Vote UKIP - stop cyclists stealing roadspace!
Diamant49
Posts: 101
0
Comments
-
Saw this earlier today & it did make me chuckle for all the wrong reasons - all I can say is it does not come across as a very well educated bunch of answers to the questions and that is me being fair.Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.0
-
So which idiot put that "Burk" up as a candidate in the so called "Cycling capital of the UK"??
Oops!!
0 -
"Cyclists don't pay, car drivers do, blahblahblahblah bollox"
Obviously this twunt has never heard of council tax, general taxation or the fact that cyclists might also own cars.0 -
Major facepalm there And the people bowed and prayed, to the neon god they made.0
-
I can feel quite dis-heartened when voters display such ignorance at how the system works and things are paid for so it's even more depressing to read someone that stupid is actually running for office. Democracy eh? :roll: I mean, at least we always knew the monster raving looney party and legalise cannabis crowd were jokers, the UKIP lot are unfortunately quite genuine.0
-
On the one hand, it shows how little idea UKIP have of how funding works, and what a disaster they would be if they ever got any serious power. On the other hand, it's depressing when people are such idiotsYou live and learn. At any rate, you live0
-
Frighteningly thick!!!!!0
-
Answer to question 11 is worse!
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/elections/20 ... question11Why are there cycle tracks on Hill's road on both the road and footpath?
Road space is required for motorised vehicles who pay for it. It shouldn't be wasted on people who don't.
Just for your information, I walk to most places in Cambridge, but you should bear in mind that if everybody cycled, there would be no roads to ride on.
What is "sustainable transport"? Is it using things that other people pay for?0 -
Utterly brilliant. Alienating a whole swathe of voters to get favour with motorists on a website that motorists won't visit. That's the opposite of politics.0
-
Just googled his name and came up with this article: http://road.cc/content/news/81887-ukip- ... roads-ride
I can't believe UKIP are actually gaining support (for more reasons than just this guy's view of cyclists)!0 -
Comment from a US Republican politician, explaining why cycling is bad for the environment:
http://images.bimedia.net/images/emailOrcutt.JPG0 -
Rigged wrote:I can't believe UKIP are actually gaining support (for more reasons than just this guy's view of cyclists)!
Can't you? The other three main parties have treated the voter with distain when it comes to Europe. People rightly or wrongly see power being ceded to Brussells all the time. The EU is a different beast altogether to the 'Common Market' that the country signed up for. In short, it didn't do what it said on the tin.
UKIP may be a one trick pony, but they are the only party willing to say what a lot of people believe and identify with. They are not just attracting voters from the right either, people from across the political spectrum are giving them consideration.
Reading this, you may think I was a UKIP voter, but no, I am not, they are still a party of protest and I would consider it a wasted vote. But I fully understand why people are starting to think about them, because the main parties have been too late waking up to the growing public opinion vis a vis Europe.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:
<snip>Rigged wrote:I can't believe UKIP are actually gaining support (for more reasons than just this guy's view of cyclists)!
Reading this, you may think I was a UKIP voter, but no, I am not, they are still a party of protest and I would consider it a wasted vote. But I fully understand why people are starting to think about them, because the main parties have been too late waking up to the growing public opinion vis a vis Europe.
That was a nicely done denial, very subtle.0 -
Although I am not linking them with UKIP in any political way, the same principle applies to BNP.
Their policies may be thought odious by the vast majority in the country, but for years they were the only 'party' who recognised that immigration was a growing problem for a large portion of the electorate. People who were concerned about the UK's growing population were branded racists, xenophobes and the like, by mainstream politicians and media. People had no one to give their fears voice and were seduced by BNP.
They have gone on to win Council seats, seats in the London Assembley and the European Parliament. I was shocked to find out that BNP gained over 5% of the vote in the 2008 London Mayoral Election, finishing fifth. London is an extremely cosmopolitan city, so for a party like BNP to gain 1 in 20 votes is remarkable and worrying.
Again, this has been brought about by the main parties failure to deal with the subject of immigration, which for some areas in the country is of much more pressing concern than issues like gay marriage for instance.
And no, before somebody says otherwise, I am not against gay marriage. Probably, like a lot of people up and down the country, I don't give a flying feck about it. I am just using it as an example of the Government 'Hanging pictures while the roof is falling in'.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:People who were concerned about the UK's growing population were branded racists, xenophobes and the like, by mainstream politicians and media.
That'll be that same media then who got them all paranoid in the first place about immigration without ever actually bothering to find out if it was a problem. The same media as well that has got large swathes of the population paranoid about benefits scroungers even though the unemployed take up a comparatively small proportion of benefits compared to those within work.
The media decide what opinions the stupid should have. If UKIP does well, it will be down to the media.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Refreshingly honest I thought. The other candidates seem happy to peddle the same old claptrap, pretty words with no substance. He thinks that cyclists are a bunch of arrogant foul mouthed wazzocks who seem to want the world and are quite happy to break the rules when it suits... Pretty fair reflection of life as it is I would think...0
-
Mikey23 wrote:Refreshingly honest I thought. The other candidates seem happy to peddle the same old claptrap, pretty words with no substance. He thinks that cyclists are a bunch of arrogant foul mouthed wazzocks who seem to want the world and are quite happy to break the rules when it suits... Pretty fair reflection of life as it is I would think...
One of the main things you learn on BR is how much cyclists dislike other cyclists.0 -
Rolf F wrote:Ballysmate wrote:People who were concerned about the UK's growing population were branded racists, xenophobes and the like, by mainstream politicians and media.
That'll be that same media then who got them all paranoid in the first place about immigration without ever actually bothering to find out if it was a problem. The same media as well that has got large swathes of the population paranoid about benefits scroungers even though the unemployed take up a comparatively small proportion of benefits compared to those within work.
The media decide what opinions the stupid should have. If UKIP does well, it will be down to the media.
Most people's view of the world is shaped by their experiences and as you quite rightly say, what they see and read in the media. To say that because people are influenced by what they read, they are stupid is incredible. I assume that your towering intellect is such, you can separate fact from subtle propaganda. Or is it just people who decide to take a differing stance or vote for a different party to you that you consider stupid?
As I said earlier, I am not a UKIP voter, but wouldn't consider anyone who voted for them, or any other legitimate party, to be stupid.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rolf F wrote:Ballysmate wrote:People who were concerned about the UK's growing population were branded racists, xenophobes and the like, by mainstream politicians and media.
That'll be that same media then who got them all paranoid in the first place about immigration without ever actually bothering to find out if it was a problem. The same media as well that has got large swathes of the population paranoid about benefits scroungers even though the unemployed take up a comparatively small proportion of benefits compared to those within work.
The media decide what opinions the stupid should have. If UKIP does well, it will be down to the media.
Most people's view of the world is shaped by their experiences and as you quite rightly say, what they see and read in the media. To say that because people are influenced by what they read, they are stupid is incredible. I assume that your towering intellect is such, you can separate fact from subtle propaganda. Or is it just people who decide to take a differing stance or vote for a different party to you that you consider stupid?
As I said earlier, I am not a UKIP voter, but wouldn't consider anyone who voted for them, or any other legitimate party, to be stupid.
You really think readers of things like the Sun or Mirror are intelligent?0 -
I could not comment on the IQ of the readership of any particular newspaper, but you seem to be suggesting that reading The Sun or Mirror and being intelligent are mutually exclusive.verylonglegs wrote:You really think readers of things like the Sun or Mirror are intelligent?
What do you suggest? You can only enter the polling booth, if you are in possession of a completed 'Times Crossword'0 -
This is no real surprise; UKIP have made it their business to be a sort of outspoken "hedgerow-Tory max" - being controversial, and even a bit bat-s*it, serves to set them apart and make them visible on the backdrop of a fairly uniform set of mainstream parties. Peter Burkinshaw is just talking what appears to be "common sense" (of the "discussions in a flat roofed pub" or "gran who won't be argued with 'cos she's seen it all" type) to angry people who've once saw a cyclist jump a red or who have just had to hand over £126 at the Post Office; these people don't want to hear a counter argument that undermines their prejudices, they want them played to, PB does that and they'll lap it up...0
-
Ballysmate wrote:
I could not comment on the IQ of the readership of any particular newspaper, but you seem to be suggesting that reading The Sun or Mirror and being intelligent are mutually exclusive.verylonglegs wrote:You really think readers of things like the Sun or Mirror are intelligent?
What do you suggest? You can only enter the polling booth, if you are in possession of a completed 'Times Crossword'
I didn't suggest anything, just backing Rolf F in that there is a section of the media which is essentially catering for the stupid. I realise that sounds harsh and offensive but have a look at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ and genuinely tell me what you think..scroll all the way down and see how much you can find of any value in there. This is the best selling newspaper in the UK remember.0 -
It would be foolish to argue that the red tops are mentally stimulating or challenging, they are not. But you can't brand millions of people stupid on the basis that they read them. Just as you wouldn't brand swathes of the female population stupid for reading any of the myriad of vapid magazines directed at them.
I regard most of what is broadcast on TV to be trash, but I would not brand millions of people stupid for watching programmes that I deemed not sufficiently highbrow.0 -
It's not UKIP being thick, it's UKIP being canny.
Tell the idiots what they want to hear and they will vote.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:I regard most of what is broadcast on TV to be trash, but I would not brand millions of people stupid for watching programmes that I deemed not sufficiently highbrow.
Anyone who thinks that watching TV is an intelligent choice is stupid. my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
Peat wrote:It's not UKIP being thick, it's UKIP being canny.
Tell the idiots what they want to hear and they will vote.
Welcome to the world of politics. It's called 'Know your audience'.
UKIP saw that people were dissatisfied with the main parties' stance on Europe and filled the niche. If the main parties had paid more attention to the growing unease that a lot of voters felt about the direction that the EU was going, UKIP would never have got off the ground.
As I stated earlier, UKIP are a one trick pony, and a party of protest, but I understand why they have growing support.0 -
I wrote to the local ukip candidate about the closure of Carnbrea athletics track, councillors salaries (£1.4m on wages, pensions and expenses) for the top 10 councillors on cornwall CC and on cycle promotion/safety and was impressed by her answers, the tory and independant ones didnt reply.
every new party is always branded the "party of protest" maybe ukip will out grow this, maybe they wont!0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Rolf F wrote:Ballysmate wrote:People who were concerned about the UK's growing population were branded racists, xenophobes and the like, by mainstream politicians and media.
That'll be that same media then who got them all paranoid in the first place about immigration without ever actually bothering to find out if it was a problem. The same media as well that has got large swathes of the population paranoid about benefits scroungers even though the unemployed take up a comparatively small proportion of benefits compared to those within work.
The media decide what opinions the stupid should have. If UKIP does well, it will be down to the media.
Most people's view of the world is shaped by their experiences and as you quite rightly say, what they see and read in the media. To say that because people are influenced by what they read, they are stupid is incredible. I assume that your towering intellect is such, you can separate fact from subtle propaganda. Or is it just people who decide to take a differing stance or vote for a different party to you that you consider stupid? As I said earlier, I am not a UKIP voter, but wouldn't consider anyone who voted for them, or any other legitimate party, to be stupid.
OK, to be fair, I probably should have said "The media decide what most peoples opinions should be" - that includes a lot of unquestioning intelligent people and probably the vast majority of stupid people (by definition - if they could think for themselves they wouldn't be stupid). The point is that we know very little - for example, most of us don't really know that David Cameron is the PM. We've just been told that and the fact that every aspect of the media takes that as fact makes it reasonable for us to believe it is true. It helps if you read all papers of course but who wants to do that (it's not as though actually knowing what is going on in the news is of any relevance to any of us 99.9% of the time - we waste too much time worrying about it as it is)? So if you read one, and it tells you that an MMR jab will make your child autistic, and you accept that unquestioningly, then the media have told you what your opinion is and the reason that they've determined what that opinion is is because it makes a more interesting story ("MMR will make your child autistic" will sell more papers than "MMR is fine").
Now, once upon a time I could understand people believing the lies that media tell as fact because the media were seen as reasonably truthful, if prone to exaggeration. Now we know this isn't so, no matter how much you might want to believe what the paper is saying, when you take your child to the doctor and you risk your childs life by taking the newspapers advice rather than the doctors advice, then I think you lose all right to not be called stupid.Or is it just people who decide to take a differing stance or vote for a different party to you that you consider stupid?
Why would you say this? What have I said that implies that I am being partisan in my outlook? As for the stupidity or otherwise of the UKIP voter - I'd try to keep an open mind but if the best they can field as a candidate is the individual referred to in this thread, then you probably can reasonably assume that most, if not all UKIP voters genuinely are stupid. This appears to have been a questionaire that the candidates were able to research their responses in their own time; he could have researched the facts and provided responses that were technically correct and still pandered to the prejudices of his audience but instead he hands a very easy, damning counter argument to the opposition. Given that virtually every response he gives is based on easily researched facts which he clearly hasn't done, it does imply that there is remarkably little brain talent in UKIP.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Yes Rolf, the UKIP candidate comes across as a complete @rse.
As regards you being partisan, you linked 2 statements.
The media decide what opinions the stupid should have.
If UKIP does well, it will be down to the media.
The inference from this is that UKIP will do well because their stupid voters were given their opinion by the media. The inference is perhaps more striking if you read the statements thus:
If UKIP does well, it will be down to the media.
The media decide what opinions the stupid should have.0 -
cyclists are a minority, it matters little if those in power p them off. cyclists are not going to win or lose an election.
ukip know what they are doing on the main, individual candidates may sneak throught hat havent been vetted due to the small size of the ukip machine. in time that will change.
im fairly intelligent, but i support ukips policies on many things, even though i went to the most left wing uni in the country. whether i vote for them, im not sure yet. soon they will not be a protest vote. once people stop thinking that they will become an equivalent force to the liberals. there support will only increase in the future, especially once the accession of new eu countries occurs, and the restrictions on the new members movements are lifted. thats a fact. anyone who thinks immigartion is not a big problem and will be increasingly so, is naive at best stupid at worst. maybe not in your provinces but in the south east a tipping point will soon be reached. infrastructure, housing etc are already at breaking point. on an already overcrowded island with finite space and resources, at some stage you have to say no more, or do we wait until a point is reached that it this country is no longer a desirable place to live.
ideally a government with any balls would make the terms unattractive to discourage mass immigration, thats not happening, so the only way is restricting it, this cannot be done as part of our current relationship with the EU. a move to a points mechanism like australia is what is needed.
call this racist if you want, but i still belive in the idea of the nation state, and most people will lable it as sensible.0
