Cycling UK Forum

pete75 wrote:

roubaixtuesday wrote:Blessed be the moderators, for they shall inherit the web.

Back on topic, the florid insanity catalysed by Brexit has been bursting into glorious flower these past 24 hours.

Firstly, it turns out, quite incredibly, that fully 73% of voters for the Conservative and Unionist party think it's worth sacrificing the northern Ireland peace process for Brexit. See link below.

Then we get another insight into the ideological purity demanded, by an acolyte of hard Brexit, one Steve Baker, former minister:

Britain must pursue Brexit, he said, because “freedom is the fountainhead of prosperity, virtue and dignity”.

Such is the virtue of Brexit, it appears, that it's worthy of sacrificing peace and the entire raison d'être of the party you belong to or vote for.

It's utterly bizarre, like some kind of mediaeval self- flagellation cult. One wonders how history will judge this period. Not kindly, methinks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... 77b41b05ed

And 77% think Scotland leaving the union would also be a price worth paying.

An irony is almost half of Conservative voters think MPs representing Scottish constituencies shouldn't be allowed to sit in the cabinet yet seem to have no problem with DUP leader Arlene Foster, who isn't even an elected MP, telling the PM what to do over Brexit.

It's even worse than the above.


"Even in Scotland, many Conservatives do not believe that there should be Scottish MPs in the cabinet, with 24 per cent thinking that they should be barred from the cabinet."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ban- ... -tz3g5x8z6

mr bajokoses wrote:

al_yrpal wrote:#yawwwwwn….

That's quite an argument.

Who said age does not necessarily bring wisdom. Think again!

If it's any help........it is a mistake to believe that a political position is formed from a careful consideration of the facts, or results from a logical analysis of the situation or by some process of reasoned thinking. It is more likely to have its roots in the emotional history of the individual, in their fears, their doubts, and in their insecurity, and their political stance is merely the most appropriate vehicle for these emotions to be articulated.
This explains in my view, the reason that their political stance might seem to be immune to all forms of reasoned debate and cannot be altered by any amount of facts or logical argument. Such arguments are interpreted as an attack upon the individual's core values and emotional security and will be defended as such, no matter how nonsensical this defence may seem.
Right then.......now surely this warrants a good old yawn.

Mick F wrote:Doom! Doom! Doom!
We're all doomed!

No....I don't think that we're all doomed....as there are some of us who have insulated themselves quite nicely from the consequences by being rich or by moving their business interests abroad.

It is those people who were uninformed enough to be influenced by the lies and propaganda of the Brexit cabal who will be most affected. People like the workers in the Airbus factory in Wales involved in sharing work in this EU project, who voted massively to leave despite the consequences to their future employment. Now they face unemployment if/when the UK leaves the UK as a consequence of them believing in the lies they were told......and this in Wales of all places, the country which has benefitted massively from EU investment.

Mick F wrote:Some historian would come on and correct me I'm sure.
I don't think that Scotland have ever had their own currency......................................................

I'm no historian but before the Act of Union in 1707 the "Merk" was the unit of currency in Scotland.


https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=siue ... mRYbOpLEnI

al_yrpal wrote:

kwackers wrote:

al_yrpal wrote:The stand out guy that intimated this to me owns a chain of hotels situated all over Scotland, presently acquiring and building hotels in England.

Al

As you said though it's not a problem since HQ's are usually relatively poorly staffed.
It's not like he can move his hotel staff to England.

For the reasons you describe I can't say I worry too much where HQ's are based.
Although it might get more interesting if the current kickback against international companies and tax avoidance gains enough traction to force governments hands.

His particular fear is that businesses like his will be a prime target for excessive taxation if HQ'd in an independent impoverished Scotland. I cant see the kickback succeeding.

Al

You're right of course.....it's going to be terrible being impoverished and the oil's not going to help.

Somebody should tell those deluded French people.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q= ... %20country

al_yrpal wrote:The SNP? They just hate Westminster and many do actually hate the English Establishment and thats what its all about. After all they have long had many of their own institutions like the law etc and want to run their own affairs. Most of my pals up there believe that Scotland is much better off in the UK and regard the SNP as nutters. As for staying in the EU, the majority apparently voted Remain and the SNP ar using that as a Cudgel to bash Westminster which is a Scottish national sport.

Al

Yes.....I suspect that your pals meet regularly in a phone box to ponder how the dreadful SNP Government still have high approval ratings with the Scottish public despite their years in Government. It must be dreadfully puzzling for them that the SNP keep being returned to Government and the SNP membership has risen to become the second largest party by membership in the UK. overtaking the Tories.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... -it-matter

Again, the majority in Scotland did not "apparently" vote "Remain". They voted 62% for Remain, with all 32 Councils voting for Remain.

NATURAL ANKLING wrote:Hi,
Side stepping a bit.
4th sep, Nicky now pushing and received applause from fellow politicians.

Its in the interest of Scotland to go independent...........words to that effect.
No longer waiting for the brexit deal outcome.........obviously feeling confident.........
Not sure how many polititons this will lose next time round.

I would think that now it is difficult to see how anyone can argue against this. After all, we now have the witnessed the incompetence of the present UK Government and the utter contempt that Westminster has shown towards Scotland and towards Scottish interests. The whole world has been witness to the utter incompetence of the UK Government in this matter, and to the Tory party politicians' unprincipled behaviour in the search for personal advancement. We all have seen the UK Government's assessment of the damage that Brexit will have and also that of the Scottish Government, and both of these forecast economic and social chaos.
Knowing all of this, it is hardly unreasonable to believe that Scotland would benefit by becoming independent. If you think that Independence is unlikely to happen then have a look at the results of the latest polls rather than relying on the headlines of the union press and the BBC.

^^^^^^^^^This.

Woosh is renowned for its customer service and I've found them to be extremely helpful as well as offering good components at attractive prices.

NetworkMan wrote:

georgew wrote:When Brooks was owned by Brooks, their original advice to owners was that Proofide was never to be applied to the underside of the saddle, this was because it may cause the leather to become too soft and cause some distortion. When applied to the top, which has been pressure rolled resulting in the polished surface, the Proofide does not penetrate (which can be seen if the top is scratched) but only provides a temporary water-proofing effect.

Under its new owners, Brooks targeted prospective customers in the USA and it was found that as the majority of these did not use "fenders", the underside of the saddle was vulnerable to road moisture being thrown up from below and the "advice" re the use of Proofide was promptly changed.

I don't know about 'new' owners but I have the instructions that came with my B17 narrow bought in 1994 when Brooks were owned by Sturmey-Archer.
"On bicycles not fitted with mudguards, an initial application to the underside of the saddle will be beneficial, this need not be polished off."
What's more the application of Proofide is claimed to keep the leather supple not just to waterproof it.

No such instruction came with the Brooks saddles I bought from the early '70's and unfortunately our American cousins have found that repeated applications to the underside of their saddles have caused them to become too soft as to be unusable.
As to Proofide keeping the leather "supple".....sellers will tell us all sort of things. However, as the Proofide cannot penetrate the rolled, top surface I cannot understand how this could create suppleness. Back in the day, the aim seems to have been to create indents which accommodated the riders "sitbones" and suppleness militated against this,

When Brooks was owned by Brooks, their original advice to owners was that Proofide was never to be applied to the underside of the saddle, this was because it may cause the leather to become too soft and cause some distortion. When applied to the top, which has been pressure rolled resulting in the polished surface, the Proofide does not penetrate (which can be seen if the top is scratched) but only provides a temporary water-proofing effect.

Under its new owners, Brooks targeted prospective customers in the USA and it was found that as the majority of these did not use "fenders", the underside of the saddle was vulnerable to road moisture being thrown up from below and the "advice" re the use of Proofide was promptly changed.

Vorpal wrote:

georgew wrote:

Vorpal wrote:I agree. Although having more control over this (and fishing) is, to my mind, one of the few potential benefits of leaving the EU. The government seem to be doing **** all with it. They should at least have some proposals under discussion by now.

Please be reassured....the UK Government will use our fishing merely as a bargaining token in negotiations concerning the regulation of the London financial industry and nothing more than that. The fishing industry is minuscule in comparison with the UK's other concerns.

Honestly, if they had handled this well, and made it clear that they were going to take over regulation of farming, fishing, and forestry to the benefit of the UK (the people, landscape, & the environment, not just a few wealthy landlords), they could have won me over to the Brexit side. As it is, I am starting to think that even on this issue, where I disagreed substantially with many EU initiatives, that the UK may be better off with the EU than without.

Reason has had no part in the Brexit question and responses have been shaped by sheer emotion. Lies and misleading propaganda from the "Leave" campaign and amplified by the press swayed the leave voters. How else to explain those workers at Airbus in Wales, a joint European project, voting to leave. Or again, Wales, which has received a massive amount of EU grants again voting "Leave".

Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.

Cyril Haearn wrote:I love rice but pearl barley instead is very tasty and can easily be grown in the UK. Unfortunately a lot of barley is used to make beer

Leeks are easy to grow too, I understand, and lavabread deserves to be much more popular

Agricultural yields have increased greatly over the centuries and can surely increase more, without nasty chemicals

"There is only one thing worse than a young pessimist: an old optimist"
I am proud to be an old optimist

Absolutely right.

In fact I see nothing wrong in the whole nation having to survive on millet.......seems reasonable.

Vorpal wrote:

pwa wrote:Many of us got into cycling partly because we love the countryside, landscape and all that stuff. And the countryside is largely the creation of agriculture and forestry. What happens to agriculture and forestry affects our experience of countryside. Inside or outside of the EU. So it is partly about food, and the environment, but it is also about landscape and recreation.

I agree. Although having more control over this (and fishing) is, to my mind, one of the few potential benefits of leaving the EU. The government seem to be doing **** all with it. They should at least have some proposals under discussion by now.

Please be reassured....the UK Government will use our fishing merely as a bargaining token in negotiations concerning the regulation of the London financial industry and nothing more than that. The fishing industry is minuscule in comparison with the UK's other concerns.

Ben@Forest wrote:

georgew wrote:Not to mention the disgrace of the person responsible for choosing the audience being found to have neo-fascist tendencies which skewed her choices.

I don't know when that happened or who it was but when I was on QT (during the high days of New Labour and before the Iraq War) the audience was more Labour than Conservative - but I was living in a Labour constituency at the time.

"In September, Pedley had invited the Boston, Lincolnshire EDL to apply for the show’s audience – drawing complaints from anti-racist campaigners and local MP Matt Warman. The backbencher was told the show approached the EDL repeatedly, but contacted neither the Conservatives nor any other local group. "

"People discovered Pedley had shared posts by far-right group Britain First, tweeted supporting Vote Leave and joined facebook group the “British Patriot Front”."

"The BBC press team focused its denials on the Britain First posts, claiming Pedley shared them “unwittingly”. "

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/t ... ly-fascist