The mother of a 14-year-old cyclist has spoken out after a man threatened to punch her son for cycling on the pavement.
Isaac Slade, aged 14 and a student at Queen Elizabeth School in Wimborne Minster, Dorset, would usually have ridden on the road during his commute to and from school.
However, on his six-mile journey home, he noticed that one of his tyres had developed a slow puncture, so rode on the pavement instead.
The Dorset Echo reports that his mother Nikki Slade, who is the leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, wrote about the incident on her Facebook page.
She said that Isaac alerted two pedestrians ahead of him that he was about to ride past them, but one turned round and said he would punch the youngster in the face if he did not get on the road.
“He was threatened with being punched off his bike,” said Councillor Slade, who represents the Liberal Democrats on the council, which is controlled by the Unity Alliance coalition.
“He had a puncture and it was safer for him to go slowly on the pavement,” she continued.
“He was coming down by the sorting office and he was on the pavement with two people in front of him.
“He called out to them ‘Excuse me’ so he could get past them and the guy turned around and says, ‘If you don’t get in the road, I’ll punch you off your bike’.”
She said that all of her children ride to and from school every day and that “Isaac would normally have been riding his bike in the road. It was just this one particular occasion that he wasn’t.
“He’s a gentle person and he’s absolutely mortified by this,” added Councillor Slade, who is hoping to obtain CCTV footage of the incident.
“We’re doing our best to encourage kids to be independent and get themselves around, and this was a horrible thing to have happened.
“We ask our children to take responsibility and be respectful, and then grown adults don’t show any respect for them in return.”
In 2014, then transport minister Robert Goodwill reiterated that the Department for Transport’s official line was that cyclists are allowed to ride on the pavement so long as they do so considerately.
> Transport minister: Responsible cyclists CAN ride on the pavement
The guidance is based on that originally published by former Home Office minister Paul Boateng in 1999 when fixed notice penalties were originally introduced, and repeated five years later.
The original 1999 guidance said: “The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so.
“Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”
60 thoughts on “Man threatens to punch cyclist, 14, who was riding on pavement due to puncture making it too dangerous to stay on road”
My 13 yr old daughter was
My 13 yr old daughter was told off (admittedly not threatened with a punch) by a woman for walking on her ‘private grass verge’. She would actually rather my daughter have walked onto a 40mph dual carriageway round a parked car in a layby.
What is the matter with people??
PRSboy wrote:
Back near the beeginning of the year, a woman had parked and completely filled up a shared-use path on my way home.
She was coming out of the adjacent house (with three cars parked on the very spacious driveway) and I gestured at her car and said something not rude but pretty derogatory.
She said I could walk around on the road.
I pointed out that it was less than safe to be walking into oncoming traffic with a bicycle, on a road with a 50mph speed limit.
Her response was to swear at me quite extensively, then tell me stop having a go at her, get in her car, drive at me so I had to get out of her way, and go off on her merry way…
How people got so intolerant
How people got so intolerant to constantly be on the edge of violence?
gibatronic wrote:
Brexit. And that isn’t a joke.
The entire Brexit process started with xenophobia and the media stoking up hatred of others, and the politicians deliberately stirring things to get the gullible racists to vote for them. With so much hatred and vitriol in society, it is hardly surprising that cyclists, as an out group that can be safely hated, get made the target for these sad deluded people. All measured forms of hate crime have increased since the referendum and the blatantly partisan and illegal leave campaign, so some people take their hatred out on whoever is nearest.
burtthebike wrote:
Is there no end to the malignancies caused by Brexit? And all caused by those on one side of the argument, how strange.
FrankH wrote:
Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention, but the leavers are xenphobic, racist, ignorant, violent gammons, while the remainers tend to be well educated, articulate, intelligent and peaceful; witness the two recent marches in London. The first, with just a few hundred leavers, had violence, foul language, multiple arrests and public disorder. The second, with at least a million, but some estimates said double that, of remainers, completely peaceful, civilised and orderly. Spot the difference?
burtthebike wrote:
You’re absolutely right. I’m a thick as pigshit, racist, violent gammon who shouldn’t be allowed out on his own.
I’m still not sure how me voting to leave caused somebody else to threaten a 14 year old three years later. It’s a puzzle, right enough.
FrankH wrote:
If you admit it then you’re not a Brexiteer.
Rule one of Brexit club: Deny it and claim sovereignty and taking back control.
Membership revoked.
alansmurphy wrote:
The “No true Scotsman” fallacy. How nice to see it in the wild.
FrankH wrote:
I cheered for Jair Bolsonaro to become president of Brazil, but now that I saw his true colors I’m so ashemed. We just cannot trust any source of news anymore. It requires so much effort to be impartial.
burtthebike wrote:
Nothing says well educated, articulate, intelligent and peaceful like dehumanising those you disagree with politically.
Have a look at some of the less savoury political movements of the 20th Century.
Look at the language those movements used towards their ideological opponents.
Take a moment and reflect on your own behaviour.
Rich_cb wrote:
Take a moment to reflect on your own poor-taste hyperbole and desperate seeking of victim-status.
I’m weary of the powerful trying to play the victim. It’s the prime trope of our era. It was, as it happens, also a driving force for those ‘less savoury political movements’. You should be ashamed.
You aren’t a put-upon-minority facing potential genocide. (And nor are ‘Brexiters’ as a group). You are clearly a comfortably-off middle-class white guy. Stop it.
(Oh, and if you are so concerned with language, maybe have a word with your fellow Brexit-supporters about their constant and tedious use of “remoaner”…not because it will lead to a holocaust, but because it’s just boring and naff)
(I don’t, as it happens, agree with the OP – the divide between ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ teams is complicated – there appear to be multiple factors, age being one…can’t seem to find the article with scatterplots that illustrated some of them)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You are clearly a comfortably-off middle-class white guy. Stop it.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Shame you just were 1 short for four corners on the bigot bingo. You had classism (middle class), racism (white) and sexism (guy). close but no cigar. 🙂
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Didn’t see this post previously.
Invoking someone’s race, class and/or gender to undermine their argument?
Nice. Real nice.
If you don’t think dehumanising language is a bad thing pick up a history book and educate yourself.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention, but the leavers are xenphobic, racist, ignorant, violent gammons, while the remainers tend to be well educated, articulate, intelligent and peaceful; witness the two recent marches in London. The first, with just a few hundred leavers, had violence, foul language, multiple arrests and public disorder. The second, with at least a million, but some estimates said double that, of remainers, completely peaceful, civilised and orderly. Spot the difference?
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Nothing says well educated, articulate, intelligent and peaceful like dehumanising those you disagree with politically. Have a look at some of the less savoury political movements of the 20th Century. Look at the language those movements used towards their ideological opponents. Take a moment and reflect on your own behaviour.— Rich_cb Take a moment to reflect on your own poor-taste hyperbole and desperate seeking of victim-status. I’m weary of the powerful trying to play the victim. It’s the prime trope of our era. It was, as it happens, also a driving force for those ‘less savoury political movements’. You should be ashamed. You aren’t a put-upon-minority facing potential genocide. (And nor are ‘Brexiters’ as a group). You are clearly a comfortably-off middle-class white guy. Stop it. (Oh, and if you are so concerned with language, maybe have a word with your fellow Brexit-supporters about their constant and tedious use of “remoaner”…not because it will lead to a holocaust, but because it’s just boring and naff) (I don’t, as it happens, agree with the OP – the divide between ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ teams is complicated – there appear to be multiple factors, age being one…can’t seem to find the article with scatterplots that illustrated some of them)— burtthebike
There’s this one featuring scatterplots: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum
A more recent and detailed analysis is available here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0176268018301320
burtthebike wrote:
That’s a sweeping generalisation and isn’t very fair (or true).
The problem is that people who are xenophobic and racist often turn out to be Leavers, but that doesn’t work the other way round. There are some good arguments for leaving vs remaining, but they don’t tend to get much publicity due to all the misinformation on both sides.
When the Brexit issue first came up, I was originally a Leaver (though I didn’t have strong views on it) and it was only after discussing it with various people and reading a bit that I changed my mind and ended up voting remain. I certainly don’t consider myself racist etc.
burtthebike wrote:
That’s very unfair and likely to polarise opinions further. I agree with Rick_Rude and Rich_cb. I’m sure many people voted ‘Leave’ for what they felt (and may still feel) are genuine, important reasons, even if you and I disagree with them.
It’s not their fault that the whole thing has not been presented clearly or fairly in the media. Sports commentator Clive Tyldesley has posted a fascinating 8-minute instagram video on why the MSM has failed the British public. Peter Oborne, a pro-Brexit right wing journalist, has written a long, detailed article for Open Democracy on the way many journalists have lost their integrity and have become part of the propaganda machine in exchange for access. “It’s chilling. From the Mail, The Times to the BBC and ITN, everyone is peddling Downing Street’s lies and smears. They’re turning their readers into dupes.”
I’d argue that we shouldn’t expect a lot from newspapers, they’ve generally been nasty propaganda rags owned by millionaires who want to exert influence over public opinion and government policy. But the way the BBC has reported it (and similarly the topic of climate change) is truly shameful; it has given far too much airtime and credit to people who really don’t deserve either.
Returning to the topic, it seems that this man is simply a pathetic bully. Sadly, there are far too many of them around.
Mum: how did you get a black
Mum: how did you get a black eye?
Son: I had a puncher on the way home.
Cycling lad – “Excuse me”
Cycling lad – “Excuse me”
Person – “Ideally you should be cycling on the road rather than the pavement”
Cycling lad – “I know, I usually do, but I have a slow puncture”
Person – “Oh, do you have a puncture repair kit or spare tube? If so I can help you fix it”
Or some similar conversation, without being a prick.
I cycle down that road
I cycle down that road regularly and even walked down it daily for 3 years and never noticed how pretty it is. Road surface is shite. This is more surprising as usually the drivers at least are more tolerant in wimborne than those of Bournemouth and the new forest
I wonder if he was equally
I wonder if he was equally irate with all the drivers leaving their cars all over the footpath, driving faster than the speed limit, on their phones, spewing out fumes clogging his lungs. Busy guy.
What we have here is nothing
What we have here is nothing short of a bully. You know that if it were a full grown adult man, there’s no way he’d have said any such thing.
Children can’t really fight back. Strong, fit adults certainly can.
I don’t understand why the
I don’t understand why the police aren’t looking for this bully. Threatening to assault a minor is in no way acceptable.
What would help here is if
What would help here is if all pedestrians had reg plates, high viz and wore a helmet
Same person driving his car.
Same person driving his car.
“Beep Beep, out the way this is my road and you don’t pay car tax, get on the pavement”
Comments in local anti
Comments in local anti cycling rag
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/17990004.ill-punch-off-bike-mans-threat-14-year-old-son-council-leader/
burt – I hate the Leave
burt – I hate the Leave propoganda but “but the leavers are xenphobic, racist, ignorant, violent gammons, while the remainers tend to be well educated, articulate, intelligent and peaceful” is about as watertight as the leavers arguments.
I know some leavers who are well educated, articulate, intelligent and peaceful just as I know some remainers who are toal arseholes.
I agree with your point about the amount of hate that has been stirred up and a feeling that nobody is accountable for or should be challenged for their actions ‘cos you is a lefty snowflake anti-democracy ****’.
alansmurphy wrote:
You’re right of course, and it’s the 99% that give all the rest of the leavers a bad name.
A lot of leavers were Labour
A lot of leavers were Labour supporters, usually from lower income areas. Bit classist all this? Those thick poor people, dont know what’s best for them. Far better for the well educated to make their decisions eh Burt? It’s ok though as they were all filthy racists etc.
I bet the reason ‘hate’ crimes are up is because the police are doing stuff like investigating the refusal of guy to have sex with a transgender woman who still had a penis. Recording hate crimes is fish in the barrel stuff for the police. Far easier to record and deal with than actually tackling street crime.
I wish we could run an alternative time line without Brexit and I bet all these crimes wouldn’t be substantially different. Your cause and effect analysis is very flawed. May as well correlate drinking gin with hate crimes or vaping or eating yoghurt. Your entire post is literally conjecture.
Rick_Rude wrote:
Disregarding the argument, the story was actually a photographer refusing to submit photos he had taken of a transgender woman because he previously did not know she was trans, and she reporting it and his comments to the police.
There was no sex. I’m not even sure there’s a penis. The photographers actions may or may not be transphobic, so may Ricky Gerais, it’s very difficult to tell from the type of publications this has been reported in. However with Brexit in mind this is a great example of a story mutating beyond recognition from its original source
I am starting to think that
I am starting to think that burt is becoming a bully too. Childish playground name calling and passive agressive, one sided point of view. Unfortunately this is what Brexit does to normal intelligent people.
Burt…
Burt…
Whether I voted Remain or leave is irrelevant ..I fit none of your pathetic stereotypes..you however are a complete cockwomble.
To all the leave excusers,
To all the leave excusers, let me point out one thing:
London leave march, maybe 300 people. Violence, swearing, illegality, arrests.
London remain march; 1,000,000 at least. Peaceful, civilised, law-abiding, quiet, no arrests.
But leave people are overwhelmingly nice. Yeah, right.
burtthebike wrote:
I’m still not seeing the link between me and 17.4 million others voting to leave three and a half years ago and a man threatening a 14 year old now. For tenuous links it beats the tornado in Kansas caused by the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in the Sahara hands down.
burtthebike wrote:
So, you’re implying that 52% of the population behave identically to the 300 demonstrators?
Can you not see any flaw with blaming the actions of a minority onto a large varied group? Sounds bigotted to me.
Also, there likely wasn’t 1,000,000 – the best estimates put the numbers as a few hundred thousand. https://fullfact.org/europe/peoples-vote-two-million-no-evidence/
Just jump in here and say.
Just jump in here and say.
Partly blame Theresa Mays hsuband.
When she wanted to look for cross party consenus he persuaded her not to. And here we are. Not in a good place for anybody.
If I was going to be generous
If I was going to be generous, or play Devil’s Advocate, might burt have been meaning that the Brexit debacle (and it is a debacle, admit it) has divided this country in a way that hasn’t been seen before, with very bad feeling on both sides?
A report in the Grauniad reckoned that a significant percentage of people on both sides of the divide think that violence against MPs would be worth it if it achieved their desired ends, for example.
Increasing intolerance toward “Others”, a shorter fuse in general… IMO that’s all just a result or a symptom of the mess that “our” Government has put us in.
BrExit has become a slanging
BrExit has become a slanging match between deeply entrenched positions.
For Leavers it has become about respecting a vote that happened in 2016. This appears to trump virtually all evidences and qualified opinions which would indicate that as a nation and for most individuals we will be significantly worse off both economically and with respect to rights and freedoms we currently take for granted. The nebulous arguments about “Getting our country back” and “Taking back control” alongside a base view that the EU is a bloated, corrupt beaurocratic organisation seeking a federal European megastate and into which we pay far more than we receive in benefit equates leaving to some sort of freedom that we do not currently have. For many older leavers this harkens back to a golden age of the 1950s when jobs were plentiful and houses were cheap. For others Leave seems to represent an opportunity for as yet unspecified trade deals with the rest of the world that will somehow benefit UK plc without exposing those same industries to foreign competition. Yet others object to seeing changes in their communities caused by an influx of cheap EU labour and perceived unfairnesses in how those same EU citizens are able to access the generous UK benefits systems, and yes, I do believe that BrExit as whipped up by the tabloid press and their gutter journalism has encouraged more open racism and general gammoniness to out groups which includes creating an acceptable culture of aggression towards cyclists.
Amongst my family, work and social circle I know 5 people who voted Leave in 2016. One is my Father who doesn’t know what day it is but is adament that we leave the EU as soon as possible. An older work colleague doesn’t like that there is a Polish shop on her high street and a younger colleague who’s politics are somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan. (Women’s rights, anti gun control, single mothers, euthanasia for the elderly, scrap the NHS etc). Of the 2 friends, one has travelled the World extensively, seen a lot of problems caused by mass migration and is fearful of Turkey joining the EU. The other has a son in the military and doesn’t want an EU army. Both positions thoroughly debunked and they now say that they would support Remain in a fresh referendum.
Remain supporters point to the problems with the original referendum, much of which was based on (to be kind) alternative facts. Remain failed to make their case in the same one syllable sound bite mantras that Leave were able to. It is really hard to argue against hysterical tabloid headlines which focus on a minority of immigrants doing horrid things using very boring and often complex facts, figures and analysis. There is no truth any more just selective interpretation to support a position you already hold.
One thing that continues to strike me in all the debates about BrExit, both professional and amateur is the complete lack of agreed benefits that leaving the EU will bring beyond the nebulous wiffle about “Getting back control” or doing some trade deal with USA. Remainers can point to very real, tangible benefits of being part of the EU such as EHIC, no roaming charges, free trade, common technical standards, freedom to live, work, retire across 28 EU states, co-operation in security matters, policing, technology and research projects, workers rights, consumer protections, the many EU citizens who work in vital public services and private business etc. The EU is far from perfect but I, like millions of others am so convinced that turning our backs on our closest, largest trading block of culturally aligned and friendly countries is such a huge mistake that we will not accept the results of a fundamentally flawed public vote without at the very least a confirmatory second referendum based on the actual deal negotiated and the now much clearer implications of what that deal actually means.
Mungecrundle wrote:
If that putative second referendum doesn’t give the result I want then I won’t accept it either.
This could go on for some time, couldn’t it?
FrankH wrote:
It was one Nigel Paul Farage who said, before the referendum result that a close result – he actually said 52/48! – would be too close to be meaningful and that he would take it to court if Leave lost by those sorts of numbers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
FrankH wrote:
No. The 2016 referendum was won by rolling multiple abstract Brexits into one, lying about the benefits, dismissing all of the problems as “Project Fear” and abusive levels of targeted advertisement/manipulation. That result is now being used by politicians to gaslight and as a “mandate” for whatever particular form of Brexit they are pushing at the moment. The proposed referendum is a confirmatory referendum based on an actual negotiated deal, rather than lies and mutually exclusive options.
I am sick and tired of the spin on this topic.
FrankH wrote:
That is absolutely your right in a free democracy.
All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Ok, so should we demand this before any General Election?
If you want to change the government you must prove things will be better under a different government?
Consider the likely radical shift in direction if Corbyn wins a majority.
It might make things much better, it might be an absolute disaster.
Should we not let people vote for Corbyn as we’re not sure it will be an improvement?
Rich_cb wrote:
Ok, so should we demand this before any General Election?
If you want to change the government you must prove things will be better under a different government?
Consider the likely radical shift in direction if Corbyn wins a majority.
It might make things much better, it might be an absolute disaster.
Should we not let people vote for Corbyn as we’re not sure it will be an improvement?— Mungecrundle
The obvious response is we should have another election after 4 years or so. And require him to maintain the support of a majority of MPs rather than just getting to do everything he wants without needing any more debate.
Elections are not the same thing as referendums, certainly not legally.
I think this country is a bit screwed, though. There’s no way out of this that won’t enrage a lot of the population. In holding the referendum Cameron pulled at a loose strand that appears to be unravelling the entire country. A majority of both leavers and remainers apparently are prepared to accept violence against MPs as a price of getting the thing over with, and both are prepared to sacrifice the Union to get what they want.
The odds of Scotland going its own way have to be quite good now. And clearly a united Ireland (which I think is a good thing) is more likely than ever before.
Stick a fork in the UK, it’s done. Cameron and the Conservative and Unionist party may have wrecked it.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You’ve missed the point there. Munge is stating that before you change the status quo you must show what you’re proposing will be better than the status quo.
We don’t apply that criterion to General Elections so why should it be applied to referendums?
The EU referendum and a general election are actually pretty similar, you vote for a direction of travel and the politicians then thrash out the details.
For example;
Corbyn is proposing large scale nationalisation if Labour are elected, the details of exactly how this huge change will be implemented are vague but people will still be allowed to vote for it and the details worked out later.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’ve missed the point there. Munge is stating that before you change the status quo you must show what you’re proposing will be better than the status quo.
We don’t apply that criterion to General Elections so why should it be applied to referendums?
The EU referendum and a general election are actually pretty similar, you vote for a direction of travel and the politicians then thrash out the details.
For example;
Corbyn is proposing large scale nationalisation if Labour are elected, the details of exactly how this huge change will be implemented are vague but people will still be allowed to vote for it and the details worked out later.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Not the same at all. In order to actually pass such nationalisations he would need to maintain the support of a majority of MPs. The issue would not be settled the day after the election. There would be huge fights over it, both political and probably legal.
And if he only scraped a bare majority (like 52-48) there would be a lot of horse-trading and difficult votes to get things done. Plus, as I say, legally a non-binding referendum is not at all the same thing as a general election. And even nationalisations are easier to undo than leaving the EU would be.
But I was a wavering remainer myself. I’m not a huge fan of the EU. I wish there had been a strong pan-Europe campaign to completely rebuild it but I fear that leaving now is going to go very very badly indeed.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
So, pretty much exactly what I said?
The voters approve the general direction and the politicians thrash out the details.
The difference being that you can gain a pretty big parliamentary majority on a minority of votes cast (Thanks FPTP), so you can implement huge changes to British society based on a minority opinion.
At least the referendum garnered a clear majority of votes.
Rich_cb wrote:
Isn’t that why parties publish a manifesto and we pretend to believe it?
brooksby wrote:
I’m not sure how that’s different to the referendum campaign that Munge obviously felt provided inadequate information.
General Elections are fought on vague promises, sparse details and outright lies even though the outcomes can cause huge societal change based on a minority of votes.
Why should we hold referendums to a higher standard?
Rich_cb wrote:
Wouldn’t that be a great idea! Perhaps something like a manifesto document which could contain a critique of current policies, detail alternative propositions along with realistic costings and referenced information sources. Prior to the election, politicians could be questioned about the contents of their manifesto so that the public have a better opportunity to understand the detail of what they are voting for, what the benefits or costs might be to them of doing so. Then at a later time the politicians who win based on their reasoned proposals can be held accountable about how well they have met those commitments.
In the specific case of BrExit, my preference would be for a confirmatory public vote about the single issue of whether to accept the negotiated deal or call the whole thing off, so as not to conflate with other duties of government. In a GE my vote would likely switch from Con to LibDem as BrExit, followed closely by Jeremy C currently represent the greatest existential threats to my family’s opportunities, security and wellbeing.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I’ve pretty much addressed that point below.
Manifestos are basically a collection of vague promises and outright lies.
Not hugely different to the referendum campaign.
Mungecrundle wrote:
If that putative second referendum doesn’t give the result I want then I won’t accept it either.
This could go on for some time, couldn’t it?
— FrankH That is absolutely your right in a free democracy. All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.— Mungecrundle
The funny thing is that the UK is a signatory to the Venice Convention, which defines how referendums are to be conducted, and on significant issues, it says that there should be a two-thirds majority and that close votes should be disregarded. It also mandates a second referendum to confirm the results of the first. Why haven’t we done all that?
burtthebike wrote:
Looks like we have another Burt-Fact.
You know we can Google these things and check right Burt?
Unsurprisingly, given your track record of flagrant lies, the above statement is not true.
From the Venice convention:
“It is advisable not to provide for:
a. a turn-out quorum (threshold, minimum percentage), because it assimilates voters who
abstain to those who vote no;
b. an approval quorum (approval by a minimum percentage of registered voters), since it
risks involving a difficult political situation if the draft is adopted by a simple majority lower
than the necessary threshold.”
Link:
https://www.venice.coe.int
FrankH wrote:
you must mean the putative third referendum. There was a very clear majority in the first referendum to remain in Europe, but the leavers never accepted the result and never shut up about it, squirreling away with their insidious lies and disinformation for decades. I fail to see why people who wish to remain in Europe should be tyranised and told to shut up by such a tiny majority as won the second referendum and not campaign to remain or, if it comes to it, rejoin.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Excellent. Nothing about the pavement puncher, but a good read. I might pliagarise this and post as a response to every stupid FB comment stating “Leave means Leave” or “We didn’t vote for a deal”. However it will fall on deaf ears. As you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink, you can send an idiot to school but can’t make it think.
I would recommend reading the Echo responses to the article, and any other cycling incident article. The comments are often thoroughly anti-cyclist even when one has been knocked down and killed, as it is obviously the victims fault for not using the cycle path/wearing hi-viz/helmet etc. However, look at the names of the respondents..it’s always the same few hatred filled people intentionally stirring it up. They probably work for the Echo, as it increases click time on their site.
can we at least applaud the
can we at least applaud the fact that the 14 year old (and his siblings?) is riding 6 miles to and from schoole very day!
That’s the behaviour we should be talking about!
SPENGLE Carbon wrote:
You’re right, of course.
I think this discussion may have drifted a tiny bit off topic…
I say, a hard border at the
I say, a hard border at the M25 and be done with it. If we could just hang on to Brighton and a London-to-Brighton corridor, I can live with that. Brexitland/Kent can even have Bluewater as a parting gift. We’re keeping Bromley, though.
What a prick!!!!
What a prick!!!!
This is a really good
This is a really good discussion regarding the dangers of dehumanising language.
In a week when a poll has found that the majority of *both* Leave and Remain voters now believe that violence is a justifiable means to achieve their desired Brexit outcome I think we should all be carefully considering our language.
Link:
https://theconversation.com/the-slippery-slope-of-dehumanizing-language-97512