Talk:Alliance of British Drivers

Contested deletion

I created the page this morning, I believe this page shouldn't be speedy deleted because

• The proposer hasn't provided evidence that the article is a 'sufficiently identical copy' of the previous version of the article, it is not possible to see the previous version of the article.
• Several reliable references are included in the article, including 50%+ of the references that hadn't been written at the time of the deletion discussion.

Please could the proposer make the version of the article that was deleted available here so there can be a comparison.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Almost everything about this article screamed that it was "anti ABD" to me when I first looked at it. I've added some balance, but it needs a lot more work doing on it to bring, and keep it, in line with the Wikipedia polices. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @DeFacto: thanks very much for working on the article. I think the issue with the perceived neutrality is caused between the difference between how the organisation presents itself (a not for profit membership group) and what it is actually doing (lobbying for the car industry and media messaging). I think taking them at face value is not a wise course of action given the area's long history of astroturfing and front groups funded by the motor industry and fossil fuel industry and them hiding the size of their membership and their funding. As an example I think its important to include their rejection of established science on climate change and health impacts of air pollution, especially when they're appearing so widely in British media and giving evidence to MPs. E.g Hugh Bladon: “We don’t deny that the climate is changing. The climate has always changed and will continue to change, and there’s bugger all we can do about it. We’re not causing or accelerating it, or if we are, it’s imperceptible.”

One suggestion of a way forward would be to remove any information and phrasing that is referenced to their website (e.g 'free flowing' traffic and 'unjustified' 20 mph speed limits) and only use reliable secondary sources. I don't believe their website is a reliable source for what they are doing.

What do you think?

John Cummings (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, wrt speed limits, they say they support the so-called 85th-percentile speed limits. These are set at the speeds that 85% of the traffic does not exceed. The standard way of measuring traffic speeds is under free-flowing conditions (see a DfT example here) what's wrong with using that term? They also say they support evidence-based road safety provisions, which, presumably, is why they argue against 20 mph limits for which there is not only no evidence to support them, but actually evidence against them. I cannot understand why you object to stating that either. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi DeFacto, thanks for your reply, I don't really know about speed limit stuff, I'll leave that to you to write about, I think that's not really a central issue. They seem like they're using very similar approaches to American health businesses front groups, they say they are campaigning for the rights of patients to 'chose' but actually they're trying to get laws stopped which would impact their business models. I think the removal of information on them spreading misinformation on the health impacts of air pollution, denying climate change is not a good idea. I think it is really not a good to take this group at face value, they seem to be saying one thing on their website and then doing other things in reality.

John Cummings (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, can you give reliable sources to support that they are:

1. "spreading misinformation on the health impacts of air pollution"
2. "denying climate change"
3. "saying one thing on their website and then doing other things in reality"

Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@DeFacto: thanks for your reply, here would be the best examples I've seen so far:

1. "spreading misinformation on the health impacts of air pollution": The Alliance of British Drivers has long argued that there is way too much scaremongering about the impact on people’s health of air pollution. and Life expectancy data tells us that there is no air pollution health crisis (in this article they also cite the Daily Mail as a source.....)
2. "denying climate change": (denying any climate change is caused by humans, one of the main kinds of climate change denial, often called Soft climate change denial) “We don’t deny that the climate is changing. The climate has always changed and will continue to change, and there’s bugger all we can do about it. We’re not causing or accelerating it, or if we are, it’s imperceptible.”
3. "saying one thing on their website and then doing other things in reality": A whole article on it here

Best

John Cummings (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, if those are the best examples, then we definitely are struggling here.

1. That isn't a reliable source, it's a blog, and it doesn't, as far as I can see, assert that the ABD are spreading misinformation on the health impacts of air pollution.
2. As far as I can tell, that's a Guardian opinion-piece attacking the ABD and based on misrepresentations of out-of-date data and from a legacy website.
3. That's apparently another Guardian opinion piece, and from 2004, so 16 years out-of-date. And I can't see anything in it anyway asserting that the ABD say one thing on their website and then do other things in reality. What do you think they contradict themselves over?

Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, neutral articles about cranks rarely look like anything else. The problem is that ABD is a tiny group that lies about its membership, engages in climate change denial and denial of Newton's Laws of Motion, and presents itself as concerned with road safety while promoting a consistently speedophile agenda (e.g. blaming collisions due to dangerous overtaking on the driver being overtaken). Guy (help! - typo?) 15:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Foundation date

I'm confused as to why we say "The organisation, operated by Pro-Motor, was formed in November 2012 by the merger of the Association of British Motorists and the Drivers' Alliance.", when the cited 2004 Guardian report refers to them as the "Association of British Drivers" and "ABD". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, I'm confused by your confusion. A copy&paste directly from the article: The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) was formed in November 2012 when the Association of British Drivers and the Drivers' Alliance merged.

References

The cited RSGB ref, dated 7 Nov 2012 says: "The Association of British Drivers and the Drivers’ Alliance (DA) have agreed to merge to form a new organisation, the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD)." There's only one 2004 Guardian ref used in the article and it calls them "Association of British Drivers", which does have the same "ABD" initialism. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. so why do you call them (also pasted from the article, as was my quote above) the "Association of British Motorists"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, that's clearly a typo. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Now fixed. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, their own website says "The ABD was founded in 1992 under the name of the Association of British Drivers and later merged with the Drivers Alliance to form the Alliance of British Drivers." [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, yes, "to form the Alliance of British Drivers", which happened in 2012. The two organisations merged to found the new one. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we can take their word for it; especially as they were careful to keep the acronym. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pigsonthewing, can't you wait until we reach agreement here before changing it all over the article to comply with your personal interpretation of the sources, with which I currently disagree? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. And the quote is give above is just that: a quote, not a "personal interpretation". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, edit warring isn't the solution, even if you assume you are right. Your personal interpretation of that quote is that the Alliance of British Drivers was founded in 1992. Mine is that it is saying that the Association of British Drivers was founded in 1992 (although at least one RS says it was 1993) and that the Alliance of British Drivers was formed by its merger with the Drivers' Alliance (in 2012). -- DeFacto (talk). 15:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is indeed your personal interpretation. However, if you look at the source - as I have done - you will see that the above quote immediately follows the text "...the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) in July 2019", an "About the ADB" headline and Alliance of British Drivers logo. The quoted paragraph continues "The ABD is a voluntary organisation...", using the present tense. None of this is my personal interpretation, however much you pretend otherwise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, did you read the RSGB source? They say "The Association of British Drivers and the Drivers’ Alliance (DA) have agreed to merge to form a new organisation, the Alliance of British Drivers (ABD)." The question is whether the result of the merger of these two different organisations resulted in a new organisation (as the RSGB called it), or whether it continued to be one of the old organisations. I'm still not persuaded that it's the latter. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Redux

We now have once source saying the ABD was founded in 1993, and another, the organisation's own, [2] saying 1992, with both dates used in the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, this page on their historic website holds some clues to the possible confusion. It seems that it was being formed around the end of September 1992 and possibly launched with a letter to the media at the start of 1993. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Motorways

I have restored the source - the only source - for the statement that "They call for the raising and eventual abolition of speed limits on motorways.".

It is from their own website, but that is acceptable - routinely so - when describing an organisation's own position, and the other source relating to the subject is historic and does not refer to reduction then abolition, saying only "its lesser known policies include the abolition of speed limits on motorways". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, if the only source is the group themselves, then it should be removed per WP:UNDUE. This is a fringe group. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Were someone trying to add this to an article like Motorway or Speed limit, then WP:UNDUE would apply. That is not the case here. I see you have now tagged the statement with {{primary inline}}; that is not appropriate, as our policy explicitly allows primary sources in such cases. The tag should be removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, it's like including submissions by creationists to a school board. It gives excess weight to self-published unsolicited contributions which are divorced from reality. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, that would be undue on an article about the school, but not on an article about the creationists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, it would be undue on any article, because it's self-serving, self-published, counterfactual bollocks. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

While their claim may be self-serving, self-published, counterfactual bollocks; reporting it is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, unless you've got a source in The Guardian (or similar) actually saying "The ABD call for raising and abolition of speed limits on motorways. Of course, scientific and government research has proven beyond all doubt that this is counterfactual bollocks", this point would appear to be moot. I don't think anyone believes that the ABD are lying about wanting to get rid of speed limits, so citing them about their own views is not a problem, provided it is obvious to reader that they are only their views. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of necessary context

Richard Nevell, this was not "a nickname used to discredit an opinion", it was a reflection of the reputation this individual had acquired, and therefore valuable context to help readers to decide the weight they would give to his criticism of this organisation. And far from "fail[ing] NPOV", it added some balance to an otherwise very non-NPOV paragraph. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not neutrally phrased. Aside from the nickname the bit about it being an "obsession" clearly is neither an objective statement not helpful context, and reads more like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. A possible neutral phrasing might be "Richard Brunstrom, who supports the use of speed cameras". Richard Nevell (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"this"? Diff, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

That will be this particular edit. I can't say I'm particularly thrilled about the Islamaphobic overtones embedded in the nickname either. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Climate change denial

Application of Category:Climate change denial is appropriate for an organisation that "claimed that human-created climate change is a myth", which is not only in the article, but cited there, and is still on their own website. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, agree. They also deny the Laws of Motion, but that's another story... Guy (help! - typo?) 11:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, firstly, climate change denial isn't the same thing as being cautious as to what proportion of known climate is caused by human behaviour. Secondly that report attacking the ABD's stance is based on a page on their legacy website (http://original.abd.org.uk/) and dated 1996. If you can find anything similar on their current website (http://abd.org.uk/) then I'd say fair enough, but otherwise I'd say it's probably best to drop it. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

http://original.abd.org.uk/ is part of their current website. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, it's very clearly not part of their current website, it's an archive of their old website which was replaced by their current website on https://www.abd.org.uk/.

The evidence can be seen in the Wayback Machine. Between 09:52 on 18 October 2017 and 17:37 on 18 October 2017 the content of their base url (abd.org.uk) changed from this to this and the first capture of their legacy url (original.abd.org.uk) occurred at 07:50 on 20 December 2017 and it looked like this.

Why else do you think they appear to have two different websites, one (original.abd.org.uk) listing their directors as they were at the end of 2017, but without the change made in November 2018, and with no press releases dated after 2 January 2018 and one (abd.org.uk) listing their current directors, including the 2018 change, and with press releases up to the present day, and with a link labelled "Old Website" taking readers to https://www.original.abd.org.uk? -- DeFacto (talk). 13:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken, it is very clearly still part of their current website. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, no, it's a snapshot of dated material frozen in time at the end of 2017, so not in any way 'current'. And it uses a sub-domain rather than their base domain name,

What's your argument against finding their current position, supported by data on their 'current' website, and putting that in the article? What is the benefit, do you think, of putting that old stuff there and pretending that it is their current position? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, apart from the fact that it would be WP:OR, there's this bollocks citing Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, both of whom promote denialism, and this libertarian bollocks about how climate change legislation will "ruin your future" and this denialist bullshit that's still on their website and... well, you get the picture.

So we have numerous sources linking them to denialism, nothing to suggest this has changed, and plenty of WP:OR-style mining of their webshite to indicate that they haven't. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, it seems you are happy with no RS'd facts and to indulge in OR from SPSs and use opinion-pieces when it comes to condemning their position, but insist only on RS facts and reject SPSs when it comes to portraying or supporting their position.

I think we need to be consistent here, and apply the same standards to both sides of the coin, and strive to achieve a NPOV for all sections in this article. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, we have third party sources talking about their involvement in climate change denial, which is fully consistent with materials currently on their website. We're not here to pretend that fringe groups are somehow legitimate. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, the only third-party sources used to reference their climate change stance are opinion-pieces from The Guardian, one referencing ABD output from 1996 and the other from Feb 2004, and what looks like a 'letter to the editor' from Local Transport Today complaining that the publication publishes letters from people they disagrees with! Hardly NPOV or RS really. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The citation from The Guardian - a highly reliable source - is not an "opinion-piece", it is a news report by their political correspondent; and it notes the state of the content of their website in 2017, not 1996 - content which persists to this day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If we assume that the ABD no longer denies climate change (and it looks an awful lot like it does) then the category is still appropriate as we have reliable sources noting that they at one point held such views. Category:Climate change denial would apply to historical cases as much as current ones. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Richard Nevell, see WP:CATV and WP:CATDEF. Categorisations should generally be uncontroversial and concentrate on defining characteristics of the article subject. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

We have reliable sources describing the ABD as climate change deniers, so WP:CATV doesn't especially come into play. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Richard Nevell, two of the three claimed as such have been dismissed, and the third is still being discussed, and whether the remaining one is, or not, it remains controversial, so does not comply. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, that's not what WP:RSP says. It says "The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION" and "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics", and that is a piece by a political correspondent opinionising about the ABD's "formal position" based on a page published in1996 and archived away on their frozen legacy "old website". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, if you want to nitpick, most of the purported sources are either press releases or namechecks, and we should go back to deletion - but the Grauniad sources are actually about ABD rather than namechecking them. Not liking what they say doesn't invalidate them, and as noted a cursory glance at the website shows they are still denying away. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, of the two sources from the G, one is a definite opinion-piece and the other is an opiniated political piece, and the opinion you are relying on is based on a quarter-century-old out-of-date self-published source, from a legacy website, the successor of which you dismissed when it was used to support their currently claimed objectives.

And if they are climate change deniers, it's very weird that on their current website they acknowledge that the climate is constantly changing.

Perhaps the article has been deleted, twice now, for a very good reason . -- DeFacto (talk). 20:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

DeFacto, deletion time then. No substantive RS about the group, apart from liberals you reject. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have again resorted the category, per the above discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, you should concentrate on building a case for it, and finding reliable sources to support it, and wait to see if a consensus forms first. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"per the above discussion" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, what's "per the above discussion", because I don't currently see a case there that supports the notion that the ABD denies that the the climate is changing, in fact a cursory flick through their current website shows that they certainly acknowledge that it is changing. Per WP:CATVER and WP:CATDEF that category is not supported. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Mission statements

See WP:MISSION. Primary sourced statements by pressure groups of their claimed mission, fail WP:NPOV. There is a reason these were removed form infoboxes and elsewhere some time back. These are marketing statements, not factual representations of anything. If a third party source notes the claim then we can use the third party source to support it as an attributed statement, otherwise it's undue. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability?

Is this topic notable enough to have its own article? WP:ORG is the applicable notability guideline, and it gives the following guidance: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I do not see anything referenced in this article currently that could be considered to be "significant coverage", by even a single such reliable secondary source.

When John Cummings thought they had created this article at 2020-10-21T09:57:55, it was actually the third time it had been created, as far as I can tell. That means it had been deleted twice before that, the last time being at about 2020-06-26T09:15:09, presumably because it wasn't considered notable enough to keep.

That begs the following question: has something changed in the last 4 months resulting in appropriate coverage now being available to make it notable in the Wikipedia sense, and if so, where is it? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @DeFacto: there are a large number of additional references now available which were not last time it was deleted, 50%+ of the references that I used when I created the article were not available at the time of the deletion discussion.John Cummings (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, can you please list some of the "large number" of references you are thinking of, especially the ones supporting notability? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the reference sources used in the artice that were written in 2019+20

• https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/65613/climate-change-is-too-serious-to-permit-dissenters-a-voice
• https://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/politics/congestion-charge-protest-1-6766895
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/21/climate-science-deniers-to-give-road-safety-evidence-to-mps
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52564351
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-53499164
• https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/blanket-20mph-speed-limits-senseless/
• https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/thinking-motorists-group-alliance-of-british-drivers-apologises-for-cyclist-tirade-kn73pmjfw

John Cummings (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings, I'm not sure which of those support notability, as in they provide "significant coverage" of the organisation. As far as I can see, we have:

• A 'letter to the editor' published in the Local Transport Today journal from someone complaining that the journal accepts letters from people the letter writer disagrees with, one of which was from a member of the ABD.
• An article in The Docklands & East London Advertiser about a taxi drivers' protest, with a sentence mentioning a joint legal action with one party being the ABD.
• A highly opinionated political-piece from The Guardian attacking the ABD, largely based on a distorted representation of their position a quarter of a century ago.
• A BBC article about the cycling boom resulting from the lockdown, with a sentence mentioning the ABD's disapproval of the reallocation of any road space from motorists.
• A BBC article about the M11, with a comment about a junction from an ABD member.
• A Road Safety GB article, presumably based on a press release, about an ABD campaign (but not about the ABD) for speed limit changes to be strictly evidence-based.
• An article from The Times about an apology the ABD made over a Tweet someone made using their official Twitter account.

I don't think anything there demonstrates the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject that we need. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:04, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

John's list includes pieces in The Times and The Guardian - both of which are eminently reliable national newspapers - which are specifically and wholly about (and whose headlines refer directly to) the ABD. Despite your absurd attempts to deny or downgrade the coverage, WP:GNG is met. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing, yes, but neither of those 'pieces' gives the required 'significant coverage' as specified in WP:ORGDEPTH, which says: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. They are just trivial mentions. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes they do and no they are not, respectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Also "Directors of the ABD have previously claimed that global warming is a sham and that the earth is cooling." (in The Times), apparently. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I've checked the source (or at least as much as the lead as a non-subscriber can get) and I'm puzzled why that edit was rolled back. Guy said it best - they are fringe loons, but notable ones. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, remember that's about 13 years old, and from their current website, they've moved on from there. We'd have to be careful to frame the historic context of that more notable, but historic stuff, appropriately, and be careful not to imply anything about their current position from it. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Formation of a second company in addition to Pro-Motor

The ABD formed a second company named Broadmix Investements Ltd, with the same 5 Directors as Pro-Motor, which was incorporated on 11 July 2022 according to Companies House: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/14226488 84.65.109.155 (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)