Absurd urcm decision

Don't get me wrong - I think that David Lang enjoys stirring up
trouble with cyclists, and appears to be crass and ignorant; the
quality of his decking is atrocious to boot. However, this rejection
in urcm in response to a post of mine is ridiculous.

=================================
On 15/11/2012 19:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:
The Greenwich Foot Tunnel is part of National Cycle Route 1, Dover to
Shetland, and the Woolwich Foot Tunnel is the furthest downstream 24
hour crossing of the River Thames for cyclists and pedestrians.

http://853blog.com/2012/10/12/foot-t...nches-inquiry/

=====Quote=====
Greenwich Council is to launch an independent inquiry after the
collapse of a £11m project to refurbish the Greenwich and Woolwich
foot tunnels, it has been revealed. Both tunnels have been left
uncompleted and in a poor condition following the failure of the
scheme, which began in April 2010. Now Greenwich Council is taking
legal action against three contractors, after it was forced to step in
and run the scheme itself.
=====/Quote=====

I understand that it has been necessary to erect barriers to prevent
cyclists illegally riding in the pedestrian tunnels.

Shouldn't cyclists dismount & push their bicycles through the pedestrian
tunnels?

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
=================================

Why should I be barred from responding to his polite and reasonable
question in the moderated group?

Perhaps the moderators are moderating on poster not content.