Well the short answer is that Co2 stands for carbon dioxide and far from being evil it is vital to all forms of life on earth. Now this is a fact and we have the right to expect that people engaging in this debate have at least a very basic knowledge of what they are talking about. However listening to a young ‘environmentalist’ (whatever that is) on the radio the other day I was shocked to hear that according to him it would be far better for the planet if we could get rid of all Co2, which of course would turn the earth into a giant replica of the moon – but with less life on it.
So how much Co2 do we have in the atmosphere? Well listening to all the Climate Change Fanatics (CCF’s) you could well be convinced that it comprises just about all of it, this is in fact nonsense. It is present in such small amounts that it is classified as a ‘trace gas’, it comprises 380 parts per million of the total gasses making up the earth’s atmosphere. Now the problem with throwing labels like that at you is it is very difficult to relate to it. I mean do you know how much a million is? I know it’s a big figure but have no idea how big.
Try this, imagine a matchstick, now we all know how big one of those is. They are about 2 millimetres wide. Now if you lay 1 million matchsticks side by side you would have a row of matchsticks approximately one and a quarter miles long. I think many of us can visualise a mile and a quarter. Now count off 380 matchsticks, that is about 29 ½” inches long, about the distance from your armpit to the tips of your fingers. The length of you arm compared to 1 ¼ miles is the amount of Co2 there is in the atmosphere. However the vast majority of that 380 ppm is not manmade, it comes from natural sources. Mankind only emits about 3.4% of this figure, that’s about 1”. So you have 1 1/4" miles representing all the atmosphere, only an arms length of that is Co2 and of that amount only half a thumb length is manmade. But it doesn’t stop there; of that 1” only about half goes into the atmosphere, the other half is absorbed by plants and other surface level sinks that absorb Co2.
So to recap the amount of manmade Co2 that actually enters the atmosphere is the equivalent of a thumbnail compared to 1 1/4 miles! Not very much is it? Now according to the CCF’s this thumbnail is so powerful it can change the entire planet, it will causes mountains to fall and seas to rise, deserts to, well do something ( they’re not quite sure what) and fields to do something else. Oh come on. Let’s stop and think for a minute. One thing us humans are very good at doing is killing each other, and boy can we think up some interesting and varied ways to do it. I have seen myself the effect of explosives against tanks, seen huge lorries shredded by machine guns and men vaporised by explosives. Don’t you think that if a gas like Co2 could have so much power the arms manufacturers would have turned it into a weapon by now?
The fact is that Co2 is vital for life on earth (in spite of the US Supreme Court classifying it as a ‘pollutant’, what was that all about. Without Co2 nothing would live, no plants, no animals, no insects nothing – all dead, all gone.
Here’s something to think about, if all mankind vanished from the earth tomorrow, it would only take a few months for the additional plant life to make up the Co2 levels to what we were contributing.
Next we are going to take a look at Greenhouse Gasses, what are they and are they part of the axis of evil too?
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Monday, 21 December 2009
Latest from the Do as I Say Club
Well the latest bean feast in Copenhagen is well under way.
First off these are the people who are putting extra taxes on flights to stop the taxpayer having two weeks in Benidorm or wherever. This is just for the taxpayer, the CCF's carry on flying. The local airport is expecting an additional 140 private jets, bringing in the CCF's, in fact so many additional aircraft are coming in that there is no room, they land, discharge their CCF's and then head to neighbouring countries like Sweden to park up.
After landing you might expect the CCF's to head for their YMCAs or hostels either on a bike or walking. Not at all. Majken Friss Jorgensen, Managing Director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company, usually has 12 such vehicles on the road. For the summit she will have over 200. She reckons that overall the CCF's will be using over 1200 luxury limousines. The French alone have rung up and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand; we're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden". By the way the total number of electric or hybrid cars in that total is just five!
Now don't forget this is for those CCF's who are already taxing you off the road if your vehicle is classified as a 'gas guzzler'. Anyway after being picked up in 12 cylinder luxury cars they are being hurried off to the very best hotels at £650 per night where they will feast on scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges. When where you last able to afford that? Most taxpayers I know can't afford £650 for two weeks all inclusive.
But surely when they get there they will calm it down a bit? I mean they will be wanting to do their bit to save the Planet? Well not really, we serfs are expected to shiver in the dark so that we have more money available to pay more taxes but the CCF's? Here are some facts.
Whilst at the summit all these people will be guzzling energy. The organisers will lay 900km of computer cable and 50,000 square miles of carpet. More than 200,000 meals will be served and visitors will drink more than 200,000 cups of coffee.
The UN estimates the emissions from both international travel and living costs will be in the region of 40,500 tonnes - the equivalent of around two thirds the CO2 the UK's biggest polluter, Drax power station, produced in a day in 2007. Or to put it another way the same carbon emissions as Morocco in 2006.
On the news yesterday it was estimated that over 34,000 people were travelling to Copenhagen for this summit – but don't worry serfs, they're not paying – you are!
Debate at last
First off I think Paul was being a bit disingenuous saying that I was comparing Gordon Brown to Hitler, what I said was "Gordon Brown gave a perfect example of this kind of fanaticism the other day when, almost frothing at the mouth in fine Hitlerian style, he proclaimed anyone who didn't accept his point of view as being 'Flat Earthers', which means I was comparing his style to Hitler's not the man. However if I did cause a misunderstanding I apologise.
Richard has made some valuable comments in his posts, especially about how the IPCC work.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) does exactly this: it looks at all the studies that have been done, from people who's (sic) research has found man is not to blame, and from those that believe we are. They review the body of evidence and look at the overall picture."
If only that were true, unfortunately it is a matter of record that they did not do this. The IPCC relied heavily on information gathered by Working Group 1 under the chairmanship of Dr John Houghton (later Sir John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE bio here: www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Biography.php?ID=17) who was at that time Chief Executive of the British Met office. He founded the Hadley centre which later became very involved in selecting which scientists should be invited to contribute.
At first everything seemed above board and one passage in the Working Group 1 report read as follows.
"a global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciations without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gases. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase in greenhouse gases"
In other words greater warmings have happened before, we don't know why, but we can't blame greenhouse gases. A perfectly fair and balanced assessment of the situation. However when the report was issued all mention of not knowing why warming had occurred was removed. Prof R S Lindzen (bio here: www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm) writing in 1992 wrote:
"largely ignores the uncertainty in the report and attempts to present the expectation of substantial warming as firmly based science"
In other words "Hey hang on a minute this has changed from we don't really know to this is definite"
Lindzen went on to quote Houghton himself admitting that:
"whilst every attempt was made by lead authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus"
In other words if you don't agree with us you will not be heard. Shades of Copernicus and Galileo!
Professor F Seitz (obituary here: http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/index.php?page=engine&id=724)
Commented in 1996:
"in my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events which led to this IPCC report…if the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process"
Professor Seitz, distinguished physicist and educator who held key government posts for over three decades, received the National Medal of Science, the nation's highest award in science, in 1973 for his contributions to the modern quantum theory of the solid state of matter, presumably had a fair knowledge of the process of 'peer review'.
Whatever happened to Dr John Houghton for his starting the global warming ball rolling? Well the fact that he later received a knighthood might be seen by some as payoff, but of course I couldn't possibly comment! Two of his publications make interesting reading, Does God Play Dice? 1988, Intervarsity Press and of course the ever popular, The search for God; can science help? 1995, Lion Publishing.
The point is the fix was in, right from the start the IPCC made it quite clear that any scientist not agreeing with them would not be listened to.
How the CCFs tell the truth – but lie at the same time!
CARIBBEAN ICE DOUBLES IN LESS THAN AN HOUR!!!!
Reports are coming in from the Captain of the SS Caribbean Cruiser that ice in the usually warm waters has doubled in less than one hour. Several ships officers noticed this phenomenon, and it was entered into the ships log. The Captain, speaking to his head office in London, said "In forty years at sea I have never seen anything like this before"
There is a consensus of scientific opinion that this is caused by Global warming. A spokesman said "It is quite possible that large icebergs breaking off from the Antarctic ice shelf are finding their way to the usually warm waters of the Caribbean. Scientists have long forecast that the effects of man- made global warming will have catastrophic effects worldwide.
(The article then continues repeating all the dire warnings we have read so many times)
Now I bet that the majority of people reading that will throw up their hands in horror at this latest 'proof' of AGW (man-made global warming). I'll now show you how the CCF's can publish stories like the above which whilst telling the truth, are in fact lies. By that I mean lead the gullible, (and there are a lot of them) to come to a totally wrong conclusion.
Imagine yourself cruising on the good ship SS Caribbean Cruiser. You stand at the guardrail sipping a cool drink and watching the heavens. In an idle moment you take an ice cube from your glass and drop it over the side, moments later you do it again. Now factually the ice in the Caribbean has doubled in less than an hour, but notice how the story doesn't dwell on the truth part of the story, but hurries on to regale you with the usual AGW nonsense. How do they do this?
I call it "fudging the baseline". The baseline is the actual fact part, but they are very clever not to give you any further details. For example a couple of years ago a paper ran with the headline that the incidence of malaria in the UK had tripled in the previous eight months. They were very careful however not to give you the baseline, which were the actual figures. The story was eventually exposed. There was one case of malaria in the UK, but two holiday makers returning from a brief break in The Gambia had not continued taking their anti malaria tablets on returning to the UK and fell ill with the disease. Factually the story was correct, there was one person with malaria, now there were three, but the impression that is left with you is that a disease normally associated with warmer climes ( though in fact malaria is not a tropical disease) is running riot in the UK, an impression that is far from the truth.
So whenever you see a story which is strangely vague about actual figures, be afraid, be very afraid. Such stories often use phrases like, doubled, percentage rise or fall, or since records began.
For example in September 2007 the BBC ran with a story "Northwest Passage (a sea route across the top of Canada normally not navigable because of ice) open for the first time in recorded history". Now this sounds very dramatic and surely proof of AGW. However if you notice they did not actually tell you how long recorded history was. Most of us facing that phrase might imagine a long period, possibly hundreds of years, which is exactly what the CCF's want you to believe. In fact in this case "recorded history" actually meant from 1978 when satellite surveillance made it possible.
Over the years the fabled North West passage has been free of ice on many occasions. Chinese maps of the 14th century show it navigable. The famous Arctic and Antarctic explorer Roald Amundsen, the chap who beat Scott to the South Pole, sailed a ship through it in 1903. The account of his voyage is contained in his diaries. The RCMP, the Mounties, ketch St Roch, made the trip several times between 1940 and 1944.
But the story doesn't end there. In September 2000 the St Roch II, the successor to the original patrol boat did the same trip in just three weeks. Hold on, some of you are saying, didn't the September 2007 story say that the trip had not been done since 1978? So were the details of the 2000 trip kept secret? Well no the Guardian had the story and there was a website giving the full details of the trip. So why wasn't it mentioned? Because the CCF's lied. They wanted a headline to show global warming so they told a lie; of course they also forgot to mention that in 2008 the Northwest Passage was once again frozen over. Of course they didn't bother to mention that as people might say "Whatever happened to this global warming?"
So be wary when reading stories or listening to people who fudge the baseline. If someone tells you this is the coldest/warmest since records began, ask them when that was. If someone tells you the ice has doubled/decreased ask from what amount? Put them on the spot; force them to tell the truth – the real truth!
Details of St Roch trip: http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page122.htm
Details of St Roch II trip: http://www.athropolis.com/news/st-roch.htm
The inconvenient truth about climate change claims
The first thing to notice is that I, unlike the CCF's, am not trying to stop you reading opposing points of view. In fact I encourage it, which is the way we get a debate started. You will not hear me say that I am right because so many thousands (and growing every day) agree with me, I will not stifle comment by declaring, "The debate is over", and I will never try to browbeat you by saying "The science is settled". I actively encourage people to take part in this debate, because believe me when the tax demands start dropping through your letter box you will wish you at least made a stand.
Let us look at Albert's comment. He says:
"Are you a scientist then Bob? Or are you one of these people who think Elvis is still alive?"
Now notice he doesn't try and debate with me, instead he tries to mock me, tries to belittle me and make me ashamed that I dared to question the Holy Writ of the CCF's. However his is an important comment because it shows just what sort of people we are up against. Let us look at his question "Are you a scientist?" The answer is no I'm not, but do I have to be? I have no knowledge of physics, or the intricacies of velocity – mass equations, but I do know that if I step in front of a train going at speed I am liable to come off second best!
Albert is just the sort of person the CCF's are looking for, someone who will unquestionably accept what his superiors tell him to accept. Five hundred years ago it was the church that played this role; today it is an unholy alliance of politics and science. Their aims are remarkably similar, power and domination over the serfs. People like Albert are the sort of people who used to torture people to death because their superiors told them to. Don't forget the majority of the guards in the camps were not made up of the elite they were taken from the inmates. But does Albert have a point; are scientist's people who should be believed without question?
Let's overlook the inconvenient truth that tens of thousands of scientists (number is growing daily) don't agree with the CCF's, and just look at scientists. Just how good is their track record?
Before Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543 there was a consensus (there's that word again) amongst the other scientists that the Sun transited around the earth. So just how valuable were their opinions? And of course we cannot overlook the views of Harvard educated Doctor Howard Aiken who forecast in the late fifties that there would only be the need for "one or two computers would suffice", Well I've got two on my desk, so does that mean I've got the entire worlds stock of computers in my office? No it simply means this scientist was wrong on this occasion. And of course let us not forget that wonderful example of scientists being spectacular wrong when it came to "The greatest threat to mankind" the Millennium Bug. Governments spent some $300 billion of taxpayers' money preparing for this crisis, special committees were set up and a lot of people made an awful lot of money out of this panic, which was supported by a consensus of scientific opinion. Sound familiar? Of course as soon as the second hand swept past midnight that particular gravy train came to an abrupt halt, never mind there's another one coming along straight away, this is the Global Warming/Freezing/Changing scam and just look how we are clamouring to jump aboard.
After the Y2K fiasco a national paper tracked down a well respected computer scientist who predicted correctly that there was not a problem. Asked why he didn't come forward before he showed documentary evidence that he had tried to tell the world there was nothing to worry about, but his papers were not published and he was sidelined, this sounds very familiar.
Of course we must not forget all those scientists who warned the world that it was heading for a new Ice Age, oops sorry, we mean the planet is catching fire, oh no it's not its uhhh, well changing. Haven't you noticed how the nomenclature has changed over the years as scientists come up with new scare stories? Global Freezing, Global Warming oh bug*er let's just say Climate change that should take care of everything.
Besides Albert you overlook the inconvenient truth that tens of thousands of scientists do not believe in anthropogenic (man made) global warming, AGW, so why can't we listen to them? Or do you insist that the only people we listen to are those who insist the sun goes round the earth, that only a handful of computers will be needed and that the Millennium Bug is the greatest threat to mankind? If so, congratulations you have shown yourself worthy of the title Climate Change Fanatic 1st Class.
I end by repeating what I said earlier, No I am not a scientist – but do I have to be? (Still not quite sure what Elvis has to do with it though)
The great global warming scam
You will find that because of their being brainwashed they will constantly utter the same phrases over and over, rather like a robot with a damaged thinking chip.
Some of the phrases you will hear are:
"There is a consensus"
"The Science is settled"
"The debate is over"
"The evidence is overwhelming"
These phrases have only one purpose and that is to bully and cow. They are trying to kid you that you are the only one who does not believe in manmade global warming, or to give it it's technical term Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW, and therefore you better fall into line pretty sharpish or else! Let us have a look at these phrases and see how in fact they are totally meaningless.
CONCENSUS
My dictionary defines consensus as meaning 'a general agreement', which sounds pretty good until you start to pull it apart. The first thing you will find is that the 'general agreement' is only among those who agree with each other. Now that does sound a bit obvious, but that is what they are trying to con you with. The fact is there is no scientific agreement about AGW but so far you have only been allowed to hear from those who support it. Another thing to look at is that AGW should be a matter of science not politics. The difference is very important. In politics you can put a motion to the vote, and if there is a majority who vote yes the motion is carried. However that is not, or should not, be the way science operates. In science a thesis must be subject to experiment, and the important thing about these experiments is that they must be repeatable and always produce the same results. You cannot for example reproduce the experiment a thousand times, achieve the theoretical goal in 700 cases and say 'Case proved'. Science doesn't, or shouldn't, work like that. Let's say a scientist comes up with the theory that if you mix 1 gallon of cold water with 1 gallon of boiling water you end up with two gallons of warmish water. He will offer his theory in a paper, and in this paper he will give all the details of the experiment that he undertook to arrive at his conclusions, such as temperature of water at the start of the experiment and temperature at the end of the experiment. This will enable other scientists to reproduce exactly what he did, and if they all reach the same conclusion the theory is considered scientifically proved. If however 999 scientists come up with the same answer and just 1 comes up with a different answer then the theory is not proved and must be subject to further scrutiny. For example let us look at Cold Fusion.
Interest in the field was dramatically increased on March 23, 1989 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons reported that they had produced fusion in a tabletop experiment involving electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium (Pd) electrode. They reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] These reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.
Enthusiasm turned to scepticism as replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion should not be possible, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts. By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead. (Extract taken from Wikipedia)
Because the experiment could not be replicated the theory was eventually rejected. The fact is that the CCF's have not managed to produce any evidence at all that their theories are correct. When asked for their data so that others might check it the requests have either been ignored or the data has been destroyed. On several occasions there is evidence that data has been falsified. A recent leaking of thousands of emails from Hadley CRU showed this was exactly what had been going on for years. Don't take my word for it check for yourselves the information is out there. I do not ask that you believe me like CCF's do, all I ask is that you use what I say as a springboard to discover the truth for yourself.
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
Well no actually it's not. It is settled between all those scientists who believe in it but there are tens of thousands of scientists who don't. Recently over 30,000 of them signed the Oregon Treaty, to say that they don't. The Daily Express for December 2 2009 led with a headline "THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD", which reports on the findings of Professor Ian Plimmer, so be very, very assured the science is far from settled.
THE DEBATE IS OVER
It's a bit difficult how the debate could be over when in fact no debate has ever been held on the subject. Those scientists who attended conferences to speak out about AGW were actually prevented from doing so. Not so long ago these scientists got so fed up with being muzzled that they took out full page adverts in all the major American Newspapers challenging the CCF's to debate the issue. The result? The CCF's declined the challenge because they said 'the debate is over'. Circular thinking if ever I saw it.
THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING
Well no actually it's not. The CCF's have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that any change in the climate is due to and only due to man. The evidence they have tried to slide past the public is often misleading and sometimes downright fraudulent. Here is an email that was recently revealed in Climategate.
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"
This was in response to hundreds of scientists pointing out a rather inconvenient truth that far from warming up, the planet is actually cooling down. That didn't suit the CCF's so they falsified the data.
This outrageous chicanery is evidence of just how far these despicable people will go to grab more of your money and stuff it in their pockets.
Next we will be looking at how the CCF's are all fully paid up members of the 'Don't do what I do – do what I say' club.
I thought we might need a logo. So here's one.
So come on folks, joint the SAS – Sane and Sensible. (With apologies to the Regiment)
The global warming/freezing/staying the same/changing hustle - biggest con of all time
Now remember in my very first blog I showed you what masters of lying, Goebbels, Stalin etc had to say about propaganda. How there were basic rules to follow. For example it is important that the same mantra be repeated ad nauseum, until the masses believe. No debate of the subject is allowed, if you disagree you will be simply told that you are wrong and need re-educating. This is exactly what the Stalinist told hundreds of thousands of Russians who dared to question the party line, and why when party officials had special roads to travel on in their luxury limousines the rest were reduced to eating mud to stave off starvation. And so they were sent to the Gulags to be re-educated. For an example of this dictatorial behaviour we have to look no further than our own resident 'Climate Change Champion' Cerith Jones, and his response to someone who dares to dissent.
Somebody called Rob from Swansea left a comment on his blog. It read: Sorry Cerith, I'm still not convinced that Climate Change is a man made phenomenon. A perfectly reasonable comment to make in a country which presumably embraces free speech. So what is Cerith's reply? Does he lay out some facts for Rob; does he back his point of view with evidence? Does he debate the matter with Rob? No. Here is a dissenter and dissension is not allowed. He begins his rant.
"Hi Rob, the majority of climate scientists worldwide are in agreement that climate change is happening now faster than ever before"
This is sheer bullying. What he is saying is my army is bigger than yours so shut up. What Cerith fails to understand is that the question of climate change is a scientific one not a political one – or it should be. He then continues:
"It IS going to happen - and in 50 or so years time when there are widespread droughts, famines, floods, tornadoes and deaths, you'll be sorry you didn't listen and act."
Here he is laying down the law. Don't argue with me it is going to happen, and then the threat, you'll be sorry! Again without offering any evidence or proof or even an attempt at debate he once again comes out with you're wrong and I'm right:
"I'm afraid you're the one who's in the wrong here"
Reasonable people who have a difference of opinion are willing to discuss, debate, to try and convince the other party that they are correct by producing evidence that supports their view. The CCF does none of these, he or she is right you are wrong and that's all there is to it. Again in his final line he bullies the other person and demands he recants his heretical views.
"It's a pitty that you can't see passed your own obsession with climate change not existing to realise that CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALREADY HAPPENING, and we all have a duty to act."
To emphasise that his view is correct he actually shouts at the dissenter by employing upper case letters. He also maintains that not to agree with the party line is to be an obsessive, perhaps in need of incarcerating in a psychiatric hospital to 'cure' him. Stalin would be proud. What is a real pity here is someone who supposedly has a reasonable education is unable to spell 'pity' and has difficulty with which word to use 'passed' or 'past'. He picked the wrong one!
In the next session we continue our lessons in how to spot a CCF.
Murderers Get Better Treatment than Motorists
Some of you may have noticed two lengthy comments left by someone who prefers to hide his identity behind initials 'AJ of Harrow'.
I find this rather telling as one thing he accuses me of is "but given that the lying black propagandist who concocted it all didn't have the guts to put their name to it."
This tells us three things about AJ. One he didn't identify himself. Secondly it must really call into question his ability to actually research information since my blog is not only headed Bob Hinton, but also displays my photograph! Thirdly it just shows you the type of people we are up against.
Some of you may have noticed two lengthy comments left by someone who prefers to hide his identity behind initials 'AJ of Harrow'.
I find this rather telling as one thing he accuses me of is "but given that the lying black propagandist who concocted it all didn't have the guts to put their name to it."
This tells us three things about AJ. One he didn't identify himself. Secondly it must really call into question his ability to actually research information since my blog is not only headed Bob Hinton, but also displays my photograph! Thirdly it just shows you the type of people we are up against.
The Speed Kills Myth
The speed kills myth – the grab begins!
The interest in saving lives seemed to be waning and being replaced with an interest in persecuting the motorist.
In 1969 the seminal work on road safety, 'Road Accidents – Prevent or Punish' was published. (originally printed by Cassell and Company it was reprinted in 2007 by the Quinta Press. ISBN 978-1-897856-29-1.)
It was written by J J Leeming B.Sc (Oxon), ACGI, FICE, MI Struct.E, MI Mun.E, Finst.HE, a very experienced engineer who had been involved in road engineering for both Oxford and Dorset counties for over 40 years.
The thrust of his work was a warning against blaming the motorist for every accident and instead called for the correct analysis of why accidents happen before apportioning blame. The foreword to his book makes interesting reading:
"This book is dedicated to the countless thousands who have died on the roads of the world as a result of the prejudices of a minority, as some reparation and the faint hope that it may induce some government somewhere, to begin trying to stop accidents."
His ideas were revolutionary in that he didn't believe that slowing down traffic would automatically cause a drop in accidents. In fact he states in the introduction:
"I have spent forty years of my life increasing the speed of traffic to reduce accidents, with some success."
This attitude, based on real experience, didn't endear him to the so-called 'road safety experts' who just relied on prejudice against the car to form their policies.
Leeming tells of one particular incident where a certain stretch of road was apparently having more than it's fair share of accidents.
A survey discovered the reason and Leeming suggested building a lay-by.
However, the parish council, wanting to flex its muscles, demanded that a 30mph speed limit be enforced against the advice of both Leeming and the police.
When the council turned this down, they circumvented the process by installing streetlights that automatically brought in a 30mph limit.
The accident rate increased. When Leeming reported this, the Parish Council representative said: "My Council doesn't mind if accidents have increased. We have got our speed limit!"
Astonishingly the 'Road Safety Committee' supported him!
This appalling attitude was to become more noticeable as time progressed.
With the decision apparently being taken to wage war on the motorist the propaganda machine creaked into life.
When attacking an enemy certain steps must be taken, it is a formula that must be followed for eventual success.
First the enemy must be readily identifiable, it is no good for instance waging war against all those 5ft 7ins tall - how would you instantly pick them out?
The motorist is an ideal target as he is in effect the only person in Britain who is required to carry an ID card. It is called a vehicle registration plate and it enables full details of the driver to be accessed on demand. The Nazis made sure the Jews were identifiable by forcing them to wear Stars of David on their clothing.
Secondly, the enemy must be accused of atrocities, and proof provided. The Jews were accused of everything from the murder of German babies to taking control of the finances of the country.
Thirdly, the solution must be offered, and the solution usually involves rigid obedience to the authorities.
The solution to the Jews and the Communists was the Nazi Party.
Of course, the whole campaign relies on the truth being stifled and lies offered as truth. It is ironic that Hitler used as the basis for his campaign the successful propaganda war waged by the British in World War I.
It goes without saying that anyone daring to challenge the lies must be crushed and neutralised, usually by accusing them of being the same sort of criminal the Government were waging war against.
In the war against the motorist the hatred, spite and vitriol aimed at those who did not follow the 'Accepted Truth' was all too common.
The left wing reporter George Monbiot referred to people who did not accept the anti-car propaganda as: "The Anti-Social B******s in Our Midst. Posted December 20, 2005
The car is turning us into a nation of libertarians
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th December 2005
The road rage lobby couldn't have been more wrong. Organisations like the Association of British Drivers and "Safe Speed" - the boy racers' club masquerading as a road safety campaign"
The use of offensive language and the derogatory terms used to describe those organisations that didn't accept the perceived wisdom should be noted.
Having identified the targets of the campaign to the world, the next thing was to dream up some atrocities that they could be blamed for.
The atrocities were of course the people killed and injured on the roads for which the motorist must accept sole blame.
The previous road safety campaigns were quietly dropped; because they espoused the sensible message that road safety was the responsibility of all road users.
The Green Cross Code man faded from our screens in 1990, together with all the other televised adverts for road safety. Since the message of these was to exhort pedestrians to cross the road safely one must ask - why they were taken off?
The message is timeless, unless of course you are trying to convince the population that every accident is the fault of the motorist.
Since then there have been hundreds of adverts blaming the motorist for all accidents, and only one suggesting that it might not be a good idea to run into the road without looking.
On several occasions the authorities shot themselves in their collective feet. One series of adverts showing a driver late for work mowing down a poor defenceless pedestrian late for work was quietly dropped when it was pointed out the pedestrian had dashed into the road a matter of yards from a pelican crossing.
Likewise, another series showing a boy being run over by a car doing 40mph was also dropped when it was pointed out that if the child had not run blindly into the road the speed of the car would have been immaterial as the accident wouldn't have happened.
Another series showing an apparently dead child saying 'If I had been hit at 30mph I might have survived' is also under attack.
It has been pointed out that all these anti-car adverts can be run with a different commentary and give the message that the fault is that of the careless pedestrian.
The slogan to the dead child advert would only have to be replaced with 'If only mummy had shown me how to cross the road properly I might have survived'.
Now for the atrocity message to work of course it must be continually emphasised that the accident rate on British roads is excessive. This is where Goebbels's message plays its part.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
There must be no dissension in the message, Britain's roads are a slaughterhouse and the fault is solely the motorist. But what is the truth? In comparison with 36 other developed countries Britain narrowly comes 5th in fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants.
In comparison with 14 other countries fatalities per one Billion vehicle kilometres travelled in 2003, Britain with two fatalities came second behind Finland with 1.4. Far from Britain's' roads being awash with blood, our casualty rate had enjoyed a long, sustained fall. This was shortly to change.
The truth was that the numbers of Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) on Britain's' roads were extremely small, around the 3,800 per annum.
Of course when this was pointed out the propaganda machine countered with the claim that 'One death was too much'.
This might bear some weight until a quick look at the figures shows that some 40,000 people die in Britain through hypothermia, 80,000 die whilst in hospital due to infections caught whilst in hospital and some 5,000 drown in the bath.
Leeming in his book has a chapter about propaganda and covers this very point.
If you welcome to your home your grandmother and she falls down the stairs and kills herself, her death passes unnoticed.
If you take her for a drive and she dies in a car accident the incident now makes the front page.
Having successfully launched parts one and two, the public were now ready for part three – the solution.
Here the propaganda machine defined its target. The problem they said was not the ordinary motorist, but the speeding motorist. If only we could find some method of detecting the speeding motorist, the problem would be solved.
But wait, we have the answer 'The Gatso Camera'. Here is a machine that will record the details of every speeding motorist; this is the way to save lives.
Of course, the first thing they had to do was to define what they meant by a 'speeding motorist'. The answer was simple; anyone breaking an arbitrarily set speed limit would be guilty.
In an attempt to show they were really doing this for safety reasons and not simply to raise money, cameras would only be sited where there had been several speed-related deaths in the previous five years.
These speed cameras would only be placed at accident black spots. Who could possibly argue with that? Well, quite a few people actually.
The original cameras were all painted grey, one of the primary camouflage colours. If the purpose of them was to warn people of black spots why hide them?
This argument also held sway over the positioning of cameras behind trees and traffic signs. This argument finally won through and the cameras were ordered to be painted yellow and sited in plain view.
Signs announcing the presence of these speed cameras were also ordered to be erected, and soon they sprouted up all over the country.
In Part four we will see how the government actually treats motorists worse than murderers.
The Speed Kills Myth Part 2
An article in the Daily Mail (4th September 1896) posed the question "Motor Cars – Are they to be a Failure? The article covered the Locomotives on Highways Act that came into force in November the same year.
This Act was welcomed for removing the necessity for having a man with a red flag walk in front of automobiles, thus enabling the new automobiles to drive faster.
It also required the driver to carry a bell or some other means of audible warning, and carrying a lamp one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise.
The same time limits for lighting are in force today. The article concluded that unless the automobile could be improved dramatically it would not surpass the more traditional forms of transport.
The previous month the Daily Mail had carried another article entitled the "Day of the Motor Car" (27th August 1896). This article welcomed the advent of the automobile for the many benefits it would bring with it. Roads would not need repairing so often, the noise would be less, the streets cleaner and healthier and the speed of travel greater.
It is also noticeable that the article pointed out the greater safety benefits of the car over horse drawn carriages, being able to stop in a very short distance in case of emergency. It is salutary to note that in the days of horse drawn vehicles the streets were often impassable because of the mess that was left.
An American visiting London in the 1890s wrote about the mess.
"In winter the streets are ankle deep in a mixture of urine and manure. Crossing without getting yourself covered in the filth is an art in itself. For a few coppers you can hire a 'crossing sweeper' who will walk in front of you sweeping the mess out of the way. Unfortunately, if you are crossing the same time as another, the filth raised by the other's crossing sweeper spatters you from head to foot.
"In summer, the dung dries hard and is crushed to a fine powder by the wheels of passing carts. This rises like a fog and finds it's way into every crevice of your clothing and person. Inhaled, it causes respiratory problems and the streets are soon full of people coughing and spluttering.
"The authorities try and clean the streets daily, but with the amount of horse traffic it is akin to cleaning the Augean Stables."
In the early years of the 20th century the automobile was seen as a benefactor, something that would increase trade and travel throughout the country.
Public opinion was not slow to see the advantages of this new form of transport and often made representations to the Government to improve the lot of the motorcar.
In an article in the Daily Mail (6th March 1902) the General Council of the Automobile Club urged the Government to raise the speed limit from the then maximum of 12 mph.
It is interesting to note the comment "the existing law, which provides that even on a clear straight road, devoid of traffic, a light motor vehicle cannot be driven at a greater speed of 12mph "cannot command respect or observance".
It also pointed out that, whereas trams often exceeded 18 mph cars were still being forced to accept the lower limit. It would seem that the setting of artificially low speed limits is not a new thing!
The article also pointed out that the stopping distances in case of emergency were considerably shorter in the case of an automobile.
The Automobile Club had carried out a series of tests which showed that a motor car travelling at 20mph stopped in less distance than a horse drawn vehicle travelling at 10mph.
The government obviously listened because in 1911 the Board of Trade approved an uprating of the roads in London to take into account the new form of transport – the car!
With the advent of faster cars came the speeding motorist. Bernard Geike Cobb of Holland Park Avenue, was fined £20 (a huge sum in those days) with 7s and 6d costs for driving at 25mph on a very dark night in Esher.
The magistrate regretted that he couldn't send him to prison. He referred to the errant motorist as a 'road hog'. I wonder if this is the first recorded instance of this term being used.
As the century progressed it was obvious that the casualty rate would also increase. It is interesting to note though, that even at this stage the police were taking a sensible approach to motoring offences.
The Metropolitan Police announced that they "were going to devote less attention to technical infringements of the 20mph speed limit and more to cases where there is reckless and negligent driving involving direct danger to the public." (Daily Mail 10th September 1920)
This attitude persevered through the years until changed by "the grab the money and to hell with safety" attitude so recently espoused.
It was also recognised that as vehicles became safer, raising the speed limit to take account of this was perfectly acceptable.
Thus, the 20 mph limit was raised to 30mph. The Road Traffic Act of 1930 imposed a speed restriction for heavy goods vehicles of 20mph but this was raised to 30mph in 1955.
Since then, no increase in speed limits has been allowed for normal motor vehicles, after this date the emphasis was on lowering the speed limit.
It was also recognised that the cure for congestion was to keep the traffic flowing, a policy that has been completely reversed in recent years with more and more obstacles being placed in the motorist's way.
But, as we shall see this was all part of the general strategy to grab the cash and run.
Of course, with the increase in traffic it was obvious that the accident rate would increase as well.
However, instead of trying to find one single fictitious cause for the accidents the reasons for them were carefully analysed, and solutions sought.
For example, there were many complaints about motorists driving two or even three abreast. (Daily Mail 19 May 1922)
At that time the 'white line' had not been introduced and motorists were free to drive on any side of the road they wished.
By 1925 this had been introduced and was an effective measure in making the roads safer. It is salutary to note that even in these early days a sensible approach to road safety was taken by those in the know.
Lt Col Charles Jarrott, a pioneer motorist and founder of the Automobile Association spoke about the increase in road accidents caused by letting thousands of new and inexperienced drivers on to the roads (the driving test was far in the future).
"Ignorance when handling a car is as great a danger as carelessness, but fast driving is not necessarily reckless driving.
"Road and Traffic conditions have to be taken into consideration. Let us have a fair and intelligent interpretation and administration of the law of driving to the common danger which should apply to all types of road vehicles including the cyclist who deliberately courts death by wandering all over the road."
Wise words which are just as true today as they were 86 years ago. As the years progressed more and more safety features were introduced to try and reduce the accident rate.
Reflective signs that could be read in the dark were introduced in 1925 and in 1930 a milestone was reached with the introduction of the Highway Code.
The Highway Code is a safety manual that gives guidance to road users on how to use the road correctly.
It is not law but many of its aspects are covered by various Road Traffic Acts.
It started from the premise that a person's safety was their own responsibility and it was up to everyone to use the roads correctly.
This was a major advance in road safety and the first copies went on sale in 1931, priced one penny.
One of the major themes of the Highway Code was that pedestrians should take more care in using the roads. They were urged to: "get to know the signals used by drivers and give signals themselves when intending to cross a road."
This is especially interesting when you realise that when pedestrians use a light controlled crossing today (all too infrequently) that is exactly what they are doing.
The 1930 Road Traffic act also addressed such problems as compulsory third party insurance In 1933 a new type of vehicle activated traffic light system, known as EVA, was launched all over Britain.
Not only was there a great saving in police numbers being used for point duty, but also one of the primary aims was to "keep the traffic moving with the minimum of delay"
Time and time again we see sensible policies being enacted by the transport authorities. A recognition that road safety is a matter for all road users, not just motorists, that the roads are there for wheeled traffic which must be kept moving, and that when possible speed limits are raised to take account of safer vehicles.
By 1934 it was estimated that there had been 1,613,753 new cars built in the previous decade and that the total number of vehicles on Britain's roads would be about 1.7 million.
Checking the records of this period, it is interesting to note how many five shilling fines were handed out to pedestrians who were guilty of 'not exercising due care when entering the carriageway'.
Today, Britain is one of the few countries in the developed world which does not have 'jaywalking' laws.
It is interesting to note that in 1934, when there were less than 2 million cars on the road (compared to the 27 million on today's roads) and the average top speed on cars was about 38mph, the death rate reached a staggering 7,343 fatalities.
This was only exceeded in 1939 when there were 8,270 fatalities, a lot of which were blamed on the blackout regulations.
When faced with the 'Speed Kills' lobby I find that they are completely unable to explain why in a period of much slower and fewer cars, the fatalities are so astronomically high.
According to the accepted mantra, slower cars + fewer cars = much less accidents. Unfortunately, the truth is not always welcomed by the anti-car brigade. (remember what Goebbels said about truth, "It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.")
After the war, the standard of road safety slipped dramatically, due in some part to many drivers who had been in action abroad being used to driving on the right hand side of the road (my father being one of them!).
It was during this period that the Labour government of the day decided that what was needed was more laws and regulation.
They decided to hold an inquiry that would back their plans. Unfortunately, because the commission was neutral its findings were somewhat different.
The following quote is from the Report of the Commission on Road Safety, dated May 1947: "Any system under which fear becomes the controlling factor in obtaining the required reaction among so large a section of the public who, as individuals, are generally law abiding, is not, we think, likely to produce the most effective results.
"The British public co-operates with the Police because the relationship between them is generally one of friendly understanding, rather than submission to obtrusive authority, and the more it is realised that the policeman is the friend of the motorist and cyclist who wishes to be a thoroughly safe driver or rider, though the deadly enemy of the deliberate offender, the greater will be the co-operation between the police and road users and the sooner will the standard of road behaviour be improved."
This was a common sense approach to the matter that had long been espoused by the police themselves.
As far as they were concerned the real problem on the roads were those who misused them, whether they were drivers, cyclists or pedestrians.
This attitude prevailed right up to recent times when targets became the obsession, and good policing went out the window.
The despair felt by the police when faced with this problem boiled over in 1965 when ordered by another Labour Government to clamp down on motorists following the introduction of the 70mph limit on motorways, the Police Federation complained: "The motoring public will suffer and so will relations between the police and the public. The final result is going to be that the law will fall into disrepute through lack of men to enforce it"
The message was simple. The police did not have the manpower to go around chasing every motorist who committed a technical breach of the law, they could either chase criminals or chase motorists - they could not do both.
The state of the country today tells us what they eventually decided to do. It is interesting to note that one strong recommendation to the then Minister of Transport, Tom Fraser, for a minimum speed limit on motorways (as existed in North America) was completely ignored.
One cannot help but believe that motoring policy as decided by the Labour Party has always had a tinge of envy about it; they still clung to the idea that motoring was the preserve of the wealthy and not the working man.
The trial of the 70mph speed limit ended in 1967 when another Labour Minister for Transport bought in the new limit.
She also warned that for the first time in motoring history she might be turning the clock back a hundred years by lowering the speed limits on other roads.
When questioned about a minimum speed limit on motorways she replied: "It is an attractive proposition, the dawdling driver could be a danger but there are difficulties of enforcement." (Daily Mail 13th July 1967)
This is of course utter nonsense. The technical problems in enforcing an upper speed limit are precisely the same as enforcing a lower one, and yet here was a Minister whilst announcing to the world that a slow driver could be just as dangerous as a speeding driver, refused to do anything about it.
It is noticeable that over the years the number of people killed on the road was showing a gradual decrease. However, it is quite interesting to view the figures in relation to which party was in power at the time.
When the Conservatives left office in 1964 the number of fatalities on the roads were 6922.
When Labour left in 1970, this had risen to 7,499.
When the Conservatives left in 1974, the figure was 6,876. Labour left in 1979 with a total of 6,831 and when the Conservatives left in 1997 this had been reduced to 3,599. The period of the Conservative governments showed a year on year gradual decrease in the number of road fatalities.
There were many reasons for this but one was the re-affirmation of the policy that every road user was responsible for their own safety.
The number of advertising campaigns on television and the press demonstrated this. One of the most famous was the Green Cross Code man.
In this campaign an actor (David Prowse best known for playing Darth Vader in the Star Wars films) dressed as a superhero appeared at the kerbside to instruct children how to cross the road safely.
The idea might have been a bit corny but the message was sensible and timeless. It was backed up by other campaigns, the 1976 SPLINK campaign starring Doctor Who actor Jon Pertwee and even a rap version in 1983.
These adverts had all been taken off the air by 1990.
Other safety messages included the infamous 'smashing peach' advert. This showed a hammer, pivoted by its handle, being released and smashing into a ripe peach. The resulting messy impact was supposed to convey what happened when metal met matter.
The message was 'Always Cross at a Crossing'. A still from this advert, the moment of impact, was used as a billboard all over the country. It was eventually removed as complaints had been received that certain people thought the image 'unpleasant'.
However this dedication to promulgating the road safety message was about to grind to a halt. It was to be replaced with a campaign of harassment of the motorist that was to have a lasting detrimental effect on the relationship between the public and the police, and bring a halt to the steady reduction in road casualties that Britain had been enjoying over the years.
It started in the late 60s with an invention made by a Dutch Indonesian named Maurice Gatsonides.
A rally driver wanted to establish the exact speed he was cornering at, and the Gatso Camera soon became the most hated word in the motoring vocabulary.
The Speed Kills Myth -The grab begins
Because Britain is such an ancient country most of the roads you use today date back to when man first walked the Earth.
Because all travel was by foot the paths chosen were the easiest to traverse.
For example, if there was a large hill inbetween your position and a vital necessity such as water, you didn't climb the hill you went round it. Like a river, man always used the path of least resistance.
Over the years settlements grew up along the route of these ancient pathways, and likewise followed the same route.
This led to a countryside where settlements appeared to be scattered haphazardly over the landscape.
The Romans changed all that. To them, a road was a method of moving quickly from one place to another, and since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, that's what the engineers drew on their maps.
For the first time speed in movement became the primary function of the road system.
Down the ages, that has always been true with the great road builders always constructing their roads with speed of movement at the forefront of their planning.
As foot traffic gave way to horse traffic, and gradually horse traffic gave way to motorised traffic, the maxim has always been the same.
Roads are designed for fast-moving, wheeled transport, and they have priority.
Of course, there were times when roads where used by both wheeled transport and foot traffic, and since they both could not occupy the same space at the same time, segregation became the aim.
In the Victorian period we find that as well as constructing roads for wheeled traffic, authorities were also constructing complimentary roads for foot traffic – or as we call them today – pavements. It was also during this period that the first of the many speed limits were introduced.
The Locomotive Act of 1861 set a speed limit of 10mph (automobiles in those days were classed as light locomotives).
The revised act of 1865 reduced this limit to 4mph in the country and 2mph in built up areas. It remained at this level until 1890 when the speed limit was raised to 14mph.
It should be pointed out that the requirement in the 1865 act to have a man walk in front with a red flag (or red lantern at night) was purely to warn horse drawn traffic that an automobile was approaching.
By the close of the Victorian period the concept of the roads being used for the fast movement of motorised wheeled transport was well established.
To be continued...
Watch your wallet!
I am going to start my blog by posting a few quotes from famous and infamous people.
Now, it is very important to read these and understand what they are saying. Some of you might not agree with my quoting such monsters as Goebbels and Stalin, but think on this - when you want to learn about sham and deceit ask someone versed in those black arts – not a Sunday school teacher.
Here we have the formula for deceiving people given to us by those whose sole function in life was to deceive and oppress.
This is how they did it and I want you all to relate what they say to what is happening to the ordinary people in the world today. So here they are:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
"It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Goebbels
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over"
Joseph Goebbels
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
Lenin
And finally some real common sense from a great man:
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth."
F D Roosevelt.
The purpose of my blog is to show you exactly where the authorities, both here and abroad have consistently lied and deceived the people they are supposed to be helping – you the ordinary many trying to get by. Now you might want to write me off as another conspiracy theory nut – that's fine, you are certainly entitled to hold that opinion.
But before ignoring me just check out what I am saying. Yes that's right check it out. You see I don't expect you to accept what I am saying at face value, in fact I would be rather disappointed if you did. But you all have access to newspapers, libraries and since you are reading this – the Internet. Find out if I am telling the truth, and if I'm not then tell me.
So what is the purpose of this widespread conspiracy? World domination by some elite band of politicians and industrialists? Nothing so mundane. It's quite simple really, they have no interest in taking over the world, most of them couldn't run their own countries let alone everyone else's, they are simply out for one thing and one thing only – your money!
That's right, everything they are doing is aimed towards taking more money out of your pocket and putting it in their's.
Simple really. I am going to leave you now with a very valuable tool. Use it to discover whether or not you are being fleeced. I call it CTTC. This stands for Cut Through The Crap, and this is how it works.
The next time you are presented with any proposal from the authorities, disregard everything they say and go straight to the bottom line. Does the solution involve taking money out of your pocket and putting it in their's? If so, you have just successfully applied CTTC. You will be amazed at how every problem, from global warming and road safety to recycling all have exactly the same solution – more of your money is going to be taken off you!
Next time I will show you exactly where you have been lied to and how the result EVERY TIME is you having more money extracted from you.
Welcome
Be warned though, if you want to play on here —you play by big boys' rules.
If you want to insult me, call me offensive names and be generally rude to me – dig out, but just remember it doesn't advance your argument one jot, in fact it has the very opposite effect.
What I'm hoping to do is encourage debate, sensible reasoned arguments that will get people thinking.
I am going to be telling you certain things but the last thing I want you to do is believe me!! What I want you to do is to find out these things for yourself, check what I am telling you. You have libraries, you have newspapers you have the Internet.
Never in man's history have we as a society had so much access to information, and yet never have we failed to use it more.
Don't swallow everything you are being told by various people – think for yourself, make your own decisions, and get to the truth.
What I plan to do on this blog is to show you where we have all been deceived, misled and just plain lied to on a number of subjects that not only effect us all but are costing us trillions of pounds, and in a lot of cases thousands of lives.
So remember this is the place where you can think for yourself!
This is me.
After ten years he resigned to form his own company manufacturing specialised military and police equipment. He and his wife started the business in a spare bedroom and ended up exporting their product all over the world.
During this time he wrote his first book, From Hell – The Jack the Ripper Mystery. He enjoyed this so much he retired from business entirely to concentrate on writing and lecturing.
After a couple of years he started a tourism business called Dark Deeds, specialising in crime tours, taking people round the scenes of famous murders in the local area.
His second book, "South Wales Murders" was published in 2008. He is presently working on a novel and after that has two more non fiction Crime books to write.
Married with one son, he cares passionately about the way our country is being governed, and the way he feels people are not getting the treatment they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
