A foul-mouthed Facebook post from Farmers Against Misinformation, in which cyclists are asked to stop on country lanes to allow oncoming tractors to pass, has been shared 15,000 times.
The page committed to “helping people understand successful livestock and crop farming practices around the world, by providing news, views, and real world data” posted the “polite-ish notice” on Saturday. It has since been liked 42,000 times and attracted 10,000 comments.
From “an irritated farmer”…
A polite-ish notice to all cyclists on country roads during harvest.
Please understand I have zero issues with you using the roads to ride your bicycle, I’m all for exercising and if slipping in to a lycra suit and impaling your self on a cock-shaped bike seat for hours keeps you satisfied then each to their own.If I’m driving a car I always give plenty of ‘safe space’ when passing cyclists which is only fair, we know how sensitive you are to your requested road space, you have just as much right to the roads as anyone….
HOWEVER, if I’m coming at you in a bloody great big tractor with 20 tons behind me on a single track road, do me and yourself a favour and STOP for one second, either move as far over to your side of the road or just step on to the verge if there is one, so I can pass safely, do not just continue at full speed and then piss and moan as you go past because if it goes wrong you’ll end up being pressure washed off a tractor wheel.
Unfortunately for you we take all your space and we can’t help it, so unless you want to lend a hand either changing a tyre that’s blown out or shovelling up a spillage, then we’re not dropping our wheels into drainage grips so that you can continue your bicycle ride.
Cars, horse riders and runners are capable of it, I seem to be missing something with cyclists, I presume either you don’t want to get your special bike dirty, you’re trying to beat your PB or more than likely you’re just a complete cock in general.
Regards your Road Safety Advocate for the 3 shires
Cycling and farming don’t overlap too often, so we’ve not got too much in the road.cc archives however, last June, a certain Jeremy Clarkson released his new Amazon Prime series ‘Clarkson’s Farm’ in which there’s a scene where former Trek-Segafredo pro Charlie Quarterman rides past the now-tractor-based presenter.
Filmed during lockdown, Clarkson says (to his camera operator, also out doing their job): “Everyone’s told to stay at home unless their journey’s essential. That doesn’t apply to cyclists, obviously!”
At least one good thing came from that episode…one follower added: “…not sure what’s more awkward, him owning himself while being a smart-arse as per or the fact he’s pretty much in cardiac arrest putting up a small sign.”
Anyway, it seems Farmers Against Misinformation have taken a leaf out of Clarkson’s book on this one…
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
89 thoughts on “Foul-mouthed anti-cyclist rant from farmers’ Facebook group goes viral”
‘cock-shaped bike seat’
‘cock-shaped bike seat’
Paging Dr. Freud.
They’re always obsessed with
They’re always obsessed with lycra too aren’t they?
Since when was “Get the hell
Since when was “Get the hell out of my road or I’ll kill you and it will be your own fault” considered polite-ish?
Wasn’t too bad until
Wasn’t too bad until
“Cars, horse riders and runners are capable of it, I seem to be missing something with cyclists”
I’d like an explanation of how these users manage on this single track road and whether horses are pressure washed off.
I dont’ think that this
I dont’ think that this farmer has got the memo about the new HC rules, and he seems to have a forest in his eye.
“Farmers Against Misinformation” Irony is stone cold dead.
Apart from a slightly passive
Apart from a slightly passive/aggressive message, I have to agree with the farmer. He is out doing his job and a bloody difficult job it is. We cyclist are for the most part, out on a jolly. The new hierarchy rules are only there to “establish liability” in the event of a collision. I think we can all agree that would not be a great outcome even with the law on our side.
Please give tractors space to get thier jobs done.
‘Cycling’jon my arse!
‘Cycling’jon my arse!
Purpose is not entitlement. If he takes up the whole carriageway or can’t give sufficient space, he should stop until the oncoming traffic has passed safely.
If a cyclist/group stops and he continues safely (noting that they haven’t disappeared, they still require consideration), great: everybody has shown some love. But it’s not for him to expect.
Cyclingjon1959 wrote:
Speak for yourself.
I’ve had too many encounters with people driving tractors, 4x4s, Land Rovers, combines and forage harvesters on country lanes to know that a lot of them deliberately use the size of their vehicle to intimidate and frighten other road users. Clubmates and friends have had run-ins with aggressive farmers. Last year I reported one to the police for stopping and threatening to deliberately run me off the road when I was riding home from work. So DON’T YOU DARE give me any of your fucking “out on a jolly” bullshit.
If a farmer can’t / won’t control his vehicle safely around other road users he/she needs to be retrained before they kill someone.
And when so many drivers – of tractors, SUVs, cars and vans – refuse to stop in a passing place or even bother to slow down for oncoming cyclists then you’ll have to excuse me for not dismounting to stand in a ditch and doff my cap every single time a vehicle comes the other way.
Fkn right on! ?
Fkn right on! ?
Can I have a go?
Can I have a go?
As a farmer myself I have to say that people who ride bikes are often just hard working, tax paying, insured, rule abiding citizens with the same worries and stresses as anyone else, just going about their business, looking after their physical and mental well-being whereas we whining, Brexit voting, overall clad yokels are often just using the roads for a giggle.
Sod tractors, let more efficient and vulnerable road users go about their way – really roll the red carpet out. Ogmios style.
In the circumstance of
In the circumstance of cyclist(s) and tractor meeting head to head on a road not wide enough for both, then surely it is obvious that the safest and probably quickest resolution for both is to stop
and then for the driver of the larger vehicle to allow the smaller, more manouverable one to negotiate a way past.
BTW, 20 tonne load or not, being able to anticipate oncoming traffic and being able to stop safely is a basic driving competence.
I’m afraid that this, as a
I’m afraid that this, as a generalisation, is not workable. I’m surprised it got 12 likes but then we know many cyclists have a somewhat biased view of road etiquette. I ride a lot of my kms on roads through agricultural scenery that are just wide enough for farm vehicles. Where possible, the drivers will slow down and drive off the edge of the road to leave space for me. Where your suggestion fails is when the terrain doesn’t allow a cyclist to safely or easily squeeze past a farm vehicle even if it has stopped (e.g. high banks and hedges). I prefer to stop on the edge of the asphalt and lean well out of the way of those giant wheels and spikey implements being towed.
So to be clear, as a cyclist,
So to be clear, as a cyclist, you feel safer having a huge tractor wheel moving past you so close that you have to physically lean out of the way to avoid being crushed, rather than moving yourself and your bicycle past a stationary tractor wheel?
Furthermore, you think it better that the driver of the large, heavy agricultural machine risks overturning it in a ditch or unstable verge as they attempt to drive off the edge of the road rather than just come to a stop.
Seems extraordinary to me.
I expect a driver to be able
I expect a driver to be able to judge for himself how far he can move over without tipping over. If he does tip the tractor over into a ditch on the other side of the road then I don’t need to stop to let him past.
Stopping to let a farm vehicle past is no different than stepping back while other vehicles move past such as an artic driving round the corner of a junction. Nothing extraordinary about it at all.
Slightly passive aggressive
Slightly passive aggressive is an understatement isn’t it? More like arrogant, self-serving and rude not to mention the implication by his comments that he is a threatening and dangerous road user.
Exactly this. He isn’t
Exactly this. He isn’t threatening anybody. He’s just stating that they drive very large, potentially dangerous vehicles and it would be in everyone’s best interest to just step aside for a minute while they pass rather than to try and squeeze past just to prove a point.
Cyclingjon1959 wrote:
This ‘motorists and utility vehicle drivers are purposeful/cyclists are recreational’ is a false dichotomy. Almost the complete majority of the cycling I do is non-recreational and to get from point A to B. I can’t help that my chosen mode of transport is so much more enjoyable that it seems like I’m out on a jolly even when I’m not.
No, you need a licence to
No, you need a licence to drive a tractor on the road and its continued posession is conditional on following the rules, Its not my fault if you chose a tractor/trailer that’s too big for the road. And while we’re on the subject of farmers, when was the last time one of them cleaned up al the mud etc. that they deposit on the road as they are supposed to?
Cyclingjon1959 wrote:
That is a total misrepresentation of the purpose of the hierarchy of road users as set out in the new highway code, it is nothing to do with establishing liability. To quote directly from the code, “those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others.”
It might have been covered
It might have been covered elsewhere but his rant seems to be, “I don’t want to have to stop and start as it might cause my load to spill so all traffic in front should dive out of the way so I don’t have to change my speed”
He also forces ridden horses to move onto un-even ground so someone driving a very loud and intimidating vehicle specifically designed for un-even ground doesn’t have to.
We should start a faceache
We should start a faceache page to help “farmers against shite spelling”.
maybe not quite the situation
maybe not quite the situation the farmer in this story is quoting, but its tractor related 🙂 https://road.cc/content/news/268853-near-miss-day-334-tractor-driver-attempts-overtake-cyclist-through-narrow
my thoughts on this though are I know tractors are ruddy dangerous things, and so is the machinery alot of them drag around (and those are the ones with working brakes and tyres that are safe), the modern ones especially are so huge in comparison to cyclists on roads that they scare the life out of me when Im on my bike and I encounter them, because its like meeting an HGV truck sized thing on basically roads no wider than a small family car, especially on single track roads, as they rarely are driven sedately these days. And Ive yet to encounter one driven remotely with any consideration for cyclists in those situations, most of them just barrel on through with a might is right attitude.
Im not going to ride at a tractor, I doubt any cyclist really does, but Ill need space and time to stop safely as its often on fairly loose surfaces and a place to escape out of the way, before you drive your oversized ego machine at me.
What would this tractor
What would this tractor driver do if they encountered an oncoming car? Expect them to immediately drive off the road? No. They would slow to a halt and carefully edge their way past, thinking nothing of it.
So why expect an oncoming cyclist to dive out of your way, as you career past without slowing? Tractors ought to come to a complete halt when faced with oncoming vulnerable road users and allow them to negotiate their way past – a cyclist is not going to run over a tractor driver. I really think this should be added to the highway code.
HoarseMann wrote:
Because bicycles aren’t real traffic, as any fule kno…
This dangerous driver needs
This dangerous driver needs to recognise that it is no more acceptable to threaten someone’s life with a huge vehicle than it would be to do so with a gun, knife or baseball bat.
I think I’ve been held up on
I think I’ve been held up on my bike by more tractors than have got stuck behind me.
Any other industry or business wouldn’t be allowed to create the level of risk to the public the food production industry gets away with. Driving heavy machinery with spikes on public roads (and demanding vulnerable users get out of their way) , keeping dangerous animals near footpaths, filling the countryside with barbed wire etc. If any other business behaved like that they’d be fined or shut down
lostshrimp wrote:
I remember a long thread on the Cycling UK / CTC forums, where some bloke had hit a rope that had been strung across a lane between hedges. Turned out that a farmer was moving livestock between two fields and had strung it up so that the livestock didn’t stray the wrong way. Hadn’t felt the need to put up any signage, or have someone stood there warning oncoming traffic, though…
Oddly enough, when I was last
Oddly enough, when I was last in the industrial countryside in southern Scotland, bimbling along some lanes with my elder brother and elder son on our bikes, the farmers in their tractors slowed down as we came towards them and gave us enough space and a nod as we passed. I know a couple were my brother’s neighbours but they weren’t all. The ones that overtook us were similarly careful and got a friendly wave (yes, really) each time from us for being considerate. Ditto the van drivers and truck drivers and even the Audi/BMW drivers too. I’m curious what it is that allows those borders Scottish farmers and assorted drivers and cyclists to be able to get along without friction.
Ditto the van drivers and
Ditto the van drivers and truck drivers and even the Audi/BMW drivers too
Southern Scotland is Shangri-La for cyclists! Things are different in North Lancashire. Tractor Psycho-drivers around here are just as bad as Audi/ BMW drivers and SUV-Mummies- they do not slow one iota for cyclists, and will head straight for you. One minor consolation is that they don’t slow for oncoming cars either, secure in the knowledge that the massive wheels and trailers would just crush anything Transit size and below.
Not all Southern Scotland –
Not all Southern Scotland – here’s a reminder:
https://road.cc/content/news/249011-tour-o-borders-organiser-says-decision-drop-charges-against-stick-gate-farmers
No, maybe not all of S
No, maybe not all of S Scotland. But I really enjoyed heading out into the countryside around Duns with my brother and son. We’re planning to do it again.
Been down there on a pootle
Been down there on a pootle from Edinburgh recently. Interesting area, will have to revisit!
I first read this several
I first read this several months ago, presumably just been bubbling away and now hit the headlines.
I fell the same as most with this vile drivel.
The one that is rarely commented on though is “Unfortunately for you we take all your space and we can’t help it” – and I would disagree, you can help it, the farming industry has chosen to get tractors that are bigger and bigger over the last 20 years.
I’m pretty disappointed to
I’m pretty disappointed to hear of farmers moaning about cyclists.
I love cuntryside cycling and it really pisses me off EVERY Autumn when I’ve got to deal with all the mud, crud and shite farmers leave behind on our beloved country roads – after they’ve pulled in the harvest. All the crud cakes into the road – for months.
So. Go on farmers. Keep on moaning. You’re not on your own…. Selfish forks.
Quote:
Either there are some very oddly shaped bike saddles out there that I haven’t seen or some farmers have very peculiar-shaped John Thomases…
“Cock shaped bike seat”
“Cock shaped bike seat”
I have visions of this farmer fuck. He’s sitting down with a bowl of super noodles. Just like Pops (league of gentlemen). Whacking off to a bank of TV monitors as those cock riding cyclists skate past his farmyard.
What another utter cnut…who is this sick fuck?
Mmmmmmmmmm…..
Mmmmmmmmmm…..
I like it in my assssssssssss…..
Did you get sold a seatpost
Did you get sold a seatpost without the saddle again?
Farmers don’t care about
Farmers don’t care about safety in any sense.
The Agriculture industry has more deaths per year than any other industry and in 2020 the most common cause was being struck by a moving vehicle…
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2021/07/19/figures-show-agriculture-remains-the-worst-performing-industrial-sector/
So if they have the attitude that deaths occur, don’t expect them to move out of your way while they ‘go about their business’ even though they should.
Kind of… but maybe don’t
Kind of… but maybe don’t conflate this guy with “all farmers”. There is a continuum of “rich farmers owning the countryside and not giving a monkey’s” and also “poorly paid people in deprived areas doing dangerous hard work with long hours”. Same as not all cyclists are MAMILS / city types out for a jolly and not all are “aggressive and entitled”.
We’re concerned about the behaviour of course but worth asking why we have these practices (large vehicles, all hours) rather than cheerful yeomen and ploughboys waving at you while taking a break for their scrumpy.
chrisonatrike wrote:
It’s not about wealth. Entitlement and aggression are shown across the whole spectrum, both on and away from the public highway.
You surely know how social media works, it’s like crowd behaviour – the ‘know your place’ and ‘get out of my way’ attitude expressed in the facebook post and the many favourable responses will only further entrench the idea for many that they have priority and it will encourage others to act aggressively.
But the nature of their work does not give them licence to dictate what should happen on public highways. I would advise against extending greater sympathy just because they appear to work long hours driving large vehicles; do we also tell HGV drivers it’s OK to be texting, tailgating or falling asleep at the wheel on the motorway? No.
That poster could have communicated far more effectively if they issued a genuine request to all other road users to be aware of agricultural vehicle drivers but the attitude is reminiscent of the farm shop owner bleating about the tour of Cambs road closure last week.
To be clear: I have absolutely NO issue with farmers, contractors and others in the agricultural industry going about their work (and I’m sure my clubmates would agree, some of whom also work in the sector). I always give farm vehicles, milk tankers etc as much consideration and space as I possibly can on narrow roads. It would be nice if more of them gave similar consideration to my safety as well…
Agree – the poster is clearly
Agree – the poster is clearly a Farmer Palmer type. And the main issue is who’s bringing the threat and nuisance (e.g. not cyclists) as the type of seat doesn’t – mostly – make the asshole above it. Just saying that all of us are fractionally responsible for the businesses and business practices we get – via our own behaviours like living in cities, not wanting to take up rural jobs, wanting to pay less for food, wanting more variety year-round, buying from supermarkets etc.
This crap made the rounds
This crap made the rounds last year as well, seems an annual late spring faceache misinformation campaign.
It was forwarded onto my local village group I complained and it was taken down.
To paraphrase…
To paraphrase…
‘Might is right, now get the fcuk out of my way or else….’
hardly ‘polit-ish’, and behind any attempt to be amusing, there is a pretty dangerous sentiment that needs calling out.
it’s akin to those signs on the back of lorries warning cyclists of blind spots. Appreciable on an articulated or large lorry, but now seen all too often on the back of transits and even caddy vans.. come one!
The sign is basically a public disowning of driver responsibility… and I’m sorry but that is bull poo, just as a tractor saying they can’t stop or move is utter crap. They are still absolutely required to drive responsibly with due care and consideration of other road users… however inconvenient that may be for them.
It’s akin to a dog owner wearing a t-shirt saying ‘be warned, the dog’s a bit bitey’ and thinking that makes it OK for fido to bit a toddlers face off.
Unfortunately last year a
Unfortunately last year a cyclist in my part of the world was killed in a collision with a tractor, so firstly the the comment relating to pressure washing cyclists off is in really bad taste. Secondly, the cyclist in question did stop to let the tractor past and still ended up being run over.
As it happens the cyclist and the tractor driver knew each other and were neighbours. This is the reality of living in a rural community. The farmers I know around here were as horrified as the cyclists (believe it or not, some farmers also cycle or is that cyclists also farm?!)
I would suggest that all drivers of agricultural vehicles in general, and this one in particular, approach all other road users regardless of their chosen mode of transport as if they were a friend or neighbour.
And the answer to his comment about what is different about cyclists, yes your are missing something. Cyclists are at their least stable at low speed/ whilst stopping, so by maintaininga reasonable speed we are taking steps to minimise the risk of us falling under your wheels. You can take a further step by stopping for a few seconds so that we can pass you.
And of course tractors should be in front of bikes on the list of vehicles that should pay “road tax”, have an MOT etc.etc. as they clearly represent a more significant risk to the safety of other road users, particularly as in spite of often weighing as much as an HGV, they are not required to comply with the Construction and Use Regulations which covers issues of visibility, manoeuvrability etc.
As usual in these sort of
As usual in these sort of cases, the problems only arise because of certain obstinate inconsiderate individuals. On one side we have the cyclist whose stance is: I have as much right to be on this road as anyone else, and I can’t afford to waste any time. On the other the farmer whose stance is: I have important work to do and I have to use this road and I can’t afford to waste any time.
While the majority of both sides simply slow down and use common sense and care to manoeuvre past each other.
You are totally mistaken.
You are totally mistaken.
In these situations the problems are caused entirely by the self-entitled tractor drivers who don’t care that their dangerous driving can kill and injure other people. They are the only individual that can cause any danger in this situation and should slow down to a safe speed when passing cyclists.
Cyclists simply do not play chicken with tractors and such… and even IF they did, it is the driver’s responsibility to drive safely. It’s clearly never going to be the cyclist(s) that will be taking up 3/4 of the width of the road forcing the tractor into the ditch to avoid a collision.
Only one of these two parties
Only one of these two parties is a criminal threatening to murder the other. That’s why your analysis is completely wrong.
Did you actually read what I
Did you actually read what I said instead of jumping to the conclusion that you wanted? My post pointed out that it was certain individuals who caused problems – one being inconsiderate tractor drivers. Get your facts right – a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, someone who has a desire to commit a crime but has not committed one is not a criminal. As someone who has driven farm vehicles on road and is also a cyclist, your simplified blanket assertions don’t help to foster good relations between various road users, which is an objective that we should all be striving for.
Not to make too fine a point
Not to make too fine a point of it, but these ‘good relations’ between various road users can’t be fostered when one group of road users is threatening the other with violence if the other don’t simply bow out of the way and secede.
The farmers in this instance are not asking for courtesy, they are threatening physical harm if others are not subservient to them.
There is zero point saying things on this forum, that is usually populated by people who ride bicycles, asking for courtesy when we are raising the issue of actual risk of violence towards us.
Also: threat of violence and verbal abuse – still illegal.
Share the roadocean…
Share the
roadocean…Also: threat of violence and
Also: threat of violence and verbal abuse – still illegal
Not really, in Lancashire anyway. A BMW driver close-passed me and was then stopped by temporary lights- I remonstrated with him (no swearing by me), and he threatened to “fucking flatten” me, and declared that I would get “knocked off”. I had video and audio of the entire incident, but it took 3 persistent months working against Lancashire Constabulary indolence and indifference to achieve the negligible result of ‘words of advice’
You’ve of course hit the nail
You’ve of course hit the nail on the head that the problem is lack of enforcement. Little Johnny is not going to stop his bullying and misbehaving if he keeps just getting ‘final warnings’ and angry little demerit stickers.
And your solution is what? I
And your solution is what? I don’t accept that all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence. There may be a few rotten applies, and if possible, cam footage should be used to deal with those individuals. Otherwise, cyclists should show courtesy and consideration, which helps to foster good relations.
JimM777 wrote:
Admit it – you work for the Met, don’t you? 😉 😀
This is exhausting. We are
This is exhausting. We are not talking about ‘all tractor drivers.’ We are talking about the ones who have made a post threatening to hurt other road users. My point is that this abusive and threatening post is the problem and should be treated seriously. I am not legally minded so don’t have a legal solution and, as wjts was correct in pointing out, while illegal, this kind of threatening language goes unenforced anyway, cameras or not.
I know what the solution is NOT – that vulnerable road users simply act as polite and genteel as possible while a potentially agressive road user capable of killing us dominates the road. This is not ‘courtesy and consideration.’ It is subservience.
Please don’t patronise me by saying that my courteous behaviour is somehow going to save me from deadly encounters – I’ve been knocked off my bicycle thrice in one year and am (admittedly, by my own account, but happy to be observed and corrected) a careful and considerate cyclist.
What’s the solution? Dunno
What’s the solution? Dunno what vthejk’s one is but mine would look a bit like this.
I don’t think all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence – or even most. However if the average person feels in fear of their life even a few times while going to a certain place / engaging in a certain activity they will just avoid that area or stop the activity.
The tractor driver isn’t going to stop driving there – but then that’s the difference between irritation (which often says as much about your individual character) or inconvenience and fear (some things frighten everyone).
We should be pragmatic of course. I doubt that many people are campaigning for cycle access through every farm yard. Currently though the vast majority of places are in practice inaccessible to most people by cycling. That’s part of why most people don’t cycle.
“Good relations” – well, yes, but to be blunt “good relations” require relationships. That takes repeated encounters between the same people and mutual regard. Or people identifying with the other party’s “group” – not likely if you, your parents, children and friends don’t cycle. It’s also harder to establish where people with fundamentally different requirements / needs are using the same resource. I’d rather safety and convenience were built in (with a design that doesn’t rely on the motorist getting it right) – I think that’s more likely to allow good relations to develop because it’s obvious what each party should be doing.
chrisonatrike wrote:
This is something else I was trying to say but couldn’t articulate. So reminiscent of the ‘not all men’ argument against rapists isn’t it? I couldn’t care less if the tractor driver behind me is a murdering maniac but the possibility that they exist and can be murdering maniacs is enough to make my experience fearful/uncomfortable.
.
.
Balance. Sense. I’m afraid that you are not going to do too well on here, Jim.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Coming from you that’s truly comical!
I guess you anti-cyclists and the trolls need to stick together when you’re outnumbered and outflanked.
But all road users should show courtesy and consideration, not just the vulnerable ones.
Thing is, and this is often
Thing is, and this is often seemingly forgotten when excusing “a few rotten applies”, if you don’t get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.
ktache wrote:
Very true, and equally if you get poisoned by a rotten apple it’s not much consolation to know that you were unlucky to draw one of the few in the barrel.
Analogies can be fine and
Analogies can be fine and dandy, but can also be very misleading. Do the majority of people who see someone doing dangerous driving then proceed to start driving dangerously? If that were so, by now there shouldn’t be any non dangerous drivers left.
In any case, you’re never going to create a perfect group of humans by removing certain individuals, there’s always going to be be another rotten one to take their place.
That said, if a dangerous driver can be brought to account, of course, he should be, and appropriate action taken against him.
if you don’t get rid of the
if you don’t get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.
How true!
JimM777 wrote:
I’m sure plenty of people in prison for planning to commit acts of terrorism or bank robberies but not carrying them out would be very interested in your legal advice. Planning a crime or threatening to commit one can very definitely be a criminal offence.
Why are you twisting my words
Why are you twisting my words? I referred to a desire to commit a crime, and yes, I claim that that is not a crime (except in fiction such as Minority Report)
I wrote that in response to someone who posted “One party is a criminal threatening to murder the other”, which I considered unhelpful inflammatory hyperbole and which had no evidence to support it. Angry words (the classic example “I’m gonna kill you”) are never accepted on their own as evidence of actual intent.
JimM777 wrote:
Still a criminal offence I’m afraid, comes under the heading of causing fear or provocation of violence (threatening behaviour) under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986).
You conveniently left out the
You conveniently left out the bit that requires the offending act to cause the other person to believe that “immediate unlawful violence will be used against him…”
JimM777 wrote:
I was responding to the example you gave, “Angry words (the classic example “I’m gonna kill you”)”. Or don’t you think when someone says “I’m gonna kill you” to another person that person wouldn’t think they were threatening violence?
That is precisely why I said
That is precisely why I said that OF THEMSELVES, angry words are not sufficient to be a crime, more evidence is needed – because the law knows that angry words that include intentions are often spoken in anger but where the speaker does not in fact have any real intention of committing the act. But according to you, internet forums are awash with criminals doing criminal acts that consist of writing angry words. Yeah right.
Of course you could always start a fundraiser to finance a class action against the claimed perpetrators – since you are so sure a crime had been committed, is bound to be a resounding success.
JimM777 wrote:
Oh, there’s a much easier way to settle the matter than that, as you’re so sure you’re right: make an unpleasant threat to kill a prominent figure – the Queen, say – on an online forum, let us know where it is and someone can report it to the police. According to your contention that “angry words are not sufficient to be a crime” you need have nothing to fear and no action will be taken against you.
Ok. I’m planning to kill the
Ok. I’m planning to kill the Queen.
Done as you requested. Now I’m waiting to be arrested.
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/18/robin-hood-airport-twitter-arrest
A quip on Twitter by a snowbound traveller has led to his arrest and bailing on suspicion of communicating a bomb hoax.
He later won his appeal
He later won his appeal (having lost two jobs over it) but he was prosecuted “under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, which prohibits sending “by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.”
But Jim knows better.
As you say, he won his appeal
As you say, he won his appeal – ‘the appeal against conviction was “allowed on the basis that this ‘tweet’ did not constitute or include a message of a menacing character” ‘ although a naive reading of the words out of context would conclude otherwise. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
You were talking about angry
You were talking about angry words that people meant, not jokes, and claiming that such words alone were not enough to constitute a criminal offence; the fact that, as I quoted below, the Communications Act “prohibits sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character” shows that you are mistaken.
FFS, you just can’t admit you
FFS, you just can’t admit you’re wrong can you?
The appeal court, as already referred in previous comments, clarified that the context must be taken into account. A message doesn’t have to be only a joke for it not to be taken literally.
JimM777 wrote:
The law: “It is a criminal offence to send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” No equivocation or additional evidence required. Angry words are sufficient to be a crime, it’s written right there in the law and no amount of “FFS” from you can change that I’m afraid. You clearly are unable to admit you’re wrong even when the evidence is right there in front of you, and so I’m out.
Clearly you are unaware that
Clearly you are unaware that it is a function of the higher courts to provide an interpretation of the written laws, and they have decided that the intention of the law is that the context of what is said/written is to be taken into account in applying the law you refer to. And that’s why your simply repeating ad nauseum the wording of the law while ignoring the higher courts interpretation is arrant nonsense.
I don’t suppose that the repetition of facts will make any difference to your persistent ignoring them, so I’m finished here.
See my reply to Rendel Harris
See my reply to Rendel Harris.
.
.
Like I said, Jim – balance and nuance is not appreciated on this site.
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
.
As you hate this site so much
.
do feel free
.
to take your custom elsewhere.
.
Surely only sad trolls
.
hang around sites where the vast majority
.
disagree with them
.
just to make petty comments
.
about how crap the site is?
.
.
Balance, Jim – NOT welcome on this site.
.
This post is not new, I saw
This post is not new, I saw it shared on facebook and twitter last summer, although I think some of the words have changed. It’s disgusting, hurtful and vicious. I am disappointed roadcc decided to give it more publicity.
The comments on that facebook
The comments on that facebook post are the worst bin fire you could imagine. 10,000+ posts about how much self-confessed bigots hate people on bikes for no actual reason and they should die, etc.
Anti-cyclist comments need to be made a hate crime and socially unacceptable. Vulnerable road users are killed and injured daily due to these self-propogated false stereotypes and hatred being published.
I’ve been digging through all
I’ve been digging through all of the relevant data and to date, I cannot find any tractor driver that has been hurt by an errant cyclist. However, there are incidents where cyclists have been hurt by tractor drivers.
From this, I deduce that it’s the tractor drivers that need to moderate their behaviour as they are a risk to the health and safety of other road users.
Thinking about it logically, it’s obviously much safer for cyclists to pass a stationary tractor than it is for a tractor to pass stationary cyclists.
You forgot the classic – “ah,
You forgot the classic – “ah, but the cyclists cause the ‘accidents’ (and they wouldn’t be hurt if they weren’t on a toy vehicle)”
If only tractors had tyres
If only tractors had tyres suitable for surfaces other than tarmac, so they could easily pull onto the verge.
Post seems like it was written by a sociopath. “I appreciate there is risk to you and this road is not wide enough for us to pass safely, but I’m not stopping, so get out of the way. “
Actually this image from
Actually this image from David Hembrow’s excellent archive (on “pragmatism“) probably illustrates all we need here. (This is a farm track converted into a bike path but with access retained for farm vehicles). But yes – plenty of places in the UK where farm vehicles are as big as the farmers can afford but aside from asphalt the roads haven’t kept pace with the invention of the car. Plus a measure of culture in that we (predominantly urban people) want the countryside for holiday, recreation, an ideal place to bring up the kids or to retire to and that can be at odds with its viability. Finally our prestige / high resource use / centralising culture cements the “need” for motor vehicle ever more in the countryside.