Oxford MailEvery speed camera in county switched off next week (From Oxford Mail)

Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us

Every speed camera in county switched off next week

Oxford Mail: A speed camera in Rose Hill, Oxford A speed camera in Rose Hill, Oxford

EVERY speed camera in Oxfordshire will be switched off next week and the current drink driving, mobile phone and seatbelt checks will be halted.

Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership – the body that has co-ordinated the police enforcement for a decade – has closed down all operations in the county after its funding from Oxfordshire County Council was slashed.

But they will continue in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire because those councils have not withdrawn funding.

Last night Thames Valley Police, a member of the partnership, refused to say if it will carry out any enforcement work as it admitted the cut could lead to more accidents on Oxfordshire’s roads.

Mobile camera vans have already been withdrawn and 72 fixed speed cameras and seven ‘red light’ cameras will be mothballed by August 1.

As reported in the Oxford Mail, the county council has cut its funding for the partnership by £600,000 this year in its bid to make £11m savings.

The partnership, funded by councils, was set up in 2000 and since then deaths on Oxfordshire’s roads have fallen by 52 per cent.

The partnership’s communications manager Dan Campsall said the organisation had no option but to cease all enforcement immediately because of the cut.

He added: “The serious concern is we will see the number of deaths and casualties on the roads rise.”

The partnership ‘buys’ six dedicated police officers to carry out operations across the Thames Valley from the police force.

The police refused to confirm if they would take over operations in Oxfordshire. In a brief statement, Assistant Chief Constable John Campbell said: “We are naturally concerned that the withdrawal of Oxfordshire from the partnership may impact on the number of serious collisions in the county.

“Thames Valley Police will continue to work with the local authorities in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, who remain in the Safer Roads Partnership.”

Government support used by Oxfordshire County Council to fund its contribution to the partnership was cut by about £300,000. But the council decided to pass on a £600,000 cut – 71 per cent of its agreed funding – and effectively withdraw from the partnership.

Mr Campsall said: “The 71 per cent cut only materialised a couple of days before the announcement.

“If they had only made a £300,000 cut we would have been able to continue.”

Ian Hudspeth, the county’s cabinet member for infrastructure, denied the withdrawal from the partnership would lead to an increase in road deaths.

He said road safety could be achieved through education and engineering work at blackspots – although he admitted road improvement projects would also be hit by county spending cuts.

“Based on evidence coming forward from Swindon (where cameras were switched off a year ago) it does appear turning cameras off will not increase road deaths,” he said.

“Speed is not necessarily a contributor to every fatality on the road.”

Last year, cameras in Oxfordshire clocked about 75,000 motoring offences which the partnership estimates would have raised more than £1m in revenue.

But all of the cash is returned to the government through the courts system.

Lionel Horner, of Headington, was caught by a speed camera earlier this year and welcomed the switch-off.

He said: “Automatic cameras cannot be sensible because they obey rules to the letter. The policeman in his car can be more tolerant of the extent of the crime.

“I’m in favour of a human being rather than a machine.”

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:28am Fri 23 Jul 10

Wallingford2 says...

Excellent bit of journalism. Now people will be taking the risk of driving home from the pub without fear of getting caught. Genius!!!
Excellent bit of journalism. Now people will be taking the risk of driving home from the pub without fear of getting caught. Genius!!! Wallingford2
  • Score: 0

9:47am Fri 23 Jul 10

brained assassin says...

And so the rot starts...
And so the rot starts... brained assassin
  • Score: 0

9:51am Fri 23 Jul 10

Southmooron says...

So Dan Campsall says "The serious concern is we will see the number of deaths and casualties on the roads rise.”

Perhaps he should look at the evidence from neighbouring Swindon, which, one year on from the decomissioning of speed cameras, has shown no rise in accident figures
So Dan Campsall says "The serious concern is we will see the number of deaths and casualties on the roads rise.” Perhaps he should look at the evidence from neighbouring Swindon, which, one year on from the decomissioning of speed cameras, has shown no rise in accident figures Southmooron
  • Score: 0

10:05am Fri 23 Jul 10

Wallingford2 says...

It's not the speed cameras thta are the problem, every knows people just slow down for them then speed up again afterwards anyway...publicising these facts is the problem. Just do it and not let people know, that's the best way.
It's not the speed cameras thta are the problem, every knows people just slow down for them then speed up again afterwards anyway...publicising these facts is the problem. Just do it and not let people know, that's the best way. Wallingford2
  • Score: 0

10:07am Fri 23 Jul 10

Paul Wesson says...

brained assassin, what 'rot'? The County Council will have made the decision to cut based on a number of parameters. The cameras have been switched off in Swindon for over a year and there hasn't been a sudden jump in road deaths. If I'm typical of most drivers then, having lived in Oxon for 15 years, I already know where the camera boxes are on my regular travel routes. I slow down as I approach the cameras and speed up once I am past them. I have witnessed hundreds of people doing the same over the years. Fixed cameras are a way of getting money off non-locals (the money goes to central funds and is lost in the greater tax pool). I have no problem with the demise of the fixed boxes in Oxfordshire. I am certain the police will continue with some enforcement of the road traffic laws, but a well managed light touch is better than obsessive target chasing. It's about time we stopped automated policing and returned to human beings doing the job.
brained assassin, what 'rot'? The County Council will have made the decision to cut based on a number of parameters. The cameras have been switched off in Swindon for over a year and there hasn't been a sudden jump in road deaths. If I'm typical of most drivers then, having lived in Oxon for 15 years, I already know where the camera boxes are on my regular travel routes. I slow down as I approach the cameras and speed up once I am past them. I have witnessed hundreds of people doing the same over the years. Fixed cameras are a way of getting money off non-locals (the money goes to central funds and is lost in the greater tax pool). I have no problem with the demise of the fixed boxes in Oxfordshire. I am certain the police will continue with some enforcement of the road traffic laws, but a well managed light touch is better than obsessive target chasing. It's about time we stopped automated policing and returned to human beings doing the job. Paul Wesson
  • Score: 0

10:27am Fri 23 Jul 10

JCML says...

SHOCKING! More dangerous drivers getting away with MURDER on our roads. Good luck too all of us who are responsible drivers, we will be the ones that suffer!!
SHOCKING! More dangerous drivers getting away with MURDER on our roads. Good luck too all of us who are responsible drivers, we will be the ones that suffer!! JCML
  • Score: 0

10:34am Fri 23 Jul 10

JCML says...

Paul Wesson wrote:
brained assassin, what 'rot'? The County Council will have made the decision to cut based on a number of parameters. The cameras have been switched off in Swindon for over a year and there hasn't been a sudden jump in road deaths. If I'm typical of most drivers then, having lived in Oxon for 15 years, I already know where the camera boxes are on my regular travel routes. I slow down as I approach the cameras and speed up once I am past them. I have witnessed hundreds of people doing the same over the years. Fixed cameras are a way of getting money off non-locals (the money goes to central funds and is lost in the greater tax pool). I have no problem with the demise of the fixed boxes in Oxfordshire. I am certain the police will continue with some enforcement of the road traffic laws, but a well managed light touch is better than obsessive target chasing. It's about time we stopped automated policing and returned to human beings doing the job.
Ok I get your point with the speed camera thing but "The current drink driving, mobile phone and seat belt checks will be halted" that is not good!
[quote][p][bold]Paul Wesson[/bold] wrote: brained assassin, what 'rot'? The County Council will have made the decision to cut based on a number of parameters. The cameras have been switched off in Swindon for over a year and there hasn't been a sudden jump in road deaths. If I'm typical of most drivers then, having lived in Oxon for 15 years, I already know where the camera boxes are on my regular travel routes. I slow down as I approach the cameras and speed up once I am past them. I have witnessed hundreds of people doing the same over the years. Fixed cameras are a way of getting money off non-locals (the money goes to central funds and is lost in the greater tax pool). I have no problem with the demise of the fixed boxes in Oxfordshire. I am certain the police will continue with some enforcement of the road traffic laws, but a well managed light touch is better than obsessive target chasing. It's about time we stopped automated policing and returned to human beings doing the job.[/p][/quote]Ok I get your point with the speed camera thing but "The current drink driving, mobile phone and seat belt checks will be halted" that is not good! JCML
  • Score: 0

10:42am Fri 23 Jul 10

LadyPenelope says...

As happened in Swindon, drivers respected the fact that they were allowed to use common sense when it came to driving, and thus drove sensibly, hence no rise in accidents. Hopefully those in Oxfordshire will take the same attitude, and respect the fact they are being trusted to drive sensibly.

You will ALWAYS get idiots on the road, whether the roads are policed or not.

As for no checks for mobile phones and drink driving, then I'm hoping that anyone causing an accident due to this will receive the heavy arm of the law and be made an example of with a VERY heavy penalty. The current light penalties are a joke, so policing made very little difference and didn't deter anyone.
As happened in Swindon, drivers respected the fact that they were allowed to use common sense when it came to driving, and thus drove sensibly, hence no rise in accidents. Hopefully those in Oxfordshire will take the same attitude, and respect the fact they are being trusted to drive sensibly. You will ALWAYS get idiots on the road, whether the roads are policed or not. As for no checks for mobile phones and drink driving, then I'm hoping that anyone causing an accident due to this will receive the heavy arm of the law and be made an example of with a VERY heavy penalty. The current light penalties are a joke, so policing made very little difference and didn't deter anyone. LadyPenelope
  • Score: 0

10:53am Fri 23 Jul 10

Dilligaf2008 says...

Can I be given the privilege of flicking the switch on the cameras please....Never been caught by one, but happy to see them go, rapid deceleration and acceleration isn't good for fuel economy....
Can I be given the privilege of flicking the switch on the cameras please....Never been caught by one, but happy to see them go, rapid deceleration and acceleration isn't good for fuel economy.... Dilligaf2008
  • Score: 0

11:49am Fri 23 Jul 10

Sir Holiday Alot says...

maybe its a double bluff and the cameras will be kept on and we will all be happily speeding through them thinking we wont get caught and they will get a sudden increase in revenue - brilliant ! great idea Oxon county council - like your work.
maybe its a double bluff and the cameras will be kept on and we will all be happily speeding through them thinking we wont get caught and they will get a sudden increase in revenue - brilliant ! great idea Oxon county council - like your work. Sir Holiday Alot
  • Score: 0

11:56am Fri 23 Jul 10

Jimbo34 says...

How have the council managed to escape amny blame here, and yet the article seems to want enforcement to carry on as normal with a £600k short-fall. How are the police (who have their own budget cuts to make) going to pick up the slack for the council absolving themselves of responsibility.
The council made this decision for Oxfordshire's roads - not the police!
The same council who not long ago wanted police to enforce 20mph the in city centre?
Hudspeth calls for education and traffic calming measures instead of cameras - where will the money for that come from then? It will cost a whole lot more than £600k.
Of course the police will carry on doing their job, but with less resources it seems.
How have the council managed to escape amny blame here, and yet the article seems to want enforcement to carry on as normal with a £600k short-fall. How are the police (who have their own budget cuts to make) going to pick up the slack for the council absolving themselves of responsibility. The council made this decision for Oxfordshire's roads - not the police! The same council who not long ago wanted police to enforce 20mph the in city centre? Hudspeth calls for education and traffic calming measures instead of cameras - where will the money for that come from then? It will cost a whole lot more than £600k. Of course the police will carry on doing their job, but with less resources it seems. Jimbo34
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Fri 23 Jul 10

JillyJ says...

I have a clipboard & a stopwatch - Big Society anyone?
I have a clipboard & a stopwatch - Big Society anyone? JillyJ
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Headington-Heathcliff says...

If the police were more efficient, the traffic patrols could be more visible - well, they couldn't be less! I heard on the news a few days ago that only 11% of police are available at any given time to fight crime, including traffic violations I assume. This bleating about budget cuts is PR for carrying on the wasteful old regime of New Labour over-spending and bossy new laws. Get used to reality and do more with less just like everyone who has to pay more for petrol, council tax and (soon) VAT.
If the police were more efficient, the traffic patrols could be more visible - well, they couldn't be less! I heard on the news a few days ago that only 11% of police are available at any given time to fight crime, including traffic violations I assume. This bleating about budget cuts is PR for carrying on the wasteful old regime of New Labour over-spending and bossy new laws. Get used to reality and do more with less just like everyone who has to pay more for petrol, council tax and (soon) VAT. Headington-Heathcliff
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Joe Chapman says...

There's another issue apart from the statistics around death and accidents. Which is that I think we are living in a very inconsiderate and selfish society and nothing is being done about it. We have to put up with cars speeding sometimes at more than 60 miles an hour in a 20 mile an hour zone. I struggle to cross the road to my own front door. Cars mount the pavement outside my house because the drivers are too impatient and inconsiderate to let people go through the other way.

I am actually all for getting rid of cameras, cctv and speed cameras but only on the condition that they are replaced by people.

Too many people seem to feel they are more important and have more rights than us residents do on our own streets. This is utterly disgraceful. I have been shouted at by people in cars to "get out of the f**king way" when I'm on the pavement right outside my own home because the driiver wanted to mount the pavement and squeeze past. We get abuse from cyclists and drivers on our narrow footpath.

My friend's sister was killed on one of the local roads as a result of busy traffic going through these residential areas.
There's another issue apart from the statistics around death and accidents. Which is that I think we are living in a very inconsiderate and selfish society and nothing is being done about it. We have to put up with cars speeding sometimes at more than 60 miles an hour in a 20 mile an hour zone. I struggle to cross the road to my own front door. Cars mount the pavement outside my house because the drivers are too impatient and inconsiderate to let people go through the other way. I am actually all for getting rid of cameras, cctv and speed cameras but only on the condition that they are replaced by people. Too many people seem to feel they are more important and have more rights than us residents do on our own streets. This is utterly disgraceful. I have been shouted at by people in cars to "get out of the f**king way" when I'm on the pavement right outside my own home because the driiver wanted to mount the pavement and squeeze past. We get abuse from cyclists and drivers on our narrow footpath. My friend's sister was killed on one of the local roads as a result of busy traffic going through these residential areas. Joe Chapman
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Quentin Walker says...

A reported £480,000 was spent on traffic lights to disrupt the smooth flow of traffic at the Botley A420/A34 roundabout.

This would have funded policing for 18 months.

Priorities?
A reported £480,000 was spent on traffic lights to disrupt the smooth flow of traffic at the Botley A420/A34 roundabout. This would have funded policing for 18 months. Priorities? Quentin Walker
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Green123 says...

Dilligaf2008 wrote:
Can I be given the privilege of flicking the switch on the cameras please....Never been caught by one, but happy to see them go, rapid deceleration and acceleration isn't good for fuel economy....
If only we could expect an end to the 'drive like a nutter, screech to a halt, drive like a nutter' pattern of driving that is, as you say, bad for fuel economy as well as frustrating and dangerous. Sadly, people will still drive like this as the yellow boxes will stay by the side of the road, they just won't have film in them, and people being people they won't trust the council... A yellow box by the road is like pavlov's dog, and people will still slow down for them. Pity.
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2008[/bold] wrote: Can I be given the privilege of flicking the switch on the cameras please....Never been caught by one, but happy to see them go, rapid deceleration and acceleration isn't good for fuel economy....[/p][/quote]If only we could expect an end to the 'drive like a nutter, screech to a halt, drive like a nutter' pattern of driving that is, as you say, bad for fuel economy as well as frustrating and dangerous. Sadly, people will still drive like this as the yellow boxes will stay by the side of the road, they just won't have film in them, and people being people they won't trust the council... A yellow box by the road is like pavlov's dog, and people will still slow down for them. Pity. Green123
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Fri 23 Jul 10

PaulSte says...

Sir Holiday Alot wrote:
maybe its a double bluff and the cameras will be kept on and we will all be happily speeding through them thinking we wont get caught and they will get a sudden increase in revenue - brilliant ! great idea Oxon county council - like your work.
Can't you read. The county council doesn't get the revenue from speed cameras, the treasury does.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Holiday Alot[/bold] wrote: maybe its a double bluff and the cameras will be kept on and we will all be happily speeding through them thinking we wont get caught and they will get a sudden increase in revenue - brilliant ! great idea Oxon county council - like your work.[/p][/quote]Can't you read. The county council doesn't get the revenue from speed cameras, the treasury does. PaulSte
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Jimbo34 says...

Heathcliff - it may be true that 11% are out and about at any time, but it's a bit misleading. 100% would involve every officer working every hour of every day.
According to the interview I heard the other day on BBC Oxford, when you account for early, evening and late shifts, and people on rest days - it's actually about half of available officers out and about any time.
The police are getting a hard time in this, when they haven't been involved in this decision - just left to clear up the mess the council have left behind.
It is the council, not the police, who have shown a dereliction of duty here
Heathcliff - it may be true that 11% are out and about at any time, but it's a bit misleading. 100% would involve every officer working every hour of every day. According to the interview I heard the other day on BBC Oxford, when you account for early, evening and late shifts, and people on rest days - it's actually about half of available officers out and about any time. The police are getting a hard time in this, when they haven't been involved in this decision - just left to clear up the mess the council have left behind. It is the council, not the police, who have shown a dereliction of duty here Jimbo34
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Gingerbread says...

FANTASTIC!!! About bloody time, maybe the police can start doing some real police work, like catching rapists and murderers, instead of sitting on the side of a road booking people for not wearing a seatbelt....!! I and I speak for many think its the best news I have heard this year!!!
FANTASTIC!!! About bloody time, maybe the police can start doing some real police work, like catching rapists and murderers, instead of sitting on the side of a road booking people for not wearing a seatbelt....!! I and I speak for many think its the best news I have heard this year!!! Gingerbread
  • Score: 0

4:58pm Fri 23 Jul 10

abingdonborn&bred says...

I wish the above comments were true but alas, last week in Abingdon I witnessed a police car go through the lights outside Stratton's on a red light. I sat there with my lights on red and amber and this patrol car came through no blues and two's.
Next day on the ock street roundabouts another patrol car sat at the spring road exit a cyclist rode along the pavement dropped down in front of said police car accross the road and up onto the pavement on the other side. The police car drove back to the station. Ah busy police at there best. guess they were to busy heading back for coffee at The Nick
I wish the above comments were true but alas, last week in Abingdon I witnessed a police car go through the lights outside Stratton's on a red light. I sat there with my lights on red and amber and this patrol car came through no blues and two's. Next day on the ock street roundabouts another patrol car sat at the spring road exit a cyclist rode along the pavement dropped down in front of said police car accross the road and up onto the pavement on the other side. The police car drove back to the station. Ah busy police at there best. guess they were to busy heading back for coffee at The Nick abingdonborn&bred
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Joe Chapman says...

I suspect there is a political element here related to the cuts and the 'big society' which I suspect is really a trojan horse for privatisation.

A seatbelt once saved my life (that's not a song by Radiohead). In a head on collision at an accident black spot. Yes, perhaps they should repeal the law on seatbelts and let idiots kill themselves? That would not have saved me as a child.

It bothers me that people constantly go on about police not bothering with 'little things' and going after rapists and murderers. Most of us don't go out everday and get raped or murdered, that's why there are special groups to deal with it within the police force. It's the little things that occur everyday, they seem petty but I believe they are an important part of the reason why society has become so selfish and inconsiderate. Those pavement cyclists couldn't give a crap about you, they might not even notice your existence, why should they? They are too busy trying to knock a minute or so off their journey or being bothered about being made to wait in a queue at lights. Their minor gripes and wanting to do what they want is more important to them than your right to walk along a pavement unhindered by selfish idiots. Or the elderly person whose bones won't mend if you run in to them etc. I told a pavement cyclist that he should be cycling on the road the other day, right in front of a policeman who did nothing and didn't appear busy. I was assualted by 3 different people on 2 occassion within 1 week, there were no police around. One of the incidents was on the Cowley Road on a Saturday Night. The £40,000 worth of CCTV on Cowley Road was completely useless. On the other hand the police will swoop down on Cowley Road on a handful of evenings a year with a sniffer dog. They did it to a place I was DJing at, tens of them, brought the dog in who picked out a teacher with a Chinese Herbal tea bag in his pocket, had the dog out of action and several police whilst they were searching this man. In the meantime who knows how many crimes were being committed with no police around.
I suspect there is a political element here related to the cuts and the 'big society' which I suspect is really a trojan horse for privatisation. A seatbelt once saved my life (that's not a song by Radiohead). In a head on collision at an accident black spot. Yes, perhaps they should repeal the law on seatbelts and let idiots kill themselves? That would not have saved me as a child. It bothers me that people constantly go on about police not bothering with 'little things' and going after rapists and murderers. Most of us don't go out everday and get raped or murdered, that's why there are special groups to deal with it within the police force. It's the little things that occur everyday, they seem petty but I believe they are an important part of the reason why society has become so selfish and inconsiderate. Those pavement cyclists couldn't give a crap about you, they might not even notice your existence, why should they? They are too busy trying to knock a minute or so off their journey or being bothered about being made to wait in a queue at lights. Their minor gripes and wanting to do what they want is more important to them than your right to walk along a pavement unhindered by selfish idiots. Or the elderly person whose bones won't mend if you run in to them etc. I told a pavement cyclist that he should be cycling on the road the other day, right in front of a policeman who did nothing and didn't appear busy. I was assualted by 3 different people on 2 occassion within 1 week, there were no police around. One of the incidents was on the Cowley Road on a Saturday Night. The £40,000 worth of CCTV on Cowley Road was completely useless. On the other hand the police will swoop down on Cowley Road on a handful of evenings a year with a sniffer dog. They did it to a place I was DJing at, tens of them, brought the dog in who picked out a teacher with a Chinese Herbal tea bag in his pocket, had the dog out of action and several police whilst they were searching this man. In the meantime who knows how many crimes were being committed with no police around. Joe Chapman
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Fri 23 Jul 10

ppt says...

The best thing to happen this centry switching those money maker camaras off.. now lets sort out immagration ..this new goverment at the moment is started with my pet hate now lets see if they can carry on doing the right thing...PHIL;
The best thing to happen this centry switching those money maker camaras off.. now lets sort out immagration ..this new goverment at the moment is started with my pet hate now lets see if they can carry on doing the right thing...PHIL; ppt
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Captain Birdseye says...

Joe Chapman wrote:
I suspect there is a political element here related to the cuts and the 'big society' which I suspect is really a trojan horse for privatisation. A seatbelt once saved my life (that's not a song by Radiohead). In a head on collision at an accident black spot. Yes, perhaps they should repeal the law on seatbelts and let idiots kill themselves? That would not have saved me as a child. It bothers me that people constantly go on about police not bothering with 'little things' and going after rapists and murderers. Most of us don't go out everday and get raped or murdered, that's why there are special groups to deal with it within the police force. It's the little things that occur everyday, they seem petty but I believe they are an important part of the reason why society has become so selfish and inconsiderate. Those pavement cyclists couldn't give a crap about you, they might not even notice your existence, why should they? They are too busy trying to knock a minute or so off their journey or being bothered about being made to wait in a queue at lights. Their minor gripes and wanting to do what they want is more important to them than your right to walk along a pavement unhindered by selfish idiots. Or the elderly person whose bones won't mend if you run in to them etc. I told a pavement cyclist that he should be cycling on the road the other day, right in front of a policeman who did nothing and didn't appear busy. I was assualted by 3 different people on 2 occassion within 1 week, there were no police around. One of the incidents was on the Cowley Road on a Saturday Night. The £40,000 worth of CCTV on Cowley Road was completely useless. On the other hand the police will swoop down on Cowley Road on a handful of evenings a year with a sniffer dog. They did it to a place I was DJing at, tens of them, brought the dog in who picked out a teacher with a Chinese Herbal tea bag in his pocket, had the dog out of action and several police whilst they were searching this man. In the meantime who knows how many crimes were being committed with no police around.
Joe. You have your own agenda, and good on you. But you are in a minority, and we live in a democracy. You are out voted 20+to1, long live common sense, and I hope the Council get a good scrap value for the camera boxes.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Chapman[/bold] wrote: I suspect there is a political element here related to the cuts and the 'big society' which I suspect is really a trojan horse for privatisation. A seatbelt once saved my life (that's not a song by Radiohead). In a head on collision at an accident black spot. Yes, perhaps they should repeal the law on seatbelts and let idiots kill themselves? That would not have saved me as a child. It bothers me that people constantly go on about police not bothering with 'little things' and going after rapists and murderers. Most of us don't go out everday and get raped or murdered, that's why there are special groups to deal with it within the police force. It's the little things that occur everyday, they seem petty but I believe they are an important part of the reason why society has become so selfish and inconsiderate. Those pavement cyclists couldn't give a crap about you, they might not even notice your existence, why should they? They are too busy trying to knock a minute or so off their journey or being bothered about being made to wait in a queue at lights. Their minor gripes and wanting to do what they want is more important to them than your right to walk along a pavement unhindered by selfish idiots. Or the elderly person whose bones won't mend if you run in to them etc. I told a pavement cyclist that he should be cycling on the road the other day, right in front of a policeman who did nothing and didn't appear busy. I was assualted by 3 different people on 2 occassion within 1 week, there were no police around. One of the incidents was on the Cowley Road on a Saturday Night. The £40,000 worth of CCTV on Cowley Road was completely useless. On the other hand the police will swoop down on Cowley Road on a handful of evenings a year with a sniffer dog. They did it to a place I was DJing at, tens of them, brought the dog in who picked out a teacher with a Chinese Herbal tea bag in his pocket, had the dog out of action and several police whilst they were searching this man. In the meantime who knows how many crimes were being committed with no police around.[/p][/quote]Joe. You have your own agenda, and good on you. But you are in a minority, and we live in a democracy. You are out voted 20+to1, long live common sense, and I hope the Council get a good scrap value for the camera boxes. Captain Birdseye
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Fri 23 Jul 10

Diddy OX says...

Glad to see the back of these roadside money making machines wasted millions over the years maintaining these camera sites that could of gone to front line policing of the roads instead i.e more traffic officers! safety camera partnerships what a load of wasteful bureaucratic nonsense as an Oxford Utd fan I never thought I would say this well done Swindon for setting a good example with regards to road safety education not punative fines!
Glad to see the back of these roadside money making machines wasted millions over the years maintaining these camera sites that could of gone to front line policing of the roads instead i.e more traffic officers! safety camera partnerships what a load of wasteful bureaucratic nonsense as an Oxford Utd fan I never thought I would say this well done Swindon for setting a good example with regards to road safety education not punative fines! Diddy OX
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Fri 23 Jul 10

May Beican says...

Will they still allow the boys in blue their overtime at that hive of criminality and speeding Middleton Stoney,and if not will they still be able afford their mortgages.
Will they still allow the boys in blue their overtime at that hive of criminality and speeding Middleton Stoney,and if not will they still be able afford their mortgages. May Beican
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Fri 23 Jul 10

atomicbrown says...

This decision is a complete joke ... The County say it is financially motivated to achieve the savings it needs to.

However, it will actually (on balance) cost the tax payer far more because the revenue loss (that goes to the treasury - not the local Authority) will be made up for through somehow.

It's a cynical move and demostrates the cylo mentality that drives many public organsations.

They achieve their precious 'cashable' savings knowing full well that it will result in an even greater drain on the public purse else where.
This decision is a complete joke ... The County say it is financially motivated to achieve the savings it needs to. However, it will actually (on balance) cost the tax payer far more because the revenue loss (that goes to the treasury - not the local Authority) will be made up for through somehow. It's a cynical move and demostrates the cylo mentality that drives many public organsations. They achieve their precious 'cashable' savings knowing full well that it will result in an even greater drain on the public purse else where. atomicbrown
  • Score: 0

10:04pm Fri 23 Jul 10

atomicbrown says...

Oh and another thing ....

Swindon is a town, Oxfordshire is largely rural ... the lack of rise in KSI incidents (Killed/Seriously Injured) related to speed could very well be down to the fact that driving speeds are (generally) far slower in towns than they are in the country.
Oh and another thing .... Swindon is a town, Oxfordshire is largely rural ... the lack of rise in KSI incidents (Killed/Seriously Injured) related to speed could very well be down to the fact that driving speeds are (generally) far slower in towns than they are in the country. atomicbrown
  • Score: 0

11:03am Sat 24 Jul 10

Danny A says...

Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users.
Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users. Danny A
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Sat 24 Jul 10

simplicissimus says...

More atrocious grammar in today's OM "Your Vote", which also only offers Hobson's choice regarding whether readers OBJECT to these cameras (the vote obliges voters' tacit approval in either option of any answer!)
:
Are authorities being derelict in its duty by switching off speed cameras in a row over money
No - it needs to be paid for and it is the system we have
Yes - road laws are not a commodity to be traded. The police ultimately have to enforce the law
More atrocious grammar in today's OM "Your Vote", which also only offers Hobson's choice regarding whether readers OBJECT to these cameras (the vote obliges voters' tacit approval in either option of any answer!) : Are authorities being derelict in its [sic] duty by switching off speed cameras in a row over money No - it needs to be paid for and it is the system we have Yes - road laws are not a commodity to be traded. The police ultimately have to enforce the law simplicissimus
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Sat 24 Jul 10

FTaylor says...

I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.
I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society. FTaylor
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Sat 24 Jul 10

Sid Hunt says...

Danny A, whilst I agree with your comments about road us education - speed cameras do not give advice on driving? Excessive speed is a factor in some traffic incidents but DfT reports put it at around 3%. If fixed cameras are removed from the equation perhaps road users will focus more on their behaviour as they will not know when they are being watched.
Danny A, whilst I agree with your comments about road us education - speed cameras do not give advice on driving? Excessive speed is a factor in some traffic incidents but DfT reports put it at around 3%. If fixed cameras are removed from the equation perhaps road users will focus more on their behaviour as they will not know when they are being watched. Sid Hunt
  • Score: 0

9:11am Sun 25 Jul 10

Lord Palmerstone says...

While they are at it, what about getting rid of the stupid lumps of concrete in the road as well? I have sciatica at the moment anfd it is absolute agony. If a person can't drive competently all the concrete and yellow boxes in the universe will not improve their ability.
While they are at it, what about getting rid of the stupid lumps of concrete in the road as well? I have sciatica at the moment anfd it is absolute agony. If a person can't drive competently all the concrete and yellow boxes in the universe will not improve their ability. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Sun 25 Jul 10

Danny A says...

Sid Hunt wrote:
Danny A, whilst I agree with your comments about road us education - speed cameras do not give advice on driving? Excessive speed is a factor in some traffic incidents but DfT reports put it at around 3%. If fixed cameras are removed from the equation perhaps road users will focus more on their behaviour as they will not know when they are being watched.
I'm not particularly a big fan of fixed cameras (mobile units are far more effective). I believe though that offending drivers can be offered the choice of the usual punishment (points/fine) or going on a driver education course. This is where the education comes in. However, presumably with the cuts this option is even less likely to happen...

There is a difference in "excessive speed" and "inappropriate speed". The 3% might represent the number of vehicles *proven* to be above the speed limit. Often though, you can be under the limit, yet going around a blind bend, in bad light and in slippery conditions and as such the speed is inappropriate. By logic, speed always has *some* factor, since if everyone were made to slow to walking pace, there would be no fatal accidents...

In my opinion, any one who finds that monitoring their speed to within legal levels is a distraction, is not a competent driver. No excuses.
[quote][p][bold]Sid Hunt[/bold] wrote: Danny A, whilst I agree with your comments about road us education - speed cameras do not give advice on driving? Excessive speed is a factor in some traffic incidents but DfT reports put it at around 3%. If fixed cameras are removed from the equation perhaps road users will focus more on their behaviour as they will not know when they are being watched.[/p][/quote]I'm not particularly a big fan of fixed cameras (mobile units are far more effective). I believe though that offending drivers can be offered the choice of the usual punishment (points/fine) or going on a driver education course. This is where the education comes in. However, presumably with the cuts this option is even less likely to happen... There is a difference in "excessive speed" and "inappropriate speed". The 3% might represent the number of vehicles *proven* to be above the speed limit. Often though, you can be under the limit, yet going around a blind bend, in bad light and in slippery conditions and as such the speed is inappropriate. By logic, speed always has *some* factor, since if everyone were made to slow to walking pace, there would be no fatal accidents... In my opinion, any one who finds that monitoring their speed to within legal levels is a distraction, is not a competent driver. No excuses. Danny A
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Sun 25 Jul 10

digdog says...

FTaylor wrote:
I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.
They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey!
[quote][p][bold]FTaylor[/bold] wrote: I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.[/p][/quote]They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey! digdog
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Sun 25 Jul 10

Captain Birdseye says...

Danny A wrote:
Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users.
Danny more people have a chance of getting run over on a Green man on a pelican crossing by a cyclist than by a speeding motorist. Get rid of your hatred of the Internal Combustion Engine and enter the real world. The people who kill and maim on the roads for fun are the same drunk/drugged up youths that you see on the street outside Tesco. They Borrow a car while high, "RAG" it go through speed cameras for fun while sticking the Vs out the window. Fact You are more likely to be Raped or Murdered (intentionally) than killed on the road (intentionally), unless by an errant cyclo. Turn the cameras off and get back to nicking dangerous drivers, not the rest of us doing nothing wrong apart from crossing a fixed line.
[quote][p][bold]Danny A[/bold] wrote: Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users.[/p][/quote]Danny more people have a chance of getting run over on a Green man on a pelican crossing by a cyclist than by a speeding motorist. Get rid of your hatred of the Internal Combustion Engine and enter the real world. The people who kill and maim on the roads for fun are the same drunk/drugged up youths that you see on the street outside Tesco. They Borrow a car while high, "RAG" it go through speed cameras for fun while sticking the Vs out the window. Fact You are more likely to be Raped or Murdered (intentionally) than killed on the road (intentionally), unless by an errant cyclo. Turn the cameras off and get back to nicking dangerous drivers, not the rest of us doing nothing wrong apart from crossing a fixed line. Captain Birdseye
  • Score: 0

9:58pm Sun 25 Jul 10

Danny A says...

Captain Birdseye wrote:
Danny A wrote:
Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users.
Danny more people have a chance of getting run over on a Green man on a pelican crossing by a cyclist than by a speeding motorist. Get rid of your hatred of the Internal Combustion Engine and enter the real world. The people who kill and maim on the roads for fun are the same drunk/drugged up youths that you see on the street outside Tesco. They Borrow a car while high, "RAG" it go through speed cameras for fun while sticking the Vs out the window. Fact You are more likely to be Raped or Murdered (intentionally) than killed on the road (intentionally), unless by an errant cyclo. Turn the cameras off and get back to nicking dangerous drivers, not the rest of us doing nothing wrong apart from crossing a fixed line.
lol. I have a car that use all the time Captain, so I have no problem with the internal combustion engine and thankfully I have the skills to keep my speed below the legal maxima to avoid those pesky checks! As for getting run-over I'd choose it being from a cyclist over a car any day of the week! Perhaps you appreciate the extra weight and speed a motor vehicle collision provides you with though? I have to say however, that I'm a bit concerned though that you seem to suggest that unintentional violent and premature deaths (which is effectively all those on the roads of Oxon) are ok??!!
[quote][p][bold]Captain Birdseye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danny A[/bold] wrote: Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users.[/p][/quote]Danny more people have a chance of getting run over on a Green man on a pelican crossing by a cyclist than by a speeding motorist. Get rid of your hatred of the Internal Combustion Engine and enter the real world. The people who kill and maim on the roads for fun are the same drunk/drugged up youths that you see on the street outside Tesco. They Borrow a car while high, "RAG" it go through speed cameras for fun while sticking the Vs out the window. Fact You are more likely to be Raped or Murdered (intentionally) than killed on the road (intentionally), unless by an errant cyclo. Turn the cameras off and get back to nicking dangerous drivers, not the rest of us doing nothing wrong apart from crossing a fixed line.[/p][/quote]lol. I have a car that use all the time Captain, so I have no problem with the internal combustion engine and thankfully I have the skills to keep my speed below the legal maxima to avoid those pesky checks! As for getting run-over I'd choose it being from a cyclist over a car any day of the week! Perhaps you appreciate the extra weight and speed a motor vehicle collision provides you with though? I have to say however, that I'm a bit concerned though that you seem to suggest that unintentional violent and premature deaths (which is effectively all those on the roads of Oxon) are ok??!! Danny A
  • Score: 0

12:07am Mon 26 Jul 10

luckyolddog says...

So farewell then, speed cameras.

I support the decommissioning of speed cameras, and better spend of money and resources on proper road safety.

Only a very vocal minority, and Safety Camera Partnerships with a vested interest, continue to support the use of speed cameras. To more they are a totalitarian enforcement method that is an affront on personal liberty, and inconclusive (at best) as to any safety benefit. Cynically, the siting of speed cameras often seemed determined by likelyhood of generating revenue rather than safety, especially in Oxfordshire.

There has to a better way to both spend less money and have more effect. Inform and educate, or warn, for example.

Even the most vigilant observer of speed limits must eventually make a mistake, say in failing to notice a change in limit, and so be caught and fined. Such has happened to me. Going about daily life ought not to generate a feeling of persecution, especially as an abiding driver, waiting for the one mistake that's going to get you. That doesn't change behaviour, it just degrades quality of life. Ask Winston Smith.
So farewell then, speed cameras. I support the decommissioning of speed cameras, and better spend of money and resources on proper road safety. Only a very vocal minority, and Safety Camera Partnerships with a vested interest, continue to support the use of speed cameras. To more they are a totalitarian enforcement method that is an affront on personal liberty, and inconclusive (at best) as to any safety benefit. Cynically, the siting of speed cameras often seemed determined by likelyhood of generating revenue rather than safety, especially in Oxfordshire. There has to a better way to both spend less money and have more effect. Inform and educate, or warn, for example. Even the most vigilant observer of speed limits must eventually make a mistake, say in failing to notice a change in limit, and so be caught and fined. Such has happened to me. Going about daily life ought not to generate a feeling of persecution, especially as an abiding driver, waiting for the one mistake that's going to get you. That doesn't change behaviour, it just degrades quality of life. Ask Winston Smith. luckyolddog
  • Score: 0

9:56am Mon 26 Jul 10

LadyPenelope says...

Just goes to show that speed cameras were all about making money and not safety.

We will always get idiots on the roads whether we have speed cameras or not.
Just goes to show that speed cameras were all about making money and not safety. We will always get idiots on the roads whether we have speed cameras or not. LadyPenelope
  • Score: 0

10:12am Mon 26 Jul 10

Captain Birdseye says...

Danny A wrote:
Captain Birdseye wrote:
Danny A wrote: Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users.
Danny more people have a chance of getting run over on a Green man on a pelican crossing by a cyclist than by a speeding motorist. Get rid of your hatred of the Internal Combustion Engine and enter the real world. The people who kill and maim on the roads for fun are the same drunk/drugged up youths that you see on the street outside Tesco. They Borrow a car while high, "RAG" it go through speed cameras for fun while sticking the Vs out the window. Fact You are more likely to be Raped or Murdered (intentionally) than killed on the road (intentionally), unless by an errant cyclo. Turn the cameras off and get back to nicking dangerous drivers, not the rest of us doing nothing wrong apart from crossing a fixed line.
lol. I have a car that use all the time Captain, so I have no problem with the internal combustion engine and thankfully I have the skills to keep my speed below the legal maxima to avoid those pesky checks! As for getting run-over I'd choose it being from a cyclist over a car any day of the week! Perhaps you appreciate the extra weight and speed a motor vehicle collision provides you with though? I have to say however, that I'm a bit concerned though that you seem to suggest that unintentional violent and premature deaths (which is effectively all those on the roads of Oxon) are ok??!!
Bit early to be hitting to bottle isn't in Daniel? I hope you are not cycling today. Nowhere in my post did I even suggest it is cool that we have road deaths as you wrote. Obviously English comprehension was not your best subject.
[quote][p][bold]Danny A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Captain Birdseye[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danny A[/bold] wrote: Around 30-60 people are killed on Oxfordshire's roads each year. (interestingly there has been a downward trend over the past 5 years.) These are violent and premature deaths. You are FAR more likely to get killed or seriously injured in a road collision than get raped or murdered. In fact, it is the biggest cause of death for 18-30 yr olds. This is why it is essential to police the roads and educate road users and this requires appropriate funding. Although some may argue that speeding is not the primary cause of most accidents, there is clear evidence that people who flout limits and generally use inappropriate speed pose an increased risk to other road users.[/p][/quote]Danny more people have a chance of getting run over on a Green man on a pelican crossing by a cyclist than by a speeding motorist. Get rid of your hatred of the Internal Combustion Engine and enter the real world. The people who kill and maim on the roads for fun are the same drunk/drugged up youths that you see on the street outside Tesco. They Borrow a car while high, "RAG" it go through speed cameras for fun while sticking the Vs out the window. Fact You are more likely to be Raped or Murdered (intentionally) than killed on the road (intentionally), unless by an errant cyclo. Turn the cameras off and get back to nicking dangerous drivers, not the rest of us doing nothing wrong apart from crossing a fixed line.[/p][/quote]lol. I have a car that use all the time Captain, so I have no problem with the internal combustion engine and thankfully I have the skills to keep my speed below the legal maxima to avoid those pesky checks! As for getting run-over I'd choose it being from a cyclist over a car any day of the week! Perhaps you appreciate the extra weight and speed a motor vehicle collision provides you with though? I have to say however, that I'm a bit concerned though that you seem to suggest that unintentional violent and premature deaths (which is effectively all those on the roads of Oxon) are ok??!![/p][/quote]Bit early to be hitting to bottle isn't in Daniel? I hope you are not cycling today. Nowhere in my post did I even suggest it is cool that we have road deaths as you wrote. Obviously English comprehension was not your best subject. Captain Birdseye
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Mon 26 Jul 10

Lord Palmerstone says...

digdog wrote:
FTaylor wrote: I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.
They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey!
digdog, you are having a laugh aren't you? Ask any doctor, after he's had a couple of beers,whether any of his colleagues has ever obeyed the 1967 Abortion Act (as amended) and he'll laugh like a drain.Tell me about the last prosecution under that particular Act of Parliament that you ever heard of. And it is not a trivial statute, is it? It's about killing people. 2000,000 a year until last year. A bit more than a few cellophane bags of flowers is that, isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]digdog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FTaylor[/bold] wrote: I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.[/p][/quote]They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey![/p][/quote]digdog, you are having a laugh aren't you? Ask any doctor, after he's had a couple of beers,whether any of his colleagues has ever obeyed the 1967 Abortion Act (as amended) and he'll laugh like a drain.Tell me about the last prosecution under that particular Act of Parliament that you ever heard of. And it is not a trivial statute, is it? It's about killing people. 2000,000 a year until last year. A bit more than a few cellophane bags of flowers is that, isn't it? Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Tue 27 Jul 10

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
digdog wrote:
FTaylor wrote: I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.
They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey!
digdog, you are having a laugh aren't you? Ask any doctor, after he's had a couple of beers,whether any of his colleagues has ever obeyed the 1967 Abortion Act (as amended) and he'll laugh like a drain.Tell me about the last prosecution under that particular Act of Parliament that you ever heard of. And it is not a trivial statute, is it? It's about killing people. 2000,000 a year until last year. A bit more than a few cellophane bags of flowers is that, isn't it?
2 million per year?

Latest Government figure I could find was 195,300 in 2008 (albeit only in England and Wales).

http://webarchive.na
tionalarchives.gov.u
k/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en
/Publichealth/Health
improvement/Sexualhe
alth/Sexualhealthgen
eralinformation/DH_4
063857

So approximately 1.8m in Scotland and NI according to your figues - I blame the Buckfast.....
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digdog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FTaylor[/bold] wrote: I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.[/p][/quote]They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey![/p][/quote]digdog, you are having a laugh aren't you? Ask any doctor, after he's had a couple of beers,whether any of his colleagues has ever obeyed the 1967 Abortion Act (as amended) and he'll laugh like a drain.Tell me about the last prosecution under that particular Act of Parliament that you ever heard of. And it is not a trivial statute, is it? It's about killing people. 2000,000 a year until last year. A bit more than a few cellophane bags of flowers is that, isn't it?[/p][/quote]2 million per year? Latest Government figure I could find was 195,300 in 2008 (albeit only in England and Wales). http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en /Publichealth/Health improvement/Sexualhe alth/Sexualhealthgen eralinformation/DH_4 063857 So approximately 1.8m in Scotland and NI according to your figues - I blame the Buckfast..... locodogz
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Tue 27 Jul 10

Captain Birdseye says...

locodogz wrote:
Lord Palmerstone wrote:
digdog wrote:
FTaylor wrote: I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.
They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey!
digdog, you are having a laugh aren't you? Ask any doctor, after he's had a couple of beers,whether any of his colleagues has ever obeyed the 1967 Abortion Act (as amended) and he'll laugh like a drain.Tell me about the last prosecution under that particular Act of Parliament that you ever heard of. And it is not a trivial statute, is it? It's about killing people. 2000,000 a year until last year. A bit more than a few cellophane bags of flowers is that, isn't it?
2 million per year? Latest Government figure I could find was 195,300 in 2008 (albeit only in England and Wales). http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en /Publichealth/Health improvement/Sexualhe alth/Sexualhealthgen eralinformation/DH_4 063857 So approximately 1.8m in Scotland and NI according to your figues - I blame the Buckfast.....
I think he meant 200,000
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]digdog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FTaylor[/bold] wrote: I'll be glad to see them go (they are going to physically remove them, aren't they?). Automatically criminalising literally half the adult population in order to try to curb the excesses of a few (and generally failing) is no way to police a free society.[/p][/quote]They only criminilaise those who break the law which means they really are criminals doesn't it? We can't pick and choose which laws we obey![/p][/quote]digdog, you are having a laugh aren't you? Ask any doctor, after he's had a couple of beers,whether any of his colleagues has ever obeyed the 1967 Abortion Act (as amended) and he'll laugh like a drain.Tell me about the last prosecution under that particular Act of Parliament that you ever heard of. And it is not a trivial statute, is it? It's about killing people. 2000,000 a year until last year. A bit more than a few cellophane bags of flowers is that, isn't it?[/p][/quote]2 million per year? Latest Government figure I could find was 195,300 in 2008 (albeit only in England and Wales). http://webarchive.na tionalarchives.gov.u k/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en /Publichealth/Health improvement/Sexualhe alth/Sexualhealthgen eralinformation/DH_4 063857 So approximately 1.8m in Scotland and NI according to your figues - I blame the Buckfast.....[/p][/quote]I think he meant 200,000 Captain Birdseye
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Wed 28 Jul 10

Lord Palmerstone says...

I did mean 200 thou.The rest of my point was that you may go to a court near you to find many people criminalised for driving a car at a speed which a clerk considers criminal-though of course said clerk is not doing the driving so doesn't know-whilst you may hold your breath until you are worse than blue in the face before you find a doctor charged with the offence which many of them commit daily. i.e. abortions for "social " reasons in UK remain illegal but there is a "no prosecution" policy.
I did mean 200 thou.The rest of my point was that you may go to a court near you to find many people criminalised for driving a car at a speed which a clerk considers criminal-though of course said clerk is not doing the driving so doesn't know-whilst you may hold your breath until you are worse than blue in the face before you find a doctor charged with the offence which many of them commit daily. i.e. abortions for "social " reasons in UK remain illegal but there is a "no prosecution" policy. Lord Palmerstone
  • Score: 0

9:50am Thu 29 Jul 10

locodogz says...

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
I did mean 200 thou.The rest of my point was that you may go to a court near you to find many people criminalised for driving a car at a speed which a clerk considers criminal-though of course said clerk is not doing the driving so doesn't know-whilst you may hold your breath until you are worse than blue in the face before you find a doctor charged with the offence which many of them commit daily. i.e. abortions for "social " reasons in UK remain illegal but there is a "no prosecution" policy.
At the risk of going a little off topic - the “offence” that you cite is something of a grey area (IMHO)

Under the act the basic medical criteria that needs to be met (up to 24 weeks) is that two doctors must decide that the “risk to a woman’s physical or mental health or the risk to her child(ren)’s physical or mental health will be greater if she continues with the pregnancy than if she ends it”.

In practice many doctors take the view that women are the best people to make decisions about their own pregnancy and will refer any woman who requests an abortion on the grounds that her mental health will suffer by being forced to continue with a pregnancy which is unwanted.
For balance it must be stated that equally other doctors interpret the law more narrowly and would look for specific evidence that a woman’s health (mental or physical) would be put at risk by the pregnancy.
My point being that (whatever your views on this emotive subject) if two doctors choose to take the first view chances of securing a prosecution against them is pretty slim (even if you suspect it is in fact for “social reasons”).
[quote][p][bold]Lord Palmerstone[/bold] wrote: I did mean 200 thou.The rest of my point was that you may go to a court near you to find many people criminalised for driving a car at a speed which a clerk considers criminal-though of course said clerk is not doing the driving so doesn't know-whilst you may hold your breath until you are worse than blue in the face before you find a doctor charged with the offence which many of them commit daily. i.e. abortions for "social " reasons in UK remain illegal but there is a "no prosecution" policy.[/p][/quote]At the risk of going a little off topic - the “offence” that you cite is something of a grey area (IMHO) Under the act the basic medical criteria that needs to be met (up to 24 weeks) is that two doctors must decide that the “risk to a woman’s physical or mental health or the risk to her child(ren)’s physical or mental health will be greater if she continues with the pregnancy than if she ends it”. In practice many doctors take the view that women are the best people to make decisions about their own pregnancy and will refer any woman who requests an abortion on the grounds that her mental health will suffer by being forced to continue with a pregnancy which is unwanted. For balance it must be stated that equally other doctors interpret the law more narrowly and would look for specific evidence that a woman’s health (mental or physical) would be put at risk by the pregnancy. My point being that (whatever your views on this emotive subject) if two doctors choose to take the first view chances of securing a prosecution against them is pretty slim (even if you suspect it is in fact for “social reasons”). locodogz
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree