Cycling UK Forum

hondated wrote:I never listened to the interview but I am only too aware of Angela as she is on every talk show that requires a radical and opposite opinion of what is being discussed.
Its no coincidence that she writes for the Mail.
I once enjoyed watching such discussion programmes but I now mainly avoid them as I have heard many of them so many times before.
Pity that don't replace them with programmes on cycle touring.

I think that on 'discussion' programmes there is now such a lot of contrarian spite and what would once have been called hate speech that it just isn't worth the aggro of listening to them. Anyone who isn't rich or powerful is a target for hate speech these days.

Flinders wrote:I think that on 'discussion' programmes there is now such a lot of contrarian spite and what would once have been called hate speech that it just isn't worth the aggro of listening to them. Anyone who isn't rich or powerful is a target for hate speech these days.

Everyone (including the rich and powerful) is a target for hate speech these days.

hondated wrote:I never listened to the interview but I am only too aware of Angela as she is on every talk show that requires a radical and opposite opinion of what is being discussed.

Yes, her Twitter feed is somewhere between hilarious and wristslashingly depressing:

"Is cycling the new religion? Let me know"
"Angela Epstein asking why today's feminists are so unpleasant to other women."
"Was on Radio Ulster today criticising Belfast Fashion Week for employing a 14 year old model."
"Was on @bbc5live today disagreeing with compulsory sexual consent lessons for students"
"Will be on @bbc5live just after 9am discussing compulsory sexual consent lessons for students. Is that really necessary?"

And so on. Basically, her entire schtick appears to be disagreeing with people to cause a fight. It's not that far off what used to be called trolling in Usenet days, before the word was altered to its modern-day meaning (which is probably what we'd have then called a "griefer").

Bicycler wrote:

Flinders wrote:I think that on 'discussion' programmes there is now such a lot of contrarian spite and what would once have been called hate speech that it just isn't worth the aggro of listening to them. Anyone who isn't rich or powerful is a target for hate speech these days.

Everyone (including the rich and powerful) is a target for hate speech these days.

Except the rich and powerful can sue even if an accusation is true, and have mates in the press who will cover up anything they don't want known, of course. That's why Savile for one got away with it for so long.

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

hondated wrote:I never listened to the interview but I am only too aware of Angela as she is on every talk show that requires a radical and opposite opinion of what is being discussed.

Yes, her Twitter feed is somewhere between hilarious and wristslashingly depressing:

"Is cycling the new religion? Let me know"
"Angela Epstein asking why today's feminists are so unpleasant to other women."
"Was on Radio Ulster today criticising Belfast Fashion Week for employing a 14 year old model."
"Was on @bbc5live today disagreeing with compulsory sexual consent lessons for students"
"Will be on @bbc5live just after 9am discussing compulsory sexual consent lessons for students. Is that really necessary?"

And so on. Basically, her entire schtick appears to be disagreeing with people to cause a fight. It's not that far off what used to be called trolling in Usenet days, before the word was altered to its modern-day meaning (which is probably what we'd have then called a "griefer").

There are plenty like her. They have nothing to say that's worth saying, nothing to say that is intelligent, well-researched, insightful or carefully thought-out, they are too lazy to spend the time doing that. They're just flippant spite-generators who are employed to create clickbait. Often they tell lies or deliberately misrepresent the facts. Another characteristic of them is that their targets can't usually fight back, in which case, of course, they are bullies and cowards as well.

Flinders wrote:Except the rich and powerful can sue even if an accusation is true, and have mates in the press who will cover up anything they don't want known, of course

And cyclists just run red lights when they feel like it. It's very easy to tar entire groups of people with a particular brush, to justify one's own dislike of others by reference to observed or perceived misbehaviour on behalf of some of their group.

She's done a telegraph article in support of her BBC radio programme. She's going on about.a cyclist Twitter backlash but quotes a guy who sounds rather sensible and reserved in his comment to me. But I guess I'm a member of the cycling religion with a zealots view on cycling. I'm also a RLJer who pays no VED, has no licence plate and demand other road.users to consider my increased vulnerability. Or something like that. She's a piece of work who's an "anti". It didn't matter what she'll sell an argument against it to get an audience. Nothing positive about what she says or writes. There's a need for her if only to make people realize what ignorance is.

Flinders wrote:There are plenty like her. They have nothing to say that's worth saying, nothing to say that is intelligent, well-researched, insightful or carefully thought-out, they are too lazy to spend the time doing that. They're just flippant spite-generators who are employed to create clickbait. Often they tell lies or deliberately misrepresent the facts. Another characteristic of them is that their targets can't usually fight back, in which case, of course, they are bullies and cowards as well.

She made some comment about not understanding why her husband had five bikes as he only had one buttock. But thinking about it I disagree.

I came across a psychiatrists interpretation of this behaviour recently, in a different context but her behaviour fits the explanation perfectly:

People doing this start from a position of perceived self interest then create a back story to justify it, and then try to reinforce it by pushing it around as if it were fact. The less credible the back story is, the more effort needed to reinforce it. i think it's interesting to read this stuff with that in mind - not just about cycling but lots of things.

I said perceived self interest because most of these things - road tax for cycling, waiting for red lights, compulsory insurance etc work against the interests of motorists if you follow them through to a likely conclusion. (That's not true for everyone of course and several journos do well out of spinning these stories).

Shame they didn't put her up against Chris Boardman rather than Ned Boulting. Who didn't come across very well, he sort of made the right points, but not very well.