can fully sympathise with the cyclist's reaction to being unfairly accused.
Remind me, what was Mr Belligerent being accused of?
can fully sympathise with the cyclist's reaction to being unfairly accused.
Oldjohnw wrote:can fully sympathise with the cyclist's reaction to being unfairly accused.
Remind me, what was Mr Belligerent being accused of?
cyclemad wrote:There is no power to request removal on this occasion but his actions were causing a breach of the peace and so could have been arrested.
Cunobelin wrote:There is s strong suggestion that he had been equally aggressive with School Staff
... Having encountered self-righteous school staff exceeding their authority in the past, I would still keep an open mind as to who was really at fault here. ...
thirdcrank wrote:... Having encountered self-righteous school staff exceeding their authority in the past, I would still keep an open mind as to who was really at fault here. ...
I didn't bother watching the video but I've followed this with interest. One of the biggest areas of ordinary police work is dealing with third party allegations. Whatever anybody thinks about power-mad headteachers, it would be a very brave police officer who dismissed something they alleged on that basis alone. Or on the basis that the person complained about was a cyclist and thus incapable of the slightest wrongdoing.
Airsporter1st wrote: ... I'm not sure who suggested that, but it was not I.
thirdcrank wrote:Airsporter1st wrote: ... I'm not sure who suggested that, but it was not I.
Nor was it my intention to suggest it was you. If it's not completely clear, I'm more than happy to say that this is a comment on the thread more generally.
Airsporter1st wrote:thirdcrank wrote:Airsporter1st wrote: ... I'm not sure who suggested that, but it was not I.
Nor was it my intention to suggest it was you. If it's not completely clear, I'm more than happy to say that this is a comment on the thread more generally.
...... and one with which I would agree.
mjr wrote:Airsporter1st wrote:thirdcrank wrote:
Nor was it my intention to suggest it was you. If it's not completely clear, I'm more than happy to say that this is a comment on the thread more generally.
...... and one with which I would agree.
Why? No one seems to be suggesting that as a reason why his desire not to disrobe outdoors is reasonable. It would be as offensive to expect a pedestrian to remove clothes.
mjr wrote:Airsporter1st wrote:thirdcrank wrote:
Nor was it my intention to suggest it was you. If it's not completely clear, I'm more than happy to say that this is a comment on the thread more generally.
...... and one with which I would agree.
Why? No one seems to be suggesting that as a reason why his desire not to disrobe outdoors is reasonable. It would be as offensive to expect a pedestrian to remove clothes.
Cunobelin wrote:mjr wrote:Why? No one seems to be suggesting that as a reason why his desire not to disrobe outdoors is reasonable. It would be as offensive to expect a pedestrian to remove clothes.
Only if you want to blur the facts no-one asked him to disrobe or remove clothes, that is an absurd claim!..... In reality it would be equivalent to asking a pedestrian to remove a face covering.
A massive majority of shops refuse to serve if someone is wearing hoody, cap, helmet. face mask, bandana etc
If it is really that offensive, why is this common and abhorrent abuse accepted?
Personally I have always found it to be considerate and helpful to remove headgear and mask when talking to someone, but others may not have such standards
mjr wrote:Cunobelin wrote:mjr wrote:Why? No one seems to be suggesting that as a reason why his desire not to disrobe outdoors is reasonable. It would be as offensive to expect a pedestrian to remove clothes.
Only if you want to blur the facts no-one asked him to disrobe or remove clothes, that is an absurd claim!..... In reality it would be equivalent to asking a pedestrian to remove a face covering.
Which would be offensive in that context. Face coverings are clothing too.A massive majority of shops refuse to serve if someone is wearing hoody, cap, helmet. face mask, bandana etc
If it is really that offensive, why is this common and abhorrent abuse accepted?
In those examples, it's as you go indoors, where the main reason for the helmet or hood is no longer present. Totally different context.
Secondly, I've never been refused service on the few times I've gone in with a mask, balaclava or hood on, so I doubt it's a "massive majority". Neither of the examples mentions face masks and one is from Tesco who are massive morons about clothes anyway, including cycling ones at some times. Random example https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/t ... de-1962593Personally I have always found it to be considerate and helpful to remove headgear and mask when talking to someone, but others may not have such standards
I find it helpful and usually do too, but it's my choice as it should be, not a dictat of another person.