyn Stone's "review" on the Today programme, as at least a partial review by peers?

And what about the article by Dr Alan Buckingham? Would that not also fall into a similar category?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 19:12 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
suck_my_tailpipe wrote:
Would those obscure journals be the sort where publication is dependant on rigorous peer review?


Yeah. As was the research which gave us Thalidomide - just for one example.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 03:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
Pete317 wrote:
suck_my_tailpipe wrote:
Would those obscure journals be the sort where publication is dependant on rigorous peer review?


Yeah. As was the research which gave us Thalidomide - just for one example.




Und in practice - once we have a mdeicine in use und licenced as well... we find adverse reactions which did not show in trials or prolonged use create reaction trials did not show.

But once we find this - we do submit the amended research und modified drug or reason for withdrawing it ...

."peer review" und any research paper or piece of work should never be viewed as "set in stone" und danger with Monbiot und pals as they come across to all und sundry (Radio 4 listener reaction ist very "telling") ist that they fasten on the one old report und are not open to revised findings either. :roll:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 17:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rich Lyon added the following to the first post in the thread.

richlyon wrote:
Added by Richard Lyon - the author of this post. WARNING: I haven't checked whether Paul has tampered with or retitled any of my other postings in service of either conditioning your expectation of what it is about, or guiding your attention safely past the full development of any subsequent points to his punchline of choice.

The reader will note that, in a true "open review" process, a challenger would be allowed to choose his own language, to safeguard the possibility that the challenger is, by definition, bringing a new perspective. In a "self review" process, the challenger's language would be modified by the challenged (i.e. the "self" doing the review) to conform with the existing perspective, thus mitigating the challenge. That this effect is taking place over the title of a thread dedicated to challenging the integrity of SafeSpeed's challenge process is exquisitely recursive.

Paul - while you may delete my postings in their entirety if they are inappropriate, do not EVER modify the contents or title of a posting of mine without my expressed permission. To do otherwise is to illustrate how hopelessly compromised you are in your conflicting roles of advocate, judge, executioner and moderator around here. Thank you.


I hope everyone now recognises that this poster is attempting to fashion yet another character slur against me out of thin air.

Of course I haven't changed his words. I wouldn't dream of it.

I did change the title of the thread (from ..."self review" to "...open review") to reflect the subject under discussion.

The text above regarding 'self review' is BS after the event. 'Self review' is not mentioned elsewhere in the thread and was, of course, simply an error in the first place.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 19:27 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 17:36
Posts: 40
Quote:
Of course I haven't changed his words. I wouldn't dream of it.

I did change the title of the thread (from ..."self review" to "...open review") to reflect the subject under discussion.

Truly breathtaking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 19:31 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Rich Lyon seems far far too emotional in his supposedly rational arguements.

Now I go off on one from time to time, have a look in the soapbox for, but I do try to keep fact fact and treat it in dry and dispassionate fashion.

Its my engineering back ground I suppose.

Rich, are you going to fill in your info in the technical forum? it helps add to the 'peer review' in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 21:56 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 17:36
Posts: 40
Quote:
I hope everyone now recognises that this poster is attempting to fashion yet another character slur against me out of thin air.

Of course I haven't changed his words. I wouldn't dream of it.

I did change the title of the thread (from ..."self review" to "...open review") to reflect the subject under discussion.

The text above regarding 'self review' is BS after the event. 'Self review' is not mentioned elsewhere in the thread and was, of course, simply an error in the first place.
Apologies to anyone fed up with this tawdry thread, but the above really can't go un-commented on.
So what's here? First a characteristic persuasive appeal to a gallery of sycophants to renew a chorus of disapproval to drown out opposition. This reader can see no slur, only a sober and accurate description of Smith's post hoc and purposive revision and editing of another's contribution to the thread.
Smith, hilarious lie notwithstanding, has of course "changed his words", the title of the thread having been chosen by the originator of the thread, yet summarily altered by Smith.
Of course rich's objection is "after the event": hard to object to the unilateral re-writing of your thread title before it's been unilaterally re-written, no?
Whether titling the thread "Independent Academic review vs. self review" was "an error in the first place" is not something Smith can judge unilaterally. As it happens he's wrong, or lying.
At no point in rich's postings does the term open review appear without being wrapped in inverted commas and appearing thus: 'open review'. This is a device of punctuation conveying several shades of nuanced meaning, ranging from uncertainty about the meaning of the term thus wrapped, through mild scepticism that it means anything at all or might mean something else, to an inference that in practice it has an altogether opposite meaning. "The 'free lunch' cost us forty quid" being an example of the latter. Smith understands this; note what he does to the term self review, above.
So rich's consistent wrapping of open review in inverted commas, taken in tandem with the title he chose for this thread (before Smith got busy with the virtual Tippex), suggests to this reader that he's looking to weigh not only the merits of academic review vs open review, but also whether 'open review' as practiced here on this site is worth the name, whether it can be distinguished at all from self review.
How might that question be answered?
This tidbit from page 7
Quote:
You have lost the argument comprehensively. Nothing in your original assertions has any standing left in the light of replies and explanations provided in this discussion. The open review policy has worked and has worked admirably.
where Smith declares himself the winner and gives himself a huge vote of confidence, seeking unilaterally to close the discussion from a position of authority while at the same time claiming it a triumph of open review policy, is a clue.
This, together with Smith exercising exclusive powers to alter other contributors' chosen wording, and to post into other contributors' posts to advise readers to scroll forward to the really important bit where Smith almost lands a punch, leads this reader to conclude that there is no 'open review' in practice here worth the name, or distinguishable from self review.
Which is kind of what rich was getting at when he chose the title for this thread. And kind of why Smith tried to airbrush self review from the thread altogether.
It's not all doom and gloom. It's been at the back of my mind that Smith's behaviour here reminds me of someone. At last it came to me - Brian Glover's PE teacher Sugden in Kes, simultaneously referee and player, awarding himself a penalty and then slotting it home with much crowing triumphalism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 03:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
suck_my_tailpipe wrote:
Quote:
I hope everyone now recognises that this poster is attempting to fashion yet another character slur against me out of thin air.

Of course I haven't changed his words. I wouldn't dream of it.

I did change the title of the thread (from ..."self review" to "...open review") to reflect the subject under discussion.

The text above regarding 'self review' is BS after the event. 'Self review' is not mentioned elsewhere in the thread and was, of course, simply an error in the first place.
Apologies to anyone fed up with this tawdry thread, but the above really can't go un-commented on.
So what's here? First a characteristic persuasive appeal to a gallery of sycophants to renew a chorus of disapproval to drown out opposition. This reader can see no slur, only a sober and accurate description of Smith's post hoc and purposive revision and editing of another's contribution to the thread.
Smith, hilarious lie notwithstanding, has of course "changed his words", the title of the thread having been chosen by the originator of the thread, yet summarily altered by Smith.
Of course rich's objection is "after the event": hard to object to the unilateral re-writing of your thread title before it's been unilaterally re-written, no?
Whether titling the thread "Independent Academic review vs. self review" was "an error in the first place" is not something Smith can judge unilaterally. As it happens he's wrong, or lying.
At no point in rich's postings does the term open review appear without being wrapped in inverted commas and appearing thus: 'open review'. This is a device of punctuation conveying several shades of nuanced meaning, ranging from uncertainty about the meaning of the term thus wrapped, through mild scepticism that it means anything at all or might mean something else, to an inference that in practice it has an altogether opposite meaning. "The 'free lunch' cost us forty quid" being an example of the latter. Smith understands this; note what he does to the term self review, above.
So rich's consistent wrapping of open review in inverted commas, taken in tandem with the title he chose for this thread (before Smith got busy with the virtual Tippex), suggests to this reader that he's looking to weigh not only the merits of academic review vs open review, but also whether 'open review' as practiced here on this site is worth the name, whether it can be distinguished at all from self review.
How might that question be answered?
This tidbit from page 7
Quote:
You have lost the argument comprehensively. Nothing in your original assertions has any standing left in the light of replies and explanations provided in this discussion. The open review policy has worked and has worked admirably.
where Smith declares himself the winner and gives himself a huge vote of confidence, seeking unilaterally to close the discussion from a position of authority while at the same time claiming it a triumph of open review policy, is a clue.
This, together with Smith exercising exclusive powers to alter other contributors' chosen wording, and to post into other contributors' posts to advise readers to scroll forward to the really important bit where Smith almost lands a punch, leads this reader to conclude that there is no 'open review' in practice here worth the name, or distinguishable from self review.
Which is kind of what rich was getting at when he chose the title for this thread. And kind of why Smith tried to airbrush self review from the thread altogether.
It's not all doom and gloom. It's been at the back of my mind that Smith's behaviour here reminds me of someone. At last it came to me - Brian Glover's PE teacher Sugden in Kes, simultaneously referee and player, awarding himself a penalty and then slotting it home with much crowing triumphalism.


'Storm in a teacup' would be a fair initial description, but it doesn't stop there.

The Safe Speed policy under discussion is called 'open review'. Should anyone wish to find a discussion about it, the appropriate thread title is at the very least helpful and potentially actually necessary.

The Safe Speed information is a serious and important analysis of road safety policy. Whatever you or others may think there is plenty that's provably wrong with the evidence employed by Department for Transport.

If the greatest problem you can find is that I've changed the title of a thread to help people find information on a subject, then we are doing very very well indeed.

Instead of wasting everyone's time by having a pop at absolute trivia, when not expend the effort in trying to find an error of substance? I'm sure that you are aware that the Safe Speed campaign maintains an absolute promise to correct erroneous information immediately.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 10:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
What next, a list of Tony Blair quotes later found to be not entirely accurate? We all grow up, mature, change our opinions and possibly regret some past deeds.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Well, that's the point!
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:06 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 09:33
Posts: 1
This part of the site is where questions about honesty and cosistency are raised.

The claim that Safespeed has never condoned illegal activities is neither honest nor consistent with the above.

I think that the suggestion that one could avoid speeding fines by having the FPN's redirected to the house of a family torn apart by grief does not fit squarely with the claim to be a "Road Safety Campaigner".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:14 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
mitchum wrote:
This part of the site is where questions about honesty and cosistency are raised.

The claim that Safespeed has never condoned illegal activities is neither honest nor consistent with the above.

I think that the suggestion that one could avoid speeding fines by having the FPN's redirected to the house of a family torn apart by grief does not fit squarely with the claim to be a "Road Safety Campaigner".

It's impossible to say with certainty without seeing the context of the orginal quote, but from the excerpt you've posted the impression I get is that the point being made was to point up a shortcoming in road safety policy that made such practices possible.

I could talk about how much easier it is to get away with drink driving in the modern speed camera era, it doesn't mean I condone the activity.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 11:43 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Can you actually post a link that works?

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mitchum wrote:
This part of the site is where questions about honesty and cosistency are raised.


This previously banned poster posted up a load of libellous old crap and has been banned for about the 6th time.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 21:21 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
mitchum wrote:
This part of the site is where questions about honesty and cosistency are raised.

The claim that Safespeed has never condoned illegal activities is neither honest nor consistent with the above.

I think that the suggestion that one could avoid speeding fines by having the FPN's redirected to the house of a family torn apart by grief does not fit squarely with the claim to be a "Road Safety Campaigner".


Mitchum - several cycling fora have a number of dodgy posts - some made by a rather prolific poster on all known websites :roll: - and all inciting violence such as "throing rocks at cars, running over pedestrians on shared paths and kicking cars which have stopped when caught by an amnber change in an ASL and, heaven knows, we've all been caught by that in heavy traffic conditions. In fairness to the sites concerned an e-mail from the Swiss mob in unsison and occasionally myself and the Mad Doc (rare but but we have mailed concerns to the forum moderators in the past if something really UNLAWFUL is posted and I would send Paul a private message if I saw anything which would compromise me in my position as well. :wink: However in the one concerning kicking cars - we go nowhere fast as the moderator "saw this as banter". We see this and prosecute as road rage if reported with witnesses to the fact. I do possess hard copies of all this as this is the sort of thing which attracts our attention :wink: Not just those daft Swiss who monitor these sites you know and flag objections :wink: I can get a good "feel" of opinion and sincerity and even "criminality" from the wording as can and do a lot of my colleagues :wink: I do not need a "peer review"- just that fine tuned :bib: sixth sense or antenna :lol:

I know that Ian, Patch, Stephen, Ian, Man, Hanbo and all posting to PH and Black Rats will know exactly what I mean. :wink:

So if you wish to allege safespeed condones "criminal activities" - take a google to cycling sites. They have deleted some of the stuff (at our objections and advice :wink: ) but we can always mail the archived stuff as proof it appeared at one point :wink: The people who run the site could still be liable by the way as they allowed it and did not delete despite flags and warnings. Paul is in the fclear as he deleted and retracted those statements in muhc the same way as David Cameron and Tony Blair have distanced themselves from past manifestos.

FINALLY to Ian :clap: :bow:

From the heart - we deal with incidents and know the real stories behind the statistics - and please do not dare lecture the Swiss or myself about "being torn apart" by sudden death on the road. We lost one excellent person at a low impact due to a defective vehicle and nearly lost a much loved member of the family in another freak incident. Neither were speed related and I was admittedly the unprofessional :bib: from hell as I stopped anything that move for a while thereafter.

But bottom line - I and my colleagues do not need "academics" ([pseudo or genuine) to tell ius about road safety as we - as POLICE experts working in the field and with reality know more than any of them and Paul Smith or anyone on any internet forum can possibly know - and incidents usually have one or more COAST principles lacking - and it is COAST awareness which ensures correct speed for road condition and my non-peer reviewed but practical experience and some DIS/SPeed Aware data lead me to conclude that the chosen speed is more or less compliant to the statutory lollpop :wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 19:37 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 17:36
Posts: 40
Quote:
If the greatest problem you can find is that I've changed the title of a thread to help people find information on a subject, then we are doing very very well indeed.

Yeah. And if my Granny had wheels she'd be a trolley-bus.
This thread has shown you to be a manipulative autocrat and shameless liar.
Trivial, you reckon?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 19:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
suck_my_tailpipe wrote:
Quote:
If the greatest problem you can find is that I've changed the title of a thread to help people find information on a subject, then we are doing very very well indeed.

Yeah. And if my Granny had wheels she'd be a trolley-bus.
This thread has shown you to be a manipulative autocrat and shameless liar.
Trivial, you reckon?


I have warned you at least three times about ad hominem. Accordingly consider yourself banned for violating forum rules.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.252s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]