Earl Aelfheah

He only found one person willing to say that Farage currently expresses racist beliefs? Is that meant to be reassuring in relation to a leading politician?

..... Are you trying to pretend that your having less sympathy with those hit by a car not wearing the clothes you approve of, only refers to those hit by a car and not injured? Because being hit by a car will injure you. Think you're rather unsubtly trying to row back what you've said.

By who exactly? I've never received a warning. Not true for everyone - some have even been banned I believe? If you say you have 'less sympathy for someone who is hit, who was not wearing special clothes, how is that not being judgemental of someone injured whilst going about their business legally? And when it comes to your clothing standards, what is bright enough? What colours and what shades of those colours? At what point does the person become worthy of sympathy? What if their top is half a tone duller? There must be a cut off?

He was, according to teachers (who put it in writing at the time), someone with "publicly professed racist and neo-fascist views". It was also reported that Farage was so offensive to a boy in his set, he had to be removed from a lesson, and that along with others, that he "marched though a quiet Sussex village very late at night shouting Hitler youth songs". The College Chaplain (again, according to a contemporaneous note made at the time of his appointment to prefect) judged that "..in his experience views o that kind expressed by boys of that age are deep-seated, and are meant.”. At the time that he was made prefect (despite the protestations of some of the teaching staff), he was 17. It has been reported recently that later, as an 18 year old, he was involved in the anti-Semitic bullying of a 13 year old boy at the College. So the suggestion is not that he was a 'contrarian', but a young man with deep seated and publicly professed racist and neo-fascist views. Of course, it doesn't mean that those deep seated views could not have changed. But when you consider his pre-occupations and rhetoric over the many years since, I think it is extremely reasonable to question whether they have or not. Farage has, long since leaving Dulwich College, made what many consider inflammatory statements regarding immigration, race, and integration. His 2016 "Breaking Point" poster featuring a line of refugees, was widely compared to Nazi propaganda and drew broad condemnation from across the political spectrum. He has framed asylum seekers and Muslims as a threat, and attributed societal problems like congestion, housing shortages and crime to immigration. As an MEP, Farage formed alliances with various far-right and populist parties across Europe, including: The Sweden Democrats, a party with roots in white supremacy. Lega Nord (now Lega) in Italy and the Danish People's Party. Representatives from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.

Yes, it's quoting the same passage in the highway code as already mentioned. It's exactly the same for pedestrians. Do you wear bright, reflective clothing at night? If a car drives into you, should we therefore have 'less sympathy' with you? This path, of saying (as Penguin put it) that there is no reason for sympathy when people's 'luck runs out' because you feel they've contributed to being a victim of a crime, is a well trodden one. I might advise people not to walk around with their phone out, maybe to avoid being on their own in certain areas at night. None of that however suggests that I shouldn't feel sympathy if something bad happens, or suggest it is their fault. If you drive your car into someone on a bicycle, who is abiding by the law, who has lights and reflectors an on well lit city streets because you aren't paying adequate attention - you are accountable for that, both morally and legally. It's not about the mechanism of deciding levels of compensation in any subsequent legal claim. It's incredible how judgemental you can be of anyone injured whilst going about their business legally - yet you moaned for nearly a year about getting fined when caught in your car actually breaking the law yourself.

You're just quoting the same advice from the Highway Code that was pointed out earlier in the thread. It has similar advice for pedestrians - but I don't believe you wear special reflective clothing to walk in the evening. Does that make you culpable if hit by a car? Whilst (like many things), it may be sensible to dress brightly, it's not mandated and is therefore a matter of personal judgement / choice: Didn't take long. Amazing how, when it comes to the roads, you refuse to take any responsibility when caught breaking the law yourself, but think others who do follow the law, but not your personal dress code standards, should be judged.

Which in this case, resulted in a death. I'm done with this nonsense. A person has died. Thoughts are with the family.

If you have an issue with the council, take it up with them. I know you repeatedly suggest I work for them, but I don’t. That said, I’m not aware of the council saying they want to ‘get rid of all cars’. Wanting to reduce reliance of private cars is a perfectly reasonable aim. If you want to reduce pollution, congestion, inactivity etc, then it’s an obvious objective. and the fact that you hear someone say that they want to reduce car use as ‘it’s cars vs bikes!’, just proves my point. It talks to your mindset, nothing else.

Where are the places you need to get to where you are ‘no longer allowed to drive your car’? Are you’re talking about the handful of roads that have traffic filters? If so, those streets haven't banned cars - you are allowed to drive a car on them and to them, they just restrict some through traffic. That’s not quite the same. Interesting that the filters have encouraged you to switch to a bicycle for some journeys. Think that’s the effect you’ve previously insisted they don’t have.

It’s usually around £60 a £70 I think

Hard to ‘maximise’ a death I would suggest. Sad that some are so blinkered in their footballification of road safety that their first instinct on hearing of a road death, is to minimise it - going out to bat for (what they bizarrely view as) their ‘team’. As said multiple times, there is no ‘car vs bike’ competition except in the strange, zero sum mindset of a handful of posters on here. People should be able to travel by whatever means they choose without being killed. It’s sad that so many lives are being ended on our streets and that predictably, the first instinct of some is to downplay it and object to every single measure that improves safety.

If you don’t change into special clothes before travelling by bike you’re not making yourself less visible are you? To be clear, this is victim blaming: …as is this: If a person is lawfully going about their business, and someone who isn’t paying adequate attention drives a car into them, they deserve every sympathy - whether or not they comply to dress code standards you consider appropriate.

This makes it so clear that you don’t understand what a junction is, what primary position is, or what the Highway Code says.

This is exactly my issue. That victim blaming mentality can be (and is) used in all sorts of scenarios, and it’s extremely distasteful. If you drive into someone who is lawfully going about their business, because you’re not paying attention, it’s 100% on you. Amazing how, when it comes to the roads, you refuse to take any responsibility when caught breaking the rules, but think others who do follow the rules, but not your personal dress code standards, should be judged.

Why are you addressing that to me? Ive not commented on it, but as I did say: It will depend on the speed of traffic at the time of course. You should use good judgment. Your constant reference to cycling ‘in the middle of the road’ suggests you have misunderstood what primary position is.