Jump to content

The Lurker

Regulars
  • Content Count

    402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

527 Excellent

About The Lurker

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,728 profile views
  1. Equally it might be easier if you both stopped bickering.
  2. I'm sorry; I don't know how to do the separate quote thingy; I'll respond in order. Race had nothing to do with it; the victims were vulnerable due to their family circumstances and socio-economic background; see 'The Prosecutor' by Nazir Afzal (he prosecuted the Rochdale grooming gang; (I haven't finished it yet) provides some interesting background and 'Prey' by Cassie Pike details the victims perspective of this type of crime. https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/10/27/is-grooming-children-for-sex-a-disproportionately-asian-crime this article (you'll have to register to read in full)
  3. What point are you trying to make there? Do you believe that because white people are sometimes the victims of violence at the hands of people of colour that violence against people of colour cannot be racially motivated? Do you believe that the victims of grooming gangs were targeted because they were white? If so where is your evidence to support that belief? Do you believe that because US police occasionally use excessive force on white people that not one single example of Black People being killed by US Police is racially motivated or influenced? If the answer to any
  4. I think that your idea of the ‘approved orthodoxy’ and ‘prevailing narrative’ is very different to mine. I strongly recommend that you drag yourself away from YouTube opinionistas and read some books and newspapers. Why you would chose to believe a few people of colour on social media with unknown motivation over the hundreds of thousands of people that have marched is beyond me; could it be that their narrative suits your own cosy view? The prevailing narrative is of structural racism and white privilege (a term I dislike but it’s all we’ve got at the moment) if you think it’s the
  5. Then you're either thick as fuck or deliberately missing the point because denying the existence institutional/systemic racism is the easy option. Do you understand that BLM or any other equality campaign doesn't want to take anything away from you? You will not be poorer if people who are not white have a fair crack at the whip. 'All lives matter' and 'Black Lives Matter' are not mutually exclusive concepts but denying the requirement for the BLM movement is the resort of the lazy who don't want to contemplate that there is a problem with the way that many police forces around the
  6. I disagree; I’ve had my skull saved more than once and know others who’ve had their brains spared from being spread over carriageway. It strikes me that the arguments against are the same ones that were churned out when motor cycle helmets were made compulsory and seatbelts. They save lives. They also save significant expense to the NHS and tax payer by reducing the severity of injuries. The only difficulty I could see would be enforcement amongst kids.
  7. Seems entirely reasonable to me. I’m old enough to remember pointing and laughing at someone in a cycle helmet. I now stare in amazement when I see someone without one. I’ve been saved from severe injury by a helmet; wouldn’t leave home without one now.
  8. If you do not understand the meaning behind the Black Lives Matter movement then you are either thick; deliberately obtuse or racist. Probably a mix of all three. The movement is not stating that black lives matter more than any other lives but that they matter just as much and can the Police please stop killing us? Years ago I would probably have been one of the “all lives matter” wankers; yes; if you’ve stated that you are a wanker! But one of my oldest friends married a woman of colour; the stories he tells me of the prejudice that his wife and children have to deal with every s
  9. I'm fairly sure parking restrictions are still null and void; double yellows and disabled spaces were always still enforced but unless I've missed a bulletin then there are no longer any time limits on parking.
  10. They looked on Facebook you melon!
  11. I assume you're alluding to road tax with that? I'll respond but I don't want this to descend into yet another pro/anti-road cycling thread so this will be my last and I'd also like to make it clear that I'm well aware that it isn't called 'road tax' blah blah. I pay road tax on my car for the use of the road; as so about 85% of cyclist; when I cycle (90% of which is commuting and therefore a journey I would be taking anyway) my car is at home neither polluting nor causing wear and congestion on the roads. I am also significantly healthier than I would be if I didn't cycle; for me r
  12. 1. Not all cyclists are out for a jolly or a training ride; many cycle journeys are commutes and like all commutes regardless of mode of transport people will travel the shortest/quickest way. 2. Lycra has evolved over many years as the best clothing to wear whilst cycling; not only reducing drag and therefore shortening commutes but providing an element of protection from road rash during a fall; if you don't like the way I look in lycra then don't look at me. 3. Cycle lanes can be problematic; many are 'designed' by people who haven't ridden a bike in years and have no idea of the
  13. I don't intend on being drawn into the All-Island Limit debate but I disagree about lifting the current 40 mph limit; it's no longer necessary. Raise to 50 for a week then 60 the next; consider leaving it at 60 for a while but I believe that the debate about future, permanent speed limits should be done in the context of a general election.
  14. Seems like the basis of a good idea; I'd prefer isolation until the second negative test though. I'm not sure about testing capacity; we can do 200 tests per day; 300 at a push? That's not even one full crossing on the Ben. I have no idea what sort of numbers arrive on the Island each day in normal circumstances but I'd guess we'd need at least ten times the current testing capacity.
  15. I sincerely hope it won't take that long but it's entirely down to the UK getting its house in order which doesn't seem to be happening very quickly. I'd like IOMG to give an indication of what the state of play needs to be before borders are opened. I did wonder if we could consider opening to ROI first as they seem to have a better grip on this but it would be too easily abused and a pointless compromise. All or nothing I reckon.
×
×
  • Create New...