Cycling UK Forum

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑8 Feb 2025, 9:26pm

mjr wrote: ↑7 Feb 2025, 11:58pm

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑6 Feb 2025, 10:07pm I am asking that because AIUI the legal instgruments that set it up and allows for devolved powers to go to it are signed off now. It is developed by I think 4 councils all based to the south. AIUI The CCA that is the new body has Blackburn, Burnley and Lancshire County Council with Ribble Valey and one other district council.

Where did you get that from? It looks to me like the County Combined Authority has been set up by the three county-level councils: Lancs CC and the two unitaries (Blackpool and Blackburn). See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30dr937738o

The next steps will be to absorb all the districts and rejig the split into three more equal size councils, then elect new councillors and a mayor to cover all three.

You're much further on than we are in Norfolk, where we still don't know whether we'll all be ruled from remote County Hall, whether the city and two boroughs will take the lead (and get eaten for breakfast by private contractors, as small councils seem to), or if they can work together like adults and set up a CCA.

There are three unitary councils (Blackbuern and Blackpool are at the level of Lancashire CC in the two tier system. However the CCA has Ribble District Council represented and Chorley district council,

Where are you getting this from? No district council representatives are mentioned on https://lancashire-cca.gov.uk/who-we-are

It sounds like someone may be spreading misinformation in hope to divide and conquer the electorate.

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑6 Feb 2025, 10:07pm I am asking that because AIUI the legal instgruments that set it up and allows for devolved powers to go to it are signed off now. It is developed by I think 4 councils all based to the south. AIUI The CCA that is the new body has Blackburn, Burnley and Lancshire County Council with Ribble Valey and one other district council.

Where did you get that from? It looks to me like the County Combined Authority has been set up by the three county-level councils: Lancs CC and the two unitaries (Blackpool and Blackburn). See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30dr937738o

The next steps will be to absorb all the districts and rejig the split into three more equal size councils, then elect new councillors and a mayor to cover all three.

You're much further on than we are in Norfolk, where we still don't know whether we'll all be ruled from remote County Hall, whether the city and two boroughs will take the lead (and get eaten for breakfast by private contractors, as small councils seem to), or if they can work together like adults and set up a CCA.

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑6 Feb 2025, 6:19pm They've done the risk assessment, ticked the box. Nobody's ever going to be coming after a cycling forum for bearded sandal wearers.

No need to waste any more time.

I think you underestimate how nasty some people booted off websites (justly or unjustly) get. Just look at the horrible stuff Mumsnet is having to deal with https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93qw3lw4kvo , or remember that someone spammed a fan group for The Archers with Nazi porn not so long ago. And with some other UK cycling forums closing down, there's fewer for the bike-haters to target.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑6 Feb 2025, 6:11pm In which case, should we rate this forum at 15 years...?

Possibly, but that would mean changing the "open to people of all ages" and "Remember the future of cycling depends on getting children to do it" in the board rules. Possibly more.

And more practically, that would mean adding age verification to login which has at least two serious problems:
1. who is going to scan their face and photo ID to access this forum?
2. no real working website age verification services exist. All the ones I've ever seen seem to be basically some form of scam underwritten by some big company somewhere involved that's willing to take the risk of getting it wrong in exchange for the income selling it. But I've not seen that many, not often accessing age-restricted online services where "owns a credit card" isn't enough proof of adulthood.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑6 Feb 2025, 5:36pm ..why should the net be subject to censorship above that of television and film makers?

It shouldn't and it isn't, as most of this seems to apply to online video services too.

What do you think is allowed on unrestricted TV which is not allowed online now? Using the two examples above, do you really think any daytime (or even prime-time) TV show would now give instructions on how to kill a dog with bike tools, or how to get knives through a security check at the UK border? I don't think any station's Compliance Department would let such material broadcast. The stuff on shows like Ludwig is superficial, sanitised and sometimes fanciful.

cycle tramp wrote: ↑6 Feb 2025, 7:54am ..Context is everything...

I agree.

Mr Richard Ballantine's written method of dealing with a dog which is demonstrating a clear threat, has been published in his book.

As far as I can tell, that is not a defence accepted by Ofcom. Arguably, it shouldn't be, as a lot of dodgy stuff has been published.

. And as such similar to posts about knives or guns, there has been no glorification, or promotion of the topics, nor have any photos been posted.

First of all, that doesn't matter because the instructions still assist and that seems to be sufficient. Secondly, most of the discussion could probably have happened without reposting the instructions.

The knives discussions have definitely encouraged smuggling them through the border check and discussed how people have done so. Again, defensible in the context but it still seems pretty definitely illegal now.

Based on Ofcom's responses in this week's sessions, I don't think the context is a defence.

admin has posted their assessment at viewtopic.php?p=1889514#p1889514 and I've spotted a familiar name pop up during discussions elsewhere.

I agree with most of the answers and some of the risk assessments, but it looks partially incorrect in its answer to question 5 (profiles include location information) and the Step 2 assessments seems to ignore that the Private Message system could be used for various things. I don't think the moderators currently check any PMs if no-one involved in the chat clicks Report, do they? One would expect that the plotters of a terrorist attack are unlikely to Report their conspiratorial discussions...

"Firearms, knives and other weapons" cites as evidence that there's been "18 years of use without such content being posted, as far as moderators have noticed" whereas I remember plenty of discussion of knives over the years (not always for food!), several about how to get them past security checks and at least one moderator involved! Even if they've never been sold openly on the site, discussing how to avoid border security still touches one of the priority offences in the guidance, as well as the encouraging and aiding offences, doesn't it? There's also been some discussion of carrying guns on tour, not all of which has been deleted. I don't think the risk of further such material being posted is negligible in discussions of cycle touring, often solo.

And for animal cruelty, isn't the famous advice from Ballantine's bike book a problem? In the words of Ofcom, "where a user publishes content showing, describing or discussing cruelty to animals in order to encourage, assist or conspire to commit acts of animal cruelty, this would create priority illegal content under the Act. This is because encouragement, assistance and conspiracy to commit a priority offence are each priority offences in their own right." (from https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/res ... -risks.pdf ) We could argue that it's sometimes justified as self-defence, but it is also pretty cruel and the instructions definitely assist, so this type of content has also definitely been posted (and possibly more than just the copy I linked), contrary to the risk assessment "evidence".

This does make me wonder how good the records of content removed by the moderators is, as well as that reported but left visible.

The code measures are described as "Implemented" but the "Reports" section of viewtopic.php?t=3661 doesn't appear to have been updated to cover how non-registered users may report illegal content, nor have the Terms linked from every page been updated yet.

geomannie wrote: ↑4 Feb 2025, 8:17pm I am a bit perplexed as I had assumed that ProtonMail was one of the more reputable companies https://proton.me/

In case you're not aware, Proton have recently trashed their reputation by publicly supporting the new US regime. It's not at all clear that you can still rely on them not to give the USA government some access to your traffic. https://theintercept.com/2025/01/28/pro ... publicans/

st599_uk wrote: ↑3 Feb 2025, 9:48am

Pendodave wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 6:09pm And as for the "spirit" of the activity, I don't feel the Warner bros/discovery deserve any benefit of the doubt...

Why? They entered in to a rights auction and won.

The TdF rights were not auctioned by ASO, nor were UCI involved much.

Mtb tourer wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 8:55pm Brexit has one plus feature for us. Used to do Southern Spain early or late in the year for better weather than the UK for cycling holidays. Now it's Morocco's turn, on 3rd trip now . Love the place , people are ace.

How long do you get in Morocco?

the snail wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 10:25am but the point is that we now have more control over immigration,

More responsibility, not more control. Arguably leaving Eurodac and CEAS and so on means we still don't have more control despite the increase in civil service numbers. It's not entirely clear whether we can ever have more control without reaching more migration control agreements with EU members, but if we can, it may need a further massive increase in Border Force numbers to replace those of other countries with which the UK no longer works as effectively. I'm not sure anyone is willing to pay that, or the consequences.

and brexit was sold to many people on the promise of reduced migration (the tories repeatedly promised to reduce it to <100,000), and like the other brexit promises it hasn't materialised. If the government was really committed to the policy, I don't see why they couldn't deliver. It can only be incompetence or dishonesty?

All parties are being dishonest about this. The more central parties are lying that it's entirely under their control, when it's largely under the control of businesses how many workers they want/need to import. The more isolationist parties are lying that cutting off migration would improve matters for workers already here, which it won't because any cutting would be matched by other countries retaliating, leading to even more restrictions on workers' abilities to move to where their skills are valued most highly, and an educated western workforce basically held captive on these islands and prime for exploitation by foreign "flying companies" (the so-called "Globalised Britain" plan which Vote Leave campaigners were told not to talk about).

[XAP]Bob wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 10:49am Year ending Sept '24 there were just shy of 100k Asylum *applications*.
About 52% of those who had a decision were granted asylum, so ~50k asylum seekers.

How many of those applications were actually decided and how many were thrown into Sunak's backlogs? It may be reasonable to assume the undecided would split the same, but it may not.

It's a bogey man, not a problem.

Amen.

pete75 wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 10:27am

mjr wrote: ↑30 Jan 2025, 6:02pm

TBH during my lifetime I don't think a single past government has made any difference to me personally and many people I know say the same.

Well, you would think that, living in Lincolnshire.

Of course, the Tories do damn all for rural areas because they think they'll always get the rural vote, and Labour the same because they think they'll never get it. The reverse is true for run down inner city areas and run down ex-industrial towns. Johnson's in some was a Brexit anomaly.

I feel the effect is even worse in Lincolnshire because it has councils with a long history of squandering or failing to use effectively most of the undersize-share of money it is awarded, plus on the rare occasion that they do something well, the council do their damnedest to take all the credit and hide where the funding or advice came from. For example, there was money to expand Spalding's pedestrian area and improve cycle access, which was actually refused. This sort of nonsense has been going on years, with lots of EU-supported projects around Boston and around the Humber either getting cancelled, or going ahead with their circle-of-stars plaques hidden on the backs of walls and similar less-obvious places, and now national-government-supported projects have the crest hidden away or simply not put up until long after the project opens, if at all.

What was the last Lincolnshire major project that the UK government got primary credit for? The Humber road bridge and its links? Does that even count, having been completed while that area had been temporarily removed from Lincolnshire and put into the "Humberside" metro county?

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑31 Jan 2025, 9:44am Quick question, what would immigration have been without Brexit?

One problem with Brexit is that we never get to see what would have happened but can anyone honestly say with a straight face that withdrawing from several migration management agreements with neighbouring countries has helped the UK manage migration?

Considering, IIRC, the immigration causing events happened after Brexit vote so you cannot say that immigration is Brexit issue with confidence, or can you?? I don't know for sure but don't EU countries have an issue too? Are Germany and Italy affected by immigration issues due to our Brexit?

Probably it hasn't helped Germany and Italy that a country beyond them is now seen as having shambolic border controls and had several politicians like Farage wittering on about how great it would be to have more non-EU migrants instead of EU ones. After all, to get from Africa or the middle east to the UK, they're going to cross other countries. But EU countries are greatly helped by working together with things like Dublin II, Eurodac and the Common European Asylum System and past UK governments have left all those due to Brexit, haven't they?

So, yes, immigration is a Brexit issue. Brexit has harmed the UK's ability to manage its border, which it could always managed better while within the EU but not in the Schengen area. And now we're having all the extra cost and red tape of EES and ETIAS which wouldn't have applied to as many people without Brexit. A vote for Brexit was a vote for more bureaucracy, despite the lying Leavers such as Boris with his famous pledge that there would be no more bureaucracy and people should send any new paperwork to him and he'd bin it and abolish the law that caused it.

pete75 wrote: ↑30 Jan 2025, 11:01am

mjr wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 11:59am

mattheus wrote: ↑29 Jan 2025, 10:22am
Our pete is dedicated to his cause, isn't he?!?

And sadly, that cause seems to be lying about how strong Reform UK Ltd are, presumably to help bring about his desired future of rule by another public schoolboy whose politics never grew up. I wonder which school: Dulwich, Uppingham or Radley?

I don't want to see a Reform governement but am realistic about their prospects, unlike a lot here.

You are not realistic. You have exaggerated their strength repeatedly, saying they are near getting more MPs than they are, and saying more than half of voters voted for them or the Tories, both of which are false.

Don't know if the current government will turn out to be competent, they may well be, but what counts against them is they're politically inept. Farage isn't

You may be right on those, but it doesn't necessarily mean Farage will take power. A week is a long time in politics. Four and a bit years? An age.

TBH during my lifetime I don't think a single past government has made any difference to me personally and many people I know say the same.

Well, you would think that, living in Lincolnshire.

Doubt Reform would make much difference to most people either.

It would, and most people would be harmed quickly by their planned changes for women and minorities. It would just be a question of whether Farage or whoever could hold their regime together and deflect blame long enough to complete their plan to Reform us away from being a liberal democracy before too many people noticed and resisted.