OT: Sp**d C*m*r*s

  • Thread starter Colin Blackburn
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:13:08 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>You would think, that one of the UK chief proponents of speed cameras would be able to fire off
>>>evidence that they save lives machine-gun-style. Not one bit if it. He's got nothing. No
>>>evidence. Nada.

>>You would think that, as an upholder of the law, he would be able to provide proof that they catch
>>people committing an offence. And indeed he can. So that's alright then.

>The police have a responsibility to enforce the law in the public interest.

The police have a responsibility to uphold the law full stop. It's up to politicians and to a lesser
extent judges to ensure that the law is in the public interest, like the speed limit, or to repeal
it if it isn't, as with the Community Charge.

Police officers are not required to defend the laws they are asked to enforce. There have been
occasions in the past when individual police officers have been required to enforce laws with which
they strongly disagree.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:22:22 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Good old Paul, turns up on a rainy day to provide some amusement.

ITYM "prevent some amusement"

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:16:49 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>My god guy, is there no end to your whit (sic)?
>>I don't know.
>Not really surprising. Never mind.

No, not in the least surprising - discussions with the likes of you are unlikely to tax the limits
of anyone's wit, after all.

Ridden your bike lately?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:00:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>You would think, that one of the UK chief proponents of speed cameras would be able to fire off
>>>>evidence that they save lives machine-gun-style. Not one bit if it. He's got nothing. No
>>>>evidence. Nada.

>>>You would think that, as an upholder of the law, he would be able to provide proof that they
>>>catch people committing an offence. And indeed he can. So that's alright then.

>>The police have a responsibility to enforce the law in the public interest.

>The police have a responsibility to uphold the law full stop.

Actually, and interestingly, you're mistaken.

Going right back to the early days (and I did have a reference, but it isn't handy; I have a feeling
it's "The Police Act" 1890 or so) Each individual Police officer was given the absolute right to
decide if an observed crime should be reported. This is normally known as police discretion, and has
very important benefits.

For example, we would not want Police in hot pursuit of probable bank robbers to stop to record and
report a motorist with a tail light out.

Over the years Police discretion has gained the definition that crimes should be reported only when
it is in the public interest to do so. Obviously, and axiomatically, this is in the public
interest. :)

So the Police cannot and should not allocate resources equally between all crimes. Some crimes
deserve more resources, like murders and missing kids, equally some deserve fewer resources (- my
usual example being stolen paper clips from an office.)

It would be most interesting to bring a case against the Police for enforcing the speed limits
beyond the point of public interest. And I've pondered trying to bring it about, which is how I
gathered the info above.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 11:09:29 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>The police have a responsibility to uphold the law full stop.

>Going right back to the early days (and I did have a reference, but it isn't handy; I have a
>feeling it's "The Police Act" 1890 or so) Each individual Police officer was given the absolute
>right to decide if an observed crime should be reported. This is normally known as police
>discretion, and has very important benefits.

Fine. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with asking police officers to provide chapter and verse
justifying the laws as they are written on the statute book. They are not required to do that.

>So the Police cannot and should not allocate resources equally between all crimes. Some crimes
>deserve more resources, like murders and missing kids, equally some deserve fewer resources (- my
>usual example being stolen paper clips from an office.)

And some deserve very limited police resources indeed. Speeding, for example, is unquestionably best
dealt with by automated means, freeing police officers for those offences which require a degree of
judgement. I am delighted that you are evidently in favour of that solution.

>It would be most interesting to bring a case against the Police for enforcing the speed limits
>beyond the point of public interest. And I've pondered trying to bring it about, which is how I
>gathered the info above.

Off you go then. If you genuinely believe you have a case, then bring
it. Perhaps you will have more luck persuading a judge than you have persuading people on Usenet.
Or perhaps the judge will strike it out as vexatious - the courts after all demand a slightly
higher standard of proof than "I predicted it."

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
P

Purditer

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:22:22 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Good old Paul, turns up on a rainy day to provide some amusement.
>
> ITYM "prevent some amusement"
>
OK come on, he's a Scot and he knows about traffic and busy roads and motorways...........
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 11:48:41 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>So the Police cannot and should not allocate resources equally between all crimes. Some crimes
>>deserve more resources, like murders and missing kids, equally some deserve fewer resources (- my
>>usual example being stolen paper clips from an office.)

>And some deserve very limited police resources indeed. Speeding, for example, is unquestionably
>best dealt with by automated means, freeing police officers for those offences which require a
>degree of judgement. I am delighted that you are evidently in favour of that solution.

No. Real road safety is very deserving of police time because of the numbers killed and injured on
the roads. They have a formal responsibility to allocate their scarce resources in the most
effective (reasonable) way.

Speed cameras do require substantial police resources, but are not delivering road safety benefits -
rather the opposite, as you would know if you actually studied the subject.

>>It would be most interesting to bring a case against the Police for enforcing the speed limits
>>beyond the point of public interest. And I've pondered trying to bring it about, which is how I
>>gathered the info above.

>Off you go then. If you genuinely believe you have a case, then bring
>it. Perhaps you will have more luck persuading a judge than you have persuading people on Usenet.
> Or perhaps the judge will strike it out as vexatious - the courts after all demand a slightly
> higher standard of proof than "I predicted it."

We'll see. At present I don't have sufficient information or resource, but both are building.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 16:34:51 +0100, "Purditer"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Good old Paul, turns up on a rainy day to provide some amusement.

>> ITYM "prevent some amusement"

>OK come on, he's a Scot and he knows about traffic and busy roads and motorways...........

I'm a Londoner. I moved to Scotland.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 17:06:23 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 11:48:41 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Some crimes deserve more resources [...] some deserve fewer resources

>>And some deserve very limited police resources indeed. Speeding, for example, is unquestionably
>>best dealt with by automated means

>Speed cameras do require substantial police resources, but are not delivering road safety benefits
>- rather the opposite, as you would know if you actually studied the subject.

So anybody who has studied the subject *must* reach the same conclusion? That's extrordinarily
arrogant. Many people have studied the subject in very great detail, and most have clearly not
reached the same conclusion as you. I am sure that your PhD thesis in road safety was a tour de
force of speeding apologia, but those others have at least equal claim to understanding the issues.

But I do not propose to allow you to turn this into an argument about your pet delusion: my point
remains that no police officer is under any obligation to give you any justification regarding the
merit of laws which they enforce. Next time you are stopped for speeding would you enter a plea of
not guilty on the basis that the officer in question should have been chasing a joyrider at the
time? I think not. If you have a beef take it up with the Government. Write to your MP. And a word
to the wise: lose the Schmidt Staffeln logo from the letterhead - it is more likely to antagonise
than prompt a considered response.

>>>It would be most interesting to bring a case against the Police for enforcing the speed limits
>>>beyond the point of public interest. And I've pondered trying to bring it about, which is how I
>>>gathered the info above.

>>Off you go then. If you genuinely believe you have a case, then bring
>>it. Perhaps you will have more luck persuading a judge than you have persuading people on Usenet.
>> Or perhaps the judge will strike it out as vexatious - the courts after all demand a slightly
>> higher standard of proof than "I predicted it."

>We'll see. At present I don't have sufficient information

LOL! You can say that again! Remember, too, that citations from the Journal of Because I Said So are
not generally admissible in court :)

>speed cameras cost lives

An assertion to which you cling with the tenacity of the True Believer despite the fact that you
have yet to advance a single credible[1] argument in its support. The Church of the Mobile Death
Greenhouse must be proud of its acolyte :)

[1] Credible, that is, outside the narrow confines of the Smith Credibility Test (credible = says
speeding is perfectly safe; flawed = says speeding is dangerous).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:14:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Speed cameras do require substantial police resources, but are not delivering road safety benefits
>>- rather the opposite, as you would know if you actually studied the subject.

>So anybody who has studied the subject *must* reach the same conclusion? That's extrordinarily
>arrogant. Many people have studied the subject in very great detail, and most have clearly not
>reached the same conclusion as you.

Thing is Guy, these's no independent research. All the research you can read is either a) hopelessly
flawed, b) designed to support a pre-defined conclusion or c) both. What little independent work
there is all agrees with me. (And don't go putting claims I haven't made in my mouth.)

There's nothing of any substance to support the road safety benefits of automated speed enforcement,
and there are some very unwelcome trends in the figures.

>I am sure that your PhD thesis in road safety was a tour de force of speeding apologia, but those
>others have at least equal claim to understanding the issues.

PhD? Don't make me laugh. I'm a practical man not a cosseted academic.

>But I do not propose to allow you to turn this into an argument about your pet delusion: my point
>remains that no police officer is under any obligation to give you any justification regarding the
>merit of laws which they enforce. Next time you are stopped for speeding would you enter a plea of
>not guilty on the basis that the officer in question should have been chasing a joyrider at the
>time? I think not. If you have a beef take it up with the Government. Write to your MP. And a word
>to the wise: lose the Schmidt Staffeln logo from the letterhead - it is more likely to antagonise
>than prompt a considered response.

My Campaign includes writing to government. I don't much care if they like my logo or not. You do
realise it's "Safe Speed" in a speed limit sign do you? Could you ask for a safer approach?

>>>>It would be most interesting to bring a case against the Police for enforcing the speed limits
>>>>beyond the point of public interest. And I've pondered trying to bring it about, which is how I
>>>>gathered the info above.

>>>Off you go then. If you genuinely believe you have a case, then bring
>>>it. Perhaps you will have more luck persuading a judge than you have persuading people on
>>> Usenet. Or perhaps the judge will strike it out as vexatious - the courts after all demand a
>>> slightly higher standard of proof than "I predicted it."

>>We'll see. At present I don't have sufficient information

>LOL! You can say that again! Remember, too, that citations from the Journal of Because I Said So
>are not generally admissible in court :)

>>speed cameras cost lives

>An assertion to which you cling with the tenacity of the True Believer despite the fact that you
>have yet to advance a single credible[1] argument in its support. The Church of the Mobile Death
>Greenhouse must be proud of its acolyte :)

>[1] Credible, that is, outside the narrow confines of the Smith Credibility Test (credible = says
> speeding is perfectly safe; flawed = says speeding is dangerous).

Don't blame me if you can't see the truth.

How come our roads were the safest in the world long before we had automated speed enforcement?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 19:15:34 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Speed cameras do require substantial police resources, but are not delivering road safety
>>>benefits - rather the opposite, as you would know if you actually studied the subject.

>>So anybody who has studied the subject *must* reach the same conclusion? That's extrordinarily
>>arrogant. Many people have studied the subject in very great detail, and most have clearly not
>>reached the same conclusion as you.

>Thing is Guy, these's no independent research. All the research you can read is either a)
>hopelessly flawed, b) designed to support a pre-defined conclusion or c) both. What little
>independent work there is all agrees with me. (And don't go putting claims I haven't made in
>my mouth.)

Independent research exists. There are studies available from countries around the world, many of
which have been peer-reviewed (which your claims have not). You apparently regard these studies as
useful when you want to use them to make a point (cf. the risible 12mph page) but not when it comes
to accepting their conclusions.

Your judgement of what's "hopelessly flawed" seems to rest entirely on whether it supports your
argument. You require a standard of proof in your "statistics challenge" which your own claims
manifestly fail to reach. A report is not "hopelessly flawed" because some speeding apologist in
Scotland says it is.

It is the nature of scientific research that very often one sets out to prove or disprove a
hypothesis. Someone setting out to prove a hypothesis may or may not succeed. The measure of whether
they have suceeded is whether, following peer review, their evidence is considered credible by their
peers. In the case of evidence for the danger of speeding, for exampple, there is ample and strong
evidence which has been reviewed and published in a variety of journals.

>There's nothing of any substance to support the road safety benefits of automated speed
>enforcement, and there are some very unwelcome trends in the figures.

Which trends are almost certainly unrelated. Any half competent statistician knows to be wary of
confusing subsequences with consequences.

>>I am sure that your PhD thesis in road safety was a tour de force of speeding apologia, but those
>>others have at least equal claim to understanding the issues.

>PhD? Don't make me laugh. I'm a practical man not a cosseted academic.

The call of the bar-room philospher.

>My Campaign includes writing to government. I don't much care if they like my logo or not. You do
>realise it's "Safe Speed" in a speed limit sign do you? Could you ask for a safer approach?

The letters SS have a certain resonance, of which you can hardly fail to be aware. If you want to
continue to be written off as a loony before they have read the first word, by all means continue
with the Schmidt Staffeln logo. It is, to be honest, a matter of coplete indifference to me. I
merely pointed it out as one writer-to-government to another.

>>>speed cameras cost lives

>>An assertion to which you cling with the tenacity of the True Believer despite the fact that you
>>have yet to advance a single credible[1] argument in its support. The Church of the Mobile Death
>>Greenhouse must be proud of its acolyte :)

>Don't blame me if you can't see the truth.

Ah, well, it is the nature of Revealed Truth that it very often looks like delusion to the
unenlightened.

>How come our roads were the safest in the world long before we had automated speed enforcement?

Safest for whom? Our rates of cyclist and child pedestrian fatalities, for example, are certainly
nothing to be proud of and never have been.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:35:50 +0100, Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:35:37 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:46:34 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>I'm currently trolling those in uk.rec.driving under the guise
>>>>>>>"roadrunner" suggesting a blanket reduction of speed limits by 15 mph.
>>>
>>>>> That's your cover blown then. Haven't you got anything better to do that make a prat of
>>>>> yourself?
>>>
>>>>You still fishing in urc?
>>>
>>> Actually one of the regulars there sent me an email.
>>>
>>> I have friends in all sorts of places.
>>
>>Many of the, I suggest, in your head.
>
> You suggest wrong. You have NO idea.

And even less interest. But then, you have NO brain.

>>Tosspot.
>
> Nice...

But better reasoned than your barkings.

Tosspot.

Trev
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 16:34:51 +0100, "Purditer"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> >Good old Paul, turns up on a rainy day to provide some amusement.
>
>>> ITYM "prevent some amusement"
>
>>OK come on, he's a Scot and he knows about traffic and busy roads and motorways...........
>
> I'm a Londoner. I moved to Scotland.

A plus for Londoners, but a big Minus for Scots.

Tosspot.

Trev
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 10:00:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>>You would think, that one of the UK chief proponents of speed cameras would be able to fire off
>>>>>evidence that they save lives machine-gun-style. Not one bit if it. He's got nothing. No
>>>>>evidence. Nada.
>
>>>>You would think that, as an upholder of the law, he would be able to provide proof that they
>>>>catch people committing an offence. And indeed he can. So that's alright then.
>
>>>The police have a responsibility to enforce the law in the public interest.
>
>>The police have a responsibility to uphold the law full stop.
>
> Actually, and interestingly, you're mistaken.

And, actually, but far less interestingly, you're a complete tosspot.

Trev.
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:07:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Speed cameras do require substantial police resources, but are not delivering road safety
>>>>benefits - rather the opposite, as you would know if you actually studied the subject.

>>>So anybody who has studied the subject *must* reach the same conclusion? That's extrordinarily
>>>arrogant. Many people have studied the subject in very great detail, and most have clearly not
>>>reached the same conclusion as you.

>>Thing is Guy, these's no independent research. All the research you can read is either a)
>>hopelessly flawed, b) designed to support a pre-defined conclusion or c) both. What little
>>independent work there is all agrees with me. (And don't go putting claims I haven't made in
>>my mouth.)

>Independent research exists.

It does. I didn't mean it quite the way I wrote it.

> There are studies available from countries around the world, many of which have been peer-reviewed
> (which your claims have not). You apparently regard these studies as useful when you want to use
> them to make a point (cf. the risible 12mph page) but not when it comes to accepting their
> conclusions.

Depends on the subject. The relevant subject is "will speed cameras make the roads safer?", and
that's one question which isn't answered in the worthwhile research.

If you had a reference, I'd be pleased to tell you exactly why it's rubbish. (Or if it wasn't I'd
link it from the front page of the Safe Speed web site - you have my word.)

>Your judgement of what's "hopelessly flawed" seems to rest entirely on whether it supports your
>argument. You require a standard of proof in your "statistics challenge" which your own claims
>manifestly fail to reach. A report is not "hopelessly flawed" because some speeding apologist in
>Scotland says it is.

No. Research is hopelessly flawed when it contradicts itself, or when you can drive a bus through
it. I can drive a fleet of buses through the likes of TRL421. It's arrant nonsense.

>It is the nature of scientific research that very often one sets out to prove or disprove a
>hypothesis. Someone setting out to prove a hypothesis may or may not succeed. The measure of
>whether they have suceeded is whether, following peer review, their evidence is considered credible
>by their peers. In the case of evidence for the danger of speeding, for exampple, there is ample
>and strong evidence which has been reviewed and published in a variety of journals.

Sadly in the case of some recent so called research in the UK it is produced to a contract which
says "prepare a report to support xyz". That's not science.

[snip]
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:07:27 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>> There are studies available from countries around the world, many of which have been
>> peer-reviewed

>Depends on the subject. The relevant subject is "will speed cameras make the roads safer?", and
>that's one question which isn't answered in the worthwhile research.

Again, it depends on our definition of worthwhile. Reduced speeding results in greater safety.
Evidence shows that cameras can reduce speeding. Other effects may exist, but it is noticeable that
the only roads in the UK where safety records are not continuing to improve are those where Gatsos
are least common.

>If you had a reference, I'd be pleased to tell you exactly why it's rubbish.

Sadly I would require credible reasons, so perhaps another time.

>I can drive a fleet of buses through the likes of TRL421. It's arrant nonsense.

So you say. Strangely, however, people who are actually paid money to study road safety (such as the
poeple at Reading university) seem to find it quite acceptable.

>Sadly in the case of some recent so called research in the UK it is produced to a contract which
>says "prepare a report to support xyz". That's not science.

The science is out there, and the message of the science is that speed kills. You can dress it up
any way you like, the results al come out the same: on a given stretch of road, driving within the
speed limit, you are less likely to kill or be killed than if you drive significantly above the
speed limit - far enough above, for example, to trigger a camera.

But I said I wasn't going to get into a discussion about your personal camera monomania, so I shall
leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word, and of course the chief constable remains under
no obligation to give you any justification whatsoever.

Do let us know how your lawsuit goes. It should be amusing.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:14:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Speed cameras do require substantial police resources, but are not delivering road safety
>>>benefits - rather the opposite, as you would know if you actually studied the subject.
>
>>So anybody who has studied the subject *must* reach the same conclusion? That's extrordinarily
>>arrogant. Many people have studied the subject in very great detail, and most have clearly not
>>reached the same conclusion as you.
>
> Thing is Guy, these's no independent research. All the research you can read is either a)
> hopelessly flawed, b) designed to support a pre-defined conclusion or c) both. What little
> independent work there is all agrees with me. (And don't go putting claims I haven't made in
> my mouth.)

Hmmm, then it all disagrees with your tosspotted views, then, except the little bit of work that
does? That ought to tell you something, primarilly that you're a tosspot.

Tosspot,

Trev
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:16:49 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>My god guy, is there no end to your whit (sic)?
>>>I don't know.
>>Not really surprising. Never mind.
>
> No, not in the least surprising - discussions with the likes of you are unlikely to tax the limits
> of anyone's wit, after all.

Oh, I dunno, it's made me write the word "tosspot" several times more than I have cumulatively in my
entire life. But, then, that's because he's a complete and utter ... tosspot!

Trev
 
D

David Gillbe

Guest
> > > > I'm a Londoner. I moved to Scotland.
>
> A plus for Londoners, but a big Minus for Scots.
>
> Tosspot.
>
> Trev

you never know, he might move further north. The polar bears don't like speed cameras either Paul,
why not go up with your friends (see: Paul Smith 11am 07/06/03 "I have friends in all sorts of
places." the Artic perhaps?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.