The two subjects we’re discussing on episode 66 of the road.cc Podcast are arguably chalk and cheese, but equally as interesting we hope you’ll agree! In part 1, Jack and Ryan are joined by Jack Gebhard, an avid cyclist who happens to be Chief of Staff for the Conservative MP for Worcester, Robin Walker, about cycling’s curious relationship with ‘wokeness’.
Listen to the road.cc Podcast on Apple Podcasts
Listen to the road.cc Podcast on Spotify
Listen to the road.cc Podcast on Amazon Music
The characterisation of the ‘woke cyclist’ is something that appears to have crept into the discourse when discussions about cycling make it into the wider media – in fact, one Rotherham business owner even recently claimed that a roadworks project to improve cycling provision in the town was “one of those woke agenda schemes”.
> ‘The War on the Motorist’ deconstructed — the truth behind the myths
With ‘woke’ having morphed from a term to describe those who are alert to racial prejudice and discrimination to a catch-all associated with a whole host of issues such as race, politics, gender and the climate – and often deployed in a negative way by those that use the word – where did the link between cyclists and woke come from, and is it even true in the slightest? We do our best to break it down…
In part 2, Ryan is speaking to Lidl Trek’s Lucinda Brand and cyclocross specialist Eli Iserbyt at the recent Cyclocross World Cup even in Dublin, before sitting down with Jamie to discuss how ‘cross fits in to the modern pro cyclist’s schedule.
After UCI president David Lappartient’s recent comments suggested that riders would have to take part in cyclocross World Cup events if they want to race in the World Championships, does this mean we’re approaching the end of the multi-discipline era where the likes of Pidcock and Van Der Poel regularly appear at the biggest cyclocross races?
The road.cc Podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Amazon Music, and if you have an Alexa you can just tell it to play the road.cc Podcast. It’s also embedded further up the page, so you can just press play.
At the time of broadcast, our listeners can also get a free Hammerhead Heart Rate Monitor with the purchase of a Hammerhead Karoo 2. Visit hammerhead.io right now and use promo code ROADCC at checkout to get yours.
176 thoughts on “Is cycling ‘woke’? Cycling and culture wars discussed with a Conservative aide, plus Lucinda Brand and Eli Iserbyt on the future of cyclocross”
Woke…..
Woke…..
That is the thing about wokes
That is the thing about wokes, everyone who doesn’t agree with them is a dickhead. There is only one viewpoint. Theirs.
Enough said really.
Biker Phil wrote:
Well they can’t all show the celebrated openness to persuasion, tolerance for alternative views and willingness to debate that you on the right so frequently display…honestly, catch on to yourself.
.
.
‘the celebrated openness to persuasion, tolerance for alternative views and willingness to debate’
.
You mean like you, Trendy?
.
Dear Lord, Rend, have you no self-awareness whatsoever???
.
100% LOL
100% LOL
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Never a truer comment!
Aw, this is cute, poor Loser
Aw, this is cute, poor Loser’s been missing a really good little bully pile-on group since Nigel (et al) and Martin got turfed. Hope you’ll all be very happy together.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Ahh, I feel so sorry for you I might get out my minuscule violin
Actually, I wont bother
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
No need, I assure you, your “being attacked by a dead sheep” bullying style causes me nothing but amusement. Hugs xx
I always knew he had a
I always knew he had a miniscule, ahem, violin.
I agree as well.
I agree as well.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You’re the only person that could be attacked by a dead sheep tbf
No, Denis Healey was. Do keep
No, Denis Healey was, by some tory twat strangely enough. Do keep up.
No, Denis Healey was, by some
No, Denis Healey was, by some tory twat strangely enough. Do keep up
Geoffrey Howe, a later Brutus to Margaret Thatcher’s Caesar, from the days when they had nicer Tories who weren’t only in it for the money
Agreed.
Agreed.
Are you suggesting that
Are you suggesting that roadcc cancel people for expressing certain views?
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Is this a spoiler for the New Year’s honours list?
Point is that virtually all
Point is that virtually all commenting here are clearly left wing and choose to cycle as a form of political expression, which I find amusing; I cycle commute because it’s cheap and convenient for my circumstances, not because I hate motoring and want to display my green credentials.
grOg wrote:
You think those on this site ride a bike as a form of political expression? Even though you have no clue what form of cycling they may engage in or when or how long they may have been cycling for? I mean I definitely chose to take up cycling at age 5 or 6 in the late 70’s to express my then deeply held left wing views. I find it amusing how you think you know peoples reasoning for cycling from (mostly) anonymous online posts on this site. Idiotic.
I cycled from around 7 or 8
I cycled from around 7 or 8 as that was the only way to get around. I still cycle around 50 years on as it is now the only way to get around due to congestion!
Hirsute wrote:
Ditto. I own a car but work in London, so driving to work would be stupid. I catch the train, but the service from my local station is abysmal. I could drive the 6 miles to where there is a decent service, but it would cost me fuel and parking. I cycle it, and it costs me £50 a year for access to the “cycle hub” to store my bike securely. Not to mention being close to the Dartford crossing, and with the amount of development occuring, often cycling is actually quicker.
The OED defines “woke” as
The OED defines “woke” as currently ‘alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice’.
Are you happy to support discrimination and injustice? I suspect from your comments that you are anti-woke. Do you really care whether they describe you as a dickhead? Or why they do?
Being called a dickhead isn’t quite the same as being silenced, or ‘cancelled’ as some prominent media types call it. You are 100% allowed to have an opinion. People with discrimnatory views are everywhere – there are lots of loud ‘n’ proud racists, there are many homophobes, violent abusers and sexists (e.g. the Met police) and easily triggered anti-whatever anti-wokes are everywhere, it seems.
Use of the word just means that other people who disagree strongly with their/your discriminatory views are prepared to call you impolite names.
I don’t like injustice and I don’t like discrimination. Never have done. Why is that so objectionable?
No, I am not happy to support
No, I am not happy to support discrimination and injustice. But people can be against discrimination and injustice without having name calling and insults hurled at them. As I have stated, if someone doesn’t agree with a woke persons views they are insulted and cancelled. It is the wokes who are the most intolerant people. As adults, we should all be able to air our differing views in, yes, an adult manner.
You have inferred that anti wokes are racist, homophobic, violent abusers and sexists. I am none of the above, I have very close friends who are black, a very good friend who I think the world of is gay, I have never been violent to anyone in my life nor am I a sexist.
You have proved my point 100% about what is wrong with wokes, and I thank you for proving me correct.
Your final point, why is it that your views are so objectionable, they’re not. It is the manner in which wokes behave like petulant children towards those who have different views which is objectionable. OK, let’s turn your question around, why is it that MY views are so objectionable, when I have told you that I am none of the above?
I am what some would term as a grumpy old man, sick to the back teeth of some people making out that there are issues where there are not, looking for things to be angry about. I’m sick of the wokes glueing themselves to the road, telling others that we are murdering the planet whilst they are happy to use cars, mobile phones, central heating in their houses and all the other double standards whilst stopping decent hardworking people going about their daily lives. Not all wokes are activists, but all the activists are woke.
Woke literally means
Woke literally means awareness of discrimination and societal injustices, that’s all. If you’re anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, then congratulations – you’re woke.
if you’ve decided to invent your own (incorrect) definition of the word to describe a certain type of uncompromising left-winger (and let me assure you; the qualities you describe are far from unique to the left), then that’s on you.
What defines discrimination
What defines discrimination and societal injustice is up for interpretation; essentially, socialists have discovered a new way to attack those on the right and because those on the left now dominate educational and public service institutions, they control the narrative.
Biker Phil wrote:
Nobody is cancelled, that is plainly untrue. Perhaps if you didn’t complain so vociferously about ‘woke people’ supposedly cancelling like trains in winter then you’d not be considered a dickhead. Or at least the term dickhead wouldn’t be used (I’m not sure you’re a dickhead at all but you do come across as a reactionary and these are polarised times and it’s easy to make snap judgements from some words online).
If you’re genuinely against discrimination and injustice then you’re more woke than you might want to admit. People who are woke (i.e. against discrimination and injustice) are not a single entity operating together so you can’t generalise that they are “the most intolerant people”. The people I know that I’d describe as woke are generally more tolerant than average, though maybe not of discriminatory opinions or prejudice.
I agree with “As adults, we should all be able to air our differing views in, yes, an adult manner.” but racists, sexist wife-beaters and Tory ministers do not come over as normal, rational people with whom you can disagree in an adult manner. That’s why they get labelled dickheads. But I don’t see any of them unable to express their views; in fact they seem to manage just fine, in a way that maximises the impact of their hateful comments. Media outlets seem to like hosting them and airing their views.
— Biker PhilI don’t really know what your views are but you seem to have a real problem with the word ‘woke’. It’s as if you’re fighting some imagined evil force when it’s really people who, apparently like you, are against discrimination and injustice. You can’t fight injustice without making some noise, which will inevitably offend some racists/sexist/prejudiced people. Tough shit, let’s make some noise.
I think the issue with our
I think the issue with our ‘free market of ideas’ is that it’s not really compatible with the economics of privatised news and ‘infotainment.’
There’s no money in resolving issues, but a lot of money in making sure they go unresolved.
You’ll get a lot more clicks and shares by having opponents make claims that the other isn’t properly equipped to challenge, leaving it up to the audience to resolve the issues.
I’m sure we’ve seen the classic of a right wing influencer inviting a random woke lefty with blue hair onto the show, instead of an academic, to debate a woke issue.
.
.
Very well put, BP. I’m going to copy / paste what you’ve written and use it myself at other appropriate times (if you don’t mind!).
.
Well it saves thinking for
Well it saves thinking for yourself I suppose.
I agree
I agree
Keep in mind the only reason
Keep in mind the only reason we’re having this discussion is because people can’t even ride a bike without being labelled woke.
The only reason we’re having
The only reason we’re having this discussion is because Biker Phil has no fucking idea what “woke” means. By his own admission (“against discrimination and injustice”) he’s woke.
Biker Phil wrote:
I genuinely spat my tea out laughing.
No disrespect to the poster, but that’s such a great line; “I’m not a racist, I have a black friend”.
Unintended comedy gold.
Biker Phil wrote:
The irony of someone defining woke that way and then demonstrating those very traits themselves is literally off the scale.
Biker Phil wrote:
I don’t think you have a clear conception of what “woke” means and there’s a very good reason that racist and bigotted views (which is by definition what anti-woke means) are not tolerated in a tolerant society. It’s known as the paradox of tolerance: “Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance”.
There was a significant war last century that was made necessary when a lot of German people “tolerated” the vile behaviour of the Nazis and allowed their society to be infiltrated and then dominated by them. We don’t want that to happen again and thus to promote a safe and non-violent society, it may be necessary to punch any Nazis that you may come across to let them know that their views are not welcome.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of misinformation around and the right-wing seems to be using “woke” as a perjorative against center/left-wing people in a ridiculous “culture war”. It’s a way to gather together people with different beliefs so that the racists can hide behind the more sensible right-wingers under the banner of “anti-woke”, but don’t get fooled by that tactic as it’s just a white supremacist trick.
hawkinspeter wrote:
There is an interesting video on the Alt Right Playbook about the death of a euphamism. Right now they need to say “he’s woke so he hates us, cancel culture etc etc” because saying “He isn’t racist so he finds our racism detestable” isn’t going to go down well. They won’t always need the euphamism, enjoy it while it lasts but call it out when you see it.
Although Popper was a Social
Although Popper was a Social-Libertarian, exactly the sort of person that most Woke people would self-identity with and a philosophy that has got us into this situation in the first place.
The plural of bigot is
The plural of bigot is bigoted; the plural of woke is idiots..
grOg wrote:
Want to go and have a little think about that first clause? And indeed the second, given that woke is an adjective, not a noun, and so can’t have a plural.
Isn’t the plural of woke tofu
Isn’t the plural of woke tofu eating wokerati? Maybe inserting Guardian reading too?
.
https://www.podcastmerch.co.uk/exploding-heads-hoodies/exploding-heads-dailywokelist-hoodie
ktache wrote:
As the unlamented former Home Secretary chose to latinize her plural, technically the singular of wokerati would have to be wokeratus. Which would be a great name for a shop selling the Guardian and tofu.
Biker Phil wrote:
I hope you see the irony in making such a claim. If this is your definition of woke then you are woke.
Trouble is the meaning of
Trouble is the meaning of words changes once common usage warps them.
Internet trolls – started out based on a reference to fishing rather than monsters under bridges, in early days a “troll” was someone who posted inoffensive messages aimed at triggering “flamers” into responsing with angry/offensive responses, i.e akin to trolling for fish with a lure.
Once media got hold of the term it was warped so that the “flamers” i.e. the angry offensive posters became known as trolls (the under bridge monsters).
I think whilst woke may originally have just meant “awareness of discrimination and societal injustices” I think that the media and mainstream are turning this into a term to mean extremist cancel culture types, and this latter meaning is becoming more widespread
makadu wrote:
The problem with trying to allow for a word’s meaning to drift is that the “anti-woke” people aren’t able to define what they mean by “woke” and so it tends to lose any specific meaning and instead becomes a right-wing dog whistle – they don’t know what they’re angry about, but they know that they’re angry.
In the meantime, the rest of us can just keep repeating that it’s a simple word with a simple meaning and if they want to use it differently, then they should at least be able to define it clearly and concisely or else people will understandably consider them to be idiots.
I think the books cover has
I think the books cover has just proved itself true with your ridiculous comment. You use a catch-all term to look down your nose on people you disagree with, but don’t appear to be capable of articulating why you disagree with them, they are simply “wokes”.
I would consider myself to be woke, in the worst right wing use of the word, and proud of it. My upbringing, life and work have moulded me into someone who gives a shit about others and our world, and not be selfish, short-sighted and caring.
Problem is I don’t think that people who disagree with me are always dickheads. Some are misguided, some are ignorant, some are intolerant, some are prejudiced, some are self centred, some are c**ts, some are twats, some are stupid, some are just wrong, and sometimes I’m wrong and will admit it.
I very much doubt you would
I very much doubt you would ever admit to being wrong, given your disparagement of anyone that disagrees with your worldview.
Unlike you of course…..
Unlike you of course…..
Welcome back by the way
Well, the comment section
Well, the comment section here has certainly answered the question in the podcast heading.
How so? The comment section
How so? The comment section is just you misusing the word “woke” a bunch of times and getting upset that nobody agrees with you.
I’m not in the least bit
I’m not in the least bit upset, it’s the wokes who get upset.
You’re using that word wrong
You’re using that word wrong again.
There you go again….
There you go again….
Woke = another word used by
Woke = another word used by lefties to cancel anything they don’t agree with.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
A comment directly contradicted by the observed facts. Woke is used almost exclusively by the far right e.g. tories, to describe something that they are policitally opposed to. Even more bizarre, I’ve never met or heard anyone from the far right who is able to define the term, even when they use it so often.
The word ‘woke’ is used as a
The word ‘woke’ is used as a pejorative by those critical of political correctness, cancel culture and left-leaning bias; a very obvious definition of its current meaning and usage, so I find it strange that those on the left and right struggle to define the term correctly.
woke lefty here: what planet
Woke lefty here: what planet are you living on, and is it opposite day there?
Is this cancelled in the same
Is this cancelled in the same way that Elon musk is being cancelled by advertisers who don’t see his platform as a good investment? or cancelled in the same way as Donald Trump who is able to get his racist, ablist, working class hating rhetoric onto every screen in the world whenever he wants? Or cancelled in the same way as the tories who have been in power for a decade and a half, lining their pockets at the expense of decent hardworking people?
Or is it cancelled in the way that people who say awful shit get called out for it but nothing actually happens to them and they are free to keep saying awful shit while others are free to ignore them?
Or cancelled in the way GB
Or cancelled in the way GB news cancels guests who criticise them in a debate on free speech (Michael Crick 4/11/23) ?
Hirsute wrote:
Or cancelled like right wingers cancel brands for representing LGBTQ+ people in their advertising campaigns?
Or cancelled like right wingers burning their Nike products for not cancelling athletes making a stand for their beliefs.
Refusing to use a product is
Refusing to use a product is not cancelling, that’s just putting your money where your mouth is; cancelling is people losing their job for expressing their views, a breach of free speech.
grOg wrote:
That’s not “cancelling”, that’s “consequences”. Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences, and if you’re going to say something on a privately owned platform that is against the values of the platform (or the values of their advertisers), you can expect there to be consequences regarding your relationship with that platform. This is nothing new, and it does not affect only the right – see the Meta-wide censorship of comments and removal of accounts showing support for the Palestinian civilians in Gaza (civilians, not Hamas).
This goes even further with employers, as your employer will view you and your behaviour (both in and out of the workplace). Again, this is nothing new and people have been sacked for all kinds of shit that has brought unwelcome attention to their employers – back when I worked in a supermarket after school, people got sacked for smoking if they didn’t cover their uniform.
As for the most widely-used example of “cancelling” is celebrities/influencers/organisations saying or doing something that people don’t agree with, and these people no longer supporting these celebrities or consuming what the organisations produce. Again, this is nothing new and always used to be thought of as a good thing – it was called “voting with your feet”. That was before it started happening to right-wingers though. Now, people supporting who/what they agree with is apparently some massive injustice.
One mans ‘awful shit’ is
One mans ‘awful shit’ is another mans truth telling..
All this debate about what
All this debate about what “woke” means (it’s the Dafties that are obsessed by wokery yet don’t seem to know what it is other than anything they don’t think they like) it’s no wonder “truth” seems so confusing also. Opinion is not “truth”.
Laurence Fox is still a foghorn of awful shit.
Whereas the dafties (“school
Whereas the dafties (“school of life mate….common sense innit” etc) call that sort of thing Tory/Republican policy
Clem Fandango wrote:
It’s shocking how some of the U.S. Republicans are banning library and school books, especially history books. Those who try to hide history are planning on recreating it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes, but this incident did make me chuckle.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/07/book-bans-are-sweeping-us-schools-a-surprising-new-victim-the-bible
Adam Sutton wrote:
Yep, unintended consequences.
It reminds me of the Baphomet Statue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Baphomet) that the Satanic Temple commissioned to draw attention to the installation of a Christian statue on state grounds. I do find it very disturbing when politics and religion join together.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Lots of begetting as I recall.
Those who try to hide history
Those who try to hide history are planning on recreating it
Yes, we can’t be sure that there aren’t enough redneck dimwits and nutters in existence to bring Trump back, or enough of our own versions to bring back ‘Trolley’ Johnson or ‘Spend, Spend, Spend on the Rich’ Truss (although I think we’re fairly safe from those particular villains)
Road.cc really pulled the pin
Road.cc really pulled the pin and ran on this one.
I can’t watch/listen to the podcast at work so apologies if this is covered in there but my guess would be the outcome is:
Cyclists: generally more “woke” than the average person. In general, people who want to live in better places or care about the environment or aren’t rampant individualists or are part of one out group are more switched on to the plight of others.
Cycling: not in itself a woke activity, dominated almost completely by white men.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
Maybe site traffic was beginning to tail off?
What’s remarkable is the
What’s remarkable is the degree of agreement here. Everyone apparently views being tolerant – or at least not appearing intolerant – as desirable. Except to their opponents – but by our definitions of our own position they must be beyond reason!
Hence the tug of love over “woke”.
Of course this ain’t new – pretty much every label / buzzword is redefined by others or (if offensive) reclaimed by its target…
Why I like road.cc – came for
Why I like road.cc – came for the cycling, stayed for the snark / squirrels … but just sometimes contrary thoughts (or overly loud cheering from the goodly) that trigger questions like “now *why* does that rile me?” Or “seems transparently wrong so how is it a trope?” Or “this is obviously important and salient (here) yet many people ignore it?”
Sometimes.
door mirrors
door mirrors
I’ve got handlebar mirrors
I’ve got handlebar mirrors but you’ve got me wondering what to call the ones on velomobiles. You’d be right if you had a Leitra of course…
Out of curiousty and checking
Out of curiousty and checking, the word while in use for decades, predominantly in the US with regards African Americans and race issues entered the Oxford dictionary only in 2017.
No reasonable person would be “anti-woke” and against how it seems to have morphed, but before this it was surely just called empathy.
The idea of “woke” today surely seems to carry with it a lot of political baggage and is hijacked by extremes both on both sides of the politcal spectrum who lack nuance, and drown out the average reasonable personal who believes in things like equality, and doesn’t shout about cancel culture etc. every time a disagreement arises.
Like other cultural artifacts
Like other cultural artifacts then (bands, novels …) – decade(s) of obscurity then everyone says they know it. Not infrequently the popular understanding has novel elements, if not completely altering the original!
Anyway this all seems to illustrate the stereotype of “cyclists” as a group with shared character – they all disagree with each other.
It was ‘woke’ to tell/inform
It was ‘woke’ to tell/inform people to drink water when on the tube in the summer.
I’m young enough to remember this was simply described as the ‘nanny state’.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I disagree
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
I disagree— chrisonatrike
Monty Python, innit?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Flr-hQHcY
chrisonatrike wrote:
I disagree
— Left_is_for_Losers Monty Python, innit? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Flr-hQHcY— chrisonatrike
Can’t go wrong with some Monty Python though
But I do disagree, sometimes we need people not to be tolerant, otherwise things get out of hand. You only need to look generally at people today, and it’s so stupid that now I can self-identify as a pack of Weetabix and marry a milk bottle if I wanted.
If we were always tolerant, then nothing would ever get challenged, the world would be even darker and law and order wouldn’t be a thing.
Therefore being “woke” or tolerant of others is fundamentally a flawed principle because it allows people to do what they want, without question.
If you have beliefs, or fundamental principles that you live by, then you are not woke – because you should stick by them. Which leads on to why woke is so vague – because it is impossible to have no morals, no principles, and no values (whether right or wrong) to live by.
Therefore, woke people are people without morals.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Again, that’s not what “woke” means. Being “woke” is simply to be aware/concious of societal injustices. “Tolerance” is a separate thing entirely – and tolerance absolutely has its limits – certain things, such as discrimination, bigotry, etc. should not be tolerated.
Therefore, woke people are people without morals.— Left_is_for_Losers
That doesn’t make sense… grammatically or logically. You cannot stick to your principles if you’re woke? What? Why?! How does being aware of societal injustices preclude you from having any personal morals?
What the hell are you wittering on about?
He hasn’t had his Weetabix
He hasn’t had his Weetabix today.
I was going to marry my
I was going to marry my cornflakes this morning but the dish had run away with the spoon. Anyway my wife wouldn’t let me.
perce wrote:
Sounds about right
Being woke in the current
Being woke in the current sense applies to those that push left wing political identity issues; the left are reknowned for being intolerant of free speech when it pertains to points of view they disagree with.
Nope.
Nope.
A cursory glance at local rags will show you that it is simply used where people don’t like something but are unable or unwilling to articulate why.
I think you’ll find it’s the Tory party who don’t like free speech. Unless they aren’t right wing enough for you.
You use the historical
You use the historical definition of woke; the historical definition of gay is light-hearted and carefree; I’m going to take a stab in the dark and presume you go with the modern definition of gay..
Actually everyone is
Actually everyone is incorrect here. “Woke” is the past form of “wake” – which as a noun also refers to a gathering for the deceased. Hence the usage of it here as a thought-terminating word for the arousal of conflict / creating waves by towing a dead cat through a discussion.
To be strictly accurate I think “Woke” refers to the sensation experienced by the observers. They all agree this is significant! The definition becomes vague here however as they each know exactly what this is (by introspection) so are utterly convinced others’ descriptions are inaccurate.
grOg wrote:
No, I’m using the only accepted definition of the word. The “modern usage” you’re referring to is it’s use by right-wing commentators to rubbish any left-leaning views they don’t agree with. This usage is as a catch-all pejorative and doesn’t have an accepted definition – which is why the right-leaning members in this very thread can’t seem to agree on what “woke” means. You’ve described it as prescribing to extreme gender theory, to Biker Phil it describes left-wingers with uncompromising views, and LIFL thinks… some nonsensical bollocks about having no personal morals.
grOg wrote:
Most people can define the modern meaning of gay when they say it, but no-one can define woke when they say it as an insult. It’s not very clever to use words when you don’t know what they mean, in fact, it just makes you look incredibly foolish.
BalladOfStruth]
So you say you will not discriminate against me for having the complete opposite viewpoint to you?
Puts me in mind of the story
Puts me in mind of the story of Euler’s algebraic proof of the existence of god.
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/euler.html
I dunno much about the gender theory of breakfast cereals, or the ethical implications of civil or spiritual union with milk. There is certainly an interesting landscape of error though. There are those that should be less contentious (logical error, factual mistake) but there is surely a point where it’s subjective (“if we allow this then…”), no?
Came to road.cc for the
Came to road.cc for the cycling, stayed for the…..
Monty Python and obscure mathematical principles.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
The key thing is, nobody is asking you to become a different gender or be in love with someone who is the same gender as you so what gives you the right to decide who or what other people should be, do or love? It doesn’t affect you at all that trans people exist, why does it bother you?
(obviously you are being a cunt and acting like transgender people’s human gender experience is akin to being convinced you are a cereal so I haven’t used your weetabix example, I absolutely do not tolerate your kind of hate, it goes against my strongly held beliefs.)
I agree
I agree
Patrick9-32 wrote:
And there you have exactly proved my point. I have personal beliefs that differ to yours, and I am not prepared to compromise on this.
However, you can obviously accept more than two genders, but you cannot accept my beliefs, so how does that stack up? Am I not also entitled to my own opinion?
And for that I would be cancelled etc, by the woke. For simply having a different belief. Simply, this is why the “woke” brigade are corrupt, and as I previously stated, without morals.
As you have said, I also cannot tolerate your sort of hate, as it goes equally against my strongly held beliefs.
We get it. You can’t define
We get it. You can’t define woke in any meaningful way but you’re basing your entire belief system on it. No compromise. No surrender & all that.
Have you been cancelled yet?
I think that the woke term
I think that the woke term now also encompasses snowflakes, gen z and the hard left and hence the term woke is used as a catch all term. I think what this comments section shows is how intolerant wokes and snowflakes are. This group come across as very angry people. If you’re not woke, then you’re right wing in their minds. There is only one viewpoint and if you don’t agree then you’re abused and cancelled. If you have a different viewpoint you are ridiculed and name called, as shown quite clearly in this section. It is almost an authoritarian viewpoint but instead of people who disagree risk being thrown into jail, they risk losing their jobs. It seems to be that anyone who is slightly right of centre is classed as hard right wing.
This country is being destroyed by this ultra liberal left ideology. Common sense is irrelevant now, and madness is the norm. If you’re concerned about the sheer number of migrants flooding into this country, costing the government and councils hundreds of millions of pounds which could be spent on our roads, youth, our own homeless etc, then you’re branded racist. We have no idea how many terrorists are arriving, primed to bite the hand that feeds, if this is mentioned, we are racist. If my wife expresses concern about a man who identifies as a woman using the same toilets as her, she is branded transphobic. We have real racists such as Anthony Joshua who publicly urged black people to only shop at black shops not being challenged. Could you imagine the outcry if a white person said that? This wonderful country is being systematically destroyed by the very vocal minority and if anyone challenges it, they’re ridiculed and cancelled.
I weep for this once great country.
I didn’t realise Kamikwasi
I didn’t realise Kamikwasi and Truss were ultra liberal left, nor that the current party who are bent on wrecking the wine industry are also ultra liberal left.
You must have missed GB News cancelling a guest midshow and the government cancelling speakers for being critical of the governement on any policy, no matter how irrelevant to the topic they were asked to speak on.
The funniest one I saw
The funniest one I saw recently were all the people “cancelling” Pink Floyd when they posted an anniversary image for Dark Side of The Moon, because they all thought the rainbow (from the original cover) was showing support fro LGBT.
Turns out the right isn’t any more tolerant than the left. Weird that.
Oh yeah that was hilarous!
Oh yeah that was hilarous!
There is a lot of reaching
There is a lot of reaching there.
I think we can safely say, and Rendell will agree, I fit in this place like a square peg in a round hole. Rendell himself claiming I hate cyclists, for holding a view that doesn’t fit his or what seems accepted here by many.
However, going into a diatribe about woke, snowflake gen z, hard left liberals. Jesus wept pal, you have me rolling my eyes as much as I would as at someone on the extremes of the left of political spectrum. And that is just it, you are little more than the flip side of that coin.
I tell you one thing, as a married gay man, I am more concerned about the rightwing ideology that is creeping in. It is that, that would “cancel” my rights and given half a chance anul my marriage, and I would hazard a guess that you wouldn’t care, it would just be collateral damage to you as long as the “wokes” get their comeuppance so you can stop weeping for this once great country (what the actual fuck?) you’ll be happy. It is also not the “wokes” or “liberal lefts” cancelling books in the US and taking away rights, like access to abortion. I generally think you’re confused about free speech and cancel culture, what you want is consequence free speech, you want to be able to call me a shirt lifting poof in public and have no one call you out.
In terms of immigration, what is hilarious, is illegal arrivals has and continues to be overplayed the right. What we do have now is a huge surge in legal migration from outside the EU thanks to brexit and the massive shortfall in workers it has caused in all those industries, that apparently proper Brits were aching to take.
As for your trans nonsense, as someone with a trans nephew just fuck off with that shit. I guess you want a bearded biological FTM trans man to have to use the toilet with your wife. I don’t think you are racist, or even transphobic, I do think you are awful human being though.
I enjoyed that post. Don’t
I enjoyed that post. Don’t think I ever expected to read on road.cc the phrase “shirt lifting poof” !
As to migration, it’s something like 700k with just under 50k asylum seekers (illegals to some) with work and study being over 500k of the numbers. University of Essex has a large number of overseas students paying very high fees, so stopping them coming here would put a rather large dent in their finances and hence courses provided.
Those were terms I grew up
Those were terms I grew up hearing. Also if we want to talk about cancel culture, growing up thanks to Thatchers section 28 legislation being gay was effectively “cancelled”. Guess what though, not teaching it didn’t stop me and plenty of others being gay, because it isn’t sometheing you learn.
I see The Doctor is
I see The Doctor is now officially gay and Dr Who is woke.
I’m not reading that as I’m
I’m not reading that as I’m yet to catch-up on Dr who, just in case there is a spoiler.
Pronouns is another example though. At the end of the day someone’s pronouns has no effect on those who seem to lose their shit over it. The only issue is the few who lambast people who in innocence make a mistake.
Adam Sutton wrote:
It’s totally understandable for people to make mistakes with pronouns as it’s a habit to always use he/she and can take a while for someone to change their speech. I think most people would be understanding of that difficulty and certainly if the person making the error apologises. However, there are some people who rebel against the widening of society’s genders and refuse to use the desired pronoun of someone which obviously makes things a bit awkward.
The Doctor Who pronoun bit was just a throwaway couple of sentences which didn’t have much bearing on the plot. It did make me think that assuming someone’s gender shouldn’t be a major problem as it’s fairly natural for people to make all sorts of assumptions about people/aliens when first meeting them, but the crucial point when called out for that is to ask the person how they prefer to be referenced and then try to use that. It’s just simple courtesy.
Edit: hadn’t realised that there was another Doctor Who episode last night
In my experience, I’ve never
In my experience, I’ve never once seen or heard someone losing their shit over someone else addressing them with the “wrong” pronoun. People just tend to politely explain the situation & are understanding of innocent misunderstanding or mistakes. All the noise on this issue seems to come from those that get a wee bit uncomfortable in themselves about using some new terminology (a bit like how hearing a foreign language makes them feel uncomfortable rather than curious).
There’s a recent TV interview with Miriam Margoyles who changed her views on the pronoun thing via understanding quite a simple concept; if it makes another person happy or more comfortable to be called “they” (or whatever) why wouldn’t you do it?
Clem Fandango wrote:
I saw an excellent line the other day in somebody’s Twitter bio: “I couldn’t care less about what pronoun you use for me but some people do so try not to be a dick about it.”
Clem Fandango wrote:
Nor me, but I don’t have much interaction with non-binary gendered people. I’m guessing it’s more of an online problem where people tend to be a lot ruder and more belligerent.
Adam Sutton wrote:
From what I recall of those days, it further stigmatised homosexuality as ‘wrong’, which among other things had the effect of emboldening violent gay-bashers and the marginalisation of anyone who ‘looked’ or ‘acted’ a bit gay.
The same kind of thing is happening with right-wing rhetoric about immigrants / refugees, Muslims, homeless people, trans people, climate change protesters and any other groups they don’t like (which probably covers all vaguely lefty / green / tree-hugging / compassionate / empathetic people with a conscience and even cyclists; we are treated as an out-group too). Most of the MSM love repeating and amplifying the nastiness to their readers, fully aware of the dreadful things that may happen as a result.
Simon E wrote:
Yes, and right into the 2000’s. I remember finally getting the courage to make gay friends and go to the local-ish gay pub in about 2000, and sitting in the beer garden hearing homophobic abuse being shouted over the wall. Even with my now husband we have encountered it in the twenty years we have been together, once because we are just two blokes we had some homophobe moaning to us about all the poofs etc.
The key is make them an enemy in some way. Phil giving prime examples. Trans it’s about bathrooms, but Ill thought through. Migrants and Muslims it’s about terrorism. I mean think back to the London attacks, they were British born citizens. Going further I recall a white British woman being radicalised, and she isn’t alone. Then of course as you say we have the war on ln motorists etc. with cyclists I mean with that type bollocks is does that mean as a driver I am at war with myself? It’s more a war on common sense. Yesterday I needed to pick two 30litre bags of cat litter and food, so I used the car. Today I’m going swimming, so I’ll cycle.
Just because we disagree
Just because we disagree about our attitudes towards cyclists and cycling, no reason that I can’t say very well said on that one.
I don’t hate cyclists, and if
I don’t hate cyclists, and if we sat down over a drink we would find we have a lot of common ground. Cycling included.
Thank you very much for
Thank you very much for proving my point. At no point was I rude or offensive, it was just another viewpoint. As I pointed out, people, just like you it seems, do not like another viewpoint and resort to name calling and using offensive words.
So, I am a horrible person because my views differ from yours, no other reason. You are a classic example of what I described earlier, my view differs from yours so you throw your toys out of the pram and hurl insults, rather than being adult and accepting different opinions.
I need say no more, my point is proven.
You haven’t proven anything,
You haven’t proven anything, you are acting kind of snowflakey though. Having your intollerance called out does not equal me “throwing my toys out the pram”
You are not an awful person for having a differeing view, you are an awful person for the fact that repeatedly your comments show a lack of basic common decency and empathy towards anyone different to your ideal, not to mention a complete lack of understanding of “woke”. Your comments on both migrants and trans show this.
p.s. as Clem noted, you have thrown every insult possible around, so don’t act inncocent. And guess what, you’re still here, not cancelled.
I was noticing a hint of
I was noticing a hint of snowflakery, but then that would come under their definition of wokery…
I thought I smelled tofu.
I thought I smelled tofu.
Biker Phil wrote:
So you can be as offensive as you like as long as it’s “just another viewpoint”? You are a revolting racist, homo- and transphobic, nationalistic, close to if not already there, fascist bigot. Don’t take offence old son, it’s “just another viewpoint.”
PS Fairly sure I’ve asked this before but for the love of God, please stop using Bruce and Clarence as your avatar, they would despise your views with a passion.
Now you are getting childish.
Now you are getting childish. Yet again proved my point. Every bit of abuse I get further proves my point that nobody is allowed their opinion without being ridiculed or abused. In your world there is one view, any view which you don’t like is disregarded and ridiculed. Again, I have not launched a personal attack on any individual, but you have, including the good old racist trope.
” You are a revolting racist, homo- and transphobic, nationalistic, close to if not already there, fascist bigot. ” A wonderful response.
When have I been racist? When have I been homophobic? Is it racist to be concerned about the seemingly endless flood of migrants coming to our shores? What is wrong with being proud of this once great country? Listen, if someone is fleeing persecution then we should welcome them into our country and help them where we can. But we are not talking about people fleeing persecution, who are travelling all across Europe to get into a small boat to come to the land of milk and honey. Our hospitals, schools, doctors surgeries, road network are falling to pieces. The good old taxpayer is being squeezed left, right and centre. We have men who fought for this country, living on the streets and forgotten about yet we can find hundreds of millions of pounds to house, feed and clothe young men who choose to come and live here and are NOT asylum seekers. Get your head out of the sand. And having a dig at my avatar shows how desperate you are to attack someone with a different viewpoint than yours. Perhaps you should listen to the words in Born in the USA carefully to see what it is actually about.
Well done.
Thank you. It says more about you than it does about me.
Biker Phil wrote:
Try as you might to paint yoursely as such, you are not a victim here. You are showing that you have bought into pretty much every piece of rightwing rhetoric about trans and immigrants.
Well said. This one’s happy
Well said. This one’s happy to fling stereotyped tropes around and addresses others using terms in a derogatory manner, but plays the victim if challenged. Straight out of the playbook I’m afraid.
I think you’ll find you’ve
I think you’ll find you’ve proved my point, which is that you think that you should be allowed to say whatever you want because it’s “just another opinion” but as soon as anyone disagrees with your opinion in any way they’re “woke” or whatever and shouldn’t be expressing such an opinion.
With reference to Mr.Springsteen, I suggest you go and listen to “American Land”, “We Take Care of Our Own”, “Galveston Bay”, “Matamoras Banks” and many other songs, interviews and speeches where he protests against the treatment of immigrants and celebrates diversity.
“The poor old taxpayer is being squeezed left, right and centre.” Did you know that for the average taxpayer, £2 of what you pay each year goes on asylum seekers? £100 of what you pay each year goes on covering benefit fraud and errors. £3000 goes on making up the shortfall caused by tax avoidance schemes. Yep, it’s them immigunts that are squeezing the poor old taxpayer, that’s for sure. As a matter of fact immigrants are less likely to claim benefits than native-born Britons, and immigrants make a net positive contribution to the economy. You are the absolute epitome of the old joke about the rich man, the working man and the immigrant who sit at the table with 100 biscuits, the rich man takes 98 biscuits, gives one to the immigrant and one to the working man and then says to the working man watch out, that immigrant will steal your biscuit if you don’t do as I say. You’re simply being a useful idiot and doing exactly what the government wants, which is for you to fixate on a minor issue and blame that for everything that’s wrong whilst they and their corporate allies rob you blind behind your back. We live in one of the world’s richest countries, there’s plenty of money for a decent health service, infrastructure, care for the homeless, care for veterans and even to look after asylum seekers in a humane and productive manner. The reason we find it so difficult is not because the money isn’t there, it’s because successive governments of all hues from Thatcher onwards have convinced people that it’s better to have a few more pounds in your pocket from low taxation than it is to pay a sensible amount, and particularly for the richest to pay their fair share, in order to benefit all of society.
Biker Phil wrote:
Sometimes less words are worth more, it’s clear to see here that my points and yours are being proven.
We are tolerant, we have principles they say, but they will accept anything. It’s absolute tripe.
Yet my and your opinions will get cancelled. We’ll see who’s laughing last
Well I’m still laughing. I
Well I’m still laughing. I always do when you post. Now go and marry your milk bottle.
Still here then. Not
Still here then. Not “cancelled” yet.
Despite that apparently being your goal here.
Adam Sutton wrote:
If we can disagree with civility then I’d much prefer it if you stuck around and kept posting. Although it’s nice for everyone to agree, it can get a bit too comfy and I’d prefer that my own prejudices, ideas and misunderstandings were challenged.
The immigration issue is just racism. People don’t seem to mind Polish, Irish or Ukrainian people coming here. Which is just as well as my dentist is Polish and I (and several hundred other people) would otherwise have been without a dentist since 2005. In the small business where I work we’ve had German and Irish ‘immigrant’ colleagues and the latest to join us is originally from the Gambia. All are well educated, more than adequately qualified and good at their jobs. Unlike the one selfish, racist Farage admirer that no-one likes who has never bothered to do a day’s work in her life and doesn’t want to learn anything.
The surgeon who cut out my malignant tumour in July is south Asian, as were several of his colleagues. He was working at the weekend on top of doing long weekdays in the local hospital. The dental surgeon I had to visit last month was also from the region. Several of the surgeons at the local specialist orthopaedic hospital with a great reputation are of south Asian origin. One is in our cycling club while another of our club members originally from the middle East is a renowned physio who has worked with several British Olympic teams and been head physio at EIS. Bloody foreigners, coming over here and mending our teeth, fixing our bones and helping us win Olympic medals. The cheek of it! Yet people like them are the targets of racist behaviour.
Everyone knows that the NHS only operates in its current state due to the huge number of people who come here from other countries. They are all working and paying their taxes. So too are the overworked people who deliver parcels for Amazon, DPD, Evri etc and the many cleaners, security, healthcare workers, porters any many others who do work that lots of people wouldn’t want to do for not much money.
The number of people who move from the UK to other shores is often ignored. Trained, experienced NHS staff are moving to other continents or quitting the NHS because it has been run down so much, a deliberate choice by the Tories. Lots of people move to Europe and elsewhere for a better quality of life; and since most of them stay there then I suspect it genuinely is better where they’ve gone. I know of a number of people who moved to Australia many years ago and will never return.
So I say “fuck off” to all this shit about ‘immigrants’, whether pathetic people like Phil want to decide for themselves whether these people are ‘genuine refugees’ or not. None of us has any more right to live here because we are white and we say that our parents were born here. We are all descended from immigrants anyway. I can only wonder at the desperate situation anyone must have been in to leave their home country to rebuild their life with only the bag on their back. Does it matter whether the homeless person was born locally, elsewhere in the UK or another country? No. They are homeless. That simply shouldn’t be happening in a country as wealthy as this one in the 21st century.
Well said. I think a lot of
Well said. I think a lot of people in this country don’t realise how lucky they are. There are people abroad who live with the constant fear of violent death on a daily basis, something we can’t begin to understand. Is it any wonder anyone would want to seek a better life elsewhere?
Very well said. I don’t know
Very well said. I don’t know if you saw this Tweet which went viral last week in the aftermath of the race riot in Dublin, summed it up very pithily:
A very good post, apart from
A very good post, apart from the first line of paragraph two. That’s just lazy. I am not against immigration, I have had life saving surgery in recent years, performed by an Indian doctor, I was looked after by Indian nurses. My dentist is Asian.
I fully support immigration to enable us to get the skilled people we need.
What I am against is this current uncontrolled mass migration to our shores. These young men arriving on the boats from France are not asylum seekers. They are not fleeing persecution, they’re coming here for a better life, paying gangmasters thousands of pounds to get them here. If they’re fleeing persecution then why travel all the way through many safe countries to get here? Simple. Because they know that we’re a soft touch.
Youre right, many people do move to Europe and Australia for a better life. The difference is, they sell up and move there with a pot of money to buy a house, they don’t move there expecting someone else to foot the bill.
We have absolutely no idea how many of the young men who are arriving in their thousands each week are terrorists, murderers, rapists or gangsters. Nor have the government who are beyond useless. Do you know who these young men are?
I don’t know the situation where you live, but here we have a four star hotel a few minutes away which did a roaring trade in weddings, last year it was closed with no notice, weddings cancelled and it opened up for the migrants, who have plagued the area, hanging around the streets making unwanted advances towards the young women and even schoolgirls. This is just one hotel, there is another one a few miles outside of the next town. Do you see this in your day to day life or are you fortunate to live in an area where migrants are not placed? People such as this will affect this country in a negative way, if they do work it will be in the black economy, delivering pizzas and washing cars. They will not add to the country in a positive way. It is not racist to be against this mass uncontrolled migration.
There was no need to get personal, that ruins your argument. I will reiterate what I have said before, when someone has a different opinion there is no need to resort to bad language and insults.
We have different views, we can air them on here, but when someone’s view differs from yours, accept it, don’t resort to name calling.
And yet you resort to appeals
And yet you resort to appeals to emotion. What was it, “you’re crying for this once great country” and you choose to correlate migrants with terrorists.
It might shock you, but I want to stop the small boats. Why? Because I have empathy, these are human beings, many fleeing situations we cannot fathom. I want proper cooperation between the UK, EU and France obviously in particular, to make sure these people are processed as soon as possible and the UK does what it can, taking it’s fair share of refugees etc. Because we don’t if you actually look at the stats.
Why might you ask do they want to come here? Well ironically those that claim the “wokes” and “liberals” want to erase history seem to want to disregard the history they don’t like. Thanks to our days of empire and colonialism English is widely spoken and the second language of many. So if you speak English but not German or French or any other language, where are you going to head?
Ok, so how many are fleeing
Ok, so how many are fleeing desperate situations? I don’t know and neither do you. For every person genuinely fleeing a desperate situation, you can bet there’s at least one who’s coming here for the generous benefits. I’m all for helping those genuinely in need of help, but how do we sort the genuine ones out from the non genuine? How would you address that?
We have some wonderful immigrants working here and contributing to society, but we cannot continue to let in the number of migrants which equals the population of a town every year. Something has to give, we are seeing the effects of mass migration in our deterioration of essential services, it isn’t the migration but the sheer speed and numbers of the migration. What is the answer? Genuine question, if you were in power, how would you address this?
But how many are terrorists
But how many are terrorists as you have claimed?
What objectively is the financial cost? Everything I have seen and read indicates it is more positive than negative. And you do realise that anyone illegally entering is not able to claim benefits despite what the right wing press would have you believe.
As for how I think it should be dealt with, read what I said again. We need better cooperation with Europe and the EU to handle this, only that will stop profiteering by the criminal gangs operating the small boats.
FYI here’s the stats for the number of refugees taken. In by EU countries.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG?locations=EU
And here’s the UKs
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2022/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to#:~:text=The%20UK%20offered%20protection%20to,1%2C042%20were%20granted%20humanitarian%20protection
Kind of embarrassing really.
I don’t know how many are
I don’t know how many are terrorists. But that is my point. Neither do you, neither do the authorities. What financial cost? Our schools, hospitals, doctors are at breaking point. Many councils who have spent millions housing migrants are going bankrupt. I’m not saying that’s the fault of migrants, but it certainly doesn’t help, and is part of the financial cost. I’m not talking about the migrant doctors, nurses or dentists who have come to make the UK their home. These people don’t arrive in inflatable boats. We have absolutely no idea who is arriving here. What better cooperation? We are giving France tens of millions of pounds whilst they stand there watching the boats leave. It’s no use blaming Brexit either, migrants were coming here in their thousands before Brexit. We need to address why so many want to come here and leave the safety of France. It isn’t just as you claimed because of the English language. If that is the case, why is so much money being spent on interpreters? Our local police force is spending thousands of pounds every month on interpreters, is that because so many cannot speak English, or is it because there’s so many committing crimes whose first language is not English?
Biker Phil wrote:
I think – although the numbers are contended or require interpretation – some kind of analysis of scenarios and probabilities based on (agreed) facts is required. (Required for discussion, that is. Shouting the odds, or opining, or sadly lots of our politics clearly favours the opposite.)
TL/DR – it will be tricky but – like drivers – it will be to our advantage to stop shouting about increasing prices and a slight reduction in convenience. To swerve the populist pundits and politicians promising more jam or to stick it to some others / make them respect us.
We *should* all be having a conversation about this. It has to be wider but more nuanced than “woke – good or bad” or even “how do we stop those wrong’uns over there coming here? ”
We should acknowledge that globally the UK is an extremely rich country, with unbelievable freedoms and opportunities. That isn’t a given – freedom in particular is fought for or absent. We should also recall that this position is built upon a history of much violence and duplicity (even within the current UK). Not to self-flagellate but so we don’t expect what we have as our right.
We have a geophysical inheritance too – we have many resources and – it appears – in the future the UK may mostly be above water, with fertile land, drinking water and a liveable climate. And the population density isn’t wild. Such locations may be globally scarcer.
And obviously – given all that – LOTS of people may want to come here – for all kinds of reasons.
Because of this we actually have other priveledges. Since people do want to come so we can harness the energy and ingenuity of migrants (benefiting us). We *are* able to support some desperate people with hardly any reduction to our living standards. Which are high, even for our poor – and BTW councils are going bankrupt for reasons unconnected with migration – that would appear to be a matter of record…
The world is changing though – not just the climate, the demographics.
We need to talk. (Maybe a cycling site is an odd venue though? )
So once again you do not have
So once again you do not have any evidence and it is purely emotionally driven. There is more evidence from the way you are posting that you have been radicalised by the rightwing media and are a threat. Lets not forget the terrorist attack carried out in London 1999 by David Copeland targetting ethnic communities and the LGBT community with nail bombs. The 7/7 attacks were by British nationals, unless you want to get into their skin colour or religion.
We also had this lovely white lady in Chatham – https://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/jihadist-calls-for-terror-attacks-41499/
The point being ideoligies no nothing of borders. As a gay man though all the hate I have ever received on religous grounds has been from Christians.
“Our schools, hospitals, doctors are at breaking point.” This is more due to deliberate underfunding. Our doctor is a nightmare simply due to the rapid overdevelopment of the area and lack of provision of additional doctors. In fact our GP merged with another two practices exacerbating the issue. This is nothing to do with immigrants.
“We are giving France tens of millions of pounds whilst they stand there watching the boats leave” our government wants to send migrants to Rwanda at a cost of £170,000 each (home office figures, it would also cost less to keep them in the UK) on top of an agreed £120m upfront, and you are concerned about additional spending with France to come up with something that stands a better chance of solving the problem at the source. OK.
“It’s no use blaming Brexit either, migrants were coming here in their thousands before Brexit.” It is simple fact that the unprecedented level of migration from outside the EU is due to brexit and the level of skilled workers from the EU we have lost. The UK is no longer attracting skilled workers from the EU to the same level.
“We need to address why so many want to come here and leave the safety of France. It isn’t just as you claimed because of the English language.” Sorry but it absolutely is why the UK is attractive. It would also make sense to learn English since again, due to the glory days of Empire English is so widely spoken. Having visited, France, Germany, Czech republic, Hungary, Norway, Denmark. I have never had an issue with not speaking their language. I work for a global company and represent the network team on a bi-weekly chaired by a Frenchman, and with colleages from Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark. It is held in English.
Adam Sutton wrote:
…and breathe
Ta muchly, and this post is
Ta muchly, and this post is bang on the money.
What is a snowflake? Someone
What is a snowflake? Someone that’s thin skinned & quick to take offence? Seems that there are many fine snowflakes on both sides …. just only one “side” that constantly throws the term about when their toys come out of the pram. Although how we have heard them when they’re constantly “cancelled” is beyond me.
As for you being upset that if someone has a different opinion then they get abused & name called…… I mean it’s not like the habitual users of terms like “snowflake”, “lefty”, “wokers” “libtard” “remoaner” are doing it out of respect and tolerance is it?
This country is indeed being destroyed by a very vocal minority. Usually playing the victim and gaslighting others.
Clem Fandango wrote:
Bingo.
This country has been wrecked
This country has been wrecked by the right wing. We’ve had 13 years of right wing government and the economy and every single British instituion is on its knees. The NHS, education, transport, industry are all suffering thanks to the Tories. They’ve made everything worse and broken. If you can’t admit that then you’re part of the problem. All this anti-woke stuff is just hot air to distract people from who has actually broken Britain.
With the added irony of
With the added irony of having to shore up these services via unprecedented levels of immigration from outside the EU, thanks to Brexit.
It’s fine though – we’re in
It’s fine though – we’re in control of our borders now! And all will get fixed after the next election because (like Blair) Starmer is dropping hints that really he might be the heir of Thatcher. That’s probably enough to get in, if the electorate believe…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67604830
(Living in Scotland this has less bearing on some things – like the amount available for active travel – but it doesn’t make me smile. )
I fully agree with you. The
I fully agree with you. The Tories have ruined this country. I do not support the Tories at all, and hope they get humiliated at the next election.
Biker Phil wrote:
And so who are you rooting for, may one ask? Reform?
To be honest I don’t think
To be honest I don’t think anyone deserves my vote. They’re all the same. Politics is broken, all politicians are in it for themselves, nobody else. All those who think Starmer will fix the mess that the Tories have made will be very disappointed.
The political system in the
The political system in the UK is broken. On that we can agree. None of the current parties really represents me & the local MP is a self serving slave to party politics, not a representative of actual constituents.
Unfortunately meaningful change seems a long way off because it would mean the current duopoly accepting that it would take a degree of self immolation to actually do the right thing.
Any vote at the moment seems
Any vote at the moment seems it is for the least worse option, and not for what you think will do well by the country.
Yes, you’re right. All
Yes, you’re right. All politicians are in it for themselves and don’t care about the people who vote them in. I don’t know what the answer is, for sure Starmer is as bad as Sunak but in different ways. They all promise the earth but never deliver. We should be able to sack them all.
Biker Phil wrote:
There are a few who seem to genuinely care about regular people but their party will make sure they never get to be leader or quickly depose them if they do.
Of course then you have to blame the membership who don’t leave en masse to start a new party but just keep voting for the same party that just stabbed them in the back.
You’ll go down well here Phil
You’ll go down well here Phil.This “place” is the home to a bunch of crying lefties . I do wonder if it is linked or populated by the denizens of STW as well as there is a similar lack of compassion and consideration there.
Severn Trent Water?
Severn Trent Water?
perce wrote:
I’m pretty sure it’s a Fortnite thing – Save The World
Ah thanks – makes more sense
Ah thanks – makes more sense I suppose.
perce wrote:
All mine was on Save The Whale… 🙁
That was my next guess. I’m
That was my next guess. I’m off to listen to some Stevie Tay Waughn now.
perce wrote:
It’s the National Rail ticket station code for Strawberry Hill in Twickenham, although why our chum thinks denizens of that pleasant neighbourhood would be overrepresented on here I’m not sure.
Is that where the Crying
Is that where the Crying Lefties are from? I heard they are getting back together.
perce wrote:
Their debut “Socialists, Treehuggers and Wokerati” had me crying into my decaff soy chai latte.
Crying lefties. There’s that
Crying lefties. There’s that famed morality and compassion from the non lefties at work again.
I love these parody accounts.
I love these parody accounts. ???
Well I thank you all for
Well I thank you all for proving my point.
….. don’t you think
….. don’t you think
Don’t know why but I thought
Don’t know why but I thought of this.
95 comments and rising. Is
95 comments and rising. Is woke the new helmet for road.cc?
I was wondering whether
I was wondering whether anyone had listened to the podcast, which is what this article is about.
mark1a wrote:
Nope. I don’t do podcasts.
mark1a wrote:
There is an article?!
Listen to the podcast? Are
Listen to the podcast? Are you mad ?
Hirsute wrote:
What podcast?
Colin from Portsmouth is on
Colin from Portsmouth is on the line
https://twitter.com/Exploding_Heads/status/1731266697145835602
The word woke is the past
The word woke is the past tense for wake. Therefore the rest of this is drivel for dimwits.
Apart from that cretinous use of language just what is this article on about? It appears that it is assumed that the viewers of this page are too thick to read. Ah well , modern life.
It’s on about a podcast that
It’s on about a podcast that some commenters are too thick to have observed, or even chosen to listen to. Modern life huh.
Woke also means “not asleep”.
Woke also means “not asleep”.
Glad to be of service.
Dddrrriinnngggg !