Changing The Referendum Register Deadline Fiasco

The Nation is voting for its future in a one off referendum and was promised a deadline for registration. David Cameron has reneged on that promise.

The system failed under his watch so the simple answer would've been for him to apologise and together with the civil servants involved, resign. In no way should the deadline have been changed. 

Clearly it can be of no advantage to the UK to worry about people who were so disinterested that they had not bothered to register till now, and so dilatory in their outlook, that they do not deserve a vote at all.

Now that the extension has been allowed, these registrations should not be counted until after a full debate in the House of Commons. This was not a matter for the man responsible for the failure and who should no longer be The Prime Minister.

It is well known that all Remain politicians believe that a lot will depend on young adolescents, with no experience of any other system and when we were free, or of running a home family and mortgage. Would one of these ever be able to be Prime Minister? 

What ever happened to major matters being left in the hands of wise elders? So here they are, using public funds, in all media, calling for people to register, with little regard for what is best for Britain but more for their own agendas. Having done this, even on deadline day, they managed to jam up their own system so that people couldn't register as we neared midnight. Many thousands were, in effect, disenfranchised for the final couple of hours.

So the Remain answer has been to extend the deadline by some forty eight hours. We have no way of knowing if they would've done that if the potential was against their agendas or how many now registering, were trying to anyway.

Of course The Leave groups are forced to consent to it. They know that they would be accused of opposition to democracy so must grin and pretend they welcome a mass of potential extra Remain votes. Believe that and you'll believe anything. 

Do the Remain politicians think the British are so daft not to know what this is really all about? If it looks like a duck, quacks like duck and waddles like a duck it's probably a duck.

Why would the Labour Party, The Scots Nationalist Party, The Lib Dems & Greens, who normally despise David Cameron just let him off the hook when they could cause his total demise? Because they are all tarred with the same EU brush as he is; that's why. And they fear that, if you vote to leave the EU, they will be forced to actually stop it happening which will please David Cameron no end and who could then blame them for not acceding to your wishes.

So clearly when it comes to democracy, commitment and promises, they are also tarring themselves with Cameron's Brush of reneging on a promise to the Nation on one of the most crucial issues in our long history. If anything, they are showing why none of them can be trusted on this issue or any other for that matter. 

If they think so little of the nation that they are prepared to renege on such a fundamental promise just to allow dilatory and slovenly people- who should've already been registered for normal elections had they ever been interested - then none of these politicians are worthy of your trust in this crucial issue.

Well it's not too late to turn this around by the 23rd June. Get Cameron and those who caused this, to stand down from office, and decree that no-one, not registered before the crash, will be allowed to vote. Who comes first, the country or some dilettantes with clearly no interest in it?

Let's pray that our leaders have noted the late registrations just in case

What would we expect of honest politicians?   

Sharing Roads?

Drivers must 'share the roads with other road users'. How often do we hear that mantra?

And just like all the other nonsensical, sometimes grossly untrue road spin, 'Speed kills' 'Living Streets' 'Traffic calming' it sounds so sweet, kind and benign doesn't it?

Don't be fooled. Most of these are ideologically anti driver based in origin and certainly used to curtail useful progressive driving. The fact is that because our whole society depends on all driving, any adverse comment against driving, or to its disadvantage, amounts to an attack on the community too.

It's very worrying when a Police Traffic Chief Inspector reveals an anti driver bent in this tweet.

You will see how I take him to task too:

@CIPhilVickers @KeepMeOnTheRoad Haven't you worked out that this benign #sharetheroad ideology is to the disadvantage of #drivers ? Jeez!

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) June 7, 2016

@CIPhilVickers @KeepMeOnTheRoad #sharetheroad ? What like sweeties, comics, a football? This isn't the playground but major infrastructure!

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) June 7, 2016

@CIPhilVickers @KeepMeOnTheRoad But we need drivers. That's the point. You're equating the 2 as equal. Cyclists are an unneeded hazard.

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) June 7, 2016

'Sharing' ? This isn't playground kiddies sharing sweeties, choccies, biscuits and footballs, it's about running major infrastructure. Do we 'share' railway tracks for goodness sake? To reduce UK's 35 million drivers on whom the whole community, including Mr Vickers and his unit depend, to no more than a minority lobby that society doesn't need, is, by definition, anti driver. 

That's the clever thing about this anti driver spin and soundbite; even when, like 'speed kills' it's opposite to the truth, it's not until we question it closely, like The Emperors New Clothes, it turns out to be utter nonsense. So these benign and kindly sounding terms, hard to oppose, are in reality well constructed, crafty and very aggressive. It's exactly the kind of language that any police officer on the promotion ladder will adopt after his course with the Court of Common Purpose. See more of them here. 

And in this post, the same officer is being disingenuous about what really causes accidents too. 

So what we have identified is an attitude within the police against genuine road safety and drivers.

So far Suzette Davenport, head of roads policing, has refused to address these very valid and true issues.  She's probably a common purpose appointment. Is she going to ignore truth, put her fingers in her ears? Are you going to let her do that?Are our police chiefs going to let her ignore this?

If we are to address road safety and take it from the hands of vested interests, profiteers, ideology and Common Purpose, it has to begin with regarding roads as infrastructure and then asking who we do not need to 'share' roads with going forward. 

What Ch.Insp Vickers, Edmund King, Carlton Reid and Chris Boardman don't get is that millions of times a day drivers are taking care of cyclists or else they would all have been mown down by now. Yes of course drivers, being human, will get things wrong but that is a massive leap from them not tolerating or sharing the road. Only anti drivers suggest that: as indeed do those, like Edmund King who evokes a mythical two tribes war, to foment aggression between cyclists and divers. See how he does it here in this post of November 2012. He did it again yesterday on BBC Humberside

Highway Code for cyclists: Edmund King @TheAA_UK tells @bbcburnsy "the roads are here to be shared..it shouldn't be about two tribes"

— BBC Radio Humberside (@RadioHumberside) June 6, 2016

Well the game is now up. The Hans Christian Anderson boy has spotted the naked Emperor, The fancy rhetoric is now exposed, Common Purpose may seem the way to get promoted but in road safety, it screws infrastructure and kills people. No more of it. 

Road Rules for Cyclists?

A dedicated highway code for cyclists has just been published https://t.co/oEYq3XfhgO pic.twitter.com/uhWeDdeQTt

— Evening Standard (@standardnews) June 6, 2016

A Highway Code for cyclists? 'Yippee' I can hear drivers shouting. 'Yes bring it on'. 'Long overdue'.

Asked by a BBC presenter should they have one........ 'NO' 'Especially not written by the AA of all people' I told listeners.

Why? 'Well they fix plumbing and cars and insure anything you want insured, but what is their expertise in road safety, driving, accidents, and prosecution?' I asked.

That's the problem. We have too many amateurs and vested interests with no CV meddling around with road safety. It would be highly dangerous for the AA to be doing it. 

But why would it be bad for drivers? Well look at this link with AA's Edmund King- disappointingly for him only getting an OBE for bogus road safety and now probably aiming for a knighthood- who is totally pro cycling and very anti driver, with the cycling crazy anti driver Carlton Reid, the author of a book that really pretends and claims that roads are not for cars,

 and with whose help these rules for cyclists have been published by the AA  See for yourself here. Don't take my word.

And here they are colluding with each other to promote unworkable draconian rules on drivers on Twitter.

@carltonreid @looknorthBBC I did Look North Hull rather than Newcastle methinks....

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 6, 2016

Carlton Reid

'It is no surprise to me that the foreword to the book is by Edmund King on the pretence of representing drivers. He is so pro cyclist, and what I call an anti driver driver, it's like getting Captain Ahab to endorse a book on whale killing.' 
So one thing is for sure, these rules will be cyclist subjective and of no good for the driver.

And just like this draconian measure being promoted against drivers by the same lobby that makes no sense whatsoever -  I have asked AA for their view on this idea and if they accept this nonsense? Well now we know. See the tweets on this between King and Reid above- The first question should always be 'Why must we have road cycling at all?' It's a very fair question that so far no official is able to explain. Certainly the Commons Select Committee didn't ask it before handing out £650000000 a year to these three; oh one of whom was no less than Sir Edmund  ,asking for more fines for drivers and more money for the speeding courses he runs. How some-one subject of this story still got an OBE for road safety is beyond me. It was more an OBE for services to cycling, but for the Automobile Association, who still sells lots of insurance to drivers, that may have been incompatible. 

So no. This cycle code isn't going to be better for drivers or for roads. It's a promotion by people who want us out of cars and on pushbikes who have no qualification to be writing road rules.

It will ignore the fact that the primary cause of cycling casualties is..........road cycling.  This is the reality here.

The AA is now so diverse, it really has no right to call itself the Automobile Association It would be more accurate to call itself the Cycle Association CA

The question is: Do the Dept for Transport, and Home Office condone this gross interference and amateur road rules like this? Will the AA get their wings clipped? Don't give up the day job.

Now Edmund is saying:  

This version of the Highway Code is aimed at new cyclists and parents of children learning to cycle https://t.co/4RILst6Lza #thinkbikes

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 6, 2016

Oh well that means the vast majority don't need to fork out £4.99 to learn how to put kiddies among big heavy moving machines then? 

UK Drivers are so useless.

This petition from the minority unneeded Cycle Lobby against drivers has already obtained  more than 19000 signatures. passing-distance-cyclists-17000-signatures- and generated a response from H.M.G.

That the idea is totally unworkable and damaging to our infrastructure, hasn't stopped a self interested minority to gang up, as always, to appear as if they're really important. 

Here's what this draconian idea is all about, and although totally daft and against the interests of all of us, incredibly, it's already been adopted in some potty areas of the world. See why should UK be as stupid? Here

Their petition is here

What better example of how easy it is to get a single issue, anti driver minority group out in force against drivers when UK's 35 million oppressed and struggling driver service just sit on their hands sucking their thumbs? Is there any wonder drivers are being screwed by the anti driver minority groups? 

What the Cycle Lobby is showing us, is how a pretty useless minority can become far more powerful than they should be.

And yet in this very sensible and workable petition to restore proper and honest speed limits, opposed by the anti driver groups of course, has so far only gathered 276 signatures from 35 million interested and affected people. 

No wonder drivers are being treated as third rate citizens and they ask for all they get,

Let's pull our fingers out and show HMG how powerful you really are. Let's beat the Anti Drivers at their own game. 

Here Edmund King, in this discourse with Carlton Reid, exposes his anti driver views on this unworkable and anti driver proposal. 

@AAPresident Me, too. Should be Highway Code distance. This is what threw @looknorthBBC Motorists would be “angry at home”, Levy said.

— Carlton Reid (@carltonreid) June 6, 2016

Make a start. Sign a driver's petition here to show you matter.

And then make a big noise against their silly imposition before it becomes another law against you.

Why should UK be as stupid as Australian & American States for cycling?

For some time now various states in other countries have been adopting laws which make it illegal for drivers to pass cyclists within a metre.

Having always regarded this as unworkable for several reasons, not least because, drivers don't drive with tape measures, that passing distance depends on speed of the pass, that fast cyclists passing other cyclists or vehicles too close are also a danger to others as well as themselves, that cyclists will still be allowed to cycle two abreast in addition to the 1 metre, and of course why impose a draconian disadvantage on essential traffic for unneeded human road hazards at all? I would never have believed that our Ministry of Transport and Roads Mininster Robert Goodwill, would ever be so daft as to consider the matter at all.  

Robert Goodwill

See why it cannot work.  You will see how even the Highway Code makes a Pig's Ear of it with Rule 163 

And yet, here we are, with the following story, and our Government are seriously considering the option of yet another anti driver, anti community rule for a minority unneeded lobby. This was re-tweeted by the great friend of the Cycling Lobby, Edmund King OBE.  More on Edmund here.

Gov't "interested" in Australian scheme setting minimum distance for motorists overtaking cyclists pic.twitter.com/870kKkOanL

— Ross Lydall (@RossLydall) June 2, 2016

Read the Mail Story here.

There are 35 million driver voters in the UK and all of them support the whole population. How on Earth is the minority cycling movement so powerful? It makes no sense whatsoever. 

I suspect that policy towards cycling, getting us all from cars is on the Court of Common Purpose agenda. It's the only explanation as to why so many ministers, civil servants, police chiefs and so on are all supporting anti driver legislation and policy. 

ROADS were NOT built for CARS

Wake up drivers. Let's use your powerful voice before they have you all walking or on pushbikes! 

Make a start by getting genuine speed limits back to the honest system we used to use. Sign this petition and get your friends and colleagues to as well. 

These police are playing dangerous games with our lives.

Further to my Fatal 4 victory where the authorities have been begrudgingly forced to remove 'Speeding' from their Fatal 4 causes of road death  See more on that here.  & More on the Fatal 4 lie here with no apologies from the Police for calling me 'oppressive, ''vexatious' & 'abusive' for trying hard, in the name of road safety, to correct them, See the details here. -Please note the contrast in the treatment of a genuine road safety volunteer and that of bogus road safety anti driver ideologists with no CV who get honours for their interventions  For example  Here 

Rod King MBE

Edmund King OBE

 & Here    - Ho Hum. So 'Speeding' is no longer part of the Fatal 4. So wouldn't you expect Dangerous Driving to correctly be included now? Not when 'Speed' earns so much money for police and the authorities it seems.  

They have replaced 'Speeding' with 'Speed' See these Tweets.

Top 4 causes of fatal & life changing road collisions

NoSeatbelt
Drink/DrugDriving
Phone
Speed

The #Fatal4

. pic.twitter.com/sBbc17H8Aq

— Ch Insp Phil Vickers (@CIPhilVickers) June 2, 2016 

This is going backwards and in this following Tweet it is all explained in a web page on speed published many moons ago. See here. Speed affects everything. Including a man walking into a telegraph pole. Without speed we all die. We don't slow planes, ships and trains unless absolutely necessary. But it's the police refusal to say that driving too fast is dangerous driving that's a great concern. 

So why isn't dangerous driving in the Fatal4? Well if it's about promoting and protecting the Speeding Industry at all costs, even if it does mean ignoring accident causes altogether, these police are playing dangerous games with our lives.

 @CIPhilVickers Amazing. Here's why it's disingenuous to cite 'Speed' as a cause. https://t.co/OAmLrA40n2 @ukhomeoffice @PoliceChiefs

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) June 2, 2016

Here is an open letter to the Roads Chief of the NPCC that sets out the bogus road safety policy running our roads and including the false statistics on which much policy is based  See it here. It should concern all of us that apart from an initial response, the NPCC have not addressed any of it. By all means email them and urge them to do so; especially now that they have conceded that I was correct about 'Speeding'.

You can help to curtail some of this immediately by supporting this petition on speed limiting. Why not sign it now?  

Edmund King OBE, AA President, and bogus road safety profiteers who screw drivers for no valid reason.

Well as I asked at the time this was being mooted, See here 'How many of the 1700 fatals, from all causes on our roads per year, are down to a drug driver solely? Not many. Nothing compared to the 30,000 deaths a year from thirst while in our hard up NHS hospitals. I even wrote to Roads Minister Robert Goodwill See here

Ok so the laws were passed, costly kit supplied at gross profit to our police, and now coppers we prefer to be patrolling beats, at great expense are instead, harassing and  inconveniencing more drivers and prosecuting them in their thousands even though they are unlikely to cause an accident at all.

I wouldn't mind if all the testing kit was supplied at mere cost in the interests of the community and road safety but it isn't.

So what is the news? Almost 8000 drivers have been arrested already for drug driving since the Act.

Here is dear old friend of the driver Edmund King OBE, failing to mention the obvious that when we invent a new way to prosecute drivers, the prosecution of drivers...........goes up!

BBC News - Drug driving: Almost 8,000 arrests in England and Wales https://t.co/dEfyqhTug8

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 1, 2016

@EastMidsDrivers Sick

— Edmund King OBE (@AAPresident) June 1, 2016

@AAPresident @EastMidsDrivers And this is the best The AA President can do in response to a very valid road safety question? @TheAA_UK

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) June 1, 2016

@AAPresident @EastMidsDrivers It's a reasonable Question. How many die because of drug drivers? What is 'sick' is the profiteering Edmund.

— Keith Peat (@BogTrotter1) June 1, 2016

@AAPresident And this has nothing to with costly new kit sold for massive profit, for the good of the community of course?

— Drivers E. Midlands (@EastMidsDrivers) June 1, 2016

Wouldn't you think if King & the AA were pro driver, they would be querying this too? More on Edmund here  and he even has his own Topic Label above with more about him.  Another example of Edmund failing to address the issue. And here in 2012 we said 'Edmund avoids the statement with: ' You are like a scratched record and a very boring one at that' So no denial to that either then. Apart from changing the subject with puerile remarks saying more about Edmund than he would like, how about the serious road safety matters that he isn't denying and seems to think is acceptable?' And ''Speed awareness courses run for profit by private companies on the basis of poor science and wrongful ticketing' Edmund's response? 'Barking'. No denial there then!' See the blog here


So it seems that to get an OBE for road safety, all you need to do is to habitually refuse to address road safety reality, to the cost of drivers, by just responding with a silly comment and abuse.