Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Midterms betting: GOP favourite for the House – DEM for the Senate – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury for starters. You also have places larger than plenty of cities which are just parishes like Weston Super Mare Town Council.
    Salisbury is only a city because it has a cathedral, its population of only 45,000 is well below the standard 100,000 population now accepted to be needed for city status
    I thought that the C of E was such an integral part of the English State that the very fact of having a cathedral is undoubtedly all you need to be a city. I mean, we can't have people like you destroying the old certainties of Royal control of the approved sect and claiming that Salisbury isn't a city.
    It was in the Medieval period and in Scotland and Wales too but every area with a cathedral is already a city anyway. So now the general criteria is city status is only granted to urban areas with a population over 100 000
    IN other words, we all have to put up with mediaeval English customs in the government of the UK, derived from the unwarranted supremacy of the C of E and the failure to disestablish it.
    Crap, otherwise Inverness, which has a cathedral but a population well below 100,000 would not be a city
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
    Don't worry I am going to keep hammering it home so that all people will remember of this exchange is that you are the poster who believes Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in the attacks on them. You are an apologist for terrorism.
    Have you been tested for BSE?

    do you not understand this?

    "Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo."

    I say they were culpable in attacks ON INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, so you are going to say I said they were culpable in attacks ON THEM, because to a self important autodidact wots the diffrence?

    Happy to explain any points you are not clear about. In the meantime, "Hammer home" as much as you like, subject to the fact that doing so either makes you a vindictive liar, or means you got some serious spongiform shit going down. Sympathies.
    Ishmael. The apologist for terrorism. Has a nice ring to it.
    you the guy who was bragging that your uncle had your fingers broken in your youth?

    Chavs gonna chav. You can take the X out of the Y, but you can't take the Y out of the X.

    But you've done very well, considering. Respect.
    My Uncle was John Tyndall the founder of the National Front. If you are going to have enemies they might as well be really nasty ones as it makes them easier to hate.

    At least I have stood for something rather than being a craven apologist.
    Ouch, that is quite the black sheep. I know someone who punched your uncle in the face.
    I would have shaken their hand. Although at the time I might have found it difficult :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury for starters. You also have places larger than plenty of cities which are just parishes like Weston Super Mare Town Council.
    Salisbury is only a city because it has a cathedral, its population of only 45,000 is well below the standard 100,000 population now accepted to be needed for city status
    I thought that the C of E was such an integral part of the English State that the very fact of having a cathedral is undoubtedly all you need to be a city. I mean, we can't have people like you destroying the old certainties of Royal control of the approved sect and claiming that Salisbury isn't a city.
    ... every area with a cathedral is already a city anyway.
    Nope.

    It's called google.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom#Cathedral_towns

    I love when you get on this topic, you are so demonstrably wrong in your assertions as there are dozens of examples of small cities, or non cathedral cities, or cathedral towns, and recent awards to places which don't meet your criteria, yet you still say the Queen and the government are wrong and you are right, or try to insist it 'generally' being the case that cities are large and/or have cathedrals, is the same as your claim which is that it is a rule or 'accepted'.

    Most places which are made cities either had or have cathedrals, are very historic in their status, or are quite large. No one disputes that even though you act like they are.

    People just dispute your invention of firm rules which don't exist, as your precious government itself proves.

    It's the UK, firm rules are not how we roll, you need to relax more. You won't get in trouble for it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury for starters. You also have places larger than plenty of cities which are just parishes like Weston Super Mare Town Council.
    Salisbury is only a city because it has a cathedral, its population of only 45,000 is well below the standard 100,000 population now accepted to be needed for city status
    You've tried this one on before - there is no official requirement for a cathedral or to be over 100,000 to be a city (though the cathedral aspect does appear to have correlation with those which have parish councils, as I see wiki says Ripon and Wells are also like that)

    I was only teasing you HYUFD, I knew what you meant when you said City Council and in most cases there would be no distinction, but that's no excuse to pretend 'now accepted to be needed' is an actual requirement - there's more than a dozen places larger which are not cities, there are also 'Cathedral Towns', and some of the places just this year awarded city status are smaller than 100,000 (most are larger, but not all) - Dunfermline, Wrexham.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom#England

    So even you cannot believe it is a requirement when recent confirmations have not met this 'now accepted' rule which you apply but not Her Majesty or the government apparently - perhaps you should tell the Queen to withdraw city status for Inverness. Why are you able to follow this 'accepted' rule but they do not?

    And leaving that all aside, and all this being in good fun, you asked which City Council was merely a parish, and I provided you an example, of which there are several. You've then replied 'It's only a city because X' - but that doesn't matter since the point is proven that some cities are indeed just parish councils, even if it was just because of historical reasons.

    I know you will come back and say they are not cities in the sense big metropolitan boroughs are, which is true, but they are still cities and that was the sole point being made - that some city councils are parish councils. Not many, but some.
    Salisbury is in the unitary council of Wiltshire, so even then that does not defeat my point to devolve more powers to county, metropolitan and unitary councils
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,863

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,759
    edited August 2022

    I hope that one outcome of the coming Winter Of Hell is that when we come out the other side, English voters wake up to the realities of their problems and start demanding political solutions.

    They identified the right issue with Brexit - a democratic deficit - but chose the wrong target - Brussels instead of Westminster.

    We have so many structural problems in the UK that can't be solved with the elect idiots / get lied to / make voters even less connected to reality / elect even bigger idiots cycle. And Keir Starmer is not the solution by himself.

    Create fit for purpose structures - starting with an English parliament - and we have a chance to work these issues through. Constitutional matters can't be seen as a distraction from the day to day issues because it drives so much of them...

    "English voters wake up to the realities of their problems and start demanding political solutions."

    For that to work, they'd have to wake up to the reality that there are few, if any, easy solutions. There are no *magic* solutions.

    Instead, Labour will just sell 'easy' solutions that won't work. Because that's what all parties do.
    I don't think your penultimate sentence is accurate or fair. Whatever one's view of Starmer's Labour, he has never pretended that there are 'easy' solutions to our current malaise. Quite the opposite, really - he's usually pretty miserably downbeat,

    Ironically, Starmer would probably be more popular with the voters if he did pretend that there were 'easy' solutions, and inherited more of the sunny optimism of the current (part-time) PM.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,975
    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Liz Cheney concedes in Wyoming.

    Trumpism continues its march through the GOP
    @Liz_Cheney: “I won this primary with 73% of the vote. I could easily have done the same again. The path was clear. But it would’ve required that I go along with President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election...That was a path I could not and would not take.”
    https://mobile.twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1559728488894046210
    So few elected officials have been firm on this point. Most are now retired or forced out. The chances of more holding firm next time are therefore much lower I fear.
    Cheney has made herself a martyr over Trump but that is not the whole story. I don't think she was particularly popular anyway as she apparently lives in Virginia and was mostly interested in foreign policy.
    73% in the previous primary. And it is the primary that counts as it is usually a reliably safe GOP seat. Her general policy positions do not appeal to me much but her bravery and clarity in taking on Trump through the Jan 6th committee has won her a whole host of new fans everywhere except the GOP. An independent run must be a possibility.
    Someone yesterday said she'd ruled out an independent run on the basis it would just undermine beating the Trumpite.

    Don't know if that's true, though it suggests a lack of confidence in Democratic voters being realistically tactical in their voting. Labour or the LDs could teach them a thing or two based on recent by-elections.
    Might work in Utah.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.

    Have a good day.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    ClippP said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    "City" is just an honorary title, but does not imply any particular powers. It is just like "duke" really, applied to people. Some people like having it, but it does not mean anything much. Young HY is confusing some of us a bit.
    Inventing rules can do that.

    Some places cannot wait for official status though. I know in Reading they have (or had) 'city centre' signs, and I discovered they even have a small football club (as oppposed to the Championship side) called Reading City Football Club.

    Cheeky devils, that'll be why they haven't been given formal city status.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,863
    How's obesity going to be helped with this new cycling plan ?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,052
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Little Marco….

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3603940-demings-up-by-4-points-in-challenge-to-rubio-poll/
    …Rep. Val Demings (D) leads Sen. Marco Rubio (R) by 4 percentage points in Florida’s Senate race, according to a poll released Tuesday.
    The poll, released by the University of North Florida’s Public Opinion Research Lab, shows Demings with the support of 48 percent of surveyed registered voters who said they would vote in the midterms.
    Rubio, in comparison, received 44 percent support, while 7 percent said they would choose someone else...

    There are an awful lot of "long shots" for the Dems this time around.

    Republicans have three realistic potential pick-ups:

    - Georgia
    - Arizona
    - Nevada

    And one and a half long-shots:

    - New Hampshire
    - Colorado

    But they are at risk in:

    - Pennsylvania
    - Ohio
    - Wisconsin
    - North Carolina
    and maybe even
    - Florida

    (And maybe Utah, albeit not to the Dems.)

    If Arizona is safe for the Dems (and Kelly is running up ten point leads), and Pennsylvania is a Dem gain, then there's a pretty narrow path to a Senate majority for the Republicans. They basically have to flip both Georgia and Nevada, and win everywhere else.
    Arizona is really not safe for the Dems

    "Arizona Governor Polls: Kari Lake Narrows the Lead, Trails Katie Hobbs By 1%"

    Lake is a genius, and I want to spank her. She has a pretty good chance

    https://crowdwisdom.live/us-politics/arizona-governor-race-2022-polls/
    FiveThirtyEight have spent years perfected models of outcomes on races and yet they could have saved themselves a bunch of all-nighters by simply recording that Leon wants to spank the candidate. :smile:
    I've always felt that spankability is a neglected metric when assessing US elections, especially the midterms
    So would you prefer to spank Biden or Trump? This is a betting site and we need to know.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet but I wonder if those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths would extend that claim to the current death threats against JK Rowling for having the temerity to have an opinion on something contentious. If someone does decide to have a go at her life will they be equally sure that she bore some responsibility for the actions of her attacker in the way they claim for Rushdie?

    Who has made any such claim? it would be so outrageous that I think you need to link specifically to it.

    also is dear old Salman technically actually dead?
    You have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability. It is to late to try and wriggle out of it now. Though you do have history of trying to rewrite what you have already stated.
    No I don't. I referred to a case I had not referred to at all before which made you look even dimmer than usual, and you thought that was weally weally unfair, but it wasn't "rewriting" anything. it was wrtng about it for the first time.

    Secondly you need to judge written stuff on what it actually says, not how gammoniously angry it makes you on a scale of 1 to 10. You refer to "those claiming Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in their own deaths." Then you say I "have spent all day trying to claim the bore some culpability." do you see those words "in their own deaths"? Presumably you thought they had some meaning, since you typed them. Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo. And this is really, really important and I have been utterly scrupulous about the distinction. your problem is, you think: statement A would make me really really angry; statement B would make me really really angry; therefore statement A == statement B. rational discourse is hard under these rules.
    Squirming again to try and justify your indefensible position.

    The cesspit beckons.
    Sure. good save.
    Don't worry I am going to keep hammering it home so that all people will remember of this exchange is that you are the poster who believes Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo team were culpable in the attacks on them. You are an apologist for terrorism.
    Have you been tested for BSE?

    do you not understand this?

    "Now go back as far as you like and observe how scrupulously I have refrained from blaming either party for what happened *to them personally.* It's the 37 dead in Turkey in 1993 (among others) and the 4 killed 2 days after the Hebdo killings that I am on about, NOT Rushdie and NOT Hebdo."

    I say they were culpable in attacks ON INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES, so you are going to say I said they were culpable in attacks ON THEM, because to a self important autodidact wots the diffrence?

    Happy to explain any points you are not clear about. In the meantime, "Hammer home" as much as you like, subject to the fact that doing so either makes you a vindictive liar, or means you got some serious spongiform shit going down. Sympathies.
    Ishmael. The apologist for terrorism. Has a nice ring to it.
    you the guy who was bragging that your uncle had your fingers broken in your youth?

    Chavs gonna chav. You can take the X out of the Y, but you can't take the Y out of the X.

    But you've done very well, considering. Respect.
    My Uncle was John Tyndall the founder of the National Front. If you are going to have enemies they might as well be really nasty ones as it makes them easier to hate.

    At least I have stood for something rather than being a craven apologist.
    Ouch, that is quite the black sheep. I know someone who punched your uncle in the face.
    I would have shaken their hand. Although at the time I might have found it difficult :)
    At the least I can have no worries about being the world's worst uncle.
  • kinabalu said:

    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.

    Careful. We all know what happened to Jerry Sadowitz when he did that.
  • kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Well, that was an amusing diversion to start the day, I love fake stubborness even when its a point where admitting being incorrect doesn't matter, it's put me in a very good mood. Have a great day everyone.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury for starters. You also have places larger than plenty of cities which are just parishes like Weston Super Mare Town Council.
    Salisbury is only a city because it has a cathedral, its population of only 45,000 is well below the standard 100,000 population now accepted to be needed for city status
    I thought that the C of E was such an integral part of the English State that the very fact of having a cathedral is undoubtedly all you need to be a city. I mean, we can't have people like you destroying the old certainties of Royal control of the approved sect and claiming that Salisbury isn't a city.
    ... every area with a cathedral is already a city anyway.
    Nope.

    It's called google.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom#Cathedral_towns

    I love when you get on this topic, you are so demonstrably wrong in your assertions as there are dozens of examples of small cities, or non cathedral cities, or cathedral towns, and recent awards to places which don't meet your criteria, yet you still say the Queen and the government are wrong and you are right, or try to insist it 'generally' being the case that cities are large and/or have cathedrals, is the same as your claim which is that it is a rule or 'accepted'.

    Most places which are made cities either had or have cathedrals, are very historic in their status, or are quite large. No one disputes that even though you act like they are.

    People just dispute your invention of firm rules which don't exist, as your precious government itself proves.

    It's the UK, firm rules are not how we roll, you need to relax more. You won't get in trouble for it.
    I said most areas with cathedrals have city status which is correct. However nowadays city status is mostly awarded to areas with populations over 100 000 eg Southend, Milton Keynes etc.

    However again that still does not dispute my point of devolving more powers to city, county and unitary councils. For starters Parish and Town councils are all under a county or unitary Council anyway so your tangent was irrelevant
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 19,093
    edited August 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.

    First time I've ever agreed with Shapps.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

  • HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Nah. I think indyref2 should happen (timeline TBC) because I believe in democracy before anything else.

    There is a genuine and interesting debate about frequency. I think either you have a harder to reach threshold (say 65%) and unlimited referendums, or there is a time limit.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322
    Pulpstar said:

    How's obesity going to be helped with this new cycling plan ?

    Surely it would be a boost to obesity?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.

    Oh yes, not exactly unexpected. Why anyone though would celebrate such a warmonger as Cheney is beyond me.

    Anyway, here's a trigger warning for you so best not to read and just concentrate on enjoying the cricket:

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/conrad-black-donald-trump-will-be-a-successful-president-again/ar-AA10CKyF

  • Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    edited August 2022

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA (see previous posts).

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA.

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
    Crap. If we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood, expel Scottish MPs from Westminster and arrest and jail Sturgeon for sedition. Not merely refuse indyref2 as both Starmer and Truss and Sunak and even your own party leader Davey have said.

  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798

    ping said:

    Come on BoE

    Stop taking the piss. We need base rates at 5%, at least.

    You need to take this shit seriously.

    I take it you have savings you'd quite like to earn more interest on but don't have a mortgage?

    Interest rates at that level would push millions of people out of their homes and into bankruptcy, as they couldn't afford repayments on their mortgages.

    The house price collapse it would precipitate as properties got repossessed and dumped on the market would affect your own equity, the economy, and
    the tax that's used to pay for your pension.
    Oh no! Homeowners will have to pay almost as much as people in private rentals!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots
    No it illustrates your appeasement of Sturgeon and the SNP until they get the result they want. Weak, weak, weak!! The same goes for kjh
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,637
    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.

    Oh yes, not exactly unexpected. Why anyone though would celebrate such a warmonger as Cheney is beyond me.

    Anyway, here's a trigger warning for you so best not to read and just concentrate on enjoying the cricket:

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/conrad-black-donald-trump-will-be-a-successful-president-again/ar-AA10CKyF

    Trump is going to win in 2024, and then he’s going to surprise on the upside. Driving the Woke into the Gulf, fixing the US economy, shoring up the west v China/Russia

    You read it here first

  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939
    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    I have (to my mind - it cost more than my first and second cars) a relatively expensive bike and it's insured.

    My insurance also covers damage/injury to third parties, up to £5m, which I think is a good thing. For my use case I'd happily be registered and insured (for insurance, I already am).

    There are however practical concerns. Insurance, however cheap, is likely to put off the occasional cyclist who bobs into town now and again or very occasionally goes for a recreational cycle. It seems like nonsense for young children's bikes. Licence plates, big enough to be easily read by others and/or traffic cameras would be a massive pain. Any conceivable format would add significant wind resistance for my cycle.

    I think, overall, cycling is very much a good thing. I'd be very happy to see greater efforts to fine cyclists running red lights, cycling on pavements etc, but the costs of cycling to society are far outweighed by the benefits, as set out by Eabhal.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    It is remarkable how many small state Conservatives turn into Joseph Stalin when it comes to cyclists. Fair play to Johnson, he was an exception to this.
    I say license plates for pedestrians, they are the most dangerous and inconsiderate people on the roads.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.

    Oh yes, not exactly unexpected. Why anyone though would celebrate such a warmonger as Cheney is beyond me.

    Anyway, here's a trigger warning for you so best not to read and just concentrate on enjoying the cricket:

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/conrad-black-donald-trump-will-be-a-successful-president-again/ar-AA10CKyF

    Trump is going to win in 2024, and then he’s going to surprise on the upside. Driving the Woke into the Gulf, fixing the US economy, shoring up the west v China/Russia

    You read it here first

    If Trump wins again, Boris could equally come back, especially as cost of living could do for Starmer as it is doing for Biden.

    Though I think if the Democrats pick Buttigieg rather than Biden or Harris they could still hold on
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,778

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,814
    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

    The best bit of kit on my bike? The bell.

    It really is invaluable when riding around anywhere there are pedestrians.

    You can always tell the cycling bell-ends by the fact they take the bell off their bike as soon as they buy it (*)... ;)

    (*) I will make an exception for bikes that are never ridden on suburban roads.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    There's something in that. I'm probably more in the latter category, but almost exclusively for commuting and I'm not on a time trial. I'll, when on road, try and get cars past me by tucking in/slowing down e.g. between parked cars or at a wider bit of road, indicating when it's safe for them to get past etc (you can often see better from a bike, higher up and further left, e.g. coming round a right hand bend).

    I see some awful cycling. I also see awful driving. I think we need to not be hung up over one mode of transport versus another but focus rather more on considerate road/path users versus idiots.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    1. Why not? If someone rides off after an accident, you need something that's visible.

    2. You don't, others do, hence the calls for a change in the law. Nor do they show much remorse. The pedestrian example is daft because it's the force of the object being risen / driven that does the damage.

    3. I don't drive. Sure motorists are selfish. But two wrongs don't make a right.
    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    Drivers whine when cycle infrastructure goes in because they can see it's barely used, and it certainly doesn't justify the amount of road space it takes up...
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA.

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
    Crap. If we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood, expel Scottish MPs from Westminster and arrest and jail Sturgeon for sedition. Not merely refuse indyref2 as both Starmer and Truss and Sunak and even your own party leader Davey have said.

    Pillock. Yes that would do it and probably only take hours for people to be on the streets. Surprised you haven't proposed it. But it doesn't mean your current actions won't either, just it might take longer than next week for the riots. Hopefully it will never happen (I suspect it never will), but people like you cause these events by being so unpleasant. And even if it does not cause unrest in turns Unionist against you by being so unpleasant. Democracy is not about winning and then ruling with an iron hand, it is about compromise and considering the views of everyone.

    Why were you so pathetically weak on terrorists in NI? Do you not get the irony?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.

    Enjoy yourself; looks quite promising for most of the day anyway. If you've got good seats it is a really good place to watch cricket!

    And good morning one and all; bit sad about Liz Cheney but we've seen it happen here!

    And a small point on the city discussion. A few years ago Essex had no cities; now we have three.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

    The best bit of kit on my bike? The bell.

    It really is invaluable when riding around anywhere there are pedestrians.

    You can always tell the cycling bell-ends by the fact they take the bell off their bike as soon as they buy it (*)... ;)

    (*) I will make an exception for bikes that are never ridden on suburban roads.
    Bell-enders? :wink:
  • kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA.

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
    Crap. If we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood, expel Scottish MPs from Westminster and arrest and jail Sturgeon for sedition. Not merely refuse indyref2 as both Starmer and Truss and Sunak and even your own party leader Davey have said.

    Pillock. Yes that would do it and probably only take hours for people to be on the streets. Surprised you haven't proposed it. But it doesn't mean your current actions won't either, just it might take longer than next week for the riots. Hopefully it will never happen (I suspect it never will), but people like you cause these events by being so unpleasant. And even if it does not cause unrest in turns Unionist against you by being so unpleasant. Democracy is not about winning and then ruling with an iron hand, it is about compromise and considering the views of everyone.

    Why were you so pathetically weak on terrorists in NI? Do you not get the irony?
    He has already previously proposed putting tanks on the streets in the event of Scotland holding a referendum against the wishes of Westminster so if all he is now proposing is arresting Sturgeon he has actually moderated a bit!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    Sadly I'm no longer a cyclist, although until recently I had an electric bicycle. If anything needed some sort of license or control I think it's electric bicycles.

    I've also recently hired, for a few days, an electric mobility scooter. They too need some form of licensing or similar control.
  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury. A city, with a parish council administering the city.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    Driver said:

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    Drivers whine when cycle infrastructure goes in because they can see it's barely used, and it certainly doesn't justify the amount of road space it takes up...
    They also whine when they get stuck behind a cyclist on the road.

    Can't really win, can we?

    (They have just put in a huge new cycle lane in Leith Walk. It's dreadful - like cycling on the face of the moon. It's far too close to pedestrians, too, so as @MrEd would approve, I cycle on the road to reduce the chance of injuring someone)
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,930

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury. A city, with a parish council administering the city.
    St Davids
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

    The best bit of kit on my bike? The bell.

    It really is invaluable when riding around anywhere there are pedestrians.

    You can always tell the cycling bell-ends by the fact they take the bell off their bike as soon as they buy it (*)... ;)

    (*) I will make an exception for bikes that are never ridden on suburban roads.
    Agree, but not with your exception. Off roading and coming up to walkers and horses the bell is really useful so keep it on. Only exception is when they have headphones on, the twits (walkers and riders I mean, not horses) and are completely unaware of anything going on around them. I tend to use the bell along way away from horses. I tend to find horse riders really polite and appreciative.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury. A city, with a parish council administering the city.
    Salisbury has a unitary council, Wiltshire Council, which actually manages most matters affecting the city. The parish council below that
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    Selebian said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

    The best bit of kit on my bike? The bell.

    It really is invaluable when riding around anywhere there are pedestrians.

    You can always tell the cycling bell-ends by the fact they take the bell off their bike as soon as they buy it (*)... ;)

    (*) I will make an exception for bikes that are never ridden on suburban roads.
    Bell-enders? :wink:
    Cyclists ringing bells. That really takes me back.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    MrEd said:


    1. Why not? If someone rides off after an accident, you need something that's visible.

    2. You don't, others do, hence the calls for a change in the law. Nor do they show much remorse. The pedestrian example is daft because it's the force of the object being risen / driven that does the damage.

    3. I don't drive. Sure motorists are selfish. But two wrongs don't make a right.

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    1) Again, need to tattoo the forehead of pedestrians to help identify shoplifters etc

    2) They? It's an individual on that bike, not some homogeneous group

    3) I do drive, weirdly. It's just damned expensive, so I use it for stuff outside Edinburgh.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury. A city, with a parish council administering the city.
    St Davids
    St. Asaphs waves too!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 11,036

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

    The best bit of kit on my bike? The bell.

    It really is invaluable when riding around anywhere there are pedestrians.

    You can always tell the cycling bell-ends by the fact they take the bell off their bike as soon as they buy it (*)... ;)

    (*) I will make an exception for bikes that are never ridden on suburban roads.
    But the worst pedestrians invariably have headphones in and so ignore the bell completely.
    I've given up using the southbound cycle lane on Westminster Bridge, it is completely unusable owing to tourists walking down it or across it, paying zero attention to any oncoming cyclists. It's a death trap, and much as I'd be happy to take a couple of them with me I value my own life too highly to use it. No doubt there will be some angry motorist behind me wondering why I am not using the cycle lane.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    edited August 2022
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA.

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
    Crap. If we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood, expel Scottish MPs from Westminster and arrest and jail Sturgeon for sedition. Not merely refuse indyref2 as both Starmer and Truss and Sunak and even your own party leader Davey have said.

    Pillock. Yes that would do it and probably only take hours for people to be on the streets. Surprised you haven't proposed it. But it doesn't mean your current actions won't either, just it might take longer than next week for the riots. Hopefully it will never happen (I suspect it never will), but people like you cause these events by being so unpleasant. And even if it does not cause unrest in turns Unionist against you by being so unpleasant. Democracy is not about winning and then ruling with an iron hand, it is about compromise and considering the views of everyone.

    Why were you so pathetically weak on terrorists in NI? Do you not get the irony?
    That was in part what Spain did with Catalan nationalists, 5 years later Catalonia is still in Spain. I was merely showing how mild the UK government's refusal of indyref2 is in comparison. Democracy is not about
    SNP appeasement either.

    In what way am I weak on NI? I oppose a border poll there too
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,127
    Eabhal said:

    Driver said:

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    Drivers whine when cycle infrastructure goes in because they can see it's barely used, and it certainly doesn't justify the amount of road space it takes up...
    They also whine when they get stuck behind a cyclist on the road.
    Highway Code rules 168 and 169...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 9,073
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    MrEd said:

    kinabalu said:

    Morning all, quick skim to look for anybody celebrating Cheney's loss - mouthful of invective at the ready - but no, nobody! Happy face. Great civilized forum full of sound minds and good characters.

    Off to Lords now anyway, hoping to see at least some play, and in particular to see the legend that is Jimmy Anderson bowl. He might be 40 years old but I reckon he can still get de Kock out.

    Oh yes, not exactly unexpected. Why anyone though would celebrate such a warmonger as Cheney is beyond me.

    Anyway, here's a trigger warning for you so best not to read and just concentrate on enjoying the cricket:

    https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/conrad-black-donald-trump-will-be-a-successful-president-again/ar-AA10CKyF

    Trump is going to win in 2024, and then he’s going to surprise on the upside. Driving the Woke into the Gulf, fixing the US economy, shoring up the west v China/Russia

    You read it here first

    If Trump wins again, Boris could equally come back ...
    I suspect that by now Boris has twigged that being a successful prime minister is too much hard work.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 11,240

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    There are a variety of things that bicycles are supposed to be fitted with by law when they are sold, such as a bell and reflectors. Adding dynamo-powered lights, except for bicycles used in licensed competitions, would slow down bicycles a bit, and make a safety contribution in providing some light that isn't dependent on batteries.

    It would be more useful than registration.

    If you were to reform the courts to make it easier for people to claim personal injury damages in road traffic collisions, then this would help to protect cyclists from car drivers, and it would encourage cyclists to have insurance.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939

    Sadly I'm no longer a cyclist, although until recently I had an electric bicycle. If anything needed some sort of license or control I think it's electric bicycles.

    I've also recently hired, for a few days, an electric mobility scooter. They too need some form of licensing or similar control.

    I remember, some months ago, being overtaken on my road bike (I would have been somewhere in high teens of mph) on a cycle path by someone on an e-bike (modified as he wasn't pedalling at all) who wasn't holding the handlebars but was holding and reading a phone. I half expected to find him and/or others in a heap or a ditch further along. Luckily it was a quiet morning, quite early in the day around the start of the year and hardly anyone else on the track.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,939
    This thread appears to be now in the re-cycle bin, btw...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,814
    kjh said:

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

    The best bit of kit on my bike? The bell.

    It really is invaluable when riding around anywhere there are pedestrians.

    You can always tell the cycling bell-ends by the fact they take the bell off their bike as soon as they buy it (*)... ;)

    (*) I will make an exception for bikes that are never ridden on suburban roads.
    Agree, but not with your exception. Off roading and coming up to walkers and horses the bell is really useful so keep it on. Only exception is when they have headphones on, the twits (walkers and riders I mean, not horses) and are completely unaware of anything going on around them. I tend to use the bell along way away from horses. I tend to find horse riders really polite and appreciative.
    I almost always walk and run with headphones on, and am fairly aware of my surroundings, but perhaps only because I listen to podcasts (hence spoken words) and not music, and always fairly low. I also use earbuds rahter than ear-covering headphones. It is actually fairly easy to differentiate spoken words from unnatural sounds (e.g. bells). With music, I utterly agree.

    Annoyingly, I always run faster if listening to music. But I also find it more boring.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 8,345
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA.

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
    Crap. If we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood, expel Scottish MPs from Westminster and arrest and jail Sturgeon for sedition. Not merely refuse indyref2 as both Starmer and Truss and Sunak and even your own party leader Davey have said.

    Pillock. Yes that would do it and probably only take hours for people to be on the streets. Surprised you haven't proposed it. But it doesn't mean your current actions won't either, just it might take longer than next week for the riots. Hopefully it will never happen (I suspect it never will), but people like you cause these events by being so unpleasant. And even if it does not cause unrest in turns Unionist against you by being so unpleasant. Democracy is not about winning and then ruling with an iron hand, it is about compromise and considering the views of everyone.

    Why were you so pathetically weak on terrorists in NI? Do you not get the irony?
    That was largely what Spain did with Catalan nationalists, 5 years later Catalonia is still in Spain. I was merely showing how mild the UK government's refusal of indyref2 is in comparison. Democracy is not about
    SNP appeasement either.

    In what way am I weak on NI? I oppose a border poll there too
    You have repeated commented on supporting compromise in NI because of the violence in NI (not something that I necessarily disagree with), but won't show any compromise when there isn't violence. That is the irony and what is more it encourages violence where there currently is none.

    Yep Catalan still is in Spain. Would you now like to list all the countries over time that have had civil wars because of people with your attitude.
  • In London cyclists just ignore red lights, why don't we do something about that?
  • Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    1. Why not? If someone rides off after an accident, you need something that's visible.

    2. You don't, others do, hence the calls for a change in the law. Nor do they show much remorse. The pedestrian example is daft because it's the force of the object being risen / driven that does the damage.

    3. I don't drive. Sure motorists are selfish. But two wrongs don't make a right.

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    1) Again, need to tattoo the forehead of pedestrians to help identify shoplifters etc

    2) They? It's an individual on that bike, not some homogeneous group

    3) I do drive, weirdly. It's just damned expensive, so I use it for stuff outside Edinburgh.
    Why do people get so fussy about the pronoun "they"?

    "They" is a third person singular, or a third person plural. An individual on that bike would be a third person, so they is an entirely acceptable and appropriate pronoun.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,814

    algarkirk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    100% agree about the wicker baskets; also mandatory should be stopping off every now and then to check that Mrs Goggins isn't too drunk to stand up, attending early service on saints days and market day, cheerily waving to farmhands, milkmaids and the IT logistics coordination staff as you pass by taking soup to the deserving poor.

    The Olympics would be much more watchable if the cyclists had to ride a proper bike, with Sturmey Archer gears (3), wicker basket, dynamo operated lights and handlebars in the proper place. Also to be dressed in knickerbockers if male and a long skirt if female.

    The best bit of kit on my bike? The bell.

    It really is invaluable when riding around anywhere there are pedestrians.

    You can always tell the cycling bell-ends by the fact they take the bell off their bike as soon as they buy it (*)... ;)

    (*) I will make an exception for bikes that are never ridden on suburban roads.
    But the worst pedestrians invariably have headphones in and so ignore the bell completely.
    I've given up using the southbound cycle lane on Westminster Bridge, it is completely unusable owing to tourists walking down it or across it, paying zero attention to any oncoming cyclists. It's a death trap, and much as I'd be happy to take a couple of them with me I value my own life too highly to use it. No doubt there will be some angry motorist behind me wondering why I am not using the cycle lane.
    round my way, relatively few (10%) of pedestrians have headphones on. IMO it's still worth doing for the rest who do.

    Westminster Bridge is possibly an extreme edge case, ;)
  • Looks like the BoE got their projections spot on. So a recession on the way, let's see how well Truss copes with that, I predict badly
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,356
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA.

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
    Crap. If we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood, expel Scottish MPs from Westminster and arrest and jail Sturgeon for sedition. Not merely refuse indyref2 as both Starmer and Truss and Sunak and even your own party leader Davey have said.

    Pillock. Yes that would do it and probably only take hours for people to be on the streets. Surprised you haven't proposed it. But it doesn't mean your current actions won't either, just it might take longer than next week for the riots. Hopefully it will never happen (I suspect it never will), but people like you cause these events by being so unpleasant. And even if it does not cause unrest in turns Unionist against you by being so unpleasant. Democracy is not about winning and then ruling with an iron hand, it is about compromise and considering the views of everyone.

    Why were you so pathetically weak on terrorists in NI? Do you not get the irony?
    That was largely what Spain did with Catalan nationalists, 5 years later Catalonia is still in Spain. I was merely showing how mild the UK government's refusal of indyref2 is in comparison. Democracy is not about
    SNP appeasement either.

    In what way am I weak on NI? I oppose a border poll there too
    You have repeated commented on supporting compromise in NI because of the violence in NI (not something that I necessarily disagree with), but won't show any compromise when there isn't violence. That is the irony and what is more it encourages violence where there currently is none.

    Yep Catalan still is in Spain. Would you now like to list all the countries over time that have had civil wars because of people with your attitude.
    Compromise yes for powersharing between Unionist and Nationalist in NI, not handing NI over to Dublin as the IRA and SF wanted.

    Civil wars occur because of deep division within nations, something the SNP are entrenching in Scotland with the divisions between Nationalist and Unionist
  • Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    1. Why not? If someone rides off after an accident, you need something that's visible.

    2. You don't, others do, hence the calls for a change in the law. Nor do they show much remorse. The pedestrian example is daft because it's the force of the object being risen / driven that does the damage.

    3. I don't drive. Sure motorists are selfish. But two wrongs don't make a right.

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    1) Again, need to tattoo the forehead of pedestrians to help identify shoplifters etc

    2) They? It's an individual on that bike, not some homogeneous group

    3) I do drive, weirdly. It's just damned expensive, so I use it for stuff outside Edinburgh.
    Why do people get so fussy about the pronoun "they"?

    "They" is a third person singular, or a third person plural. An individual on that bike would be a third person, so they is an entirely acceptable and appropriate pronoun.
    They to me just seems common courtesy.

    If I hear of somebody called say Alex who I haven't met, I call them they. If I call a man a woman it just seems rude!
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,792

    Pulpstar said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    That's quite some anger you have.
    Whereabouts in the country are you ? The hills tend to put off poor cyclists round here. Do you live in a particularly flat city ?
    On the Vale of Glamorgan Heritage Coast cycle route.

    They are a dangerous nightmare. The square I can't circle is they are motorists by week, inconsiderate cyclists on the weekend.
    Part of the trouble is that there are two extremes in cycling. One is John Major's old maids cycling to Holy Communion, the other is people cycling as high-impact exercise tourism.

    A lot of the second extreme are inconsiderate, but that's used as a stick to oppose stuff to help the first. But apart from the shape of the vehicle they use, they don't have a lot in common.

    And the opposition to the first sort of cycling- a potentially healthy, kind-to-the-environment, space efficient way for normal people to do shortish trips round town- is rather sad. And Bozza, for bizarre bohemian reasons, did do something positive about that.

    Rather than number plates, perhaps we should make wicker baskets mandatory.
    There are a variety of things that bicycles are supposed to be fitted with by law when they are sold, such as a bell and reflectors.
    And the 'dork disc' which must immediately join reflectors and bell in the bin.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,798
    Driver said:

    Eabhal said:

    Driver said:

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    Drivers whine when cycle infrastructure goes in because they can see it's barely used, and it certainly doesn't justify the amount of road space it takes up...
    They also whine when they get stuck behind a cyclist on the road.
    Highway Code rules 168 and 169...
    I don't see how 168 is relevant?

    And I will pull over if there is a safe place to do so - for example, cycle touring on Skye, every layby.

    Generally ride in the primary position to prevent dangerous overtakes or getting hit by a door opening, as advised by the Highway Code.
  • As a result of a last minute change Carlisle city status will be retained following the unitarity Cumberland Council. This will involve the appointment of Charter Trustees for the city as there is no local parish.

    Bath, Chester and Durham also currently have Charter Trustees for their city.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,308
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    The age of the enlightenment was also a time of some terrible abuses in British working practices. Four and five-year-old children were working in the mills and in the mines; working in conditions which threatened their lives.

    It was. The point is, things gradually got better, both then and subsequently.

    Without the Enlightenment, we'd be living in a world where about 5% of the population could vote, few would see anything problematic with child labour, and where our idea of fun would be popping down to Bedlam to torment the lunatics, visiting the local child brothel, or watching someone getting hanged, drawn and quartered.
    Yes, being Woke is just the Enlightenment continuing.
    Messy though. The screeching of so many foghorn entitled male white voices as they cling to privilege is quite painful on the ears.
    Strange how it takes one, it’s mainly a high pitched whine for me.
    Surprised you can hear anything above the endless, infantile mewling of the Scot Nits for their precious 2nd referendum, which they are never getting
    Oh they are getting it. It might be 2 years or it might be 20 years, but it will happen even if it is once in a generation. However the more stubborn and offensive to Scotland the UK government is the more likely the Nats will win which is why the Tories attitude is so stupid because it drive Scotland away.
    No, if you give the Nats an indyref every 5 minutes when they demand one then that is what eventually will see them get their way
    20 years time isn't every 5 min!!!! All I said is a vote will happen eventually even if in 20 years time. Leon said never so your point is ridiculous. The point I am making is regardless of whether it is 2 or 20 years if you behave in a stubborn and offensive way to a nation then they will react accordingly. That is the mistake you make. By being offensive you turn off people who might support you. I do not support Scotland leaving but I can understand them wanting to when people like you are so offensive to them. Who wants to be friends with someone who hates them.
    Good morning

    @HYUFD is unacceptably offensive to the Scots and more so to those of us who have a Scottish family and support the union

    Your comments are spot on and I reject every offensive, arrogant, and unacceptable comments he makes about Scotland
    What crap, it is not offensive to Scots to refuse indyref2 as both Sunak and Truss and even Starmer and Davey have said.

    If you want indyref2 so much go off and join the SNP!!!

    Your response illustrates perfectly your unacceptable confrontational attitude to Scots

    See @YBarddCwsc comments below re Ireland. It is @HYUFD attitude that leads to terrorism. He is hellbent on turning Scotland into another Northern Ireland. He will never give an inch or any compromise to a democratic peaceful group and acts aggressively towards them in the extreme, but happily whimpers to the demands of the IRA and UDA.

    As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out he only recognises power. Hence his admiration of dictators. There is not a democratic bone in his body.
    Crap. If we really wanted to do that we would scrap Holyrood, expel Scottish MPs from Westminster and arrest and jail Sturgeon for sedition. Not merely refuse indyref2 as both Starmer and Truss and Sunak and even your own party leader Davey have said.

    Pillock. Yes that would do it and probably only take hours for people to be on the streets. Surprised you haven't proposed it. But it doesn't mean your current actions won't either, just it might take longer than next week for the riots. Hopefully it will never happen (I suspect it never will), but people like you cause these events by being so unpleasant. And even if it does not cause unrest in turns Unionist against you by being so unpleasant. Democracy is not about winning and then ruling with an iron hand, it is about compromise and considering the views of everyone.

    Why were you so pathetically weak on terrorists in NI? Do you not get the irony?
    That was largely what Spain did with Catalan nationalists, 5 years later Catalonia is still in Spain. I was merely showing how mild the UK government's refusal of indyref2 is in comparison. Democracy is not about
    SNP appeasement either.

    In what way am I weak on NI? I oppose a border poll there too
    You have repeated commented on supporting compromise in NI because of the violence in NI (not something that I necessarily disagree with), but won't show any compromise when there isn't violence. That is the irony and what is more it encourages violence where there currently is none.

    Yep Catalan still is in Spain. Would you now like to list all the countries over time that have had civil wars because of people with your attitude.
    Compromise yes for powersharing between Unionist and Nationalist in NI, not handing NI over to Dublin as the IRA and SF wanted.

    Civil wars occur because of deep division within nations, something the SNP are entrenching in Scotland with the divisions between Nationalist and Unionist
    On the latter point, it takes 2 to tango, and the Civil War in Ireland started basically because of Conservative militaristic encouragement for the Unionist cause. Many early campaigners for Irish independence were Protestants.

    I was also concerned by the short clip last night from the Perth hustings where there were loud cheers when one of the candidates for prime minister made it clear that they were opposed to an independence referendum. It wasn't a good sound; more like a Trump rally!
    Maybe though, that was just me!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,778

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    1. Why not? If someone rides off after an accident, you need something that's visible.

    2. You don't, others do, hence the calls for a change in the law. Nor do they show much remorse. The pedestrian example is daft because it's the force of the object being risen / driven that does the damage.

    3. I don't drive. Sure motorists are selfish. But two wrongs don't make a right.

    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    A few things:

    1. Your bike might be registered but the Police will do sweet FA about it. If it had to show a licence plate though, a criminal certainly has an issue either riding it or selling it on because there is a visible identification tag. Sure, you could do false licence plates but that wouldn't work either.

    2. On the flip side of your points, if you go through a red light or a pedestrian crossing, or hurtle down the hill, nearly knocking over older people and pedestrians and then swearing at them that it's their fault plus not stopping for accidents, then you are not better. Having just a few weeks back had an argument with a cyclist who didn't take due care and then berated me because of her crash (she got as good back and several people came up after to say how good it was that I said what I did), I have little truck with that.

    3. No, I wouldn't refund you the tax unless you are quite happy to refund me the tax I pay for example for other peoples' children to have an education system when I don't have kids of my own. I'm also quite happy to get a rebate for a social security system I don't use. Let me know.



    Eabhal said:

    MrEd said:


    If you are being serious, I'm with you 100%. There are too many of the fuckers who are inconsiderate and take the piss because they know they can. Plus, their holier than thou "I'm a cyclist which makes me a good person" shit is wearisome.

    One question might be, if there are licence plates, does it have an impact on bicycle theft?

    Andy_JS said:

    Number plates for cyclists is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

    Apparently Grant Shapps is behind it.

    It's a great idea, and the insurance!

    Next time one of the ******** runs a red, a fine and points on their corresponding car driving licence (or if they don't have one, a double fine). It's the least they deserve. Take that you wanton and furious cyclists!
    If you have an expensive bike it will already be marked and registered. The police do this for free.

    And, @MrEd, in the midst of a energy crisis, obesity epidemic, air pollution deaths and ever increasing congestion in our cities, I am better than you.

    Indeed, if you would like to refund me for the tax I paid that went on subsidising the building of motorways and dual carriageways across the country, I will make my bank details available to you.
    1) The mark is visible? It's just like a registration plate. You suggesting a full size registration plate, like a motorbike one?

    2) Well I don't. And the chances of your cyclist killing or injuring someone are minute Would you extend the policy to pedestrians? Lots of them do murdering and stuff.

    3) Sure, of course. But drivers should stop being a little whiny ..... every time they see some cycle infrastructure going in.
    1) Again, need to tattoo the forehead of pedestrians to help identify shoplifters etc

    2) They? It's an individual on that bike, not some homogeneous group

    3) I do drive, weirdly. It's just damned expensive, so I use it for stuff outside Edinburgh.
    Why do people get so fussy about the pronoun "they"?

    "They" is a third person singular, or a third person plural. An individual on that bike would be a third person, so they is an entirely acceptable and appropriate pronoun.
    They to me just seems common courtesy.

    If I hear of somebody called say Alex who I haven't met, I call them they. If I call a man a woman it just seems rude!
    Yes. Lacking a historic third person gender free singular a substitute has been invented, better than 'he or she'. It isn't long since 'he' did for both genders but not now.

    BTW on pronouns my dislike is the 'Guardian "we" '. As is 'Why O why do we make more fuss about pretty white female murder victims than ugly old male green ones'. When 'we' is used to mean 'everyone except me and my woke mates'.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,576
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Ramsden solar farm plan pulled for changes

    Council planning officers said the plan, which was opposed by 167 people, could be "uncharacteristic and distracting". Another 12 people registered their support.

    The authority's conservation officer objected to the scheme and said Akeman Street's historical significance would be damaged by the project.

    Akeman Street is an "important" Roman road on a east-west route, linking Watling Street to Fosse Way and is "a fascinating survival of part of an impressive network", they said.

    Others opposed to the scheme have said it could damage the village's character, close to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-62493219

    for anyone who was wondering why liz is on about sheepies vs panels

    I wonder if this kind of thing happened in WW2 as well.
    Well quite. In particular, Akeman Street is not that seriously affected if they aren't shutting it off (they aren't). And you are in a AONB or not, if you are close to it you weren't thought to have enough NB to be in it.
    The panels would need quite a bit of digging for foundations and cables. The hjold might make sense if it were Alchester Roman city but there is no mention of it being an archaeologically valuable landscape comparable to say that around Stonehenge or in Silchester. Maybe there is something we are missing.
    Archaeologically, going ahead is arguably the winning strategy, because the foundation digging might throw up something really interesting and you then get a hold, and a serious incentive for solarpanelco to sponsor the archaeology to get it done asap.
    I assume an awful lot of decent archaeology only happens because building or other activity is going to happen. Otherwise why bother digging in x field?
    IT does. But it has to be done in a hurry and covered over again, to someone else's timetable AIUI. Very different from the lkong term digs such as at Silchester. Pros and cons, horses for courses - a pipeline for instance gives a long swathe of country to sample, as does HS2.
    I sometimes wond
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury for starters. You also have places larger than plenty of cities which are just parishes like Weston Super Mare Town Council.
    Salisbury is only a city because it has a cathedral, its population of only 45,000 is well below the standard 100,000 population now accepted to be needed for city status
    Accepted by who? Salisbury is a historic city and has been for centuries.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,604
    edited August 2022
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury for starters. You also have places larger than plenty of cities which are just parishes like Weston Super Mare Town Council.
    Salisbury is only a city because it has a cathedral, its population of only 45,000 is well below the standard 100,000 population now accepted to be needed for city status
    I thought that the C of E was such an integral part of the English State that the very fact of having a cathedral is undoubtedly all you need to be a city. I mean, we can't have people like you destroying the old certainties of Royal control of the approved sect and claiming that Salisbury isn't a city.
    It was in the Medieval period and in Scotland and Wales too but every area with a cathedral is already a city anyway. So now the general criteria is city status is only granted to urban areas with a population over 100 000
    Not true. Really silly urban myth in fact. City status is conferred by the state. Blackburn, Brecon, Bury St. Edmunds, Clogher, Downpatrick, Dromore, Enniskillen, Guildford, Millport, Oban, Rochester, Southwark, and Southwell - all have Cathedrals but are not cities. Rochester lost its city status because the Medway Local Authority forgot to create a commission to carry on the Royal Charter.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,756

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    Mr. Romford, parliamentary boundaries deepen political divisions on a permanent basis as Holyrood has proven (from killing nationalism stone dead to an independence referendum in a couple of decades).

    If England is carved into bits then either the 'assemblies' have power equal to Holyrood or they don't. If they do then that means income tax tinkering, differing health and transports policies, and it'll be about six minutes before demagogues in London are claiming the city should keep more of its own taxes and demagogues elsewhere are claiming they deserve their 'fair share' (per head) of spending and London get too much.

    If the 'assemblies' do not have equal power then they're a waste of time and money, as opposed to permanently slicing England into pieces. Neither way is acceptable.

    If Scotland deserves a Parliament, so can England. And I don't care that England has a higher population.

    a) What is the demand among English voters for an English parliament?

    b) Which of the parties with even a slight chance of having a pinky on the levers of power has any policy on creating an English parliament?
    This page claims pollign north of 50% in support of an English Parliament.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolved_English_parliament#Opinion_polls

    I don't buy it - if that were genuine, and not some kind of proxy opinion for something that sounds correct to show support for England, it would be the policy of a major party by now. This isn't divergence from public opinion like the death penalty, which was changed so long ago, devolved parliaments and constitutional questions hav ebeen live debates for the last couple of decades quite intently, one of the big two would have picked up on it by now.

    I do think the Tories will go for it at some point though - especially if they lose the next election.
    The issue with regards to a Northern parliament or a Yorkshire parliament is where you draw the borders. Where is the southern boundary of this northern area and how do you manage the edge cases? As for Yorkshire, is that today's bits of Yorkshire, or proper Yorkshire before places like Saddleworth and York and Middlesbrough were removed from it?

    All fixable, but has to be done via the consensus that this is the model to apply. As for why no major party has done so, how do they do that? Even within England there is clearly a growing north / south divide. When Labour were largely the north / cities and the Tories the south / countryside it was easy to manage - set your policies accordingly.

    But both now represent both and need MPs for both. The Tories are painfully demonstrating how delivering what the north genuinely needs is unpopular in the south. So how do you propose better democratic representation for Yorkshire without proposing something similar for the home counties?
    Or just give more powers to city, county and unitary councils
    Why have they fiddled about with combined authorities etc rather than do that?

    I assume you mean metropolitan boroughs and not merely any city council there, since some city councils are merely parishes.
    What city Ccouncil is merely a parish? Almost all city councils are metropolitan boroughs, except London which is an assembly plus boroughs
    Salisbury. A city, with a parish council administering the city.
    St Davids
    St. Asaphs waves too!
    Lichfield is also a city and civil parish within the Lichfield district of Staffordshire.
This discussion has been closed.