Women 'laid traps for cyclists'

On 14/05/2020 19:23, Kelly wrote:
Bod wrote:

On 14/05/2020 13:04, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 12:30:25 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

Asked about the incident, Mrs McLachlan refused to comment. I wonder
what that could point to?

Guilt and regret, usually.

Nice one... I'd forgotten about the regret. Yes, that usually included
among your feelings when you've done something that
know you shouldn't have.


I'm sure that you've regretted some things in your life too, it's a
human thing.

I certainly have, but I'm trying to cut down - there's only so much
ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret that a poor soul can
comfortably take.

I know that I have. I regret not burying the bodies deeper

very good.


:-)

--
Bod

Former parish councillor and a retired teacher, both 62, are spoken to
by police amid claims they blocked a woodland path with rocks and branches.

The pair, former parish councillor Anna Hacket-Pain, and retired teacher
Wendy McLachlan, both 62, suggested the youngster was breaking lockdown
rules by travelling to the beauty spot, and trespassing on private land.

He argued that he only lived a mile away, that they had no more right to
be there than him, and that as residents of different households they
should not have been out together.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-branches.html


No big deal. This happens all the time. The women were just after a cyclist's bod. Most _adult_ male cyclists have no clue as to how attractive they are to women.

When I was growing up "older" women were always taking off my clothes. I figured that's just how women behaved. There are bigger issues for a cyclist to worry about . . . like flat tires.


Bret Cahill

On 14:11 14 May 2020, Bod said:

On 14/05/2020 14:00, Pamela wrote:
On 13:49 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 14/05/2020 13:31, Pamela wrote:

Isn't the whole point of off-road riding to contend with obstacles?

No. There are some that want to enjoy the countryside and some that
want to conquer the countryside.


If that's the case in this situation, maybe the cyclist should find a
nice quiet tarmacked lane and ride there, avoiding all that nasty mud
and all those highly dangerous twigs to say nothing of terribly
slippery leaves.

Or maybe the old bats should get a life. You are a practicing contrarian
who just likes to have digs at cyclists, even polite ones like in the
case we are discussing. Maybe YOU should get a life too.


The Daily Mail must be short of good copy and is resorting to indignant
stories. This story of a few twigs placed on a path to dissuade a keen
cyclist is a storm in a teacup.

Surely true off-road cylists depair at the pettiness of such video name and
shame stuff.

On 17:48 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 14/05/2020 14:00, Pamela wrote:
On 13:49 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 14/05/2020 13:31, Pamela wrote:

Isn't the whole point of off-road riding to contend with obstacles?

No.
There are some that want to enjoy the countryside and some that want to
conquer the countryside.

If that's the case in this situation, maybe the cyclist should find a nice
quiet tarmacked lane and ride there, avoiding all that nasty mud and all
those highly dangerous twigs to say nothing of terribly slippery leaves.

A few days ago you wrote "Perhaps you converse with dummies and the hard
of thinking in your other forums but, I'm sorry, you'll need to think in
a more logically coherent way here."

Was this one of those "do as I say, not do as I do" directives?

You will find there's a difference between sloppy logic and parody. Look it
up.

On 17:50 14 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 2:00:16 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 13:49 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 14/05/2020 13:31, Pamela wrote:

Isn't the whole point of off-road riding to contend with obstacles?

No.
There are some that want to enjoy the countryside and some that want
to conquer the countryside.


If that's the case in this situation, maybe the cyclist should find a
nice quiet tarmacked lane and ride there, avoiding all that nasty mud
and all those highly dangerous twigs to say nothing of terribly
slippery leaves.

Maybe car drivers could also avoid roads with bridges over them in case
some chavs start lobbing rocks off them?


===== whoosh!
YOUR HEAD

On 15/05/2020 11:01, Pamela wrote:
On 17:48 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 14/05/2020 14:00, Pamela wrote:
On 13:49 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 14/05/2020 13:31, Pamela wrote:

Isn't the whole point of off-road riding to contend with
obstacles?

No. There are some that want to enjoy the countryside and some
that want to conquer the countryside.

If that's the case in this situation, maybe the cyclist should
find a nice quiet tarmacked lane and ride there, avoiding all
that nasty mud and all those highly dangerous twigs to say
nothing of terribly slippery leaves.

A few days ago you wrote "Perhaps you converse with dummies and the
hard of thinking in your other forums but, I'm sorry, you'll need
to think in a more logically coherent way here."

Was this one of those "do as I say, not do as I do" directives?

You will find there's a difference between sloppy logic and parody.
Look it up.

But where's the intelligence?

On 13:09 15 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 15/05/2020 11:01, Pamela wrote:
On 17:48 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 14/05/2020 14:00, Pamela wrote:
On 13:49 14 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 14/05/2020 13:31, Pamela wrote:

Isn't the whole point of off-road riding to contend with
obstacles?

No. There are some that want to enjoy the countryside and some
that want to conquer the countryside.

If that's the case in this situation, maybe the cyclist should
find a nice quiet tarmacked lane and ride there, avoiding all
that nasty mud and all those highly dangerous twigs to say
nothing of terribly slippery leaves.

A few days ago you wrote "Perhaps you converse with dummies and the
hard of thinking in your other forums but, I'm sorry, you'll need
to think in a more logically coherent way here."

Was this one of those "do as I say, not do as I do" directives?

You will find there's a difference between sloppy logic and parody.
Look it up.

But where's the intelligence?

Don't get distracted. Look up logic and look up parody. All will be
revealed.

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

The Daily Mail must be short of good copy and is resorting to indignant
stories. This story of a few twigs placed on a path to dissuade a keen
cyclist is a storm in a teacup.

So why did the OWNERS of the land state:

The landowners said they were aware of informal use of the wood by local mountain bikers, who had "always behaved responsibly", and were looking to allow them formal access.

+++++A spokesperson for the Bolton Estate condemned the women's actions, adding: "The laying of traps to recklessly or even deliberately endanger anyone is wholly unacceptable." +++++

On 15/05/2020 17:52, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

The Daily Mail must be short of good copy and is resorting to indignant
stories. This story of a few twigs placed on a path to dissuade a keen
cyclist is a storm in a teacup.

So why did the OWNERS of the land state:

The landowners said they were aware of informal use of the wood by local mountain bikers, who had "always behaved responsibly", and were looking to allow them formal access.

+++++A spokesperson for the Bolton Estate condemned the women's actions, adding: "The laying of traps to recklessly or even deliberately endanger anyone is wholly unacceptable." +++++

Whether or not the "traps" were "laid" by the ladies involved is one
question. As far as one can see, the claimed "admission" was only
(allegedly) made to the complainant.

But in any case, can a pile of tree branches and rocks placed so as to
impede progress credibly be called a "trap"?

I can think of one sort-of-similar obstruction not too far from here,
placed in position - in plain sight* - so as to impede vehicles of all
sorts on a *footpath*.

One might as well call a padlocked gate a trap.

[* Maybe it's not in plain sight in total darkness.]

On 17:52 15 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

The Daily Mail must be short of good copy and is resorting to indignant
stories. This story of a few twigs placed on a path to dissuade a keen
cyclist is a storm in a teacup.

So why did the OWNERS of the land state:

The landowners said they were aware of informal use of the wood by local
mountain bikers, who had "always behaved responsibly", and were looking
to allow them formal access.

+++++A spokesperson for the Bolton Estate condemned the women's actions,
adding: "The laying of traps to recklessly or even deliberately endanger
anyone is wholly unacceptable." +++++

The reporter most likely asked the land owner about the right to use the
footpath and the owner accepted that the public, including cyclists, had a
legal right to use it.

In the article the police add that the "track was popular with cyclists and
walkers".

Not sure what is meant by "formal" and "informal" access.