| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:FOLLY OF CS9 ON CHISWICK HIGH ROAD. 2nd Consultation findings | |
| Posted by: | David Lesniak | |
| Date/Time: | 18/03/19 12:55:00 |
| I found Matthew's post far more interesting given he chooses to ignore the tone on the road.cc website so let me help him out with that. Calling someone a "retard" is not part of civil discourse let alone constructive debate. Yet he chooses to brush that aside. When the councilor (or anyone for that matter) attempts to learn something about what's needed for cycling, she/they are not treated with respect nor patience. So really, why should anyone bother to extend the same when attempting to delve into the details? If you are all to be believed, you are all the experts. You and TfL that is. Yet when holes are discovered in the "information" presented, invective starts flying in the hope that will shut up anyone with a differing opinion and, god forbid, actual curiosity. When the councilor went on a bike ride with Karen Liebreich, Karen opted to disparage the councilor publicly for what she wore on the bike ride. This from an MBE. And yet Jo persists. Shock, horror. She persists. She chooses to continue to engage when someone like Ruth Mayorcas, who stood for Turnham Green councilor, chose to turn a blind eye. I'd much rather have someone attempting than ignoring. Here's one for you, Matthew, when was the last time anyone asked a trader or a pedestrian or a resident what they needed? What they want to see? What they require? Actually asking and listening and considering. Regurgitating TfL "data" doesn't count. You might take note of just how one-sided your position is. No attempt is made to understand the wants and needs of others. F*ck that. F*ck them. It's ALL about the cyclist... |