Etape Caledonia sabotaged
Comments
-
Jsut a sunday aye? Oh jsut a lazy day in the garden watching the weeds grow and the nimbys walknig to church. OH whats that is that tourist traffic driving past? Where are they going? it's not all the small local buisneses for which this is their main trading day of the week is it?
If i didn't make it obvious before, my arguments have bugger all to do with simple residents complaining they can't get to the kirk, or to the shops in Pitlochry.
Toruist buisness outwith the school holiday season is the weekend.
They don't stay open in the winter because it isn't viable, and places that are open in the winter often only do it in the hope that the odd visitor is enough to keep them ticking through the winter.
The winter has also been a disaster for tourist palces due to the snow, which is an "occupational" hazzard of being based in the country side, but a closure in late spring isn't a normal reason for your buisness to lose a weekend trading.
Edinburgh and Dundee buisnesses have been up in arms about road closures, and I think TIE ended up paying Rates for some companies on the tram route while the service relocation was taking place, that was all dow nto a loss of passing traffic. Don't know where the Dudnee ones got their idea from, all their passing traffic is students walking to the uni.Do Nellyphants count?
Commuter: FCN 9
Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
Off Road: FCN 11
+1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days0 -
Harry-flashman wrote:I think the point is that the benefits for the majority far out weigh the minor inconvenience caused to the few.
Lets not forget that we are talking about a couple of hours on a Sunday! I don't complain when the main road through my village is reduced to one way every Sunday when church is on.
I, like the people who argue against road closures chose to live in the country, I live with the inconveniences that come with that choice. I get stuck behind shepherds moving their sheep, tractors pulling ploughs, woken by farmers driving through the village at 6.00am, it's country life and I love it! By it's nature it's a slower pace, they should relax, it'll add years on to their lives and reduce the need for that 2 1/2 hour wait for an ambulance.
The point is it isn't your business to tell other people whether they should or shouldn't be upset. You are of course entitled to your view that the benefits of having this event are much greater than any inconvenience caused to a small number of people and that is a view I agree with and would support if I lived in the area. What I disagree with is the way this debate has been conducted. When people start publishing addresses and telephone numbers then it is for one reason only and that is to aid the harrassment of this individual. That is reprehensible and as odious as anything this guy has done. When people start pawing over every detail of this guys history and mocking and ridiculing every aspect of this persons life then I think they have all the moral conviction of a Westminster MP. When people believe that because someone holds a view which doesn't agree with theirs then that these people should just give up and go away shows a total and utter contempt for the rights and freedoms of western democracies which we so hard to win over many centuries.
I think you are a better than most because I think, from my experience of commuting by bike, that car drivers get frustrated very easily at the slightest delay. Furthermore there is a huge difference between getting stuck behind a flock of sheep for a couple of minutes in any way can be compared to 4 hours of enforced confinement. Yes minibuses apparently were offerered but how convenient these would have proved I don't know therefore I don't have an opinion on how much of a concession it actually was. Some have pointed out that part of the route was on a singletrack and therefore this road needed to be closed on safety grounds and clearly it would be difficult not agree with that however then the logical answer to that is not say close the road but to say can the route be changed. You see what was offered as concession may seem as the Etape doing all the could to appease however if the basic problem was the road closure and the concession didn't offer that then how much of a concession was actually offered if you were sitting on the other side? That doesn't mean that you have to concede however what it does mean is that you have to either accept that you will not win the argument or you have do a better job of convincing them that the event is more important than their grievances.
As for people choosing to live in the country having to put with that choice. Well I don't think that people in the country expect that they will have their only road closed off to them so that a bunch of cyclists en masse can go for a ride through their local area. What is about the country people that makes you think they can be treated worse than someone living elsewhere. If you wouldn't do it in urban areas, where there are lots of alternative routes, then why do you believe that people in the country should put up with it? As I say I would put up with it myself in these cirumstances because I love cycling and if I wasn't riding it I would quite happily sit out in my front garden with the bbq out and and bottle of wine and enjoy the event but just because I would do that doesn't mean everybody has to think the same way.0 -
Tusher wrote:Dr U Idh wrote:I wonder what the Church of Scotlands policy is on having a convicted criminal as a church elder?
Deeply saddened that it was a Kirk elder, I have to say.
Kirk Elder, lawyer, community councillor.
Having led a life of community involvement, observing his faith, holding a respected church position and practicing law, this guy finds himself out on remote country roads at the crack of dawn spreading tacks with the object of disrupting a bike event (and who knows, even intending personal injury to participants).
This demonstrates how far this man has lost his judgement, his perspective and his good sense. The same seems to be true of the representatives of ACRE and residents of Fortingall quoted on various websites.
These people have become obsessed with what they see as an injustice and will not recognise a democratic decision and a massive economic boost to their community.
They seem to me to be beyond the reach of rational argument. They need to take a long hard look at how this is affecting them.Where the neon madmen climb0 -
pedylan wrote:Tusher wrote:Dr U Idh wrote:I wonder what the Church of Scotlands policy is on having a convicted criminal as a church elder?
Deeply saddened that it was a Kirk elder, I have to say.
Kirk Elder, lawyer, community councillor.
Having led a life of community involvement, observing his faith, holding a respected church position and practicing law, this guy finds himself out on remote country roads at the crack of dawn spreading tacks with the object of disrupting a bike event (and who knows, even intending personal injury to participants).
This demonstrates how far this man has lost his judgement, his perspective and his good sense. The same seems to be true of the representatives of ACRE and residents of Fortingall quoted on various websites.
These people have become obsessed with what they see as an injustice and will not recognise a democratic decision and a massive economic boost to their community.
They seem to me to be beyond the reach of rational argument. They need to take a long hard look at how this is affecting them.
I think that's apparent but would anyone here accept a decision by the Etape to move the route and run it on open roads. I suspect not. I think obsession is probably not a one way street here
0 -
Doyler78 and nwallace - your arguments would make some sense if any more than a tiny number of local people were opposed to the Etape. I think you're forgetting that.
I think you're also forgetting that the roads are only closed for a few hours early on a sunday morning, that tourism accounts for a huge proportion of income in areas like highland perthshire, and that the EC contributes hugely to tourism in the whole area.
It is undoubtedly true that the benefit is not evenly distributed; but the antis seem to think that, if everyone can't benefit equally, then everyone should stay poor. So Aurelio, it's actually classic lefty thinking that the protesters are employing!0 -
Doyler78: I think you are missing the point (again) A field of 3600 would be hard to accomodate on open roads given the speed that large numbers of the field are doing. Yes you could have a sportive with a smaller field, with open roads, on a different route. But then it would not be the same event. It would significantly change what makes it unique. I have been to other sportives, and they all have different selling points. This events is the large high speed field. Changing that effectively cancels it.
Now the point is, if I generally thought that these people had a legitimate grievance, then I would say 'fine. Cancel the event' I really do not want my the facilitation of my own personal enjoyment to have such a catastrophic effect on the lives of a small rural community. In fact before last years event I had a good hard think about whether it was right for me to enter. But I concluded that I really don't think it does have much more effect than a minor, easliy circumvented inconvenience , for the reasons which have been repeated ad nauseum in this forum & others. This is why I blame ACRE, becasue I think they have encouraged such a febrile atmosphere in response to a minor inconvenience that a man like Mr Grosset has allegedly resorted to such tactics: Potentially injurying people and ruining the day for people, some of whom have literally travelled hundreds of miles to take part. (Not to mention the money raised for charity) They are entittled to their opinions, but they are also responsible if their campaign has caused someone to feel justified in acting in a criminally irresponsible manner. And to repeat the above, this is a small, vocal, unreasonable minority. The vast majority of the local people support the event taking place.0 -
I have sought legal advice from CTC (I'm a member) about a group action to revcover civil damages from anybody found guilty by a criminal court.
I have also been in touch with the police about the possibility of a compensation order being made as part of the criminal process.
I will keep the forum posted. The purpose of civil claims is of course to compensate for losses - not to punish - but the prospect of many civil claims against persons committing a criminal and dangerous act will help to create a climate where people obey the law.
It will be interesting to see what a court will award as compensation - entry fee, refund of travel costs etc.0 -
doyler78 wrote:
I think that's apparent but would anyone here accept a decision by the Etape to move the route and run it on open roads. I suspect not. I think obsession is probably not a one way street here
Your assumption about those who are pro etape may or may not be correct in some cases.
For my part, I believe the local political, community and business leaders must accept that there is a job to be done here and it's their role to do it.. They must canvass opinion, consult widely and unequivocally and therefore establish what the majority in this area want.
If there is a clear majority view that don't want closed roads then the event should not go ahead in its current form. If there is a majority in favour of continuing on closed roads and that the benefits to the wider community outweigh the disadvantage then carry on on closed roads.
Either way, the process of establishing local opinion should be good enough (a referendum?) to end the debate one way or another,
Then we'll see who's obsessed. Where the neon madmen climb0 -
pedylan wrote:doyler78 wrote:
I think that's apparent but would anyone here accept a decision by the Etape to move the route and run it on open roads. I suspect not. I think obsession is probably not a one way street here
Your assumption about those who are pro etape may or may not be correct in some cases.
For my part, I believe the local political, community and business leaders must accept that there is a job to be done here and it's their role to do it.. They must canvass opinion, consult widely and unequivocally and therefore establish what the majority in this area want.
If there is a clear majority view that don't want closed roads then the event should not go ahead in its current form. If there is a majority in favour of continuing on closed roads and that the benefits to the wider community outweigh the disadvantage then carry on on closed roads.
Either way, the process of establishing local opinion should be good enough (a referendum?) to end the debate one way or another,
Then we'll see who's obsessed.
Parades Commission - Northern Ireland. I think we know a lot more about conflict than you do over there. Nice in theory. Doesn't work in practice. The police still bear the brunt of abuse from those that are on the losing side. The only thing that has worked was when both parties sat down and talked extensively about the issues. That is the only solution. Dictacs don't work whether democractically arrived at or not.0 -
AlunP wrote:I have sought legal advice from CTC (I'm a member) about a group action to revcover civil damages from anybody found guilty by a criminal court.
I have also been in touch with the police about the possibility of a compensation order being made as part of the criminal process.
I will keep the forum posted. The purpose of civil claims is of course to compensate for losses - not to punish - but the prospect of many civil claims against persons committing a criminal and dangerous act will help to create a climate where people obey the law.
It will be interesting to see what a court will award as compensation - entry fee, refund of travel costs etc.
If enough people do this it will hit the people who carried this reckless act out where it hurts in the pocket,as an undefended claim goes in favour of the victim,and small claims costs are also recovered in any action.
Jim0 -
So no I don't think that elections are an answer to changing attitudes so perhaps you should wind your red neck in.
And if you're implying by that what I think you're implying perhaps you should withdraw it and apologise.0 -
This is the website of the `spokesman` for ACRE,he must be very worried about last Sundays events he has posted a message on his Gift Shop website which reads:
"We Support Cyclists in Perthshire
Please note that The Highland Chocolatier, Legends of Grandtully, and Legends Coffee House have always supported cyclists in Perthshire. Neither Peter Hounam, nor any of the other directors oppose a cycling event in Perthshire. All of them deplore actions taken against cyclists in the recent event. Peter is personally a spokesperson for ACRE which is of the opinion that an open road event would be better than a closed road event. This is a personal opinion and is of no more relevance to our business stance on cycling than the fact that one of our other directors is an avid cyclist. "
I know myself i will never set foot in the place after last weekends incident and,i would encourage anyone else to boycot the shop in protest at the actions that were inspired by this `spokesman`in the first place
Jim Wallace0 -
andy_from_embsay wrote:So no I don't think that elections are an answer to changing attitudes so perhaps you should wind your red neck in.
And if you're implying by that what I think you're implying perhaps you should withdraw it and apologise.
I think your idea of what I was implying, but not unsurprising as you do tend to get hung up on every word that ACRE comes out with, is way off. I was saying that your rather trenchent views on ACRE and the extremely rude language you ued seemed to be as strongly held as some red neck. I have absolutely no opinion on what your views on race are and much less care but happy to clear that up for you.0 -
JWallace wrote:This is the website of the `spokesman` for ACRE,he must be very worried about last Sundays events he has posted a message on his Gift Shop website which reads:
"We Support Cyclists in Perthshire
Please note that The Highland Chocolatier, Legends of Grandtully, and Legends Coffee House have always supported cyclists in Perthshire. Neither Peter Hounam, nor any of the other directors oppose a cycling event in Perthshire. All of them deplore actions taken against cyclists in the recent event. Peter is personally a spokesperson for ACRE which is of the opinion that an open road event would be better than a closed road event. This is a personal opinion and is of no more relevance to our business stance on cycling than the fact that one of our other directors is an avid cyclist. "
I know myself i will never set foot in the place after last weekends incident and,i would encourage anyone else to boycot the shop in protest at the actions that were inspired by this `spokesman`in the first place
Jim Wallace
What is surprising is that you find this surprising. Most right thinking people would condemn what happened so why do assume that just because people disagree vehemently with your point of view that they wish to do you harm.
Seems my point about the over reaction on here has now been justified They don't appear to be odious cretans that people have tried to make them out to be and it looks they haven't given up their opposition either though I think they will be severely chastened by the events of the weekend so now is perhaps the best opportunity to be able to have a sensible dialogue. 0 -
Er.. you don't think he is just worried about his business perhaps?
But I'm perfectly happy to accept that he didn't support the at-tack, that doesn't mean that his actions haven't contributed to it taking place.0 -
ellieb wrote:Doyler78: I think you are missing the point (again) A field of 3600 would be hard to accomodate on open roads given the speed that large numbers of the field are doing. Yes you could have a sportive with a smaller field, with open roads, on a different route. But then it would not be the same event. It would significantly change what makes it unique. I have been to other sportives, and they all have different selling points. This events is the large high speed field. Changing that effectively cancels it.
Now the point is, if I generally thought that these people had a legitimate grievance, then I would say 'fine. Cancel the event' I really do not want my the facilitation of my own personal enjoyment to have such a catastrophic effect on the lives of a small rural community. In fact before last years event I had a good hard think about whether it was right for me to enter. But I concluded that I really don't think it does have much more effect than a minor, easliy circumvented inconvenience , for the reasons which have been repeated ad nauseum in this forum & others. This is why I blame ACRE, becasue I think they have encouraged such a febrile atmosphere in response to a minor inconvenience that a man like Mr Grosset has allegedly resorted to such tactics: Potentially injurying people and ruining the day for people, some of whom have literally travelled hundreds of miles to take part. (Not to mention the money raised for charity) They are entittled to their opinions, but they are also responsible if their campaign has caused someone to feel justified in acting in a criminally irresponsible manner. And to repeat the above, this is a small, vocal, unreasonable minority. The vast majority of the local people support the event taking place.
Ellieb you made the argument for road closure and your argument to me (check back if you wish) was that they had to be closed because of the singletrack section of road and how inherently unsafe that would be on open roads. My response was in direct response to that so it wasn't that I missed you point it just that you didn't make it.
I have no idea if 3500 is a workable number on open roads or not with good organisation. To me it would seem that it could be possible but I certainly agree it could be problematic. Why does it have to be 3500. Yes less would be raised but for such a popular event why not run it a few times a year (yes I know the logistic cost would be higher too) and run it open roads. There are different ways that you can look at these things and I don't really have a strong view on any of them.
Is an objection not legitimate so long as it has a quantifiable impact? Their ability to free movement has been affected (just the main issue) therefore does not make their objection legitimate? Just because it is legitimate of course does not mean that they are entitled to have it their own way but they are entitled to express that view. Too many people on here don't want them to express their view. That's what I find distasteful.
If you are not being listened to you and you make a racket about to be heard then the idea that you become responsible for the criminal actions of others is a cop out because you remove personal responsibility for our own actions from the equation or do you want it all ways. Blame ACRE and the person - why not blame the Etape for going ahead with the event because if they didn't have the event then the incident wouldn't have happened.
I don't want to stop anyone enjoying this event, indeed it is one that I have every intention of doing at some stage.0 -
ellieb wrote:Er.. you don't think he is just worried about his business perhaps?
But I'm perfectly happy to accept that he didn't support the at-tack, that doesn't mean that his actions haven't contributed to it taking place.
I'm quite sure local pressure was no doubt brought to bear on this guy but I would still find it hard to believe that the guy who did the act done it at the behest of anyone. He got caught up in the rhetoric of ACRE and took things too far. You really can't blame ACRE for that. It is quite possible that they were all in the background plotting this but I would just find it hard to believe. If they had given it this much thought then they would have thought through the consequences much more and stopped themselves but who knows.0 -
Just because it is legitimate of course does not mean that they are entitled to have it their own way but they are entitled to express that view. Too many people on here don't want them to express their view
And on that I think you're right - and I for one will admit to getting overly wound up about the sabotage and allowing that to influence my opinion that ACRE shouldn't be allowed to make their point - on that I was wrong, and take back what I said about them shutting the f up.
However I do think that the position of ACRE and its supporters appears to be so entrenched that they too have taken their eye of the ball - there are compromises that have been made and more that could be made, but as the position is "no closed roads" then there's not much to negotiate on, is there? Remember their original position was "no large cycling event - we don't need any more tourists". I've seen messages on other forums from people who run self-catering accommodation who reckon they can't get bookings from cyclists because they won't make their breakfast - yet there's apparently hardly a bed to be had within 25 miles, and I stayed in self-catering accommodation that was packed with cyclists making their own breakfast. The same person claimed an ambulance had taken 8 hours to reach a heart attack victim in 2008 "because of the Etape" - an incident which no amount of diligent googling can uncover - these sort of blind unsubstantiated claims reduce the credence of everything they say.
I do think more dialogue is needed, but ACRE need to set out what their compromise position is.0 -
andy_wrx wrote:Is there not any one of you who suffered puctures or other damage who is a member of CTC or BC and has contacted their Legal Aid dept to find-out how they will help you claim against this guy, in the same way as they'd help you claim agaisnt a motorist who hit you or the council if you crashed in a pothole ?
This is probably the most useful piece of advise I have seen in this thread. We will of course have to wait for the verdict.
Assuming that there are enough CTC/BC members seeking redress from the culprit, then I guess that the solicitors would undertake a class action.0 -
Looks like CycleChat are a bit nervy about this topic:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showt ... hp?t=347060 -
One of the people who's been quoted fairly extensively appeared on the thread on ukclimbing.com and (quite rightly, imho) objected to having his name and address posted (and it's now been removed). Whatever the reasons given by the poster, it strikes me that the only reason for posting people's names and addresses is to allow/encourage direct action, which is the thing we were all objecting to when someone took it against the event!0
-
Philip Whiteman wrote:Looks like CycleChat are a bit nervy about this topic:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showt ... hp?t=34706
Oh yeah. I bet the Times, Scotsman, Herald etc. are all really, really worried about publishing personal details of the alleged perpetrator...
Personally, I found it quite interesting to work out where the chap lives. It caused me to dig out a copy of he road closures map and work out what impact it would have had on him. As it happens, even a simple, Sunday morning task like popping in to Pitlochry would have been pretty awkward and it has caused me to have some sympathy for his plight.0 -
AlunP wrote:I have sought legal advice from CTC (I'm a member) about a group action to revcover civil damages from anybody found guilty by a criminal court.
I have also been in touch with the police about the possibility of a compensation order being made as part of the criminal process.
I will keep the forum posted. The purpose of civil claims is of course to compensate for losses - not to punish - but the prospect of many civil claims against persons committing a criminal and dangerous act will help to create a climate where people obey the law.
It will be interesting to see what a court will award as compensation - entry fee, refund of travel costs etc.
A group action could lead to quite a return however I think instead of us replacing our tubes and tyres with the return we should hammer the point home to Mr Grosset by donating, as a group, the money to Macmillian charity. Potentially bankrupt and totally embarass him with his indirect donation.0 -
Bryan F wrote:AlunP wrote:I have sought legal advice from CTC (I'm a member) about a group action to revcover civil damages from anybody found guilty by a criminal court.
I have also been in touch with the police about the possibility of a compensation order being made as part of the criminal process.
I will keep the forum posted. The purpose of civil claims is of course to compensate for losses - not to punish - but the prospect of many civil claims against persons committing a criminal and dangerous act will help to create a climate where people obey the law.
It will be interesting to see what a court will award as compensation - entry fee, refund of travel costs etc.
A group action could lead to quite a return however I think instead of us replacing our tubes and tyres with the return we should hammer the point home to Mr Grosset by donating, as a group, the money to Macmillian charity. Potentially bankrupt and totally embarass him with his indirect donation.
Bankrupting him at his age will only mean one thing - a total dependence on social security so we all pay anyway however I don't think he should be allowed to get away with it however I think that should be understood too.
I like your idea though of donating the proceeds at least it carries some sort of moral conviction with it.0 -
Dr U Idh wrote:Philip Whiteman wrote:Looks like CycleChat are a bit nervy about this topic:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showt ... hp?t=34706
Oh yeah. I bet the Times, Scotsman, Herald etc. are all really, really worried about publishing personal details of the alleged perpetrator...
Personally, I found it quite interesting to work out where the chap lives. It caused me to dig out a copy of he road closures map and work out what impact it would have had on him. As it happens, even a simple, Sunday morning task like popping in to Pitlochry would have been pretty awkward and it has caused me to have some sympathy for his plight.
It's not really about whether it is right or wrong to print the details it about the context in which they are printed that is important. In a newspaper the reason for printing is because they are reporting the facts. Part of reporting the facts is to shame those individuals and part of the legal process.
In a heated forum debate where very hostile views had already been expressed it seemed to me that nothing good could really come out of publication. The fact is we already knew that the road closure meant people couldn't get out of their houses in their cars so it didn't really illuminate anyting in terms of the debate. The fact this guy was directly affected shouldn't make a difference because that says that only when someone becomes known do their views carry meaning.
Those publishing tried to justify their actions by saying that it was illuminate. The first poster just highlighted the address and said it was in public domain. So clearly in stating that he knew that his post could come under scrutiny yet failed to provide any context for the post so that says a lot I think. The second poster that I spotted did try to set it in context by stating it was to allow people to know where to send the invoice too. Your solicitor could deal with it however even if you accepted the reason this person then also included this guys telephone number. There was no justification for that and it actually suggests a much more sinister reason for publication in light of those I can't see how this forum, or any forum, should not deal with these posts in the way they have.0 -
Dr U Idh wrote:Philip Whiteman wrote:Looks like CycleChat are a bit nervy about this topic:
http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showt ... hp?t=34706
Oh yeah. I bet the Times, Scotsman, Herald etc. are all really, really worried about publishing personal details of the alleged perpetrator...
Personally, I found it quite interesting to work out where the chap lives. It caused me to dig out a copy of he road closures map and work out what impact it would have had on him. As it happens, even a simple, Sunday morning task like popping in to Pitlochry would have been pretty awkward and it has caused me to have some sympathy for his plight.
For many years, my wife and I lived right beside Hampden National Stadium in Glasgow and our lives were disrupted by football matches, sporting events and rock concerts - more than a dozen per year. Was it a pain? Sure. But we learned to live with it by staying away, attending the event ourselves or staying in for the duration.
We must surely recognise that people want to attend or partake in sporting events or be entertained by concerts and opposing this is insular in the extreme.
For the residents who opposed the Etape - they should try and live beside Hampden for a few years!0 -
JWallace wrote:This is the website of the `spokesman` for ACRE,he must be very worried about last Sundays events he has posted a message on his Gift Shop website which reads:
"We Support Cyclists in Perthshire
Please note that The Highland Chocolatier, Legends of Grandtully, and Legends Coffee House have always supported cyclists in Perthshire. Neither Peter Hounam, nor any of the other directors oppose a cycling event in Perthshire. All of them deplore actions taken against cyclists in the recent event. Peter is personally a spokesperson for ACRE which is of the opinion that an open road event would be better than a closed road event. This is a personal opinion and is of no more relevance to our business stance on cycling than the fact that one of our other directors is an avid cyclist. "
I know myself i will never set foot in the place after last weekends incident and,i would encourage anyone else to boycot the shop in protest at the actions that were inspired by this `spokesman`in the first place
Jim Wallace
I agree with your stance. They might as well have said: 'No matter how much animosity we might hold against cyclists and this event, we still want your money'...
By the way, does anyone know if the Bright's of Fortingale have any links with ACRE? These are the (no doubt 'Daily Mail' reading) crackpots who wrote:
“How refreshing to see that the public has taken direct action to halt an unwanted event forced on them by the local county council." (Paul Bright on the BBC website, Perthshire Advertiser etc.) and...
“I wonder if the roads would be closed and the residents ‘restrained’ if we were of other faiths or nationalities. I was under the impression that we were attempting to fight discrimination. Perhaps not if you are white and Christian and don’t cycle.” (Eveline Bright in the Dundee Courier).0 -
I was the person who posted full name and address of the person arrested on this fourm and Cyclechat (for which they have banned me for a month)the reason i posted the full name and address,is because its in the public doman anyway (Dundee Phone Book) and has been partly published in most scottish newspapers
the reason i did so was for people who suffered damage or injury to persue a small claims action,if and when this person is convicted
I thought i would bring more clarity to my original (now removed post)
Jim Wallace0 -
JWallace wrote:I was the person who posted full name and address of the person arrested on this fourm and Cyclechat (for which they have banned me for a month)the reason i posted the full name and address,is because its in the public doman anyway (Dundee Phone Book) and has been partly published in most scottish newspapers
the reason i did so was for people who suffered damage or injury to persue a small claims action,if and when this person is convicted
I thought i would bring more clarity to my original (now removed post)
Jim Wallace
But you also published his telephone number in your post. Why did you do that?0 -
doyler78 wrote:JWallace wrote:I was the person who posted full name and address of the person arrested on this fourm and Cyclechat (for which they have banned me for a month)the reason i posted the full name and address,is because its in the public doman anyway (Dundee Phone Book) and has been partly published in most scottish newspapers
the reason i did so was for people who suffered damage or injury to persue a small claims action,if and when this person is convicted
I thought i would bring more clarity to my original (now removed post)
Jim Wallace
But you also published his telephone number in your post. Why did you do that?
err.... because its in the phone book!
Jim0
