C.ritical Mass London ride last Friday.

[Doug[_10_]]

An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance when a single CM
rider was arrested on Friday. Strange they did not notice any rammings
of cyclists by drivers which were taking place, as usual.. It makes
one wonder if the police do not like CM doesn't it. Maybe though those
cops are mostly motorists with a bit of a bias who don't like cyclists
anyway.

More:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48644287@N00/4733775027/in/set-72157624357807462

-- .
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
Drivers ram cyclists because they can.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 27/06/2010 06:40, Doug wrote:
> An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance when a single CM
> rider was arrested on Friday. Strange they did not notice any rammings
> of cyclists by drivers which were taking place, as usual.. It makes
> one wonder if the police do not like CM doesn't it. Maybe though those
> cops are mostly motorists with a bit of a bias who don't like cyclists
> anyway.

From your link ... "The van deployed one officer who was armed with an
activated expandable baton and chased the speedie cyclist on foot. The
cyclist left the foot officer in the dust while the van attempted to
cross into the path of 500+ cyclists ... Anyway I believe they got their
single suspect."

It would seem that if they were pursuing one cyclist amongst 500+ and
deployed extra officers and eventually apprehended the cyclist that he
had actually done something seriously wrong.

It would appear that as you don't know what he was being chased for so
your comments don't necessarily correlate between cm and a police action
to arrest someone possibly not connected to cm. Is it usual cm practise
to block and hinder police? If so I don't see how you can complain when
they use force to get to their suspects.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Marie]

On Jun 27, 6:40*am, Doug > wrote:
> An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance when a single CM
> rider was arrested on Friday. Strange they did not notice any rammings
> of cyclists by drivers which were taking place, as usual.. It makes
> one wonder if the police do not like CM doesn't it. Maybe though those
> cops are mostly motorists with a bit of a bias who don't like cyclists
> anyway.
>
> More:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/48644287@N00/4733775027/in/set-721576243...
>
> -- .
> Critical Mass Londonhttp://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> Drivers ram cyclists because they can.

Translation
Police wanted to question a cyclist.
CM obstructed the police vehicle
Cyclist fled the scene
Police responded with other resources as fast as possible
Police caught suspect
CM invented 'how fast must the police have driven' & 'rammings' as a
smokescreen
CM cyclist posts picture of cyclists cycling over pedestrian crossing
with pedestrians on crossing.
CM cyclist post pictures of cyclists bullying moped rider

[Doug[_10_]]

On 27 June, 10:50, Paul - xxx > wrote:
> On 27/06/2010 06:40, Doug wrote:
>
> > An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance when a single CM
> > rider was arrested on Friday. Strange they did not notice any rammings
> > of cyclists by drivers which were taking place, as usual.. It makes
> > one wonder if the police do not like CM doesn't it. Maybe though those
> > cops are mostly motorists with a bit of a bias who don't like cyclists
> > anyway.
>
> *From your link ... "The van deployed one officer who was armed with an
> activated expandable baton and chased the speedie cyclist on foot. The
> cyclist left the foot officer in the dust while the van attempted to
> cross into the path of 500+ cyclists ... Anyway I believe they got their
> single suspect."
>
> It would seem that if they were pursuing one cyclist amongst 500+ and
> deployed extra officers and eventually apprehended the cyclist that he
> had actually done something seriously wrong.
>
> It would appear that as you don't know what he was being chased for so
> your comments don't necessarily correlate between cm and a police action
> to arrest someone possibly not connected to cm. *Is it usual cm practise
> to block and hinder police? *If so I don't see how you can complain when
> they use force to get to their suspects.
>
Here is more for you to dissect from a motorist's POV.

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/5065

Something for you to ponder though. If impatient drivers deliberately
ram cyclists how should cyclists respond?

-- .
Critical Mass London.
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 28/06/2010 06:16, Doug wrote:
> On 27 June, 10:50, Paul - > wrote:
>> On 27/06/2010 06:40, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance

>> It would appear that as you don't know what he was being chased for so
>> your comments don't necessarily correlate between cm and a police action
>> to arrest someone possibly not connected to cm. Is it usual cm practise
>> to block and hinder police? If so I don't see how you can complain when
>> they use force to get to their suspects.
>>
> Here is more for you to dissect from a motorist's POV.

No, the above is reading between the lines to come to a more balanced
view. I note you don't deny 'my' version of events ...

cba to read the link ...

> Something for you to ponder though. If impatient drivers deliberately
> ram cyclists how should cyclists respond?

By any legal means available, call the police? Mind, as the cyclists
are engaged in illegal/dangerous activities themselves, like riding over
a pedestrian crossing being used by pedestrians as can clearly be seen
in the photo's from the first link, perhaps that's not a good call.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_10_]]

On 28 June, 07:21, Paul - xxx > wrote:
> On 28/06/2010 06:16, Doug wrote:
>
> > On 27 June, 10:50, Paul - > *wrote:
> >> On 27/06/2010 06:40, Doug wrote:
>
> >>> An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance
> >> It would appear that as you don't know what he was being chased for so
> >> your comments don't necessarily correlate between cm and a police action
> >> to arrest someone possibly not connected to cm. *Is it usual cm practise
> >> to block and hinder police? *If so I don't see how you can complain when
> >> they use force to get to their suspects.
>
> > Here is more for you to dissect from a motorist's POV.
>
> No, the above is reading between the lines to come to a more balanced
> view. *I note you don't deny 'my' version of events ...
>
Actually I do deny your 'reading between the lines', aka personal
interpretation.CM did not hinder the police instead the police
hindered CM, which held up traffic for quite some time.
>
> cba to read the link ...
>
> > Something for you to ponder though. If impatient drivers deliberately
> > ram cyclists how should cyclists respond?
>
> By any legal means available, call the police?
>
The police have been called in the past but they don't seem at all
interested and often blame the vulnerable victim anyway.
>
> *Mind, as the cyclists
> are engaged in illegal/dangerous activities themselves, like riding over
> a pedestrian crossing being used by pedestrians as can clearly be seen
> in the photo's from the first link, perhaps that's not a good call.
>
So let me get this straight. You suggest cyclists should always
respond by turning the other cheek when a cyclist is deliberately
rammed by a driver? Shouldn't the same rule also apply to a driver who
is corked by cyclists and should turn the other cheek instead of
trying to ram them?

-- .
Critical Mass London.
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist"

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 28/06/2010 07:35, Doug wrote:
> On 28 June, 07:21, Paul - > wrote:
>> On 28/06/2010 06:16, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 June, 10:50, Paul - > wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2010 06:40, Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>> An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance
>>>> It would appear that as you don't know what he was being chased for so
>>>> your comments don't necessarily correlate between cm and a police action
>>>> to arrest someone possibly not connected to cm. Is it usual cm practise
>>>> to block and hinder police? If so I don't see how you can complain when
>>>> they use force to get to their suspects.
>>
>>> Here is more for you to dissect from a motorist's POV.
>>
>> No, the above is reading between the lines to come to a more balanced
>> view. I note you don't deny 'my' version of events ...

> Actually I do deny your 'reading between the lines', aka personal
> interpretation.CM did not hinder the police instead the police
> hindered CM, which held up traffic for quite some time.

This link
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/system/photo/2010/06/28/4204/grabbed_frame_19.jpg
is from your own recognised source and shows bicycles around and in
front of a police car, which looks like it's had to stopastride a
pedestrian crossing, presumably 'cos they didn't want to ram cyclists
impeding their way.

Or, please explain to me how "police impeded cm" when a cyclist is
clearly shown to the front of the police car in the above picture.

>> cba to read the link ...
>>
>>> Something for you to ponder though. If impatient drivers deliberately
>>> ram cyclists how should cyclists respond?
>>
>> By any legal means available, call the police?
>>
> The police have been called in the past but they don't seem at all
> interested and often blame the vulnerable victim anyway.

And? Perhaps if the rest of cm were acting correctly within the road
guidelines they would listen to them more.

>> Mind, as the cyclists
>> are engaged in illegal/dangerous activities themselves, like riding over
>> a pedestrian crossing being used by pedestrians as can clearly be seen
>> in the photo's from the first link, perhaps that's not a good call.
>>
> So let me get this straight. You suggest cyclists should always
> respond by turning the other cheek when a cyclist is deliberately
> rammed by a driver?

Nope. I'm saying that when you're acting illegally, it's not a good
idea to draw the polices attention to that illegal activity.

> Shouldn't the same rule also apply to a driver who
> is corked by cyclists and should turn the other cheek instead of
> trying to ram them?

When have I said different? If I were a driver who got 'corked' I'd
call the police and have (or try to) have the obstructor done for
obstruction.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:

> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> ended up at The Foundry which is being squatted after the council
> closed it to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."

Heh, and there's the nub of it. They were 'asked' .. not harassed.

Then moved on to a squat!

Layabouts, scrounging off all of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Tony Dragon]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> On 28/06/2010 07:35, Doug wrote:
>> On 28 June, 07:21, Paul - > wrote:
>>> On 28/06/2010 06:16, Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27 June, 10:50, Paul - > wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2010 06:40, Doug wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance
>>>>> It would appear that as you don't know what he was being chased for so
>>>>> your comments don't necessarily correlate between cm and a police
>>>>> action
>>>>> to arrest someone possibly not connected to cm. Is it usual cm
>>>>> practise
>>>>> to block and hinder police? If so I don't see how you can complain
>>>>> when
>>>>> they use force to get to their suspects.
>>>
>>>> Here is more for you to dissect from a motorist's POV.
>>>
>>> No, the above is reading between the lines to come to a more balanced
>>> view. I note you don't deny 'my' version of events ...
>
>> Actually I do deny your 'reading between the lines', aka personal
>> interpretation.CM did not hinder the police instead the police
>> hindered CM, which held up traffic for quite some time.
>
> This link
> http://london.indymedia.org.uk/system/photo/2010/06/28/4204/grabbed_frame_19.jpg
> is from your own recognised source and shows bicycles around and in
> front of a police car, which looks like it's had to stopastride a
> pedestrian crossing, presumably 'cos they didn't want to ram cyclists
> impeding their way.
>
> Or, please explain to me how "police impeded cm" when a cyclist is
> clearly shown to the front of the police car in the above picture.
>

Also on the link you posted "the van attempted to cross into the path of
500+ cyclists. "
So they did get in the way.

>>> cba to read the link ...
>>>
>>>> Something for you to ponder though. If impatient drivers deliberately
>>>> ram cyclists how should cyclists respond?
>>>
>>> By any legal means available, call the police?
>>>
>> The police have been called in the past but they don't seem at all
>> interested and often blame the vulnerable victim anyway.
>
> And? Perhaps if the rest of cm were acting correctly within the road
> guidelines they would listen to them more.
>
>>> Mind, as the cyclists
>>> are engaged in illegal/dangerous activities themselves, like riding over
>>> a pedestrian crossing being used by pedestrians as can clearly be seen
>>> in the photo's from the first link, perhaps that's not a good call.
>>>
>> So let me get this straight. You suggest cyclists should always
>> respond by turning the other cheek when a cyclist is deliberately
>> rammed by a driver?
>
> Nope. I'm saying that when you're acting illegally, it's not a good
> idea to draw the polices attention to that illegal activity.
>
>> Shouldn't the same rule also apply to a driver who
>> is corked by cyclists and should turn the other cheek instead of
>> trying to ram them?
>
> When have I said different? If I were a driver who got 'corked' I'd
> call the police and have (or try to) have the obstructor done for
> obstruction.
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 27 June, 10:50, Paul - xxx > wrote:
>> On 27/06/2010 06:40, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> An estimated 30 police vehicles were in attendance when a single CM
>>> rider was arrested on Friday. Strange they did not notice any
>>> rammings of cyclists by drivers which were taking place, as usual..
>>> It makes one wonder if the police do not like CM doesn't it. Maybe
>>> though those cops are mostly motorists with a bit of a bias who
>>> don't like cyclists anyway.
>>
>> From your link ... "The van deployed one officer who was armed with
>> an activated expandable baton and chased the speedie cyclist on
>> foot. The cyclist left the foot officer in the dust while the van
>> attempted to cross into the path of 500+ cyclists ... Anyway I
>> believe they got their single suspect."
>>
>> It would seem that if they were pursuing one cyclist amongst 500+ and
>> deployed extra officers and eventually apprehended the cyclist that
>> he had actually done something seriously wrong.
>>
>> It would appear that as you don't know what he was being chased for
>> so your comments don't necessarily correlate between cm and a police
>> action to arrest someone possibly not connected to cm. Is it usual
>> cm practise to block and hinder police? If so I don't see how you
>> can complain when they use force to get to their suspects.
>>
> Here is more for you to dissect from a motorist's POV.
>
> http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/5065
>
> Something for you to ponder though. If impatient drivers deliberately
> ram cyclists how should cyclists respond?

when has a car driver deliberately held up a cyclist?

[Doug[_10_]]

On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:
> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> Then moved on to a squat!
>
> Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>
I take it you haven't seen this video yet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

[Marie]

On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>
> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
obstructing the police.
It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 30/06/2010 06:24, Doug wrote:

> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA

Someone gets arrested, 'the mob' tries to release him/her, then blocks
police progress.

Hmm, fine example of upstanding citizens and nothing how you proclaim cm
to be ...

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_10_]]

On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez..
>
> > I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
>
> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> obstructing the police.
> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>
You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
evidence, instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.

Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
still a matter of conjecture, in the absence of evidence of whether
the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
who were seriously obstructing traffic.

I would just like to point out that petty arrests are perhaps becoming
commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords. Also they
appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
being challenged in any way at all.

> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

[webreader]

On Jul 1, 8:21*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > > > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > > > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > > > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>
> > > I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
> > I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> > prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> > obstructing the police.
> > It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> evidence,

Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.

> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.

And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.

>
> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> still a matter of conjecture,

In law, they wern't.

> in the absence of evidence of whether
> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> who were seriously obstructing traffic.

The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
their greater numbers.

>
> I would just like to point out that petty arrests

Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
cyclists.

> are perhaps becoming
> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords

Well an idiot might think that.

> Also they
> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> being challenged in any way at all.

Yes that must be the reason.

>
> > > -- .
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

[JMS]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 22:16:58 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
wrote:

<snip>


>Something for you to ponder though. If impatient drivers deliberately
>ram cyclists how should cyclists respond?



Learn from their errors and not break the law next time they attend
CM.


--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

[Doug[_10_]]

On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 8:21*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > > > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > > > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > > > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > > > > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > > > > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > > > > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>
> > > > I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
> > > I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> > > prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> > > obstructing the police.
> > > It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> > evidence,
>
> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>
Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>
> > instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> > ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>
> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>
So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>
>
> > Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> > still a matter of conjecture,
>
> In law, they wern't.
>
Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
police are always right too.
>
> > in the absence of evidence of whether
> > the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> > who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>
> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> their greater numbers.
>
Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>
>
> > I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>
> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> cyclists.
>
Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
during Critical Mass.
>
> > *are perhaps becoming
> > commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> > their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>
> Well an idiot might think that.
>
You think the cops don't have feelings?
>
> > Also they
> > appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> > being challenged in any way at all.
>
> Yes that must be the reason.
>
Its a distinct possibility.
>
>
> > > > -- .
> > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > >>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

[webreader]

On Jul 2, 7:56*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 8:21*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > > > > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > > > > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > > > > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > > > > > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > > > > > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > > > > > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy ... jeez.
>
> > > > > I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
> > > > I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> > > > prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> > > > obstructing the police.
> > > > It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> > > evidence,
>
> > Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>
> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.

Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
before an event?

>
> > > instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> > > ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>
> > And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>
> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?

No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
of that.

>
> > > Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> > > still a matter of conjecture,
>
> > In law, they wern't.
>
> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> police are always right too.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

>
> > > in the absence of evidence of whether
> > > the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> > > who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>
> > The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> > acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> > their greater numbers.
>
> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> police used disproportionate force and numbers.

Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.

>
> > > I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>
> > Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> > cyclists.
>
> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> during Critical Mass.

Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.

>
> > > *are perhaps becoming
> > > commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> > > their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>
> > Well an idiot might think that.
>
> You think the cops don't have feelings?

Oh dear, not even a good attempt.

>
> > > Also they
> > > appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> > > being challenged in any way at all.
>
> > Yes that must be the reason.
>
> Its a distinct possibility.

Yes dear, of course it is.

>
>
>
> > > > > -- .
> > > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > >>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > > One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
> On Jul 2, 7:56*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 8:21*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > > > > > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > > > > > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > > > > > > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > > > > > > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > > > > > > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>
> > > > > > I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
> > > > > I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> > > > > prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> > > > > obstructing the police.
> > > > > It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> > > > evidence,
>
> > > Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>
> > Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>
> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> before an event?
>
>
>
> > > > instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> > > > ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>
> > > And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>
> > So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>
> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> of that.
>
>
>
> > > > Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> > > > still a matter of conjecture,
>
> > > In law, they wern't.
>
> > Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> > police are always right too.
>
> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>
>
>
> > > > in the absence of evidence of whether
> > > > the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> > > > who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>
> > > The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> > > acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> > > their greater numbers.
>
> > Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> > looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> > what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> > police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>
> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>
>
>
> > > > I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>
> > > Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> > > cyclists.
>
> > Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> > during Critical Mass.
>
> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>
>
>
> > > > *are perhaps becoming
> > > > commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> > > > their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>
> > > Well an idiot might think that.
>
> > You think the cops don't have feelings?
>
> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>
>
>
> > > > Also they
> > > > appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> > > > being challenged in any way at all.
>
> > > Yes that must be the reason.
>
> > Its a distinct possibility.
>
> Yes dear, of course it is.
>
Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.

"...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
back, no matter what happened previously..."
>
>
> > > > > > -- .
> > > > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > >>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > > > One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

[PeterG]

On Jul 12, 7:04*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 7:56*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 8:21*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > > > > > > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > > > > > > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > > > > > > > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > > > > > > > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > > > > > > > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>
> > > > > > > I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
> > > > > > I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> > > > > > prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> > > > > > obstructing the police.
> > > > > > It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> > > > > evidence,
>
> > > > Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>
> > > Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>
> > Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> > before an event?
>
> > > > > instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> > > > > ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>
> > > > And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>
> > > So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>
> > No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> > of that.
>
> > > > > Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> > > > > still a matter of conjecture,
>
> > > > In law, they wern't.
>
> > > Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> > > police are always right too.
>
> > Thank you for agreeing with me.
>
> > > > > in the absence of evidence of whether
> > > > > the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> > > > > who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>
> > > > The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> > > > acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> > > > their greater numbers.
>
> > > Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> > > looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> > > what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> > > police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>
> > Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>
> > > > > I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>
> > > > Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> > > > cyclists.
>
> > > Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> > > during Critical Mass.
>
> > Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>
> > > > > *are perhaps becoming
> > > > > commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> > > > > their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>
> > > > Well an idiot might think that.
>
> > > You think the cops don't have feelings?
>
> > Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>
> > > > > Also they
> > > > > appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> > > > > being challenged in any way at all.
>
> > > > Yes that must be the reason.
>
> > > Its a distinct possibility.
>
> > Yes dear, of course it is.
>
> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>
> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
> back, no matter what happened previously..."
>
>
>
> > > > > > > -- .
> > > > > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > > >>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > > > > One man's democracy is another man's Police State.

Here is another report on the incident.
"The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
liquid.
When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
of his assault he was hit by the cab.
No police witnessed the event. "

[Doug[_3_]]

On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 7:04*am, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 2, 7:56*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 1, 8:21*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 30, 6:24*am, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > > > > > > > > > ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > > > > > > > > > closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>
> > > > > > > > > Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>
> > > > > > > > > Then moved on to a squat!
>
> > > > > > > > > Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>
> > > > > > > > I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>
> > > > > > > I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> > > > > > > prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> > > > > > > obstructing the police.
> > > > > > > It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> > > > > > evidence,
>
> > > > > Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>
> > > > Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>
> > > Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> > > before an event?
>
> > > > > > instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> > > > > > ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>
> > > > > And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>
> > > > So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>
> > > No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> > > of that.
>
> > > > > > Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> > > > > > still a matter of conjecture,
>
> > > > > In law, they wern't.
>
> > > > Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> > > > police are always right too.
>
> > > Thank you for agreeing with me.
>
> > > > > > in the absence of evidence of whether
> > > > > > the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> > > > > > who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>
> > > > > The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> > > > > acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> > > > > their greater numbers.
>
> > > > Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> > > > looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> > > > what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> > > > police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>
> > > Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>
> > > > > > I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>
> > > > > Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> > > > > cyclists.
>
> > > > Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> > > > during Critical Mass.
>
> > > Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough..
>
> > > > > > *are perhaps becoming
> > > > > > commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> > > > > > their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>
> > > > > Well an idiot might think that.
>
> > > > You think the cops don't have feelings?
>
> > > Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>
> > > > > > Also they
> > > > > > appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> > > > > > being challenged in any way at all.
>
> > > > > Yes that must be the reason.
>
> > > > Its a distinct possibility.
>
> > > Yes dear, of course it is.
>
> > Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
> > about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
> > been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>
> > "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
> > over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
> > Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
> > reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
> > back, no matter what happened previously..."
>
> > > > > > > > -- .
> > > > > > > > UK Radical Campaigns.
> > > > > > >>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > > > > > One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
>
> Here is another report on the incident.
> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
> liquid.
> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab *to see the results
> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
> No police witnessed the event. "
>
Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?

So the police did nothing about the rammer then, despite the fact that
what he did was much more dangerous and was a deliberate physical
assault on a person? It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:

>> Here is another report on the incident.
>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
>> liquid.
>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
>> No police witnessed the event. "
>>
> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
>
> So the police did nothing about the rammer then, despite the fact that
> what he did was much more dangerous and was a deliberate physical
> assault on a person? It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.

Lets look at the motivation here.

The cab driver was going about his lawful business, earning an honest
living.

The cyclist was there to deliberately provoke motorists.

Who is a normal person of sane mind going to side with?


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry which is being squatted after the council
>>>>>>>>>>> closed it to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
>>>>>>> evidence,
>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
>>>> before an event?
>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
>>>> of that.
>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
>>>>> police are always right too.
>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
>>>>>> their greater numbers.
>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
>>>>> during Critical Mass.
>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>>>>>>> are perhaps becoming
>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>>>>>>> Also they
>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
>>>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
>> Here is another report on the incident.
>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
>> liquid.
>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
>> No police witnessed the event. "
>>
> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?

I don't know, do you

>
> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,

Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."

> despite the fact that
> what he did was much more dangerous

But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.

> and was a deliberate physical
> assault on a person?

Was it.

> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed

Capable of dangerous assault.

> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.


--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
> >> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
>
> >>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> >>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> >>>>>>>>>>> closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
> >>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
> >>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
> >>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy ... jeez.
> >>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
> >>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> >>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> >>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
> >>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> >>>>>>> evidence,
> >>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
> >>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
> >>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> >>>> before an event?
> >>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> >>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
> >>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
> >>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
> >>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> >>>> of that.
> >>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> >>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
> >>>>>> In law, they wern't.
> >>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> >>>>> police are always right too.
> >>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
> >>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
> >>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> >>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
> >>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> >>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> >>>>>> their greater numbers.
> >>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> >>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> >>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> >>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
> >>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
> >>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
> >>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> >>>>>> cyclists.
> >>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> >>>>> during Critical Mass.
> >>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
> >>>>>>> *are perhaps becoming
> >>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> >>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
> >>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
> >>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
> >>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
> >>>>>>> Also they
> >>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> >>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
> >>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
> >>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
> >>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
> >>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
> >>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
> >>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
> >>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
> >>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
> >>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
> >>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
> >>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
> >>>>>>>>> -- .
> >>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
> >> Here is another report on the incident.
> >> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
> >> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
> >> liquid.
> >> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab *to see the results
> >> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
> >> No police witnessed the event. "
>
> > Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
>
> I don't know, do you
>
The report says it was in response to being rammed.
>
>
> > So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
>
> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>
So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
contradicts the first report.
>
> > despite the fact that
> > what he did was much more dangerous
>
> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>
The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
vulnerable.
>
> > assault on a person?
>
> Was it.
>
Obviously.
>
> > It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
>
> Capable of dangerous assault.
>
As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
>
> > fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
> > deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
>
> > -- .
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry which is being squatted after the council
>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
>>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
>>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
>>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
>>>>>>>>> evidence,
>>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
>>>>>> before an event?
>>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
>>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
>>>>>> of that.
>>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
>>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
>>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
>>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
>>>>>>> police are always right too.
>>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
>>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
>>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
>>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
>>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
>>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
>>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
>>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
>>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
>>>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
>>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
>>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>>>>>>>>> are perhaps becoming
>>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
>>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
>>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
>>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>>>>>>>>> Also they
>>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
>>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
>>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
>>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
>>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
>>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
>>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
>>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
>>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
>>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
>>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
>>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
>>>>>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
>>>> Here is another report on the incident.
>>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
>>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
>>>> liquid.
>>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
>>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
>>>> No police witnessed the event. "
>>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
>> I don't know, do you
>>
> The report says it was in response to being rammed.

I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
threw the can at the cab after being rammed?

>>
>>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
>> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>>
> So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
> event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
> source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
> contradicts the first report.

Did you source your follow up report?

>>> despite the fact that
>>> what he did was much more dangerous
>> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
>> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>>
> The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
> physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
> vulnerable.

Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.


>>> assault on a person?
>> Was it.
>>
> Obviously.

Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.

AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.

>>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
>> Capable of dangerous assault.
>>
> As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.

So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.

>>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
>>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
>>> -- .
>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
> >>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> >>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> >>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
> >>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> >>>>>>>>> evidence,
> >>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
> >>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
> >>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> >>>>>> before an event?
> >>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> >>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
> >>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
> >>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
> >>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> >>>>>> of that.
> >>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> >>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
> >>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
> >>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> >>>>>>> police are always right too.
> >>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
> >>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
> >>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> >>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
> >>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> >>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> >>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
> >>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> >>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> >>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> >>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
> >>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
> >>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
> >>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> >>>>>>>> cyclists.
> >>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> >>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
> >>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
> >>>>>>>>> *are perhaps becoming
> >>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> >>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
> >>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
> >>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
> >>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
> >>>>>>>>> Also they
> >>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> >>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
> >>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
> >>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
> >>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
> >>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
> >>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
> >>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
> >>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
> >>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
> >>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
> >>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
> >>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
> >>>>>>>>>>> -- .
> >>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
> >>>> Here is another report on the incident.
> >>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
> >>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
> >>>> liquid.
> >>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab *to see the results
> >>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
> >>>> No police witnessed the event. "
> >>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
> >> I don't know, do you
>
> > The report says it was in response to being rammed.
>
> I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
> threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>
Where is the evidence that he threw a can?
>
>
> >>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
> >> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>
> > So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
> > event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
> > source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
> > contradicts the first report.
>
> Did you source your follow up report?
>
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155

I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
discredited here.
>
> >>> despite the fact that
> >>> what he did was much more dangerous
> >> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
> >> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>
> > The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
> > physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
> > vulnerable.
>
> Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
> road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
> thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>
If it happened which I doubt.
>
> >>> assault on a person?
> >> Was it.
>
> > Obviously.
>
> Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
> unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>
> AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>
I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
were deliberate.
>
> >>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
> >> Capable of dangerous assault.
>
> > As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
>
> So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>
Yes but the question here is who started it and who was the most
dangerous and who was the most vulnerable? And why do the police
ignore the ramming of cyclists?
>
> >>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
> >>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
> >>> -- .
> >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry which is being squatted after the council
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
>>>>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence,
>>>>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>>>>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
>>>>>>>> before an event?
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
>>>>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>>>>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>>>>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>>>>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
>>>>>>>> of that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
>>>>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
>>>>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
>>>>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
>>>>>>>>> police are always right too.
>>>>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>>>>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
>>>>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
>>>>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>>>>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
>>>>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
>>>>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
>>>>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
>>>>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
>>>>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
>>>>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>>>>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>>>>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>>>>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
>>>>>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
>>>>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
>>>>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>>>>>>>>>>> are perhaps becoming
>>>>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
>>>>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>>>>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
>>>>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
>>>>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also they
>>>>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
>>>>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
>>>>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
>>>>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
>>>>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
>>>>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
>>>>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>>>>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
>>>>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
>>>>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
>>>>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
>>>>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
>>>>>> Here is another report on the incident.
>>>>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
>>>>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
>>>>>> liquid.
>>>>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
>>>>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
>>>>>> No police witnessed the event. "
>>>>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
>>>> I don't know, do you
>>> The report says it was in response to being rammed.
>> I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
>> threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>>
> Where is the evidence that he threw a can?

Would you like to answer the question?

>>
>>>>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
>>>> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>>> So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
>>> event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
>>> source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
>>> contradicts the first report.
>> Did you source your follow up report?
>>
> http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155
>
> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> discredited here.

If you want to go down that line just about everything you say would be
discredited.

>>>>> despite the fact that
>>>>> what he did was much more dangerous
>>>> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
>>>> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>>> The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
>>> physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
>>> vulnerable.
>> Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
>> road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
>> thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>>
> If it happened which I doubt.

Up to you, others might think otherwise.

>>>>> assault on a person?
>>>> Was it.
>>> Obviously.
>> Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
>> unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>>
>> AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>>
> I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
> were deliberate.

If you didn't edit it out, what happened to it, did it fall on the floor?

>>>>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
>>>> Capable of dangerous assault.
>>> As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
>> So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>>
> Yes

That's a start.

> but the question here is who started it and who was the most
> dangerous and who was the most vulnerable?

That could be one, or the other, or both.

> And why do the police
> ignore the ramming of cyclists?

Perhaps they have never seen it happen.


>>>>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
>>>>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
>>>>> -- .
>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry which is being squatted after the council
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
>>>>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence,
>>>>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>>>>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
>>>>>>>> before an event?
>>>>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
>>>>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>>>>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>>>>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>>>>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
>>>>>>>> of that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
>>>>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
>>>>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
>>>>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
>>>>>>>>> police are always right too.
>>>>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>>>>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
>>>>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
>>>>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>>>>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
>>>>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
>>>>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
>>>>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
>>>>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
>>>>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
>>>>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>>>>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>>>>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>>>>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
>>>>>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
>>>>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
>>>>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>>>>>>>>>>> are perhaps becoming
>>>>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
>>>>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>>>>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
>>>>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
>>>>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>>>>>>>>>>> Also they
>>>>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
>>>>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
>>>>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
>>>>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
>>>>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
>>>>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
>>>>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>>>>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
>>>>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
>>>>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
>>>>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
>>>>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
>>>>>> Here is another report on the incident.
>>>>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
>>>>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
>>>>>> liquid.
>>>>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
>>>>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
>>>>>> No police witnessed the event. "
>>>>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
>>>> I don't know, do you
>>> The report says it was in response to being rammed.
>> I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
>> threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>>
> Where is the evidence that he threw a can?
>>
>>>>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
>>>> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>>> So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
>>> event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
>>> source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
>>> contradicts the first report.
>> Did you source your follow up report?
>>
> http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155
>
> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> discredited here.
>>>>> despite the fact that
>>>>> what he did was much more dangerous
>>>> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
>>>> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>>> The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
>>> physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
>>> vulnerable.
>> Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
>> road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
>> thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>>
> If it happened which I doubt.
>>>>> assault on a person?
>>>> Was it.
>>> Obviously.
>> Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
>> unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>>
>> AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>>
> I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
> were deliberate.
>>>>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
>>>> Capable of dangerous assault.
>>> As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
>> So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>>
> Yes but the question here is who started it and who was the most
> dangerous and who was the most vulnerable? And why do the police
> ignore the ramming of cyclists?
>>>>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
>>>>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
>>>>> -- .
>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>
>

Thanks for the link Doug, I have put a few of the comment in that link
in this post, perhaps others would like to comment.

"This June mass was on a full moon (you know it must be a full moon when
you have a a non-mass cyclist raging at you for not obeying the traffic
lights"

"but still I saw cyclists baiting drivers and I don't think that is at
all constructive"

"it's another thing entirely for someone to find a car which has turned
into a gap in the mass and then cycle in front of it, brake to a halt
and start swearing at the driver."

"Some people (notably white young males) may enjoy being more militant
than normal in the way they interact with drivers but threatening
drivers, breaking off their aerials etc surely will mean that these
drivers will treat cyclists worse in general post-mass, not better. It
just seems a bit misguided, since surely our loose cause (if we could
ever agree at all) might involve making other road users aware of
cyclists, rather than making them hate bikes."

"The tension is increased when cyclists start off telling them to get to
****, rather than engaging them in a conversation"

"friend who has stopped going on critical mass bemoans the level of
aggression of cyclists and also the fact that he had to escort an
ambulance through the mass, making people move"


--
Tony Dragon

[webreader]

On Jul 15, 3:37*pm, Doug > wrote:
> On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> > >> Doug wrote:
> > >>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
> > >>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
> > >>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> > >>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> > >>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
> > >>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
> > >>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> > >>>>>>>>> evidence,
> > >>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
> > >>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
> > >>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> > >>>>>> before an event?
> > >>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> > >>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
> > >>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time..
> > >>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
> > >>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> > >>>>>> of that.
> > >>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> > >>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
> > >>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
> > >>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> > >>>>>>> police are always right too.
> > >>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
> > >>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
> > >>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> > >>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
> > >>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> > >>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> > >>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
> > >>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> > >>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> > >>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> > >>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
> > >>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
> > >>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
> > >>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> > >>>>>>>> cyclists.
> > >>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> > >>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
> > >>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
> > >>>>>>>>> *are perhaps becoming
> > >>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> > >>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
> > >>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
> > >>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
> > >>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
> > >>>>>>>>> Also they
> > >>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> > >>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
> > >>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
> > >>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
> > >>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
> > >>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
> > >>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
> > >>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
> > >>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
> > >>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
> > >>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
> > >>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
> > >>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- .
> > >>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > >>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
> > >>>> Here is another report on the incident.
> > >>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
> > >>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
> > >>>> liquid.
> > >>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab *to see the results
> > >>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
> > >>>> No police witnessed the event. "
> > >>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
> > >> I don't know, do you
>
> > > The report says it was in response to being rammed.
>
> > I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
> > threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>
> Where is the evidence that he threw a can?
>
> > >>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
> > >> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>
> > > So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
> > > event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
> > > source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
> > > contradicts the first report.
>
> > Did you source your follow up report?
>
> http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155
>
> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> discredited here.
>
> > >>> despite the fact that
> > >>> what he did was much more dangerous
> > >> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
> > >> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>
> > > The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
> > > physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
> > > vulnerable.
>
> > Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
> > road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
> > thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>
> If it happened which I doubt.
>
> > >>> assault on a person?
> > >> Was it.
>
> > > Obviously.
>
> > Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
> > unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>
> > AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>
> I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
> were deliberate.
>
> > >>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
> > >> Capable of dangerous assault.
>
> > > As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
>
> > So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>
> Yes but the question here is who started it and who was the most
> dangerous and who was the most vulnerable? And why do the police
> ignore the ramming of cyclists?
>
>
>
> > >>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
> > >>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
> > >>> -- .
> > >>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> > >>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > >>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others..

Oh look, Doug posts a link & shoots himself in the foot.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 15 July, 18:14, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> >>>>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> >>>>>>>>>>> evidence,
> >>>>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
> >>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
> >>>>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> >>>>>>>> before an event?
> >>>>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> >>>>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
> >>>>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time..
> >>>>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
> >>>>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> >>>>>>>> of that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> >>>>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
> >>>>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
> >>>>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> >>>>>>>>> police are always right too.
> >>>>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
> >>>>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
> >>>>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> >>>>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
> >>>>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> >>>>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> >>>>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
> >>>>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> >>>>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> >>>>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> >>>>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
> >>>>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> >>>>>>>>>> cyclists.
> >>>>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> >>>>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
> >>>>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
> >>>>>>>>>>> *are perhaps becoming
> >>>>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> >>>>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
> >>>>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
> >>>>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
> >>>>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Also they
> >>>>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> >>>>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
> >>>>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
> >>>>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
> >>>>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
> >>>>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
> >>>>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
> >>>>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
> >>>>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
> >>>>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
> >>>>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
> >>>>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
> >>>>>> Here is another report on the incident.
> >>>>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
> >>>>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
> >>>>>> liquid.
> >>>>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab *to see the results
> >>>>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
> >>>>>> No police witnessed the event. "
> >>>>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
> >>>> I don't know, do you
> >>> The report says it was in response to being rammed.
> >> I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
> >> threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>
> > Where is the evidence that he threw a can?
>
> Would you like to answer the question?
>
Try learning to read threads properly.
>
>
> >>>>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
> >>>> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
> >>> So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
> >>> event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
> >>> source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
> >>> contradicts the first report.
> >> Did you source your follow up report?
>
> >http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155
>
> > I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> > discredited here.
>
> If you want to go down that line just about everything you say would be
> discredited.
>
I am still waiting. As you can see, I have sourced mine but he hasn't
sourced his. I will go further and suggest that he just made his up.
>
> >>>>> despite the fact that
> >>>>> what he did was much more dangerous
> >>>> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
> >>>> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
> >>> The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
> >>> physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
> >>> vulnerable.
> >> Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
> >> road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
> >> thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>
> > If it happened which I doubt.
>
> Up to you, others might think otherwise.
>
Based on an unsourced report. See above.
>
> >>>>> assault on a person?
> >>>> Was it.
> >>> Obviously.
> >> Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
> >> unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>
> >> AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>
> > I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
> > were deliberate.
>
> If you didn't edit it out, what happened to it, did it fall on the floor?
>
Whatever. I didn't edit anything, unlike you.
>
> >>>>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
> >>>> Capable of dangerous assault.
> >>> As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
> >> So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>
> > Yes
>
> That's a start.
>
Its final.
>
> > but the question here is who started it and who was the most
> > dangerous and who was the most vulnerable?
>
> That could be one, or the other, or both.
>
Nope. Taxis are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
> > And why do the police
> > ignore the ramming of cyclists?
>
> Perhaps they have never seen it happen.
>
Well that is one excuse. My belief is that, being motorists
themselves, the police usually favour the driver in any confrontation
between cyclist and driver.
>
> >>>>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
> >>>>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
> >>>>> -- .
> >>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others..
>

[Doug[_3_]]

On 15 July, 18:29, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry *which is being squatted after the council
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it *to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. *They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all *of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
> >>>>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
> >>>>>>>>>>> evidence,
> >>>>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
> >>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
> >>>>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
> >>>>>>>> before an event?
> >>>>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
> >>>>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
> >>>>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time..
> >>>>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
> >>>>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
> >>>>>>>> of that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
> >>>>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
> >>>>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
> >>>>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
> >>>>>>>>> police are always right too.
> >>>>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
> >>>>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
> >>>>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
> >>>>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
> >>>>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
> >>>>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
> >>>>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
> >>>>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
> >>>>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
> >>>>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
> >>>>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
> >>>>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
> >>>>>>>>>> cyclists.
> >>>>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
> >>>>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
> >>>>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
> >>>>>>>>>>> *are perhaps becoming
> >>>>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
> >>>>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
> >>>>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
> >>>>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
> >>>>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Also they
> >>>>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
> >>>>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
> >>>>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
> >>>>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
> >>>>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
> >>>>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
> >>>>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
> >>>>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
> >>>>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
> >>>>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
> >>>>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
> >>>>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
> >>>>>> Here is another report on the incident.
> >>>>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
> >>>>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
> >>>>>> liquid.
> >>>>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab *to see the results
> >>>>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
> >>>>>> No police witnessed the event. "
> >>>>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
> >>>> I don't know, do you
> >>> The report says it was in response to being rammed.
> >> I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
> >> threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>
> > Where is the evidence that he threw a can?
>
> >>>>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
> >>>> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
> >>> So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
> >>> event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
> >>> source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
> >>> contradicts the first report.
> >> Did you source your follow up report?
>
> >http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155
>
> > I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> > discredited here.
> >>>>> despite the fact that
> >>>>> what he did was much more dangerous
> >>>> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
> >>>> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
> >>> The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
> >>> physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
> >>> vulnerable.
> >> Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
> >> road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
> >> thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>
> > If it happened which I doubt.
> >>>>> assault on a person?
> >>>> Was it.
> >>> Obviously.
> >> Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
> >> unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>
> >> AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>
> > I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
> > were deliberate.
> >>>>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
> >>>> Capable of dangerous assault.
> >>> As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
> >> So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>
> > Yes but the question here is who started it and who was the most
> > dangerous and who was the most vulnerable? And why do the police
> > ignore the ramming of cyclists?
> >>>>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
> >>>>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
> >>>>> -- .
> >>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
> >>>>>http://www.zing.icom43.net
> >>>>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others..
>
> Thanks for the link Doug, I have put a few of the comment in that link
> in this post, perhaps others would like to comment.
>
I knew you would try to create a diversion. Do try to stay on topic
please.
>
> "This June mass was on a full moon (you know it must be a full moon when
> you have a a non-mass cyclist raging at you for not obeying the traffic
> lights"
>
> "but still I saw cyclists baiting drivers and I don't think that is at
> all constructive"
>
> "it's another thing entirely for someone to find a car which has turned
> into a gap in the mass and then cycle in front of it, brake to a halt
> and start swearing at the driver."
>
> "Some people (notably white young males) may enjoy being more militant
> than normal in the way they interact with drivers but threatening
> drivers, breaking off their aerials etc surely will mean that these
> drivers will treat cyclists worse in general post-mass, not better. It
> just seems a bit misguided, since surely our loose cause (if we could
> ever agree at all) might involve making other road users aware of
> cyclists, rather than making them hate bikes."
>
> "The tension is increased when cyclists start off telling them to get to
> ****, rather than engaging them in a conversation"
>
> "friend who has stopped going on critical mass bemoans the level of
> aggression of cyclists and also the fact that he had to escort an
> ambulance through the mass, making people move"
>
So what about the bit I quoted? Care to stay on topic and comment on
that instead?

BTW, I am still waiting for Peter's source, assuming it even exists.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Derek C]

On Jul 16, 6:30*am, Doug > wrote:

> My belief is that, being motorists
> themselves, the police usually favour the driver in any confrontation
> between cyclist and driver.
>

Very right and proper to, if an unruly bunch of rude and aggresive
cyclists are trying to prevent drivers from going about their lawful
duties.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 15 July, 18:14, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry which is being squatted after the council
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
>>>>>>>>>> before an event?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>>>>>>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
>>>>>>>>>> of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
>>>>>>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
>>>>>>>>>>> police are always right too.
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
>>>>>>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
>>>>>>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
>>>>>>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
>>>>>>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
>>>>>>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>>>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
>>>>>>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
>>>>>>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are perhaps becoming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
>>>>>>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
>>>>>>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
>>>>>>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
>>>>>>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
>>>>>>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>>>>>>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
>>>>>>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
>>>>>>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
>>>>>>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
>>>>>>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
>>>>>>>> Here is another report on the incident.
>>>>>>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
>>>>>>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
>>>>>>>> liquid.
>>>>>>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
>>>>>>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
>>>>>>>> No police witnessed the event. "
>>>>>>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
>>>>>> I don't know, do you
>>>>> The report says it was in response to being rammed.
>>>> I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
>>>> threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>>> Where is the evidence that he threw a can?
>> Would you like to answer the question?
>>
> Try learning to read threads properly.

I have & you still have not answered the question.

>>
>>>>>>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
>>>>>> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>>>>> So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
>>>>> event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
>>>>> source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
>>>>> contradicts the first report.
>>>> Did you source your follow up report?
>>> http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155
>>> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
>>> discredited here.
>> If you want to go down that line just about everything you say would be
>> discredited.
>>
> I am still waiting. As you can see, I have sourced mine but he hasn't
> sourced his. I will go further and suggest that he just made his up.

The same could be said for indymedia.

>>>>>>> despite the fact that
>>>>>>> what he did was much more dangerous
>>>>>> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
>>>>>> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>>>>> The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
>>>>> physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
>>>>> vulnerable.
>>>> Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
>>>> road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
>>>> thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>>> If it happened which I doubt.
>> Up to you, others might think otherwise.
>>
> Based on an unsourced report. See above.

See above.

>>>>>>> assault on a person?
>>>>>> Was it.
>>>>> Obviously.
>>>> Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
>>>> unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>>>> AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>>> I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
>>> were deliberate.
>> If you didn't edit it out, what happened to it, did it fall on the floor?
>>
> Whatever. I didn't edit anything, unlike you.

When you next clean your floor, look carefully, you might find the many
words that fall out of your reposts.

>>>>>>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
>>>>>> Capable of dangerous assault.
>>>>> As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
>>>> So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>>> Yes
>> That's a start.
>>
> Its final.

Good

>>> but the question here is who started it and who was the most
>>> dangerous and who was the most vulnerable?
>> That could be one, or the other, or both.
>>
> Nope. Taxis are much more dangerous than bicycles.

Not mention on the fact that either could have started this alleged
incident?

>>> And why do the police
>>> ignore the ramming of cyclists?
>> Perhaps they have never seen it happen.
>>
> Well that is one excuse. My belief is that, being motorists
> themselves, the police usually favour the driver in any confrontation
> between cyclist and driver.

Others may disagree

>>>>>>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
>>>>>>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 15 July, 18:29, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 15 July, 07:05, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 12 July, 19:16, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 July, 07:21, PeterG > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jul 12, 7:04 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2 July, 18:40, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 7:56 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 July, 18:13, webreader > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 1, 8:21 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 June, 07:07, Marie > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 6:24 am, Doug > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 June, 10:12, Paul - xxx > wrote:> On 28/06/2010 08:39, Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They then asked the cyclists to start riding again and mass
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ended up at The Foundry which is being squatted after the council
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closed it to make way for a brand new “art hotel”."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh, and there's the nub of it. They were 'asked' .. not harassed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then moved on to a squat!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layabouts, scrounging off all of us and calling it Anarchy .. jeez.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I take it you haven't seen this video yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zZK6H7SvA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see a person being arrested, I then see others trying to free the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prisoner, I also see a large number of bullies screaming & shouting &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obstructing the police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's no wonder the police called fpr backup.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beginning to catch on now that you have been shown some actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Unusual isn't it, you showing evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. I am one of the few here who do it.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we have all seen your 'evidence' does your camera still stop just
>>>>>>>>>> before an event?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of pontificating, as usual, from a position of total
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ingnorance of the situation and being quick to judge.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And you would know about doing that, as you do it all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>> So I am conforming to a norm for a change then?
>>>>>>>>>> No. the norm here is reasonably sensible posters, you fall far short
>>>>>>>>>> of that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whether the cyclists were right to stick up for one of their own is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still a matter of conjecture,
>>>>>>>>>>>> In law, they wern't.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ethically they might be. The law covers everything and then some. The
>>>>>>>>>>> police are always right too.
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for agreeing with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the absence of evidence of whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the arrest was justified or not, as was the need for so many police
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who were seriously obstructing traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The origional police were outnumbered by a group of people who were
>>>>>>>>>>>> acting in an illegal fashion, while trying to bully the police by
>>>>>>>>>>>> their greater numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>> Another interpretation is that, instead of standing by and just
>>>>>>>>>>> looking on as usual, they decided to support one of their own against
>>>>>>>>>>> what they perceived to be and unlawful arrest of one person where the
>>>>>>>>>>> police used disproportionate force and numbers.
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, yes, the 'poor cyclists' gambit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would just like to point out that petty arrests
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they would be petty, because the people they are arresting are
>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>>>>>>>> Glad you agree that cyclsists are discriminated against and especially
>>>>>>>>>>> during Critical Mass.
>>>>>>>>>> Good swerve, nice attempt at twisting the answer, but not good enough.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are perhaps becoming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> commonplace on London CM and might be interpreted as the cops getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their own back for having lost to CM at the Law Lords
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well an idiot might think that.
>>>>>>>>>>> You think the cops don't have feelings?
>>>>>>>>>> Oh dear, not even a good attempt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appear to be ingoring ramming by drivers too. I know the cops hate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being challenged in any way at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes that must be the reason.
>>>>>>>>>>> Its a distinct possibility.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes dear, of course it is.
>>>>>>>>> Here is a report which supports my view that the police do nothing
>>>>>>>>> about ramming and instead supports the rammer not the cyclist who has
>>>>>>>>> been rammed. It relates to the arrest mentioned in this thread.
>>>>>>>>> "...What I heard happened was that he kicked a cab which knocked him
>>>>>>>>> over and smashed a light, and the police saw it. Who knows? Who cares?
>>>>>>>>> Whilst I previously argued that we should not be aggressive without
>>>>>>>>> reason, getting knocked off your bike is fair justification to strike
>>>>>>>>> back, no matter what happened previously..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
>>>>>>>> Here is another report on the incident.
>>>>>>>> "The cyclist cycled past the taxi & threw a shaken up can of lager
>>>>>>>> into the cab, the driver could not see because he was blinded by the
>>>>>>>> liquid.
>>>>>>>> When the cyclist then pulled in front of the cab to see the results
>>>>>>>> of his assault he was hit by the cab.
>>>>>>>> No police witnessed the event. "
>>>>>>> Why did the cyclist throw a can at the taxi and in response to what?
>>>>>> I don't know, do you
>>>>> The report says it was in response to being rammed.
>>>> I must have missed that, where does the report say that the cyclist
>>>> threw the can at the cab after being rammed?
>>> Where is the evidence that he threw a can?
>>>>>>> So the police did nothing about the rammer then,
>>>>>> Note the words in Peter's post "No police witnessed the event."
>>>>> So why did they arrest the cyclist then if they hadn't witnessed the
>>>>> event? The first report says they had witnessed it. BTW Peter did not
>>>>> source his 'report' and he probably just made it up as it completely
>>>>> contradicts the first report.
>>>> Did you source your follow up report?
>>> http://london.indymedia.org/articles/5155
>>> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
>>> discredited here.
>>>>>>> despite the fact that
>>>>>>> what he did was much more dangerous
>>>>>> But the cab driver was 'attacked' and you have posted in the past that
>>>>>> it's OK if you lose control of your vehicle if you are attacked.
>>>>> The cab driver was inside his cab and was therefore protected from
>>>>> physical attack but the cyclist was not protected and was much more
>>>>> vulnerable.
>>>> Do you recall a while ago saying that a driver was attacked because a
>>>> road cone was thrown at his vehicle, Peters report says that the can was
>>>> thrown inside the cab, so the driver would not be protected.
>>> If it happened which I doubt.
>>>>>>> assault on a person?
>>>>>> Was it.
>>>>> Obviously.
>>>> Did you think that your editing out of the word 'deliberate' would go
>>>> unnoticed, just another little ploy of yours to evade something.
>>>> AND *YOU* HARP ON ABOUT BEING CENSORED.
>>> I didn't edit it out. Both the cyclists and the taxi drivers actions
>>> were deliberate.
>>>>>>> It just demonstrates that cyclists are indeed
>>>>>> Capable of dangerous assault.
>>>>> As are Taxi drivers whose vehicles are much more dangerous.
>>>> So you agree with me that anybody can be Capable of dangerous assault.
>>> Yes but the question here is who started it and who was the most
>>> dangerous and who was the most vulnerable? And why do the police
>>> ignore the ramming of cyclists?
>>>>>>> fair game on our roads and are allowed by the system to be
>>>>>>> deliberately rammed or otherwise intimidated by drivers.
>>>>>>> -- .
>>>>>>> UK Radical Campaigns.
>>>>>>> http://www.zing.icom43.net
>>>>>>> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>> Thanks for the link Doug, I have put a few of the comment in that link
>> in this post, perhaps others would like to comment.
>>
> I knew you would try to create a diversion. Do try to stay on topic
> please.
>> "This June mass was on a full moon (you know it must be a full moon when
>> you have a a non-mass cyclist raging at you for not obeying the traffic
>> lights"
>>
>> "but still I saw cyclists baiting drivers and I don't think that is at
>> all constructive"
>>
>> "it's another thing entirely for someone to find a car which has turned
>> into a gap in the mass and then cycle in front of it, brake to a halt
>> and start swearing at the driver."
>>
>> "Some people (notably white young males) may enjoy being more militant
>> than normal in the way they interact with drivers but threatening
>> drivers, breaking off their aerials etc surely will mean that these
>> drivers will treat cyclists worse in general post-mass, not better. It
>> just seems a bit misguided, since surely our loose cause (if we could
>> ever agree at all) might involve making other road users aware of
>> cyclists, rather than making them hate bikes."
>>
>> "The tension is increased when cyclists start off telling them to get to
>> ****, rather than engaging them in a conversation"
>>
>> "friend who has stopped going on critical mass bemoans the level of
>> aggression of cyclists and also the fact that he had to escort an
>> ambulance through the mass, making people move"
>>
> So what about the bit I quoted? Care to stay on topic and comment on
> that instead?

Check my other post.

>
> BTW, I am still waiting for Peter's source, assuming it even exists.
>
> -- .
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>

As you tell us, threads evolve, which is why I made two reposts.

--
Tony Dragon

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

On 15/07/2010 15:37, Doug wrote:

> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> discredited here.

I challenge you to read, digest and understand a thread .. and
attribute/challenge correctly.

The only 'report' I've posted is a couple of paraphrased quotes from
_your_ source ...


--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[JNugent[_7_]]

Doug wrote:

> ... I am still waiting for Peter's source, assuming it even exists.

Said without even a hint of irony.

Completed Vince's domestic location report yet, Doug?

How long is it overdue now? Three years? Four?

[JNugent[_7_]]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> On 15/07/2010 15:37, Doug wrote:
>
>> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
>> discredited here.
>
> I challenge you to read, digest and understand a thread .. and
> attribute/challenge correctly.
>
> The only 'report' I've posted is a couple of paraphrased quotes from
> _your_ source ...

Tut tut!

Don't use the word "report" to Doug. It embarrasses him.

[PeterG]

On Jul 16, 7:52*am, Paul - xxx > wrote:
> On 15/07/2010 15:37, Doug wrote:
>
> > I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> > discredited here.
>
> I challenge you to read, digest and understand a thread .. and
> attribute/challenge correctly.
>
> The only 'report' I've posted is a couple of paraphrased quotes from
> _your_ source ...
>
> --
> Paul - xxx
>
> '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
> Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

I presume that the idiot meant my report.

The report was made to me by a neighbor who is researching for an
article on London events.

[PeterG]

On Jul 16, 5:28*pm, JNugent > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > ... I am still waiting for Peter's source, assuming it even exists.
>
> Said without even a hint of irony.
>
> Completed Vince's domestic location report yet, Doug?
>
> How long is it overdue now? Three years? Four?

Ah, yes 'Vince's Report' I challange Doug to post that to this group &
also to uk transport.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 16 July, 23:59, PeterG > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 7:52*am, Paul - xxx > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15/07/2010 15:37, Doug wrote:
>
> > > I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> > > discredited here.
>
> > I challenge you to read, digest and understand a thread .. and
> > attribute/challenge correctly.
>
> > The only 'report' I've posted is a couple of paraphrased quotes from
> > _your_ source ...
>
> > --
> > Paul - xxx
>
> > '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
> > Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
>
> I presume that the idiot meant my report.
>
> The report was made to me by a neighbor who is researching for an
> article on London events.
>
So what was his/her quotable source then, or was it entirely anecdotal
and unpublished?

Doug.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 16 July, 23:59, PeterG > wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 7:52 am, Paul - xxx > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 15/07/2010 15:37, Doug wrote:
>>>> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
>>>> discredited here.
>>> I challenge you to read, digest and understand a thread .. and
>>> attribute/challenge correctly.
>>> The only 'report' I've posted is a couple of paraphrased quotes from
>>> _your_ source ...
>>> --
>>> Paul - xxx
>>> '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
>>> Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
>> I presume that the idiot meant my report.
>>
>> The report was made to me by a neighbor who is researching for an
>> article on London events.
>>
> So what was his/her quotable source then, or was it entirely anecdotal
> and unpublished?
>
> Doug.
>
>

Doug, read what the man said, he was researching an article, publishing
would come later.
Many of the reports you give are also anecdotal & unpublished.
--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 17 July, 08:36, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 16 July, 23:59, PeterG > wrote:
> >> On Jul 16, 7:52 am, Paul - xxx > wrote:
>
> >>> On 15/07/2010 15:37, Doug wrote:
> >>>> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
> >>>> discredited here.
> >>> I challenge you to read, digest and understand a thread .. and
> >>> attribute/challenge correctly.
> >>> The only 'report' I've posted is a couple of paraphrased quotes from
> >>> _your_ source ...
> >>> --
> >>> Paul - xxx
> >>> '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
> >>> Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
> >> I presume that the idiot meant my report.
>
> >> The report was made to me by a neighbor who is researching for an
> >> article on London events.
>
> > So what was his/her quotable source then, or was it entirely anecdotal
> > and unpublished?
>
> > Doug.
>
> Doug, read what the man said, he was researching an article, publishing
> would come later.
> Many of the reports you give are also anecdotal & unpublished.
>
Nope, the majority of mine are published, quotable and are available
for peer review, unlike Peter's so-called report.

-- .
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".

[JNugent[_7_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 17 July, 08:36, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 16 July, 23:59, PeterG > wrote:
>>>> On Jul 16, 7:52 am, Paul - xxx > wrote:
>>>>> On 15/07/2010 15:37, Doug wrote:
>>>>>> I challenge Paul to source his report or otherwise be completely
>>>>>> discredited here.
>>>>> I challenge you to read, digest and understand a thread .. and
>>>>> attribute/challenge correctly.
>>>>> The only 'report' I've posted is a couple of paraphrased quotes from
>>>>> _your_ source ...
>>>>> --
>>>>> Paul - xxx
>>>>> '96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
>>>>> Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
>>>> I presume that the idiot meant my report.
>>>> The report was made to me by a neighbor who is researching for an
>>>> article on London events.
>>> So what was his/her quotable source then, or was it entirely anecdotal
>>> and unpublished?
>>> Doug.
>> Doug, read what the man said, he was researching an article, publishing
>> would come later.
>> Many of the reports you give are also anecdotal & unpublished.
>>
> Nope, the majority of mine are published, quotable and are available
> for peer review, unlike Peter's so-called report.

That's good to hear. So where is Vince's Report published, quotable and
available for peer review, please?

The URL will do.

Many thanks in anticipation.