Latest ridiculous URCM rejected posting!

[Derek C]

On the subject of cycle helmets naturally!

Subject - Helmet debate in the Lords.

"There was an interesting debate in the Lords recently on cycle
helmets:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-10-21a.887.6&s=helmet#g8...

The comment by Lord Greaves was of particular interest, as it seems
that
some politicians are finally realising that helmets are not the
answer
to cycling deaths and injuries.

Martin."


"Looks like even children will not be forced to wear helmets judging
by these comments.

"We have no intention of making the wearing of helmets compulsory
because it
can be extremely difficult to enforce with the youngsters who are our
targets."

Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/"

My (rejected) reply:

I hope you also read the question that followed from Baroness Howarth
of Breckland about brain injuries and rehabilitation?

Derek C

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"Derek C" > wrote in message
...
> On the subject of cycle helmets naturally!
>
> Subject - Helmet debate in the Lords.
>
> "There was an interesting debate in the Lords recently on cycle
> helmets:
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-10-21a.887.6&s=helmet#g8...
>
> The comment by Lord Greaves was of particular interest, as it seems
> that
> some politicians are finally realising that helmets are not the
> answer
> to cycling deaths and injuries.
>
> Martin."
>
>
> "Looks like even children will not be forced to wear helmets judging
> by these comments.
>
> "We have no intention of making the wearing of helmets compulsory
> because it
> can be extremely difficult to enforce with the youngsters who are our
> targets."
>
> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/"
>
> My (rejected) reply:
>
> I hope you also read the question that followed from Baroness Howarth
> of Breckland about brain injuries and rehabilitation?
>
> Derek C

What was the reason given for rejection? That will be amusing to read.

[Peter Clinch]

Mr. Benn wrote:
> "Derek C" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On the subject of cycle helmets naturally!
>>
>> Subject - Helmet debate in the Lords.
>>
>> "There was an interesting debate in the Lords recently on cycle
>> helmets:
>>
>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-10-21a.887.6&s=helmet#g8...
>>
>> The comment by Lord Greaves was of particular interest, as it seems
>> that
>> some politicians are finally realising that helmets are not the
>> answer
>> to cycling deaths and injuries.
>>
>> Martin."
>>
>>
>> "Looks like even children will not be forced to wear helmets judging
>> by these comments.
>>
>> "We have no intention of making the wearing of helmets compulsory
>> because it
>> can be extremely difficult to enforce with the youngsters who are our
>> targets."
>>
>> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/"
>>
>> My (rejected) reply:
>>
>> I hope you also read the question that followed from Baroness Howarth
>> of Breckland about brain injuries and rehabilitation?
>>
>> Derek C
>
> What was the reason given for rejection? That will be amusing to read.

Off Charter.

Which, since it brings nothing new to the debate, it probably was.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[bugbear]

JMS wrote:

> Indeed - that will be the reason for the rejection - you effectively
> mentioned cycling, cycle helmets, serious brain damage and need for
> rehabilitation all in the same sentence.
>
> You cannot do that URCM

well DUH!

BugBear

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"bugbear" > wrote in message
o.uk...
> JMS wrote:
>
>> Indeed - that will be the reason for the rejection - you effectively
>> mentioned cycling, cycle helmets, serious brain damage and need for
>> rehabilitation all in the same sentence.
>>
>> You cannot do that URCM
>
> well DUH!
>
> BugBear

Is there something wrong with you? I have just remembered, you're not at
primary school because you're on half term holiday.

[JMS]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:47:41 +0100, bugbear
> wrote:

>JMS wrote:
>
>> Indeed - that will be the reason for the rejection - you effectively
>> mentioned cycling, cycle helmets, serious brain damage and need for
>> rehabilitation all in the same sentence.
>>
>> You cannot do that URCM
>
>well DUH!
>
> BugBear
--
Hello Bugbear - I juts love the way that you have to comment on my every post.

I really do appreciate it.

[bugbear]

Mr. Benn wrote:
> "bugbear" > wrote in message
> o.uk...
>> JMS wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed - that will be the reason for the rejection - you effectively
>>> mentioned cycling, cycle helmets, serious brain damage and need for
>>> rehabilitation all in the same sentence.
>>>
>>> You cannot do that URCM
>>
>> well DUH!
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Is there something wrong with you?

No, I'm fine, thank you for asking.

BugBear

[Tom Crispin[_4_]]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:43:16 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>Mr. Benn wrote:
>> "Derek C" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On the subject of cycle helmets naturally!
>>>
>>> Subject - Helmet debate in the Lords.
>>>
>>> "There was an interesting debate in the Lords recently on cycle
>>> helmets:
>>>
>>> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-10-21a.887.6&s=helmet#g8...
>>>
>>> The comment by Lord Greaves was of particular interest, as it seems
>>> that
>>> some politicians are finally realising that helmets are not the
>>> answer
>>> to cycling deaths and injuries.
>>>
>>> Martin."
>>>
>>>
>>> "Looks like even children will not be forced to wear helmets judging
>>> by these comments.
>>>
>>> "We have no intention of making the wearing of helmets compulsory
>>> because it
>>> can be extremely difficult to enforce with the youngsters who are our
>>> targets."
>>>
>>> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/"
>>>
>>> My (rejected) reply:
>>>
>>> I hope you also read the question that followed from Baroness Howarth
>>> of Breckland about brain injuries and rehabilitation?
>>>
>>> Derek C
>>
>> What was the reason given for rejection? That will be amusing to read.
>
>Off Charter.
>
>Which, since it brings nothing new to the debate, it probably was.

The same could be said about dozens of posts made to urcm by the
favoured. However, they seem to be passed. E.g.:
Message-ID: >
Message-ID:
>

And the classic rant that led to Matt being given *special treatment*:
Message-ID: >

[Derek C]

On Oct 26, 12:26*pm, JMS > wrote:
>
> Indeed - that will be the reason for the rejection - you effectively
> mentioned cycling, cycle helmets, serious brain damage and need for
> rehabilitation all in the same sentence.
>
> You cannot do that URCM


Yes, I suppose you are right!

[Iain[_2_]]

Derek C wrote:
> On the subject of cycle helmets naturally!
>
> Subject - Helmet debate in the Lords.
>
> "There was an interesting debate in the Lords recently on cycle
> helmets:
>
> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2010-10-21a.887.6&s=helmet#g8...
>
> The comment by Lord Greaves was of particular interest, as it seems
> that
> some politicians are finally realising that helmets are not the
> answer
> to cycling deaths and injuries.
>
> Martin."
>
>
> "Looks like even children will not be forced to wear helmets judging
> by these comments.
>
> "We have no intention of making the wearing of helmets compulsory
> because it
> can be extremely difficult to enforce with the youngsters who are our
> targets."
>
> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/"
>
> My (rejected) reply:
>
> I hope you also read the question that followed from Baroness Howarth
> of Breckland about brain injuries and rehabilitation?

I would have said that this is as much a mission statement as the Baroness's
was (which she then turned into a question about specialist units) during a
follow-up to the original question. The Baroness's question brought that
question section to a close. The way that your statement was put implies
that it was the start of a discussion on helmets and brain injuries. It was
not. Anyone following the link would see the whole context.

I would probably have classified your statement as potentially inflamatory
and probably intentially provocative (as the Baroness's might well have
been) from the way that yours was expressed.
--
Iain