On 01/12/2018 11:36, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/11/2018 13:08, JNugent wrote:
On 30/11/2018 13:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:35, JNugent wrote:
On 30/11/2018 10:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/11/2018 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 27/11/2018 20:05, Simon Jester wrote:

When cyclists are involved inconvenient things like facts don't
matter to nugents.

...
A (two year) suspended sentence for attacking someone (or making the
Â*attempt as best he could) with an offensive weapon like that? Even
if the intended victim *was* a drug dealer who had kidnapped the
assailant on a previous occasion, we don't have capital punishment
fordrug-dealing (though maybe we ought to).

...

Irrelevant to uk.rec.cycling

Have you not seen the video?

Yes. The case is irrelevant to uk.rec.cycling

I'm inclined to tentatively agree with that in a strict sense.

However, replies to the (irrelevant) OP are not irrelevant, for
obvious reasons.

I was replying to you. And in general, I agree with what SimonJ said above.

At first sight the case may have seemed relevant. But now the dust has
settled it turns out it has nothing to do with the behaviour of road
users - "cyclists" or "motorists".

That is also how it looked to me on first seeing the video.

You might agree or disagree with the outcome of the court case. You
might have an opinion on the way society appears to be changing. OT for
this group.

I only disagree with the sentence and with any assertions to the effect
that ithreally ad anything to do with cycling, which it plainly did not.

But remarks had been made here by the OP cyclist (to the implied effect
that it is acceptable for cyclists to carry grossly offensove weapons
and to attempt to do serious harm to others with such weapons in
consequence of traffic accidents) and were capable of being addressed
for that reason.