Why is everything to do with roads, driving & road safety run by women?

Look OK, we can mess around with feminist equality to a point, but not when it comes to driving and road safety.

                 Magnificent Seven

Generally, women are far too emotional when it comes to things like speed, road safety, driving and overtaking and casualties to be objective about it and certainly don't tend to normally involve themselves with anything mechanical or technical either. Those things are usually better understood by what feminists call 'Stale Pale and Male' In a previous blog, see it here, I demonstrate this and how SPAM has been totally excluded from governance too. 

What do these seven women have in common?

Add caption

Liz Truss Minister of Justice Lord Chancellor

Amber Rudd Home Sec.

Sara Thornton Chair NPCC

Theresa May. PM Ex Home Sec

Suzette Davenport

Well none of them have any CV or experience in top class driving and yet they are all running UK's roads, drivers and driver justice between them.

Suzette Davenport is not interested in genuine sensible road safety, read more of her here and together with CPS & Alison Saunders brought in a misuse of fixed penalty where, for the first time in its history, was turned from absolute objectivity to a catch all subjective method for police, on a whim, to avoid justice. See here.

Theresa May, now PM but prior to that was Home Secretary in charge of police. See this about her days as Home Secretary here, 

Where single issue anti driver lobby groups thrived and together with Suzette Davenport and Sara Thornton (Head of policing), police have been encouraged to promote single issue minority lobbies at the expense of the majority. 

Louise Ellman, left wing pro cycling chair of Transport Select Committee. Here there is no better example of a naive women being taken advantage of by snake oil salesmen and giving away £650,000,000 per year of taxpayer's cash. And here, under Ellman, her committee ignore honest expert evidence to promote road safety dishonesty.

The problem with women in a male domain is that they are wide open to the Charlatans and frauds. That is why UK supports a multi billion pound profit based road safety industry and much of it is illegal, corrupt and very dangerous.

It won't occur to these women that we now have a Road Traffic Empire, way and above anything we need that is taking so much from police budgets that the police are suffering from it, never mind the money that could be spent saving lives elsewhere like NHS & A&E. Genuine profitless road safety would save more too. See why here. And look at this newly invented international Traffic Association, by our traffic boys, where they can go off on costly bun-fights, to listen to anti driver frauds and profiteers such as Edmund King of the AA for example. (Remember him fooling Louise Ellman's Committee?) Well here is an Example of Edmund making money from fraudulent awareness courses.

Under these naive women, these bogus road safety people have even been getting honours; Like King's OBE for example.

Ok so the case is made. The evidence is indisputable. Roads, Drivers, prosecutions, policing, road safety, is all in the hands of the most unsuitable, vulnerable and naive people society could have chosen.

Saunders, Davenport & Thornton should not be in their posts and policing must go back to represent and reflect what normal ordinary majority would want. Fixed penalty must be restored to its original purpose, confined to the objective & absolute. Most careless driving fixed penalties could not be proven at trial. This was such a gross mistake that those who were behind it must stand down. 

Liz Truss, and Amber Rudd are new enough to be given a chance to kick out all common purpose policy and make roads infrastructure and drivers a priority because we need them. They must listen to experts with no axe to grind.

Ellman needs to stand down. Like all left wingers, she hasn't moved on from adolescent naivety and predictable ideology and is thus not suited for the role. 

Under these women, our 'hard up' police are able to attend expensive anti community conferences too.

See this one.

And this one too.

Theresa must man up. More SPAM in Government please. 

Your camera,, your computer, your freedom, and police rights.

What right do police have to interrogate a piece of kit, on a fishing exercise after an accident, that you didn't ask for, has been installed in your car for Air Bag operation, belongs to you and paid for by you?  

Event Data Recorder

Well of course police would have no authority to examine anything you own after an accident would they. So here's one good reason why police no longer acknowledge road accidents and treat them all as crime. In effect your car is now a crime scene. See more on the cancellation of accidents here. 

 'But the most obvious reason that the word 'accident' has been ditched is that police can look for a culprit from the word go. In fact, the routine arrest of drivers after an accident before anything has been established is all part of this.'

Let's make a distinction between examining a piece of personal kit, like a phone or a laptop that is actually pertinent to or the cause of a suspected crime, such as texting whilst driving or grooming kiddies etc which you have employed and used, as opposed to a data recorder that you own and has not caused or is suspected of causing the accident and that you haven't used. If tyres or brakes could've caused the accident, then yes by all means police are right to investigate them for negligence or for a fault but EDRs do not cause accidents and are just part of an air bag system. 

'In The USA the information stored in EDRs is useful for the composite data it generates about air bag use and effectiveness. It is also useful in individual instances because it provides information about a vehicle’s use and condition in the moments before an accident. This clip of information can prove crucially important. It has already been used in multiple cases to prosecute drivers who were driving at reckless speeds before fatal collisions.. Despite many drivers’ insistence that while driving they did not exceed reasonable speeds, EDR data often indicated otherwise, and has been admitted against many drivers at trial to secure felony convictions for reckless driving.'

'A 55-year-old man was prosecuted at Oxford Crown Court for causing death by dangerous driving when his Chrysler 300 ploughed into the back of a queue of traffic on the M40.

The 70mph impact killed a passenger in the vehicle in front of him.

American car manufacturers must make airbag systems that can be investigated to assess speed, deceleration and braking in the event of a crash.

Read was asked by Thames Valley Police to assess the data, which revealed the driver had only started to brake 0.5 seconds before impact.

“The data was crucial in successfully prosecuting the driver' 

I do not support any form of dangerous driving or any driver offences but justice is far more important than any driving issues. Convictions cannot be based on the accused incriminating themselves without consent.

Why; just look at the formal police caution that explains to you your right not to incriminate yourself verbally and that is for statutory crime, not merely because police are making accidents a crime just because there's been an accident. 

The prosecution cannot even compel a spouse to betray their partner to provide evidence against them in a road case. So to be able to go fishing in a system whereby the defendant is effectively providing police with evidence against himself is clearly wrong. 

Tell police they do not have your consent to use your kit against you and if they ignore you, make sure you tell your solicitor so it's challenged at any hearing. Why not? 

More on EDR here.

What about Dash Cams?

Well again, for all the very same reasons, it didn't play any part or was relevant to any accident. Do not allow police to examine it until you have down loaded the pictures yourself and ensured they support you and don't incriminate you. It's your kit for your protection. Like all defendants, it's for the prosecution to make their case and not for you to make it for them.

Finally, it's the habit for police, when they stop drivers who they suspect of an offence, to ask them to sit in the rear of their car. They then lock them in. This is for police security where often a lone officer can be quite vulnerable. If they then decide to arrest you or you become animated, they then merely send for assistance as you're already in custody. 

Always politely decline to get into any police car. It really doesn't look good if the neighbours are watching. Why not invite the officer to sit in your car instead; especially if in inclement weather? You do have the choice and who wants to be locked into a police car anyway? It's very intimidating you know.

Make the Anti Driver Taliban prove their own cases without your help.

For the idiots who think they can live without cars.

This ruinous bullying of major infrastructure, 35000000 servants of the community, by a tiny unneeded minority assisted by Metropolitan Elite Common Purpose Police, is against all of us. It must be stopped. The Highways are our arteries not their playground.

The context of my observations is in a scenario where cyclists are demanding more and more very costly changes which can only be a disadvantage to drivers but in addition the cycle lobby is also demanding more punishment and jail time for drivers too. So therefor it is right to enquire two aspects. 

1) If it's that risky and dangerous now, should it continue? That then leads to 2) defining what is essential for the survival of the community and our society as a whole? When you do that you realise that there are only two. 

If we didn't walk we would all perish, so pedestrians are a no brainer. A little more explanation for the next class; drivers.  However the term 'driver' is thousands of years old.  Let's totally dismiss anti driver cycling nut Carlton Reid's, Roads Weren't Built For Cars, as the nonsense propaganda that it is. See it destroyed here. 

Manpower travel simply wasn't good enough so man took to the horse-the predecessor to the motorbike- then chariots, carts, wagons, traps, pony mail, fast stage coaches etc. From those came our bigger societies all built and based on long distance fast heavy haulage and passenger transport. Without it even railways wouldn't exist. From the 50s onwards all this was replaced totally by the more efficient modern fast, load carrying road transport of today. Because that was cheaper, more efficient and readily available, society spread out and expanded. Everything now depends on road transport, including rail & air travel. Less obvious the private car. It is the essential link between public transport but also how the majority of its staff get to their jobs. Out of town shopping precincts to enable once a week big household shopping because women work too and we have freezers. These places depend for their turnover on car users, surrounded by mass free car parks and cheap fuel to encourage it. The NHS staff car parks all full, the water workers, food and power suppliers, without that we all die very soon and they're all dependent on cars. Unless you sleep on a railway platform, cars are the essential link to rail, likewise airports. So we have identified two essential road users.

Cycling however didn't build or ever sustain our society. In fact if all cyclists packed in, the economy and society generally wouldn't collapse at all or hardly notice. Does society depend on cyclists? No! Did it ever? No!

But the road safety record of UK's drivers actually shows how good they are and not how bad they are. Your analogy of archery, is the same as shooting at targets too. But neither are allowed in public are they?

I am continuously pointing out that the evidence is that cyclists are being treated in a patient, sensible manner all the time. But whether you understand it or not, they are a liability to an essential road user and very often don't even acknowledge how much care is being shown to them. 

Drivers being human and very average too, make mistakes and get things wrong. What a cyclist feels too close, is often not close from the drivers' perspective. The cyclist's insecurity is actually his brain telling him 'This is bloody dangerous' and carrying on regardless. Perhaps it's time that we accepted the natural instinct is absolutely right about that and hearkened to the brain.

See anti driver pro cyclist police cheating against drivers.

See evidence of pro-cyclist police ideology. 

We warned you about the catch-all misuse of fixed penalty & now pro cycling police are using it.

We warned you about the misuse of fixed penalty for anything a driver does on a catch-all basis on a police officer's whim. See it all here & Here

You may recall it was sold to media using populist issues such as lane hogging, tailgating & so on, but these could already have been prosecuted as careless driving if the police believed in their case. FP commits them to no trial, and they are then able to extract a guilty plea by coercion without proving it at court. Never plead guilt to careless driving by FP. Make em prove their case we said.

Now in this Sky News story,  The police are to use this cheating process on behalf of one of their favourite single issue lobby groups, cyclists, again on the basis of subjective nonsense. See here how subjective the issue is: Even the Highway Code Rule makes no sense and more about the issue here.

Sky News who promote killer cycling even turned to the self promoting and cycling profiteer Chris Boardman  to con their viewers on this and he wants all forces to be doing it now. See here. And more of this dangerous fraud here and here

He of course trotted out the old health and obesity mantra when cycling depends on unnatural motion and muscle movement, - we are built for walking, running and swimming- and there are much better and safer ways of getting exercise anyway. Putting people into the path of and mixing with big essential machinery actually kills them believe it or not.

Then the red herring: 'Most cyclists are drivers'. Any driver who wants the prosecution and impeding of drivers, is anti driver. In any case I am a cyclist too like most drivers are. Hasn't Sky got the wit to see through all this?  

 Even Chris cannot explain why we must have cyclists on roads.

And here is Boardman telling cyclists they shouldn't wear helmets because they shouldn't need to.


How on earth can West Midlands Police and Sky even go near this dangerous profiteer?

Here are tweets that show police are now favouring an unneeded anti driver single issue group at the expense of needed road use. 

Well drivers so now you know. There are 35 million drivers and all 65 million people depend on you.
So you must get all this stopped. First passing distance is dependent on many variable factors. You don't have a tape measure so these prosecutions will never stand up at trial. Don't accept the ticket.

Secondly you must unite, have demos, lobby your MPs and use your power.

Now look at these videos to see what your anti driver police are supporting and prosecuting you for and no one asks why we need cyclists out on the road. 

Here having been provided at great cost a dedicated cycle lane at the expense of driver space, cyclists deliberately obstruct drivers as a right.  See it here.   

 

So here are your average cyclists, out on a jolly, pumping hard and slow up hill, not needed by the community, and taking it upon themselves be two abreast to dominate the road. So who are police going to prosecute and oppress? Essential road users! We must surely all ask the Question: 'Does the community need this?' 

Get a dash cam fitted immediately. Courts need to see the whole picture, not just the selective, distorted cyclist's version of an incident. 

BREXIT We must now build home defence.

I have always been concerned about the ability of an independent UK to defend and protect its interests.

The following is from my post: Brexit what the f..k happened. Here

'We were no longer the Queen of the Seas, with a massive army and air force. I always take a 'bottom line worst case scenario' approach to any decision. So we leave the EU and Spanish Trawlers invade our fishing grounds. What do we do? Do we blow them out of the waters? Where's our Navy to keep Spain out of Gibraltar? Will America still help and support us to keep the Falklands?  Will anyone help us from the Western World? A gun boat defence of our domain takes us to war against the EU and how do we win? Who will aid us? All Farage seemed to talk about was self rule, borders, immigration, trade but not how we defended the independence he sought. '

There is an answer. We are no longer an empire. We don't need an Eastern Fleet, Mediterranean Fleet, Pacific Fleet, Atlantic Fleet and we don't need to be fighting other people's wars so we don't need massive tank armies either.

All we need to protect us, Gibraltar and Falklands, outside of the EU, is a large Home Fleet, enough soldiers and tanks to defend our territory, and increased fighter capacity.

 And we can now afford it. Brexit money and savings from Brexit must be put aside for it.  

We are well on the way to building two new large aircraft carriers so may as well use them as two mobile airbases based in the Channel and North Sea and these can be equipped with new fighters.  

We would be able to add coastal cutters to the existing Frigate and destroyer fleet and retain and maintain attack submarines.

 which can go anywhere as well as some type of sea borne independent nuclear strike capability even if not Trident. This keeps us at the Top Table. 

No more playing the costly World Policeman would also mean that we could focus on our interests too.

So far as the intrusive and encroaching fishing vessels, we would then be powerful enough to seize them and get away with it.

It's no good going independent unless we can protect ourselves. Our forces would no longer be too small, or overstretched, at home and much happier too.

The anti Brits hate clever students, They want a Chav Nation.

The Grammar School row is based on one big lie.

'we will have more of these prestigious institutions “stuffed full of middle class kids”, where they will be afforded every advantage they could wish for, while their less privileged – but in some cases more academically able – peers struggle along hoping to catch a break.'  See the full article. 

Spot the lie in it? 

The unchallenged term that no one questions and everyone accepts even though a myth?  

Even Theresa May falls for it and cites it. Never mind all the socialists who hate wealth and success who state it all the time and it's a lie.

Got it yet?  Well it's 'Middle Class' 

The problem is that every man and his dog no longer see themselves as 'Working Class' A working man and wife with a joint income of £100,000 per annum  are still working class whether they like it or not. 

So it seems we all need a revision of the classes before we discuss Grammar Schools.

Aristocracy: No matter how wealthy you are and how many yachts you may own, an aristocrat comes from birth and is nothing to do with wealth. In fact even to talk of wealth is regarded as classless among them. Some can be very poor or hard up but they belong to this impenetrable club that will see them Ok. 

Middle Class: These are people who have done very well for themselves, multi millionaires and high earners but who actually employ people, have staff and so on. (Household staff counts as employing people.) 

Working Class: Well, as it says on the tin, they go to work, are paid to do so no matter if, as lofty as a company secretary, whether they like it or not, are working class.

So a train driver with an admin clerk wife, in a four bed house and a joint income of £100,000 per year is still working class.

So salary isn't relevant. If you are paid for your work, you are working class.

Most Grammar School students are from hard working class families and it is a socialist lie to say the Grammar Schools are for the rich.

What is being denied by socialists is that there are two working classes.

Type one is the irresponsible chav working class who will piss all they get up the wall and on 55 inch tellys in their rent rebate council homes and care not a jot about their kids; encouraging them to be out of sight out of mind on expensive games machines. 

Type two is the hard working, responsible ones who sacrifice much for their kid's education. Socialists hate people bettering themselves.

But can you believe that they are using school meals as evidence of how few of these 'poor' and 'deprived' are at Grammar by the stat that only 3% of students qualify for free dinners?

Well as our hard working train driver's family didn't qualify and for five years could only afford to send their boys with sandwiches, whilst The State dependent were given free meals, this method of proving that Grammar Schools are full of rich kids, is unfit for use.

So let's kill this myth. Grammar Schools are available to all who care enough and are the domain of the working class.

But what these Common Purpose anti Brits really want is generations of Chav people instead of clever ones. Don't our politicians get it? When you mix disinterested, disruptive, careless hard nuts with genuine learners, you hold back the learners!

Do we really care who's kids get top qualifications to take Britain forward? We bloody well need clever intelligent people not wasters.

Related blogs: 

http://driveeastmidlands.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/uk-no-country-for-stale-pale-male-and.html

http://driveeastmidlands.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/so-we-have-been-running-britain-by.html

Why won't Sky & BBC tell the truth. Brexit means Brexit?

Let's first look to see if the Referendum to leave the EU, Brexit for short, is final and unequivocal.

The Referendum to leave or stay in the EU was exactly that, no more, no less. See European Union The Referendum Act 2015 which went through all the required readings and stages in both houses, accepted by Parliament and given Royal assent. See the progress here.

(4)

The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

That's pretty unequivocal. 

It did not specify 'with the ratification of 
Parliament' did it. Or 'that the result could be reversed by General Election'

Prior to the vote, Parliament and Government published this. 

 “The British people will then have the final and decisive say. “

See it here.

Can you believe that Sky et al are now listening to Ex Pat Remain bleaters and other anti Brexit academics who think the 600  squawkers in Parliament are sovereign over The real Sovereign and her people? Who told them that for goodness sake?  See how the Queen could round em all up and put them in the Tower  

What is going on now is blatant insurrection against Parliament and The People, by parliamentarians no less, assisted by anti British media. See we hanged Haw Haw for less than this. 

Let's get this straight. All those working against Brexit are forcing a Civil War scenario. What is a Civil War scenario? 

Well as I have already discussed, little, puny, republican sympathiser Tony Blair, getting away with dividing this great nation into four separate ones was one example. 

Now to set up a Parliamentary Referendum, that cost millions, and went on for four months, without ever raising all these ifs and buts during the campaign, never once saying that to vote Brexit didn't really mean Brexit, that it all would be an illegal waste of time, (until after the vote to leave), is at best immoral and at its most extreme, deplorable rabble rousing and incitement to rebellion. 

See how these undemocratic lawyers are wasting our money to oppose us. 

Can you believe that the anti Brexit case seems based on the fact that the word Brexit has no meaning; 'just like what does widget mean?' postulated one professor to Sky. Oh c'mon you silly Prof. It is just short for saying or writing ' Referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union' which is quite a mouthful that would have added £millions of cost to the whole campaign. So for the dummies, the meaning of Brexit is just: Referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union or perhaps, more specifically, the vote to leave. Why can't Sky and BBC tell these fools there is no requirement to dissect the term Brexit; it's only shorthand.

Sky & BBC should be dismissing these types of people and supporting our nation and it's choice, Brexit.

We must protect our right to be free of the EU by standing up to them and demand that Her Majesty does too.

Enough of this behaviour.