Weird values

FOLLOWING the recent Hatton press conference a glaring anomaly has come to light that suggests that high ranking officials of CaRT have either weird moral values or they have been subjected to an obligatory 'Common Sense Bypass' operation on joining the organisation, writes Ralph Freeman.

To my knowledge continuous cruisers not moving enough does not present the threat of serious physical injury to people, children and dogs on the towpath, whereas conducting a cycling time trial on a narrow towpath does.

 

Re-education does not work

Compare then the response of Richard Parry/CaRT. The continuous cruisers will be pursued through the courts and possibly lose there homes whereas the 'Strava Louts' will be re-educated. (Sounds like a quote from George Orwell's 1984). If CaRT is taking continuous cruisers to court is that not an admission that re-education does not work?

Why the difference in approach I ask? How come threatening, or in some cases subjecting, members of the public with physical harm is not seen as a problem whereas merely breaking an ill defined rule made up by CaRT itself is sufficient to land a person in court? I rest my case.

How can you trust a Trust with no moral compass?

[It was Ralph Freeman who first brought the matter of the Strava cyclist time trials taking place on the towpaths to our notice—editor.]