In the news

Pulled over by police for not wearing lycra:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/no-lycra-you-re-nicked-son/014863

clive BAREly wears lycra even when he is wearing lycra

Finally, some one in the mainstream media querying whether yesterday's horrific attack constitutes terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

Well there's a fucking minefield.

According to Court News UK Boya Dee (the rapper who live tweeted from the Woolwich incident) has turned down £75k for his story.

I thought he seemed like a good egg. This gives you some insight into how much the person who sold that footage to ITV would have received.

Rumoured to be £25k.
If true, I sincerely hope it goes straight to H4H.

Pulled over by police for not wearing lycra:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/no-lycra-you-re-nicked-son/014863

I don't see a problem with this... he was aware of bike thefts and thought the chap didn't look like a cyclist. Didn't do anyone any harm

Doesn't seemed to be any issue at all, pulled over, quick check, and off you pop.

Finally, some one in the mainstream media querying whether yesterday's horrific attack constitutes terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

CommentIsFree isn't mainstream media, it's independent bloggers who've joined the Grauniad's Hangers On Club. CiF doesn't align to Graun editorial policy.

Finally, some one in the mainstream media querying whether yesterday's horrific attack constitutes terrorism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback

If you prefer your coverage of the news without value judgements, the Reuters news agency are (and have been all along) avoiding the "T word", as is their standard practice.

The coverage is also, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and properly sourced, which is a lot more than can be said for a lot of the recent media coverage, which propagated a lot of incorrect information. A few examples that spring to mind being that this now seems to be an attempted beheading, despite what today's front pages say, the (armed) police were on the scene 14 minutes after the original 999 call, with the non-armed police there 9 minutes after (20 minutes was reported by the Mail and the Telegraph, I'm sure there are others) and both attackers are alive, so one is not dead as was also incorrectly reported.

Meanwhile the BBC have been reporting 'BBC sources' who have been speaking to the entire media. Classy.

Reuters have a nice new website by the way which is currently in preview:
http://preview.reuters.com/

Pulled over by police for not wearing lycra:
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/no-lycra-you-re-nicked-son/014863

At least they are keeping an eye out for possibly nicked bikes. I've always wondered what the coppers would think as I rode 6k of bike from the shops wearing shirt, jeans and thongs (pomlation: flip flops).

You use flip flops as underwear?

You use flip flops as underwear?

You wear undies on your feet? Soiled or clean?

At least they are keeping an eye out for possibly nicked bikes. I've always wondered what the coppers would think as I rode 6k of bike from the shops wearing shirt, jeans and thongs (pomlation: flip flops).

Yes you either dress like a roadie or a hipster on a posh bike or you look like a bike thief. Agree that the copper's vigilance for nicked bikes is a good thong

It was clearly terrorism.
Clearly. But how?

It was clearly terrorism.

The fact that the government uses terrorism, that some terrorists could legitimately be described as freedom fighters or heroes, and that terrorism should not be treated differently from other crimes are all a bit irrelevant to this basic point.

It was horrible.

But also weird and somehow pathetic. More 'care in the community gone wrong' than 9/11 or 7/7. Not terrifying to me.

Were Raoul Moat and Dale Creegan's activities widely described as terrorism? Creegan's in particular didn't seem to display any less barbarism.

It's shouting alla (hoo) ackbar that makes any act terrorism.
Like if Someone shouted 'jesus' when doing something they'd be christian terrorists no doubt

That's how they catch most of the terrorist in Northern Ireland.

^jeez

Doesn't it have to have a political goal to be considered terrorism?

Doesn't it have to have a political goal to be considered terrorism?

Err that's exactly what it has to have.

Or religious? In fact any goal that is achieved by scaring people in a hurting manner

It was designed to make all soldiers / armed forces look over their shoulders more often, surely?

Which makes it political, no?

From the UN definition:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them;

Some people really dn't look right with the bikes they have with them - doesn't make them a thief but sometimes you just know.

Indeed, and there's no harm in the police having a check, it's not like they're taking his bike to the police station until they got more information.

Sometimes you just know. Except, you know, when you just don't. Know, that is.

That's there what we call prejudice round these parts, and why good police work relies on information, not some half-arsed gut instinct which is more wrong than right.

It was clearly terrorism.

No it wasn't. Terrorism is defined as "the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion". What was systematic about this?

As far as we know so far, it was two lone nut jobs in Woolwich.

A common motive shared by separate perpetrators does not make terrorism.

You may perceive it as being terrorism, that doesn't mean it clearly was.