Police in London attack critical mass

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:18:53 +0200, davidof wrote:

Tony Raven wrote:
you do not use a Taser on a suspected suicide
bomber unless you want to risk detonating their explosives.

I wonder if that is really true?

There's a discussion of it he

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=559307
--
Michael MacClancy

Sniper8052 wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:


..

Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?




You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.

By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
make up rules to suit your prejudices?

Al C-F wrote:
Sniper8052 wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:


.


Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?




You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.


By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
make up rules to suit your prejudices?


A little unfair. Sniper may be a cop and hence subject to some of the
er... psychological modification that comes with the job. (with being
on the job actually but he is a thoughly reasonable one. I mean
hell you can disagree with the guy without any issues most of the time.

When he says acceptable behavior. he means acceptable to the cops.. sure
and I dont agree with him that thats ok one little bit. But that really
does come with the job. I doubt actual prejudice. Its more like these
guys are giving me an issue and... Not predudice assuch... (damm my
spelling)

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:58:40 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
I fail to see why other road users, including
pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'
choose to behave like louts once a month.

Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?

Cheers, helen s

You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel they
have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them follow
the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this may
not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.

Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in London
to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may not be
the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and breaking
the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure a few
in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?

I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of transport)
being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling out of
cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy target.

Cheers, helen s

The difference is that CM are doing something illegal as a cohesive body
where the motorists are not. Certainly on any given day one can find
numerous examples of individual drivers flouting the traffic laws; and on
occasion groups of drivers use their vehicles to protest fuel taxes etc.
However even these manage to tell the police and public in the majority of
cases where and when they will be protesting.
I don't think it's picking on a vulnerable group to ask CM when riding as a
group to behave in a responsible manner. No one is suggesting that all
cyclists are included in this requirement, or that cyclists cannot freely
ride where they wish as a group. The requirement is that if the group acts
as a procession, it must be organised as such with a planned and notified
route etc.
This is the culmination of actions, not the start. The leaders, for want
of a better word, could easily have notified the police and ride of their
intended routes. If they maintain a web site this information could have
been published as meet as Waterloo Bridge route to.... Rides could then
have been policed to allow the body to process as a 'group' with a minimum
police presence.
A lot has been said of it being an autonomous grouping of individuals with
no organisers etc, the fact is if there were no organisers maintaining the
web sites and activists placing somewhat varied articles the ride would
undoubtably be of a very different nature or would cease to exist. Those
who think there is no leadership within the group which calls itself CM are
mistaken even if they do not readily recognise the leaders and organisers
during the ride those persons are present.
The introduction of group dynamics into the ride also gives rise to the
manipulation of the ride for political or social aims which may not have
been the intent of any one individual rider when joining the ride. There
is often more involved in the behavior of a fluid group than is apparent
even to its members who as 'members' often allow their normal behavior to
suspended by the actions of a few more dominant members. There are many
examples of this type of experiment in psychology and sociology books.

Sniper8052

A little story for Sniper and anyone else rubbing thier hands together
in anticipation of the brave new fascist future awaiting the UK.

-----------------------------------

It was a bright Sunday, October day, the year 2015. The dozen or so
cyclists whirred along down the country lane enjoying the morning air
and each others company. 'Car!' came the sudden cry from the rear and
the cyclists instantly singled out, fearfully aware that should they be
hit no court in the land would hold the driver responsible. Long called
'outlaws' by the official 'New Fascist Party' press, (as 'New Labour'
now called itself in response to the 'New Right' Conservatism of the
later 2000's) they were now exactly that, deemed to be outlaws beyond
the protection of the law.

The cyclists had tried to force from their minds just how their
glorious leader and president for life Tony Blair, in a pact with the
motoring lobby, including both extremists and mainstream groups such as
the ABD had, in exchange for their guaranteed support, completely
rewritten the Highway Code had removed any burden for avoiding killing
or injuring cyclists from the shoulders of the motorist. However, this
was easier said than done. Now it truly was a case, as the Minister for
Transport, Jeremy Clarkson had put it, of cyclists ensuring that they
'got out of the way' of the car-bourn 'Lords of the highway' and having
to 'shut up if they were cut up'. Not that 'getting out of the way' was
easy when the universal national speed limit had been abolished and the
only speed limit enforcement occurred outside schools for 30 minutes
per day, and even this only when there was sufficient road space to
erect flashing warning signs for at least 2 miles before the restricted
zone.

Suddenly there was the deafening sound of a police siren and the car
raced past only to brake sharply in front of them. The corpulent
officer, strapping on his mace canister and gun holster eased himself
from the seat and confronted them.

"What's all this then? I haven't had a safety audit submitted for a
cycle event on this stretch of road toady, and if I had I would have
rejected the application."

'It's not an organised event officer", Came the reply from one of the
old timers in the group, "It's a club run."

'I suppose you all just happened to meet up together by chance,"
scoffed the officer. "I'll tell you now if I had received a report
from any driver that they had had to slow down before being able to
pass you I would have been down here with the riot van and you lot
would be court tomorrow on a charge of wilfully obstructing the
motorists highway. I am sure you lot ride bike simply in order to ****
motorists off."

'We are not organised" insisted the rider. "This club has been meeting
at the same point for almost 90 years, people just turn up."

"Don't get wise with me son", said the officer. 'You know the law. Any
group of more than 2 cyclists riding together is deemed by the law to
be an organised group and as such the organiser must submit a full
safety audit and route details to the police not less than 3 months in
advance. I know the likes of you lot. Bloody anarchists who still think
that cyclists can ride where they like. Well you can't. We are not in
Europe now and if you don't like living in Airstrip One (as the 54th
sate of America was now nicknamed- Iraq being the 53rd) you can just
apply for asylum in France or Holland."

The riders collectively often dream of doing so but knew this was an
impossibility as with the coming of the 'Glorious New Age of British
Fascism', so long predicted by George Orwell (a writer whose works were
now banned in the UK) the exodus from the UK had become so great that
no European country was accepting more British asylum seekers. In any
case as everyone knew but no one dare speak of, it would not be long
before the invasion of Europe would come, with the Christian Army of
Corporate America at last smashing the dangerous 'socialist' propaganda
of 'Liberty, Egality and Fraternity' still current in mainland Europe.

'Right get out your ID cards," bellowed the officer.

The officer ran each card though his in-car computer, with the personal
details, income, shopping habits and of course, police checks all being
available on the screen. The officer smiled to himself.

"Right you lot are under arrest. You have been stopped previously for
riding in an unauthorised group of 2 or more and have previously failed
to disclose who is the organiser of your ride. This is a serious
matter. I expect you will all see jail for this." Laughing he added
"It's a pity they cyclists chain gangs have been abolished now there is
no more of the National Cycle Network to dig up."

The officer joyously called up a riot van, which were strategically
placed in every village in the UK as a 'National Security' measure. His
only regret was that they hadn't tried to ride off, using that CS gas
(dismissively called 'Fart spray' amongt his fellow officers) on such
officially designated 'two wheeled terrorists' just felt so good.

The old timer laid dejectedly across the handlebars of his bicycle and
thought back to the days when cyclists could ride the highways of
Britain free of the fear of arrest, even if they were riding in a group
of more than 2. He couldn't be sure anymore, perhaps it had all been
just a dream of his youth...

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:58:40 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
I fail to see why other road users, including
pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because
'they'
choose to behave like louts once a month.

Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?

Cheers, helen s

You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel
they
have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them
follow
the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this
may
not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.

Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in
London
to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may not
be
the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and
breaking
the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure a
few
in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?

I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of
transport)
being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling out
of
cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy
target.

Cheers, helen s

The difference is that CM are doing something illegal as a cohesive body
where the motorists are not.

So hundreds of motorists all travelling down the same road at the same time
are not a cohesive body, but if cyclists they are?




Certainly on any given day one can find
numerous examples of individual drivers flouting the traffic laws; and on
occasion groups of drivers use their vehicles to protest fuel taxes etc.

They have a leader, CM has no leader anymore than said motorists blocking
the road in the rush hour.


However even these manage to tell the police and public in the majority of
cases where and when they will be protesting.
I don't think it's picking on a vulnerable group to ask CM when riding as
a
group to behave in a responsible manner.

So why not do the same for all motorists driving in a group in the rush
hour?

No one is suggesting that all
cyclists are included in this requirement, or that cyclists cannot freely
ride where they wish as a group.

That is *exactly* what is being suggested.

The requirement is that if the group acts
as a procession, it must be organised as such with a planned and notified
route etc.

Rush hour drivers?


This is the culmination of actions, not the start.

Rush hour drivers - the culmination of actions - not the start.

As for web sites - there are a myriad of motoring web sites....

Cheers, helen s

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:51:24 +1000, dave wrote:

Al C-F wrote:
Sniper8052 wrote:

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:


.


Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?




You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.


By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
make up rules to suit your prejudices?


A little unfair. Sniper may be a cop and hence subject to some of the
er... psychological modification that comes with the job. (with being
on the job actually but he is a thoughly reasonable one. I mean
hell you can disagree with the guy without any issues most of the time.

When he says acceptable behavior. he means acceptable to the cops.. sure
and I dont agree with him that thats ok one little bit. But that really
does come with the job. I doubt actual prejudice. Its more like these
guys are giving me an issue and... Not predudice assuch... (damm my
spelling)

Thanks for defending my honour, I do however mean acceptable to the
majority of the public and society as defined by statute law and common
law. I live by simple rules, I expect people to treat each other nicely,
if they don't it's not acceptable.
My rules for policing are just as simple, be fair - be polite. I am not
and never have been in the business of waving a big stick about because I
can, neither do I go about arresting people, because I can. I police by
consent and persuasion unless I have to do otherwise and no one will push
me from that.

Sniper8052

On 8 Oct 2005 01:54:04 -0700, wrote:

A little story for Sniper and anyone else rubbing thier hands together
in anticipation of the brave new fascist future awaiting the UK.

-----------------------------------

It was a bright Sunday, October day, the year 2015. The dozen or so
cyclists whirred along down the country lane enjoying the morning air
and each others company. 'Car!' came the sudden cry from the rear and
the cyclists instantly singled out, fearfully aware that should they be
hit no court in the land would hold the driver responsible. Long called
'outlaws' by the official 'New Fascist Party' press, (as 'New Labour'
now called itself in response to the 'New Right' Conservatism of the
later 2000's) they were now exactly that, deemed to be outlaws beyond
the protection of the law.

The cyclists had tried to force from their minds just how their
glorious leader and president for life Tony Blair, in a pact with the
motoring lobby, including both extremists and mainstream groups such as
the ABD had, in exchange for their guaranteed support, completely
rewritten the Highway Code had removed any burden for avoiding killing
or injuring cyclists from the shoulders of the motorist. However, this
was easier said than done. Now it truly was a case, as the Minister for
Transport, Jeremy Clarkson had put it, of cyclists ensuring that they
'got out of the way' of the car-bourn 'Lords of the highway' and having
to 'shut up if they were cut up'. Not that 'getting out of the way' was
easy when the universal national speed limit had been abolished and the
only speed limit enforcement occurred outside schools for 30 minutes
per day, and even this only when there was sufficient road space to
erect flashing warning signs for at least 2 miles before the restricted
zone.

Suddenly there was the deafening sound of a police siren and the car
raced past only to brake sharply in front of them. The corpulent
officer, strapping on his mace canister and gun holster eased himself
from the seat and confronted them.

"What's all this then? I haven't had a safety audit submitted for a
cycle event on this stretch of road toady, and if I had I would have
rejected the application."

'It's not an organised event officer", Came the reply from one of the
old timers in the group, "It's a club run."

'I suppose you all just happened to meet up together by chance,"
scoffed the officer. "I'll tell you now if I had received a report
from any driver that they had had to slow down before being able to
pass you I would have been down here with the riot van and you lot
would be court tomorrow on a charge of wilfully obstructing the
motorists highway. I am sure you lot ride bike simply in order to ****
motorists off."

'We are not organised" insisted the rider. "This club has been meeting
at the same point for almost 90 years, people just turn up."

"Don't get wise with me son", said the officer. 'You know the law. Any
group of more than 2 cyclists riding together is deemed by the law to
be an organised group and as such the organiser must submit a full
safety audit and route details to the police not less than 3 months in
advance. I know the likes of you lot. Bloody anarchists who still think
that cyclists can ride where they like. Well you can't. We are not in
Europe now and if you don't like living in Airstrip One (as the 54th
sate of America was now nicknamed- Iraq being the 53rd) you can just
apply for asylum in France or Holland."

The riders collectively often dream of doing so but knew this was an
impossibility as with the coming of the 'Glorious New Age of British
Fascism', so long predicted by George Orwell (a writer whose works were
now banned in the UK) the exodus from the UK had become so great that
no European country was accepting more British asylum seekers. In any
case as everyone knew but no one dare speak of, it would not be long
before the invasion of Europe would come, with the Christian Army of
Corporate America at last smashing the dangerous 'socialist' propaganda
of 'Liberty, Egality and Fraternity' still current in mainland Europe.

'Right get out your ID cards," bellowed the officer.

The officer ran each card though his in-car computer, with the personal
details, income, shopping habits and of course, police checks all being
available on the screen. The officer smiled to himself.

"Right you lot are under arrest. You have been stopped previously for
riding in an unauthorised group of 2 or more and have previously failed
to disclose who is the organiser of your ride. This is a serious
matter. I expect you will all see jail for this." Laughing he added
"It's a pity they cyclists chain gangs have been abolished now there is
no more of the National Cycle Network to dig up."

The officer joyously called up a riot van, which were strategically
placed in every village in the UK as a 'National Security' measure. His
only regret was that they hadn't tried to ride off, using that CS gas
(dismissively called 'Fart spray' amongt his fellow officers) on such
officially designated 'two wheeled terrorists' just felt so good.

The old timer laid dejectedly across the handlebars of his bicycle and
thought back to the days when cyclists could ride the highways of
Britain free of the fear of arrest, even if they were riding in a group
of more than 2. He couldn't be sure anymore, perhaps it had all been
just a dream of his youth...

Entertaining, how though does it advance the discussion?

Sniper8052

Sniper8052 wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 18:51:24 +1000, dave wrote:


Al C-F wrote:

Sniper8052 wrote:


On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:



.


Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?



You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what.


By 'the rules of acceptable behaviour' do you mean the law, or is your
use of this terminology disguising an authoritarian stance whereby you
make up rules to suit your prejudices?


A little unfair. Sniper may be a cop and hence subject to some of the
er... psychological modification that comes with the job. (with being
on the job actually but he is a thoughly reasonable one. I mean
hell you can disagree with the guy without any issues most of the time.

When he says acceptable behavior. he means acceptable to the cops.. sure
and I dont agree with him that thats ok one little bit. But that really
does come with the job. I doubt actual prejudice. Its more like these
guys are giving me an issue and... Not predudice assuch... (damm my
spelling)


Thanks for defending my honour, I do however mean acceptable to the
majority of the public and society as defined by statute law and common
law. I live by simple rules, I expect people to treat each other nicely,
if they don't it's not acceptable.
My rules for policing are just as simple, be fair - be polite. I am not
and never have been in the business of waving a big stick about because I
can, neither do I go about arresting people, because I can. I police by
consent and persuasion unless I have to do otherwise and no one will push
me from that.

Sniper8052


Ummm Yeah. As I said I doubt not that you are a fair and reasonable
copper.

Having shared with a couple.. done courses with other and having my
childhood sweetheart now a rather senior copper I have no doubt that
your viewpoint is a teeny bit slanted. Thats sort of ok; it comes with
the job and really their is no way around it. Being fair and polite is
true of many of us most of the time. But a liking for rules and
organisation is utterly built into the job.

Not into critical mass at all. I think that most people have no
intention of alienating anyone by it. And I think that most people aint
ailienated by it. Netherless anti critical mass sentiment is too easy to
stir up. And it does us little good. And thats sad. I really dont
think it ought to be the police role to interfere but hey I am far away
and as I said not a supporter. But I ride every weekend with several
hundred people and I promise that thier are no organisers if you take my
point

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:07:14 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 08:58:40 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
I fail to see why other road users, including
pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because
'they'
choose to behave like louts once a month.

Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?

Cheers, helen s

You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel
they
have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them
follow
the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this
may
not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.

Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in
London
to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may not
be
the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and
breaking
the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure a
few
in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?

I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of
transport)
being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling out
of
cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy
target.

Cheers, helen s

The difference is that CM are doing something illegal as a cohesive body
where the motorists are not.

So hundreds of motorists all travelling down the same road at the same time
are not a cohesive body, but if cyclists they are?




Certainly on any given day one can find
numerous examples of individual drivers flouting the traffic laws; and on
occasion groups of drivers use their vehicles to protest fuel taxes etc.

They have a leader, CM has no leader anymore than said motorists blocking
the road in the rush hour.


However even these manage to tell the police and public in the majority of
cases where and when they will be protesting.
I don't think it's picking on a vulnerable group to ask CM when riding as
a
group to behave in a responsible manner.

So why not do the same for all motorists driving in a group in the rush
hour?

No one is suggesting that all
cyclists are included in this requirement, or that cyclists cannot freely
ride where they wish as a group.

That is *exactly* what is being suggested.

The requirement is that if the group acts
as a procession, it must be organised as such with a planned and notified
route etc.

Rush hour drivers?


This is the culmination of actions, not the start.

Rush hour drivers - the culmination of actions - not the start.

As for web sites - there are a myriad of motoring web sites....

Cheers, helen s

Hundreds of motorists, some of whom may have the same destination, but all
of whom are making seperate journeys and who are by force of time on the
same roadway at the same time are not a cohesive body in the same way as a
group that meets at a prescribed place with the intent of moving to another
place whether that second place be predetermined or not.
I can not draw your analagy between a large group such as a CM ride and
rush hour traffic with any credibility one (motorists) is acting legally
the other(CM)often isn't. If, for the sake of argument, all cars vanished
tomorrow and were replaced by thousands of bicycles causing rush hour jams
would you then support another body reclaiming the street for horse riders
or pedestrians and using tactics like walking against the crossing, moving
the wrong way around a junction or deliberatly blocking the junction to
inconvenience others, I hope you would not.
Your interpretation that the requirement prohibits the coming together and
the movement of cyclists is erronious, it prohibits the movement of a group
as a procession IE a 'unit body' from one place to another without break,
let or hinderence to it's passage by normal traffic rules or where that
procession is as a protest, as in the case of CM in 'reclaiming' the
streets.

Sniper8052