A pair of cyclists from the UK have finished what is the world’s largest GPS artwork, riding 2,200 kilometres to sketch out the words “Refugees Welcome” across southern England.
Georgie Cottle, 27, and David Charles, 39, undertook the challenge to raise funds for the charity, Choose Love with their total currently standing at more than £50,000.
The pair, who set out on their journey a month ago, have smashed the previous record of 761km.
“We chose to spell out ‘Refugees Welcome’ across this region because this is the biggest entry point for asylum seekers reaching the UK,” said Georgie.
“To finish the last letter in Dover felt very symbolic and sends a message of compassion to those arriving here.
“The challenge has been in response to what’s been happening in Afghanistan, and also Priti Patel and the UK government’s monstrous overhaul of the asylum system.
“The new policies will put the country in direct opposition to the 1951 Geneva Convention by shutting down more of the few remaining legal routes to the UK.”
“The south of England is hillier than you might think, so it’s certainly been a challenge” she continued.
“I spent my 27th birthday cycling out the ‘O’ of in Welcome, so that was really cool.
“But the challenges have definitely been overcome by the amount of amazing people we’ve met on the route and we’ve had a further 35 people sign up to help us finish the challenge.
“Everyone’s been so supportive and even in places we haven’t been sure they’d support our cause, they really have.
“Normal people, like us, really do just want to help to try to do something to help people in need,” she added.
On their fundraising page, the pair set out the reasons behind the challenge, saying: “The British government is trying to make it almost impossible for refugees to claim asylum in the UK.
“Home Secretary Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders Bill is putting the UK in direct opposition to the 1951 Geneva Convention by shutting down even more legal routes to asylum in this country. Incredibly, it will also criminalise the courageous, life-saving work of the RNLI.
“That’s why we’re getting back on our bikes, cycling really really far and fundraising for grassroots organisations that offer refugees the welcome that our government withholds.”
They also wrote of their own personal reasons for taking on the challenge.
“I have been a keen bean cyclist since I was 19 and found myself cycling the length of America, sort of by accident,” Georgie said.
“Since then I have explored much of Scotland, Wales and New Zealand with my trusty Raleigh Capri (called ‘Sunny’).
“I first got involved volunteering with refugee and asylum seeker communities while studying Arabic in Jordan in 2016, at the height of the crisis. I learned one heck of a lot about what it meant to be a ‘refugee’, what people had to give up and why people were forced to flee.
“I now work with refugee and asylum seeker communities in Glasgow and it seems that people’s journeys are being made ever more difficult by governments here in the UK and in Europe.
“Spell It Out is an incredible challenge that I am so privileged to be a part of. We are both really looking forward to getting on the road, and rallying as much support as possible for Choose Love!”
David said: “I’ve been going on ridiculously long bike rides for ten years now, including two stints on the London to Athens relay with Thighs of Steel.
“For me, bikes are the ultimate freedom machine, carrying me across continents, powered by nothing more than a croissant (or seven). I have also seen the transformational potential of bikes when put into the hands of refugees and asylum seekers, both here in the UK and in places like Calais, Athens, Chios and Samos.
“Bikes give us both independence and community and I’m proud to use mine in solidarity with those fleeing persecution, conflict and torture.
“I’ve been so lucky that I’ve been able to travel freely around the world, thanks only to the freak chance of being born in a politically stable, wealthy country. The sheer injustice that some human beings aren’t allowed to cross borders makes me furious and anger is an energy, right? I hope so, because I’ve got an awful lot of cycling to do!
“We are far from powerless,” he added. “Please donate generously, make a noise and show the world that refugees are always welcome here.”
88 thoughts on ““Refugees Welcome” – British cyclists complete world’s largest GPS artwork”
Excellent news.
Excellent news.
Triggered Gammonflake comments incoming shortly, no doubt.
Hi. I’m not english, could
Hi. I’m not english, could you please explain why is gammon an insulting/derogatory term to use? I know it as a form of smoked cooked pork and not sure why that is insulting. Thanks.
Don’t they have Google in
Don’t they have Google in this mysterious non-english (sic) country you claim to be from?
They do have google. The non
They do have google. The non-english country i am from is South Africa and gammon is not an insult/derogatory term i am familiar with.
Eton Rifle wrote:
You could have just answered the question in exactly the same amount of time and typing as you took to be sniffy about them not Googling it.
If someone approaches you in the street and asks for directions, do you just say “Don’t you have Google Maps on your phone?” in response?
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Yeah, I probably would if it were someone trolling for a reaction.
You could have just answered the question in exactly the same amount of time and typing as you took to be sniffy about them not Googling it.
If someone approaches you in the street and asks for directions, do you just say “Don’t you have Google Maps on your phone?” in response?— Eton Rifle
So you assumed i was trolling
So you assumed i was trolling for a reaction?
It’s to do with the facial
It’s to do with the facial skin colour of white men, particularly unfit ones, when angry.
Thanks for that.
Thanks for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gammon_(insult)
OnYerBike wrote:
Today I learned that “gammon” has been in use for centuries
Indeed. Term originally
Indeed. Term originally coined by Charles Dickens.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Dickens? So not many centuries, then?
brooksby wrote:
Dickens? So not many centuries, then?— Eton Rifle
Wikipedia has a couple of references before Dickens, going back to 1604
Oh, OK…
Oh, OK…
Those earlier references don
Those earlier references don’t seem to be using it in the same way, though – seems to be more just a stereotyped description of Westphalians. Whereas Dickens seems to be using it in a way much closer to the current meaning.
Of course, that doesn’t mean he coined it – a lot of things attributed to Dickens (and similarly Shakespeare) seem to turn out to be them just using phrases that were (or probably were) already around at the time.
mdavidford wrote:
It’s interesting you mentioning Shakespeare as he gives a prime example of the use of an insult to denote temporary skin colour in Macbeth – “Thou cream-faced loon” to a servant who’s white with terror, just as “gammon” refers to the propensity of a certain type of middle-aged male to go bright red in the face with rage; the idiotic suggestion of the earlier commenter who tried to claim it’s a racist remark is arrant nonsense.
With one newspaper article,
With one newspaper article, supposedly “Gammon” was the Victorian slang equivalent to Bullshit which is the reason for the term in Nich Nick. But is is strange that it is used against someone being very nationalist in his terms but I suppose “Bullshit” could be used when people claim they are happy for refugees to all come here when it is quite obvious the actual figure they want is 0 unless they are white and can pay their way and don’t talk too foreign-like.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Oh… it would be too much to hope that someone could have come up with something original this century!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Gammon, like the female
Gammon, like the female equivalent “Karen”, is a racist term white males call each other when they are trying to impress their left-wing cronies. I believe it makes one feel really good about oneself. See also “virtue signalling”.
p.s. genuine question: how many refugees are welcome? Please give a figure, not an insult.
Mark_1973_ wrote:
Yeah, white male on white male racism, truly major social problem…not sure you’ve really thought that one through.
Honestly, this site gets more infested with rightist whackadoodle trolls by the day, did they have a secret meeting and decide to attack a decent site en masse or is the ever-increasing cycle hatred of their ilk drawing them automatically?
P.S. Gammon and Karen are not even close to being synonymous.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yeah, at least one for every 100 Guardianistas.
And, as we don’t like to discriminate, or put a number on the upper limit we are able to support, I say let’s welcome every refugee on the planet to Britain. After all, refugees are welcome! 82.4 million enough for you (UNHCR statistic)?
Mark_1973_ wrote:
My dear fellow, as you’ve just admitted in your own words that you are a rightist whackadoodle troll I see little profit in engaging with you any further.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So, no answers, just insults. How predictably left-wing…
I refer the “gentleman” to my
I refer the “gentleman” to my previous answer.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Without supporting their comments, I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation. Even if you take what they wrote at face value (and ignore the heavy dose of sarcasm), all they said was that there was one rightist whackadoodle troll for every 100 Guardianistas. They didn’t admit to falling in to one group or the other.
You’re missing the use of the
You’re missing the use of the first person plural pronoun I think…
Different paragraph though. I
Different paragraph though. I’m pretty sure that’s ‘we [the commentariat]’, rather than ‘we [the rightist whackadoodle trolls]’.
Well so nice of you to invite
Well so nice of you to invite them. Although you will be pleased to know that it is 30 millions who are refugees (seeking refuge elsewhere). The bulk of the rest are internally displaced, ie staying in their country but been displaced for some reason. So people like the Uighers in China would come under that or the Syrians whose town was destroyed in fighting but are staying in a camp still within the border until it is safe for them to return and rebuild.
And of the refugees, the vast majoirty then stay in a neighbouring country as it is probably closer to their culture and not a massive shock to go somewhere were people might hate them for the colour of their skin or wish their children had been left to drown.
But I’m glad you are so gracious to your fellow human beings on this planet. I’m sure you give lots to foreign aid worker charities, and let your MP know that you are against the goverment for reducing foreign aid to support these camps and introducing policies making it even harder to claim asylum and refuge in this country.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
How many can we take then? Just give me a number!
As many as want to come. I’ve
As many as want to come. I’ve already mentioned that just because someone is seeking asylum doesn’t meant they want to come here so I don’t expect to have to force them.
However I’m happy you want 30 mil.
Has it occurred to you that
Has it occurred to you that your simplistic demand for “a number” is symptomatic of the inherent simple-mindedness of right wing politics?
Hmm are they a race though?
Hmm are they a race though? If so, can I claim protection as a cyclist under anti-discrimination legislation, or do I have to develop some physical characteristic to do so (like bigger thighs, or bicycle face)?
As for how many are welcome – the answer is obviously “as many as we can if they are- or their children might be – handy with a football, tennis racket, trowel, stethoscope or even just home secretary material”. Given I’m not in charge of the world or even the UK I don’t get to decide how many are welcome so you can pick your own number too. Using “refugees” makes it hard even to get numbers on people arriving to date because all the stats divide people up along different lines (asylum claimants, “economic migrants” etc.). If it’s a genuine question you might start here:
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/migration-statistics
I don’t like the term Karen
I don’t like the term Karen as the genuine real named Karens get tarnished with the same brush. Gammon on the other hand is just a generic term that has had multiple meanings as shown by the Wiki article (unless you happen to be a big UKIPPer going for the position of London Mayor in which case it did become a personified).
Mark_1973_ wrote:
4 times as many as we take at the moment
stomec wrote:
Refugees or economic migrants? Big difference between the two groups but we seem to be taking boat loads of the latter at the mo (~800 per day). Perhaps the £50 grand raised from all this will be spent on bigger boats to come over from France?
bobbinogs wrote:
I’m glad someone can tell the difference! It’s even more impressive since although you see a big difference you haven’t indicated how you’ve considered any evidence from the people concerned.
Good questions to ask would be “do immigrants (refugees or otherwise) provide benefits to this country? If so what are they? (Obviously we tend to focus on the direct financial but even if it costs us we still need carers and cleaners.) When do we get that benefit – do we get these mostly from recent migrants (we could charge for entry!) or do positives accrue over the years someone remains here? If the latter how long does it take on average for someone to make a positive contribution?”. One source suggests that “it’s a complicated picture” (too lazy to summarise their summary).
If you want to see an immediate positive financial benefit then sell passports to the rich. Unfortunately we already seem to have several informal schemes which offer various financial and social benefits to e.g. billionaire Russians but I’m not convinced all of that money is reaching the wider society.
Oh mate. “Gammon is racist”?
Oh mate. “Gammon is racist”? Sooo 2016.
I’m a white, middle-aged man who’s overweight but guess what? I’m not a Gammon because I don’t espouse Gammon political views. Honestly, it’s not hard.
I know that Road CC is famous
I know that Road CC is famous for regurgitating the same story over and over and over again.
But you published this story on the 3rd September 2021.
What’s changed? Apart from someone having a Birthday, between then and now?
(No, I haven’t read the article. Or the original… or any other repeats ?)
The first story was they were
The first story was they were attempting the strava art, this is they completed it.
0-0 wrote:
?
Well done! and thank you
Well done! and thank you from all the non-gammons.
“The south of England is hillier than you might think,….” No, it isn’t. It’s much hillier and I used to live there. A bit like Ireland; rumours of it’s flatossity are greatly exaggerated.
eburtthebike wrote:
Is that a technical term? Does it have an SI unit?
Captain Badger wrote:
Of course – the Stanley.
mdavidford wrote:
Of course – the Stanley.— mdavidford
Ah, I see. Is that a base unit, or a compound measurement?
I know that many hold by the convention that a suitable measurement is the Imperial Pensioner Cyclists per Square Yard, based on Gammon’s Law that states that the amount of pensioners cycling in an area is inversely proportional to steepness. Of course, this raises an issue when measuring flatness as it is the reciprocal. It also results in an operatively zero value when applied to slopes of more than 3% (aka the High Street Constant, the scientifically proven minimum gradient of highstreets in Kent market towns), which is the known maximum slope that pensioners can cycle. This is of course why it is essential that there are no cycle lanes in town centres.
The other oddity with this measurement is that unlike flatossity it is not logarithmic. This means that it tends towards infinity on perfectly flat areas. This perhaps explains why you find so many old folk with their bikes in snooker halls, and also why so many drown at sea
From France?
From France?
steveal50 wrote:
Refugees are a global problem. As a good global citizen, we should accept our fair share of them. At present, we take FAR fewer refugees than other, comparable European countries.
‘Nationality and Borders Bill
‘Nationality and Borders Bill’
Patel’s parents (or the millions of other Patels) would not have got into the UK had there been the ‘Nationality and Borders Bill” at the time.
I suppose that is what is known as ‘irony’.
Lukas wrote:
I think it’s the tradititional Conservative view of ‘deserving’ vs ‘undeserving’ migrants, same as they believe that there are ‘deserving’ vs ‘undeserving’ poor.
brooksby wrote:
Don’t be silly Brooksby. If they were deserving they wouldn’t be poor…
Indeed. I feel the need to
Indeed. I feel the need to post this (again)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-immigration-laws-parents-home-office-brexit-a9343571.html
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Her parents came to the UK from the east African state [Uganda] in the 1960s and set up a chain of newsagents. However, their arrival came before dictator Idi Amin’s mass expulsion of Uganda Asians in 1972, which saw many families forced to flee the country and admitted to the UK under their status as colonial citizens.
Huh? Gawd – coming over here, taking over our newsagents…
Indeed. Patel has also been
Indeed. Patel has also been quite mysterious as to where she actually went to school. I guess lying is pretty much de rigueur to be in Johnson’s Cabinet.
Is there a link to the actual
Is there a link to the actual completed GPS file/Strava activity?
Comments once again a waste
Comments once again a waste of time. What you’ve got to do, if you don’t like this sort of thing, is just re-ride it but insert “Not” between Oxford and Luton. Once that’s done, for those who want to rebut that we’ll accept the same ride but with “Not” crossed out and “Are so!” in its place.
For courtesy and fairness on each completed ride the contrary opinion should stand the riders one coffee and cake stop.
Britain has always been a
Britain has always been a beacon of light for human rights and welcoming refugees. From the abolition of slavery to defeating fascism, through to welcoming families such as Priti Patel’s and Dominic Raab’s, we have a fantastic and rich tapestry to celebrate.
And with Priti in charge along with the most gender and racially diverse cabinet in history, we can be sure that Britain is treating the disenfranchised and powerless with the respect and dignity they deserve, while ensuring an equitable and sustainable outcome for our own population including our own vulnerable and homeless.
Go Priti!
Always? Always been a beacon
Always? Always been a beacon of light for human rights? Are you sure about? I’m sure the thousands od women and children who died in english concentration camps during the anglo-Boer war might not agree with you.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I’m sure the 3.2M slaves British traders shipped to the Caribbean and the Americas, and the 520,000 who died on British ships in transit, prior to abolition might have something to say about that “always”.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m sure the 3.2M slaves British traders shipped to the Carribean and the Americas, and the 520,000 who died on British ships in transit, prior to abolition might have something to say about that “always”.— Nigel Garrage
Gotta love people glorifing the abolition of slavery, conveniently forgetting that to abolish it you had to have institutionalised it in the first place…..
Wilbeforce was a great man, however the establishment fought him tooth and nail, every step of the way.
Hmm, the executive abusing, opposing and actively rolling back human rights. I wonder if there are any parallels for modern times….
When do modern times start ?
When do modern times start ?
ErnieC wrote:
After Back in the Day. Much later than Yore, which of course preceded even the Olden Days. Perhaps on Tuesday the week between Yesteryear and Living Memory?
Although I think it’s safe to say any period that allows us to vehemently disagree, so generating a parallel dispute that gets us no nearer to reaching consensus.
Captain Badger wrote:
much obliged for that handy bit of info although In would have opted for the Wednesday the week between Yesteryear and the day Grandad fell of the tram.
ErnieC wrote:
Fascist
ErnieC wrote:
We’ll get to them eventually.
Captain Badger wrote:
Especially as we “abolished” it by a) paying so much compensation to slave owners (40% of the national budget at the time – not a penny to help slaves of course, who, transformed into “indentured labourers”, continued as slaves in all but name) that the Treasury only finished paying off the debt in 2015 and b) continuing to build our Victorian prosperity and feeding the Industrial Revolution using cotton, tobacco, molasses and other materials produced by US and South American slaves.
Rendel Harris wrote:
A BEACON I tell you….
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m still waiting for the Govt to announce indentured labour as an answer to the cost of benefits and a way around their suddenly discovering that all those foreigners we sent home / scared off after Brexit did actually do something…
“Indentured labour” – an
“Indentured labour” – an oldie but… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU
“We have the bravery to bring back slavery”
Captain Badger wrote:
Indeed. Farage thought the fact that Great Britain had abolished slavery was some mic drop moment. Got his arse handed to him by Femi Oluwole in a few seconds on live TV, pointing out exactly the same thing.
I almost felt sorry for Farage. ???
Of course when slavery was
Of course when slavery was abolished the British state compensated those owning slaves making a strata of sociey wealthier still. In 1833 the Gov’t used 40% of it’s debt to compensate the owners, a debt finally paid off in 2014 (meaning of course any decendent of those enslaved who’s lived and paid taxes in the UK has contributed to the emancipation of thier forebears). The flip side is that it prooves, if ever proof were needed, that Gov’t finance just ain’t the same as that of a family despite St. Magaret’s protestations to the contray. So we realy can finance a green recovery, decent infrastructure (cycle paths, yay!), good schools, a well funded health service it’s just that a certain governing party does’t think the people deserve it.
jaymack wrote:
There’s no magic money tree you know (unless you’re a slaver. Or a banking spiv)
And I can’t believe that I
And I can’t believe that I can’t spell ‘proves’…thank heavens no one pointed that out before I noticed.
I can just imagine Boo going
I can just imagine Boo going “see mummy, I must be popular because look how many reply to my messages”.
Anyway don’t forget the Irish Potato Famine and the millions killed when we setup “human rights” in India, Australia and the Colonies that would later become the USA.
I might market cycling
I might market cycling jerseys with a hair lining. There’s enough potential buyers on this forum alone to turn a profit.
That’s a good idea, you could
That’s a good idea, you could get the materials from shearing the billygoats that cross your bridge.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Rendel, please, please work on your insults. I don’t mind a bit of banter, but you’re actually embarrassing. How old are you? 12?
Who on earth uses the word “whackadoodle”? I’m cringing for you!
Oh no, a humourless rightwing
Oh no, a humourless rightwing troll doesn’t think I’m funny! What a devastating blow.
Genuinely made me spit my tea
Genuinely made me spit my tea, that did.
Just make sure you’ve got
Just make sure you’ve got sustainable material sources and they’re made under ethical working conditions… Hey, you even could employ some of these refugee folks to make ’em! You’re winning!
I’ve avoided this thread
I’ve avoided this thread after seeing what the original article about Georgie and Charles setting off dragged up. Am I right that scrolling down will be utterly depressing and almost make people nostalgic for old-fashioned nasty people who were honest about their views, rather than modern ones who are a bit more covert and hide their prejudices behind diffuse motivations for their policies.
Why don’t you summon up just
Why don’t you summon up just a tiny bit of courage and name those people?
You could even name their real motives which you have so cleverly deduced?
Rich_cb wrote:
Nigel Garrage, Mark_1973_ – those hugely courageous anonymous posters. Don’t think they really need naming, everyone can see what they’ve written.
Can little Markieteeee not
Can little Markieteeee not speak for themselves?
Rich_cb wrote:
“I am concerned about those who seek to limit other’s contributions to a debate. It’s an extremely worrying personality trait.” You, last week.
Explain how I’ve sought to
Explain how I’ve sought to limit anyone?
I’ll wait.
Hi Rich. I hope you’re well.
Hi Rich. I hope you’re well. I think you can work out who they may be – it doesn’t take courage to name them but in the interests of not getting dragged into a debate that I don’t currently have time for, I chose not to. Also, I have not read the comment string, for time reasons as well as those stated. So, if you feel that you have made comments that fit the bill I was genuinely unaware.
If you don’t want to get
If you don’t want to get involved in the debate why post something so vague?
Insinuating ulterior motives without actually making any effort to demonstrate proof is a pretty low.