LadyDeliah

It was the police who reversed the cycle target policy which had been sent out by a senior officer in a memo, not the paper who retracted the story. So the policy was in force, senior officer was criticised after it came out and policy was reversed.

After the deaths, a senior police officer told police to target cyclists, not motorists: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3933789.ece This was criticised a week or so ago by the Transport minister and has since been pulled. But yes, they were targeting cyclists far more than motorists when they did the traffic offences swoop.

AGW3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Terrible. > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/search- > for-cyclist-after-alleged-attack-on-london-road-ca > ught-on-youtube-video-9081104.html?origin=internal > Search "The footage comes amid growing concerns over cyclist safety in London. 14 cyclist died in the capital in 2013, and in November, the Metropolitan Police began deploying officers at 166 key junctions to stop people breaking road traffic laws in an attempt to make roads safer" No they mainly pulled cyclists for cycling on pavements and going through red lights. Very few law breaking motorists were pulled. Awful footage though. I've had many similar altercations but haven't had any resulting in a punch up. Had a bus drive right accross the junction about an inch away from me, where Rye Lane cycle contraflow bit is, because I had stopped past the red cycle stop light. I've got it on my helmet-cam so I'm going to send it to Arriva and hope the arsehole loses his job.

By the way, our government still sends Tamils back to be tortured and killed by the Sri Lankan government, despite overwhelming evidence that this is precisely what will happen before they are removed. Sorry, back on topic I am waiting for the new Revenge series on Channel 4. Totally crap, but addictive :-)

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shit a brick, just watched "No Fire Zone" about > the Sri Lankan crushing of the tigers and the > deliberate murder of tens of thousands innocent > civilians. > Feel quite drained and utterly ashamed that our > leaders just went over there with mild rebukes and > smiles rather than arrest warrants for The Hague. > @#$%&!!!!!!!! This is the kind of stuff we have to research when we do asylum claims. Gives you a different perspective on life when you see what appalling things are going on around the world and have the victims sitting in front of you telling their stories and showing you their torture scars.

Pets can appear to be beneficial to people's health, so saying it's not socially beneficial to keep pets is incorrect. Benefits to people's health is always a benefit to society: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130509163902.htm http://www.docstoc.com/docs/48365516/THE-BENEFITS-OF-PET-OWNERSHIP http://petsfortheelderly.org/research.html#5

When I came to London from Merseyside in the mid-1980's, there were loads of us and we were all squatting. We had the electricitry and gas hooked up pretty quickly by British Gas and whoever the electricity company was back then and we paid bills, beleive it or not! No problem having hot baths/showers living in a squat or cooking real food. We even fixed the places up and stayed in them for years. We were economic migrants from Thatcher's Northern wastelands and as soon as any of us were able to get a tenancy (because the areas we mainly squatted were hard to let council flats which had been empty for years) we even paid rent too!

One more vote for the squatters - hope they run some squat parties too. ED has become a bit boring :-)

Yes some of the responses were funny without any images of the poster's spittle flecked keyboards popping into my head, but others, well, what can I say?

It just makes me laugh when people get so angry at middle-class stereotypes which although might be mildly offensive (not that I think these are), don't have any discernable negative impact on their employment / education / life prospects etc. The strength of the reactions to this stuff always amuses me.

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Wow, some fairly aggressive responses to a few > > snarky comments about the middle classes of ED. > > > > One might conclude that a nerve or two were > being > > touched! > > Let's start a racist thread and see if that's > better received shall we? Bigotry is bigotry, > regardless who is on the receiving end. So you really think the comments of the OP are on a par with racist abuse of an often disadvantaged minority?

Wow, some fairly aggressive responses to a few snarky comments about the middle classes of ED. One might conclude that a nerve or two were being touched!

Another example of dangerous driving. Wouldn't have happened on a bike!

Lol, for what Otta?

Why do so many drivers want to kill me? Death threats. Near-misses. A run-in with Clarkson. Radio 2 host and (very scared) cyclist JEREMY VINE on the terrors he faces on the road: Interesting piece in the Daily Fail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2538377/Why-drivers-want-kill-Death-threats-Near-misses-A-run-Clarkson-Radio-2-host-scared-cyclist-JEREMY-VINE-terrors-faces-road.html The comments underneath are predictable!

No idea why I thought that then. Sorry for impunging your charatcer!

Lol, I'm pretty sure I'm the biggest law bore on the EDF. I was a late convert.

Annette Curtain Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Law bore > > I do cycle on the pavement safely, when no one's > too near my bike > > I know it's against the law, but then splattering > me with a truck or bus is against the law. Trouble > is that won't help me when i'm under it. > Particular places feel really vulnerable on a > bike, so I then go somewhere safer (occasionally > the pavement) and use my judgement to determine > how safe/dangerous i'm being > > It's a bit ad hoc, but works for me and i've hurt > nobody either > > Elephant & castle & South Circ by Forest hill > station scare the plop out of me > > Oh and i've been fined for cycling on the > pavement. I rode about 10 yards onto it to post a > letter and one of the new police type people saw > me, blew his whistle and warned me. Without > thinking, after I posted the letter I scooted back > on my bike. He was beside himself with ticket > fever on that one. Silly me. He REALLY told me off > when i said "Oh well, I've been cycling safely on > the pavement for 30 years, so a ?65 fine seems > pretty good value, considering" > > Don't care if I get caught again, if it's safe > enough and clear i'll be on there Lol. Sorry for being a law bore. Just can't help myself.

Jonathan62 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ministerial statements are a means for providing > an account to Parliament; they may also clarify, > or indeed change, administrative rules and > procedures but they are not laws. They are a statement of policy and ok, yes they are not strictly law, but failure to follow stated policies is challangembale by way of JR so policy is an integral part of the legal arena. > > Judicial Review cannot be done against legislation > passed by parliament, but is allowable on > decisions taken by public bodies. I didn't say that JR can be used to challenge legislation. A 1st year law student would be able to tell you that JR is soley for decisions made by public bodies. You can however challenge legislation by requesting a court make a Declaration of Incompatibility with the ECHR of any legislation under s.4 of the Human Rghts Act 1998, which is the closest thing we have to the power to declare legislation to be unlawful.

Jonathan62 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ministerial statements are a means for providing > an account to Parliament; they may also clarify, > or indeed change, administrative rules and > procedures but they are not laws. They are statement of policy and ok, yes they are not strictly law, but failure to follow stated policies is challangembale by way of JR so policy is an integral part of the legal arena. > > Judicial Review cannot be done against legislation > passed by parliament, but is allowable on > decisions taken by public bodies. I didn't say that JR can be used to challenge legislation. A 1st year law student would be able to tell you that JR is soley for decisions made by public bodies.

I had a small tv anyway and if my laptop, which is pretty big, is on the shelf thing, I don't get a crick neck from laying on my bed watching it sideways. Plus my daughter can see too when she is with me. Probably sounds crap to you tv junkies with your big wall size plasma screens, but I'm not a fan of room dominating entertainment unless it's live (as in physically present) or in the cinema.

Count me in.

I haven't had a TV for a couple of years since my last one broke. Can't be arsed with all the dross. I just watch things I'm interested in on my laptop instead. Even put my laptop on the hinged shelf thing that used to hold my old portable TV in me bedroom when I'm watching films. Can't imagine buying a TV again, doesn't seem to be any reason to. Amanda

Lol. Give and take Foxy. If you're going to give it, you need to learn to take it. One of The laws of physics son.

I think his posts may be somewhat deceptive. The Fox seems to me be one of those people who hit middle age in his 20's :-)