Everyone just carries on speeding and brake hard just before a speed camera and accelerate away again, that is what I do, that is what everyone I know does, speed cameras are a stealth tax

 

If anything they would CAUSE more accidents as people are watching out for where speed cameras are and watching the speedometer instead of their surroundings, speed cameras would take away people's concentration

 

I am a speeder, I break the speed limit everywhere except in schools areas and residential areas

 

There is a justification having speed cameras near schools but nowhere else

Regardless of whether or not this happens, they still prevent 9000 deaths a year (which also counters your point on them causing more accidents). How can you object?

What's that got to do with CCTV cameras in public places? Labour aren't, and never were, snooping on your e-mails, texts, phone calls and websites :blink:

 

They were,well not every single one but they flagged certain words and any communication that contained flagged words was intercepted by GCHQ

 

Google were also forced by the government to hand over their searched terms lists for examination

Regardless of whether or not this happens, they still prevent 9000 deaths a year (which also counters your point on them causing more accidents). How can you object?

 

They don't though, have you got a link to a credible site that proves this ?

 

I would be surprised if the real figure is anything like that after all the variables are taken into account

Correction, I've got my figure wrong. It's actually 900 deaths that they prevent (a reduction of 40%), cited by several articles in the Independent over the last year, but my point still stands.

Time will tell but I don't think "soak the rich" would be a vote winning policy at all, it would merely shore up Labour's existing vote tbh and Labour is only really popular in Scotland, Wales, city areas, the NE etc, Labour wouldn't win any seats in rural areas which is very much conservative heartland. A pledge to soak the rich would just be preaching to the already converted. Wouldn't get new votes.

 

Rubbish. I acknowledged a "soak the rich" campaign wouldn't be a success in the wealthy rural areas of southern England and parts of Yorkshire and Cheshire - people living in those types of places would vote Tory to the grave anyway, even Blair in 1997 didn't make much inroads into them. You certainly don't need to do well in those places to do well. Elections are won and lost in the Midlands - which has a very high rate of public-sector employment, and so will be among the most adversely-affected by the Coalition's cuts.

A few points.

 

First, most CCTV cameras in public places are installed by local councils, not central government. When I was a Councillor I spoke against CCTV cameras in the town centre. A number of Tory Councillors came very close to questioning my right to do so. One of them said it was possibly the most disgraceful speech he'd ever heard.

 

I oppose CCTV in most places because they film people whether they are up to no good or not. I feel they are treating me as a potential criminal. I don't have a problem with speed cameras as they only capture an image if a driver is breaking the law. I have no time for drivers who seem to think they have a right to drive as fast as they like.

 

On a different issue, a question to Craig about his support for a flat-rate tax. Would you also support near flat-rate pay rises? In other words, if most staff in a company get pay rises of 3-5%, should the same apply to the boardroom? Or do you think they should benefit from lower taxes and still be able to award themselves huge pay rises every year while the "little people" get diddly-squat?

A few points.

 

First, most CCTV cameras in public places are installed by local councils, not central government. When I was a Councillor I spoke against CCTV cameras in the town centre. A number of Tory Councillors came very close to questioning my right to do so. One of them said it was possibly the most disgraceful speech he'd ever heard.

 

I oppose CCTV in most places because they film people whether they are up to no good or not. I feel they are treating me as a potential criminal. I don't have a problem with speed cameras as they only capture an image if a driver is breaking the law. I have no time for drivers who seem to think they have a right to drive as fast as they like.

 

On a different issue, a question to Craig about his support for a flat-rate tax. Would you also support near flat-rate pay rises? In other words, if most staff in a company get pay rises of 3-5%, should the same apply to the boardroom? Or do you think they should benefit from lower taxes and still be able to award themselves huge pay rises every year while the "little people" get diddly-squat?

 

Yes

 

I have always believed that everyone should get the same pay rise in a company, I also support the idea of profit sharing and that it should be shared equally among employees

 

 

A few points.

 

First, most CCTV cameras in public places are installed by local councils, not central government. When I was a Councillor I spoke against CCTV cameras in the town centre. A number of Tory Councillors came very close to questioning my right to do so. One of them said it was possibly the most disgraceful speech he'd ever heard.

 

I oppose CCTV in most places because they film people whether they are up to no good or not. I feel they are treating me as a potential criminal. I don't have a problem with speed cameras as they only capture an image if a driver is breaking the law. I have no time for drivers who seem to think they have a right to drive as fast as they like.

 

On a different issue, a question to Craig about his support for a flat-rate tax. Would you also support near flat-rate pay rises? In other words, if most staff in a company get pay rises of 3-5%, should the same apply to the boardroom? Or do you think they should benefit from lower taxes and still be able to award themselves huge pay rises every year while the "little people" get diddly-squat?

 

I am a capitalist but I am at the same time strongly opposed to consumers getting ripped off hence why I am in favour of things such as windfall taxes on oil companies, energy companies and banks, likewise I am strongly in favour of the renationalisation of the rail companies, gas and electricity companies and strongly against any privatisation of the royal mail/post office

 

Any company that fleeces the public by putting up fares excessively, not passing on cuts in wholesale prices of energy to its customers for example should be stripped of its licence and renationalised

I am against inheritance tax it is immoral to pickpocket the dead which is what inheritance tax is effectively doing, the dead by and large paid taxes while they were alive and paid VAT on their possessions when they bought them so they are being taxed twice, inheritance tax is evil as far as I am concerned

I'm with you. IMO Inheritance Tax is a dirty disgusting immoral tax

 

Speed cameras reduce road deaths by 9000 a year. Get over the fact that you can't drive as fast as you can everywhere and get used to the fact that they save lives.

They are being placed in the wrong places. Not a single Accident blackspot in Fife has a camera, in fact Fife has no fixed cameras. Instead the put their mobile cameras well away from the accident blackspots. Two of their regular spots are on the A92 dual carriageway, one by Kirkcaldy one by Dundee [where i got caught at 8:30am on a f***ing Sunday]

 

Please do explain the lives that are saves on a straight road, a dual carriageway at that, by putting a camera there. NEVER in my life has there been an accident on the A92 near Dundee where i was caught. They also sit at the edge of Cupar [where the limit changes from 30 to 40 and the edge of Guardbridge [40 to 60] There have NEVER been accidents there.

 

Camera's only save lives in Accident blackspots and even then that claim is dodgy as advances in car safety has seen more people survive than ever.

 

 

Every speed camera not at an accident black spot should be removed. They aren't saving lives, they are purely filling the council's coffers.

 

Everyone just carries on speeding and brake hard just before a speed camera and accelerate away again, that is what I do, that is what everyone I know does, speed cameras are a stealth tax

 

If anything they would CAUSE more accidents as people are watching out for where speed cameras are and watching the speedometer instead of their surroundings, speed cameras would take away people's concentration

 

I am a speeder, I break the speed limit everywhere except in schools areas and residential areas

 

There is a justification having speed cameras near schools but nowhere else

I admit i have a heavy right foot, and i do speed. All you do i crawl past them if you know where they are [and not hidden behind a bend and a car your trying to overtake -_-]

 

My estate along with big chunks of Cupar were turned into 20zones last year. I'll be damned if i do 20 round my estate

 

Correction, I've got my figure wrong. It's actually 900 deaths that they prevent (a reduction of 40%), cited by several articles in the Independent over the last year, but my point still stands.

I was gonna say 9000 is a bit high

Correction, I've got my figure wrong. It's actually 900 deaths that they prevent (a reduction of 40%), cited by several articles in the Independent over the last year, but my point still stands.

Road deaths have fallen by about 1000 over the last 13 years. The figure was around 3500 per year in 1997, now it's about 2500. So it's unlikely that speed cameras account for as many as 900 per year. I'm still all in favour of them though.

 

The current figure of 2500 per year is actually the lowest since well before WWII when there were obviously far fewer cars on the road :o A lot of the credit can go to both Labour and Tory governments over many years.

Road deaths have fallen by about 1000 over the last 13 years. The figure was around 3500 per year in 1997, now it's about 2500. So it's unlikely that speed cameras account for as many as 900 per year. I'm still all in favour of them though.

 

The current figure of 2500 per year is actually the lowest since well before WWII when there were obviously far fewer cars on the road :o A lot of the credit can go to both Labour and Tory governments over many years.

And the Car Manufacturers who are making cars safer than ever before.

They're hardly a huge money-maker though - they bring in £110 million in revenue, but only £12 million nationwide in profit.

That doesn't address the blackspot point tho Tyron, which is what they were introduced to combat.

I don't understand how anyone can say speed cameras are a bad thing? Surely we all agree that even if they'd only ever saved one person's life then it would've been worthwhile.

Maybe so lol but Cameron's speech on the afternoon after the general election was one of the best delivered political speeches I have ever heard before, had a touch of Martin Luther King / Barack Obama / Michael Heseltine at conservative party conferences about it and those are the 3 best orators for me that I have seen since Churchill

 

What a fukkin insult to Obama and MLK that is, comparing them to Windbag Cameron..... And, actually, it's a bloody insult to Michael Heseltine too in a lot of ways come to think of it......

 

I agree with Rob's first post too, the Milibands are just more boys in suits... The exact thing that Labour DOESN'T need if it wants to be seen as a credible opposition to the Condoms... Oh, sorry, Con-DEMS....... :rolleyes:

 

I am a capitalist but I am at the same time strongly opposed to consumers getting ripped off hence why I am in favour of things such as windfall taxes on oil companies, energy companies and banks, likewise I am strongly in favour of the renationalisation of the rail companies, gas and electricity companies and strongly against any privatisation of the royal mail/post office

 

Any company that fleeces the public by putting up fares excessively, not passing on cuts in wholesale prices of energy to its customers for example should be stripped of its licence and renationalised

 

Craig, now, you're just turning into a Socialist.... :lol: :lol:

 

I plumped for Diane Abbot purely because she's the only one who's not a generic "man in a suit"..... Milibands? Balls...? well, BALLS to that I say.... But realistically, it'll probably end up being one of the twatty Millibands..... <_<

I plumped for Diane Abbot purely because she's the only one who's not a generic "man in a suit"..... Milibands? Balls...? well, BALLS to that I say.... But realistically, it'll probably end up being one of the twatty Millibands..... <_<

 

So did I. As she is the only candidate that Alistair Campbell badmouthed on Question Time.

 

Still wasn't that classy how New Labour's answer to J Edgar Hoover spitefully outed LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury minister David Laws on the same show before the full Daily Telegraph expenses story yesterday.

 

What a complete and utter (insert your own choice combination of expletives).

Still wasn't that classy how New Labour's answer to J Edgar Hoover spitefully outed LibDem Chief Secretary to the Treasury minister David Laws on the same show before the full Daily Telegraph expenses story yesterday.

 

What a complete and utter (insert your own choice combination of expletives).

It's not just me who thinks that was deliberate then. I'm sure he must have known the story was about to break which is why he just happened to have the photo with him. He first wanted to plant the suspicion that Laws was due to appear - for the reason I gave earlier, I don't think he was. But he knew that when the story did break that would add to the suspicion that he was the one who refused to appear.

 

Campbell has done a lot of good for the Labour party. Their message is generally a lot more coherent when he is around. That's one of the reasons why his opponents loathe him so much. Behaviour like that at the end of QT is another reason.

It's not just me who thinks that was deliberate then. I'm sure he must have known the story was about to break which is why he just happened to have the photo with him. He first wanted to plant the suspicion that Laws was due to appear - for the reason I gave earlier, I don't think he was. But he knew that when the story did break that would add to the suspicion that he was the one who refused to appear.

 

Campbell has done a lot of good for the Labour party. Their message is generally a lot more coherent when he is around. That's one of the reasons why his opponents loathe him so much. Behaviour like that at the end of QT is another reason.

 

I dont agree with that at all, I think the man's a rancid, lying c/unt to be perfectly frank... He's one of the chief reasons why Labour LOST members in their droves when he spun the Iraq war.... Although I will grudgingly give the devil his due in his defence of the BBC's right to editorial decision making.... Tory Central command acted incredibly childishly in pulling out a Cabinet minister from QT just because he was going to be on...