Police issue warning to 'large group' of cyclists

Quick, somebody sound the Bitter Aussie Klaxon, we've got a live one

We've got loads of pommie whingers over here.. want 'em back?

Sorry, can't, Covid and all that. Maybe next year.

Have they finished their sentence already, etc

Ihatecheese wrote:

Surely It is not hard to understand for the entitled gents. The rules still apply,  just need to hold out on comparing bikes for a few more weeks !

But of course let's reference some other stuff that matters to try and contextualise why breaking the law on this occasion was less naughty. Ah Mondays 

You're just going to assume they're lying then? I don't expect the police will be pulling over car drivers and asking them if they're driving as part of a group, just because there are other car drivers nearby?

That analogy makes sense..

Zjtm231 wrote:

Has anyone else got the "anti cycling" vibe from the comments sections on road.cc in the last few months or is it just me?

There does seem to have been two or three posters that are pushing that agenda. We should be agreeing on the cycling and disagreeing on the helmets, disc brakes, tubeless etc.

Zjtm231 wrote:

Has anyone else got the "anti cycling" vibe from the comments sections on road.cc in the last few months or is it just me?

Definitely, despite the apparent removal of two of the worst offenders there are still one or two egregious trolls using the well-worn "I'm a keen cyclist myself" trope to push their obvious anti-bike agenda.

Do you mean user "blackcab4ever"  /s

You sound like the dim bulbs on lefty sites like the Guardian, that want anyone with a dissenting opinion banned for 'trolling'.. only echo chamber comments allowed.

grOg wrote:

You sound like the dim bulbs on lefty sites like the Guardian, that want anyone with a dissenting opinion banned for 'trolling'.. only echo chamber comments allowed.

Dissenting opinions and deliberately attempting to cause disruption to discussion and offence by throwing in moronic comments are two different things; your comments are almost always a textbook example of the latter,

Yes, it feels distinctly like it's gone soft. It seems strange to want so much to be on the wrong side of history, pushing for something that offers no future, the bigger it gets the more it disappears up its own exhaust pipe.

From recent events, claiming that would result in you being tackled to the floor, cuffed and slapped with a fine.

HoarseMann wrote:

From recent events, claiming that would result in you being tackled to the floor, cuffed and slapped with a fine.

Nah, they only do that to women protesting against....er, violence against women. But they were forced to do it and it was for the women's own safety.

yes the local hospital had trouble handling the injured. Oh wait. There where 0 injuries (apart from feelings)

nicmason wrote:

yes the local hospital had trouble handling the injured. Oh wait. There where 0 injuries (apart from feelings)

Oh really Nic, yet again. 

We were talking about cuffs and fines. there have been several arrests using physical force during a peaceful vigil, and subsequently a peaceful protest. If the best you can say under these circumstances is "but no one ended up in hospital" then your bar for police behaviour is low indeed.

my point stands . No one was injured. the hospital ref was a joke.

As I understand the police moved in when speeches started from the bandstand casuing crowding and asked peope to move. They didnt so they where moved.

nicmason wrote:

my point stands . No one was injured. the hospital ref was a joke.

As I understand the police moved in when speeches started from the bandstand casuing crowding and asked peope to move. They didnt so they where moved.

 

Your point is irrelevant. We were talking about women forcibly cuffed and fined for peacefully protesting violence against women. The police (the majority male, and mob-handed) responded with violence. Even you can't have failed to see images of women with more than one male police officer on top of them. 

To repeat slightly differently, regardless of the "justification", peaceful protesters, the vast majority women, were assaulted by men (the presence of uniform doesn't make it ok) for protesting against assault.

That was the point at hand. Many, probably most, abused women don't attend hospital. That doesn't mean there is no problem.

They weren't assaulted they where arrested in the usual non violent manner the police use for these things. Pretty much the same as carting off XR protestors last year.

And Im sure if there had been any injuries at all the press would have been all over it like a rash.

nicmason wrote:

They weren't assaulted they where arrested in the usual non violent manner the police use for these things. Pretty much the same as carting off XR protestors last year.

And Im sure if there had been any injuries at all the press would have been all over it like a rash.

Wrong. The difference between what the officers did and common assault in term of outcome was nothing. As I said uniform does not justify force.

You keep talking about hospitals and injury. I never said injuries were reported - injury is not required for assault to be assault.

So what was the justification of the forceful police break up of a peaceful, socially distanced protest by individuals? were they inconveniencing anyone? no. Were they otherwise breaking the law? No. Were they preventing people from going about their lawful business? No.

So whence the necessity of the use of force? Again, men using force to disperse a crowd of peaceful women who were guilty only of protesting about men using force against women.

Jesus, that this has to be spelled out reflects abysmally on our society, and underlines exactly the misogyny that tolerates the staggering disparity in freedoms between men and women.

its got nothing to do with men and women. Its related to law and order.

some  of the police where women as is the head of the met and the home secretary

the organisers went to court and lost.

So you think law should only apply when you're good with it. Cant see that being a problem at all.

nicmason wrote:

its got nothing to do with men and women. Its related to law and order.

they went to court and lost.

So you think law should only apply when you're good with it. Cant see that being a problem at all.

It's everything to do with misogyny

Look at this picture. What was this young woman actually doing to be assaulted in this way by two men who individually are much stronger and heavier than her?

• Selling drugs?
• demanding money with menaces?
• impeding the public highway?
• Knocking a policeman's hat off?

Or not doing what she was told whilst in possession of an offensive candle....

No Nic, this cannot be described as anything else than assault and physical violence, and there is no justification other than she didn't so what she was told.

I think your describing being arrested. they arent arresting her because shes a woman with a candle they are arresting her because what shes doing is currently(rightly or wrongly) against the law.

Personally I would have hoped the police had let that vigil go but somewhere between Cressida Dick and Patel the decision didnt go that way.

if you want to change that get out and vote.

nicmason wrote:

I think your describing being arrested. they arent arresting her because shes a woman with a candle they are arresting her because what shes doing is currently(rightly or wrongly) against the law.

The arrest was incidental. The method was violent asault

nicmason wrote:

Personally I would have hoped the police had let that vigil go but somewhere between Cressida Dick and Patel the decision didnt go that way.

I'm glad to see that you agree that no harm was done by the protest. Therefore no arrest was necessary, and so use of force was indefensible.  That is exactly the point. It's not as if the police needed to make the decisions they did.

nicmason wrote:

if you want to change that get out and vote.

To fob off legitimate criticism of police brutality with "put a cross on a bit of paper every 4 years" is laughable. Change is what these women were after, and peaceful protest is a legitimate strategy. In this case the police forcefully dispersed a peaceful protest which was not causing any issue. At risk of labouring the irony, men quelled women's dissent against violence, by use of violence against those women.

It seems Nic, that at heart you know this to be correct. You accept that the vigil was peaceful and didn't need to be stopped, and so any use of force was by definition a disproportionate response.

That the Commissioner, HS and some officers are female is irrelevant - the violence was perpetrated by men on women, in front of the world's press. At best this was a gross miscalculation. At worst a calculated show of force to quell dissent against, at risk of repetition, male violence towards women.

In no way do the police come out of this looking good. Hence my OP

Have a great day Nic

I notice anthing you dont like you dismiss as irrelevant. You want to get out a little .

Go to a country where the police would have been in there with batons, pepper spray  water cannon etc.  We are extremely lucky to have the police force we do

people like you are actually responsible for damaging policing in this country with your constant exaggeration of events.