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

36 thoughts on “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”

1. I think the guy on the tiny

   I think the guy on the tiny cycle is the owner of Wenger-2-Rad (http://www.wenger-2-rad.ch/html3/home.php), a bike shop near Basel Station. I’ve been in there a number of times, he has pictures of his circus act, http://www.triwengos.ch – where three o fthem ride on a tiny bike!

   Log In or Register to post comments

2. Re: the Jeremy Vine video,

   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.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • 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.

     — Jem PT

     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.  

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

       A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

       Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

       — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

        

       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. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • janusz0 wrote:

         A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

         Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

         — janusz0

          

         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. 

         — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

         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.   

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

           A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

           Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

           — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

            

           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

           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?

           — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

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

           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 went on:

           No, they will understand other deterrents too.

         • janusz0 wrote:

           A cogent, plausible argument, then this:

           Bullies understand one thing: violence.  

           — janusz0

            

           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. 

           — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

           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?— janusz0

           To quote myself: “punishments based on other kinds of deprivation.”— Legs_Eleven_Worcester

           Deprivation of liberty is a form of violence.

           See above.  

           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.   

           — janusz0 No, they will understand other deterrents too.— Legs_Eleven_Worcester went on:

           *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.  

       …]

       — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

       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.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Bobbinogs 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.  

         …]

         — Bobbinogs

         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.

         — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

         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!

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • don simon fbpe 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.  

           …]

           — don simon fbpe

           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

           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!

           — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

           I still don’t understand why Blair is walking free and not being treated as a war criminal.

           Unfortunately, selfishness is the most effective way to get more money/power/bikes, so there is already an incentive for people to act like arseholes. That’s what makes Thatcher even worse in that surely the govt. should be trying to reduce the huge gulf between rich and poor, not increase it.

         • HawkinsPeter 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.  

           …]

           — HawkinsPeter

           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.

           — don simon fbpe

           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!

           — Bobbinogs

           I still don’t understand why Blair is walking free and not being treated as a war criminal.

           Unfortunately, selfishness is the most effective way to get more money/power/bikes, so there is already an incentive for people to act like arseholes. That’s what makes Thatcher even worse in that surely the govt. should be trying to reduce the huge gulf between rich and poor, not increase it.

           — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

           Only if you haven’t got the ability of thinking any further ahead than the next pay cheque.

         • don simon fbpe wrote:

           I still don’t understand why Blair is walking free and not being treated as a war criminal.

           Unfortunately, selfishness is the most effective way to get more money/power/bikes, so there is already an incentive for people to act like arseholes. That’s what makes Thatcher even worse in that surely the govt. should be trying to reduce the huge gulf between rich and poor, not increase it.

           — don simon fbpe

           Only if you haven’t got the ability of thinking any further ahead than the next pay cheque.

           — HawkinsPeter

           I was thinking more about the type of person that has plenty of money and doesn’t need to worry about their next “pay cheque”, but spends all of their time trying to figure out how to separate more people from their money.

         • don simon fbpe 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.  

           …]

           — don simon fbpe

           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.

           — HawkinsPeter

           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!

           — don simon fbpe

           I still don’t understand why Blair is walking free and not being treated as a war criminal.

           Unfortunately, selfishness is the most effective way to get more money/power/bikes, so there is already an incentive for people to act like arseholes. That’s what makes Thatcher even worse in that surely the govt. should be trying to reduce the huge gulf between rich and poor, not increase it.

           — Bobbinogs

           Only if you haven’t got the ability of thinking any further ahead than the next pay cheque.

           — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

           ‘Not thinking any further ahead than the next pay cheque’ isn’t necessarily a sign of selfishness…  By about the third week in the month, all I can think about is when my next pay cheque is coming 

       • Bobbinogs 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.  

         …]

         — Bobbinogs

         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). 

         — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

         Yes.  And no doubt Hitler ‘was a socialist’.  

         [quote=Legs_Eleven_Worcester]

         One couldn’t make it up, oh hang, someone just did.

         — Bobbinogs

         I am sorry, but I don’t think it would make any difference to your ability to understand, if I were to use small words.  

         Log In or Register to post comments

3. It’s the dedication of the

   It’s the dedication of the cyclists that impresses me, making multiple journeys with fully laden cargo bicycles/trailers, just to dump all that buiding waste.

   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.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • 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.

     — ktache

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

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • janusz0 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.

       — janusz0

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

       — ktache

       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.

       Log In or Register to post comments

4. Thank you for thinking so

   Thank you for thinking so highly of me, crappy temping job.  We started at 8 but weren’t allowed on the motorway until 9, you had to come off the motorway if it was raining, so we spent a lot of time in Fleet services.  Spring weather, started coldish with rain, then April showers with glorious sunshine and eventually early summer warmth.  Did go a bit deaf in my right ear, build up of wax, could hear for the first few hours and then it blocked itself off.

   Cleared the motorway slab ditches the next year, better weather and far enough away from the vehicles that you didn’t always feel you were on the motorway.

   The most dangerous was changing the coloured cats eyes on the A34 and 303, we had a rollling roadblock, with crash cart (the big metal squashable thing that might stop a truck) but some hairy moments as motorist weaved between the protecting vehicles at juctions, where there are coloured cats eyes.  How dare anyone expects drivers to slow down, what with all of theose flashing yellow lights.  It was the temps doing the changing of the eyes, lot af bending down and I had a bad back, though the worst aspect was that my “mate” a bitter ex army bloke, laughed at his own jokes and he found himself very funny.

   Did one days traffic management, me who put out the cones and signs of course, and get them back 6 hours later while some other blokes drilled cores out of bridges.  The 2 Highways blokes had obviously worked together for many years, stuck in the same cab, and hated each others guts.  Every comment was so barbed and full of spite.  Didn’t get much reading done that day.

   Simpler times.

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. As part of a voluntary local

   As part of a voluntary local litter clearing operation weekend before last I cleared the verges and hedgerows of a stretch of rural road about 2/3 mile long (sorry, about 1km long – we’re cyclists, aren’t we?) along which pass many cyclists every day. In the 5 large black bags of stuff I collected (plus a few choice items too big to fit into a bag) I found not a single gel wrapper or other item that would indicate a cyclist (or runner) as the guilty party. Of course, some bits such as confectionary wrappers could have been dropped by a cyclist, but it didn’t look likely (chocolate melts in a jersey pocket, why carry and discard disposable bottles of water or pop when you have a bidon, is extra strong export lager really your preferred booster?). And most of the stuff just couldn’t have been deposited by a cyclist (oh, ok, you couild cart it around on a tourer I suppose, or make some other determined littering effort). Given it’s sometimes suggested that cyclists spread litter I was actually on the lookout for cycling related litter and my conclusion (on the basis of a small sample, admittedly) was that cyclists cause very little of the litter eyesore that is indeed a blight. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. Nothing controversial about
   Nothing controversial about TGH or Doull’s comments – Kirby is an absolute bellend. They’ll both be straight in the Twitter block list though – he’s like the Social Media Stasi – he Brooks no criticism

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. I’ve found the same as

   I’ve found the same as billon2wheels above.

   On the mostly rural roads I ride and walk the majority of roadside litter is beer/energy drink cans and plastic bottles. Also coffee cups, crisp packets and chocolate wrappers. I can’t think of the last time I saw something I could attribute specifically to a cyclist but the clickbait-writing morons at the Torygraph won’t let the facts get in the way of a good bit of cyclist-bashing.

   Nothing controversial about TGH or Doull’s comments – Kirby is an absolute bellend. They’ll both be straight in the Twitter block list though – he’s like the Social Media Stasi – he Brooks no criticism

   — Zebulebu

   Can’t see them crying themselves to sleep over that.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. Well I contribute my liitle

   Well I contribute my liitle bit – every day, on my commute into work, I take along any soft drink bottle I can find and then pee in it and randomly drop it off in hope that some poor dehydrated driver mistakes it for lemonade…. hey it isn’t easy peeing in a bottle and pedaling at the same time you know.

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. I can only imagine that the

   I can only imagine that the Telegraph article was written by a friend of Matthew Paris, who considered that it was perfectly justifiable to decapitate cyclists because he assumed they littered.

   https://road.cc/content/news/3069-what%E2%80%99s-smug-and-deserves-be-decapitated%E2%80%9D-matthew-parris-gets-most-press-complaints

   Of course, that would explain why every cycle path in the UK has to be swept clean of accumulated debris at least twice a day, and four times on Saturday and Sunday.

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. I’d like to think that in the

    I’d like to think that in the future, people will look at the 20th/21st centuries and the ‘age of global capitalism’ and label it a mistake. How investors should insisted on profits over morals or society, how failing companies can buy other failing companies and call it growth and success, just to delay the inevitable. The needs of the worlds inhabitants are not being met, we’re killing our earth.. but it’s okay as we’ve all got iPads, a Starbucks on every corner and can get whatever we like online and on credit. The rich get richer and the gulf between the haves and the have nots widens. Orders for ‘super yachts’ are going ballistic while there’s more homeless on our streets and mental health issues than ever before. 

    It’s not about Labour or Conservaties or their leaders, it’s about the way we allow our society to be funded/lobbied/supported and behave. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • peted76 wrote:

      It’s not about Labour or Conservaties 

      — peted76

      Oh, dear fucking God.

      And people like you have the vote.  

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

        It’s not about Labour or Conservaties 

        — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

        Oh, dear fucking God.

        And people like you have the vote.  — peted76

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

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • ficklewhippet wrote:

          It’s not about Labour or Conservaties 

          — ficklewhippet

          Oh, dear fucking God.

          And people like you have the vote.  

          — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

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

          — peted76

          It’s quite nice, actually.  

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

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

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

            — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

            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:

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

            — Bobbinogs

            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.

            — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

            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.  

            — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

            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:

            Oh, dear fucking God.

            And people like you have the vote.  

            — burtthebike

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

            — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

            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:

            Oh, dear fucking God.

            And people like you have the vote.  

            — burtthebike

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

            — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

            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:

        It’s not about Labour or Conservaties 

        — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

        Oh, dear fucking God.

        And people like you have the vote.  — peted76

        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. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • peted76 wrote:

          It’s not about Labour or Conservaties 

          — peted76

          Oh, dear fucking God.

          And people like you have the vote.  

          — Legs_Eleven_Worcester

          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

          I’m an ‘advocate for the system’? 

          *thumbs up*

          Attaboy!

          Log In or Register to post comments

11. WOW!

    WOW!

    Keep spouting on then, Dear Leader.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • ficklewhippet wrote:

      WOW!

      Keep spouting on then, Dear Leader.

      — ficklewhippet

      QED.

      Log In or Register to post comments