Cycling UK Forum

Mike Sales wrote: ↑21 Aug 2024, 2:54pm If you read more carefully my post, which you copy above, you will see that I wrote that 'many' of those who pay large sums to send their children to public schools are careful to minimise their tax obligations. Not all.

This is what you typed (below), and the words you used were 'tax evasion', which is completely different to what you claim above. I have asked you, twice, if you have any evidence to support your opinion that many of the parents are using tax evasion, but you haven't produced any.

Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:10pm There is a certain symmetry in so called public schools claiming charitable status to dodge taxes, since many of the parents who send their brats to these schools probably use ingenious tax evasion measures to accumulate their dosh in the first place.

Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:55pm

853 wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:45pm

Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:10pm There is a certain symmetry in so called public schools claiming charitable status to dodge taxes, since many of the parents who send their brats to these schools probably use ingenious tax evasion measures to accumulate their dosh in the first place.

Do you have any evidence of this that you can share with us?

There is a whole industry of advisers who specialise in helping people to dispose their money so that they can minimise their tax liabilities, and these people can thus afford to pay the tens of thousands of pounds the so called public schools charge p.a.
Such dodges are unavailable to those who Pay As You Earn.
Do you seriously deny this?

Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 7:13pm

853 wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:59pm Repeat. Do you have evidence that they are using tax evasion?

Leave it out!
You may try to look green, but I don't think you are a cabbage. Or a lettuce, come to that.

I take that as a 'No' then.

As this forum is open to everyone to read, not just members, there will likely be some honest people who have worked very hard, and often gone without fancy cars, phones and holidays etc to pay for their children's school fees, reading this. To suggest they are dishonest is totally wrong

Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:55pm

853 wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:45pm

Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:10pm There is a certain symmetry in so called public schools claiming charitable status to dodge taxes, since many of the parents who send their brats to these schools probably use ingenious tax evasion measures to accumulate their dosh in the first place.

Do you have any evidence of this that you can share with us?

There is a whole industry of advisers who specialise in helping people to dispose their money so that they can minimise their tax liabilities, and these people can thus afford to pay the tens of thousands of pounds the so called public schools charge p.a. Do you seriously deny this?

Repeat. Do you have evidence that they are using tax evasion?

Mike Sales wrote: ↑20 Aug 2024, 6:10pm There is a certain symmetry in so called public schools claiming charitable status to dodge taxes, since many of the parents who send their brats to these schools probably use ingenious tax evasion measures to accumulate their dosh in the first place.

Do you have any evidence of this that you can share with us?

531colin wrote: ↑12 Aug 2024, 2:29pm Long ago, before 9 speed was beyond the pale, I bought some 9 speed cassettes intended for junior (restricted gear) racing, and used the top several sprockets from them with the big sprockets from 9 speed MTB cassettes to make touring cassettes.
Is restricted gear junior racing still a thing?

Restricted gearing still applies for the age groups under 16 years old

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about ... -gearing-0

pjclinch wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 8:18pm As I alluded in the reply I made in good faith, what we seem to have here is one of those irregular verbs describing how we both inferred things beyond what was meant: 853 makes honest mistakes, pjclinch twists facts.

If you can stop being quite so anal about the semantics and read the last, extensive part of what I wrote about why I won't get drawn in to the specifics of one paper you might learn something about helmets and the literature concerning their effectiveness. It would take much less time than faffing about with screenshots trying to prove I'm a Bad Egg because I said EN1078 where you hadn't and similarly inconsequential tosh.

No, this is not about irregular verbs or semantics. This is about you trying to make out that I have said things which I haven't.

I have noted, as others reading this thread will also have done, that not for the first time on this thread you have thrown an insult at me. The mechanism of this forum allows for the editing of a post, and I have given you several days to edit it to make it readable, but you haven't. You have left me to repair it, as best I can, to illustrate where you have tried to attribute to me things I have not stated.

I have every intention of going through your lengthy post, and I really hope it's worth it. As I have to refer back through the thread, because your post doesn't make any sense, it's a lengthy process. And the sun is out, and I have a lot of other things to do.

Finally, a member saying "I said EN1078 where you hadn't and similarly inconsequential tosh" is not inconsequential tosh, and trivialising it in this way does you no favours.

pjclinch wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 8:18pm As you conceded, it seemed to be the case that the forum software took out the deepest quotes, yet here you are painting me as a bad actor again.

No. I told you on the 25th that your post of the 24th had missed out some of the quotes we were discussing making it unreadable. You said it looked fine, so I posted two attached images, showing what had happened, on the 26th. Slowster has kindly posted (below) that the maximum number of quotes is three, and the Test Board can be used to confirm this

slowster wrote: ↑29 Jul 2024, 8:54pm The maximum number of nested quotes allowed is three. There is a Test Board where you can experiment and confirm this for yourself, but to save you the bother I have copied a thread of mine to the Test Board from the equivalent board for the Moderators - viewtopic.php?t=161940.

It is ridiculous to say that we can discuss how you are trying to manipulate what I have said when the first 25 percent of it missing. It's like saying that's it's ok to start Lands End to John O'Groats at Hereford.

In view of the fact you have mangled the post I am trying to reply to, I have pasted an image of what was said up to this point below

pjclinch wrote: ↑25 Jul 2024, 8:41am My central point on being forced off line was that if you can't be sure you're going to be on a decent road then riding a bike that is significantly more likely to come a cropper if it's not a decent road isn't your best way to stay safe.
I brought up the way you mentioned a car hitting a rider from behind as sounding like a collision to me, you clarified that it would be a clip to provoke a subsequent crash rather than a full on collision and I conceded that point: fair enough this is a different aspect of "collision"

No, that's not true. Your 'central point' in this section is not about being forced off line - that came later. You were talking about a cyclist - motor vehicle at high speed on the 14th July, and you re-enforced this view on the 15th with your words "Let me remind you of how you brought up the threat of them" and then followed this up with "If these vehicles and colliding with them isn't an issue, why bring them up?"

The idea that you "brought up the way you mentioned a car hitting a rider from behind as sounding like a collision to me" is a twist of the facts on your part. The exchange of posts above, to which we have been discussing, is on the 14th and 15th July, but I didn't first mention any vehicle-cyclist collision until the 18th, as is proven below

853 wrote: ↑18 Jul 2024, 6:23pm Decades ago the back of my arm was 'tapped' by the wing mirror of a passing car just above the elbow. I make no claims about having superior bike handling but, after a big wobble (and a lot of swearing), I stayed on the bike. I don't believe all cyclists would have been able to stay on the bike in the same circumstances. Had I not have been so fortunate, the resultant crash would not have involved the car even though it had caused it.

pjclinch wrote: ↑26 Jul 2024, 7:30pm Well just read what I actually wrote, which is outside of the quote blocks so easy to spot and says what I have to say.

But it's all about the context in which it was written!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the whole point!

axel_knutt wrote: ↑26 Jul 2024, 5:29pm I think we need to start purging old data instead of trying to keep everything, it has to start sooner or later. It's ridiculous to think that we're acting as if this thread and others like it need to be here for someone to read in a century or two.

Absolutely right. There are threads in The Tea Shop that haven't been added to since 2007. How about erasing threads in this section if they haven't been added to in the last 10 years.

pjclinch wrote: ↑25 Jul 2024, 10:18pm

853 wrote: ↑25 Jul 2024, 6:29pm Pete

You've mangled the quotes, so there are great chunks missing and it no longer makes sense

I've looked it over several times and either I'm having proof-readers block or you're seeing something different to me.

All the quote blocks seem to have correct attributions and all the stuff I wrote this morning is outside of them


Pete.

I'm struggling to believe I'm reading this ...

To avoid any further mangling of the quotes, I have attached two images - in order. The first is of the top part of my post on the 24th, and the second image is of your reply to this part on the 25th
Spot the difference ...
All of the other parts you have answered appear to be mangled in the same way. I am not suggesting you have done anything intentional here; I suspect your post has exceeded the number of embedded quotes or something similar and then misses the most embedded quote

briansnail wrote: ↑25 Jul 2024, 5:39pm Are you watching "Oui/Non"? How many hours and what sports?
Are you going to Paris?
Is French cooking better because its baked fresh?
Are Parisian Croissants with butter the only ones to die for? /Best French Wine?
What is the best place for a French holiday?
Do you have a Citron CV.Any vintage owners with the most beautiful of French cars.The Pallas.

Non 0
Non
Non
Je ne sais pas
Barcelonnette, évidemment
Non. Non

Pete

You've mangled the quotes, so there are great chunks missing and it no longer makes sense

pjclinch wrote: ↑24 Jul 2024, 2:39pm And still waiting to hear which facts I've twisted.

Here's a few for a start

pjclinch wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 10:17pm

853 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 6:58pm

pjclinch wrote: ↑14 Jul 2024, 7:43pm EN1078 is designed for falls with no other vehicle involved. As soon as a rider collides with a motor vehicle at speed you're totally beyond the spec and you cannot realistically assume it will make much difference. That's why motorcycle helmets are massively more protective (but still very fallible).

Not sure where you've got this from, I never mentioned a cyclist-motor vehicle collision

Let me remind you how you brought up the threat of them:
"then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions."
If these vehicles and colliding with them isn't an issue, why bring it up?

I was talking about passing vehicles restricting the available road and the best 'line' to avoid obstructions and potholes, but you managed to turn this into a cyclist-motor vehicle discussion

pjclinch wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 10:17pm

853 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 6:58pm

pjclinch wrote: ↑14 Jul 2024, 7:43pm Your faith in EN1078 helmets to save lives is not backed up by reality. They're a couple of centimeters of expanded polystyrene that cover part of the head, they can't be expected to work miracles and their track record doesn't make it obvious that they do.
But also your apparent assumption that anyone falling off without a lid is almost asking for a serious head injury is, while quite common, not one that stands scrutiny.

I never mentioned EN1078.

You mentioned helmets. By far the most common spec for cyclehelmets is EN1078, so unless you qualify any mention with a higher spec like Snell B95 it's pretty much a given that "cycle helmet" is the same as "EN1078 cycle helmet".

As I'd never mentioned EN1078, I can't have expressed my faith in it to save lives.

pjclinch wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 10:17pm

853 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 6:58pm I never said helmets, of any description, for any use, save lives.

You clearly implied, with your emphasis of death of a rider that wasn't wearing one as a reason for people to wear one, that you think there's a significant chance your tragic example would have been different with a helmet. If you didn't think it would have been different, why bring it up?

I didn't say that, another member did. Stating a fact does not mean something is clearly implied.

pjclinch wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 10:17pm

853 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2024, 6:58pm I never said, or implied, that "anyone falling off without a lid is almost asking for a serious head injury". I suggest that you read what I did say before making false assertions.

But you did imply it, saying all the things that can bring riders down and how important it is to wear helmets while not feeling any other protection worth mentioning.

Again, stating the facts does not imply anything.



And I'm still waiting to hear why you continue to avoid discussion on the research?

Jdsk wrote: ↑23 Jul 2024, 5:19pm NAO: "HS2: update following cancellation of Phase 2":
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/hs2-upda ... f-phase-2/

Still a massive project, still decisions to be taken...

Jonathan

Thanks for that

And from the report https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... hase-2.pdf


The line will, eventually, reach Euston however