The great british e-bike scam

[flecc]

Clearly history contradicts your statement. The future will be uncertain to predict, and as a Nation we need to be prepared to meet the dangers by making clear to any potential enemy that we have sufficent deterrence to hit back.

Not what the great majority of the world's nations think or do. The evidence in opposition to this view of the need for massive deterrence is so overwhelming that I won't bother to argue it any more, there's no point when the facts are not accepted.

 

[Cyclezee]

Hahaha....silly you....come on, get off your e-bike fence and join in........you know you want to....

Lynda

Sorry Lynda, I find all of this a big turn off.

The topics that you are discussing should be in the Charging Post.

 

[funkylyn]

yes they should but it just kind of evolved......perhaps we should move it over.......sorry to turn you off

Lynda

 

[RobF]

We remain a trophy country for lots of reasons, few of which are rational.

Just as The Times is a trophy for a publisher, it doesn't make any money - loses it most likely - but is desirable for anyone rich enough to be able to afford such things.

London remains the centre of the world, you can be proud of that, deride it, or anything in between, but it's a fact.

We could be nice to everyone, or just plain withdraw from the world stage, but it would take generations for us to drop off the radar.

 

[funkylyn]

SO....anyway...... am I alone in thinking that a sub £1500 bike with decent spec is reasonably priced ?

Im talking about the general public here who arent interested or capable of fitting kits.

It may surprise many of you when I admit to being one of them

There are also several sub £1000 bikes that are excellent value for money.

So, really I dont think that there is a big e-bike scam unless its from sellers trying to con the public into buying sub standard examples.

I can remember a time not long ago when, for me, the cut off point would have been £1000 but I do feel that some suppliers in this country have made a supreme effort in upgrading the specs of their bikes recently.....and as we all know, there is no such thing as a free lunch

Backontrack Lynda

 

[tillson]

You are just not getting it, I don't want middle ground. By saying we stop threatening others, I mean in every way, including criticising others. Their countries are nothing to do with us and all we need do is stop interfering in every way. I have after all just shown the proof.

I think you are right about this. If we hadn't criticised the Germans or interfered in any way when they were persecuting and murdering millions of Jews and brutally invading other countries during the 1930s and 40s, I doubt that they would have considered attacking mainland England or our shipping convoys.

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that we would have eventually become a target regardless of whether we turned a blind eye to murder on an industrial scale or not.

If Poland had been in possession of nuclear weapons during the 1930s, do you think that Germany would have invaded them and risked having their country completely destroyed in an act of retaliation?

 

[flecc]

I think you are right about this. If we hadn't criticised the Germans or interfered in any way when they were persecuting and murdering millions of Jews and brutally invading other countries during the 1930s and 40s, I doubt that they would have considered attacking mainland England or our shipping convoys.

I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that we would have eventually become a target regardless of weather we turned a blind eye to murder on an industrial scale or not.

Switzerland ignored them and wasn't attacked. Do we now regard the Swiss with disgust and contempt? No of course not, exposing the flaw in such emotive arguments.

 

[jazper53]

Switzerland ignored them and wasn't attacked. Do we now regard the Swiss with disgust and contempt? No of course not, exposing the flaw in such emotive arguments.

If Germany had won the war Switzerland undoubtedly would have surrendered without a fight, hardly a good example for passivity!

 

[funkylyn]

Switzerland ignored them and wasn't attacked. Do we now regard the Swiss with disgust and contempt? No of course not, exposing the flaw in such emotive arguments.

LOL.....no they didnt attack them because thats where all their money, gold and ill gotten gains were being stored....plus, well, come on flecc..... I dont really think you've exposed much of a sensible flaw there.....clutching at straws spring to mind.......

Ooops......naughty me.....(Ive chastised myself dont worry John )...........and of course just as well they didnt attack them seeing as Switzerland are producing some great bikes now.........but, question is ...are they too expensive or are they worth every penny ?

Are they part of the so called great e-bike scam or arent they

Lynda

 

[tillson]

Switzerland ignored them and wasn't attacked. Do we now regard the Swiss with disgust and contempt? No of course not, exposing the flaw in such emotive arguments.

No, I don't view the Swiss (who stored property and money stolen from the Jews and facilitated the escape of war criminals) with contempt or disgust. Few of the people who were running their country then are no longer alive. The same applies to Germany, different people now.

The point I am making is that there are times when you can't stand back and do nothing. When attrocities are occurring, like a race of human being a being persecuted, there is a moral obligation to act or to speak out. To not interfere in any way would be like walking past someone being attacked in the street and not saying or doing anything. Unacceptable. As you have acknowledged, taking action or speaking out can make you the target of an aggressor. Having a weapon capable of delivering Armageddon (Trident) to any aggressor mitigates the threat that they pose. Therefore essential.

 

[flecc]

The point I am making is that there are times when you can't stand back and do nothing. When attrocities are occurring, like a race of human being a being persecuted, there is a moral obligation to act or to speak out. To not interfere in any way would be like walking past someone being attacked in the street and not saying or doing anything. Unacceptable.

An argument I don't accept. The world has always had repeated examples of unspeakable atrocities, most of which we ignore and some perpetrators we have regarded as allies. Most nations in the world ignore all of the atrocities. That is a realistic position. We are not the world's policeman and we have no right to act in that role. Neither does NATO. Arguably the United Nations can act in that role, but that would not be a valid position until all UN resolutions are obeyed or acted upon by the UN. For example, the two UN resolutions on Palestine which Israel has totally ignored. To have validity, law and justice must apply to all at all times.

 

[jazper53]

Arguably the United Nations can act in that role, but that would not be a valid position until all UN resolutions are obeyed or acted upon by the UN. For example, the two UN resolutions on Palestine which Israel has totally ignored. To have validity, law and justice must apply to all at all times.

I totally agree with you about the contradictions, and injustices of the Palestine situation. International law is never about Justice nowdays and not likely to change, which does make the world a unstable place to live in, thats why we as a Nation need to be on our guard, and not deploy some passive neutreal stance.

 

[tillson]

An argument I don't accept. The world has always had repeated examples of unspeakable atrocities, most of which we ignore and some perpetrators we have regarded as allies. Most nations in the world ignore all of the atrocities. That is a realistic position. We are not the world's policeman and we have no right to act in that role. Neither does NATO. Arguably the United Nations can act in that role, but that would not be a valid position until all UN resolutions are obeyed or acted upon by the UN. For example, the two UN resolutions on Palestine which Israel has totally ignored. To have validity, law and justice must apply to all at all times.

I agree, nations are selective about what they get involved in and some atrocities seem to be more unacceptable that others, depending on who the perpetrator is. This in itself is pretty disgusting.

However, I still don't think that we should ever stay silent if we see something happening in the world which is evil. Even if that means we become a target. That's the price we have to pay.

I understand your argument and I think that you are right, turning our backs on wrongdoing is likely to shield us from hostile attention, but I don't like the idea of doing that. It feels wrong.

 

[flecc]

thats why we need as a Nation to be on our guard, and not deploy some passive neutral stance.

But neutrality works, the great majority of the world's countries prove that.

Tillson gave the example of WW2 where we should have remained neutral in my view. Instead we started that war by declaring it on September 3rd 1939 and promptly lost it. If the USA and USSR had not rescued us from our own stupidity we would have been overrun and destroyed. More proof of the silliness of our stance and of the good sense of not interfering where we have no jurisdiction.

Far too many people and especially politicians live in a fantasy world of our past glory with empire and power, thinking and acting in that vein. That no longer exists and never will again. We are a middle ranking country similar to numerous others, but in our case suffering from hardly any natural resources and very limited land area. We must accept that we are not a global power, and our current large scale defence reductions emphasise that fact.

The only way we can have effective clout is not with weapons and war but by being a full part of a larger whole, i.e. Europe. The USA has repeatedly made clear that they want us to be a full member, so by doing that we gain the protection of two of the largest allies totalling nearly a billion people. That way kills no-one and is just as effective as a puny British nuclear presence.
.

 

[flecc]

I understand your argument and I think that you are right, turning our backs on wrongdoing is likely to shield us from hostile attention, but I don't like the idea of doing that. It feels wrong.

And I agree, it is morally wrong, but in a wrong and terribly compromised world it is sensible and realistic.

 

[jazper53]

But neutrality works, the great majority of the world's countries prove that.

Tillson gave the example of WW2 where we should have remained neutral in my view. Instead we started that war by declaring it on September 2nd 1939 and promptly lost it. If the USA and USSR had not rescued us from our own stupidity we would have been overrun and destroyed. More proof of the silliness of our stance and of the good sense of not interfering where we have no jurisdiction.

Far too many people and especially politicians live in a fantasy world of our past glory with empire and power, thinking and acting in that vein. That no longer exists and never will again. We are a middle ranking country similar to numerous others, but in our case suffering from hardly any natural resources and very limited land area. We must accept that we are not a global power, and our current large scale defence reductions emphasise that fact.

The only way we can have effective clout is not with weapons and war but by being a full part of a larger whole, i.e. Europe. The USA has repeatedly made clear that they want us to be a full member, so by doing that we gain the protection of two of the largest allies totalling nearly a billion people. That way kills no-one and is just as effective as a puny British nuclear presence

I am not sure what you think our stance should be, except maybe for us to stick up our hands up and surrender That is not the British way or will it ever be.

 

[flecc]

I am not sure what you think our stance should be, except maybe for us to stick up our hands up and surrender That is not the British way or will it ever be.

No, instead we just get beaten every time. The Romans, Angles, Saxons, Normans, and in modern times WW2, Korea and Iraq, we're good at losing. And those examples miss out a few. Bit pointless don't you think?

Countries that don't get attacked don't have to surrender, we just have to adopt an entirely new policy of co-operation and not interfering where we are not wanted.

 

[jazper53]

No, instead we just get beaten every time. The Romans, Angles, Saxons, Normans, and in modern times WW2, Korea and Iraq, we're good at losing. And those examples miss out a few. Bit pointless don't you think?

Countries that don't get attacked don't have to surrender, we just have to adopt an entirely new policy of co-operation and not interfering where we are not wanted.

Europe is weak, and full of indecision, when it comes to security, and god forbid if we ever have to depend on them for our security.

ps In a ideal world a lot of what you say would be great, but it is not, and it is pure fantasy to believe world peace could be achieved by becoming a pacifist nation when there are so many rogue states out there

 

[flecc]

Europe is weak, and full of indecision, when it comes to security, and god forbid if we ever have to depend on them for our security.

True, but they and the USA combined via NATO are too big to be attacked. As said, that way no-one gets killed and a minimum of US nuclear weapons do the deterrence trick.

 

[jazper53]

True, but they and the USA combined via NATO are too big to be attacked. As said, that way no-one gets killed and a minimum of US nuclear weapons do the deterrence trick.

Ok we get rid of our umbrella and borrows the Yanks while we get into bed with the europeans is that your solution to world peace ?

I expect the yanks will be charging us. No free lunch there or control