Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

On 23:11 15 May 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 20:01 15 May 2020, Kelly said:
JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2020 14:35, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[SNIP]

Okay, that's your view but I still think he could have responded
better, even under these abnormal circumstances. He didn't recoil
from the child in horror when she brushed up against him, as if in
fear of being exposed to a massive viral load of Corvid-19. He
didn't stand back from her at all, on the contrary, he held his
ground and remonstrated quite aggressively with the father, who
then couldn't immediately retrieve his distressed child. As far
as I'm concerned, the victim man would have gained far more
sympathy for his situation if only he had acted a bit more
responsibly himself. And all I have done is point that out.

He could possibly have behaved better. That does not mean that he
and his companion were not the (obvious) victims. It does not mean
that the parent-with-the-camera-phone was in the right.

I have never suggested otherwise.

Good. But suggesting that post-collision reaction by the victim was
somehow untoward does go some way in that erroneous direction.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the
main point but it isn't, the main point has already been conceded.

This, luckily, was not a case of an injury accident. The breach of
the social distancing rules *is* the major issue here.

Again, I have never suggested otherwise.

We are in agreement.

Here is an update a day this incident:

Quote: A COUPLE who knocked a six-year-old girl off her bike when they
refused to move won't face a police probe over the
"misunderstanding"... Detective Superintendent Kev Broadhead, from
Nottinghamshire Police, told The Sun Online that no action will be
taken. ... He said: "We have reviewed the footage and do not believe
this was a criminal offence. The couple involved called us about the
incident and we are satisfied that what took place was a
misunderstanding between the two parties. They have both been updated
as such. Unquote

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/116172...-girl-bicycle-
police/

So, it seems the 'victim couple' themselves contacted the police as
they were worried about what could become of them after the video went
viral. There is mention of the government's new guidance and social
distancing. But interestingly, no mention, of any rules being broken
by the father and his daughter.

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

Strange how it wasn't the gobby chav who called the police after failing
to supervise his 6 year old daughter and letting her ride dangerously in
public even though she hadn't learnt to use the brakes.

I think what's happened here is that the father and mother called the
police urged on by their Facebook friends as they all were upset by the
way this victim guy had blocked their daughter off her bike and then
been so unpleasant afterwards. The father's video of what happened
turned out to be a classic, in no small measure thanks to victim guy's
natural reactions complete with boot action. And so the video went viral
on social media. When the police thus became involved and said they
wanted to trace this victim couple, it was the couple themselves who got
in touch with the police to turn themselves in, as it were.

That's about right. Also the victim's token kick at the bike is not
directed at the daughter but the father. It comes after the father has
inflamed the situation by blaming him for walking on the footpath when the
daughter couldn't stop.

Not only the daughter but the chav approached the couple closer than 2
metres. The police usually fine people for this sort of anti-social
distancing behaviour.

Could it be that this couple weren't to bothered by the Covid-19 thing?
I'm not too good at estimating their type of age but healthy under 45
year olds don't have much to worry about, do they? At no time did they
bother to try and get out of the way or move away from what was
happening at all. And the father had to come in to retrieve his
distressed daughter. Anyway, eventually, it could be that the couple
just wanted to extricate themselves from this whole affair as soon as
possible and the police wanted to do the same - i.e. get rid of the
couple plus the father, mother and 6 year old daughter together with all
the tricky publicity accruing. Who knows?

I think everybody is bothered by Covid. If people are not bothered then
public health and the law are certainly bothered to minimise onward
transmission. If either the girl or the father are carrying Covid then
they have approached unnecessarily close to the man. The law is clear and
a £60 fine (reduced to £30 for quick payment) was the norm for being too
close to other people in a public place. Now £100.

The father had become enraged at members for the public not jumping out of
the way of his errant daughter whom he had lost control of and who had
lost control of her bike. In truth the couple probably thought the
father's shouts were directed at the child. That's if the couple heard
the shouts at all because they were more like loud speech, spoken from 10
or 20 metres behind them and probably made while the couple were talking
to each other.

On 11:32 16 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 10:20:25 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
The police usually fine people for this sort of anti-social
behaviour.

They do - it's called a public order offence and using foul and abusive
language applies to this thug in this case.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

The greater misdemeanor was to flout the Covid regulations completely
unnecessarily. The man was no doubt reacting to this unwaranted breach of
his safety and to the injury caused to him by the bike. Seems very
reasonable in the circumstances. See:

"Police fine people over social distancing"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52066145

"The National Police Chief's Council (NPCC) said going to local beauty
spots was not banned as long as there was no mingling."

"the NPCC said that country walks were not banned under legislation
that came into force on Thursday"

"The point is to try to avoid people contaminating others."

I wonder if a citizen can make a private proscution of the father under
the Covid regulations if the police fail to take action to ensure his
safety.

On 12:56 16 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 16/05/2020 01:00, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2020 23:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/2020 22:14, Pamela wrote:
On 20:45Â* 15 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 15/05/2020 16:24, Pamela wrote:
On 15:56Â* 15 May 2020, JNugent said:

Not only Simon. TMS320 uses traduction as his main tactic when he
reaches the bottom of his shallow barrel.

It must be frustrating when one runs out of argments and has to
resort to underhand methods.

Yes, it is frustrating to deal with Nugent's twisting and
dishonesty. And his use of meaningless big words.

I suppose I must be grateful neither Simon nor TMS320 is in the
same room as me when this happens, else they might resort to
violence to win their argument in the way the lower orders often
do.

I am surprised you and Nugent don't die of dehydration. I have no
doubt you would argue with someone offering you a glass of water.

Perhaps if you undertake not to quote dishonestly Nugent would
forgive you, although I can't guarantee it.

The difference between you and is that I have no esteem for Nugent.
The sentence right at the top is one of his lies. But you are so
besotted you've fallen for it.

What? Despite the fact that it is 100% accurate?

"100% accurate"... what does that mean? If your statement is accurate,
the number is a pointless embellishment.

Surely you're aware tauology can be used for enphasis.

And please provide the proof behind your allegation.

Pamela wrote:

On 23:11 15 May 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 20:01 15 May 2020, Kelly said:
JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2020 14:35, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[SNIP]

Okay, that's your view but I still think he could have responded
better, even under these abnormal circumstances. He didn't recoil
from the child in horror when she brushed up against him, as if in
fear of being exposed to a massive viral load of Corvid-19. He
didn't stand back from her at all, on the contrary, he held his
ground and remonstrated quite aggressively with the father, who
then couldn't immediately retrieve his distressed child. As far
as I'm concerned, the victim man would have gained far more
sympathy for his situation if only he had acted a bit more
responsibly himself. And all I have done is point that out.

He could possibly have behaved better. That does not mean that he
and his companion were not the (obvious) victims. It does not mean
that the parent-with-the-camera-phone was in the right.

I have never suggested otherwise.

Good. But suggesting that post-collision reaction by the victim was
somehow untoward does go some way in that erroneous direction.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the
main point but it isn't, the main point has already been conceded.

This, luckily, was not a case of an injury accident. The breach of
the social distancing rules *is* the major issue here.

Again, I have never suggested otherwise.

We are in agreement.

Here is an update a day this incident:

Quote: A COUPLE who knocked a six-year-old girl off her bike when they
refused to move won't face a police probe over the
"misunderstanding"... Detective Superintendent Kev Broadhead, from
Nottinghamshire Police, told The Sun Online that no action will be
taken. ... He said: "We have reviewed the footage and do not believe
this was a criminal offence. The couple involved called us about the
incident and we are satisfied that what took place was a
misunderstanding between the two parties. They have both been updated
as such. Unquote

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/116172...-girl-bicycle-
police/

So, it seems the 'victim couple' themselves contacted the police as
they were worried about what could become of them after the video went
viral. There is mention of the government's new guidance and social
distancing. But interestingly, no mention, of any rules being broken
by the father and his daughter.

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

Strange how it wasn't the gobby chav who called the police after failing
to supervise his 6 year old daughter and letting her ride dangerously in
public even though she hadn't learnt to use the brakes.

I think what's happened here is that the father and mother called the
police urged on by their Facebook friends as they all were upset by the
way this victim guy had blocked their daughter off her bike and then
been so unpleasant afterwards. The father's video of what happened
turned out to be a classic, in no small measure thanks to victim guy's
natural reactions complete with boot action. And so the video went viral
on social media. When the police thus became involved and said they
wanted to trace this victim couple, it was the couple themselves who got
in touch with the police to turn themselves in, as it were.

That's about right. Also the victim's token kick at the bike is not
directed at the daughter but the father. It comes after the father has
inflamed the situation by blaming him for walking on the footpath when the
daughter couldn't stop.

Not only the daughter but the chav approached the couple closer than 2
metres. The police usually fine people for this sort of anti-social
distancing behaviour.

Could it be that this couple weren't to bothered by the Covid-19 thing?
I'm not too good at estimating their type of age but healthy under 45
year olds don't have much to worry about, do they? At no time did they
bother to try and get out of the way or move away from what was
happening at all. And the father had to come in to retrieve his
distressed daughter. Anyway, eventually, it could be that the couple
just wanted to extricate themselves from this whole affair as soon as
possible and the police wanted to do the same - i.e. get rid of the
couple plus the father, mother and 6 year old daughter together with all
the tricky publicity accruing. Who knows?

I think everybody is bothered by Covid.

That is not my experience. Some people aren't too bothered and a very
few hardly give a care at all. You would think if not for their own
sake, they would consider the wellbeing of their parents or
grandparents or just vulnerable people in general.

If people are not bothered then
public health and the law are certainly bothered to minimise onward
transmission. If either the girl or the father are carrying Covid then
they have approached unnecessarily close to the man. The law is clear and
a £60 fine (reduced to £30 for quick payment) was the norm for being too
close to other people in a public place. Now £100.

....and rightly so.

The father had become enraged at members for the public not jumping out of
the way of his errant daughter whom he had lost control of and who had
lost control of her bike.

Enraged? I thought he was in a state of near panic with his last
strangled cry of "Excuse me!" as his daughter wobbled her bike ever
nearer that couple.

In truth the couple probably thought the
father's shouts were directed at the child. That's if the couple heard
the shouts at all because they were more like loud speech, spoken from 10
or 20 metres behind them and probably made while the couple were talking
to each other.

Yep, it was all a bit of a mess.

You read the newspaper report from the following day, after the
incident, though, and it's basically all about a couple who knocked a
6 year old girl off her bike when they refused to move. The police say
they "reviewed the footage and do not believe this was a criminal
offence. The couple involved called us about the incident and we are
satisfied that what took place was a misunderstanding between the two
parties", and that no action will be taken.

What else can it be, other than the outrage that this dog walking man
has caused on social media, that has overridden the social distancing
regulations being taken into account? There is no mention of the
police even criticising the father and daughter over their behaviour.

This is all a bit more nuanced than you might expect from the letter
of the law.

Pamela wrote:

The greater misdemeanor was to flout the Covid regulations completely
unnecessarily. The man was no doubt reacting to this unwaranted breach of
his safety and to the injury caused to him by the bike.

What injury caused by the bike? The bike could hardly have touched him
- it was more a case of the girl collapsing into his outer thigh:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...8195.jpg?w=620


I wonder if a citizen can make a private proscution of the father under
the Covid regulations if the police fail to take action to ensure his
safety.

Are you joking? That couple live in the area - they were already
deeply concerned about 'the bad press' they we getting when they
contacted the police to protect themselves. I hardly think they want
to be seen as the local pariahs by prosecuting the father of that
little girl for her having a mishap on her barbie bike.

On 16/05/2020 14:44, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

The greater misdemeanor was to flout the Covid regulations completely
unnecessarily. The man was no doubt reacting to this unwaranted breach of
his safety and to the injury caused to him by the bike.

What injury caused by the bike? The bike could hardly have touched him
- it was more a case of the girl collapsing into his outer thigh:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...8195.jpg?w=620


I wonder if a citizen can make a private proscution of the father under
the Covid regulations if the police fail to take action to ensure his
safety.

Are you joking? That couple live in the area - they were already
deeply concerned about 'the bad press' they we getting when they
contacted the police to protect themselves. I hardly think they want
to be seen as the local pariahs by prosecuting the father of that
little girl for her having a mishap on her barbie bike.


Well, this newsgroup claims to encourage participants interested in
cycling to express opinions,however, you may have noticed that many
contributors are only here to cause controversy and are basically just
trolling.
It is astounding how some writers are resorting to insults and abuse
just for the purpose of self-gratification.
My motto : “Have thick skin but a soft heart!"

On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 7:43:34 PM UTC+1, colwyn wrote:

Well, this newsgroup claims to encourage participants interested in
cycling to express opinions,however, you may have noticed that many
contributors are only here to cause controversy and are basically just
trolling.

A non exhaustive list of known trolls over the years:
Mr Benn
The Medway Handyman
Mr Cheerful
Mr Pounder
Nuxx Bar
J Nugent
Marie
Judith (1946 posts 18/06/08 - 17/02/09)
keith.hill (23 posts 07/07/08 - 09/07/08)
freddy (3 posts 09/07/08 - 17/01/09)
sandra.york (2 posts 09/07/08)
will smith (8 posts 09/07/08 - 10/07/08)
barker (6 posts 10/07/08 - 13/08/08)
judithsmith (1 post 18/07/08)
cager (1 post 21/07/08)
steve.trent (6 posts 21/07/08 - 22/07/08)
billy (1 post 21/07/08)
Martin Danndy (1 post 23/07/08)
Mark White (1 post 23/07/08)
judith (2 posts 24/07/08 - 23/12/08)
billy (1 post 25/07/08)
smithy (2 posts 25/07/08)
Richard Jones (2 posts 31/07/08 - 01/08/08)
walter.smith (4 posts 02/08/08 - 13/09/08)
Jugger (1 post 02/08/08)
robert (5 posts 02/08/08 - 31/07/11)
Mark (3 posts 03/08/08 - 07/06/10)
DaveSmith (4 posts 04/08/08 - 05/08/08)
Vic (1 post 06/08/08)
HarryHill (9 posts 06/08/08 - 24/08/08)
minter (1 post 07/08/08)
dolly (1 post 11/08/08)
miller (1 post 15/08/08)
Andy Pike (2 posts 16/08/08 - 18/08/08)
Richard Hyndes (1 post 17/08/08)
craven (1 post 21/08/08)
Ginger (2 posts 23/08/08 - 29/01/09)
****** lee (1 post 30/08/08)
rover (1 post 01/09/08)
andy smith (1 post 13/09/08)
I've told you - I am NOT Phil Lee (5 posts 13/09/08 -
02/10/08)
John Gates (1 post 02/10/08)
Andy.Nunn (1 post 02/10/08)
Guy - don't feed the trolls (2 posts 02/10/08)
Guy - you are still feeding them (2 posts
02/10/08)
judithsmith (1 post 05/10/08)
colinlunn (1 post 12/10/08)
henry root (1 post 12/10/08)
margaretsmith (1 post 13/10/08)
Harry Roberts (1 post 19/10/08)
Richard (1 post 22/10/08)
Hills (6 posts 23/10/08 - 02/11/08)
udith (1 post 25/10/08)
Barry Turner (3 posts 22/11/08 - 26/11/08)
Viv Green (4 posts 28/11/08 - 29/11/08)
judith smith (1989 posts 29/11/08 - 14/01/10)
j smith (1 post 06/12/08)
Uncle Ben (1 post 08/12/08)
jsmith (1 post 08/12/08)
Trevor Frogg (7 posts 10/12/08)
Richard Clarke (1 post 11/12/08)
Steve Gable (1 post 15/12/08)
jsmith (4 posts 17/12/08 - 26/01/09)
js (34 posts 17/12/08 - 23/12/08)
js1 (3 posts 18/12/08 - 19/12/08)
js2 (3 posts 18/12/08 - 22/12/08)
js3 (2 posts 18/12/08 - 19/12/08)
js4 (2 posts 18/12/08)
Judith (4 posts 19/12/08 - 20/12/08)
jas (5 posts 19/12/08 - 20/12/08)
Judith (3 posts 19/12/08)
jks (5 posts 19/12/08 - 25/12/08)
J_Smith (2 posts 19/12/08 - 20/12/08)
J_Smith (2 posts 19/12/08)
JSmith. (2 posts 19/12/08)
Judith.Smith (3 posts 19/12/08 - 25/12/08)
Jud.Smith (3 posts 19/12/08 - 22/12/08)
jsmith (1 post 19/12/08)
Round Robin (1 post 20/12/08)
j (2 posts 20/12/08 - 22/12/08)
not Guy (1 post 20/12/08)
Jolly polly (92 posts 22/12/08 - 23/11/11)
js (1 post 23/12/08)
jas (4 posts 23/12/08)
judith_and_taylor (1 post 23/12/08)
jsmith_taylor (1 post 23/12/08)
taylorandsmith (2 posts 23/12/08)
smithandtaylor (1 post 23/12/08)
polly (1 post 24/12/08)
judithsmithneetaylor (1 post 24/12/08)
Smithandtaylor@privacy Net (2 posts
24/12/08 - 26/12/08)
Taylorandsmith@privacy Net (3 posts
24/12/08)
Taylor Smith Me@privacy Net (1 post
24/12/08)
Jsmithtaylor@privacy Net (1 post 24/12/08)
Taylosrandsmith@privacy Net (1 post
26/12/08)
Jusithtaylor@privacy Net (1 post 26/12/08)
Taylorsmith@privacy Net (1 post 26/12/08)
Judithtaylorsmith@privacy Net (140
posts 26/12/08 - 12/02/09)
Jolly Polly (144 posts 27/12/08 - 25/04/10)
Judithtaylorsmith@hotmailinvalid Com
(1 post 30/12/08)
derbydale (1 post 04/01/09)
vinny (1 post 05/01/09)
doggy (1 post 08/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith1@privacy Net (4
posts 12/01/09 - 25/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith3@privacy Net (4
posts 14/01/09 - 30/01/09)
Judith Taylorsmith@privacy Net (1
post 15/01/09)
roven (1 post 17/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith@privacy Nets (1
post 18/01/09)
ziggy (1 post 18/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmithe@privacy Net (1
post 24/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith5@privacy Net (1
post 24/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith9@privacy Net (3
posts 24/01/09 - 08/02/09)
Judithtaylorsmith7@privacy Net (1
post 24/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith4@privacy Net (1
post 25/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith0@privacy Net (1
post 25/01/09)
Judith&taylorsmith@privacy Net (1
post 28/01/09)
aston (1 post 29/01/09)
andy.moon (1 post 30/01/09)
stratford (2 posts 30/01/09 - 31/01/09)
mr jones (1 post 31/01/09)
rufus (9 posts 31/01/09 - 01/02/09)
mr softy (1 post 31/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmitha@privacy Net (1
post 01/02/09)
colinhill (1 post 01/02/09)
flipper (1 post 01/02/09)
banker (2 posts 02/02/09)
relevant (7 posts 03/02/09)
handy (1 post 03/02/09)
raven (3 posts 03/02/09)
bike99 (1 post 03/02/09)
dingo (1 post 03/02/09)
roundabout (1 post 03/02/09)
Jdithtaylorsmith@privacy Net (1 post
04/02/09)
mrssmithslittlegirl (2 posts 06/02/09 - 08/02/09)
Judith's best friend (9 posts 08/02/09 -
12/02/09)
Bob Jones (1 post 09/02/09)
radical (1 post 09/02/09)
js the truth will out (1 post 09/02/09)
james lowe (1 post 09/02/09)
ruffles (1 post 09/02/09)
Ian.Smith's.a.liar (2 posts 12/02/09)
IanSmithsaliar (1 post 12/02/09)
not.ian.smith (1 post 12/02/09)
Judithsmith@live Co Uk (1 post 12/02/09)
Jenny Hill (1 post 15/02/09)
Judith judithsmith@live Co Uk-- judith --
(1 post 16/02/09)
Bob (3 posts 18/02/09)
andywright (1 post 24/02/09)
judith's auto response (9 posts 06/03/09 -
08/03/09)
Julian (5 posts 08/03/09 - 08/05/09)
Clarification@live Co Uk (6 posts 09/04/09
- 18/04/09)
Judith Mary Smith (1 post 21/05/09)
Judith M Smith (1817 posts 21/05/09 -
14/12/09)
Judith M Smith (2 posts 22/05/09)
Lou Knee (1 post 25/05/09)
Lou Knee (1 post 25/05/09)
jms (1023 posts 26/05/09 - 10/12/09)
Pip Ryder (65 posts 06/07/09 - 05/08/09)
Trevor (9 posts 08/10/09 - 31/10/10)
Farmer Giles (1 post 28/10/09)
Sarah (2 posts 23/11/09 - 24/11/09)
Frank Miller (1 post 24/11/09)
Bollen (4 posts 05/01/10)
JMS (2199 posts 14/01/10 - 13/01/11)
Rob (1 post 27/03/10)
Ruper Bear's Brother (3 posts 22/05/10)
David Green (1 post 12/07/10)
random access (1 post 19/10/10)
Mr Protester (1 post 30/10/10)
Judith (3320 posts 16/01/11 - 22/11/11)
Yorky (1 post 17/01/11)
Micky Frost (2 posts 03/04/11)
Simon_mason@rocketmail Com (1 post
31/05/11)
Greentable (7 posts 25/07/11 - 30/07/11)
Marie (10 posts 25/07/11 - 19/09/11)
Trevor (1 post 01/08/11)
The Cycle Stat (2 posts 04/08/11)
39 (2 posts 05/08/11)
39 (1 post 05/08/11)
Tony Grant (1 post 06/08/11)
Tony Grant (partner of Judith Smith) (1 post
07/08/11)
Tramp (1 post 10/08/11)
grimbo (1 post 13/08/11)
Walter (3 posts 14/08/11 - 04/09/11)
dreadlock (1 post 15/08/11)
Correction (7 posts 15/08/11 - 06/09/11)
Mr Moonlight (1 post 21/08/11)
query (1 post 22/08/11)
Graham Jones (1 post 22/08/11)
SMJ Reversal (1 post 25/08/11)
The Mason Monitor (1 post 28/08/11)
Tigger (1 post 29/08/11)
MM (1 post 29/08/11)
newcomer (1 post 29/08/11)
Janet (1 post 29/08/11)
Mr MM (1 post 30/08/11)
andre (1 post 30/08/11)
He is quite daft (1 post 30/08/11)
GV (1 post 30/08/11)
Maria (1 post 30/08/11)
BP Watch (2 posts 31/08/11)
Mr Counter (1 post 01/09/11)
Raymond Tring (1 post 03/09/11)
Jill (1 post 03/09/11)
Lichen (1 post 03/09/11)
maureen (1 post 05/09/11)
Griff (1 post 05/09/11)
Gill (1 post 05/09/11)
Raymond (1 post 05/09/11)
shandy (1 post 21/09/11)
Statto (JMS) (7 posts 30/09/11 - 01/11/11)
Mr Woo (1 post 05/10/11)
graham (1 post 08/10/11)
clarification (1 post 11/10/11)
OhSoSimpleSimon (1 post 21/10/11)
Statto (6 posts 22/10/11 - 23/10/11)
Guy Chapman (1 post 23/10/11)
Huge Magnet (1 post 28/10/11)
Pam (1 post 02/11/11)

On 16/05/2020 19:52, Simon Mason wrote:
On Saturday, May 16, 2020 at 7:43:34 PM UTC+1, colwyn wrote:

Well, this newsgroup claims to encourage participants interested in
cycling to express opinions,however, you may have noticed that many
contributors are only here to cause controversy and are basically just
trolling.

A non exhaustive list of known trolls over the years:
Mr Benn
The Medway Handyman
Mr Cheerful
Mr Pounder
Nuxx Bar
J Nugent
Marie
Judith (1946 posts 18/06/08 - 17/02/09)
keith.hill (23 posts 07/07/08 - 09/07/08)
freddy (3 posts 09/07/08 - 17/01/09)
sandra.york (2 posts 09/07/08)
will smith (8 posts 09/07/08 - 10/07/08)
barker (6 posts 10/07/08 - 13/08/08)
judithsmith (1 post 18/07/08)
cager (1 post 21/07/08)
steve.trent (6 posts 21/07/08 - 22/07/08)
billy (1 post 21/07/08)
Martin Danndy (1 post 23/07/08)
Mark White (1 post 23/07/08)
judith (2 posts 24/07/08 - 23/12/08)
billy (1 post 25/07/08)
smithy (2 posts 25/07/08)
Richard Jones (2 posts 31/07/08 - 01/08/08)
walter.smith (4 posts 02/08/08 - 13/09/08)
Jugger (1 post 02/08/08)
robert (5 posts 02/08/08 - 31/07/11)
Mark (3 posts 03/08/08 - 07/06/10)
DaveSmith (4 posts 04/08/08 - 05/08/08)
Vic (1 post 06/08/08)
HarryHill (9 posts 06/08/08 - 24/08/08)
minter (1 post 07/08/08)
dolly (1 post 11/08/08)
miller (1 post 15/08/08)
Andy Pike (2 posts 16/08/08 - 18/08/08)
Richard Hyndes (1 post 17/08/08)
craven (1 post 21/08/08)
Ginger (2 posts 23/08/08 - 29/01/09)
****** lee (1 post 30/08/08)
rover (1 post 01/09/08)
andy smith (1 post 13/09/08)
I've told you - I am NOT Phil Lee (5 posts 13/09/08 -
02/10/08)
John Gates (1 post 02/10/08)
Andy.Nunn (1 post 02/10/08)
Guy - don't feed the trolls (2 posts 02/10/08)
Guy - you are still feeding them (2 posts
02/10/08)
judithsmith (1 post 05/10/08)
colinlunn (1 post 12/10/08)
henry root (1 post 12/10/08)
margaretsmith (1 post 13/10/08)
Harry Roberts (1 post 19/10/08)
Richard (1 post 22/10/08)
Hills (6 posts 23/10/08 - 02/11/08)
udith (1 post 25/10/08)
Barry Turner (3 posts 22/11/08 - 26/11/08)
Viv Green (4 posts 28/11/08 - 29/11/08)
judith smith (1989 posts 29/11/08 - 14/01/10)
j smith (1 post 06/12/08)
Uncle Ben (1 post 08/12/08)
jsmith (1 post 08/12/08)
Trevor Frogg (7 posts 10/12/08)
Richard Clarke (1 post 11/12/08)
Steve Gable (1 post 15/12/08)
jsmith (4 posts 17/12/08 - 26/01/09)
js (34 posts 17/12/08 - 23/12/08)
js1 (3 posts 18/12/08 - 19/12/08)
js2 (3 posts 18/12/08 - 22/12/08)
js3 (2 posts 18/12/08 - 19/12/08)
js4 (2 posts 18/12/08)
Judith (4 posts 19/12/08 - 20/12/08)
jas (5 posts 19/12/08 - 20/12/08)
Judith (3 posts 19/12/08)
jks (5 posts 19/12/08 - 25/12/08)
J_Smith (2 posts 19/12/08 - 20/12/08)
J_Smith (2 posts 19/12/08)
JSmith. (2 posts 19/12/08)
Judith.Smith (3 posts 19/12/08 - 25/12/08)
Jud.Smith (3 posts 19/12/08 - 22/12/08)
jsmith (1 post 19/12/08)
Round Robin (1 post 20/12/08)
j (2 posts 20/12/08 - 22/12/08)
not Guy (1 post 20/12/08)
Jolly polly (92 posts 22/12/08 - 23/11/11)
js (1 post 23/12/08)
jas (4 posts 23/12/08)
judith_and_taylor (1 post 23/12/08)
jsmith_taylor (1 post 23/12/08)
taylorandsmith (2 posts 23/12/08)
smithandtaylor (1 post 23/12/08)
polly (1 post 24/12/08)
judithsmithneetaylor (1 post 24/12/08)
Smithandtaylor@privacy Net (2 posts
24/12/08 - 26/12/08)
Taylorandsmith@privacy Net (3 posts
24/12/08)
Taylor Smith Me@privacy Net (1 post
24/12/08)
Jsmithtaylor@privacy Net (1 post 24/12/08)
Taylosrandsmith@privacy Net (1 post
26/12/08)
Jusithtaylor@privacy Net (1 post 26/12/08)
Taylorsmith@privacy Net (1 post 26/12/08)
Judithtaylorsmith@privacy Net (140
posts 26/12/08 - 12/02/09)
Jolly Polly (144 posts 27/12/08 - 25/04/10)
Judithtaylorsmith@hotmailinvalid Com
(1 post 30/12/08)
derbydale (1 post 04/01/09)
vinny (1 post 05/01/09)
doggy (1 post 08/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith1@privacy Net (4
posts 12/01/09 - 25/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith3@privacy Net (4
posts 14/01/09 - 30/01/09)
Judith Taylorsmith@privacy Net (1
post 15/01/09)
roven (1 post 17/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith@privacy Nets (1
post 18/01/09)
ziggy (1 post 18/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmithe@privacy Net (1
post 24/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith5@privacy Net (1
post 24/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith9@privacy Net (3
posts 24/01/09 - 08/02/09)
Judithtaylorsmith7@privacy Net (1
post 24/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith4@privacy Net (1
post 25/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmith0@privacy Net (1
post 25/01/09)
Judith&taylorsmith@privacy Net (1
post 28/01/09)
aston (1 post 29/01/09)
andy.moon (1 post 30/01/09)
stratford (2 posts 30/01/09 - 31/01/09)
mr jones (1 post 31/01/09)
rufus (9 posts 31/01/09 - 01/02/09)
mr softy (1 post 31/01/09)
Judithtaylorsmitha@privacy Net (1
post 01/02/09)
colinhill (1 post 01/02/09)
flipper (1 post 01/02/09)
banker (2 posts 02/02/09)
relevant (7 posts 03/02/09)
handy (1 post 03/02/09)
raven (3 posts 03/02/09)
bike99 (1 post 03/02/09)
dingo (1 post 03/02/09)
roundabout (1 post 03/02/09)
Jdithtaylorsmith@privacy Net (1 post
04/02/09)
mrssmithslittlegirl (2 posts 06/02/09 - 08/02/09)
Judith's best friend (9 posts 08/02/09 -
12/02/09)
Bob Jones (1 post 09/02/09)
radical (1 post 09/02/09)
js the truth will out (1 post 09/02/09)
james lowe (1 post 09/02/09)
ruffles (1 post 09/02/09)
Ian.Smith's.a.liar (2 posts 12/02/09)
IanSmithsaliar (1 post 12/02/09)
not.ian.smith (1 post 12/02/09)
Judithsmith@live Co Uk (1 post 12/02/09)
Jenny Hill (1 post 15/02/09)
Judith judithsmith@live Co Uk-- judith --
(1 post 16/02/09)
Bob (3 posts 18/02/09)
andywright (1 post 24/02/09)
judith's auto response (9 posts 06/03/09 -
08/03/09)
Julian (5 posts 08/03/09 - 08/05/09)
Clarification@live Co Uk (6 posts 09/04/09
- 18/04/09)
Judith Mary Smith (1 post 21/05/09)
Judith M Smith (1817 posts 21/05/09 -
14/12/09)
Judith M Smith (2 posts 22/05/09)
Lou Knee (1 post 25/05/09)
Lou Knee (1 post 25/05/09)
jms (1023 posts 26/05/09 - 10/12/09)
Pip Ryder (65 posts 06/07/09 - 05/08/09)
Trevor (9 posts 08/10/09 - 31/10/10)
Farmer Giles (1 post 28/10/09)
Sarah (2 posts 23/11/09 - 24/11/09)
Frank Miller (1 post 24/11/09)
Bollen (4 posts 05/01/10)
JMS (2199 posts 14/01/10 - 13/01/11)
Rob (1 post 27/03/10)
Ruper Bear's Brother (3 posts 22/05/10)
David Green (1 post 12/07/10)
random access (1 post 19/10/10)
Mr Protester (1 post 30/10/10)
Judith (3320 posts 16/01/11 - 22/11/11)
Yorky (1 post 17/01/11)
Micky Frost (2 posts 03/04/11)
Simon_mason@rocketmail Com (1 post
31/05/11)
Greentable (7 posts 25/07/11 - 30/07/11)
Marie (10 posts 25/07/11 - 19/09/11)
Trevor (1 post 01/08/11)
The Cycle Stat (2 posts 04/08/11)
39 (2 posts 05/08/11)
39 (1 post 05/08/11)
Tony Grant (1 post 06/08/11)
Tony Grant (partner of Judith Smith) (1 post
07/08/11)
Tramp (1 post 10/08/11)
grimbo (1 post 13/08/11)
Walter (3 posts 14/08/11 - 04/09/11)
dreadlock (1 post 15/08/11)
Correction (7 posts 15/08/11 - 06/09/11)
Mr Moonlight (1 post 21/08/11)
query (1 post 22/08/11)
Graham Jones (1 post 22/08/11)
SMJ Reversal (1 post 25/08/11)
The Mason Monitor (1 post 28/08/11)
Tigger (1 post 29/08/11)
MM (1 post 29/08/11)
newcomer (1 post 29/08/11)
Janet (1 post 29/08/11)
Mr MM (1 post 30/08/11)
andre (1 post 30/08/11)
He is quite daft (1 post 30/08/11)
GV (1 post 30/08/11)
Maria (1 post 30/08/11)
BP Watch (2 posts 31/08/11)
Mr Counter (1 post 01/09/11)
Raymond Tring (1 post 03/09/11)
Jill (1 post 03/09/11)
Lichen (1 post 03/09/11)
maureen (1 post 05/09/11)
Griff (1 post 05/09/11)
Gill (1 post 05/09/11)
Raymond (1 post 05/09/11)
shandy (1 post 21/09/11)
Statto (JMS) (7 posts 30/09/11 - 01/11/11)
Mr Woo (1 post 05/10/11)
graham (1 post 08/10/11)
clarification (1 post 11/10/11)
OhSoSimpleSimon (1 post 21/10/11)
Statto (6 posts 22/10/11 - 23/10/11)
Guy Chapman (1 post 23/10/11)
Huge Magnet (1 post 28/10/11)
Pam (1 post 02/11/11)


Thank you Simon, that was quick and trust useful list to new readers!

On 14:14 16 May 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:

On 23:11 15 May 2020, Kelly said:
Pamela wrote:
On 20:01 15 May 2020, Kelly said:
JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2020 14:35, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[SNIP]

Okay, that's your view but I still think he could have responded
better, even under these abnormal circumstances. He didn't
recoil from the child in horror when she brushed up against him,
as if in fear of being exposed to a massive viral load of
Corvid-19. He didn't stand back from her at all, on the
contrary, he held his ground and remonstrated quite aggressively
with the father, who then couldn't immediately retrieve his
distressed child. As far as I'm concerned, the victim man would
have gained far more sympathy for his situation if only he had
acted a bit more responsibly himself. And all I have done is
point that out.

He could possibly have behaved better. That does not mean that he
and his companion were not the (obvious) victims. It does not
mean that the parent-with-the-camera-phone was in the right.

I have never suggested otherwise.

Good. But suggesting that post-collision reaction by the victim was
somehow untoward does go some way in that erroneous direction.

You seem to be taking all this as some kind of diminution of the
main point but it isn't, the main point has already been
conceded.

This, luckily, was not a case of an injury accident. The breach
of the social distancing rules *is* the major issue here.

Again, I have never suggested otherwise.

We are in agreement.

Here is an update a day this incident:

Quote: A COUPLE who knocked a six-year-old girl off her bike when
they refused to move won't face a police probe over the
"misunderstanding"... Detective Superintendent Kev Broadhead, from
Nottinghamshire Police, told The Sun Online that no action will be
taken. ... He said: "We have reviewed the footage and do not believe
this was a criminal offence. The couple involved called us about the
incident and we are satisfied that what took place was a
misunderstanding between the two parties. They have both been
updated as such. Unquote

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/116172...-girl-bicycle-
police/

So, it seems the 'victim couple' themselves contacted the police as
they were worried about what could become of them after the video
went viral. There is mention of the government's new guidance and
social distancing. But interestingly, no mention, of any rules being
broken by the father and his daughter.

The mum says, "What an awful man. My daughter is traumatised. They
(i.e. the 'victim couple') clearly have an issue with cyclists and
were making a point of not moving."

Strange how it wasn't the gobby chav who called the police after
failing to supervise his 6 year old daughter and letting her ride
dangerously in public even though she hadn't learnt to use the brakes.

I think what's happened here is that the father and mother called the
police urged on by their Facebook friends as they all were upset by
the way this victim guy had blocked their daughter off her bike and
then been so unpleasant afterwards. The father's video of what
happened turned out to be a classic, in no small measure thanks to
victim guy's natural reactions complete with boot action. And so the
video went viral on social media. When the police thus became involved
and said they wanted to trace this victim couple, it was the couple
themselves who got in touch with the police to turn themselves in, as
it were.

That's about right. Also the victim's token kick at the bike is not
directed at the daughter but the father. It comes after the father has
inflamed the situation by blaming him for walking on the footpath when
the daughter couldn't stop.

Not only the daughter but the chav approached the couple closer than 2
metres. The police usually fine people for this sort of anti-social
distancing behaviour.

Could it be that this couple weren't to bothered by the Covid-19
thing? I'm not too good at estimating their type of age but healthy
under 45 year olds don't have much to worry about, do they? At no time
did they bother to try and get out of the way or move away from what
was happening at all. And the father had to come in to retrieve his
distressed daughter. Anyway, eventually, it could be that the couple
just wanted to extricate themselves from this whole affair as soon as
possible and the police wanted to do the same - i.e. get rid of the
couple plus the father, mother and 6 year old daughter together with
all the tricky publicity accruing. Who knows?

I think everybody is bothered by Covid.

That is not my experience. Some people aren't too bothered and a very
few hardly give a care at all. You would think if not for their own
sake, they would consider the wellbeing of their parents or grandparents
or just vulnerable people in general.

If people are not bothered then public health and the law are certainly
bothered to minimise onward transmission. If either the girl or the
father are carrying Covid then they have approached unnecessarily close
to the man. The law is clear and a £60 fine (reduced to £30 for quick
payment) was the norm for being too close to other people in a public
place. Now £100.

...and rightly so.

The father had become enraged at members for the public not jumping out
of the way of his errant daughter whom he had lost control of and who
had lost control of her bike.

Enraged? I thought he was in a state of near panic with his last
strangled cry of "Excuse me!" as his daughter wobbled her bike ever
nearer that couple.

In truth the couple probably thought the father's shouts were directed
at the child. That's if the couple heard the shouts at all because they
were more like loud speech, spoken from 10 or 20 metres behind them and
probably made while the couple were talking to each other.

Yep, it was all a bit of a mess.

You read the newspaper report from the following day, after the
incident, though, and it's basically all about a couple who knocked a
6 year old girl off her bike when they refused to move. The police say
they "reviewed the footage and do not believe this was a criminal
offence. The couple involved called us about the incident and we are
satisfied that what took place was a misunderstanding between the two
parties", and that no action will be taken.

What else can it be, other than the outrage that this dog walking man
has caused on social media, that has overridden the social distancing
regulations being taken into account? There is no mention of the police
even criticising the father and daughter over their behaviour.

This is all a bit more nuanced than you might expect from the letter of
the law.

I still don't understand why the father thought it was more important to
continue taking his video than step forward and supervise his daughter.

She's such a poor cyclist that she could easily have fallen over all on
her own, especially as her bike has no stabiliser wheels and she can't use
the brakes. If the father wants to train his daughter to cycle, he should
do it in his back garden rather than a public path where she and he will
inevitably closely approach members of the public at a time of Covid
distancing.

The father is so irresponsible that he can't see how foolish his behaviour
is (a) for taking the girl out unsupervised and (b) approaching the
couple.

Thank goodness the couple reported the incident to the police before the
man and his troublemaking Facebook-stirring wife Michelle, got up to more
mischief. Were they seeking vigilantes to take up the matter for them?

colwyn wrote:

On 16/05/2020 14:44, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

The greater misdemeanor was to flout the Covid regulations completely
unnecessarily. The man was no doubt reacting to this unwaranted breach of
his safety and to the injury caused to him by the bike.

What injury caused by the bike? The bike could hardly have touched him
- it was more a case of the girl collapsing into his outer thigh:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/...8195.jpg?w=620


I wonder if a citizen can make a private proscution of the father under
the Covid regulations if the police fail to take action to ensure his
safety.

Are you joking? That couple live in the area - they were already
deeply concerned about 'the bad press' they we getting when they
contacted the police to protect themselves. I hardly think they want
to be seen as the local pariahs by prosecuting the father of that
little girl for her having a mishap on her barbie bike.


Well, this newsgroup claims to encourage participants interested in
cycling to express opinions,however, you may have noticed that many
contributors are only here to cause controversy and are basically just
trolling.

Yes... I'm making a list.

It is astounding how some writers are resorting to insults and abuse
just for the purpose of self-gratification.

I don't know what is wrong with some people - I have to keep reminding
myself that I'm imperfect too (albeit in a better way than them, of
course).

My motto : "Have thick skin but a soft heart!"

It's a great motto. I have three usenet rules which I try to adhere
to, and they amount to very much the same as your motto:
1. Be kind. 2. Don't take anything personally. 3. Don't take
anything too seriously (especially yourself).

Words can be powerful, written or spoken, so you need to use them with
awareness. I think it's easy to forget that somewhat on usenet. Which
is why you sometimes need to be able to defend yourself from what
other people may carelessly say, and you have to be careful with what
you say too. The 'be kind' thing is so easy, you never regret being
kind in the short, medium or long term - you will never come back and
say to yourself, 'I wish I hadn't been kind'. You will never think
that. Your mind is your most powerful asset, and it's up to you to
protect it.