I find those comments extremely rude and offensive, and totally unjustified. ?You accuse me of ‘insulting’ youm, yet you insinuate that I am under the influence of drugs, then abuse me simply for having a different opinion. Very sad.

And for this reason, i am done with this discussion other than with those who are capable of behaving in a respectful and intelligent manner. i think some of you really let yourselves down with your behaviour on this forum, and whilst you accuse others of giving cyclists a bad name, you yourselfs do nothing to create a positive image for your sport.

Goodbye.

Mike your first post on return was nothing more than insults accusing of us being closed minded etc

It is clear you dont like being insulted, lets be honest who would.

I hope I have demonstrated it is not an effective way to address folk or to win over hearts and minds

I dont think those things about you or anyone it was to prove a point

If you irritate folk with a CM rally or by harsh/insulting words…they dont want to listen to what you have to say

He’s not just let himself down Mike, he’s let the school down, his mum and dad. In fact… all of us

And he’s going to get a damn good thrashing 😀

you yourself do nothing to create a positive image for your sport.

I know I don’t. I turn up at work, in all weathers, even if its lashing down, or really really cold, after my 15 mile commute, soaking wet or freezing, when there’s a perfectly good car parked at home. Thus confirming to normal people that cyclists are all, at best, well… mindly deranged.

Then I go out riding in the dark (not around the Olympic village – I’m not that ‘core’) and turn up at the pub caked in mud, usually soaking wet again, grinning like a maniac. Apparently this is a very odd thing for a grown-up to be doing, and further reinforces the earlier impression that cyclists are absolutely barking mad!

Sorry 🙁

JY, the irony was a “bit clumsy” and harsh for a new boy to understand. Old timers with experience of locking swords got it, but it did take a couple of seconds!!!! Lucky to escape the naught step there I reckon! 😉

And for this reason, i am done with this discussion other than with those who are capable of behaving in a respectful and intelligent manner.

Mike,
Why did CM act against a polite police ruling? I am not discussing the legality of their ruling. ‘Because we can’ is a good enough answer – but why did CM act in defiance of the Police instead of working with the Police? What did they gain?

*Whoooosh*

That was Junky’s comment on the last page going right over Mike’s head!

The police ruling was a ‘request’, not an order. From what i’ve heard, those who attended the ride did not see why they should obey what they believed to be an unreasonable request. It wasn’t about acting ‘in defiance’ against police, it was more about the police not working with CM interests. Most people just wanted to watch the opening ceremony fireworks. the whole area was flooded with people doing just that. There really does not seem to be the claimed attempt to ‘disrupt’ the opening ceremony at all, in fact quite the opposite. but that’s just what I’ve heard from those who were there. Maybe i should listen to people sitting behind keyboards in places like manchester instead; obviously they appear to know better.

I think the police were under enormous pressure to prevent any possible embarrassing disruptions. Sadly, they acted in a completely disproportionate manner. I would not blame the individual officers on the ground, but the senior officers giving orders. It’s not the first time they’ve got things wrong, to be honest, is it?

In my opinion, the police were provocative in issuing an unlawful ‘order’ or ‘request’ (see how things can get mixed up depending on how you word them? ‘Protest’, ‘procession’?). I cannot see why they wanted to prevent a group of cyclists from wanting to do what thousands of others were doing. Other than for political reasons. Which simply aren’t good enough. Th epolice do not make the Laws, they are merely there to uphold them. The riders broke no laws by rding near the olympic park, so why were they arrested?

I wait to see what trumped up charges people might be charged with, if at all. i suspect the vast majority will simply walk away without any charge at all. i also suspect a fair number will seek action against the police.

All in all, I hope a better and more positive solution is found. Which is why i’ve decided to get involved, rather than waste time trying to discuss things with people on an internet forum.

It wasn’t about acting ‘in defiance’ against police, it was more about the police not working with CM interests.

FFS!!! Are you 12 years old? Are you familiar with the real world, as experienced by the rest of society? You were told you could go anywhere you damn well pleased, apart from one single place? So you went straight there. In what way is that – in your words – not acting ‘in defiance’ against police?

I’ll tell you what. I’m reappraising my age guess. Are you 5 years old? Thats the kind of behavior you expect from a small child

And anyway: Why on earth should the Met act in CM’s interests? On possibly their busiest evening in peacetime? When CM set out with the clearly stated aim of disrupting things? Seriously? Oh, I’m sorry…. is this further evidence of the ‘police state’ we’re living in. Grow up, you melon!

And anyway…. if they’d let you have your protest/celebration*, should they let the Muslim Brotherhood? The EDL? With the anti-nazi league to hold a counter-rally? Anyone else?

I cannot see why they wanted to prevent a group of cyclists from wanting to do what thousands of others were doing. Other than for political reasons.

Oh dear. Is that narcissistic delusional sense of self-importance again. Do you really think that on the run up to the Olympics, that Call-me-Dave is sat fretting about you lot. Dear god! Get a grip!!! 😆

* we’re still unclear on which this is since you change it constantly depending on which point you’re trying to make

Requesting 200 / 500 / 1000 (depending on which source you believe) cyclists to not go to a “sensitive area” is not provocative.

Whether that is lawful or unlawful is irrelevant… IF the CM ride is “just a ride”.

Not obeying a request, with mass numbers of people, saying “we have the right” IS provocative.

CM is there to “celebrate cycling”… so celebrate it. Give cycling a good positive image. If they’d gone where they did in June or September, there’d probably have been no problems. They went where they did, on the 1 day it could have been a problem, in defiance.

edit: and similarly those CM bloggers not initially present, but seeing tweets online, that then decided they had to go an join in is also provocative.

Maybe i should listen to people sitting behind keyboards in places like manchester instead; obviously they appear to know better.

Oh… I’m frightfully sorry. I forgot that we’re not allowed an opinion in the provinces. Its a shame you’ve taken that tone, as prior to that you hadn’t come across as remotely self-righteous, patronising or condescending 🙄

I did not say you are not allowed an opinion, just that if you post one based on little or no knowledge and experience of a fact, you will not be taken seriously, and seen as ignorant. Your views will be challenged and shown to be invalid. That’s how debate works. if you don;’t like the rules, don’t play the game.

If I came up with a load of bull about Manchester, i’ve no doubt you’d shoot me down in flames. Why do you expect any different when the situation is reversed?

The answers are already on this thread. you could perhaps try reading all the posts? Radical, I know.

Oddly, I’ve read all seventeen pages, including this one where you’ve said twice now that you you’re leaving and have better things to do than discuss things with people behind keyboards on an Internet forum.

Could you show me where you answered this question please?

Thanks for allowing me an opinion. Even if it is invalid, as are any other opinions or views that don’t coincide with yours, it appears.

Which view do you lean towards politically Mike, out of interest? Trotsky or Marx?

Requesting 200 / 500 / 1000 (depending on which source you believe) cyclists to not go to a “sensitive area” is not provocative.

It is if no good reason is given, and people are told thay cannot exercise their legal rights. Let or Hindrance.

Why on earth should the Met act in CM’s interests?

Because the people on CM rides are citizens like any other, and he Law must be applied equally and without prejudice. Did the police ban taxi drivers or anyone else from driving near the venue?

So far, I have yet to see adequate justification by the police for their actions. i doubt we ever will, somehow.

Comparing CM to the EDL etc is just laughable, quite frankly. I can’t take such nonsense seriously.

So I need to move back to London to have an opinion?

But one person who was not at the ride is allowed an opinion?

those who attended the ride did not see why they should obey what they believed to be an unreasonable request.

That’s the crux. Either they heed the request and stay away, or ignore the request. Like I said, I’m not arguing the legality of CM or the Police’s actions; I’m already convinced that the Met were heavy handed (Justified, legally, or otherwise, this isn’t my beef).
It is clear however, that CM chose to act in the manner the Police didn’t want them to. Once again, this is fine and legal. However, I feel that this action dilutes the message behind CM. Instead of being a bike ride, it became about politics, rights and liberties. Is this really what CM is about?
Instead of having a group to rally behind which is solely concerned with raising the profile of cycling, potential supporters see a wealth of political ideologies within CM which they can potentially disagree with. This weakens CMs support.
Whatcha reckon?

Not obeying a request, with mass numbers of people, saying “we have the right” IS provocative.

People exercising their legal right to do something is ‘provocative’?

How bizarre.

They went where they did, on the 1 day it could have been a problem, in defiance.

No, they did what they always do on the last Friday of every month. Read up on CM for more information about this. That this day coincided with the Olympic opening ceremony is purely coincidental. that a group of people rode to a place near the venue to watch fireworks is purely up to them, not you, not the police, but they themselves. Neither you nor the police can tell them otherwise. It’s as simple as that.

CM is there to “celebrate cycling”… so celebrate it. Give cycling a good positive image.

THIS

I suspect we all support your aims and all dislike your methods which are self defeating.

EDIT:

It is if no good reason is given, and people are told thay cannot exercise their legal rights. Let or Hindrance.

Keep fighting thr good fight to be an irritating arse wheneve ryou feel like it..I cannot see how that wont help cyclists

Why on earth should the Met act in CM’s interests?

Because the people on CM rides are citizens like any other, and he Law must be applied equally and without prejudice. Did the police ban taxi drivers or anyone else from driving near the venue?

Plane drivers are not allowed…..what ither protest groups was allowed there? they did treat yuo the same you just want better treatement by pretending to not be a protest group

So far, I have yet to see adequate justification by the police for their actions. i doubt we ever will, somehow.

I doubt you ever will to but fopr very different reasons

Comparing CM to the EDL etc is just laughable, quite frankly. I can’t take such nonsense seriously.

No one has the point was if you “celebrate” why cant they clebrate Englishness in their capital city on this night etc there ..its not aportest we are celebrating Englishness how can you infringe their rights etc

STW is there to “celebrate arguing”… so celebrate it. Give arguing a good positive image.

People exercising their legal right to do something is ‘provocative’?

How bizarre.
People attempting to promote cycling in a positive light, decide that exercising their rights and standing up against the machine of authority, while in possession of “bust cards”, with legal advisers present, having revised their rights beforehand… is more important than promoting cycling in a positive light.

How bizarre.

People exercising their legal right to do something is ‘provocative’?

How bizarre.

I assume I can legitmately turn up at weddings funerals and BAr mitzvahs and hulr abuse at the participants all perfectly legally.

Is this not provaocative?

I mean I have the right to do this and screw them as if they think they have the right to bury their dead with respect, get married without being called a fat slag …I HAVE RIGHTS AND YOURS DONT COUNT ?

Comparing CM to the EDL etc is just laughable, quite frankly. I can’t take such nonsense seriously.

Permission to have an opinion please Mike?

Ahem…. I’ll voice it anyway…. If the Police allow you to act like a bunch of naughty schoolboys exercise your democratic right to protest/celebrate*, then they would surely then have to allow the EDL to host a celebration of short haircuts and tattoos? Or for the Muslim Brotherhood to hold a celebration of great big beards, and lovely long flowing white gowns? Or pretty much anyone else, who wants to ‘celebrate’ anything at all really? That’s how democracy works, isn’t it?

Or are you saying that YOU should be allowed to do what you like, but everyone else can’t as they’re not entitled to an opinion either? As it differs from yours

This last bit seems to sum up your attitude to everyone and everything really

* we’ve still not resolved which it is, have we?

And for this reason, i am done with this discussion

yaay

other than with those who are capable of behaving in a respectful and intelligent manner.

ahhh booo

Permission to have an opinion please

Sorry, not possible.
Activists and ideologists don’t have opinions… only facts. Therefore everyone else is wrong 😉

Most people just wanted to watch the opening ceremony fireworks.

I’m sorry….. But …… Balls ! Just that…… Complete Balls.

There really does not seem to be the claimed attempt to ‘disrupt’ the opening ceremony at all, in fact quite the opposite. but that’s just what I’ve heard from those who were there. Maybe i should listen to people sitting behind keyboards in places like manchester instead; obviously they appear to know better.

I was there, and as I said earlier……

What I saw (first hand) where a load of people purposefully blocking busy junctions for no other reason than to antagonise motorists.

If they wanted to see the bloody fireworks, how would that have helped them achieve their goal.

It does seem like the claimed “goal” of this event changes daily by the way.
Is it a protest (against whatever)
Is it a “celebration of cycling
Or is it a lovely trip out to watch some fireworks.

For what it’s worth, I watched the fireworks and they were awesome.

And all I did to achieve that, was act in a responsible adult manner.

At one stage in fact, a Volunteer Gamesmaker in a purple uniform asked me to walk on the other side of the path as it was a bit busy.
Didn’t even cross my mind to argue my rights as a citizen to walk wherever I wanted as I live in a free country.

I just smiled and did as I was asked. And in doing so, I got to watch the fireworks, rather than getting arrested for acting like a juvenile muppet.

People attempting to promote cycling in a positive light, decide that exercising their rights and standing up against the machine of authority, while in possession of “bust cards”, with legal advisers present, having revised their rights beforehand… is more important than promoting cycling in a positive light.

How bizarre.

To wit,

Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you have to do it.

I was leaving the Olympics the other day and was told to avoid Stratford station. Now, I could have thought “well, it’s my right to use Stratford station, I always use it!” and turned up anyway. I’d have ended up queuing for hours as it was mobbed, so I figured an alternate route would be a good move.

CM were asked to avoid an area. They could’ve ridden, just once, anywhere else in the country. It’s a relatively big place. Yet they chose to avoid the request and turn up en masse in the one place they were asked not to, and then were, what, surprised when the police reacted to suddenly finding a pack of a couple of hundred cyclists descending on them?

Why? Why would they do that? Why would anyone want to do that? Christ, Wolfie Smith civil liberties aside, is the fact that there’s a huge event going on not reason enough to steer clear?

There’s only one reason which makes any sense, other than an underactive critical thinking gland. They wanted attention, they wanted to cause a fuss. Be careful what you wish for.

The police ruling was a ‘request’, not an order.

Hmm, since it was a condition imposed, in writing, under the auspices of the public order act, I, frankly, don’t believe you

From what i’ve heard, those who attended the ride did not see why they should obey what they believed to be an unreasonable request.

Irrelevant if it was reasonable or not, it was a lawfully imposed condition, therefore you follow it – if you choose not to, then you accept the responsibility for knowingly breaking the law, and the subsequent consequences.

Now now Z-11! Now that Mikes effectively outlawed opposing or contrasting opinions, don’t be going chucking uncomfortable things like ‘facts’ into the mix

it was a lawfully imposed condition, therefore you follow it – if you choose not to, then you accept the responsibility for knowingly breaking the law, and the subsequent consequences.

I would imaging CM, if our spokesperson is anything to go by, would struggle with the concept of responsibilities. Its rights they’re concerned with. They’re quite keen on stressing their right to go where they want, when they want. Though they seem less keen on other peoples right to do the same

Careful Binners – they’ve actually very keen to support other peoples right to do the same, as long as they agree with them, its just people with opposing or distateful opinions like the EDL that shouldn’t have the right to hold a public procession when they want and where they want.

I don’t know if you notices in the letter above, but its quite interesting that the police did not choose to treat the procession as a protest, as CM had originally claimed, nor did they only ‘request’ that they did not go north of the river – in fact they quite specifically prohibited them from doing so as a condition under S12 of the act, and made it absolutley clear that if they chose to ignore this condition, then they may be arrested.

all of which seems to completley contradict the claims made by Mike Connor on here, and that were made by CM on various Social media outlets and in the Guardian after the event…

Funny that, isn’t it 🙄

Interesting document that.

Not only does it show that on the whole the CM defenders are talking total rot most of the time.

But more importantly, if CM are this leaderless bunch of free spirits, with no organisation or structure, then who the hell was that document sent to ?

Do they stop people with bikes in the street randomly and hand them out ?
Do they attach them to bikes parked in the street in the hope that CM “members” stumble access one.

Or do they send it to the person in charge of CM, as I suspect ?

this is a fun thread 😆

I’m sorry but mikeconnor has to be a fake, bless his flat pedals. Anyone who can get Z-11, my favourite crazed Genghis Khan-a-like and binners, self confessed northern waterphobic oddity, plus CFH, the forums very own Mycroft Holmes and the well balanced and handsome crikey all on the same side has to be a construct…

This is a fun thread

Not as much fun as those fireworks at the Olympic Ceremony though.

It’s a shame that 180 dedicated firework fans missed out on them really

😉

who the hell was that document sent to

I’m reliably informed that they handed copies out to all attendees at the start of the procession 8)

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

The Black Knight – a man of redoubtable tenacity.

Well that was a good read.

After reading every page it’s quite simple to sum up in my mind really.

Bunch of belligerent folk want to uphold some notion of ‘rights’ in order to cause a fuss and antagonise for the pure sake of it when they could have just gone somewhere else for one night and avoided a rather nasty and needless confrontation.

This argument has gone round so many times it’s become a spiral.

The two sides of this will never agree. It’s possible to suggest that the conditions created by the indifference and prejudice of one side are forming the basis of the protest of the other side. You have to look fairly deeply I grant you. 🙂

Which is nice and circular. I like it tidy.

Sorry, I decidedit was too nice a day to waste arguing on here again, so i went out for a bike ride and a swim. I see some of you just stayed on here arguing.

As for that PO Section 12 ‘order’; it’s simply a joke that that’s all the police can come up with to try to prevent a group of cyclists riding their bikes on public roads. I’m not even going to bother trying to explain why, as anyone with any real knowledge of the Law will know that Section 12 is a flimsy virtually unenforceable piece of flimsy legislation at best, and in fact detrimental to Law and Order at worst.

This is an interesting piece on it:

last year, in may, the metropolitan police lost an appeal in the high court which finally established that the mass is a ‘commonly or customarily held procession’ as described in the public order act, and so, exempt from prior notification as required by section 11 of that act. however, this does not exempt it from possible use of section 12 or (theoretically) 13.

section 13 allows the possibility of a ban (signed by the secretary of state) where police can show a real risk of serious disorder – highly improbable for CM.

however, section 12, allowing the imposition of conditions, has a lower threshold, including the slightly open “risk of serious disruption to the life of the community”, and this is what was used on friday.

in order to comply with human rights legislation, it is important that any conditions applied are proportionate and necessary.

since the police have shown themselves keen to control the critical mass previously, the fact that they haven’t used section 12 before would suggest they were not over-optimistic about its likelihood of being upheld in the courts.

however, with the “special circumstances” of the olympics, they might have a stronger case for this particular ride. but conditions banning the ride from the whole of north london and beyond would seem to be quite an excessive interpretation of “proportionate or necessary” and might form the basis of a legal challenge for the cyclists detained on friday if they face court or later decide to challenge the police via compensation claims or judicial reviews later on.

also, given that the ride always takes place on the last friday of the month means that the police had five years to plan for this, and yet the letter handed out to cyclists gave no detail on how the police had arrived at the belief there would be serious disruption.

when the law was drafted, there were concerns and warnings that the new extension of power should be used carefully and that the police should weigh up whether by imposing conditions based on avoiding serious disruption, they might be causing a more serious problem of serious disorder in response to their actions. this may well have been the case on friday, both because the police caused far more disruption to the community themselves by closing off london bridges to all traffic for significant periods of time, and also because their actions significantly increased the incidents of scuffles and other disorder throughout the evening (unlikely to have occured had the mass gone ahead as normal).

the kettling of cyclists without food or water, their prolonged detention in handcuffs aboard the buses without toilet facilities, and further detention on concrete floors with little or no food or water, were all serious contraventions of the authorities’ duty of care.

section 12 of the public order act used to be a ‘non-arrestable’ offence, only requiring a verified name and address for delivery of a fine. in 2005, the SOCPA act made most offences arrestable under certain prescribed conditions, and the one given to suspects on friday/saturday was “in order to allow the prompt and efficient investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question”. however, no-one has reported being interviewed, so it is very hard to see what “investigation” the police carried out before releasing people, and this alone may be grounds for challenge and compensation.

as of sunday night, only three people have actually been charged with offences.

http://london.indymedia.org/articles/12612

I myself have been threatened with arrest under Section 12. As I stated earlier, I simply ignored the threat, explained to the officer why they had no real power to arrest me for such an ‘offence’, and went about my business. I was not arrested. Probably because the officer threatening me knew that he’d never be able to justify the arrest if it ever came to court.

I’ll leave to to you lot to figure out why this ‘order’ was invalid, and obviously unenforceable, given that all but three people have actually been charged. I’d be surprised if the CPS bothered to pursue the matter.

During my bike ride earlier, I reflected on the fact that in situations like this some people will be forever opposed no matter how much you try to explain things. And that some people really need the internet to vent their own anger and frustrations, and will always look for what they consider to be ‘easy targets’. The forum behaviour of certain individuals suggests that some really need to get out/laid more and relax a bit about things. Here we are, arguing quite needlessly about something we should instead be working together to find better solutions.

I look forward to meeting those who have an open mind and wish to find out things for themselves, on the next ride. 24th August, 6pm, by Waterloo Bridge/South Bank. See you there!

Ima gonna call you Che connor from now on, have you got a range of iconic posters I can buy for my bedroom wall?

CTC rides never seem to have these sort of problems.