Cycling UK Forum

ossie wrote:In relation to the cyclist. Breach of the Peace used to be lowest form of warning, the sticking plaster that fixed all, in other words a slap on the wrist, please moderate your behaviour. Quite often if a counter allegation was made (and perhaps the motorist made one) it was a simple way of concluding events to the satisfaction of others. In this case they got it wrong and it was totally disproportionate, he appealed and won.

The vindictive prosecution of the cyclist betrays the police mentality that is at the heart of the problem . Only the persistence of the cyclist corrected the police wrong , they couldn't even apologise.

My experience of the police (and the prosecution service ) tallies with this. Disgraceful .

pete75 wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

JimL wrote:
But she is not a cyclist ( and probably doesn't like cyclists ). She is a politician and she has shouted down people in the House of Commons in the past why shouldn't ordinary people express their views about her. She was carrying out political activities (the interview) ,she was at her place of work (Westminster ) . It was a peferctly reasonable expression of free speech and if the the video on the BBC website represents the worst of the behaviour it was nothing.

So you are really saying that the behaviour of this activists is perfectly reasonable?

Lets make this clear, this is the face of perfectly acceptable Political debate in the modern UK?

He obviously does. Comments above re Diane Abbott give a good indication of his views. If someone regards the sort of behaviour in the video as nothing it certainly begs the question what is their own behaviour like. He probably has tattoos as well - certainly the well known anchor surmounted by a W.

Not worthy of response

Cunobelin wrote:

JimL wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:Lets forget politics
Let forget Brexit
Lets forget that this person is an MP
Lets forgetful that she is female




Lets put in in perspective.

If the group approached a cyclist and harangued, bullied and intimidated them for that?

But she is not a cyclist ( and probably doesn't like cyclists ). She is a politician and she has shouted down people in the House of Commons in the past why shouldn't ordinary people express their views about her. She was carrying out political activities (the interview) ,she was at her place of work (Westminster ) . It was a peferctly reasonable expression of free speech and if the the video on the BBC website represents the worst of the behaviour it was nothing.

So you are really saying that the behaviour of this activists is perfectly reasonable?

Lets make this clear, this is the face of perfectly acceptable Political debate in the modern UK?

I'm saying people are perfectly entitled to have their opinion heard , whether you or I agree with it,and there was nothing out of the ordinary in the protest andI'm not sure why the ouburst of outrage at his incident and not countless others. As someone noted above the police were in attendance and had no problem. What do you want to do ? Ban people from shouting at politicians ?

bovlomov wrote:

JimL wrote:The strong implication is she doesn't cycle on the roads and she explicitly states her children are not allowed on the roads , far too dangerous. Whether she ever used the mountain bike we don't know and what child didn't go through a cycling phase but most don't class themselve as cyclists in adulthood.

She's not a true cyclist. She just cycles.

To continue a pointless debate. We don't know if she is a cyclist or indeed she just cycles. We know her husband gave he a mountain bike some time back.

It is of course completely irrelevant but the post proving that she is a cyclist does nothing of the sort . Show me a health minister that isn't enthusiastic about other people cycling ? The strong implication is she doesn't cycle on the roads and she explicitly states her children are not allowed on the roads , far too dangerous. Whether she ever used the mountain bike we don't know and what child didn't go through a cycling phase but most don't class themselve as cyclists in adulthood.

I'll ignore your other comments

mr bajokoses wrote:

JimL wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:
https://twitter.com/anna_soubry/status/ ... 8820711426

Your comments on the attempts to intimidate her are equally ill- informed.

So is she a cyclist and does she like cyclists?

Whether she is a cyclist or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether she is entitled to be treated with courtesy and respect.

I think you missed the point of the cycling reference , it was initailly made by another poster as an analogy that I disagreed with . She is a politician and has to take what she gives.

NUKe wrote:No it wasn’t a perfectly acceptable example of free speech, she was been harassed and called a piece of s****, this was lead by one of the main Tommy Robinson supporters. It was the same group who harassed Owen Jones.

Free speech is about being able to state your views and I will always stand by the right to protest, but chasing someone down the street and shouting at them is harassment. The police were there but were next to useless.

That will be because the police know the difference between free speech and harassment. If anybody thinks that was harassment they have lived a sheltered life or are a tadge dishonest

Cyril Haearn wrote:

JimL wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:Lets forget politics
Let forget Brexit
Lets forget that this person is an MP
Lets forgetful that she is female




Lets put in in perspective.

If the group approached a cyclist and harangued, bullied and intimidated them for that?

But she is not a cyclist ( and probably doesn't like cyclists ). She is a politician and she has shouted down people in the House of Commons in the past why shouldn't ordinary people express their views about her. She was carrying out political activities (the interview) ,she was at her place of work (Westminster ) . It was a peferctly reasonable expression of free speech and if the the video on the BBC website represents the worst of the behaviour it was nothing.

The house of commons is a special place where arguing is allowed, a sort of theatre
I find it very concerning that Diane Abbott is criticised so much (black, female)

Diane Abbot is criticised for her stupidy and hypocrisy .She is however a great fan of politics existing beyond Westminster but then again she may be a hypocrite

roubaixtuesday wrote:

JimL wrote:But she is not a cyclist ( and probably doesn't like cyclists ).

https://twitter.com/anna_soubry/status/ ... 8820711426

Your comments on the attempts to intimidate her are equally ill- informed.

So is she a cyclist and does she like cyclists?

Cunobelin wrote:Lets forget politics
Let forget Brexit
Lets forget that this person is an MP
Lets forgetful that she is female




Lets put in in perspective.

If the group approached a cyclist and harangued, bullied and intimidated them for that?

But she is not a cyclist ( and probably doesn't like cyclists ). She is a politician and she has shouted down people in the House of Commons in the past why shouldn't ordinary people express their views about her. She was carrying out political activities (the interview) ,she was at her place of work (Westminster ) . It was a peferctly reasonable expression of free speech and if the the video on the BBC website represents the worst of the behaviour it was nothing.

Cunobelin wrote:

JimL wrote:

Oldjohnw wrote:Worth remembering that austerity, which hit the poor the hardest, was an entirely UK idea. No EU rules, no unelected foreigners.

Tell that to the the Irish,Greeks, Portugeuse etc , even the French might disagree . Luckily the UK didn't follow the financial rules of the Eurozone and provided opportunity for the poor from all over the EU . The British poor are doing fine.

Methinks there are perhaps a few people who would disagree with that last bit

Probably those who eulogise the poor but would never live among them . I've notice plenty on this board over the years.

Oldjohnw wrote:Worth remembering that austerity, which hit the poor the hardest, was an entirely UK idea. No EU rules, no unelected foreigners.

Tell that to the the Irish,Greeks, Portugeuse etc , even the French might disagree . Luckily the UK didn't follow the financial rules of the Eurozone and provided opportunity for the poor from all over the EU . The British poor are doing fine.

Strava surely misses too many cyclists (and cycle use - utlity and some commuting ) to be a replacement for cycling surveys ( if that is the question) but obviously provides information of certain cycle usage ( the fitness oriented and maybe some commuting and touring). I suppose if there were large numbers of cyclists things may average out but the numbers are so few the details are important. In short I don't know.

The cycle traffic on the A77 I'm guessing refers (mainly) to the cycle traffic on the segregated cycle path that runs alongside, used by racers, families and long distance commuters, so the correlation will be good

They were the same as Paulitc has already pointed out.

Why quote the rules for the 1979 devolution referendum? The rules for the 1998 (?) devolution, the 2014 independence and the 2016 EU referenda were the same , a simple majority was to determine the outcome.

Cunobelin wrote:

JimL wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

... and the different rules!

To gain independence from the UK Scotland the Independence needed more than 50% of the entire eligible electorate of 66% of the actual vote

Brexit would have failed on both counts, why different rules?

The rules were the same for both .

So which did the Brexit reach..... 50 %of the eligible electorate or 66% of the actual vote?

That wasn't the rules