EU referendum are you in or out

[PumaG]

There's also an increasing amount of unsocial behaviour with motor vehicles. I observe there are far less traffic Police on the roads. A new law came out a couple of years ago, yet theres nobody around to enforce it. The law in the Uk seems very soft-touch.

You don't half talk some shit.

And you're a complete cunt trying to invalidate me.

The increase in antisocial behaviour seems to be pretty much generalised across the western world at least.

Nice diversion, Im talking about motor vehicles and a specific EU policy that only the UK rejected, which keeps this on topic.

You live in a country that I understand bans the type of modifications that cause anti-social behaviour, annoyance and potential health issues.
The UK MPs stop the EU bringing in the same laws as france, because they are lobbied by the distasteful industry, of which the most popular product is actually illegal to fit.

only specific problem I've seen in the UK in terms of road usage is due to massive overcongestion

Oh, well that invalidates me and my family's experiences and outstanding issues with the police doesn't it. What a fucking wanker you are. Britain's loss was France's loss when you showed up.

https://webcontact.sussex.police.uk/asdprs/default.aspx
http://dashboard.sussexsrp.org.uk

Nobody can invalidate a person, nor tried to, because that would be silly. Words can be invalidated, but you are not your words

You are ill, get help.

yeah sure, being unable to articulate myself well, will show up in a blood test, right? I dunno, you tell me, is the use of enlarged font a symptom too?

whatever the illness, that's no excuse for those replying to me, to twist my words. Note when tufty's questions were answered he went quiet.

By these standards, more than half the Internet is ill. So I'm going to call you out as a smug cunt, with nothing but tired old puts -downs up his sleeve.

[tufty]

And you're a complete cunt … What a fucking wanker you are. Britain's loss was France's loss when you showed up.

Gosh, what an angry little man you are. I think somebody said something about that recently. Ah, yes.

If we met in real life, I'm sure you'd be shocked. I'm almost certain you're someone who couldn't keep me entertained for very long. I'm 100% positive you'd also keep your insults to yourself.

Still...

Note when tufty's questions were answered he went quiet.

No, he'd gone to bed. And now he's off to work.

[KlaxonCow]

I would expect all EU countries to use similar Police resources on their roads

I wouldn't.

I would rather expect it to be proportional to what's actually required to reach an acceptable equilibrium.

In the same way that I'd expect there to be numerically more police officers in London, compared to, say, Swansea or on the Orkney Islands. Simply because, you know, more people live in London and it's a bigger area to cover and the population density is larger... and so forth.

What's needed is a (rough) equality of outcome, not an equality of resource allocation. Insisting that all towns and cities have exactly the same number of officers would see London massively under-served at one end and then a small town becoming like a police state as it's grossly over-served at the other. Thus, pleasing absolutely no-one.

In contradiction to Punch, that's not the way you do it.


I suspect that your insistence to exaggerate your complaints about the UK is just a part of your internal mental justification for you and your family's relocation elsewhere - the more "wrong" the UK has become would, indeed, justify how "right" you were to make this effort - and the continued degree of this insistence in the face of challenging contrary evidence is likely because, on some level, you doubt your own internal narrative on this.

But here's the thing. You don't need things to be worse from where you left to justify where you are now. You simply have to be at peace with your decision that it was correct for you and your family, on a personal level, in this moment. Justify it positively by what it is, not negatively by what it isn't, or you'll never be entirely happy with your choices.

[gravy]

I don’t dispute that other countries are better for cyclists. But that does not mean cycling here is especially bad, or dangerous. Uniquely of the forms of road transport it is the only one that improves your health and so prolongs your life. As a form of exercise it’s one of the best, that you can do at almost any age. You need only compare the death rates from cycling to those from heart disease.

So yes, the roads could be more welcoming for cyclists. Not because it would save more cyclists lives, as fatalities are low and outweighed by the health benefits. But as it would encourage more people to cycle and so improve their health, as well as the environment.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445924 ... oad-deaths


He said: "We are here because Londoners are fed up of being killed. We need to have modern, European, safe cycling network. We believe it's a human right for children and pensioners to cycle around our city safely, and at the moment they can't.

'The number of cyclists killed per cycled kilometre is very much influenced by the total number of cycled kilometres. The accident risk based on the amount of cycling is lowest in Denmark and the Netherlands (resp. 15.9 and 17.6 fatalities per billion km).

The risk is particularly high in France and Great-Britain (resp. 67.7 and 52.5), where the amount of cycling is low. It has been proven that the risk decreases as exposure increases. An increase in cycling is not automatically linked with a linear increase in road casualties [72].

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safe ... sts_en.htm


http://freights.eu/article/on-the-road/ ... -hgvs.html

Cycling is, on the whole, more dangerous than other parts if Europe.

I cycle a lot and even so it's not bad and though we're behind the trend is good. It's a hot transport topic and a big push on cycling in London means cyclists now nearly outnumber drivers in the city.

Everything else you've claimed is utter shit. It's why for some mad reason we're talking about cycling in the uk when you don't live in the uk or cycle here.

You're also banging on about air quality and pollution and how you'd be ruthless about it when it also sounds like a big part of your contact with this country is a monthly drive around our motorways.

How about not driving?

[gravy]

Warsi quits leave

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ic-tactics

[KlaxonCow]

I'm surprised to discover that she was ever part of it in the first place, to be honest.




Looking at the offending poster, with Nigel posed in front of it, I can't help but think he's not very good at PR, is he?

Because it makes him look like he's one of their number. Like he's their leader, guiding them on their exodus. A latter day Moses, if you will.

Somewhat counter and confused to the message he's actually trying to deliver there.

(That's the thing with negative campaigning that you have to be wary of, as you're constantly presenting yourself right next to negative things all the time, it might unintentionally set up the wrong associations in people's brains. As they keep seeing you and the bad things are mentioned, they see you again and the bad thing is mentioned. You're forever strengthening the negative association in people's minds.)

[gravy]

The worst bit? There was 1 white face in the original picture.

And they slapped the word LEAVE on top of it.

Cunts.

[KlaxonCow]

And, to be honest, the image is cropped maliciously.

You can see from the people in the distance, that the queue isn't actually that wide. It ends about 2 inches off the right side of the poster, in fact.

But cropping it like that allows your imagination to fill in the gap and picture there being vastly more people than there is. And what's actually a queue of comparable size to the sort you see outside a rock concert, waiting to get into the stadium, is made out to be a gargantuan exodus.

The photographers here will also spot the other little malicious trick used with the depth of field. Those folks in the background are out of focus, as if they were a very long way away. But, wait, the folks in the foreground are very rapidly going out of focus too. Look at someone who's in clear focus and then note that, only 3 or 4 people deep in front or behind them, they're already very blurry. You know how big a person is, so 3 or 4 people deep is not that much distance.

(I'm also noticing that the words "breaking point" have been leant back to also suggest additional depth to the image too, just to reinforce the "this goes on for miles" feeling, which isn't actually true, if you stop and assess what you're looking at logically. Size-wise, it's more like a rock concert queue, which we see every day to no ill effect.)

You get the gist. They've greatly exaggerated the depth of field because it tricks the brain with visual depth cues into interpreting it as a far greater distance to those folks in the background than it really is. And cropped it to let your imagination picture even more people off to the side, who aren't actually there.

It's been photographed to make it look worse than it really is. Because, indeed, they're cunts.

[Deckard]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexi ... f70f46cfe1

The Times seems to be changing its reporting stance from neutral/leave to stay...wonder where that editorial change came from..... UKIP and Boris what a dream team to be aligned with and their motley C list support crew

[gravy]

Hedge betting from Murdoch innit.

The Mail On Sunday came out for stay and it wouldn't surprise me if the Mail declares for leave.

[KlaxonCow]

Well, there's surely no doubt of Thomas Mair's motivations now that, when asked to confirm his name in court, he declared that his name was "death to traitors, freedom for Britain".

And the police have also confirmed that, upon arrest, he told them that he was "a political activist". A search of his home found articles relating to Cox - thus making it rather clear that this was a perfectly premeditated murder that he planned - and extreme right / white supremacist materials.

I mean, if he had brown skin and had shouted "Allahu akbar" as he murdered her, instead of "put Britain first" (which multiple people independently heard, so it was always a bit grasping at straws to dismiss it as "unconfirmed" anyway - technically correct as all eyewitness evidence is inherently "hearsay" but, come on, it's not very likely that numerous people all simultaneously got it wrong in exactly the same way), then the Brexiters would have had no problems immediately declaring all of Islam as being the cause.

Obviously, he is mentally ill. There is no sane justification for such unhinged brutal action, regardless of provocation, so it cannot be any other way, really.

But, well, exactly the same thing is true of a radical Muslim in a terrorist attack too, so there really is no distinction to be found there.

Yes, they're mentally ill, but you can't entirely divorce responsibility for the consequences, if you start chanting "kill them! kill them!" over and over at a mentally unstable person - knowing full well that they are impressionable and can be manipulated, exactly because these people don't have an ordinary grasp of reality to know better - and, lo and behold, they decide to actually do it.

But we also must say the same thing about radical Abrahamism chanting "God hates gays" over and over as well. The point is that "he's mentally ill" is not really an excuse here, but actually the explanation - a mentally stable person could resist the pressure, as they understand reality well enough to deny what's untrue, where the mad man lacks sufficient grasp that they're all the more manipulable. It's not lessened by the fact that these people are clearly mad, it's heightened.

These causes are purposefully picking on the weak and vulnerable. It's part of the strategy.

"Blessed are the meek... for they are always gullible suckers for all this cheap flattery."

[gravy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_fb

[PumaG]

I don’t dispute that other countries are better for cyclists. But that does not mean cycling here is especially bad, or dangerous. Uniquely of the forms of road transport it is the only one that improves your health and so prolongs your life. As a form of exercise it’s one of the best, that you can do at almost any age. You need only compare the death rates from cycling to those from heart disease.

So yes, the roads could be more welcoming for cyclists. Not because it would save more cyclists lives, as fatalities are low and outweighed by the health benefits. But as it would encourage more people to cycle and so improve their health, as well as the environment.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445924 ... oad-deaths


He said: "We are here because Londoners are fed up of being killed. We need to have modern, European, safe cycling network. We believe it's a human right for children and pensioners to cycle around our city safely, and at the moment they can't.

'The number of cyclists killed per cycled kilometre is very much influenced by the total number of cycled kilometres. The accident risk based on the amount of cycling is lowest in Denmark and the Netherlands (resp. 15.9 and 17.6 fatalities per billion km).

The risk is particularly high in France and Great-Britain (resp. 67.7 and 52.5), where the amount of cycling is low. It has been proven that the risk decreases as exposure increases. An increase in cycling is not automatically linked with a linear increase in road casualties [72].

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safe ... sts_en.htm


http://freights.eu/article/on-the-road/ ... -hgvs.html

Cycling is, on the whole, more dangerous than other parts if Europe.

I cycle a lot and even so it's not bad and though we're behind the trend is good. It's a hot transport topic and a big push on cycling in London means cyclists now nearly outnumber drivers in the city.

Everything else you've claimed is utter shit. It's why for some mad reason we're talking about cycling in the uk when you don't live in the uk or cycle here.

You're also banging on about air quality and pollution and how you'd be ruthless about it when it also sounds like a big part of your contact with this country is a monthly drive around our motorways.

How about not driving?

1. I drive to the uk on the eurotunnel with two bikes on my roof, under frequent traveller tickets, once per month as a minimum. (mentioned in other treads you were posting in) I spend a week there and use my bike as often as possible, inc on the train.
2. I stated right here earlier on, In the UK I need to lock my bike with a far bigger and more expensive lock than should be required, outside train stations (well discussed on uk forums) and ffs locking bikes outside pubs and cafes? (mentioned in regards to police cuts, Ive witnessed the police do very little in the uk regards to bike crime)
3. The EU has transport directives, and the UK is behind other EU countries
4. The EU has air pollution directives and policies that the UK can not adhere to and has been fined. Posted you a guardian link./
5. You've just repeated what I said (and the link I posted) regards to to the trend being good and the push in London.

Once again I have to repeat myself and highlight your bullshitting and insult.

[Barney]

I spend a week there and use my bike as often as possible, inc on the train.

Eh? I'm fairly certain rail operators would disallow that. And it's not like you can get very far, anyway. The carriages are quite short and you'd have to keep stopping to open the doors.

[gravy]

I cycle pretty much every day.

I don't count your once a month long motorway drives to the UK coupled with cycling "as much as you can" as you being a UK cyclist or giving a flying fuck about pollution.

I've accepted cycling being harder over here than some EU countries but also pointed out there's a positive trend in the both the amount of cycling and safety of it in the UK too. Which is fair because it's true. Something you've omitted in a desperate scrabble to justify your idiotic prejudice about life in the UK.

Honestly mate, fuck off with your confused nonsense. I don't understand why you're FFSing about leaving your bike outside cafes. I do it, it's not tied down and isn't stolen. Again at complete odds with what you're saying EVERYTHING IN THE UK HAS TO BE TIED DOWN OR IT'S NICKED!!! No it doesn't

Everytime you've been hauled up for talking through your arse you've switched topic; politicisation of Jo Cox's murder to the UK is a shithole to crime in the UK is rife to driving is worse and now cycling. And while moaning about people not staying on topic and your words being twisted (by cunts!)

I get it. You don't like it over here, you don't like any criticism of the right and you don't like liberals and you don't like thinking. You've got your message over now.

The real problem with this thread is people like me actually paying more attention to what you're saying than you are yourself and then trying to deal with it on a rational basis.

And for that, I'm sorry