JSP outed as a "shouting and stamping" nutter

[Alycidon]

QUOTE:
"Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its knees."

The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline: "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the rest of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as many tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.

Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the capital - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space and so it is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get preferential treatment over pedestrians."

- See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf

[Nick[_4_]]

On 29/03/2016 15:30, Alycidon wrote:
> QUOTE:
> "Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its knees."
>
> The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline: "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the rest of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as many tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.
>
> Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the capital - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space and so it is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get preferential treatment over pedestrians."
>
> - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf
>

"Cyclists and their powerful backers". This sounds like a reference to
the Jews to me. Where is John when you need him.

Is Janet still down with the kids?

[jnugent]

On 29/03/2016 17:35, Nick wrote:
> On 29/03/2016 15:30, Alycidon wrote:
>> QUOTE:
>> "Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet
>> Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways
>> as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a
>> moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what
>> she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its knees."
>>
>> The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline:
>> "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the
>> rest of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as
>> many tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.
>>
>> Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the
>> capital - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space
>> and so it is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get
>> preferential treatment over pedestrians."
>>
>> - See more at:
>> http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf
>>
>>
>
> "Cyclists and their powerful backers". This sounds like a reference to
> the Jews to me. Where is John when you need him.
>
> Is Janet still down with the kids?

Janet AND John?

Sure you're thinking of the right poster?

[Nick[_4_]]

On 29/03/2016 17:40, JNugent wrote:
> On 29/03/2016 17:35, Nick wrote:
>> On 29/03/2016 15:30, Alycidon wrote:
>>> QUOTE:
>>> "Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet
>>> Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways
>>> as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a
>>> moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what
>>> she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its
>>> knees."
>>>
>>> The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline:
>>> "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the
>>> rest of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as
>>> many tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.
>>>
>>> Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the
>>> capital - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space
>>> and so it is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get
>>> preferential treatment over pedestrians."
>>>
>>> - See more at:
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> "Cyclists and their powerful backers". This sounds like a reference to
>> the Jews to me. Where is John when you need him.
>>
>> Is Janet still down with the kids?
>
> Janet AND John?
>
> Sure you're thinking of the right poster?

I thought John Smith was a keen advocate of the tribe. Apologies if I
got that wrong.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:35:36 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
> On 29/03/2016 15:30, Alycidon wrote:
> > QUOTE:
> > "Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its knees."
> >
> > The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline: "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the rest of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as many tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.
> >
> > Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the capital - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space and so it is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get preferential treatment over pedestrians."
> >
> > - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf
> >
>
> "Cyclists and their powerful backers". This sounds like a reference to
> the Jews to me. Where is John when you need him.
>
> Is Janet still down with the kids?

More like a batty old Aunt these days.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

Nick > wrote:
> On 29/03/2016 15:30, Alycidon wrote:

>> "Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet
>> Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways
>> as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a
>> moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what
>> she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its
>> knees."
>>
>> The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline:
>> "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the rest
>> of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as many
>> tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.
>>
>> Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the capital
>> - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space and so it
>> is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get preferential
>> treatment over pedestrians."
>>
>> - See more at:
>> http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf

> "Cyclists and their powerful backers". This sounds like a reference to
> the Jews to me. Where is John when you need him.

Indeed. I have made this point on several occasions - the treatment meted
out to cyclists in the UK mirrors in some respects the way Jews were
regarded in 1930s Germany.

Of course, no one has (yet) advocated that all cyclists be loaded into
wagons and shipped off to death camps. But you can bet good money that
most of the trolls here wish exactly that.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:42:40 +0100, Nick > wrote:

> On 29/03/2016 17:40, JNugent wrote:
>> On 29/03/2016 17:35, Nick wrote:
>>> On 29/03/2016 15:30, Alycidon wrote:
>>>> QUOTE:
>>>> "Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet
>>>> Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways
>>>> as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a
>>>> moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what
>>>> she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its
>>>> knees."
>>>>
>>>> The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline:
>>>> "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the
>>>> rest of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as
>>>> many tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.
>>>>
>>>> Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the
>>>> capital - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space
>>>> and so it is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get
>>>> preferential treatment over pedestrians."
>>>>
>>>> - See more at:
>>>> http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Cyclists and their powerful backers". This sounds like a reference to
>>> the Jews to me. Where is John when you need him.
>>>
>>> Is Janet still down with the kids?
>>
>> Janet AND John?
>>
>> Sure you're thinking of the right poster?
>
> I thought John Smith was a keen advocate of the tribe. Apologies if I
> got that wrong.

It's for reading comprehension tests:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_and_John

or listening, if Wakeup With Wogan was your thing.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Nick[_4_]]

On 29/03/2016 18:30, Alycidon wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 17:35:36 UTC+1, Nick wrote:
>> On 29/03/2016 15:30, Alycidon wrote:
>>> QUOTE:
>>> "Chris Boardman has described the content of a recent Janet Street-Porter article complaining about London's cycling superhighways as being "what you have to do when you don't have logic, evidence or a moral case to support what you want." Street-Porter believes that what she calls "Boris's follies" have "brought a wonderful city to its knees."
>>>
>>> The article, in The Independent, sets the tone with the headline: "Cyclists and their powerful backers are destroying London for the rest of us." Street-Porter then embarks upon a quest to tick off as many tired old anti-cycling tropes as she can.
>>>
>>> Arguing that cycle infrastructure has not reduced car use in the capital - "it means that traffic has to fit into a much smaller space and so it is reduced to a crawl" - she asks why cyclists get preferential treatment over pedestrians."
>>>
>>> - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/184292-chris-boardman-dismisses-janet-street-porter%E2%80%99s-anti-cycle-infrastructure-article#sthash.kM5G5eHx.dpuf
>>>
>>
>> "Cyclists and their powerful backers". This sounds like a reference to
>> the Jews to me. Where is John when you need him.
>>
>> Is Janet still down with the kids?
>
> More like a batty old Aunt these days.
>

These days? She was a like a batty old Aunt 40 years ago.