F12 retreats offering comined cycling/golf retreats at Murcia’s La Manga club

Ruggins completed her record over a week ago now... nice proof-reading road.cc

@open_roads Burnham will be more of the same – he talks a good game but his crack pot policies will screw the economy even more and as a result further reduce the scope to fund active travel projects The most important single factor which can be reasonably described as 'screwing the economy' is Brexit. We don't seem to be hearing about any 10 year anniversary celebrations of that. The next is Truss. Following those are Covid and Putin. Crackpot policies, a matter of opinion, are a tiny factor. The same people who voted Brexit and Johnson are now supporting Reform, because they're thick. Sadly, we are burdened with a lot of them. We can safely ignore any Tory/ Reform outbreak on here

Here, let me pick that up for you...

(And as far as the 'tree' goes - well, you planted it.)

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating what I wrote - that his being a "family man and business owner" is irrelevant. The question is, what would somebody be trying to imply by stating that they were such in relation to this case. There are only a few possibilities I can think of: 1) That their right to self-defence is dependent on or reinforced by it. This seems prima facie silly - right to self-defence shouldn't depend in any way on your social status - so I discounted it 2) That it somehow makes it unreasonable to investigate and pursue possible offences they may have committed. Again, this seems unlikely - it seems obvious that people shouldn't be exempt from justice because of these attributes (and conversely, people shouldn't be at risk of poorly-considered or malicious prosecution just because they haven't managed to procreate or start a business. 3) That it suggests that their version of events is trustworthy and there can't be any question that the prosecution is unwarranted. This seems the most likely, so I assume is the reason it's there. But it's entirely fallacious - it's essentially a version of appeal to authority, and one that, as I say, has been amply demonstrated to be false by multiple stories on this website. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm presuming guilt - I never said (or implied) that. I'm merely questioning what that particular statement about his personal circumstances has to do with the price of fish.

We were told to expect the same about Heidi Alexander as the then new Transport Secretary - who cycles and advocates for better public transport. Yet the reality is very little acceleration (if any) on dedicated cycling provision. On the railways, the supposed cure-all of privatisation has seen performance drop and costs increase for the franchises already taken back into public ownership. Burnham will be more of the same - he talks a good game but his crack pot policies will screw the economy even more and as a result further reduce the scope to fund active travel projects.

@mdavidford I could have replied with this: What are you implying? Are you presuming guilt because he has described himself as such! Do you know Martin? You appear to be concerned by the "tree" of how this MTB rider has described himself, whereas I am concerned of the ramifications of the "woods" of how this victim of robbery with violence is protected by the law.

Should I postulate that Road CC is drafting a piece on this: "Estimated toxic air-related deaths drop by 40% Expanding London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) was crucial, Sir Sadiq Khan has claimed, after a new study indicated the predicted number of deaths linked to toxic air in the capital fell by about 40% in five years." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj8v7z1njgo

@Pub bike - Those pictures don't really show off the true colours of the Merchant Arms. I think it's fairly visible as it is, but it could do with some bike helmets stuck onto it.

@hawkinspeter That pub looks very well camouflaged. All pubs should be forced to wear helmets and hi-viz.