M
Matt B
Guest
John B wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> John B wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> Letter to the editor:
>>>> You believe that a couple of dozen cameras is a better way to make our
>>>> roads safer than increased and comprehensive policing by real people?
>>>> Amazing.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that all you will achieve with this post/letter is more
>>>> publicity for Safe Speed, because much of what you say about Paul Smith
>>>> is, at best, inaccurate, and some possibly verging on the libellous.
>>> What is inaccurate?
>> Much of what was said.
>
> Would you like to repost here the bits you consider inaccurate?
***** my emphasis.
'The Eastern Evening News repeatedly quotes Safespeed an *obscure* lobby
group run by a man called Paul Smith.'
'*Neither* of these claims [that he is a "road safety campaigner" and
that Safe Speed is a "road safety group"] are true.'
'Smith is a retired van driver with *no road safety training*.'
'His one-man pressure group *defends the motorist's right to speed when
they feel like it* and claims that speeding is not dangerous.'
'*Official, accredited and peer-reviewed* road safety organisations like
Brake, T2000, RoadPeace, TRL, DfT, all disagree with this *ridiculous
view*.'
'Smith's website is a nonsensical mix of *dishonest* claims and easily
disprovable research.'
'Smith is a *proven liar* and a man who *encourages the perversion of
justice* by claiming that arranging for one's speeding tickets to be
sent to the home of the families of recently deceased people'
'Smith had a page on his website which *recommended this perversion of
justice* and I am amazed that the Evening News lends credibility to this
reckless fraud.'
'Does the Evening News really expect its readers to believe that a man
who *encourages people to intrude in the most horrible way on a grieving
family* by arranging for their speeding tickets to be sent to their home
can fairly be described as a "road safety campaigner"?'
>>> What do you think is libellous?
>> Some of it, possibly.
>
> Which "some"?
'Neither of these claims [that he is a "" and that Safe Speed is a "road
safety group"] *are true*.'
'Smith is a retired van driver with *no road safety training*.'
'His one-man pressure group *defends the motorist's right to speed when
they feel like it* and claims that speeding is not dangerous.'
'Smith's website is a nonsensical mix of *dishonest* claims and easily
disprovable research.'
'Smith is a *proven liar* and a man who *encourages the perversion of
justice* by claiming that arranging for one's speeding tickets to be
sent to the home of the families of recently deceased people'
'Smith had a page on his website which *recommended this perversion of
justice* and I am amazed that the Evening News lends credibility to this
reckless fraud.'
'Does the Evening News really expect its readers to believe that a man
who *encourages people to intrude in the most horrible way on a grieving
family* by arranging for their speeding tickets to be sent to their home
can fairly be described as a "road safety campaigner"?'
>>> And why?
>> Perhaps because the OP has a grudge, or an axe to grind with Safe Speed
>> or with the Norwich press?
>
> I'm asking you why *you* think it is libellous.
> So why?
Was I clear enough for you.
> Or are you confirming your troll status again?
Are you suggesting I have confirmed it before?
--
Matt B
> Matt B wrote:
>> John B wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> Letter to the editor:
>>>> You believe that a couple of dozen cameras is a better way to make our
>>>> roads safer than increased and comprehensive policing by real people?
>>>> Amazing.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that all you will achieve with this post/letter is more
>>>> publicity for Safe Speed, because much of what you say about Paul Smith
>>>> is, at best, inaccurate, and some possibly verging on the libellous.
>>> What is inaccurate?
>> Much of what was said.
>
> Would you like to repost here the bits you consider inaccurate?
***** my emphasis.
'The Eastern Evening News repeatedly quotes Safespeed an *obscure* lobby
group run by a man called Paul Smith.'
'*Neither* of these claims [that he is a "road safety campaigner" and
that Safe Speed is a "road safety group"] are true.'
'Smith is a retired van driver with *no road safety training*.'
'His one-man pressure group *defends the motorist's right to speed when
they feel like it* and claims that speeding is not dangerous.'
'*Official, accredited and peer-reviewed* road safety organisations like
Brake, T2000, RoadPeace, TRL, DfT, all disagree with this *ridiculous
view*.'
'Smith's website is a nonsensical mix of *dishonest* claims and easily
disprovable research.'
'Smith is a *proven liar* and a man who *encourages the perversion of
justice* by claiming that arranging for one's speeding tickets to be
sent to the home of the families of recently deceased people'
'Smith had a page on his website which *recommended this perversion of
justice* and I am amazed that the Evening News lends credibility to this
reckless fraud.'
'Does the Evening News really expect its readers to believe that a man
who *encourages people to intrude in the most horrible way on a grieving
family* by arranging for their speeding tickets to be sent to their home
can fairly be described as a "road safety campaigner"?'
>>> What do you think is libellous?
>> Some of it, possibly.
>
> Which "some"?
'Neither of these claims [that he is a "" and that Safe Speed is a "road
safety group"] *are true*.'
'Smith is a retired van driver with *no road safety training*.'
'His one-man pressure group *defends the motorist's right to speed when
they feel like it* and claims that speeding is not dangerous.'
'Smith's website is a nonsensical mix of *dishonest* claims and easily
disprovable research.'
'Smith is a *proven liar* and a man who *encourages the perversion of
justice* by claiming that arranging for one's speeding tickets to be
sent to the home of the families of recently deceased people'
'Smith had a page on his website which *recommended this perversion of
justice* and I am amazed that the Evening News lends credibility to this
reckless fraud.'
'Does the Evening News really expect its readers to believe that a man
who *encourages people to intrude in the most horrible way on a grieving
family* by arranging for their speeding tickets to be sent to their home
can fairly be described as a "road safety campaigner"?'
>>> And why?
>> Perhaps because the OP has a grudge, or an axe to grind with Safe Speed
>> or with the Norwich press?
>
> I'm asking you why *you* think it is libellous.
> So why?
Was I clear enough for you.
> Or are you confirming your troll status again?
Are you suggesting I have confirmed it before?
--
Matt B