lozgti1

Can't we do the religion thread now :-(

Felix.

Start a thread then

A bit of topical debate is good for the soul

lozgti1

lol

It's either police or religion on scoobynet.Each runs to about 10 pages.

You must be a deity Felix.lol

lozgti1

Not that I mind either debate! Both good fun :-)

hodgy0_2

tbf though

2 of the biggest issues facing the planet

The rise of religious fundermentalism, from both Christianity and Islam, (most of the republican front runners to the most powerful position on earth do not believe in evolution) the rejection of reason and science in favour of superstition, dogma and a return to the Middle Ages


And unmarked speed cameras on the A419

lozgti1

lol lol

JTaylor

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

This thread could have easily been cut to one page if in your replay to Alcazar was.....


"OK...ill just pull over cars with blown headlamp bulbs and dodgy HID retrofits".

But I know, the Chief Constable wouldn't entertain such an idea (even though most cars I deal with that have more than one blown bulb also have illegal tyres - points and fines per tyre could make a nice earner and help safety ).

Me? Police are police some good some bad (although the best ones I know are former police) ranting on a forum in isn't going change them, or whatever policy that's on the top brass's whim. And the CPS and UK law is not the fault of police but that of west Minster bureaucrats.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Couldn't agree more, Ali.

The number of patently illegal cars running around has risen exponentially as has the number of speed cameras....you concentrate on one thing that is easy to catch, you run the risk of other things, equally as dangerous, being got away with.

But still, at £90 a pop, speed cameras rule...don't they?Take a pic, send letter demanding money, sheep pays up, KERCHING!!!!

JackClark

Oh please. How many more people do you think will be pulled over for 'other' offences should all speed cameras disappear tomorrow? I'll give you a clue, it begins with -.

Felix.

We don't concentrate on 'one thing'. You perception maybe that way - but you also have a perception that 99% of the public's contact with the police is for speeding/traffic offences, that unmarked cars are only used for speeding offences, that speed limits on roads are only there for revenue gathering - when clearly that is not the case.

Speeds cameras need to take a 'pic' as they need to prove the offence (innocent until proven guilty, remember). And, what letter demanding money? Its asks 'were you the driver?' You can answer yes/no/don't know. If the 'sheep' pay up, i suggest the 'sheep' are happy that it was them driving the car too fast at the time and have accepted they have taken a chance.

But this is what you agreed to earlier "fine with points" - so what really is your argument? And then you suggest that if we can not prove who was driving the car, we should fine the registered keeper - a person who was not even in the car at the time!!

And if a person takes it to court and is found guilty - why should the rest of us pay for the court costs? If found guilty, should the cost not be passed to the guilty party?

If everyone follows you example of driving alcazar, then none of this will effect anyone, as we will all follow the speed limits of the roads.

Turbohot

......not just by the way you propose and been cut to just one page, but it certainly didn't need to run as long as six pages if either of the parties had anything better to do with their time than prolonging the same old, same old on the name of drumming up a convo.

Felix.

Good fun though - and since there's not much else i can do at 3.00am when i sometimes finish.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Jack: have you any idea how much a camera costs to install? Perhaps if we installed less and used less, we could have MORE CARS ON THE ROAD, catching things like mobile use while driving, not stopping on stop lines, dangerous, careless driving, drink driving, etc etc etc????

Or does THAT not make sense in your little Apple-oriented world?

JackClark

I have no idea why you reference Apple, they haven't even released their car yet.

Anyhow, what you're failing to realise is although cameras are expensive to purchase they're already paid for and I don't know about around your way but here I haven't seen a new one for a good five year or more. So, I stand by my argument that if you removed cameras tomorrow less people would be caught for motoring offences and I honestly can't see how you've managed to convince yourself otherwise.

JackClark

I've had a chat with The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and they wrote this just for you http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/adv...-funding-cuts/

hodgy0_2

I am sure there was a region that decided, for budgetary reasons, to de-activate their speed cameras

does anyone know the result, did it have any effect on the accident / injury / fatality rates

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

So you say....but then, you work for one of the members of the safety camera partnership, so you are bound to, aren't you? Are you seriously telling us that in the UK there's isn't ONE camera used for revenue? seriously?

As for concentrating on one thing, how else do you think that the public views the FACT that there are now far less patrol cars, yet more cameras than ever? The FACT that if you ring about an offence taking place, there's often "no-one available at this moment", yet if you go out, there will be the scam van, or the motorbike cop with laser, day in, day out.....is speeding REALLY that important, compared to, say, drink driving? Using a mobile in traffic? failing to stop? Careless or dangerous driving?? REALLY?

I assume you've either not had, or not read, one of those letters? Emblazoned with POLICE all over it, it doesn't ask if you were driving, it DEMANDS you tell them, and threatens 31000 fine if you don't, or can't. Read one...I challenge you. Demanding money with menaces.

Of course I understand your point about court costs, but what of MORE points, or a HIGHER fine if you do go to court? fair? Nope...just a deterrent to stop folk trying to prove innocence, they may as well pay up...because it's all about revenue. Somewhere I've read of a camera that takes over a £million a year....useful? Or a scam?

Still doesn't answer the question about motorbikes...when ARE you going to get to grips with that? After all, it's all about safety, so you say? The FACT that they can, and do, get away with speeding regularly, doesn't have anything to do with there being so few of them, compared to the cash cow that is the car driver, does it? LOL

You've been caught out, mate, just give in, we've seen through the scam, and no matter how many times you establishment types repeat that it's not a scam, no-one's going to believe you...no-one with any sense, any way

Turbohot

Oh, yes! Any interaction with Alcazar in particular is good fun. His intentional or even unintentional comedy does make me laugh That's why I like him.

neil-h

I find he can be hugely agrevating. That being said however, these discussions to prove entertaining and let's be honest, there isn't much in the way of entertainment on here these days.

Turbohot

Yes, 'going round in circles again and again and again.....!' sort of slanging matches can lose their entertainment value and turn quite stale for some readers tbh. It's like same $hit, different day, I know.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Oh, Jack.....I could find anti Apple **** like that, written by people with an axe to grind...would you accept it?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'm glad I'm "entertaining" (cough) educating (cough) you two at least.
Jack is a lost cause, as witnessed by his Apple fanboyism. He obviously will accept anything...

neil-h

I don't know about educating but since Chris (F1_fan) left for Australia, this place has been really lacking in intellectual discussion. Although JTaylor can produce some good ones.

jonc

Intellectual? Vitriolic would be more accurate!

Turbohot

Neil, I miss Chris dearly, but in my opinion he wasn't into high brow-ing everything but giving a clear cut, straight forward reasoning from his perspective instead. He is unleashed and he spares no one when it comes to telling it as it is and arguing relentlessly. And yes, his style of interaction and his reasoning has been missing from SN since he hasn't been posting here. Intellectualising in a repeated way with the same old, same old subjects also gets tedious.

I think it boils down to what we expect from this 'car forum'. For me, I'm just after light hearted banter and occasionally something a tad more stimulating, if not exactly after some highly intellectual heavy handed discussion involving text books material on a 'broken record' topic. Even when Chris is away from here atm, I like Hodgy and James's posts here. I also like visually stimulating offerings from Wurzel and the likes. I also like the light hearted material that others post e.g. banana in a polythene bag, walking shoes etc. I like Ditch's multi-coloured shoe collection and Loz's lols for very little or no reasons, and Ali B's belting posts that cause me hernia sort of feeling due to my subsided fits of laughter at them I think everyone offers what they deem right from their own perspective. IMO This place isn't as bad, there's plenty of topic diversity here, and you should never hesitate to initiate something intellectual of your choice, as you miss the intellectualism here. You'll be surprised how many people would join in. Specially our dpb with his spanners. He'll be there 100%.

JackClark

Yes. If you could find something from a governing body and I knew it was true.

Turbohot

Never quite understood why you two always argued so much. It was only once when I objected on Chris saying something to you, which I felt wasn't appropriate, he stopped talking to me as well.

Oh, well. $h7t happens. He was my very good on line friend. We agreed on pretty much everything. I miss him here very much.

Felix.

As far as i know, there is no camera placed just for revenue - unless you can find a letter from a council that says otherwise. But then you will probably say that's part of the scam.

But this is part of the problem. You seem to just skip over the links that have been posted here that differ from your views. The last one from ROSPA makes interesting reading where 80% of people seem happy with cameras. So if we police by consent, then you will be happy with this.

There are less traffic cops and cops in general because of the cuts, everything has been decimated. But if the cameras are there, they may as well keep them there as i doubt they will cost too much to run and 80% of the community want them there. Do we ignore this 80% and remove them


Were you the driver - yes/no/don't know? Its quite simple. Or do you want it where you do not have to disclose who was driving?

I have covered the 'early plea' scenario in an earlier post - which has to be fare to all and in for all offences.



Not true - i refer you to the links posted for ROSPA and those posted on page 5 by Torquemada to show accident statistics and how the police target motor cycles.

The only person around here who thinks its a scam appears to be you. The rest of us just stick to the speed limits and accept that we take a chance if we don't. Now, if you also stick to these limits, then i don't see what your problem is

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Ah yes, the establishment, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" argument?

I wondered when that would crop up.

It can be translated as, "Don't rock our revenue stream boat...or else!"