Remember the imminent public humiliation of Paul Smith?

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by spindrift, Apr 13, 2006.

  1. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    It's coming!

    Sent: 04 April 2006 13:25
    To: ACPO Chief Constable
    Subject: Tuesday 4th April

    Dear Sir.

    I apologise for contacting you directly, I thought you should be made
    aware
    of something.



    I support your dismissive remarks about the dangerous charlatan Paul
    Smith
    and his dishonest campaign against safety measures on our roads.

    I am writing to you because Smith now has a poster on his website,
    Safespeed, who claims to be a police officer and is giving
    advice and issuing warnings to visitors to the website.

    The poster's name is "In Gear" and I am extremely suspicious of this
    character. He claims , among other things, that he would fine a cyclist
    wearing flip flops:

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6455


    I appreciate that this may seem to be a trivial matter but is an
    offence
    being comitted here if this poster is not a serving police officer but
    claims to be one?

    It would certainly be a blow to Smith's credibility were one of his
    chief
    acolytes to be revealed to be an imposter.




    Best regards


    spindrift.


    Dear spindrift.


    Thank you for this. I was not previously aware of this, and will now
    investigate.

    Regards

    ACPO Chief Constable.

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


    Now summat funny's happened.

    "In Gear", the Safespeed poster who claimed, unconvincingly, to be a
    police officer, was all over safespeed like a rash, posting all the
    time, numerous posts every day.

    Since April the seventh he's posted nothing.

    Zilch.

    De nada.

    Disappeared off the face of the earth.


    Coinicidence, I'm sure....



    Heh heh.


    Ha ha ha.


    Gmmmpf, HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!
     
    Tags:


  2. Gareth A.

    Gareth A. Guest

    On 13 Apr 2006 06:09:42 -0700, "spindrift" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    [snip]

    >Dear spindrift.
    >
    >
    >Thank you for this. I was not previously aware of this, and will now
    >investigate.
    >
    >Regards
    >
    >ACPO Chief Constable.
    >
    >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


    The has been quoted as if it is a redacted genuine message, however it
    doesn't look genuine to me.

    Does the ACPO have a Chief Constable? Looking at the structure, they
    don't appear to have anybody in that position. They have "heads" of
    various sections who are Chief Constables of police forces, but they
    would reply as their position in the force and "Head of XXXX" if
    necessary, not as "ACPO Chief Constable" which doesn't even exist.

    Gareth
     
  3. Paul Boyd

    Paul Boyd Guest

    Gareth A. said the following on 13/04/2006 14:56:

    > The has been quoted as if it is a redacted genuine message, however it
    > doesn't look genuine to me.
    >
    > Does the ACPO have a Chief Constable? Looking at the structure, they
    > don't appear to have anybody in that position. They have "heads" of
    > various sections who are Chief Constables of police forces, but they
    > would reply as their position in the force and "Head of XXXX" if
    > necessary, not as "ACPO Chief Constable" which doesn't even exist.


    Hmmm... glad it wasn't just me who had doubts about the authenticity!
    Apart from anything else, I would have thought the reply would have been
    better structured than that. It's also hard enough to get the police to
    respond to something serious, never mind an email from an anonymous
    person ("Dear spindrift"). Besides, I don't think any kind of Chief
    Constable would sign off a letter with all those kisses underneath!

    Perhaps spindrift would like to post the headers of the email from the
    "ACPO Chief Constable" so we can all judge its authenticity.

    --
    Paul Boyd
    http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
     
  4. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    Happy to oblige chaps:

    "ACPO Chief Constable" <[email protected]>

    The person who claimed to be a police officer is well known in cycling
    fora.

    His posting style is identical to a poster who invaded Cycling Plus and
    pretended to be solicitors, vets, lawyers and coppers among others. He
    ended up getting banned countless times.

    Still, better to be cautious so don't take my word for it, simply ask
    yourself if a real serving police officer in the United Kingdom would
    post guff like the ranting twaddle on safespeed.
     
  5. Gareth A.

    Gareth A. Guest

    On 13 Apr 2006 07:15:37 -0700, "spindrift" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Happy to oblige chaps:
    >
    >"ACPO Chief Constable" <[email protected]>


    What? Brunstom is CC of North Wales Police, not the ACPO, which
    doesn't have a Chief Constable. He was Head of the ACPO Road Policing
    until some time last year, when Meredydd Hughes CC of North Yorkshire
    replaced him.

    Quite how he replied in that capacity I have no idea! Perhaps
    somebody should email him to ask?

    Gareth
     
  6. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    "ACPO Chief Constable" is what appears in my inbox as the email's
    provenance.

    I guess it means the email is from a Chief Constable in ACPO.

    The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is the lead
    organisation for developing police policy in the United Kingdom (except
    Scotland), and acts as a representative body for senior police
    officers.

    The UK does not have a national police service but instead has separate
    police services in the forty four force areas of England, Wales and
    Northern Ireland, and the police officers in these areas who hold the
    rank of Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Assistant Chief
    Constable (and Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant
    Commissioner, Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Commander in the
    Metropolitan Police and City of London Police) are members of ACPO.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACPO


    "Perhaps somebody should email him to ask? "


    Good idea.



    Smith's reckless stupidity and dangerous lies have been exposed many,
    many times, but I don't see how he could possibly retain his remaining
    credibility when one of his most vocal and active supporters is
    unmasked as a fantasist guilty of a criminal offence, impersonating a
    police officer:

    Section :90
    Sub-Section :1
    Act :police Act 1996
    Subject :Impersonating a Police Officer

    Any person who with intent to decieve impersonates a member of the
    police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any
    act calculated falsley to suggest that he is such a member or
    constable, shall be guilty of an offence.


    http://www.police-law.co.uk/law/policelaw.nsf/1649e8496940e5e380256ba8006061d3/dfd111c49a577b1a80256db3005f7046!OpenDocument
     
  7. mb

    mb Guest

    spindrift wrote:

    > It's coming!
    >


    Why do you persist in posting this garbage here?

    --
    Mike
     
  8. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Gareth A.
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > On 13 Apr 2006 07:15:37 -0700, "spindrift" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Happy to oblige chaps:
    >>
    >>"ACPO Chief Constable" <[email protected]>

    >
    > What? Brunstom is CC of North Wales Police, not the ACPO, which
    > doesn't have a Chief Constable. He was Head of the ACPO Road Policing
    > until some time last year, when Meredydd Hughes CC of North Yorkshire
    > replaced him.


    Perhaps some naughty and unscrupulous person was, ah, impersonating a
    police officer? In which case that /might/ be an offence - in the way
    that impersonating other people on Usenet, sadly, is not.

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
    who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin
     
  9. smeggy

    smeggy Guest

    Spindrift,

    I don't think anyone is unduly worried if that really is the best
    you've got.
    A quick Google shows you have been barking at Safespeed's heels for
    at least 2.5 years now but you've made no impact at all (unlike Paul
    himself).

    As always, you feel the need to attack the person, not the policy.

    'Imminent' indeed!
     
  10. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    spindrift wrote:
    >
    > Coinicidence, I'm sure....
    >


    Or maybe Easter hols. Not exactly public humiliation though.


    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham
     
  11. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

  12. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    James Annan wrote:

    > Much as I despise PS, I have to say that this is truly lame.


    Indeed. And the degree to which it appears truly lame doesn't do those
    who despise PS any favours at all.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  13. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    I think that the removal of one of Smith's main planks of support -
    that police officers endorse his claims- will go a little way to
    destroying what credibility he had left.


    Any vulnerable road user is threatened by smith's bogus logic and
    dishonest "research". He has a direct impact on the degree of
    lawlessness on the roads- witness his boast that he can drive safely
    near his house at 150 mph:

    http://www.transport2000.com/celebrity/maintainEditorDiary.asp?EditorDiaryID=9

    Cyclists have enough to concern them without obscure one-man lobby
    groups issuing press releases claiming that cyclists are more dangerous
    to pedestrians than white van drivers and making absurd claims that a
    third of road deaths are caused by speed cameras. Two cyclists killed
    near my office in London by errant drivers whose complacent
    recklessness is encouraged by people who claim that drivers ALWAYS know
    the appropriate speed at which to drive.


    As has been pointed out to Smith on his own site:

    I'd forgotten, until that webarchive thing came up, just how
    unprincipled SafeSpeed used to be until it acquired its pragmatic
    veneer of respectability. But really - inspiring people, under the
    unconvincing banner of "don't try this at home, dears" beloved of
    software and DVD pirate sites the world over, to have their traffic
    points sent to the parents of dead people - and then display the
    bare-faced memory loss and lack of remorse shown in this thread - is a
    bit too rich for my blood.

    Separating my head from my heart in bringing Paul Smith to account for
    it is beyond my ability right now. All I'll do by trying under these
    circumstances is weaken the case for the prosecution and strengthen
    Paul's grounds for self-delusion.

    I will say, though, in parting that when we are queasy about a
    self-proclaimed reformed serial shoplifter's argument's about his
    suitability for looking after our shop, we are not acting from ad
    hominem logic but out of an estimation of the suitability of his
    character for that particular task. It is impossible to pursue that
    line of reasoning in this place. It could be that the most appropriate
    response to this lies outside this site, but that is a question of
    time, which is finite.


    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5354&start=140
     
  14. smeggy

    smeggy Guest

    My God, you are quite simply the most self-deluded poster I have ever
    happened upon. You are claiming traits of PS of which you yourself are
    clearly showing - oh the irony.


    No-one, not even you, can deny the immense significance of the effect
    of regression to mean on perceived speed camera effectiveness (as well
    as 'bias on selection'). PS's most fundamental work has at last
    been recently acknowledged in the DfT yearly report (it took them 4
    years to admit it but there you go). 'Bogus logic' indeed!

    What about the radio, newspaper and television interviews he is now
    giving on a near daily basis? How can you possibly claim that PS is
    losing credibility?

    What if I were to join Brake/T2000/SCP as an advisor but under false
    pretences - would my 'coming out' be the end of them? Of course
    not! You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    Is it not beyond the wit of man to consider that IG could simply have
    been on holiday? In your case: evidently so.
     
  15. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    "PS's most fundamental work has at last
    > been recently acknowledged in the DfT yearly report (it took them 4
    > years to admit it but there you go). "


    Source please.
     
  16. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    It has recently been announced by the government that the criteria for
    siting cameras are to be relaxed to "take account of all injury
    accidents as well as the level of KSIs, look back five years rather
    than three; and allow camera enforcement on routes where there is a
    serious problem of speeding and casualties, without the problem
    necessarily being concentrated at one particular location." This may
    address the regression-to-the mean issue.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Safe_Speed#Regression_to_the_mean


    As with other road safety interventions which are chosen on the basis
    of high collision numbers, their impact may be affected by the
    regression to mean effect. However, casualty reduction has been
    documented with camera use after accounting for regression to mean.


    http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/content/view/92/46/
     
  17. smeggy

    smeggy Guest

    errr, the DfT 4th year report of the safety camera program!!!

    Oh, and don't try changing the subject, the point of your thread was
    PS's affiliation with IG
     
  18. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    " errr, the DfT 4th year report of the safety camera program!!!"


    Could you please source any legitimate road safety body who have ever
    acknowledged smith's work?

    By and large, Safe Speed's claims have been ignored by the scientific
    community, and there have been few, if any, formal studies evaluating
    them. However, Safe Speed's interpretation of research has in some
    cases been directly rebutted by the authors of that research, including
    TRL and Hans Jocksch.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safespeed
     
  19. smeggy

    smeggy Guest

    Spindrift,

    Do not try to manage my expectations, stay on topic - new topic, new
    thread.


    Do you still maintain that 'In Gear' has conveniently disappeared?
    If not, will you admit that you were absolutely and completely wrong
    with your judgement of his actions? Will you admit that you were
    reading and drawing conclusions from what was essentially nothing?
    (just like RTTM)

    It's coming - the imminent public humiliation of spindrift


    Heh heh.


    Ha ha ha.


    Gmmmpf, HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!!!
     
  20. spindrift

    spindrift Guest

    " Try reading up on Linda Mountain's study "


    Who demonstrated quite convincingly and provided a review of other
    concordant literature, that speed cameras have a clear, measurable
    effect in casualty reduction.
     
Loading...
Loading...