Safe Speed Forums

Uncontrolled immigration? More Daily Mail speak.

How so? That's the escence of the EU.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

And the UK.

But I don't think Yokel was reffering to europeans coming here.

(and its not uncontrolled either as there are controls surrounding work permits re people from other European countries)

Then we need to re-open the freight lines that previous idiot governments closed., perhaps?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Hi Rigpig
I suppose it was a little confrontational, but it was in response to a breathtakingly disingenous and irrelevant slur on immigrants, so I don't think a little prickliness was misplaced. With the exception of BB, PeterE and Yokel, I do not feel anyone here has been unreasonable towards me, and am still of the opinion that Safespeed members are pretty much the same as everyone else.

I don't believe I have made any personal attacks on your late founder. I have no reason to question his character and am sorry he died so young. I have not sugested that he set out deliberately to mislead, and it is quite possible that he believed wholeheartedly in the value of his conclusions. Unfortunately, self-belief has no effect on their validity, and neither does the number of people to whom they evidently appeal. For this reason I stand by the point about peer review, and have not had a satisfactory answer to it. In this sense Safespeed doctrine has contributed as little to road safety as Reiki has to the treatment of cancer.

As far as this thread goes, the stuff about HGVs is the only serious contribution to the congestion problem, and I still find the majority unwillingness to talk about car use nothing short of astonishing. In response to those who have at least addressed the issue, it is still notable that people are far more ready with examples of occasions when it would be difficult for them to leave their car at home than instances when it would be easy, which must surely also be numerous.

In answer to some of the other questions: I am not a union rep, and my union activism consists of nothing more radical than paying my monthly subs. I do not regard reducing motorcycle use as a priority as I do not think motorcyle use has either the same level of inherent negative effect as the car, is as numerically significant, or entails the same ideological problems. I do think many motorcyclists go too fast, though, although I have not noticed this so much in urban situations. I live in Swansea, and would be surprised if anyone can trump me on carrying things up hills on bikes, but this is not the place to compete on these matters. I suspect that if I owned a car I would use it, so am not attempting to claim any moral high ground.

To Graeme's big "why" question, the answers are public health, safety, the rights of other road users, a belief in public transport, global warming, aesthetics, an objection to the effects car dominance on urban planning, and to the effects of individualism on society in general. I also think, though this is a bit of an aside, that the motor industry has captivated its adherents with myths, and that people in general are not as happy with their car dependence as they would like to think.

For the record I am in favour of speed cameras (including concealed ones) and see no problem with using them to raise revenue. I support people's right to appeal against prosecution on the grounds of inaccuracy or emergency.

I think I've banged on enough for a minute. I expect some of you think so too.

I love the debating technique of assuming that the ideas on this website are automatically misguided and patronising us.


Unfortunately, you have used the magic words "peer review" on here. This is a spurious attempt to, once again, make it seem that the principles on this site are, in some way, less valid than anyone else's opinion.


I'll talk about car use. It doesn't need reducing (which is the starting point of your argument). Sufficient roads and parking should be provided to allow people to use their chosen mode of transport. I don't want to leave my car at home; I want to drive it when I want, unencumbered by nannying people telling me what they think is best for me. Attempts at social engineering by successive Governments is at the root of what has made this country the mess it is today.


What "inherent negative effects" and what "ideological problems"?



Urban planning now seeks to restrict car usage not allow dominance. This is what has gone wrong with planning. If proper facilities were made for car usage then there would be no problem. Do I really need to spell out that if you don't like individualism then it is probably YOU who seek to control others to do what YOU think is best for them?

Now I've droned on for too long.

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

I've moved the discussion of the peer review issue to a separate thread as it is irrelevant to this topic:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17101

Please don't bring this up again in this thread.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yep - short of researching everything in which we're interested to PhD level, it's the only way in which those of us who are not experts in either the subject field or in statistical method can verify that the methods of any particular study are valid. It's about independent review by people who not only have the expertise that we may lack, but (because they are themselves perpetually subject to the same process) have an interest in upholding its integrity. In the abscence of this process, selected statistics can be made to support virtually anything.

Really? To whom do you think I was "reffering", then? And why did you think so?

I will be really interested to hear your logic on this one.

And it had better be good.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

I'd rather you back up your assertion that we have "uncontrolled immigration".

Last time I checked there were quite long queues at passport control coming into the UK, foreign visitors on work permits have to report to police stations every two weeks or so, people are deported and there is unbeleivable security at ports such as Dover. Naturallysome will always find a way, but to assert that we have "uncontrolled immigration" is ridiculous.

Now, I could go on and say I think we SHOULD have uncontrolled immigration, but strangly a totally free market economy such as that seems to chaff on some people, mostly the very people that want a smaller state and liberal attitudes strangly.

Answer my original question.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

Not europeans.

Saying that europeans are migrating ot the UK is like saying the scottish are migrating to London.

And anyway, even european migration is recorded and monitored, and new member states are often subject to special control.

Umm, no, because Poles, for example:

(a) are citizens of a different country, and
(b) speak a different language

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

You still haven't answered my question. Please do so.

I'll reiterate it, as you seem to have forgotten:

"To whom do you think I was "reffering", then? And why did you think so? "

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

Hmm, not met one yet that doesn't speak english.

Also, what percentage are actually migrants in the permanent sense of the word, not a big number I imagine.

Not europeans, like I said. Did you mean europeans when you reffered to "uncontrolled immigration"?



Becuase you asserted that "immigration is uncontrolled" and its patently not.

I meant anybody and everybody - black, white or khaki. I deplore the fact that you assumed - without a shred of evidence - that I did not include europeans in my statement.



The free movement of persons is one of the “fundamental freedoms” of the EU. From 1st May 2004, nationals of the (then) recently-acceded countries have had the right to travel freely and live anywhere in the enlarged EU. However, until 2011 the established EU Member States were entitled to restrict the right to work of people from the 8 central and eastern European accession countries (“the A8”). Only the UK, Sweden and Ireland declined to impose restrictions on A8 nationals.

Also, under the UK’s Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2000, no entry clearance is required to enter the UK in the exercise of free movement rights, and no limit may be placed on length of stay.

Then of course there is the rest of the world. About 2 million non-settlement visas are issued every year yet there are no checks on departure. David Blunkett (remember him?), when he was Home Secretary, admitted publicly that he "hadn't a clue" who is in Britain. Three quarters of asylum seekers remain in Britain even if they are refused asylum.

I reckon that's pretty well “uncontrolled”.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

Today's Sunday Telegraph:

Migration by Poles 'out of control'

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

So basically, you don't like cars so I can't have one? I don't suppose I'm allowed to fly off on holidays either, or put the heating on?

Global warming, true or not is just the latest "scam the public" tax gimmick. Personally I'm quite happy for a few degrees rise in temperature. But for those whose choose to believe in it, surely population does more harm than cars? I'm afraid I can't see how the UK can on one hand say CO2 from cars has to be reduced yet at the same time lets build 3M more houses? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Wouldn't it make more sense to stop those countries that can't support their own populations from breeding rather than have them here?

As for other road users - how many roads do you think there would be without motorists? Who's going to pay the 60B in taxes taken from motorists?

As for public transport - well when it's as pleasant and convenient as getting in my own car, then I'll think about it. Incidently did you know that passenger for passenger, buses give off 4 times as much CO2 than cars?

What's life about if it's not things getting better? There's little point if we have to go backwards.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Ah, "uncontrolled" in quotes now, backing down are you?