Live blog: "outrageous claims" – Tao Geoghegan Hart lays into Eurosport commentator Carlton Kirby, cyclists blamed for countryside litter – Twitter responds, Colnago e-bike, Jason Kenny, Jeremy Vine on close-passes, TdY teams, Peloton baby + more

ficklewhippet wrote:

WOW!

Keep spouting on then, Dear Leader.

QED.

peted76 wrote:

It's not about Labour or Conservaties 

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

peted76 wrote:

It's not about Labour or Conservaties 

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

How's the view from up on your high, high horse?

ficklewhippet wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

peted76 wrote:

It's not about Labour or Conservaties 

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

How's the view from up on your high, high horse?

It's quite nice, actually.  

But I prefer my usual spot, over in the 'People Who Actually Have a Fucking Clue About Politics' box.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

...I prefer my usual spot, over in the 'People Who Actually Have a Fucking Clue About Politics' box.  

I think you will find that many of us don't mind what you write on the front of the box in crayon, as long as you actually stay in the box.

Bobbinogs wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

...I prefer my usual spot, over in the 'People Who Actually Have a Fucking Clue About Politics' box.  

I think you will find that many of us don't mind what you write on the front of the box in crayon, as long as you actually stay in the box.

It's a very exclusive box.  At least, on this site.

But that's only because I'm apparently 'an advocate for the system'.  

That's right! 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

How's the view from up on your high, high horse?

[/quote]

It's quite nice, actually.  

But I prefer my usual spot, over in the 'People Who Actually Have a Fucking Clue About Politics' box.  

[/quote]

It's one thing to be intelligent and informed, but quite another to be arrogant and opinionated.

burtthebike wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

How's the view from up on your high, high horse?

It's quite nice, actually.  

But I prefer my usual spot, over in the 'People Who Actually Have a Fucking Clue About Politics' box.  

[/quote]

It's one thing to be intelligent and informed, but quite another to be arrogant and opinionated.

[/quote]

I daresay.  

burtthebike wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

How's the view from up on your high, high horse?

It's quite nice, actually.  

But I prefer my usual spot, over in the 'People Who Actually Have a Fucking Clue About Politics' box.  

[/quote]

It's one thing to be intelligent and informed, but quite another to be arrogant and opinionated.

[/quote]

I daresay.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

peted76 wrote:

It's not about Labour or Conservaties 

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

LOL Yessir I do.

It's people like you I worry about, acting as advocates for the system. You're one choice away from shouting at strangers in the street. 

peted76 wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

peted76 wrote:

It's not about Labour or Conservaties 

Oh, dear fucking God.

And people like you have the vote.  

LOL Yessir I do.

It's people like you I worry about, acting as advocates for the system. You're one choice away from shouting at strangers in the street. 

I'm an 'advocate for the system'? 

*thumbs up*

Attaboy!

ktache wrote:

I did litter picking on the M3 back in the mid 90s, it took many days to clear the mile downstream of fleet services.  Bloody cyclists.

Chapeau sir!  I imagine that that’s riskier than cycling around the Old Street squareabout.  Were you a “menace to society” earning remission?

janusz0 wrote:

ktache wrote:

I did litter picking on the M3 back in the mid 90s, it took many days to clear the mile downstream of fleet services.  Bloody cyclists.

Chapeau sir!  I imagine that that’s riskier than cycling around the Old Street squareabout.  Were you a “menace to society” earning remission?

Being on the hard shoulder is safer than most out of town single lane 50/60mph roads and certainly safer than many urban roads besides. The BS touted by the police and others about how dangerous the HS is especially when they come across a person on a bike there annoys me immensely, the statistics simply don't back that up.

Jem PT wrote:

Re: the Jeremy Vine video, the only reason he is taking the (correct) line in the road is beause the cycle path is blocked with (mostly legally) parked cars. The impatient driver should question why paint is wasted on cycle paths if cars are allowed to block them.

And there's the crux of the matter:  the Highway Code states that drivers 'should' avoid parking on cycle lanes which are marked by non-solid lines.   This is about as effective as asking Ted Bundy if he'd mind awfully not raping and strangling innocent young women.  

The Highway Code is a shining, towering monument to crippling naivety.  For 88 years, the British road traffic system has been based on the hilarious notion that drivers can be reasoned with, and that if asked nicely, they'll 'do the decent thing'.  That the roads are some sort of fair play area where everyone observes some transport-orientated version of the Queensbury Rules.

Well, it might have worked.  If there hadn't been Thatcherism and then Blairism (i.e. a slightly pink version of Thatcherism), and four decades of public policy based on the notion that if you want something, you take it and if anyone gets in your way, the first response is physical force.  

But there was Thatcherism, and there was Blairism.  

And the Highway Code is about as effective a 'brake' on the self-centred thuggery that is now standard practice on Britain's roads, as trying to stop a thunderstorm by blowing on it.  

Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

We don’t cut peoples hands off or lives short any more.  However, in theory, we have punishments based on other kinds of deprivation.  If they were applied, appropriately (often advocated in comments here) I think that bullies would understand that too.  In the long term, improving our sense of community would be a better goal.  

Apart from that, you deserve several upvotes. 

janusz0 wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

 

We don’t cut peoples hands off or lives short any more.  However, in theory, we have punishments based on other kinds of deprivation.  If they were applied, appropriately (often advocated in comments here) I think that bullies would understand that too.  In the long term, improving our sense of community would be a better goal.  

Apart from that, you deserve several upvotes. 

Well, of course we 'don't cut people's hands off or lives short'.  But it's such an interesting phenomenon to see people claim that that doesn't mean we don't use violence.   If I do something 'wrong', I'll be put in prison.  If my 'crime' is not sufficiently grave to merit a custodial sentence, I'll be fined and if I refuse to pay that, then I'll go to prison.  

Exactly what do you think that forcible incarceration is, if it's not a form of violence?

So when people say 'violence is never the answer', what they effectively mean - even if they don't realise they're saying it - is that violence is only 'the answer' if it's carried out by the state.  Indeed, a monopoly on the 'legitimate' use of force is one of the very definitions of the modern nation-state, from Weber and Hobbes onwards. 

This 'legitimacy' is entirely arbitrary and you won't be surprised to learn that under certain circumstances, it is not a doctrine with which I agree, since when the definition is perverted by - for example - a legislative class that receives enormous campaign contributions from the Road Haulage Association and from the petrochemical corporations, then it gives rise to injustice.   

Which brings me back to: bullies only understand one thing.   

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

janusz0 wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

 

We don’t cut peoples hands off or lives short any more.  However, in theory, we have punishments based on other kinds of deprivation.  If they were applied, appropriately (often advocated in comments here) I think that bullies would understand that too.  In the long term, improving our sense of community would be a better goal.  

Apart from that, you deserve several upvotes. 

Well, of course we 'don't cut people's hands off or lives short'.  But it's such an interesting phenomenon to see people claim that that doesn't mean we don't use violence.   If I do something 'wrong', I'll be put in prison.  If my 'crime' is not sufficiently grave to merit a custodial sentence, I'll be fined and if I refuse to pay that, then I'll go to prison.  

Exactly what do you think that forcible incarceration is, if it's not a form of violence?

To quote myself: "punishments based on other kinds of deprivation."

Legs_Eleven_Worcester went on: wrote:

So when people say 'violence is never the answer', what they effectively mean - even if they don't realise they're saying it - is that violence is only 'the answer' if it's carried out by the state.  Indeed, a monopoly on the 'legitimate' use of force is one of the very definitions of the modern nation-state, from Weber and Hobbes onwards. 

This 'legitimacy' is entirely arbitrary and you won't be surprised to learn that under certain circumstances, it is not a doctrine with which I agree, since when the definition is perverted by - for example - a legislative class that receives enormous campaign contributions from the Road Haulage Association and from the petrochemical corporations, then it gives rise to injustice.   

Which brings me back to: bullies only understand one thing.   

No, they will understand other deterrents too.

janusz0 wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

janusz0 wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

 

We don’t cut peoples hands off or lives short any more.  However, in theory, we have punishments based on other kinds of deprivation.  If they were applied, appropriately (often advocated in comments here) I think that bullies would understand that too.  In the long term, improving our sense of community would be a better goal.  

Apart from that, you deserve several upvotes. 

Well, of course we 'don't cut people's hands off or lives short'.  But it's such an interesting phenomenon to see people claim that that doesn't mean we don't use violence.   If I do something 'wrong', I'll be put in prison.  If my 'crime' is not sufficiently grave to merit a custodial sentence, I'll be fined and if I refuse to pay that, then I'll go to prison.  

Exactly what do you think that forcible incarceration is, if it's not a form of violence?

To quote myself: "punishments based on other kinds of deprivation."

Deprivation of liberty is a form of violence.

See above.  

janusz0 wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester went on: wrote:

So when people say 'violence is never the answer', what they effectively mean - even if they don't realise they're saying it - is that violence is only 'the answer' if it's carried out by the state.  Indeed, a monopoly on the 'legitimate' use of force is one of the very definitions of the modern nation-state, from Weber and Hobbes onwards. 

This 'legitimacy' is entirely arbitrary and you won't be surprised to learn that under certain circumstances, it is not a doctrine with which I agree, since when the definition is perverted by - for example - a legislative class that receives enormous campaign contributions from the Road Haulage Association and from the petrochemical corporations, then it gives rise to injustice.   

Which brings me back to: bullies only understand one thing.   

No, they will understand other deterrents too.

*shrug* 

There's really not much I can do. 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

[...  If there hadn't been Thatcherism and then Blairism (i.e. a slightly pink version of Thatcherism), and four decades of public policy based on the notion that if you want something, you take it and if anyone gets in your way, the first response is physical force.  

But there was Thatcherism, and there was Blairism.  

...]

Good 'tinternet.  Full of rubbish like linking the chances of me getting knocked over directly to Thatcherism (Conservative) and then Blairism (Labour, in case anyone forgets).  One couldn't make it up, oh hang, someone just did.

Bobbinogs wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

[...  If there hadn't been Thatcherism and then Blairism (i.e. a slightly pink version of Thatcherism), and four decades of public policy based on the notion that if you want something, you take it and if anyone gets in your way, the first response is physical force.  

But there was Thatcherism, and there was Blairism.  

...]

Good 'tinternet.  Full of rubbish like linking the chances of me getting knocked over directly to Thatcherism (Conservative) and then Blairism (Labour, in case anyone forgets).  One couldn't make it up, oh hang, someone just did.

Isn't Blair considered to have been further to the right than Thatcher? The Labour that you're trying to highlight is not left wing, look at the trouble Corbyn is having in trying to take Labour back to the left.

Look, there's even an article on the internet https://www.ft.com/content/8352aa06-e7cc-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539 But yes, I agree, who needs reports when we can just write any old bollocks on the internet?

Thatcher made selfishness an attractive attribute to have, evil fucker!