Safe Speed Forums

Not all such exchanges are hidden from view...
When on the BBC discussion after the Insideout program, I described the operation of the LTI as time over distance measurement, used to calculate speed, this was his responce...


However when pressed by "Enrico" later on in the discussion to address questions asked by Smeggy, he replied...


.............I am sure the above is what I had said earlier!

How galling it must be to have to keep reading the posts here in an attempt to ensure we don't besmirch his reputation, when he does not have a reputation worth upholding in a decent society!

Ad hominem implies that because a person is unreasonable, or morally corrupt, then their arguement simply does not hold water.
It might well be the case that their argument is reasonable, but an ad hominem attack seeks to destroy the person, rather than address their argument.
By seeking to close this forum, the ultimate ad hominem attack is being made - condeming all who post AND read here, instead of addressing the argument.
I have NEVER accused anybody of anything without good reason, and evidence. I saw the post which Paul Smith made on the CSCP forum, which led to his exclusion by SC, and I saw his explanation, but did not accuse him of lying then, as he had removed the evidence. Nevertheless, his conduct then was very unbecoming of even a minor civil servant.

The manner in which the statistics have been manipulated in Cumbria, and especially Ings, is however a matter now of public record, and in order not to inconvenience the Safespeed forums, I have made public my opinion of the CSCP manager in a public manner which is attracting some interest.

I look forward to this being addressed, as IMHO a charlatan is just as despicable as the conmen who con old people out of money to "fix their roof" or "repair the bricks on the chimney".

According to Wikipedia, a charlatan is:

I also look forward to yet another of Steve's quotes coming to fruition:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I quite agree. However, it is a task I shall continue to shoulder to keep the peace - and to keep the board running. Steve? He will simply - occasionally - search on words that he does not want associated with his name, and if he sees any, if he is true to form, will ask Paul - politely - who will ask me - politely - to get things tweaked and the poster's knuckles wrapped. For reasons above, I shall continue to roll over for the greater good. Why give him that pleasure and me that pain (yes - I do mean pain in the dictionary sense. For the reasons you all state, it hurts me to have to ask you to supprerss your freedom of speech, which in other circumstances, irrespective of my own views, I would defend your right to air to the point of similar discomfort).


R11co: I would be most upset to see you do a disappearing act (if indeed that is what you mean by the final line in that extract above). However, I would be even more sorry to see the board taken down and Paul have to spend valuable hours (be it in correspondence or in court) arguing the toss to get them reinstated, all over a name-calling spat.

The factr that, ultimately, we might well win such a test case in the courts, and be able then to resume and bathe in the glory of being able to come back, reinstate the oldf threads and wallow in the re-reading of our old posts, would be a great satisfaction. BUT - it would not advance the campaign one jolt.

I therefore repeat my plea for all to think carefully before posting what could be construed - or misconstrued - as ad hominems. Life is still too short.

I am thinking of the occasion Mr Callaghan breached the Data Protection Act by using information regarding my nickname (the fact that it forms part of my vehicle registration number) to then publish my full name (in a form I never use on the internet, only on official records) in the CSCP forum along with a thinly veiled 'I know who you are and where you live' threat.

Reprehensible, and potentially criminal?!?!

He is a loose cannon in a position of some, limited power. However, you are all correct though - in the big picture he is insignificant.

" ARTICLE 10
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

Mr C can go jump in windermere based on the above, enshrined rights.
Rolling over isnt an option and its inadvised.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

At the end of the day, this is a board belonging to an organisation, and the organisation sets local rules, one of which is ad hominem. Yes, preceding a name-call with "I think" turns it into an opinion, and yes Article 10 is overarching. However, the cogent "get-out" extract in it is

I do not want the board/campaign disrupted by proving this point. By preemptively asking nicely - and that to date for the most part is all I've done - for you to help me with this by not fanning the Callaghan flames, is not to my mind rolling over, but simply hiding the red rag.

What you can do if you feel strongly enough to want to enforce your right to name-call or voice private opinions in public about people who, like it or not, can flex their muscles and, temporarily at least, get the board shut down, is to set up your own website and do it on that.

We're not a 'public authority' and I shan't be 'rolling over' before I'm dead.

Perhaps the nameless one would like to simply waste our time? If that's the case then it's you doing the rolling over.

You might be happy fishing for SPrats, but I've got a marlin on the line.

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

While you believe this threat hangs over the forum then Mr Callaghan has an inappropriate level of power and control to which he is not entitled. Forget testing the rules and regulations as Mr Callaghan seems to have achieved circumvention of them - leaving the doubt in place is detrimental to SafeSpeed's cause.

He has you running scared, wasting resources on his concerns and keeping one eye looking over your shoulder.

Bluff and kidology is the speed camera proponent's modus operandi, and to stop it being used at the low levels of the SCPs is as important to the campaign as other issues....

Unlike speed cameras where it is notoriously easy to get them to "ping" while going about normal driving, I would venture to suggest that each and every post that might cause SC to "ping" in here, at least since the end of last month, has been premeditated. The only reason I am looking over my shoulder is because you - safespeed supporters - are baiting him.



I need to think on that. You might be right. I still would not want to risk the board. Assuming you are right, would you be prepared to grab a domain - say cscplie.com if it's available and place your unabridged thoughts on that, inviting SC to see it and see if he takes the bait in there - and if he does, follow it through to the point of a court case? If so, all well and good, let me know how I can help. If not.........

I really really really do not want to bite back any harder than I am. However, if my hand is forced I would do so without hesitation to preserve the campaign continuity.

charlatan.org.uk is available...

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

I cant see the person concerned taking out a domain just to promote his activities

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Gents - what i think Roger is saying is - lets not forget we can win battles, but not the war.
Lets win the final battle, then we can say we won the war.
Perhaps it might be better to treat the unnamed one as a great dane treats a miniature poodle - ignore it till it gets sick of it's antics , and goes away.Then we can sit back with a clear consience knowing that he has slated us , and we have been behaved as intelligent people. Then let the British public judge.

:yesyes:
ABSOLUTELY. Thank you.

Perhaps we should buy him it as a gift?!

OK, point taken. I am however disappointed that we appear to be this weak on the 'net front.

r11co - - ok - he's gotten you mad now - but in a year or so , he needs some credibility from us - a reference etc - an old saying is that you never up set people on the way up - as they can upset your progress on the way down.Something our friend has forgotten , unless he's fireproof.

Thanks for understanding folks. I appreciate it.

BTW - which of you is going to register this domain that is so available?

Yeah - I can't believe noone's registered it yet.



I thought you guys were up for a fight?

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

Safer Roads for Cumbria and Cumbria Safety Cameras can not even agree on the stats for KSI's for 2006. If they do not agree how well the partnership is doing what hope the rest of us have.

Safer Roads for Cumbria

Cumbria Safety Cameras Web Site

Safer Roads FC would appear to have forgotten to deduct the 60 fatalities from the KSI total, having decided to quote the Fatals seperately.

The CSCP figures originally read 60 - as did there last two advertisments in the Westmorland Gazette


I suspect one of the accidents has been revised, as at one point the annual total was quoted in the press as being 61.
A woman who died at Lupton was thought to have had a heart attack. However there have subsequently been more fatals at Lupton - a recent addition to the CSCP list of sites I believe.

I note that the March figures are on the Safer Roads FC site, but NOT the CSCP

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The reference in bold wasnt made with regard to safespeed paul, but to the "other" organisation of whom their "chief" is the one doing the attempted stomping of rights.



Not sure i understand that bit.....




Heres hoping you get to land the bugger!

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Thanks to "Safer Roads for Cumbria" we have full 1st quarter figures for 2007 - 90 KSI's. 2006? - 59 KSI's.....

Of course it's wrong to look at one quarter in isolation

Why can't the 2 organisations produce the same figures? Can you blame us for being sceptical about the accuracy of stats produced by SCP's in general?

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).