TMN, leaving aside the original article and its distasteful message, if you do ever fall into the average UK canal, the best thing to do is stand up. Even a person of compact stature should be OK, as they're generally only a couple of feet deep. (Falling into a lock is a different matter, as is falling into a bigger canal, such as Suez).
Proposal for a distasteful sport.
- Thread starter fatblokish
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Tin Pot
Guru
I've just called the Comedians Union and informed them that the person or persons at the butt of a joke must find the joke funny.
They said they'd get back to me on that.
Anyway, he's advocating taking up cycling, so inadvertently he'll come to understand the trials and tribulations of cycling.
They said they'd get back to me on that.
Anyway, he's advocating taking up cycling, so inadvertently he'll come to understand the trials and tribulations of cycling.
blazed
220lb+
The article writer, for the obscure little website which probably has very little traffic, obviously is writing the piece as a tongue in cheek article with fellow narrow boaters in mind who will relate to the topic. He's not expecting some easily offended cyclists to pick up on it and twist it into something it's not.
Even here on cyclechat you often read tongue in cheek comments about motorists etc, written because its a cycling forum with other cyclists who will understand the tone of the comment. Get a grip.
Jayaly
Senior Member
- Location
- Hertfordshire
That's the problem. My parents live on a narrowboat and asked me what I knew about strava a few months ago. Run ins with strava segment chasers have been a subject for discussion as they have travelled around the network this summer.
They certainly don't advocate violence, though, more disapproving looks at people going too fast, just the same as they aim at boaters going too fast and damaging the water bird nests in the spring.
pawl
Legendary Member
- Location
- Desford Leicestershire
Me to .A magazine inciting violence
Saluki
World class procrastinator
- Location
- ...Norwich over the water.
You'd be fine if shoved into a canal. They are about 3'6" deep. Unless of course, you fall in a deep cut. You would be able to put your feet down.
Obviously, I wouldn't want you, or anyone, to be shoved in a canal. Especially at this time of year, I'm just trying to reassure you that you would be unlikely to drown. Poisoned by the gakky water on the other hand....
vernon
Harder than Ronnie Pickering
- Location
- Meanwood, Leeds
I've penned this response:
Dear Sir,
I read the article, 'Bored on Board' prior to your addition of the disclaimer at the end. I have since read it with the disclaimer at the end. I was uncertain about the sincerity of the article when I first read it and, my doubt about the sincerity remains after re-reading it. The addition of the disclaimer does not alter the preceding words themselves and it can only be interpreted as a weak attempt at a damage limitation exercise.
'PLEASE—this whole article is obviously 'tongue in cheek' though some are taking it as being serious!'
The thing is, the article is not 'obviously tongue in cheek' If it was obvious I would have been smiling or laughing at the first reading. The disclaimer did not alter the humour content one jot on the second reading.
The words can be interpreted as an incitement to violence and understandably so - there is no trace of humour, irony or goodwill in them.
I am not a humourless person I share and enjoy jokes about a wide variety of topics. There is, however, no humour in topics promoting violence and antipathy no matter how 'dressed up' they are.
The words do little to promote canal boat owners as responsible law abiding citizens and articles like this do little to foster the bonhommie that undoubtedly exists amongst the majority of the users of the canal system.
I am forwarding the words of the article to the Canals and Rivers Trust and ask them to judge whether they consider the article to be as humourous as you, the editor, seemingly does.
I think that you should be ashamed on two counts, firstly for publishing it and secondly for defending it.
My opinion of your organisation would be raised if you removed the offending article and exercised tighter editorial control over articles that can be interpreted as confrontational and inflammatory.
Yours sincerely
Dear Sir,
I read the article, 'Bored on Board' prior to your addition of the disclaimer at the end. I have since read it with the disclaimer at the end. I was uncertain about the sincerity of the article when I first read it and, my doubt about the sincerity remains after re-reading it. The addition of the disclaimer does not alter the preceding words themselves and it can only be interpreted as a weak attempt at a damage limitation exercise.
'PLEASE—this whole article is obviously 'tongue in cheek' though some are taking it as being serious!'
The thing is, the article is not 'obviously tongue in cheek' If it was obvious I would have been smiling or laughing at the first reading. The disclaimer did not alter the humour content one jot on the second reading.
The words can be interpreted as an incitement to violence and understandably so - there is no trace of humour, irony or goodwill in them.
I am not a humourless person I share and enjoy jokes about a wide variety of topics. There is, however, no humour in topics promoting violence and antipathy no matter how 'dressed up' they are.
The words do little to promote canal boat owners as responsible law abiding citizens and articles like this do little to foster the bonhommie that undoubtedly exists amongst the majority of the users of the canal system.
I am forwarding the words of the article to the Canals and Rivers Trust and ask them to judge whether they consider the article to be as humourous as you, the editor, seemingly does.
I think that you should be ashamed on two counts, firstly for publishing it and secondly for defending it.
My opinion of your organisation would be raised if you removed the offending article and exercised tighter editorial control over articles that can be interpreted as confrontational and inflammatory.
Yours sincerely
That's the reason I've never cycled along a canal edge, falling in with your feet clipped into the pedals probably wouldn't be too jolly an experience.
YahudaMoon
Über Member
Most cyclist look like Captain Birdseye round here, maybe they live on narrowboats?
Saluki
World class procrastinator
- Location
- ...Norwich over the water.
I am sure that the comments in the magazine are just bluster.
I lived in Stoke for years and used the towpaths every day, whether commuting to work or out for a ride to the pup of an evening or a weekend, and never encountered any problems with the narrowboat community. I didn't pile past them like a loony and upset their picnics/dogs/kids etc as some did. I actually got more friction off the fishermen with their poles that totally blocked the towpath and that went right across the cut.
One fisherman threatened to push me off my bike and I countered with shoving his bloody pole up his bloody backside. It was PMT week, he backed down
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
yep, you know we got it bad when people who war pork-pie hats and those weird baggy shirts have it in for us.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
I believe the term for Mr Ralph Freeman (and the editor) is Schroedinger's Douchebag: a person who writes offensive things and decides whether he was joking based upon the reaction he gets.
GC
GC
