Police behaviour on January's Critical Mass, London

In article , Mark
Thompson
says...
So if I arrange to meet someone at a certain place at a certain time am
I their leader, or am I just arranging to meet them?

Lets go back to the thing we were talking about. If a bbq, live music and
picnic are planned, the event is publicised through leafleting cyclists,
and the CM makes it's way to the pre-planned destination there has been
some organising and some person or group taking the role of leaders at some
point. So if you did all that you'd be both a leader and and organiser.

Of the event in the park, not how anyone gets there.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 18:30:10 -0600, Creature
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:34:12 +0000, u moma wrote:
Do you have any ideas as to why there is such a hostility to CM in
URC?

Nope. The anger that greeted my original post puzzled me a lot, but I
suspect it was because I presented it badly.

a lot of the folk on URC just hate CM, strange solitary creatures, I
imagine them alone surrounded by sprockets, spokes and winston
churchill posters

I presumed people would be
familiar with the idea behind CM, along with its customs. Unfortunately
this was not the case, so my post (intended as a "What do you think of
this, and is it really a change from the norm?") was misinterpreted ("They
want to stop us going through red lights! How dare they suggest we obey
the law? Revolt!").

I think you have gone to lengths to be clear about exactly what you
have said, these hostiles have just deliberately misinterpreted, don't
take it personally

u moma wrote on 01/02/2007 05:13 +0100:

a lot of the folk on URC just hate CM, strange solitary creatures, I
imagine them alone surrounded by sprockets, spokes and winston
churchill posters

I don't agree with CM but I certainly don't hate it and I suspect many
here are of similar views. I can't think of any signficant change that
CM has actually effected in the many years it has been running while
lots of other channels that we put our energies into here like
preventing helmet compulsion, challenging the Highway Code revisions and
helping get more children cycling have. So perhaps strange, lonely and
effective would be a more appropriate description.


I think you have gone to lengths to be clear about exactly what you
have said, these hostiles have just deliberately misinterpreted, don't
take it personally

I think we are all familiar with what CM is. What we were disputing was
the OP's apparent belief that a) being on CM exempted him from the usual
traffic laws and b) that a supposedly spontaneous event should expect
structured policing to facilitate its passage. You have your views as a
supporter and I have my views as sceptic. That's life, get used to it
and stop pretending you are holding out against hostile barbarians in
your CM bunker.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

u moma wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

Claiming not to be a leader does not excuse you from the duties
of same if in fact a leader you are.

(And conversely, claiming to /be/ a leader does not give you the rights
of one if you aren't)

LOL rights & duties ???

I trust you're familiar with the contents of the Public Order Act 1986.
Also liability law. You can't abdicate your responsibilities by
pretending they don't exist.

Nuff said.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Daniel Barlow wrote:
Claiming not to be a leader does not excuse you from the duties
of same if in fact a leader you are.

(And conversely, claiming to /be/ a leader does not give you the rights
of one if you aren't)

u moma wrote:
LOL rights & duties ???

wrote:
I trust you're familiar with the contents of the Public Order Act 1986.
Also liability law. You can't abdicate your responsibilities by
pretending they don't exist.

Nuff said.

you haven't said 'nuff' you have made a stinking guff

this public order rubbish you talk of stinks of evasion
back to the point:

are these rights you deny practices? or claims? and whichever you
chose how do you intend to justify them. Moral or natural, where do
they come from. _specifically_ in terms of CM where there are no
leaders.

are these duties you demand imposed by some divine being? are you such
a creature? if not then any 'leader' has no duty to uphold them,
particularly as they are not a leader.

now you bring up responsibilities??? somehow you hold _me_ morally
answerable to some contract I deny the existence of !!!

u moma wrote:
are these rights you deny practices? or claims? and whichever you
chose how do you intend to justify them. Moral or natural, where do
they come from. _specifically_ in terms of CM where there are no
leaders.

You're begging the question. It's not for CM to say whether or not it
has leaders when that is the point at issue anyway.


-dan

On Feb 1, 1:59 pm, Daniel Barlow wrote:
u moma wrote:
are these rights you deny practices? or claims? and whichever you
chose how do you intend to justify them. Moral or natural, where do
they come from. _specifically_ in terms of CM where there are no
leaders.

You're begging the question. It's not for CM to say whether or not it
has leaders when that is the point at issue anyway.

-dan

Surely in the context of CM people are only leaders if others want to
follow them.
And one cannot have responsibilities thrust upon oneself by arbitrary
third parties.
Otherwise we could claim that we are following the police at the head
of CM and they are now our leaders for as long as we want them to be.

So any public order offence is the fault of the copper at the front.

...d

David Martin wrote on 01/02/2007 15:20 +0100:

Surely in the context of CM people are only leaders if others want to
follow them.

And what led them to congregate at the start in the first place - a
primordial urge deep down in their psyche or someone who wrote, printed
and distributed leaflets telling them to meet there?

And one cannot have responsibilities thrust upon oneself by arbitrary
third parties.


Nor can you credibly deny that you are what you obviously are


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"David Martin" wrote:

So any public order offence is the fault of the copper at the front.

as the pigs choose which laws to enforce & how (ever seen em kicking a
driver in the teeth for parking in a cycle lane?) it is them & not
someone in a wig & certainly not a large group of cyclists who create
offence

Maybe BIG_ONE or maybe u moma wrote on 01/02/2007 16:19 +0100:


as the pigs choose which laws to enforce & how (ever seen em kicking a
driver in the teeth for parking in a cycle lane?) it is them & not
someone in a wig & certainly not a large group of cyclists who create
offence

A persecution complex as well as schizophrenia.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy