but I still have to ride in the real world…..

Absolutely agree with this.

It’s about us.

Again, agree. But if somebody should seek help for their phobia, then others should control their pets. If both don’t do their bit, then where is the ‘us’?

Enjoyed that, was a good read!

Thats great, for you. Sounds like a responsible dog owner. As has been pointed out several times though, not all dog owners are. As has been asked further up too, why should a person have to get help with their issues, instead of the owners being in control of their animals? Maybe we should get the sheep to get help for their issues around this time of year too? Facetious I know, but if an owner cant control their dog off a lead, it should be on one or not taken to places where they cause the issue in the first place

Cant see the point you are making, what was done wrong in this case?

This exact case? Nothing. But what if instead of a 6yr old girl with me, this is a “20 stone lorry driver” on his own with this exact reaction (terrified) and the dog in question came over fussing/jumping up whatever. Do you really think this sort of person wouldn’t lash out??? I’m sure in a scenario like this a dead dog isn’t the aim, but big guy kicking out in fear+little dog+wrong spot this could feasibly be an outcome.

Disclaimer: I do not own a dog, nor do I have a problem with them.

I cant help but find it difficult to stomach some of the responses to the “dog murderer”, you know the one who made it very clear that dogs terrify them. Almost like, I dont know, a fear so bad they believe they really are in serious danger. I mean its not like there’s ever any posts on here of members bashing/kicking out etc towards those over exuberant big metal boxes (that are also owner controlled) that get a bit close when they are on the road on the bike that they believe put them in danger of injury.

this:

Why doesn’t everyone calm the **** down and just try and be nice.

No need to try and kill dogs through booting it or exhaustion. Most of the time a dog has bounded up to me it’s usually been pretty young, followed by loads of apologies and an explanation that they are still training it but not quite there yet.

Some dog owners are ****. Lots in fact. But the people here who get glea from the possibility of hurting their dog is just as much of a ****.

The majority of people are nice we all have to co-exist. Be nice, spread happiness

and this:

The amount of people who are so quick to turn to violence and in one cases killing someone’s dog here is bonkers and why is everyone’s answer to this escalating the situation??

really? I just cant fathom this thought process from people who are usually fairly empathetic and logical.

Anecdote: At the park with my kids, a mate and his kids on the bikes. My mates daughter is terrifed of dogs. And I mean terrifed. So much so, that while we had stopped on our loop around the park (just me and the 4 kids for a bit) she burst into tears and was inconsolable as there was a dog, on a lead, controlled by its owner over by the bin nearly 15foot away. The fact that there seems to be people that simply cannot grasp the fact that some other people are simply that scared of dogs is, quite frankly, pathetic.

thats not HRs role. Hrs role is to ensure process is followed and to protect the employer

Not quite TJ. Everything you say there is correct, but they also have a duty to protect emplyee’s as well for certain things, and mental health falls under this (see grievance procedures etc).

That sounds like a particularly calculating and devious kind of bullying

This should also be looked at and considered by the Union Rep. If no other individuals from the ‘off the record chat’ are also facing hearings then this has some serious legs.

As TJ says, it may seem heavy handed, but that the way policies are laid out for fairness and consistency.

The union rep should be making lots of noise about being called in on a non-work day for the meeting informing of suspension. Absolutely not on. Should be in work time (so at start of shift on Monday by your timeline).

I find it difficult to see how disciplinary can come from an allegation that hasn’t actually been formally made, is ok. I don’t however work in the NHS.

Other managers not involved should have no detail, unless as witnesses in the investigation process. If the ‘accused’ is not allowed to talk about it, then the Head of Dept. isn’t either. I’d imagine this is non-conforming with policy.

Head of Dept. should have no involvement with the investigation/sanctioning procedure. Clear conflict of interest. Union Rep should be immovable on this point, or use it as a massive weapon in any disciplinary hearing to have the case thrown out.

If OH are now involved with Person A, this is clear evidence of stress caused by work, and would constitute sick leave.

I don’t ride that hard or fast, but I do sweat like a pig, on almost every ride! I’ve got 2 pairs of Melon Optics, Diablo. (can leave 2 different lens types ready to go that way as well.)

I’ve found them to be excellent. Although, I’ve not had any other brands to compare to.

Do fog a little, but in the main only when stationary and I’m already hot. Around the neck when stopped solves this. For the price, and they are so customisable and interchangeable for lenses, straps, new colour frame etc and the fact that they don’t fog for me, means I can’t recommend them enough.

but how would you know it’s a genuine mistake and not someone covering a deliberately racist statement with “oh sorry guv, I had no idea that was offensive”?

As said, with investigation. However, and while I hate the mop haired muppet PM saying it, ‘common sense’ would need to factor into things. An immediate apology, from A without prompting, would IMO show that it is a genuine mistake. An apology from A after B said something, if sincere would also show a genuine mistake. If A apologised after B said something and it sounded like “well I’m sorry you were offended…” is it genuine?

Going by what devbix said up there ^^^ sounds like this is knee jerk reaction by management to be seen to be “tackling a know racial harassment problem” without actually filtering through a “is this is right thing to do?” (also there could be a little bit of history between A and the Manager which isn’t helping)

Firstly (if it does indeed go to disciplinary)

I do suspect that there is a bit of an agenda behind the actions of person C as person a had a management decision of theirs overturned by higher management last year.

Non-independent investigating manager, big No-No from the rep. First point in the meeting

Secondly,

If person B didn’t name any names when asked about racial harassment issues, who provided A’s name to HR / management?

would be required for the investigation process, and therefore should be given with the evidence pack to the employee being disciplined (if…..etc etc) prior to hearing.

If there is bad blood between the investigator and person A then this should be raised immediately and the investigator must be removed – that however does not always help

Have been advised in the past, best kept for the hearing. Can be used by the rep if they are good/lucky to get the case dismissed.

If everything was as described, only one side of the story remember, I wouldn’t think this would get past the investigation stage or person B could be in trouble too. Depends on how anal HR want to be about what is deemed as racist behavior and whether they want to make a big issue out of it.

Three ‘Person A’s summarily dismissed recently for posting potentially racist comments on non-work related farceburk conversation. (Not personal attacks, either). Brought to company’s attention by a ‘Person C’

Company will not tolerate… etc.

Down the road the same day.

Different circumstances Tilly

From that description Mattbee, its actually Person B who used racist language!

Also, if Person B brought that up in an off the record conversation about…

racially motivated harassment or suchlike

Then they really need to reassess what they think harassment is.

If I was the rep for this, if it does go to disciplinary, I’d be hopeful of getting that case dismissed within 5 minutes.

Difficult situation this.

Person A should not have said what they did, they realised this, apologised and (the most important part to raise in any disciplinary action) learnt from this. The fact this was done without any external person to A saying something should be viewed as a positive in disciplinary.

Person B discussed what as said by person A with them, acknowledged the apology, and undoubtedly had more than an “I’m sorry” with person A. they also did not make an official complaint (from the sounds of it) also unlikely to have named person A.

Manager has had an ‘off the record’ conversation (most likely prompted by somebody, Person C, who was in the coffee room or near and heard it, but did not witness the apology) but has to act on what has been said. Should however have been clear and transparent with the ‘off the record’ conversation.

This should be treated as a learning opportunity, rather than a discipline opportunity.

I’m of the opposite opinion of most of the posters it seems!

While it makes no material difference knowing if you are male or female, I do find that from a personal view it helps me to know who I’m talking to and adds some context to views etc.

That being said, if you don’t want to tell anyone whether you’re male/female/nonbinary etc then thats totally your choice.

Redmex, this…

There must be couple of lumberjacks on here that cut down trees, wear high heels, suspendies and a bra while riding their bikes

needs more applause!

No problem Jakester.

To be fair to her manager though, training and PPE may well be provided but I’d expect this detail before going in. Re: the training, I’d also assume this would be a safeguarding issue if not trained?

The union should be giving her similar advice to the advice we have at work, and that I’ve been giving to my members.

1.  If communicated as voluntary, it is voluntary. End of subject. Her manager can say whatever they want to give the impression its ‘mandatory’ but unless in writing, it is not.

2. If she is to administer tests to the kids she should have training. H&SAWe Act1974, MHASAWR, PUWER….. etc. She is an employee and should be trained. (we cannot self test without doing the training package.)

3. As per above if there is no Risk Assessment and PPE provided, it does not happen. Employer’s responsibility to assess risk and put controls in place as per the Hierarchy of controls.

4. “Her employment contract says that her duties include such tasks as she may reasonably be directed to do from time to time by her employer” as its voluntary she hasn’t been directed to, and i would argue the reasonability of the request.

Hoping to give this a go this year as a first timer. Was going to do last year but…. well you know the rest!

Just trying to find a 4th for our team so still a bit up in the air at the moment but hopeful I can convince my mate to give it a go too

no if its kicked forward it is a knock on. It went backwards from his leg.

Very lucky then is what you’re saying tj?!?!

Rub O’ the Green then I suppose.

Edit: spelling, stupid fat fingers!

Didn’t touch the ground it hit his leg, that’s s kick notca knock on, ref was correct.
First one was a shocker though.

Have seen that given as a knock on countless times!

However, if that’s what the decision is, that’s a massive gift to any player who knocks it on from now on.

Spilled the ball forwards? Try and kick it. Miss and doesnt make a difference, hit it and bingo! no knock on.

Said to my boss yesterday, I couldnt see anything but a Wales win.

That being said, that first try was a travesty. The ref got that hugely wrong. The second try I still think shouldn’t have been given, I think is questionable whether it was technically correct or not.

On balance though, ref was consistent pretty much the whole game.

@bearback, yesterday was shorts and knee pads. Does it when I wear trousers too, just not as badly. might have to keep to trousers for a while to help then.

Thanks for the input all. Normally the sealskinz are great, just not today! Main issue is the water in the shoe just sucking the heat from my feet, hence thinking of over shoes. This happens even when the sealskinz do their job

The BBC article has been updated since last night

Rescuers were deployed to the scene, between Patterdale and Ambleside, after police were alerted at about 00:30 GMT on Saturday that one of the campers, a 47-year-old man with a “pre-existing” medical condition, was ill with chest pains.

I can’t believe this hasn’t been picked up on more yet.

Does suggest this was an even stupider idea

Thanks for all the input guys, hadn’t though of larger volume tyres.

The Frog MTB 62 looks like it might (?) have a fairly decent fork!

@Speeder, that looks ace, and mine has the Pink SDG kit too so helpful to see what it would look like

May be waiting til June for here 9th Birthday so will have a think about the options and see what’s available.

Cant beat a hot Bovril on a cold night!

I’m a happy-chappy, Liking the separated story arcs of Expanse Season 5, and American Gods season 3 started this week! What a treat!

Unfortunately, the rules can’t be set to meet every individual set of circumstances, so we have a vague blanket that does mean that some sensible can’t do what seem fairly sensible activities.

That is a good point Morecash, and something I do struggle with. Too many people in this country don’t act like adults and so cant be treated as such, so those who could actually be ‘sensible’ cant be cause ‘guidance’

I don’t see that there are any. A unnecessary trip adds avoidable risk.
The fact that the risk was higher to start with due to work is irrelevant.

Again Horatio, what is the avoidable risk? That’s the part I find weird, no social contact=no transmission risk surely?

If you can’t avoid those work journeys, but can avoid the journey to ride, then you only have one option to avoid unnecessary journeys.

Again, I understand the need to reduce the unnecessary (without going into details as a mental health issue, I’d argue there’s a potential for it not to be unnecessary) however it’s the fact there seems to be no reasoning why this is a transmission risk. There is no interaction between me and anyone else. No stopping for fuel, drinks, snacks etc. no meeting friends as I ride on my own unusually, no use of public facilities and its somewhere most “normal” people dont go so isnt crowded. All the other guidance I follow, as a minimum, as there is reasons for doing it that have been discussed, like reducing supermarket trips due to interactions, and wearing of a face covering. I understand the WHY for these. But “just because we say so” isnt something I believe to be enough as a reason.

I’m not saying I am/will do this BTW I just dont see the issue, or reasoning. When you have police breaking up large gatherings and parties indoors, villanising people being sensible in an outdoor location seems like arguing who’s responsible for unlocking the door when the house is burning down

One of the biggest problems I have with this, is the logical inconsistencies.

I am in work today, 10miles from home. I should finish the work I’m doing today, so tomorrow I will move to another site to do the same work (this cannot be done from home). The next site I will be doing is 45miles away from home (over an hour driving) and I’ll be there for at least 2 days. Yet at the weekend, the guidance is that I cant drive for about 45mins (in the opposite direction) to a forest where I can ride somewhere I enjoy (I wont be as I’ve got the kids this weekend).  Next week I could (not on the plan at the moment, but it does change frequently) go to work driving PAST where I want to ride to get to another site that is further away. I could also be called to attend another site to fix a problem that’s nearly 2 hours away. this is all fine cos ‘work’.

This forest has no ‘car park’ like a trail centre, no toilets or café so no facilities I can potentially cross contaminate, I’ll take my own coffee in a flask for the journey there and back and have no need to stop en route. I’ll stay away from others using the forest and wont be doing anything even remotely gnar to reduce risk of injury if I do come off.

Even if I decided to go to a more local forest, which is closer but much busier, harder to social distance and with more types of forest users, I’d realistically need to drive there and park in the official car park with everyone else, and over the last 12months has got significantly get busier. From a Risk Assessment POV the further away forest is the best option from a control measure slant.

Edit: Remove formatting

Thanks all, some good ideas in there!

Knew I could count on the STW massiff! Haha

@Whitestone, it was your comment on the Warm Gloves thread that started me looking for something!

@Superficial, while I get your point, I’m after them for a specific reason. Other than that (riding in cold weather, no gap around my wrist) no, I don’t like them either on ‘everyday’ stuff.

Everyone else, thanks for the pointers. I shall have a look through those suggestions, see if anything takes my fancy!

Time to be “that guy” who asks the question.

So Sunday I’m planning to drive 40miles to go for a ride with a mate. It’s my kid free weekend and that’s what we’ve been doing on Sunday mornings. Would you still go?

Details, he’s a work mate, lives that way and we’re both still in work. I can drive further than that and back for work if I’m at our local site near there, in a day. I’ll be back in work tomorrow, need to fill with fuel near my abode so wont need to stop on the day there or back. It’s also not a trail centre.

No gnar either.

Thoughts?

iAll of that requires actually going into a school though.. out in “the real world” education happens in many different ways, only some of which involve classrooms now. (I mean 2000+ not Covid times)

So hitting your point…. what do you mean by “teachers”?
Are you including the people who contribute to learning apps? (such as pointed out earlier Duolingo)

Sorry, wasn’t in work yesterday.

To be honest I hadn’t thought of the contributors, but do they teach as well as d this? Or are they teacher trained but no longer teach? I dont know. But when i say teacher, I mean one from a school environment.

Yes, learning take many forms and a lot can be ‘picked up’ in the real world with no formal training, but school is part of that full package. The education system of the UK needs a proper look at, modernisation and the whole career of being a formal teacher needs to be recognised and lauded a lot more.

The 6 weeks holiday is a perfect example of the wrong way this is looked at. Yes they get a “nice long summer holiday” but  the general public don’t even consider that most teachers, as had been hinted at by posters on here, spend time almost every weekday (and sometimes weekend) evenings, doing marking/planning/task setting etc. because there aren’t enough teachers, so they have no time during the day to do all this, and this is unpaid hours. so yes, teachers deserve all the holidays they get.

There seems to be several threads winding their way through this single thread, and while I don’t agree completely with Stevextc, there is a point (somewhere!) in what he is saying, which funnily enough actually links with what others are saying, but not in so many words.

These are the 2 problems to over come.

Anecdote time to illustrate my point.

I HATED the humanities subjects at school, with a passion until year 9. Then something changed (problem 1) I actually started to enjoy History and RS/RE whatever it was called where you are. Why? What happened? The teachers changed. That’s all. However, the new History teacher (for year 9 and GCSE) I had was the best teacher I’ve ever had, and I kept contact with him after leaving school for a few years. He was so enthusiastic about the subject. He absolutely loved it, and that stuck. We’d (the class) go off on tangents and discuss all sorts of things that were only slightly connected to the original point we were learning, but that made learning the original point less tiresome/more enjoyable and you could see the class were engaged, and picking up extra things like critical thinking. He changed it so much for me personally, I studied it to A level, luckily with him as one of my teachers. This brings me to problem 2…

For A levels (regardless of we’d chosen to do that subject) the class size was a lot smaller because not so many people chose it. This made the lessons a lot more free flowing, interactive and engaging. Again, his enthusiasm was partly to blame, but also it meant that there was a lot more ‘getting to know you’ from his side as he had more time to spend on each student.

Fix these 2 problems, and things would drastically improve IMO.

Also the fact that teaching as a career should be held in a much higher regard rather than “they get 6 weeks off at summer what more do they want?” sort of view to get the best people to do it wouldn’t hurt!

Had another think about this last night about 10.30 on the way back from a walk with the gf.

During the day seems to be just as busy as normal, maybe a little less for the rush hours. However, after about 7-7.30pm there seems to be A LOT less cars on the road and people around. Other than the queues for McD/KFC etc obviously…

Also, ignore weight. Try measuring fat loss (as a %).

Muscle weighs more than fat, therefore weight/BMI etc don’t help. Most body builders would be classed as Clinically Obese using BMI!

Unfortunately MoreCash, those who would abuse these sorts of things are the ones preventing the responsible people from doing the best they can.

the other side of the coin though is the irresponsible ones, who would abuse it, already are!

I get that the support bubble idea is meant to help people, and I fully support that from a mental health perspective, but at the same time, its potentially damaging as some people have to choose who that bubble will be! Having to choose between, like in my case, parents and a partner!

I just cant believe how many people don’t have enough wits to see that a little bit of sensible makes everything easier!

I still can’t quite get off the fence with this.

I understand another lockdown is needed, even if the government didn’t. I get the need for face masks, even if the government didn’t originally ( I see a pattern here…) and yes everyone should be doing everything they can to help prevent transmission while vaccines/cures/whatever are researched and tested, I’m obviously a lefty snowflake in that regards.

The problem I personally have is the seeming lack of logical thought and crystal clear guidance that would negate a whole lot of some of the issues.

Some examples:

I live alone, but have my kids every other weekend. I’m in a fairly new relationship after marriage breakdown and she lives with her son (dad is nowhere in the picture). She is in a support bubble with her parents, so I can’t form a bubble with her to be able to be indoors with her. So if we want to se each other we have to be outside. Would ‘bending’ this rule realistically make a difference if we’re both sensible? Surely the grown ups in government can come up with clear guidance to allow this sort of thing, thus people less likely to decide to just ignore the rules?

Yet I have my kids stay with me, they are still at school in their class/year (cant remember which) bubble with other kids from other house holds. that’s ok though, “cos keep the schools open!” But those same kids, who are together all day at school, aren’t allowed to socialise outside of school hours as its only 1 person meeting up. WTF?!

Like that Cougar, feels like that sometimes!