Forum Topic

Paul Camobell

Anyone , for instance Mr Fish, who tried to criticise my earlier post about PC , where are you? He’s being ripped to shreds, mostly by men. No one standing up for him or berating the many posters, who see him for what he is.

Maggie Dodge ● 119d28 Comments

Yes we all know that most cyclists aren’t afraid of traffic. That’s why they weave in and out of cars and trucks and that’s why they jump red lights and don’t observe roundabout rules etc etc.  It’s also why quite a few of the morons are hit by cars.

Steve Taylor ● 116d

Steve, that just proves cyclists are not afraid of traffic as we are led to believe.

Janice Evans ● 118d

Maggie, I'd like you to post some examples of the 'vitriol' I'm posting please.

Francis Sheehan ● 118d

I think you’ll find the Highway Code says thats model behaviour for a cyclist

Maggie Dodge ● 119d

Robert, I think anybody responding to Maggie needs to consider their responsibility, inadvertent it may be, in facilitating what is looking increasingly like a breakdown.Occasionally I will remind forum users that I cease engaging with people who cross a line in their animus towards me. That line for me is when they unashamedly display a compulsion to express their ill-feeling every time I post. That is one of the reasons I block people like Mark Talbot on Twitter. I have no obligation to read or respond to their spite or feed their neediness on social media. I do the same with accounts that I deem to be fake and people who are just too banal, inane or repetitive like Richard Greenhough, Janice Evans and Steve Taylor. Engaging with these people just spawns more of the same. It is a public service to ignore them. I acknowledge and accept all accusations of forceful campaigning for a reallocation of roadspace and a lack of regard for the arguments of its opponents. Guilty as charged. Finally I drive. I’ve never hidden it. In fact the reason my detractors know I drive is because I told them I do.  And yes I do it rarely and only when it is the right tool for the job. I own a small car but I will not indulge in any further speculation regarding the size of my big one. Being a driver who used to use a car regularly and all over London does not make me a hypocrite. On the contrary it qualifies me to comment and criticise the negative impact of habitual and often unnecessary use of private cars on society. I know how drivers think and I believe that to be one of the reasons I am so gifted at getting right under their skin. It is also true that I have no regard for the aesthetic sensibilities of people who think that cycle lanes should be removed because they prefer the look of a streetscape filled with cars. To me that is a perverted aesthetics and a warped view that deprioritises the safety of all the people who benefit from a protected cycle lane - namely children, women, elderly and disabled people in particular. So up with cycle lanes and LTNs. And down with their opponents no matter how hysterical or fanatically personal they become. I’m not scared. I’m winning.

Paul Campbell ● 119d

"Apparently we should not expect to see cyclists outside of commuting rush hour."Thing is. The only cyclists you will  ever see on the A4 from Chiswick roundabout through to the A30 during 'rush hours' are cycling on the road rather than using the expensive cycle lanes. Total morons with a death wish because they are weaving in and out of cars and trucks in a 40 mph zone and blocking traffic when they only achieve about 20 mph.

Steve Taylor ● 119d

In answer to your latest biliary stream of consciousness, I can only refer you to Felicity Caborn's wise words on the Will Norman/ Mayor and LCC thread you started. You seriously have lost all sense of perspective!

Robert Fish ● 119d

Did you read your post before pressing submit reply?  You are aware that he is provocative, aggressive and dismissive of just about everyone really, but if I call him out I am obsessed with him? How so?  Why are you obsessed with defending him? Do you want to get a room? It seems you have missed that Paul is obsessed with me, scared of me to be fair and you have joined the club. Hilarious you silly man. Seriously stop posting about me or you'll prove me right

Maggie Dodge ● 119d

Ah, I love this.  Michael Robinson fell in to this trap the other day.  Apparently we should not expect to see cyclists outside of commuting rush hour.  So those expensive, disruptive cycles lanes should have limited times on them like bus lanes. Or preferably scrapped as under used .  The cheek of these people who KNOW they will be pretty empty most of the day and think that's fine and laugh at people who wonder where all the cyclists are.

Maggie Dodge ● 119d

Sadly the LCC don't cower, they should do.  Their latest campaign about women cyclist being targeted, suggests they only care if you are females who cycles.  The pedestrians or for that matter drivers walking away from car parks etc.  I think they suggest that people have got it in for cyclists, wherever did they get that idea?  Whilst they happily target drivers of all sexes with no idea of their mixed message

Maggie Dodge ● 119d

Here we go Francis.  You are ok with Paul Campbells vitriol but you think you have a right to tell me to give it a rest.  Funny you can post your own vitriol while telling me to give it a rest.  How about , yes you guessed it.....

Maggie Dodge ● 119d

He's been called worse

Maggie Dodge ● 119d

No, not peak commuting time. So, what’s your point? Are you suggesting that the unused cycle lanes should be confined to peak commuting time only - like some bus lanes - and the rest of the time they can be used by motorists?  Good idea. I’d support that.

Steve Taylor ● 119d

So not exactly peak commuting time.

Richard Greenhough ● 119d

Between 11am and 12 noon. Drove from Barnes to Richmond then on to Kew Green.  No cyclists to be seen. On the way back drove to Pembroke Lodge. A few cyclists hogging the road in Richmond Park - two abreast some of them - instead of using the expensive cycle track around the Park. Then Priory Lane - again a couple of morons ( 3 to be exact) cycling on the road instead of using the cycle track, but that was it.

Steve Taylor ● 119d

"No cyclists at all today from Richmond to Kew Bridge."Assuming you weren't sitting out in the cold all day with a cycle counting machine, what time did you make that journey and observation ?

Richard Greenhough ● 119d

Combat fatigues would be far too macho for the LCC. They are far more comfortable sitting in front of their keyboards in Hi Viz lycra. They certainly aren’t out and about because the cycle lanes are virtually empty. Hardly used at all.  No cyclists at all today from Richmond to Kew Bridge.

Steve Taylor ● 119d

Is 'Camobell' the paramilitary wing of the LCC?  Can see them now in their combat fatigues cowering behind their keyboards.

N V Brooks ● 119d

😉

Janice Evans ● 119d

Anne, I know, point being mainly it alters the figures, in previous posts he blames the car driver for every accident which is questionable. I'm not thatinterested in the car and cycle arguments apart from the fact cyclists don't have to use the cycle lane, to spend billions on something they don't have to use is also questionable.  Why do you see any argument with Paul as an attack on yourself ?  Paul said discuss so yes I did draw it out a bit but Ithink he accepts we do that he encourages it by not giving a straight answer, also I don't like discussing other forum members.So end of.

Janice Evans ● 119d

That’s the point, Janice. Don’t let Campbell niggle you. He’s not worth it. Ignore him. Likewise, it’s not worth ever responding to England. She is also just a rude, up herself individual who enjoys targeting (stalking) certain people. It appears that you are one of them. I am also one of them. She gets beside herself to read my posts and retort in a childlike manner. This forum is merely a free therapy session for many lonely and disturbed individuals who need to offload !!

Steve Taylor ● 119d

Maggie, I don't know you but please give it a rest. I don't know what you're trying to achieve with these attacks ad personam, but I don't think they're befitting of an adult writing under her own name.

Francis Sheehan ● 119d

What a childish reply and a reply which rather belies whether or not you read Paul's posts or at least pay more than a passing interest in them. As for 'upsetting ... decent people', perhaps you could consider the wording and substance of your own posts.

Anne England ● 119d

Janice, without referring back to Paul's post, he was referring to the number of hit and run accidents presumably however they were caused - it's the hit and run bit you need to concentrate on. I can't see what is so difficult about that.

Anne England ● 119d

It was niggling me that he thinks every car accident is the fault of the driver,it simply is not true,  a niggle of mine I had to get out of the way.

Janice Evans ● 119d

Why does anyone even bother to read posts by Campbell? Everyone knows he is a self obsessed narcissist. Don’t feed him. He spews out absolute rubbish. I stopped reading his posts some years ago but am still bemused at the number of replies he gets to his posts and sometimes I read them and can see he is still upsetting some decent people on this forum. Forget about him. He is a sad individual desperate for friends in his sad, empty life. Surely the good people of Chiswick are above it!

Steve Taylor ● 119d

Is "Camobell" another nickname for Humpty ?

Richard Greenhough ● 119d

I am well aware that Paul Campbell is provocative, aggressive and dismissive of his antagonists, but your obsession with him is malevolence taken to a whole new level. Chill out, Maggie.

Robert Fish ● 119d