Quote:
Mr Callaghan, when I said in an earlier post <<<"the device is designed to be used as a surveying tool, where it very accurately measures distances, and is used as such by some police accident investigators to produce an accurate record of a crash scene. Additional Software can also be employed to use those very accurate range checks, to determine the speed of a vehicle. It does this by interpreting the changing DISTANCE from the device to the vehicle over a set period of time, to calculate the speed." >>> you responded with <<<"how an engraver with no technical knowledge of such devices can now provide credible opinion of laser range finding equipment.">>> implying that as an engraver, I would be unable to explain how the LTI works.
However, in your response to Smeggy's insistance that you address his question, you say <<<Your poits regarding the way in which objects are measured, that being the change in distance over time is correct and the measurement is a function of the movement of the measured object and the movement of the measuring device (that being usually still) resulting in teh speed of the target being displayed>>> which apart from the additional information I appended regarding the LTI's survey capability, seems similar to you over technical description.
Are you letting your ire towards me colour your responses?
I realise that my constant questioning of your methods, and exposure to the press of your questionable actions such as doubling up cameras in order to double the penalty at one site, are irksome, but you should not let this get in the way of accepting mine was a proper description of the LTI's methodology!
You COULD apply to the BBC to have my posts deleted if you find my disclosures worrying, or even apply to have the ISP WITHDRAW their service as you have done with the Safespeed web forum in order to gag me, but sooner or later, you will realise you cannot gag free speech or thought without appearing in court with EVIDENCE. They will not let you simply refuse to reveal information requested under the FOI by the local paper, or refuse to provide equipment to be tested when a respected investigative part of the BBC has demonstrated it might well be flawed!!
Underlying ALL this obfuscation on your part, is the fact cameras do not detain offenders, but allow them to continue offending!!
Above is my response to Mr. Callaghan's most recent post. Thanks to anyone who has been and lent some support!!
THIS might explain his present attitude....
Steve Callaghan wrote:
you know very well I don't have any interest whatsoever in keeping my job.
which he posted on the BBC forum. You read it first
THERE!!