Everything's the fault of Bruntrom and the speed cameras............Bin Laden - speed cameras didn't stop him did they?
The answer lies in;
re: Director General Greg Dyke Phoenix Ariz - 178th post - 5 Feb 2004 22:04
Hello again Robin.
Yes, you were having a discussion about Greg Dyke here.
But in that discussion you asserted that (and forgive me for the repetition, but you seem to have missed my point):-
>>For me, one of the great things about working at the BBC is our reputation for unbiased, independent journalism. I don't think anyone is going to hold any grudges with the Government over recent events - just have a look around the BBC News website and you'll find articles from a wide range of viewpoints.<<
I gave an example of how the BBC, or at least an editor of a "BBC News website" "article" comments page:-
a) allowed the repetition of what I would term an "anti-car" or "anti-motorist" soundbite seven times.
b) edited out from a comment there rebutting the point of those soundbites all but most of the quoted soundbites, therefore reversing the thrust of the comment and republishing the sounbite six more times.
Further, as I pointed out, when I raised the point locally querying if the BBC was institutionally anti-car, a local host (ie yourself) asserted that:-
>>The truth of the matter is that, if you don't speed whilst driving, you won't get caught doing so and therefore won't have to pay a fine or the newly proposed "surcharges".<<
Again, forgive the repetition, but, again, you seem to have missed the point. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Director General Greg Dyke Phoenix Ariz - 177th post - 4 Feb 2004 21:45
Hi Robin.
>>For me, one of the great things about working at the BBC is our reputation for unbiased, independent journalism. I don't think anyone is going to hold any grudges with the Government over recent events - just have a look around the BBC News website and you'll find articles from a wide range of viewpoints.<<
Would that be where I complained about the BBC giving space to half a dozen variations of a (allegedly totally pro-motorist, pro-car) soundbite claiming that if you don't speed you won't get fined. Quoted the offending soundbite variations. And presented proof of its total and utter invalidity.
And they edited out the complaint and the proof, and just republished six soundbites under my name?!
The Beeb still hasn't corrected their error.
Nor has it responded to my complaints.
Well, not unless you count:
>>The truth of the matter is that, if you don't speed whilst driving, you won't get caught doing so and therefore won't have to pay a fine or the newly proposed "surcharges".<<
(My emphasis).
Try telling that to the thousands "caught" doing 60 in a 70 by a camera set to 50.
The thousands................
But, of course, we don't want to get into all that again!
[reply] [Complain about this post]
re: The Drug Debate. Phoenix Ariz - 177th post - 3 Feb 2004 20:57
>>Interesting! However, hemp is widely grown for the fibre ....... This seems to me to scupper the conspiracy theory.<<
No:- the conspiracy dates back to something like the 30's, and they can only grow hemp in the States under special dispensation, if at all, if I recall correctly. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: The Drug Debate. Phoenix Ariz - 175th post - 2 Feb 2004 20:39
>>I am not sure what James means ..... Mind you I tend not to follow conspiracy theories.<<
He's probably referring to the fact that the cannabis plant (hemp) was once the biggest traded commodity and a mainstay of the economy Southern states.
Allegedly a hemp based "natural" pharmaceuticals industry was growing, a method of producing high quality newsprint from it had been developed, it could be turned into high quality animal feed, fuel, and, of course, it had a variety of other uses such as for fibre, including rope and carpet backing.
Unfortunately for the poor Southern farmers, at the same time, allegedly, a newspaper mogul had invested a fortune in forests and the plant to turn them into newsprint, and investors had sunk fortunes into oil, and into developing oil based pharmaceuticals.
And, all of a sudden, allegedly, the press was full of scare stories about cannabis (the original weak stuff), laws were passed against it, and someone related to the investors was put in charge of investigating and prosecuting "misusers".
But that's all a conspiracy theory.
Though you could do a search for things like Industrial Hemp and Hemp Car. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: I'm back! Phoenix Ariz - 177th post - 2 Feb 2004 20:22
>>Hi Bogush: Here's your starter for 10:<<
>>Who sang "Happiness is a warm gun"?<<
Would you like me to repost your question on Ol' Bogey's forum? [reply] [Complain about this post]
Chalk & Cheese Gerald Smythe-Wilberforce - 3rd post - 21 Nov 2003 16:20
A fine letter in tonight's Evening Post from Cllr Wheeler chair of ENT. He's a man who's going to stop this silly tram nonsense.
Some misguided individual was trying to compare trams in Prague with our noisy bone-shakers. The point Cllr Whheeler is making is that you can't compare the two because the Prague trams have been around a long time, are cheap and run as regular as clockwork. Ours won't be. The streets in Nottingham are too narrow, unlike continental streets which are wide.
And who's ever heard of using a disused railway line now a valuable nature reserve for trams. Why was the railway disused - because no-one used it!
Well done Cllr Wheeler, you can save our neighbourhood if anyone can. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Tram disaster Gerald Smythe-Wilberforce - 2nd post - 20 Nov 2003 20:44
>trams are dangerous even when stationary......
So imagine how letal they'll be once they're running along our nature reserve past Compton Acres at 50m.p.h.! Imagine the consequences if one comes off the rails. The noise - we can already hear the ones in Nottingham 3 miles away. Then there's the danger to children playing on the tracks, we have enough trouble telling them to stay off the roads, now there's wretched tram tracks as well. The delays and queues at Wilford Lane. I shan't be able to get out - what if my wife has to go to hospital - I'll be stuck waiting for a confounded tram to get out the way. - She might die!
No send them along Queens Drive where no-one lives or wants to go. That way they're out the way. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Should the Police be armed? Will Tellit - 25th post - 6 Nov 2003 18:59
I have always agreed with the arming of Police. It would certainly make me feel a lot safer. Having travelled to different parts of the civilised world I have never feared the sight of firearms being carried by law enforcement agencies. It's about time we fought back. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Nonsense A Ferocious Yorkshire Corgi - 13th post - 5 Nov 2003 17:53
Mmmmm
Bogbrush definitely [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: poetry extended A Ferocious Yorkshire Corgi - 13th post - 5 Nov 2003 17:51
Wow Dave, Pam Ayres has nothing on you! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Silly Story Game. A Ferocious Yorkshire Corgi - 11th post - 5 Nov 2003 17:38
doing the hokey cokey [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1170th post - 1 Nov 2003 12:34
> > "However, it is equally obvious that any measure that is counter productive should be avoided".
> "OBVIOUSLY, but you have failed to demonstrate which "measures ARE counter productive."
--
> "Mr Manns reply 'Human life is valuable...'."
> "Again true".
> > "But what measures protect it and what if your measures are counter productive?".
> "(Again, no suggestion of which measures are counter productuve.)"
--
Oh?!
Perhaps you missed it.
- Inappropriately low limits.
- Speed Scameras.
But, perhaps you were referring to "failed to demonstrate".
Let's see:
(Perhaps I haven't posted all these before):
Montana scapped speed limits for, I think, three years, as unconstitutional.
Fatalities fell (in general - please don't bother wasting your time trying to dredge up the "statistics" that are claimed to "demonstrate" the opposite).
When the Federal Government forced them to reinstate limits:
Fatalities rose!
--
Similar situation with the fuel crisis changes.
--
I've posted figures from two reports here I think:
In one lowering limits increased accidents by over 5% by and raising limits decreased accidents by over 5%.
In the other the rise was 7% and the fall Eleven per cent!
--
Actually, I don't think I've posted this one before:
In Suffolk (you know, the county that has been revealed as having a massive number of illegal signs, no doubt:
> "set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."!)
They lowered hundreds of NSL's at the end of, I think, 1995.
Strangely, the nice, steep, falling fatality trend seemed to end at 1995.
And a nice "gentle" rising trend started.
Funny that.
Ha, ha: that's a rictus grin on a lot of corpse's faces.
--
But perhaps you missed this:
Since the spread of speed cameras the levelling off in the formerly falling fatality figures from the previously plummetting plot line has produced a growing divergence between the two trends that almost exactly matches the growth in speed tax tickets (0.97 correlation?) leading to about five THOUSAND EXTRA deaths.
But, perhaps your "experts" have an explanation for these?
More importantly:
What is their justification! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1163rd post - 1 Nov 2003 11:41
> "And I will say it again. As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
> "Unless, Mr Mann, you profess to know better than the safety committees, the present speed limits are correct"
Let's see:
The 85th Percentile Rule states that you set the speed limit at that speed at or below which 85% of drivers would drive in free flowing traffic in good conditions in the absence of speed limits or enforcement thereof.
The authorities state that one of the reasons for speed scameras is that over 50% / 60% / the majority / three quarters / 90+% / most drivers exceed the speed limit.
> "As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
Yeah, right! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1162nd post - 1 Nov 2003 11:26
> "And I will say it again. As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
> "Unless, Mr Mann, you profess to know better than the safety committees, the present speed limits are correct"
Interesed parties (not politicians) like Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone, Steven Byers, not "Professor" David Begg (who apparently claims that the rumours about him being a "non-driver" are false), Barbara Castle, and, I've just heard, Gwyneth Dunwoody, "Chair" of the Commons Transport Committee! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1167th post - 31 Oct 2003 22:04
> "And I will say it again. As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
> "Unless, Mr Mann, you profess to know better than the safety committees, the present speed limits are correct"
Read about a court case recently:
Magistrates fine gentleman £150 for driving a car with two bald tires!
They also fine gentleman £170 and give him six penalty points for driving without due care and attention.
What would you have got for creeping over the limit twice?
Mind you, the gentleman only pulled out of a junction into the path of a motorcyclist.
Who died.
Oh.
And the gentleman was a road safety officer.
And, no doubt, was driving at under 30 at the time of the accident. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Problems delay tram start again? bogush j mann - 1166th post - 31 Oct 2003 19:59
> "Are these deleys going to cost me money in the long run?"
I don't know:
When were you planning on going for a run?
The tram has already cost £200 Million before it starts to run.
Say there are 200,000 adults in the Nottingham area:
That's a £ Grand each !
For every man and woman.
Say there's 100,000 households.
That's £ TWO GRAND each !
Before any future subsidies.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes, you say:
But we're not paying for it !
Yeah, right: it's the tram fairy! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: the way drivers think bogush j mann - 1163rd post - 30 Oct 2003 20:53
> "O Solomio 297th Post" - 26th post
> "Thank you for your posting Mrs Mann. As a new thread has been started about speed cameras (are we ready for War & Peace?), shall we twist it to talk about something else - crime, drugs, football etc?"
"O Solomio 297th Post" - 29th post
> "Let's continue it with jokes: -......"
Is it any wonder we get no new contributors here.
Just new logins for old "hands".
It wouldn't be so bad if they/he actually appreciated that, despite there being a Chinese restaurant called Mr Man's in Nottingham, it's unlikely to have anything to do with Mr Mann, and Bogush J Mann is unlikely to be Chinese. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Director General Greg Dyke Phoenix Ariz - 178th post - 5 Feb 2004 22:04
Hello again Robin.
Yes, you were having a discussion about Greg Dyke here.
But in that discussion you asserted that (and forgive me for the repetition, but you seem to have missed my point):-
>>For me, one of the great things about working at the BBC is our reputation for unbiased, independent journalism. I don't think anyone is going to hold any grudges with the Government over recent events - just have a look around the BBC News website and you'll find articles from a wide range of viewpoints.<<
I gave an example of how the BBC, or at least an editor of a "BBC News website" "article" comments page:-
a) allowed the repetition of what I would term an "anti-car" or "anti-motorist" soundbite seven times.
b) edited out from a comment there rebutting the point of those soundbites all but most of the quoted soundbites, therefore reversing the thrust of the comment and republishing the sounbite six more times.
Further, as I pointed out, when I raised the point locally querying if the BBC was institutionally anti-car, a local host (ie yourself) asserted that:-
>>The truth of the matter is that, if you don't speed whilst driving, you won't get caught doing so and therefore won't have to pay a fine or the newly proposed "surcharges".<<
Again, forgive the repetition, but, again, you seem to have missed the point. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Director General Greg Dyke Phoenix Ariz - 177th post - 4 Feb 2004 21:45
Hi Robin.
>>For me, one of the great things about working at the BBC is our reputation for unbiased, independent journalism. I don't think anyone is going to hold any grudges with the Government over recent events - just have a look around the BBC News website and you'll find articles from a wide range of viewpoints.<<
Would that be where I complained about the BBC giving space to half a dozen variations of a (allegedly totally pro-motorist, pro-car) soundbite claiming that if you don't speed you won't get fined. Quoted the offending soundbite variations. And presented proof of its total and utter invalidity.
And they edited out the complaint and the proof, and just republished six soundbites under my name?!
The Beeb still hasn't corrected their error.
Nor has it responded to my complaints.
Well, not unless you count:
>>The truth of the matter is that, if you don't speed whilst driving, you won't get caught doing so and therefore won't have to pay a fine or the newly proposed "surcharges".<<
(My emphasis).
Try telling that to the thousands "caught" doing 60 in a 70 by a camera set to 50.
The thousands................
But, of course, we don't want to get into all that again!
[reply] [Complain about this post]
re: The Drug Debate. Phoenix Ariz - 177th post - 3 Feb 2004 20:57
>>Interesting! However, hemp is widely grown for the fibre ....... This seems to me to scupper the conspiracy theory.<<
No:- the conspiracy dates back to something like the 30's, and they can only grow hemp in the States under special dispensation, if at all, if I recall correctly. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: The Drug Debate. Phoenix Ariz - 175th post - 2 Feb 2004 20:39
>>I am not sure what James means ..... Mind you I tend not to follow conspiracy theories.<<
He's probably referring to the fact that the cannabis plant (hemp) was once the biggest traded commodity and a mainstay of the economy Southern states.
Allegedly a hemp based "natural" pharmaceuticals industry was growing, a method of producing high quality newsprint from it had been developed, it could be turned into high quality animal feed, fuel, and, of course, it had a variety of other uses such as for fibre, including rope and carpet backing.
Unfortunately for the poor Southern farmers, at the same time, allegedly, a newspaper mogul had invested a fortune in forests and the plant to turn them into newsprint, and investors had sunk fortunes into oil, and into developing oil based pharmaceuticals.
And, all of a sudden, allegedly, the press was full of scare stories about cannabis (the original weak stuff), laws were passed against it, and someone related to the investors was put in charge of investigating and prosecuting "misusers".
But that's all a conspiracy theory.
Though you could do a search for things like Industrial Hemp and Hemp Car. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: I'm back! Phoenix Ariz - 177th post - 2 Feb 2004 20:22
>>Hi Bogush: Here's your starter for 10:<<
>>Who sang "Happiness is a warm gun"?<<
Would you like me to repost your question on Ol' Bogey's forum? [reply] [Complain about this post]
Chalk & Cheese Gerald Smythe-Wilberforce - 3rd post - 21 Nov 2003 16:20
A fine letter in tonight's Evening Post from Cllr Wheeler chair of ENT. He's a man who's going to stop this silly tram nonsense.
Some misguided individual was trying to compare trams in Prague with our noisy bone-shakers. The point Cllr Whheeler is making is that you can't compare the two because the Prague trams have been around a long time, are cheap and run as regular as clockwork. Ours won't be. The streets in Nottingham are too narrow, unlike continental streets which are wide.
And who's ever heard of using a disused railway line now a valuable nature reserve for trams. Why was the railway disused - because no-one used it!
Well done Cllr Wheeler, you can save our neighbourhood if anyone can. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Tram disaster Gerald Smythe-Wilberforce - 2nd post - 20 Nov 2003 20:44
>trams are dangerous even when stationary......
So imagine how letal they'll be once they're running along our nature reserve past Compton Acres at 50m.p.h.! Imagine the consequences if one comes off the rails. The noise - we can already hear the ones in Nottingham 3 miles away. Then there's the danger to children playing on the tracks, we have enough trouble telling them to stay off the roads, now there's wretched tram tracks as well. The delays and queues at Wilford Lane. I shan't be able to get out - what if my wife has to go to hospital - I'll be stuck waiting for a confounded tram to get out the way. - She might die!
No send them along Queens Drive where no-one lives or wants to go. That way they're out the way. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Should the Police be armed? Will Tellit - 25th post - 6 Nov 2003 18:59
I have always agreed with the arming of Police. It would certainly make me feel a lot safer. Having travelled to different parts of the civilised world I have never feared the sight of firearms being carried by law enforcement agencies. It's about time we fought back. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Nonsense A Ferocious Yorkshire Corgi - 13th post - 5 Nov 2003 17:53
Mmmmm
Bogbrush definitely [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: poetry extended A Ferocious Yorkshire Corgi - 13th post - 5 Nov 2003 17:51
Wow Dave, Pam Ayres has nothing on you! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Silly Story Game. A Ferocious Yorkshire Corgi - 11th post - 5 Nov 2003 17:38
doing the hokey cokey [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1170th post - 1 Nov 2003 12:34
> > "However, it is equally obvious that any measure that is counter productive should be avoided".
> "OBVIOUSLY, but you have failed to demonstrate which "measures ARE counter productive."
--
> "Mr Manns reply 'Human life is valuable...'."
> "Again true".
> > "But what measures protect it and what if your measures are counter productive?".
> "(Again, no suggestion of which measures are counter productuve.)"
--
Oh?!
Perhaps you missed it.
- Inappropriately low limits.
- Speed Scameras.
But, perhaps you were referring to "failed to demonstrate".
Let's see:
(Perhaps I haven't posted all these before):
Montana scapped speed limits for, I think, three years, as unconstitutional.
Fatalities fell (in general - please don't bother wasting your time trying to dredge up the "statistics" that are claimed to "demonstrate" the opposite).
When the Federal Government forced them to reinstate limits:
Fatalities rose!
--
Similar situation with the fuel crisis changes.
--
I've posted figures from two reports here I think:
In one lowering limits increased accidents by over 5% by and raising limits decreased accidents by over 5%.
In the other the rise was 7% and the fall Eleven per cent!
--
Actually, I don't think I've posted this one before:
In Suffolk (you know, the county that has been revealed as having a massive number of illegal signs, no doubt:
> "set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."!)
They lowered hundreds of NSL's at the end of, I think, 1995.
Strangely, the nice, steep, falling fatality trend seemed to end at 1995.
And a nice "gentle" rising trend started.
Funny that.
Ha, ha: that's a rictus grin on a lot of corpse's faces.
--
But perhaps you missed this:
Since the spread of speed cameras the levelling off in the formerly falling fatality figures from the previously plummetting plot line has produced a growing divergence between the two trends that almost exactly matches the growth in speed tax tickets (0.97 correlation?) leading to about five THOUSAND EXTRA deaths.
But, perhaps your "experts" have an explanation for these?
More importantly:
What is their justification! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1163rd post - 1 Nov 2003 11:41
> "And I will say it again. As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
> "Unless, Mr Mann, you profess to know better than the safety committees, the present speed limits are correct"
Let's see:
The 85th Percentile Rule states that you set the speed limit at that speed at or below which 85% of drivers would drive in free flowing traffic in good conditions in the absence of speed limits or enforcement thereof.
The authorities state that one of the reasons for speed scameras is that over 50% / 60% / the majority / three quarters / 90+% / most drivers exceed the speed limit.
> "As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
Yeah, right! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1162nd post - 1 Nov 2003 11:26
> "And I will say it again. As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
> "Unless, Mr Mann, you profess to know better than the safety committees, the present speed limits are correct"
Interesed parties (not politicians) like Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone, Steven Byers, not "Professor" David Begg (who apparently claims that the rumours about him being a "non-driver" are false), Barbara Castle, and, I've just heard, Gwyneth Dunwoody, "Chair" of the Commons Transport Committee! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Rebuttals. bogush j mann - 1167th post - 31 Oct 2003 22:04
> "And I will say it again. As previously stated, speed limits are set by safety committees, including all interesed parties (not politicians), who will have taken note of M.O.T guidelines (including your 85% rule) and set an APPROPRIATE speed limit."
> "Unless, Mr Mann, you profess to know better than the safety committees, the present speed limits are correct"
Read about a court case recently:
Magistrates fine gentleman £150 for driving a car with two bald tires!
They also fine gentleman £170 and give him six penalty points for driving without due care and attention.
What would you have got for creeping over the limit twice?
Mind you, the gentleman only pulled out of a junction into the path of a motorcyclist.
Who died.
Oh.
And the gentleman was a road safety officer.
And, no doubt, was driving at under 30 at the time of the accident. [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: Problems delay tram start again? bogush j mann - 1166th post - 31 Oct 2003 19:59
> "Are these deleys going to cost me money in the long run?"
I don't know:
When were you planning on going for a run?
The tram has already cost £200 Million before it starts to run.
Say there are 200,000 adults in the Nottingham area:
That's a £ Grand each !
For every man and woman.
Say there's 100,000 households.
That's £ TWO GRAND each !
Before any future subsidies.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes, you say:
But we're not paying for it !
Yeah, right: it's the tram fairy! [reply] [Complain about this post]
re: the way drivers think bogush j mann - 1163rd post - 30 Oct 2003 20:53
> "O Solomio 297th Post" - 26th post
> "Thank you for your posting Mrs Mann. As a new thread has been started about speed cameras (are we ready for War & Peace?), shall we twist it to talk about something else - crime, drugs, football etc?"
"O Solomio 297th Post" - 29th post
> "Let's continue it with jokes: -......"
Is it any wonder we get no new contributors here.
Just new logins for old "hands".
It wouldn't be so bad if they/he actually appreciated that, despite there being a Chinese restaurant called Mr Man's in Nottingham, it's unlikely to have anything to do with Mr Mann, and Bogush J Mann is unlikely to be Chinese. [reply] [Complain about this post]