In the news

At least she follows the Urkel-School-of-Pants

Those jackets don't seem to be on sale yet but presumably Ivanka is sorting that out.

But if you do want some 'merch' there are some sweet deals to be had.

But... shoes on stilts!

What a look, black court shoes, slacks and sweater teamed with an MA1 and Aviators... I think she looks terrific next to Grandpa Flump there...

I reckon he's going to change on the plane and most likely go 'Full Farage' (which could have a concealed in-built nappy)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/10/politicians-in-wellies_n_4759359.html

I said yesterday i cannt imagine michelle obama being happy with that picture of the pensioners sitting in the waist deep water and letting her husband finish his good book !

Thanks!

All looks a bit Victoria Beckham off of the spice girls to me.

Schott I think.

Fox News pulled off the air in Britain

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/29/media/fox-news-uk-fox-sky-rupert-murdoch/index.html

(As the article implies it's probably just a cynical move to help with the takeover)

They've landed somewhere in Houston. You can get FLOTUS merchandise now.

Floatus?

Stan Smiths too

Who is Adam Boulton and how do I avoid experiencing his bullshit ever again?

Also, unpleasant reading:

http://road.cc/content/blog/228327-involved-crash-heres-modest-proposal

Can't help but sympathise with the opinions, and find a moral obligation is put under pressure by such suggestion.

So, as he arrives, he treats it like a rally, saying: "What a crowd, what a turnout..."

He's a fuckwit and she can fuck off trying to brand herself like fucking Top Gun. People have lost everything. A Houston police officier drowned trying to report for duty. And all he can think of is putting himself first. No class motherfucker and disgrace to the office he somehow holds.

Maybe this should be in the Rapha thread? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41081756

Woah, that was a good article, it's actually challenged me.

I'm not a regular to Rdcc so thanks for sharing here.

I had a phone call off one of the presenters for 5live earlier (we fix his bike and have a regular pop up at media city) about this, I was busy though and I'm sure I'd look fucking great in lycra if I ever wore it.

In road.cc John Stevenson trolled:

He was riding at 18mph. Traffic and parked vehicles around him left him with nowhere to go and when he yelled to warn Kim Briggs she stepped back into his path. If that’s furious and wanton riding, I’m a banana.

In the comments I replied:
Yes you are a banana.
The first charge was "causing bodily harm by wanton or furious driving". That he caused "bodily harm" is undeniable. The primary cause for that harm was that he did not stop or manage to swerve around Kim Briggs in time. The fundamental rule of safe riding or driving is that you go slow enough to be able to avoid hazards or stop. Alliston claims to have been a cycle courier. Every courier, regular rider and driver in Central London knows that pedestrians step out all the time, they know pedestrians walk around with their heads buried in their phones, they know pedestrians sometimes stop then step back or forward unpredictably.
Alliston's crime was that he was negligent, careless or wanton. He was going too fast for the conditions - ie. too fast because thousands of pedestrians wander all around the Old street area and too fast because his fixed wheel braking (or cycling skill) was inadequate. Some have argued that 18mph is not very fast. It is well above the average (median) speed of vehicles on this road, it was well above the speed at which Alliston could safely control his bike.
Riding without a front brake is against the law. In the logic of roads policing that justifies a manslaughter charge. I am happy that at least a quarter of the jury members saw through the clumsy, contrived police 'evidence' on stopping distance.
There may be elements of rough justice in this trial outcome. But justice is never fair. Every day millions of drivers and cyclists act negligently, carelessly or wantonly. The outcomes are rarely serious and when they are we often get away with it - that is not just, but it happens. We have no moral right to complain when the justice system bears down on one of us for carelessness resulting in death or injury.
To suggest that we should always run away, deny involvement, be the hit and run killers is indefensible. An extension of that logic is that we should not take any care of other road users, irrespective of their vulnerability. Your suggestion leads to careless, wanton driving/riding being the acceptable norm.
The truckloads of journalistic venom aimed a cyclists over the last few weeks is not simply the result of Alliston's actions nor of the police prosecution. It is the result of a deeper malaise in our car dependent society. Your advice to cyclists simply feeds that psychosis.
Yes John, you are a banana, a rotten smelly banana.

Just a quick note on the Stevenson article...
The title indicates the tongue in cheek nature of its content and while it makes some good points I suspect it's essentially proposing an absurd solution as the most logical in an absurd situation.
This is done in an effort to get people thinking straight and seeing the absurdity (as per Johnathan Swift's 1729 pamphlet 'A Modest Proposal (For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick')).

I have sympathy with the notion that submission to law is made more comfortable when you have faith in the justice system - which we've found to be sadly lacking, but using this rhetorical device is brave given the way some elements of Publick* are likely to read it.

(*I like that spelling, it has a slightly pejorative ring to it)

I suspect it's essentially click bait trolling

Yeah basically...

I think it's working though judging by the response...