Jump to content

Lost Login

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lost Login

  1. This is rather similar to the public's perception of the Ken Dodd tax case when he was found not quilty. The opinion and understanding of many of public was that as he was found not guilty of the criminal charges then he walked away having not to pay the tax. In fact he paid the tax and a huge amount of penalties and interest on top. The court case was purely about whether the underpayment of tax was a deliberate intent to defraud or due to "error". Not wether he had underpaid the tax Reading many of the comments above it appears that a similar missunderstanding is arising in this case in
  2. not picking any argument with you on this either, but a report on the causes of severe accidents that concentrates on the minority isn't particularly balanced. One that would be far more difficult to write that looked at the majority of serious accidents would be better balanced - if the problem is drivers not paying attention then re-test every 5 years or so to encourage better discipline and/or take the least able off the road. Do they have statistics on how many accidents are caused by drivers with poor eyesight and/or mobility in their limbs? Probably not as eyecatching as speeding whic
  3. No that is not a more balanced argument it is an argument. The report was on what causes accidents not what does not cause accidents therefore reports etc are going to quote the statistics from that angle. Just as the news reports if an event occurs not if an event does not occur. From memory much of the reports at the time after reporting the numbers did state that this figure was less than thought. They then usually had a debate with the anti limit arguing that the numbers being falt over a long period showed limits, speed cameras did not work. The pro lobby arguing they did as if they d
  4. I wonder if anybody in the Channel Islands is feeling mischevious as if they had a bit of spare cash maybe they might like to sponsor and take the naming rights. May be we will find it known as the Jersey TT.
  5. That to me appers to be what the party is at present. PK says I have formed a party and then individuals who support him are standing under that name because they support him. As you say it appears to be back to personality politics and it is almost a way of saying to electors who are not in Onchan that if you would have voted for PK in Onchan this is a way of ineffect giving him your support even though he is not standing in your constituency. Basically the PK Party in all but name. I would have hoped that if the party route is one which the Island wishes to go and it was affiliating itse
  6. Obviosly a new party can not have policies tested over time, equally if people want parties and PK or whoever want to start one fine. But surely there has to be more than "I am starting a party and it is called X" if they want to gather votes. I appreciate the time scale but I would have thought if anybody is standing under a party banner they are expecting to gather votes because voters belive in its policies etc etc. As I say at present it appears little more than a name so as an elector I am back to judging the individuals as purely as individuals. However they are representing a party and
  7. What I find interesting about the Liberal Vannin party is that it is very hard to discover much specifically about them apart from PK started in and several members are standing under its banner. If it is a formal party I would expect it to have a constitution detailing how it is to be run and set up which would include items such as electing the leadership, membership rights etc. I would also expect it to have a set of of policies and aims which had been agreed by the membership and leadership under the constitution. A google search finds nothing and there are no links on the candidat
  8. Constituancy: Middle Candidates visited: 0 Manifesto Received: 0 Cards through door: 0
  9. A more balanced statistic might be that "Exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for conditions were reported as a contributory factor in 15 per cent of all accidents. However, the factor became more significant with the severity of the accident; it was reported as contributory factor in 26 per cent of fatal accidents and these accidents accounted for 28 per cent of all fatalities" which is a direct quote from the summary of the report. I think in fatal accidents exceeding the speed limit was stated as a factor in 17%. This would suggest that speed is an issue in respect of seriou
  10. I find it difficult to believe that these days educated individuals can argue that the risk of passive smoking is unprove. There is plenty of evidence, research and trials out there and of it is fairly easily to obtain summaries of although I would recommend that the ASH and Forrest sites are ignored as they are peddling their own agenda either for and against and are not exactlty neutral on the issue. There are also studies by both sides which are bisaed and poorly set up and researched. To update Lonan there is much more recent research and he could look at a study by the University Col
  11. That is generalising e.g. murderers are people, therefore all people are murderers. I do not believe it is but for effing sake if it is I was only responding to your generalisation in the first place.
  12. I would not say there is indifference towards the "30% of the population" I would say that people many are very strong in their views and just as the 30% might argue many of 70% may pay little consideration to the 30% the 70% may argue the 30% have in the past paid little consideration to the 70%
  13. That is the laziness of society as a whole and also the disregard of many people for the enviroment. It is not soley smokers but it does offend me when I see a smoker wind down his car window so he can throw out a butt just as I get annoyed when I see cans or paper wrappers getting thown out. There is a good book by Carl Hiason (probably missspelling) called Sick Puppy where the central character gets really wound up by this behaviour and takes his revenge. Sometimes I feel likewise especially when you see a door of a parked car open and the rubbish be dropped on the floor when there is a bin
  14. What? !!! Ok I miss spelt Complex as coplex just as I have miss spelt liberties. It does not take away from the fact that an internet foum where the average post is a few paragraphs does not lend itself to complex discussions on the finer points of an argument.
  15. Yes my analogy are simple and extreme. It is a public internet forum which does not lend itself for long comlicated and coplex issues. In my view the civil libities issue is a complete red herring. I have not argued for or against smoking and there are plenty of valid issue that both sides can be put. I am not sure what your argument is. That it is an infringement not to be able to do something in public that you can not do at home or that they are potentially making something illegal to do in public but will still be able to do at home? There are many things that I can do at home that I a
  16. I appreciate they are all illegal. Making them illegal is a prohibition to doing them. Therefore it could be argued that your civil libities are being restricted. If they were not illegal then you would not be restricted from doing them. If your argument is if something is illegal it stops it being a restriction of civil libities then presumabbly when by law smoking is banned in a public place are you saying as it would then be illegal the civil libities argument goes out of the window. In addition not all have always been illegal. e.g drink driving laws, possesion of drugs. I have n
  17. I have selectively quoted but when I see the civil libities/human rights argument being quoted on an issue I really thing that straws are really being clutched at. You could argue that restricting my right to do anything is an attack on civil libities. I am not allowed to drink and drive, take drugs, deal drugs. How dare the government restrict my civil libities in such a way. I could get really offensive was the law under which Gary Glitter got caught and found guilty an infringement on his civil libities? Strictly you could argue it was but I am glad that such laws and restrictions are in p
  18. Spot on, i don't drive myself but the i've been in quite a few R plate cars where someone is riding the bumper like a mental. Some people seem to get a perverse enjoyment out of doing it, and it's a horrible situation to be in. This thread is also presuming that everybody driving with an R plate is inexperienced. I may be wrong but I thought that as with L plates if they are on the car even if an experienced driver is at the wheel the 50 mph limit applies. The R plate does not therefore mean an inexperienced driver is at the wheel but just as the plate should caution the driver to restr
  19. Lost Login

    Speed Kills

    Many of your points may be valid but from reading the Times piece 26% of all fatal accidents Speed was a contributory factor. To me that seems to suggest that speed is a big issue still. I do not know what the percentage is in respect of drink driving but if it is low should it be suggested that we no longer need drink driving laws, or like some suggest in respect of speed that we govern ourselves in respect of our own ability. Do we also abandon cos it is hard to enforce an argument thati s again put forward in respect of speed limits, though I would suggest most, if they do not obey, pay
  20. Lost Login

    Speed Kills

    Virtually everybody who drives believe they know how to drive. There have been numerous surveys done anyway but try it yourself and ask those you know if they belive they are an average driver or better than or worse than average. Suprise surprise only a small minority believe they are worse than average. You can apply the same argument to those who argue that they speed when it is safe for them to do so and they do so within there capabilities. How many if asked would say they did it otherwise, even those whose accident was a result of speeding. At that rate they would retest nearly
  21. I haven't ignored it - as I said I remain undecided - that is a different position to saying 'I suspect it was a conspiracy' or 'I know it wasn't a conspiracy'. ...and I do appreciate the effort you have gone to on this. Your posts do and contually ignore it as they are argue that the collapse of WC7 could not have been caused by fire. The belief of the official reports were a result of the fire and damage to the ingreity of the structure bue to being hit from falling debris resulyted in the collapse. You continually argue that fire could not have caused the collapse not the fire an
  22. Utter rubbish. The probability of any one metal building being on fire on one day is tiny. QED the probability of any one building being on fire and then falling down is also tiny. If it was not then nobody would work or build such a building and not because it might collapse after it was on fire but simply because it was likely to catch fire. You seem to saying that people would be fine if it was expected that the building would catch fire, not if after it caught fire it was expected to collapse. On the other hand the probability of a very tall building which has been hit by a large aircr
  23. I maybe doing Albert a disservice but I can not be bothered reviewing his posts however has he ever said what type of engineer he is. Structural, mechanical. etc? He has has said he is an Engineer and you are presuming that this means he is an engineer as you or I might understand it. However an Engineeer in the US is a train driver, you can also be a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and it is even used by firms to desribe the youths who come and look at your printer or photocopier when it goes on the blink. I used this ruses as a kid when little old ladies threatened to call the p
  24. There is little point in trying to argue with those who believe that it was a conspiracy as they dig out the odd sentance here and there that they have heard and then use that to "spin" a tale or jump to a conclusion. It is simple and quick to do so and requires no proof. Just an ability to add 2 and 2 to make 5. The basis seems they believe that it is for others to disproove rather than them to prrove. I see a fair bit of evidence on here here disproving "facts" stated by the conspiracy believers but very few the other way around. For very few i mean none. There is an interesting article
  25. That actually is an underestimate as the site quotes 60,000 watching per day. The 35,000 is visitors over the two weeks. For it to be 25,000 locals watching then you are presuming the 35,000 are here or the whole two weeks are watching each day. Obvioulsy that is not correct as there are comings and goings throughout the period and the majority I would expect are only here for a part of the time. The maximum number of visitors on the Island at a time I could only guess at but if it was 25,000 which would then leave 35,000 localks watching which allowing for the infirm and those on holiday
  • Create New...