Safe Speed Forums

Whilt his arguments need rebutting he is sucsessfully distracting people from fighting the speed reduction proposals. I suggest splitting off the contentious section(s) of this post.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

He may not even be a he, or a she.
Maybe it's a "they".
It wouldn't be the first time would it ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I think you're right.
If no one has any objections, I will split off the posts unrelated to the original thread, starting from my own post of 23:30:30 - Sun 26 Apr 09 (from when the numbers started to fly). The split posts will likely be all those subsquent to my one.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Steve wrote:

I have no objections but are you going to split off ALL the postings like this as this type of posting is now being seeded through a lot of threads?

jomukuk wrote:

Well observed & very true.

I'm only going to split this one, for now. Let's see how the other threads go; I thinking about a split/merge from the surcharge thread to the 74% thread.

To everyone else: don't reply if you don't have objections.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I don't need to.

Your argument rests on supposition.

You have no evidence that what you say is true.

You have no evidence that the only speeding that distresses and annoys residents is from your vaguely defined 'boy racers'.


You have no evidence for your claim, repeated seven times with no evidence, that speeding convictions are for 'minor infractions'.

Your entire argument rests on guesswork, unsubstantiations and illusory claims.

Please note: this sub topic has been split off from here.

Changing the title of the thread after you've lost the argument is a bit rich!

You've made a series of unsubstantiated allegations that were pertinent to the thread title!

realising you have no evidence to back up what you say, hey presto!

The thread title's changed!

Guffaw!!!

My argument is based on irrefutable figures from the best and most recent source available. My reasoning has been explained, therefore it is not mere supposition; the fact you have not been able to rebut or give an alternative explanation shows that, for now, it is the most sensible deduction.


That doesn't matter. There was no evidence for RTTM, that didn't make it any less of a real fact.

Conversely, your argument (or counter arguments), whatever that was, rests on absolutely nothing at all, except various fallacies.

You say my argument is lost, the fact is my original assertions to which you responded to (like the first one in this thread) has withstood scrutiny from all possible angles. You're done!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That's a genuinely new way to declare yourself a winner of a debate!

So, if I say the moon's made of cheese and nobody contradicts me, that means the moon's made of cheese!

Bravo!

I win!

You made a series of allegations. You offer no evidence for them.


You claim residents are only annoyed by boy racers, a definition you yourself made up. I point out this is plainly a fallacy, the age of a speeding driver makes no odds, it's the speed that effects people, not the driver's age or legal ownership of the car.


You then claim most speeding infringements are for 'minor infringements' then admit you cannot possibly prove this, but I cannot disprove it, so, once again, you win.




Finally you change the wording of the thread title in case any doubt remains who won the debate.

Mmmmmm....

No, it means no one could dispute you if no one else actually knew or could argue otherwise. The difference between the parallel you give and our debate is that you haven't given any reasoning why the moon is likely to be be made of cheese, hence no one need take notice of you.


Yes speed affects people, but only when above a certain point. An accidental momentary creep above the limit, especially on a non-residential road, is not nearly the same as doing 20-30mph above it.

This is something I've said to you time and time again, this is something you ignore time and time again.


Aside from the fact you've misquoted me: I can reason why they are minor technical infringements, and I have, and you haven't yet refuted it; my reasoning stands.

It seems you are always going to repeat your claims without even acknowledging the counter arguments given against them, this is disingenuous behaviour. Further instances will result with action.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Steve, he's behaved in this way every time he's posted on this site, he is unlikely to listen to or even consider an rational argument, he has made his mind up and would prefer that we didn't confuse him with facts. I suspect he wants to get banned again so that he can claim we didn't like opposition, rather than acknowledge the weakness of his argument.

With any luck he'll go back to applauding people who are guilty of road rage and criminal damage really soon.

1/



That is not, in fact, what you said.

You actually said:



So, you've altered what you posted after the fact twice now.



The difference, my friend, is that you have no evidence that what you claimed is true, merely supposition. Your view, therefore, is equally as valid or invalid as mine, the truth is we don't know, yet you declare yourself right and everyone else wrong.




By guess work and supposition. I, on the other hand, pointed out that ACPO guidelines mean that minor infringements do not attract fpns. I have evidence, you have guesswork, yet you declare your view more valid.



What are you going to do, change the thread title again?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The last time you were asked to back up this claim you disappeared.

Do so, or do one.

Sorry, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

You know you did it, I know you did it - leave it at that or you will look even more of a pratt than you currently do.

Given the comments in other threads, it's now fairly obvious this poster is a previously banned poster.

It has been enlightening while the arguments had substance, now the poster hell bent on starting a flame war; enough threads have been derailed. Now is the time to draw the line.

The user's account has been deactivated.

gOOD CALL, sTEVE

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Sorry, I've come in to this a bit late: any links to Chapman Central yet?

He is banned many times over. Good call!