Richard Branson bloodied by cycling crash after hitting pothole and falling "hard"

Rich_cb wrote:

You shouldn't criticise others for their actions if you act in a similar way. If you run a large multinational company in a deliberately unethical way then you shouldn't criticise other evil plutocrats. If you don't then criticise away.

Oh I see. For some reason when you said "As UK residents we're guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse Branson et al. of" I thought you meant it. But it's very good to hear that you finally agree that the two things are in fact not the same.

I do kinda feel like we could have saved a lot of time along the way somewhere though.

You're conflating the two discussions.

That discussion was about hoarding resources. In that context I stand by that statement.

Trying to then take a quote from one discussion to score points in a separate discussion is frankly dishonest. I've asked you multiple times to stop trying to deliberately mislead. You seem incapable of doing so.

If we can't have a discussion in good faith then I'm not interested in having it.

Wingguy wrote:

No, it's a you man. You said "You cannot remove responsibility from the customer."

It's not my fault you said that when what you actually meant was "You can remove responsibility from the customer and companies run by billionaires often try very, very hard to do that."

Big businesses usually have whole departments dedicated to misleading customers - often known as "Marketing". Sometimes, they also have to take the drastic step of rebranding when their name becomes associated with toxic behaviour (typically due to whistleblowers or investigative reporters).

Incidentally, it's a common tactic by big businesses (and their simps) to try to push responsibility onto consumers as they're often compelled to be as irresponsible as possible in order to maximise profits and shareholder returns. Nearly all companies will have the most psychopathic individuals in charge of them as non-psychopathic leaders will not be prepared to take certain actions (e.g. Paula Vennells pursuing sub Postmasters to steal money from them). You can also see this kind of shifting of responsibility with big multi-national corporations pushing the "green agenda" but only when it comes to consumers separating recycling or buying bamboo socks etc.

In truth, consumer actions are virtually worthless compared to the actions of corporations.

hawkinspeter wrote:

...

In truth, consumer actions are virtually worthless compared to the actions of corporations.

I should be agreeing with Hirsute and just begging for the end but you made a point about shareholders - and I agree, but ... presume you, like me, have work / personal pension(s) and are not just burying nuts for winter yourself (or otherwise micromanaging the investments?)  There's a big source of cash which may or may not be "taking responsibility" by funding stuff we may approve of more, or less...

chrisonabike wrote:

I should be agreeing with Hirsute and just begging for the end but you made a point about shareholders - and I agree, but ... presume you, like me, have work / personal pension(s) and are not just burying nuts for winter yourself (or otherwise micromanaging the investments?)  There's a big source of cash which may or may not be "taking responsibility" by funding stuff we may approve of more, or less...

Quite.

This also highlights the issues of tracing the origins of everything that we consume and determining exactly how the people/animals/environment involved is treated. It's virtually impossible for someone in a modern society to validate their "responsibilities" without returning to a much simpler rural existence and avoiding paying any tax.

hawkinspeter wrote:

tracing the origins of everything that we consume and determining exactly how the people/animals/environment involved is treated. It's virtually impossible for someone in a modern society to validate their "responsibilities" without returning to a much simpler rural existence and avoiding paying any tax.

It's what we elect governments to do (or not do). If we wanted higher standards in lots of things, we could have them legislated for, monitored and enforced. Most people don't want that enough, though, especially if the bad stuff happens overseas or it would mean paying more.

Dnnnnnn wrote:

It's what we elect governments to do (or not do). If we wanted higher standards in lots of things, we could have them legislated for, monitored and enforced. Most people don't want that enough, though, especially if the bad stuff happens overseas or it would mean paying more.

Also, governments tend to be subverted by big business interests, so what the populous wants is way down the list. Also the population can be directed by big media companies to have different priorities and even to desire things which are not in their own best interest.

Subverted??  You mean they were all there for some other reason?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Also, governments tend to be subverted by big business interests, so what the populous wants is way down the list. Also the population can be directed by big media companies to have different priorities and even to desire things which are not in their own best interest.

I think you might be suggesting big business and The People are two separate and relatively homogenous blocks with necessarily opposing interests. I don't think that's the case - there's a lot of overlap. It's not in most businesses' interests to have immiserated consumers and an ineffective state.

Big business and media are certainly powerful and influential - but not so powerful that we don't still have lots of legislation, standards, policy and taxes they didn't choose.

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I think you might be suggesting big business and The People are two separate and relatively homogenous blocks with necessarily opposing interests. I don't think that's the case - there's a lot of overlap. It's not in most businesses' interests to have immiserated consumers and an ineffective state.

Big business and media are certainly powerful and influential - but not so powerful that we don't still have lots of legislation, standards, policy and taxes they didn't choose.

I'd say that the legislation exists in spite of big business. Workers had to strike to get things like weekends off and holiday entitlement and you can see the opposite starting to happen, especially in the U.S. with zero contract hours and a startlingly tiny minimum wage. Certainly, the big businesses were backing Brexit as they could then try to push for weakening the worker protections that come along with the E.U. and there's already evidence that the Tories wish to remove basic human rights in their push to send refugees over to Rwanda.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Certainly, the big businesses were backing Brexit

Certainly?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/15/cbi-member-survey-revea...

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'd say that the legislation exists in spite of big business.

I'd say that's partly my point - people power prevailed. Not always, certainly, but in many cases.
Big business is not always anti-legislation either. Setting high regulatory standards is a good way to deter new entrants to the market, particularly those who'd seek to undercut you with lower standards/costs.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Workers had to strike to get things

People power again.

hawkinspeter wrote:

the big businesses were backing Brexit

Certainly some were, but the CBI - on behalf of many of the biggest - weren't. Brexit will have been a pain for many of them. The EU generated lots of regulations - but it also gave them the world's largest single market.

hawkinspeter wrote:

evidence that the Tories wish to remove basic human rights

Isn't this that's more a vote chasing policy than something big business is pushing? EU countries are apparently looking at similar schemes.

Dnnnnnn wrote:

It's what we elect governments to do (or not do). If we wanted higher standards in lots of things, we could have them legislated for, monitored and enforced. Most people don't want that enough, though, especially if the bad stuff happens overseas or it would mean paying more.

More and more I wonder if it's "people elect a government to make sure the other possible government(s) doesn't/don't get in"?

Or more "I think this lot will at least do something about (x)" or "at least they won't do (y)", or "I just won't have anyone in (red|blue|green|yellow|purple ...)"?

chrisonabike wrote:

More and more I wonder if it's "people elect a government to make sure the other possible government(s) doesn't/don't get in"?

Or more "I think this lot will at least do something about (x)" or "at least they won't do (y)", or "I just won't have anyone in (red|blue|green|yellow|purple ...)"?

I fear that's about as deeply as most people think about it. Governing is hard and complicated and has lots of conflicting pressures but most people don't want to engage with that. Keir Starmer seems to have recognised this.

Rich_cb wrote:

This is descending into a bit of a straw man argument. If you buy a product or service in a free market you should take the responsibility to check that the company is operating in a way that you are happy with as you share responsibility for its actions. If that information is completely concealed from you, as per Horizon, then you're not responsible. If the information is publicly available you're responsible.

(far far OT now) Now this is an interesting question - degrees of knowledge, certainty and responsibility.  It's clearly becoming more of an issue, not less, as we are exposed to increasing volumes of information available at a higher speed.

Taking Horizon - word was out in 2009.  By 2012 this was sufficiently known that the Government pressured the Post Office into getting in the accountants etc. In 2017 it was in court again and 2019 there were legal rulings that pointed to grave problems.

One of the great benefits / conveniences of many organisational systems is that of abstraction and thus simplification and reduction of responsibility.  That applies whether as a consumer, a shareholder ("all I did was invest and get a dividend..."), a manager or director*.  In the Horizon case it seems everyone was just "doing their job" and accepting what their boss / their supplier / the Post Office (for government) told them.  Thus none were responsible for the outcome!

Could possibly bring this thread back to consider cycling and even potholes / road maintenance - probably gone too far out now.

* Unless you're unlimited - or get brought to book in the US where they make responsibility for corporate crimes a bit more personal.

Wingguy wrote:

If you bought something at a Post Office any time in the last 25 years, is Horizon your fault?

This is one of the fundamental problems underlying Capitalism. The theory behind it relies on "free markets" which rely on customers having access to relevant information and being able to choose amongst different options. However, as is evident, most companies deliberately hide information from customers and as companies get bigger, their power grows and thus they can force smaller competitors out of the market (this happens even if the smaller company is "more efficient") as they seek to gain a monopoly.

(However, the Post Office's monopoly is also bolstered by the government as they are the only provider of certain services)

Well I'd buy a premium Zimbabwean coffee from there (especially at Zimbabwean prices!)  Except that my arms don't reach that far.  And I can't justify popping over on bike before work.  I could get me some beans ... I suspect that a lot of the difference is going to the middlemen* and precious little is making it back to Zimbabwe.

Always worth asking "so what?"  I suspect that this ultimately isn't making the world a more stable place - but that's a bit abstract.  More directly almost everyone wants smugness points in some way - even if privately.  (Or "the approval of others for being in some way pro-social").

"it's complicated, history etc." is probably where I should stop - plus I'm not sure where to go next to pin this one on Richard Branson.  He was involved with an airline though...

* Or on taxes which are ultimately to do with the negative effects of our state and friends, NGOs and companies.

In terms of who's spoiling it for everyone - it is I!

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2020/02/who-are-one-percent-super-...

...even though from the figures mark1a found in the road.cc survey I'm clearly not in the upper tier of road.cc users.

And I do have a whopping 3.5 bikes (inc. timeshare).  Though 0 cars currently.

Well, been nice knowing you - I guess they'll be coming for me soon.  All things considered it's been a very comfortable life (and a priviledged one, I see now).  Although often it hasn't felt that way.  It's that human thing of comparing yourself to others - seems a) we never even suspect the existence of most of the others and b) we discount the conditions of the have-nots and tend to focus on those who seem to be doing a bit better than us ("it's really not fair")...

I liked that article.

It's good to get some perspective as to who the 1% actually are!

chrisonabike wrote:

b) we discount the conditions of the have-nots and tend to focus on those who seem to be doing a bit better than us ("it's really not fair")...

Why did you choose the words 'a bit'?

Wingguy wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

b) we discount the conditions of the have-nots and tend to focus on those who seem to be doing a bit better than us ("it's really not fair")...

Why did you choose the words 'a bit'?

I think we rate ourselves relative to similar people mostly.

So I doubt most have a chilly fear because Richard Branson is doing 10 to the power n (for large n) better than them.  But very few are competing with him.  If however Chuck, Lance and Nigel from the chain gang are all going up in the world but I'm not that may disturb my calm.  (Perhaps a bad analogy if the cycling club aren't our closer friends / neighbours.  If we only see them for that we might be fine with them pulling away financially if we're reeling them in while cycling...)

It's the "lots of little makes plenty" again.  My emissions/resource usage will be miniscule compared to many MPs, never mind the Bransons.  But there are millions of us in the US / Europe / Australia using resources up / producing climate-affecting emissions at an unsustainable level.  Rather spoils it for the other 90% / 95% / 99%...

Rich_cb wrote:

Almost every person in the UK is 'hoarding' an enormous amount of wealth relative to the global average. Why not show the billionaires how it's done and given away your excess wealth to those who haven't got their "fair share"? UK median wealth is £125000 whilst globally the figure is a bit shy of £7000 so if you aim to 'redistribute' about 95% of what you own you should be about right.

Do you not understand the incredible difference between someone who has a few thousand vs someone who has a few billion?

Is this like your ridiculous attempt to justify drilling for more oil in the North Sea that was based on complete lies?

I don't have the patience to deal with your right wing bollocks

The simple fact is that the average UK resident has more than enough disposable income to prevent a lot of suffering in less developed countries.

How many vaccinations could be bought for the price of a takeaway coffee? How many mosquito nets for the cost of a new groupset?

You are enormously wealthy by global standards and you choose to spend your money on frivolous purchases rather than alleviate the suffering of your fellow humans. That remains true for almost every single UK resident. Whinging about billionaires doesn't change that.

You didn't like the north sea figures because they undermined the basis of your own opinion. That doesn't make them lies.

Rich_cb wrote:

The simple fact is that the average UK resident has more than enough disposable income to prevent a lot of suffering in less developed countries. How many vaccinations could be bought for the price of a takeaway coffee? How many mosquito nets for the cost of a new groupset? You are enormously wealthy by global standards and you choose to spend your money on frivolous purchases rather than alleviate the suffering of your fellow humans. That remains true for almost every single UK resident. Whinging about billionaires doesn't change that. You didn't like the north sea figures because they undermined the basis of your own opinion. That doesn't make them lies.

Figures? You boldly stated that the oil was specifically for use of the UK and saved having to transport oil to/from Europe which is a complete lie

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/31/grossly-irresponsible-uk-hands-out-24-new-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences

I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I argued that the oil and gas produced in the UK would lead to lower imports to Europe from elsewhere.

It's complete indisputable that European produced gas has a lower carbon footprint than that produced elsewhere and shipped here. For LNG the difference is huge.

Your only counter argument was that increasing oil production here would lead to an increase in global supply. I argued it would lead to decreased production elsewhere.

Since that discussion American oil and gas production has increased hugely. Global prices have decreased in response to this increased supply and OPEC have cut their production in response to that.

Your only counter argument appears to have been disproved.

So now you just resort to shouting "lies".

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/30/energy/saudi-arabia-extend-production...

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm pretty sure I didn't. I argued that the oil and gas produced in the UK would lead to lower imports to Europe from elsewhere. It's complete indisputable that European produced gas has a lower carbon footprint than that produced elsewhere and shipped here. For LNG the difference is huge. Your only counter argument was that increasing oil production here would lead to an increase in global supply. I argued it would lead to decreased production elsewhere. Since that discussion American oil and gas production has increased hugely. Global prices have decreased in response to this increased supply and OPEC have cut their production in response to that. Your only counter argument appears to have been disproved. So now you just resort to shouting "lies". https://edition.cnn.com/2023/11/30/energy/saudi-arabia-extend-production...

You're "pretty sure" that you didn't make that argument? As I recall you mentioned it more than once and tried to justify that North Sea oil would save CO2 as it would be used directly by the UK which of course completely ignored the fact that the processing would be done in Europe, so it appears that you just heaped lie upon lie. You consistently claimed that the oil was specifically for UK use and would reduce heating costs etc, but again, that was never true at any point.

The selling of new North Sea drilling licences is completely unjustifiable unless you want the billionaires getting richer still, which seems to be what you want, or at least you believe their lies and are happy to repeat them.

I'm sure I argued on a European scale for oil.

I may have argued on a UK scale for gas but that's reasonable.

Alas, our non-photographic memories cannot be relied on. A link to the original discussion is required.Any idea what the article title was?

To justify banning UK and gas exploration you have to demonstrate that the policy delivers some tangible benefit in order to eschew the benefits in terms of taxes, employment and balance of trade.

If UK production doesn't lead to increased global CO2 production then what other justification is there for the ban?

Wait - what?  Policies need tangible benefits?  *Attempts to hide behind a blue passport - it's too soon...*

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm sure I argued on a European scale for oil. I may have argued on a UK scale for gas but that's reasonable. Alas, our non-photographic memories cannot be relied on. A link to the original discussion is required.Any idea what the article title was? To justify banning UK and gas exploration you have to demonstrate that the policy delivers some tangible benefit in order to eschew the benefits in terms of taxes, employment and balance of trade. If it doesn't lead to increased global CO2 production then what other justification is there.

What?

It's been very clear that there is no justification for new oil exploration in light of the world's continued CO2 dumping into the atmosphere. How can you possibly believe that it's better to dig up more oil and burn it rather than leaving it where it is?

Oh, let me guess, you'll try to throw around some figures on other people making profit and so why should Sunak's family and friends make a bit more profit too?

That people like you are trying to justify the burning of more oil in pursuit of profits is beyond disgusting. I shall say no more as you make me feel physically sick.

(For anyone that's interested, here's a previous discussion: https://road.cc/content/news/what-happened-britains-golden-age-cycling-302995)

We will need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Even in 2050 we're still predicted to be using gas for some electricity generation.

Given that we will be using it it makes sense to use oil/gas with the lowest possible carbon footprint.

That means locally produced.