Cafe becoming political drop shop

[mudsticks]

I said it was insulting. I didn't say I felt insulted by it.

Insulting to whom ??

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Well it was inevitable that this thread would attract those regular few whose entire raison d'etre on Cycle Chat is to disrupt and cause a stir. You'd think they'd rather go to a debating or a political forum, they're certainly not here for anything cycle related, only the aggro and the verbal sparring. Constant stirring of the pot, and the quick one liner put downs.

Again, it's the behaviour which is the problem here, the content really is neither here nor there if people are behaving like well adjusted human beings. I like Mo's suggestion to not engage with the disruptive elements. Like any kind of fire, it needs constant oxygen in order to endure.

 

[welsh dragon]

This thread is going swimmingly well I see.

 

[Rocky]

Well it was inevitable that this thread would attract those regular few whose entire raison d'etre on Cycle Chat is to disrupt and cause a stir. You'd think they'd rather go to a debating or a political forum, they're certainly not here for anything cycle related, only the aggro and the verbal sparring. Constant stirring of the pot, and the quick one liner put downs.

Again, it's the behaviour which is the problem here, the content really is neither here nor there if people are behaving like well adjusted human beings. I like Mo's suggestion to not engage with the disruptive elements. Like any kind of fire, it needs constant oxygen in order to endure.

You have got form on this too.....so I wouldnt be too quick to criticise.

 

[mudsticks]

You threatened Mudsticks in-thread with reporting her post - I obviously have no idea whether you carried out this threatened vexatious reporting. But it's part of a pattern of people constantly trying to police her contributions, as well as bitching about her in one or other of the god's waiting room threads. It's very clear to anyone with eyes to see that a substantial element of this forum resents women with strong opinions who don't flatter and humour them.

Ooo I didn't know I got mentioned in dispatches elsewhere.

I'll definitely have to not let that go to my head.

If a post if mine was reported earlier, then nothing has come of it..

Yet

 

[HMS_Dave]

 

[theclaud]

This thread is going swimmingly well I see.

If it's any consolation, it was obviously never meant to go well.

 

[theclaud]

I said it was insulting. I didn't say I felt insulted by it.

Right. So what's the problem here?

 

[matticus]

It's very clear to anyone with eyes to see that a substantial element of this forum resents women with strong opinions who don't flatter and humour them.

Are these large contributors? Or men of substance? Or women of substance?? So many questions ...

 

[Pale Rider]

Right. So what's the problem here?

While you are on, I think you ought to reconsider your use of photos of murder victims.

When I get a pic of a murder victim from a bereaved family - called a 'collect' in the old days because you had to nip round and collect it - I will make the family aware of the proposed use, often to reinforce a bona fide witness appeal.

Increasingly, that process is controlled by the police via their media teams.

In that instance, I can all but guarantee the police family liaison officer will have have explained to the family why the photo was required.

The family may, or may not, be happy for the pic to be used as you are using it - to make a general political or societal point.

Unless you've asked them, you cannot be sure.

These days, you cannot even be sure the pic has been 'released' - it may have been ripped from a social media page without permission of the family.

You may recall some friends of Sarah Everard said they thought she would have been unhappy with some of the political/slagging off the Met stuff which was done in her name.

If you genuinely care about the feelings of the bereaved family, the only safe course of action is not to use the photograph.

 

[theclaud]

Are these large contributors? Or men of substance? Or women of substance?? So many questions ...

Fair questions!

 

[theclaud]

While you are on, I think you ought to reconsider your use of photos of murder victims.

When I get a pic of a murder victim from a bereaved family - called a 'collect' in the old days because you had to nip round and collect it - I will make the family aware of the proposed use, often to reinforce a bona fide witness appeal.

Increasingly, that process is controlled by the police via their media teams.

In that instance, I can all but guarantee the police family liaison officer will have have explained to the family why the photo was required.

The family may, or may not, be happy for the pic to be used as you are using it - to make a general political or societal point.

Unless you've asked them, you cannot be sure.

These days, you cannot even be sure the pic has been 'released' - it may have been ripped from a social media page without permission of the family.

You may recall some friends of Sarah Everard said they thought she would have been unhappy with some of the political/slagging off the Met stuff which was done in her name.

If you genuinely care about the feelings of the bereaved family, the only safe course of action is not to use the photograph.

Thanks for your input, caller.

 

[mudsticks]

Are these large contributors? Or men of substance? Or women of substance?? So many questions ...

So much avoidance of the main point.

I feel it too, as it happens .

Have you ever stopped and wondered why there aren't more females on here.??

While you are on, I think you ought to reconsider your use of photos of murder victims.

When I get a pic of a murder victim from a bereaved family - called a 'collect' in the old days because you had to nip round and collect it - I will make the family aware of the proposed use, often to reinforce a bona fide witness appeal.

Increasingly, that process is controlled by the police via their media teams.

In that instance, I can all but guarantee the police family liaison officer will have have explained to the family why the photo was required.

The family may, or may not, be happy for the pic to be used as you are using it - to make a general political or societal point.

Unless you've asked them, you cannot be sure.

These days, you cannot even be sure the pic has been 'released' - it may have been ripped from a social media page without permission of the family.

You may recall some friends of Sarah Everard said they thought she would have been unhappy with some of the political/slagging off the Met stuff which was done in her name.

If you genuinely care about the feelings of the bereaved family, the only safe course of action is not to use the photograph.

Sabina's picture is being widely circulated by the police, and others in order to get help with their inquiries.



If someone murdered me I'd like my picture to be used in this way, if it helped at all.

Such as the way in which Claud is, to draw attention to this issue.

Using pictures makes these women, and the fact that someone has murdered them, more real than just trotting out the horrifying statistics.

It's not difficult to see the difference between a picture used with good intent.

And one used for sensationalist, or prurient purposes.




https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-thought-killed-on-way-meet-friend-say-police

That some friends of Sarah Everad's said something about what they thought she'd have thought about criticism of the Met is neither here nor there, really is it?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

While you are on, I think you ought to reconsider your use of photos of murder victims.

When I get a pic of a murder victim from a bereaved family - called a 'collect' in the old days because you had to nip round and collect it - I will make the family aware of the proposed use, often to reinforce a bona fide witness appeal.

Increasingly, that process is controlled by the police via their media teams.

In that instance, I can all but guarantee the police family liaison officer will have have explained to the family why the photo was required.

The family may, or may not, be happy for the pic to be used as you are using it - to make a general political or societal point.

Unless you've asked them, you cannot be sure.

These days, you cannot even be sure the pic has been 'released' - it may have been ripped from a social media page without permission of the family.

You may recall some friends of Sarah Everard said they thought she would have been unhappy with some of the political/slagging off the Met stuff which was done in her name.

If you genuinely care about the feelings of the bereaved family, the only safe course of action is not to use the photograph.

It's a shame the avatars aren't big enough to accommodate the millions of men that on average die much earlier than women due to the pressures and inequalities in life, but then again, seemingly that's not a comfortable conversation.

 

[mudsticks]

It's a shame the avatars aren't big enough to accommodate the millions of men that on average die much earlier than women due to the pressures and inequalities in life, but then again, seemingly that's not a comfortable conversation.

Who is stopping you having that conversation ??

Or posting the pictures??

Early deaths caused by inequalities, is an important topic.

But might end up quite political quite soon.

Ps.

Great bit of 'whataboutery' by the way

Surprised really, that it didn't arise earlier .