Safe Speed Forums

Several of you have asked why TSM was banned. He was already on 'final warning' status. The following email that I sent explains:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Account Suspended
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 01:12:05 +0100
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: <TSM>

Hi,

I have reluctantly suspended your user account at the Safe Speed forums. You
have had every chance to abide by forum rules, but apparently have not been
able to do so.

In particular the post at:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 3524#83524 contains an
unwarranted ad hominem attack.

I would consider reinstating the account if you were able to email me an
assurance that you would respect peoples' opinions and fully abide by the
forum rules in future.

--
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
---------------------------------
promoting intelligent road safety

================================

I have since received an email which isn't at all promising, and TSM has attempted to create another forum account.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Now why does that not surprise me? Nor would:

Ooooh! Took me a second or two for "P.S." to sink in. That was naughty

ps. About Bl00dy time too IMHO.

That's not a dig at PS for allowing TSM to voice his opinions so long & so loud, just that TSM's presence destroyed the sites credability as he continually baited the members - so much so that I didn't log in for about a month in utter disgust.

Whereas I enjoyed TSM-baiting immensely!

He was clearly not that smart, so it was easy sport.

I am not sorry thet TSM has left. He expressed his views in a non-constructive way and I felt that I was unable to continue reading or contributing to any thread he had "invaded"

_________________
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

TSM doesn’t know it but his efforts have backfired. For someone who was so strongly pro-camera/speed-enforcement you would have thought he could muster up a decent argument to support his viewpoint within his 133 posts, alas none came – this has only reinforced my belief that the SS campaign is a positive one, I think the unbiased reader would also have been left with that impression.

i'll second this statement, with TSM and ling cars hijacking everything i have not felt inclined to post lately,

however IMO the more you respond to such posters the more they will post bit of a vicious circle

_________________
now retired

CO - nice to see you back - as for the idiotic minority - good ridance . Pity Paul had to wait so long out of decency to preserve a neutral site ( i presume ) to act.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

The Banned Minority !!!

I welcome a diverse range of constructive opinion, but TSM (the stupid minority) was not doing anything constructive towards the road safety cause.