Cycling UK Forum

Ben@Forest wrote: According to the ONS only 2.3% of all the workforce are on zero hours contracts. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/contracts-with-no-guaranteed-hours/zero-hour-contracts--2014/index.html. And apparently more than half of them like it that way. I don't have a source for that one but that's from pollsters anyway and we know how accurate they are...

According to that link, 2.3% is 697,000 people. If you are right, that over half of them like the arrangement, it might be 300,000 who aren't happy. Whether they are just moaning for the sake of it, or because they never know from one day to the next whether they'll be able to feed their familes, we don't know.

I know some carers on zero hours contracts. They don't get paid for time between jobs (mostly waiting at bus stops), or if they arrive at a job and the client doesn't need them. I haven't asked whether they are happy with this arrangement.

Ben@Forest wrote: I think that at this point about 37% of them vote Conservative, 30% Labour, UKIP 12% - you can see where I'm going with this (oh and adjust for Scotland).

Ben: you make a fair point. My first assumption is that cycling drives part of the left-wing/Green agenda and left-wingers support cycling (as in supporting cycle facilities, opposing road-building and so forth). My second assumption is that this forum (cycling as transport etc) broadly reflects that. I've just always assumed both. I could be quite wrong as I've never felt the need to verify either. I did however do this on-line policy check before the election where you click on the policies you like and they tell you the political party to support.

However, even if my assumptions are correct, I would be very surprised and indeed disappointed if there were no Conservative voting members of this forum. Cycling does cut across party lines (not enough IMV but it does).

So if I understand your argument correctly, cycling is a green activity which means left leaning people. This means a cycling forum contains mostly left leaning members too. Then that means the majority then has the right in political threads to overwhelm opponents to their view by sheer numbers and in the process create an intimidating place for opposing views. The majority has the right to go beyond disagreeing with say the Tory party, as the opposition to left leaning principles, towards insulting or causing offence to that party and any poster who agrees with them.
Basically it is one thing to have a pleasant, political debate but shouting down other's views or causing offence is not pleasant, political debate. Call a UKIP supporter a racist just because of their support of that party could offend. Accusing a Tory supporter of being a greedy, fat cat or Over-privileged toff or worse could offend.

Tangled Metal wrote:So if I understand your argument correctly, cycling is a green activity which means left leaning people. This means a cycling forum contains mostly left leaning members too. Then that means the majority then has the right in political threads to overwhelm opponents to their view by sheer numbers and in the process create an intimidating place for opposing views. The majority has the right to go beyond disagreeing with say the Tory party, as the opposition to left leaning principles, towards insulting or causing offence to that party and any poster who agrees with them.

He didn't say that at all. He said,

horizon wrote:But moving on to political views, we're on shakier ground. I think this forum is left leaning so members expressing say Conservative views may feel uncomfortable. I don't think that's necessarily wrong: the argument isn't "Should greater priority be given to bikes?" but "What do we do about these dreadful Tory councils and their attitude to cycling?". When a Conservative leaning forum member pops up (who likes cycling as much as the best of us) and begs to differ, it makes for an interesting discussion. But I think the "inbuilt imbalance" is the correct starting point.

Even if it's a bit unfair to say "What do we do about these dreadful Tory councils and their attitude to cycling?", that's very different from intimidating other users.

The better question would be 'how do we improve conditions for cycling, even where the highways authority has pro-motoring policies and only pays lip service to cycling.

I expect that there is a left-leaning bias on the forum, but if you see anyone insulting others, whatever the reason, please report the post using the the exclamation point int he upper right of the post.

We had a robust political debate. I found myself being insulted with unwarranted personal abuse and slurs on several occasions. But as was pointed out the moderators are volunteers, the abuse was like water off a ducks back to me, and I didnt want to bother them although I was slightly surprised they didnt intervene because they were following the debate. My take is just to ignore these rather sad abusive people and to avoid debating anything with them in future. The election is over now and the people have spoken. Whatever way you interpret the results we now have the government we voted for although some voters are under and over represented. So, its all over for now. I enjoyed the debate.

Al

Freddie wrote:Al...but politics is banned, if it is of the wrong stripe. Pete75's thread about Scottish Independence can roll on, because no on has been naughty yet. Could I suggest that is because people with differing views to the OP can conduct themselves reasonably.

Start a thread round here saying UKIP or Tories may have a point and see how long it lasts. You even have mods say "I knew it would get out of hand and should have deleted it right away". So, politics can be discussed, but only the right (actually left) kind. The wrong kind and you invite people who want to mark undue personal remarks and wilfully disrupt it and then the mods delete it, rather than deal with the offenders. This is a easy way to stifle certain politics and elevate others on the part of these disruptive posters.

I'll call you on that one!

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=94359&hilit=ukip#p869188

Vorpal wrote:
The better question would be 'how do we improve conditions for cycling, even where the highways authority has pro-motoring policies and only pays lip service to cycling.

Yes, that's nicely put. But (to emphasise my point), you didn't ask, "Should we improve conditions for cycling?" as that is built into the ethos of the forum.

I'm still assuming that the "highways authority with pro-motoring policies and which only pays lip service to cycling" is Tory, but I'm very open to having that viewpoint challenged (hopefully not with "So are all the Labour ones too"!).

al_yrpal wrote:The election is over now and the people have spoken. Whatever way you interpret the results we now have the government we voted for although some voters are under and over represented. So, its all over for now. I enjoyed the debate.

After an election the campaigning continues. Lobbyists (NGOs and arms dealers) still dine with ministers. Union leaders put pressure on MPs and ministers (probably not so much with a Conservative government). Rupert Murdoch continues to exercise his malign influence on people and government. Other newspaper proprietors exercise their influence. Police chiefs write newspaper columns. Spooks whisper in ministers' ears. Rich donors expect payback. Journalists and columnists keep up a barrage of complaints.

With all that going on, it's essential that the rest of us make our voices heard (if we have anything to say). Otherwise MPs might be forgiven for thinking that we don't care. The election is gone, but we can still act. Marching, striking, chaining ourselves to the railings in Whitehall, throwing ourselves under the Queen's horse - that stuff might not be for everyone. What about writing to the MP, putting in FOI requests, going to meetings? Or just grumbling on an internet forum? Let's carry on with the debate!

Ha ha! I have marched with a placard. It said "you cant spell nitwit without a W", and it was when Bush visited London. The UKs biggest political march ever on a weekday. https://flic.kr/p/xbZgH I dont intend to be quiet and will indeed challenge ludicrous assertions which I believe are founded on mindless dogma. I sometimes drop our MP a line and enjoy discussions in the pub with friends. I prefer to believe that people are open minded about politics, thats obviously a niaive view because many seem to remain trapped in a myopic sea of predjudice. You have a point with that thread but I avoided looking at it because I have written off UKIP as an irellavence.

Al

bovlomov wrote:... Lobbyists (NGOs and arms dealers) still dine with ministers. Union leaders put pressure on MPs and ministers (probably not so much with a Conservative government). Rupert Murdoch continues to exercise his malign influence on people and government. Other newspaper proprietors exercise their influence. Police chiefs write newspaper columns. Spooks whisper in ministers' ears. Rich donors expect payback. Journalists and columnists keep up a barrage of complaints....

And certain members of the Royal Family (but that's all kept secret in future).

Ian

beardy wrote:

Freddie wrote:Al...but politics is banned, if it is of the wrong stripe. Pete75's thread about Scottish Independence can roll on, because no on has been naughty yet. Could I suggest that is because people with differing views to the OP can conduct themselves reasonably.

Start a thread round here saying UKIP or Tories may have a point and see how long it lasts. You even have mods say "I knew it would get out of hand and should have deleted it right away". So, politics can be discussed, but only the right (actually left) kind. The wrong kind and you invite people who want to mark undue personal remarks and wilfully disrupt it and then the mods delete it, rather than deal with the offenders. This is a easy way to stifle certain politics and elevate others on the part of these disruptive posters.

I'll call you on that one!

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=94359&hilit=ukip#p869188

Okay so there's a thread mocking UKIP....

Freddie wrote:Start a thread round here saying UKIP or Tories may have a point and see how long it lasts. You even have mods say "I knew it would get out of hand and should have deleted it right away". So, politics can be discussed, but only the right (actually left) kind. The wrong kind and you invite people who want to mark undue personal remarks and wilfully disrupt it and then the mods delete it, rather than deal with the offenders. This is a easy way to stifle certain politics and elevate others on the part of these disruptive posters.

I did *not* say I should have deleted it. I said I considered it. Please don't misquote me. As for dealing with the offenders, it may not be obvious, but moderators often warn users, and occasionally ban them.

Usually, after a few warnings, users will either stop insulting people or get tired of being told off about it, and leave the forum. The next step in escalation is a temporary ban. Most of the users who don't modify their posting habits after a few warnings do so after a temporary ban. Permanent bans are seldon necessary, except for the spammers whose posts you never see.

Remarkable isn't it, how if someone's 'not on my side', he's a 'troll'; but if he's 'on my side', he's a 'robust debater' or similar!

Errr... no, not very remarkable. That's human nature. I'll try not to play that game, though.

A few years ago I was in correspondence with a denizen of 'Another Place'. One which has a very active 'politics' section. He told me how the forum was suffering the onslaught of a particular individual, a 'troll' and 'stalker' par excellence if you must call him that - who eventually got banned. I was curious (can't think why, now) and delved into the forum in question to investigate (to see the 'politics' section I had to register with a clandestine account, but that's another story....)

Naturally, I quite probably missed content that had already been moderated out, but what was left suggested that this individual was a passionate supporter of foxhunting. That seemed to be all. And he would vigorously attack any posts expressing the opposite view. Now, I totally abhor bloodsports, a view which I expect I share with many people on this forum, but I wouldn't have regarded the fact of holding unpalatable opinions makes someone a troll. So if this person was banned just for having the 'wrong' opinions - for upsetting the uniformly hard-left oriented clique of that forum - that was definitely out of order.

I like to think that doesn't happen here. We're pretty tolerant. The kipper-fans on here should remember that!

horizon wrote:

Vorpal wrote:The better question would be 'how do we improve conditions for cycling, even where the highways authority has pro-motoring policies and only pays lip service to cycling.

Yes, that's nicely put. But (to emphasise my point), you didn't ask, "Should we improve conditions for cycling?" as that is built into the ethos of the forum.

I'm still assuming that the "highways authority with pro-motoring policies and which only pays lip service to cycling" is Tory, but I'm very open to having that viewpoint challenged (hopefully not with "So are all the Labour ones too"!).

It's an assumption which isn't justified without evidence. Whilst the local council has changed back and forth several times, the only major differences in local cycling policy have been either a) related to the availability of national funding or b) down to one or two individuals on the council with a pro or anti cycling bias. It has not been the case that labour councillors have been pro-cycling and the conservative ones anti-cycling.

Even if a trend could be observed, would the simplistic and divisive narrative of 'labour good, tory bad (for cycling)' really be a helpful starting point for discussion? Time and again I see the poisonous effect of entrenched political loyalties upon local politics. Too often people needlessly put party differences ahead of the much greater mutual interest in the local community. At a national level we may need a guiding ideology. At a local level we need cooperation between people who basically have the same interests at heart . If we want cycle provision it means engaging with the people in charge, to convince them of the need and the benefits to the community. We cannot afford to dismiss conservatives nor assume labourites will act in cyclists' interests.

Bicycler wrote:It has not been the case that labour councillors have been pro-cycling and the conservative ones anti-cycling

We used to have a Labour council that was very pro-cycling. That meant loads of 3 yard cycle paths at junctions, and width restrictions with glass strewn cycle lanes on either side. At the same time they laid hundreds of speed humps. I hated it.
There followed a Tory council whose leader openly despised cyclists. Cycle paths were removed, humps were flattened, and trunk roads were resurfaced. I knew that I was despised, but cycling was much nicer for me.

That was some years ago. It has been a Tory council ever since. The roads have been neglected and are full of holes. Cycling has become rather dangerous - especially at night.

The moral of the story is.... ..well, I have no idea. A plague on both their houses?

EDIT: I've heard that the roads at the other end of the borough are better - mainly because the councillor responsible for the Highways budget spent over a million quid on improvements in his own ward in the year before the council elections. One of the Labour wards recieved nothing (£0,000,000.00) during the same period. The money was allocated, in his words, "according to need". It would have been a scandal anywhere else, but here it's par for the course.