UKIP policies on bikes...

bobdelamare wrote:

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

Forester wrote:

Having done a lot of riding in recent years I have found that the majority of horse riders appreciate a warning such as 'bike coming' and great care when you approach them in high vis clothing. Horses are not intelligent

Are you suggesting that one should approach UKIP members in the same way?

zanf wrote:

bobdelamare wrote:

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post. Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

surly_by_name wrote:

zanf wrote:

bobdelamare wrote:

I strongly object to most of the policies in the UKIP quote but I also object to the use of mindless abuse.

Why are there no moderators on this forum to remove the f word and such like?

Are you fucking serious?

Go and spend some time to see if someone has created a greasemonkey script to remove 'offensive' language from web pages that pretty little princesses like yourself, are too delicate to read!

As for this UKIP policy: for a self proclaimed 'libertarian' party, introducing compulsory licensing and insurance for bicycles seems fairly authoritarian to me, and immediately does away with cyclists fundamental right of access to the public highways.

Anyone who even speaks of doing such a thing is a tyrant and can get fucked.

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post. Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing.

Anyway, its news to me that UKIP even have any policies. Hasn't Farage already declared they are all now cancelled?

They seem to be more of a 'mood' than a party with policies.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing

And the lack of understanding that they are leads to them being eroded

surly_by_name wrote:

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post.

No it wasnt.

If you think that you are going to be able to browse ANY forum anywhere on the net and not see vernacular language, then not only are you naive beyond hope but youre a fucking idiot, and ripe for having the piss ripped out of you.

The only way to do something about it is not to bleat like a hopeless fucking lamb and hope someone comes to your rescue but be proactive about it. Greasemonkey in one such tool and there will have been someone that would have created a simple pattern match replace script. All it takes is a little searching. [Try starting here: http://userscripts.org:8080/scripts/show/4175]

As for this part....

surly_by_name wrote:

Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

...shows that you do not have a fucking clue. If you cannot grasp that anyone who tries to assert authority (without consent) over you is a tyrant, especially when it comes to freedom of movement then you should immediately carry out the Sylvia Plath method of attaining a higher level of consciousness.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing.

For what it's worth, both the EU Charter and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognise a right to freedom of movement. I began writing a long and quite involved response and then I realised I was doing it too - so I stopped. I don't have a stance. This is a website. For cycling enthusiasts. While I expect a generally pro cycling attitude to prevail, I don't have time for extremist views including because they are very tedious. There is sooooooo much more wrong with UKIP than their policy on bicycles. Can we get back to bikes now?

zanf wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Actually the right to freedom of movement is indeed a fundamental right.

Your stance seems to amount to saying you have no right not to be punched because in some other places people get shot.

Both rights and democracy are a continuum not an absolute binary thing

And the lack of understanding that they are leads to them being eroded

surly_by_name wrote:

This is a ("fucking") massive overreaction to bobdelamare's on the whole quite innocuous post.

No it wasnt.

If you think that you are going to be able to browse ANY forum anywhere on the net and not see vernacular language, then not only are you naive beyond hope but youre a fucking idiot, and ripe for having the piss ripped out of you.

The only way to do something about it is not to bleat like a hopeless fucking lamb and hope someone comes to your rescue but be proactive about it. Greasemonkey in one such tool and there will have been someone that would have created a simple pattern match replace script. All it takes is a little searching. [Try starting here: http://userscripts.org:8080/scripts/show/4175]

As for this part....

surly_by_name wrote:

Speaking of a "fundamental right" of access to the public highways is idiotic (although maybe not quite as idiotic as the "tyrant" bit) and belittles those who don't enjoy those rights that are, in fact, fundamental. Maybe get a sense of ("fucking") proportion.

...shows that you do not have a fucking clue. If you cannot grasp that anyone who tries to assert authority (without consent) over you is a tyrant, especially when it comes to freedom of movement then you should immediately carry out the Sylvia Plath method of attaining a higher level of consciousness.

You are a self absorbed cretin. Next time you get to the end of a railway platform and read the words "no passengers beyond this point", I would urge you to exercise your fundamental right to access the railway tracks, ideally immediately prior to the arrival of several tons of rolling stock.

If that doesn't rid the world of you at least you can vote UKIP and mean it.

eurotrash wrote:

Oh dear, the usual "racist" slurs... yawn. As someone who will be voting for UKIP in the euro elections, I don't agree with their cycling "policies" (if indeed they are such) but happen to think there are more important things than a party's position on cycling...

Like their ability to get half-wits on board by screaming about immigration and pretending to give a fuck about the working class whilst fighting hard to make sure them and their rich mates continue to get richer?

darrenleroy wrote:

I hate Nigel Farage for his smoking, beery, car driving, posh boy mentality and his party's approach to cycling in the UK. I will however be voting UKIP in the upcoming elections because I hate the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem oligarchy even more.

But that's just stupid, vote Green!

wildnorthlands wrote:

There's a telling analysis of UKIP supporters in the Grauniad: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/14/ukip-poll-fans-farage-mo...

I don't know why the Grauniad fixates on trying to rubbish UKIP. It's preaching to the converted. No reader (apart from a few weirdo's like me) are gonna vote for this party. The Guardian always fails to understand the reasons behind dissenting behaviour (unless those dissenting are Islamic). It's one of the big failings of the paper. If the editorial team bothered to take notice of some of the below the line comments it would soon learn that not everyone went to a grammar/private school and then were fast tracked through Oxbridge or a red brick uni and live within six miles of Big Ben.

darrenleroy wrote:

I hate Nigel Farage for his smoking, beery, car driving, posh boy mentality and his party's approach to cycling in the UK. I will however be voting UKIP in the upcoming elections because I hate the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem oligarchy even more.

Yeah, probably best to support a racist party hell bent on destroying workers rights, human rights, the NHS and any hard fought rights just because you don't like the three main parties. Honestly, are you that stupid?

darrenleroy wrote:

I hate Nigel Farage for his smoking, beery, car driving, posh boy mentality and his party's approach to cycling in the UK. I will however be voting UKIP in the upcoming elections because I hate the Tory/Labour/Lib Dem oligarchy even more.

Whilst I can understand your hatred of the three main parties, is voting for a bunch of fascists actually a sensible protest vote? Vote Green, vote monster raving loony, just don't give UKIP any more support. As can be seen from their use of EU money they are just on the gravy train but don't even have the decency to represent their whole constituencies. Who was it who voted against EU money after the floods, who voted against improving Lorry safety, etc.

Forester wrote:

My letters to the local paper about cycling usually provoke a negative response, especially from horse riders, who are a highly influential lobby here in the New Forest. Having done a lot of riding in recent years I have found that the majority of horse riders appreciate a warning such as 'bike coming' and great care when you approach them in high vis clothing. Horses are not intelligent, and having seen a few spooked by bike riders and runners I do have some sympathy, even though there are a few stuck up sorts who regard you as lower than the deposits which their steeds leave on the highway.

I live in the Cotswolds and horse riders vary, as all people do. However, I agree that there are quite a few who don't acknowledge bike riders who slow down for them and their steeds. Still, they're not as stupid or as dangerous as the life threatening drivers on the roads. While not exclusive to UKIP, they have the same mentality in as much as they believe they have an indisputable right to have it their way so that they can do exactly as they want.

Come the revolution...

mattsccm wrote:

In no case is swearing in public acceptable.
Full stop, no exceptions.
...
para 10.2 is correct. Cyclists must become more responsible and law abiding. anyone who breaks the law is wrong. NO questions there. Rude and offensive riding is wrong.

In the first... do you really think kids don't know how to swear already?

In the second... you are utterly naive in regards to laws. Laws addressing safety are there to protect. Non-dangerous behaviour, even if it's obnoxious, does not need pursuing: On the roads we have enough actually dangerous behaviour taking place which the police already does not have either the resources or desire to monitor and remove.

Also, you should probably read up on Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development so that you can have a somewhat less naive view on our legal system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_devel...

Not all laws are good, there's a reason we, for example, no longer imprison victims of trafficking for breaking immigration laws.