See also:

Response to Mr Alan Dance

And:

Nottingham Evening Post: Publish Or Be Damned:

 

I sent this letter in response to their latest "campaign" (it runs all week: spin central must have been busy last week!):

Sirs

 

On 09 June 2003 you claim:

 

Hundreds of people a year in Notts die earlier than they should because of air pollution, with traffic congestion a major culprit.

 

And go on to campaign for less car use.

 

When will you finally take some of my advice (or even print one of my letters) and check your facts rather than regurgitating spin?

 

An NHS report has found that there are neither health, nor environmental reasons for restricting car use in cities.

 

The World Health Organisation report that you are effectively basing your campaign on does claim that "traffic" pollution (and power stations) can shorten lives.  But if you care to check the detail of the actual report you will find that it is "traffic" such as buses and diesel trains (and the power stations that fuel electric trains and trams) that cause the problems, not cars.

 

Even the British "reports" that repackage it for local consumption refer to "traffic" pollution and call for reductions in car use: but do not claim that cars cause the "traffic" pollution referred to.

 

Perhaps you have been taken in by the government TV ad which shows a clip of a smoking car "exhaust" with a voiceover referring to "traffic" pollution problems.

 

You might also wish to check out the car and bus exhaust pollution outputs published by the government.

 

And you might wish to consider the fact that the average car carries one and a half passengers: the average bus about eight or nine if the bare per vehicle figures do not convince you.

 

 

You can find the article here: 

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=5935940

 

Oh, by the way, they didn't publish it.

Surprise, surprise!

 

 

Journalists are lazy sods, they won't dig through reports if they can turn to a summary.

That's how the nut munchers get their misinformation over.

Hence the man-made global warmimg guff. The techies did the (dubious) work, then politicians wrote the summary.

Try keeping your letter to 200 words. That might work.

And, be very careful with your choice of words. If they can edit you down, they can change your message entirely.

I know these things...........................

They don't post my stuff however long or short it is (or whatever style).

The only pro car stuff that ever seems to appear in between the readers poems and requests for info on old friends and dead film stars is pure unsubstantiated opinion (I hate these new speed humps: this isn't what I pay my taxes for type letters).

I just write now to get stuff off my chest and let them know there's at least one person who knows their game!

 

bogush

http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

PS Per:

If you think you can get a rebuttal published feel free to have a bash!

 

Bogush, try signing your letters "D P Dance".

I do, and all of my stuff gets published.

Well?

Bunking off school again, pompii!!??::

At least you've learned one thing:

To say nothing if you've got nothing worth saying.

Keep it up!

 

"If you think you can get a rebuttal published feel free to have a bash!"

That's an idea......Where's the northernmost point I can buy one?

Had an email joust with a bigot of a 'columnist' (failed journo) recently. Tied himself in knots. Very satisfying.

Don't need a paper paper:

You can submit a letter on their website (link above).

Letters is under news on the menu bar!

Then just click on:

Submit a letter

 

Struck a nerve!

Why are you probing your cavities.

And why do you think we want to know what happens when you do?

 

It's just too easy

He rises every time!

 

-----------------------------------

Are you referring to your pen!s?

The one that inflates every time you spout b*ll*cks?

 

The Evening Post aspire to be a quality newspaper and so try not to print absolute rubbish. Two excellent letters inspired by Mr Bogush in tonight (13/06/03).

However the do occasionally fail, there was some rubbish in last night from a gentleman living on Harrow Road in Wollaton (12/06/03). However, it was instantly shown to be absolute cr*p by the following letter.

It could just be the editor playing games.

I see Mr Deflator was probing his cavities with his head.

Whatever turns him on!

 

Freda Says:

"The Evening Post aspire[s] to be a quality newspaper and so [tries] not to print absolute rubbish."

"It could just be the editor playing games."

 

Freda Says:

"Two excellent letters inspired by Mr Bogush in tonight (13/06/03)."

She means hers and her friend Mr Barber's.

Her letter says:

The Evening Post's campaign "Silent Killer" to fit carbon monoxide detectors in homes has undoubtedly saved lives.

However, according to the Department of Transport, 90 of carbon monoxide comes from vehicle exhausts.

Wot?!

In homes?!

Can you give us a link to that Freda?

Or even showing that 90% on the roads comes from vehicle, never mind car, exhausts.

This is what I found:

Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants Report

FROM THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER

KEY FINDINGS

• …….We don't yet know by how much these events are brought forward (eg a day…….
• ……The risk to healthy individuals is VERY SMALL at all levels of pollution likely to be experienced in the UK.……

 THE POLLUTANTS COVERED IN THE REPORT

 

2………For carbon monoxide, there were insufficient data to allow estimates of effects in the UK to be made with acceptable accuracy……..

 

http://www.doh.gov.uk/cmo/cmo982.htm

So do please give us a link that, even if:

"90 of carbon monoxide comes from vehicle exhausts."

This causes a health problem.

And, as I've already indicated:

Buses put out twice as much carbon monoxide as cars.

 

"According to the World Health Organisation this is having a detrimental effect on our health."

Again, can you give us a link.

And show us where it blames cars, not "vehicles", or "traffic".

"The National Health Service noted an improvement in the nation's health during the fuel protests a few years ago, due to fewer cars on the roads."

Again, links please.

Considering how little pollution is contributed by cars, and the level of traffic reduction, I'm surprised the drop in "pollution" was measurable.

Never mind the effect on health.

It is highly appropriate and to be commended that the Evening Post should be running a series of articles highlighting these issues.

Yeah, right.

 

Mr Barber' says:

Tram the saviour

"May I congratulate Sean Kirby and the Nottingham Evening Post for highlighting the problems of air pollution this week."

And the proof of a link with cars is?

"An excellent series of well researched articles."

He has a very strange interpretation of the term "researched"

"It was very interesting to read Professor Riffat's comments and measurements of pollution levels along the Derby Road."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Didn't exactly say where the "problems" were, or what "vehicles" (if any) caused them, does he?!

"A radical alternative to the current polluting internal combustion engine is needed."

"The fuel cell bus has been proved to use an unacceptable amount of energy"

"Proved" ?

Proof please.

"and a proposed heavy rail alternative would not only be very expensive, but also involve much loss of amenity."

"Fortunately a viable alternative is available which will reduce traffic levels."

"It's called a tram and will be with us shortly."

And the proof of that is?

That Mr Barber says that it is.

Did he not read:

US finds rail more profitable than road ?

 

The letters are here, but not for long.

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=102864&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65571&contentPK=5995816

 

The Series:

TRAGIC COST OF TRAFFIC QUEUES 09.06.2003

FUMES DANGER IN OUR CARS 10.06.2003

BREATHING MORE EASILY? 11.06.2003

A CLEARER WAY AHEAD? 12.06.2003

WAY OUT WAYS TO THE OFFICE  13.06.2003

 

How sweet

The little chap is so easy to wind up

And so witty - "Are you referring to your pen!s?

The one that inflates every time you spout b*ll*cks?"

What a macho man!

Or is it simply a sense of humour failure?

Let's see if he "edits" this

Or is he biased?

Bless

"Let's see if he "edits" this"

I didn't "edit" it:

I added a comment.

Or are you unaware of the diffeence?

"Or is he biased?"

"Bless"

Well, clearly, you're not:

Otherewise you might have posted a real comment.

 

Does "edit" mean "cut"?

Nope

Or are you unaware of the difference?

"The National Health Service noted an improvement in the nation's health during the fuel protests a few years ago, due to fewer cars on the roads."

Someone has just written to me to point out that Birmingham City Council had to admit that they hadn't been able to measure any reduction in pollution during the fuel protests.

So where does the pollution come from then?

NOT from cars by the looks of it!

 

NOT from cars by the looks of it!

That mantra is getting a bit worn now !

Do cars put sweet fresh air out of their exhausts or do they put out what's left from the inefficient burning of petrol and diesel ?

Get your head out of the sand mate, and stop being so intransigent when it comes to the internal combustion engine !

Papaumau

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

All right, Papps. Maybe you can explain this one?

In the land of the Living Stone (Keeper of the Newts), the volume of cars has suddenly dropped by 18%.

But air quality has got worse.

Funny old world, innit............??

Bogush, just because the NEP decided not to print your badly-written and tenuously "justified" rant, it doesn't make them biased.

No need to be paranoid Bogush, they're just all out to get you.

Let me see:

The NEP publishes one out of a couple of dozen of my letters and it's unbiased (despite the impression that its week long anti-car campaigns might give).

The BMJ decided not to print one out of a dozen letters on similar subjects and in similar veins (in case you're wondering how/why: "epidemiology" of accidents and "traffic" pollution) so they must be biased then.

But then again: they're doctors, so probably are used to the "badly-written"!

 

I must congratulate the Post for surpassing its earlier attempts at impartiality.

 

I see that they have succeeded in finding space in today's Letters (14.07.2003) for:

 

A letter commiserating with delayed buses which went on to blame the delays on traffic congestion (contrary to an official government study which reported that bus lanes do not speed up buses but cause massive congestion for all other traffic including other buses, and West Midlands traffic planners who have admitted that the lanes are only there to force drivers out of their cars and onto buses) but ended up as an advertisement for trams.

 

Another letter accusing tram opponents of confusion from a lady (Freda Woodyard) who has provided a government web page which finally admits road fatalities are rising as proof that they are falling.

 

And yet another letter from RL Cooper to add to the half dozen or so attacking Mr Greengrass and accusing him of lying about speed cameras. Would this be the same RL Cooper who attacked me for daring to complain about not receiving a right of reply to all the attacks on my single published letter which somehow managed to slip into the letters pages with a few facts.

 

No wonder the Editor could find no room for any of my several letters attempting to support Mr Greengrass with more of the truth. After all, some of them were packed with facts. One nearly even matched Mr Moss's 550 word anti-motorist rant.

 

Perhaps if I signed my letters as the Queen of Sheba and mentioned that the Pope's wife had assured me that not only did trams cure leprosy and make the infirm walk and the blind see, and that motorists cause plagues and pestilence and children to fall dead like a stone at the sight of a moving car, but that all tram commuters were guaranteed a place in heaven, drivers eternal damnation, and Freda, RL Cooper, Steve Barber, Nick Moss and the Angel Daykin were all being considered for beatification I might have more hope of being published.

 

After all:

 

This is obviously the letters page of a literary review.

 

Not, it would seem, a newspaper.

 

But if the Editor knows any journalists he might like to pass on the following:

 

Several traffic officers (one not even anonymously) and at least one council have admitted that up to half of their speed traps either have illegal limits or inadequate signing.

 

Many people have been penalised and even banned when there was no way they could have known that they were breaking a new limit by driving below the old one (in one case on their own front road!).

 

Oh, yes, and our once plummeting casualty and fatality trends levelled off with the introduction of speed cameras, and seem to have reversed with their proliferation, to the extent that we probably have an extra thousand deaths a year as a result of Killer Cameras.

 

But what ever you do:

 

Don't publish any of this in the Post for fear of destroying the "safety" mafia's fantasies!

 

[Note for editor: yet another letter shorter than Mr Moss']