Yes, indeed. I just allowed my deep, visceral loathing of the Conservative Party to push me to comment. As you quite rightly point out, it isn't what someone says, but what he does. Our disgusting mayor is neo-liberal. Maybe our friend thinks that reading 'Comment is Free' on The Guardian is the same as having a 'degree in political science'. Fascinating.

From neo-liberals like Johnson, you will not get and should not expect to get, anything remotely favourable to cyclists, unless you are prepared to pay. The Tory has one god and that is money. If there's profit in it for him, then he'll do something for cyclists.

  • Project One Clarification1 year 5 weeks ago'So when do the contestants

    'So when do the contestants who have had votes deducted retrospectively get their votes back, or do they need to complain to the CAP?'

    Or they could just STFU and not give ambulance chasers any further business?

  • Project One Clarification1 year 5 weeks agoGet over was a

    Get over was a bit of fun.

  • Chris Boardman: "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"1 year 5 weeks agoMy helmet saved my life...

    My helmet saved my life... yes it did, but I was on a motorcycle and the motorbike landed on top of my head in the crash and split the helmet in two... It was a Bell Tourstar and it cost me some £120 back in 1982.

    Now a cycle helmet? They're next to useless in any form of cyling impact unless you are hitting your head at right angles to the ground with absolutely NO translational velocity at all... If you are sliding when you hit the ground, then the helmet WILL grab the road and spin your brain inside your skull. Cycle helmets are designed for one thing only, to pass the certification test to gain the kitemark or whtecer it is they are claiming. And the certification test does NOT relate to the kind of impact that they usually encounter.

    Personally the old skool cycle helmets that consisted of leather tubes filled with kapok were far more effective than modern cycle helmets... at least they slid along and you didn't have to throw them away after an impact...

    Still got mine from 1972... Wink

  • Railway staff catch thieves stealing bike - and let them get on with it1 year 5 weeks agoIMO the train staff are

    IMO the train staff are completely liable for this. They did nothing to see proof of ownership, except taking the word of a couple of pikey scumbags. They should be sacked from their jobs for being a couple of dumb-arses and the lady in question should take them to court for a failure of duty.

    In fact, why has BR not bought the lady a replacement bike as a sign of good customer service?

  • Project One Clarification1 year 5 weeks ago*** deleted

    *** deleted

  • Project One Clarification1 year 5 weeks agoAs I said, there are rules

    As I said, there are rules governing how competitions are run, anyone who has had votes deleted should read this and then decide whether or not it is worth your while to take action:

    an extract from Committee of Advertising Practice website giving advice about how to run a competition, professionally:

    Promoters need to take care that appropriate measures are in place to ensure that the structure, or mechanic, of their promotion is not open to abuse. Allowing abuse is likely to cause consumers who have participated fairly to be disadvantaged.

    Sometimes participants might simply be seeking to improve their chances of success in legitimate ways but on other occasions, they might be deliberately abusing the promotion by acting in a way that is not expressly prohibited by the T&Cs. A promoter’s understanding of ‘abuse’ may be different to that of the ASA (or participants’) and care needs to be taken to communicate restrictions of entry clearly.

    Promoters must state clearly how participants should behave and should be wary of disqualifying those who have followed the letter of the conditions but whose actions seem unfair in retrospect.

    For example, in 2012, the ASA ruled that a promoter should not have withdrawn the promise of prizes after deciding the ‘winner’ had acted improperly. Ts&Cs stated a limit of one entry, per e-mail address, per hourly prize draw but did not expressly prohibit multiple entries from a single IP address. Because the complainant had used the same IP address but a different e-mail address for each entry, the ASA ruled that the promoter caused unnecessary disappointment when it withdrew the prizes after notifying the complainant that they had won (PepsiCo International Ltd, 21 November 2012).

    Wow ... and PepsiCo actually took the trouble to publish some rules in advance, unlike ....

    Creating and enforcing T&Cs retrospectively is unacceptable - even if the aim is to combat abuse ( t/a ApS, 3 October 2012). In 2012, a promoter disqualified a participant because it considered she had unfairly canvassed votes. The ASA considered that canvassing for votes was commonplace on social media sites and upheld the complaint because the T&Cs did not state that such behaviour was prohibited and would lead to disqualification (The Number UK Ltd, 4 April 2012).

    A promoter running a competition to win a wedding who encouraged the finalists to “Tell your friends, tell your relatives, tell everyone you can! The more votes you get, the better your chance of winning.” and then retrospectively introduced restrictions to the voting tactics that finalists could use was held to have administered the promotion unfairly (The Halifax Courier Ltd, 18 September 2013).

    ... sounds familiar? ....

    So when do the contestants who have had votes deducted retrospectively get their votes back, or do they need to complain to the CAP?

  • Welwyn Garden City councillor slams Women’s Tour stage as “frittering away” taxpayers’ money1 year 5 weeks agoseanboy wrote:he is dead

    seanboy wrote:
    he is dead right,nobody is interested in watching women cycling in this country,i know that sounds harsh,but that is just a fact!


  • Project One Clarification1 year 5 weeks ago'you cannot run a public

    'you cannot run a public competition for a prize worth thousands and make it up as you go along.'

    Why not?