Man who had sex with bike in court
Folks who read the story will find my question answered but a new one raised - doesn't Britain have any privacy rights protecting what happens between a man and his bicycle in the intimacy of their own garage?
MORE: Good point from a reader of a Daily Tel blog - was the bicycle above the age of consent?
Human and machine marriages are simply not an issue in England.
The man probably has a case under the Human Rights Act with regard to privacy and a family life.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 27, 2007 at 04:54 PM
Perhaps it's one of those intriguing legal questions about what constitutes consent.
Posted by: clarice | October 27, 2007 at 05:02 PM
Mind you, what red blooded boy doesn't remember his first Sturmey Archer? Though many preferred a Derailleur.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 27, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Once they start with bicycles then they go on to golf carts and riding lawnmowers. Volokh's slippery slope and all that (see esp. The is-ought heuristic, and the normative power of the actual).
Betch'a this person started with tricycles. Any wagerers?
The bike path, er, road to perdition starts with a single pedal.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG | October 27, 2007 at 06:17 PM
"Once they start with bicycles then they go on to golf carts and riding lawnmowers."
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 27, 2007 at 06:39 PM
Bicycle seats are a leading cause of impotence for younger men. Injures the important artery.
Posted by: Ralph L | October 27, 2007 at 06:56 PM
Perhaps it was someone else's bike, so it was adultery.
Posted by: MayBee | October 27, 2007 at 07:01 PM
No wonder Schwinn! was so popular (Wayne's World reference)
Why would someone call the police? He wasn't in a public place.
Posted by: Ralph L | October 27, 2007 at 07:02 PM
You know what they say about squeaky wheels,Ralkph.
Posted by: clarice | October 27, 2007 at 07:18 PM
I'd rather be the guy in the story than Joe Wilson, after reading Fair Game:
How Blonde Was My Valerie From Fair Game (p. 95):
In addition (p 192) she tells the world it would have been 'witness tampering' to ask her imaginary CIA colleague to go to the SSCI and correct the record about her memo recommending Joe for the Niger mission.
That; 'Joe's business, which relied so heavily on personal recommendations and discretion, was on life support.', without any apparent irony.
And, upon reading the WaPo editorial urging Fitzgerald to close up shop now that it was established that Wilson's charges had been shown to be untrue by that SSCI report, Val wrote:
It would be enough to drive a man to bicycle.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | October 27, 2007 at 07:19 PM
It's the children I worry about,do you need a midwife and a mechanic?
Posted by: PeterUK | October 27, 2007 at 07:29 PM
Perhaps it was someone else's bike, so it was adultery.
That's the punchline joke.
Posted by: MJW | October 27, 2007 at 07:51 PM
The punchline of a joke, that is. I always get in trouble when I reword a comment just before I post it.
Posted by: MJW | October 27, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Well,MJW, at least it wasn't a stupid pun--like statuary rape.
Posted by: clarice | October 27, 2007 at 08:47 PM
Or even "Fin de Siecle".
Posted by: PeterUK | October 27, 2007 at 09:25 PM
It is impossible to top that, PUK.
Posted by: clarice | October 27, 2007 at 09:34 PM
Patrick,
I wondered how you were going to tie that in to the theme of this thread. Nice job. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | October 27, 2007 at 09:47 PM
Glad to see that they're doing something about the pedalphile problem in Britain.
Posted by: Clyde | October 27, 2007 at 10:00 PM
*thwack!*
Posted by: clarice | October 27, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Okay, seriously, how do you have sex with a bicycle? And why did they enter his room?
Posted by: Sue | October 27, 2007 at 10:11 PM
I didn't know you could have sex with it.
Years ago I got a beautiful new bike for my wife. It was probably the best trade I ever made.
Posted by: MikeS | October 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Mike, she thought so, too.
Posted by: Ralph L | October 27, 2007 at 10:27 PM
That was no Harleyot, that was my bike.
or
I gotta brand new pair of rubbers, you got a brand new pump.
RalphL, a sudden fall off the seat onto the bar can injure the nervous plexus causing impotence, or so I've heard.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | October 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Kim, that's why men should always buy girl's bikes, or at least, that was my excuse.
Those racing saddles are murder.
Posted by: Ralph L | October 27, 2007 at 11:52 PM
OT - but has anyone noticed Empty hasn't posted anything on VP's book? nothing, nada.
Did empty get her nose bent out of joint - after ALL her work ont their behalf - Laura Rozen was tapped to pen the afterword?
The slight tracks the Wilson's typical self-serving MO.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 28, 2007 at 02:47 AM
Was it at least a women's bike? And is he going to use the "the instruction manual says it's okay to manually pump the tires [or 'tyres']" defence?
Posted by: andycanuck | October 28, 2007 at 03:43 AM
This thread is hilarious!!!
I didn't ride a bike till I was 21, so I didn't get the usual teenage education on bikes, but I always wondered why male bikes had that middle strut (or rod)? Sure makes it difficult to get off the bike.
When I watch bikers ride by the seashore, I've often wondered why do the males look down at their seats?
This must be the British version of that old American country song about a cowboy being thrown by his horse, coming down on the saddle hump and that's how the yodel began.
Posted by: BR | October 28, 2007 at 06:13 AM
Bicyclophilia is a bigger problem than it appears,people write songs about them
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 08:23 AM
why male bikes had that middle strut (or rod)?
It's to keep girls from riding...their bikes. Actually, it makes the frame stiffer and longer lasting for the least weight. Or the girl's bike design may have something to do with the reason they don't serve hotdogs at girls' boarding schools.
Posted by: Ralph L | October 28, 2007 at 08:23 AM
Morning bump with a slight note. If you add up the % you will see that it yields more than 100% for a total. Sometimes 102%, just recently 101%. So the program is rounding without compensation. Thus I believe the difference in the candidates is small, 1/2 % or less and thus maybe only a 100 votes + or -. I also believe that one person is sitting and spending hours entering and closing and reentering which has got to get monotonous. And its a lot harder to do as the vote totals go up.
This is a race of endurance not a sprint. I am working on getting some new lines of voting up and active. We need to keep her close until Monday or Tuesday when those kick in. Please vote. If you have a friend or two who will kick in a vote enlist them too please.
http://soccer.seniorclassaward.com/women/candidates.aspx>Vote for JMAX!!! Now more than ever!
Posted by: Gmax | October 28, 2007 at 09:51 AM
It would help if you provided a direct link to the voting page.Thanks.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Peter, your link above doesn't work (so don't complain).
Posted by: Ralph L | October 28, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Click hit and run to vote.
Posted by: hit and run | October 28, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Gmax:
I also believe that one person is sitting and spending hours entering and closing and reentering which has got to get monotonous.
Yes and I only wish there were more hours in the day.
Posted by: hit and run | October 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Ditto,HIT. I did round up some others but I suspect they are playing by the official rules despite my broad hints.
Posted by: clarice | October 28, 2007 at 11:48 AM
RalphL,
Slows the voting down ,if you get my drift.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Going off what Clarice and Hit say then,there are perhaps a larger number voting than Gmax thinks
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 12:09 PM
To go ot for a moment and give a book up date:
1. With both the genesis of Wilson's trip to Niger and the NYT's op-ed, she is decidedly vauge regarding the dates and sloppy in some of the details. One interesting detail regarding the NYT op-ed is that they were on a vacation to Hilton Head Island just before he wrote it [she says they drove and that it was the whole family, including Val's parents]. Another part is that they talked to Tom Foley to get advice on what to do.
She is also vauge regarding the MTP appearence. She says that Joe got invited a few minutes after the column went up on the NYT website-Saturday evening, moreover, she is very vague on whether she went with him-the way the passage is written, it leaves the impression that she was on the set.
2. According to her account, the VP had a question of an Italian intelligence report [interesting that this statement wasn't blacked out] and someone from the VP's office called a junior analyst in her office. When the "green phone girl" told Valerie, the "walking by guy", chimes in and says, "lets send Joe". Walking by guy is identified as the reports officer and one of the 2 that debriefed Joe Wilson on his return.
3. Evil BushCoâ„¢ made Valerie start smoking again-do the evil powers of that brood know no bounds.
Haven't quite finished yet
Posted by: RichatUF | October 28, 2007 at 12:39 PM
So Val was at Andrea Mitchell's MTP set with Munchausen and she was well known in Georgetown circles but Andrea was just drunk or something when she said "everybody knew"?
Posted by: clarice | October 28, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Amen clarice! If she was on the MTP set then of course everyone knew. I never knew journalists were such liars!
I just voted for Jess and she is currently in second place so let's get cracking.
Posted by: maryrose | October 28, 2007 at 01:18 PM
clarice, maryrose-
So Val was at Andrea Mitchell's MTP set with Munchausen and she was well known in Georgetown circles but Andrea was just drunk or something when she said "everybody knew"?
I'll have more with a more complete review, but the passage is sufficently vauge enough that it leaves the impression that she was there, BUT if this passage were to become problematic she could claim that she watched it somewhere else. Also, I might have skimmed over the detail and forgot, however, the July 4th BBQ seems to be missing in action. She pins down the Tom Foley party in August so I don't think she could be confusing the two.
Posted by: RichatUF | October 28, 2007 at 02:36 PM
Probably vague for a reason. Scooter should have had an opportunity to ask that of Mitchell, don't you think? The entire shebang rested on whether Timmie was telling the truth.
Posted by: clarice | October 28, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Looks like Glenn Greenwald pwned himself. Suspicions that he's a dim bulb confirmed.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | October 28, 2007 at 03:03 PM
Small World Dept; at the end of the Afterword on page 388, in a footnote:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | October 28, 2007 at 03:12 PM
Filed under, "It Can't Hurt To Ask"
I sent Dave in Texas, a co-blogger at Ace of Spades an email, pleading for an Ace of Spades post asking for votes for Jessica.
Here's the post as Ace's, which was included as an "ALSO" to the weekly football picks post:
Posted by: hit and run | October 28, 2007 at 03:30 PM
That's no "moron", that's everyone's fav, Hit.
Posted by: clarice | October 28, 2007 at 03:38 PM
I'm getting suspicious as to whether the web site is actually recording votes. The percentages at the top have not changed for several hours, and I suspect that none of them have changed for a couple of days. Has anyone been keeping track and can confirm/deny whether the numbers have changed recently?
Posted by: cathyf | October 28, 2007 at 04:11 PM
I think 2 days ago they were tied, then Jessica fell to 2d place and there's been no movement that I can see.
Posted by: clarice | October 28, 2007 at 05:19 PM
Oops, just checked. There has been movement--JMax is now 2 % pts behind.
Posted by: clarice | October 28, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Jmax hasn't shifted from 28% for a day,who is doing the voting Ron Paul?
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 05:48 PM
Yeah, I saved the numbers into a spreadsheet, and things moved around a bit at the bottom, too. I wonder if the UofI candidate got some buddies from CS to write a ballot-box stuffing script?
Posted by: cathyf | October 28, 2007 at 05:48 PM
It's probably some of our old trolls here, doing the anti-Jmax vote.
Posted by: MayBee | October 28, 2007 at 05:57 PM
cathyF,
We need to know what the voting numbers to percentage shift is.Number one has moved 2% in the last day and our girl zilch,is someone getting airmiles for frequent voting?
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 06:02 PM
Hey, if there's airmiles, I need to submit my voucher -- I've been stuffing as fast as I can!
Posted by: cathyf | October 28, 2007 at 06:09 PM
Help a moron's friend out.
What could he know? Guy doesn't even know how to spell maroon.
Posted by: Larry | October 28, 2007 at 06:33 PM
A math thought:
If 'Percentage' is 'votes for finalist' divided by 'total votes', we can increase JMax relative to the leader by voting for her as well as one or two of the lower-ranked finalists.
And it makes them feel less underappreciated. I recommend Ms. Hooker, but I'm open to suggestions if she begins to show some life.
Posted by: Walter | October 28, 2007 at 06:35 PM
By the way, don't forget...Wednesday's game...
I plan on making it out to this Friday's game...last of the regular season vs Virginia. It will just be me and the kids, mrs hit and run will be on a retreat.
Posted by: hit and run | October 28, 2007 at 06:48 PM
Walter,
I voting for the bottom three.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 07:20 PM
Actually gentlemen, that is not the case. Any vote cast which is not cast for a candidate is a vote they did not get. So if the Illini did not get a vote but Jmax did not either, both of their percentages went down. If you think about it, you will see the logic of it.
Posted by: Gmax | October 28, 2007 at 07:48 PM
Gmax,
We must have pity on the four percenters,but it is an interesting experiment,the damn things aren't moving much.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 28, 2007 at 07:58 PM
GMax,
I did a quickie spreadsheet (you may be able to interpret the gibberish below).
Anyhoo, with 97 votes prior to my vote, a leads b by 3%.
With my vote for B, H, and I, A leads B by 2%.
With my vote for solely B, A leads B by 2.04%.
It may be illogical, but it does seem (marginally) effective.
...........Ex Ante........With Many Votes.......With Only JMax Votes
Name...Votes..Percentage...Votes..Percentage...Votes..Percentage
a 30 30.93% 30 30.00% 30 30.61%
b 27 27.84% 28 28.00% 28 28.57% 2.04081632653061%
c 15 15.46% 15 15.00% 15 15.31%
d 10 10.31% 10 10.00% 10 10.20%
e 5 5.15% 5 5.00% 5 5.10%
f 5 5.15% 5 5.00% 5 5.10%
g 3 3.09% 3 3.00% 3 3.06%
h 1 1.03% 2 2.00% 1 1.02%
i 1 1.03% 2 2.00% 1 1.02%
97 100% 100 100.00% 98 100.00%
Posted by: Walter | October 28, 2007 at 08:50 PM
The entire shebang
I read that first as "shebag" and thought "What a rude thing to say about Andrea M."
For those who aren't regular visitors, Ace of Spades HQ is a self-styled moron blog.
Posted by: Ralph L | October 28, 2007 at 08:56 PM
I should add that the technique only works while JMax is trailing. That is, if you are voting for a person down the standings, you can increase their position relative to the leader by voting for another lower in the standings.
If you vote for the leader and one or two lower in the standings, you increase the leader's percentage by less than you would by voting for the leader alone.
Proof left to cathyf.
Posted by: Walter | October 28, 2007 at 09:02 PM
I would think they'd award the prize based on absolute votes, not percentages, though they aren't showing a vote tally, so who knows?
Posted by: Ralph L | October 28, 2007 at 09:09 PM
Technically, this is only one of the four factors they'll consider--so having a narrower loss (or larger win) might help when all four are considered together.
Posted by: Walter | October 28, 2007 at 09:16 PM
I saw this over at Drudge and had heard about it before, but I didn't think that Paramount would actually do such a thing-
Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity
The metro-sexuals and soccer moms are going to be "battling" Conniving Operatives Bush Rove Associates [Conservative Oilmen Building Rigs Abroad and Convincing Obnoxious Bush Rove Animosity were rejected by the screen approvers in the EU for Paramount to get their subsidy]. My guess is that it will be loosely based on the Plame's
Posted by: RichatUF | October 28, 2007 at 09:23 PM
Glanced at Robert Drogin's definitive book on Curveball, the man "who lied us into war"
or some such thing. It seems the indictment
is pretty weak; a lot of his claims made it
into the Robb/Silberman report, the Kay &
Duelfer reports; only the most recentclaims seemed to have little foundation, and in light of reports like the nuclear plant at Deir ez Zour, which was built almost exactly
4 years ago; who's to say they are the final
word on the matter. The fact that he we let
Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax on their own recognizance; is something I still can't get over.
Posted by: narciso | October 28, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Getting back on topic, I think Gloria Steinem was misquoted. She must have said, "A woman needs a man, like the English need a bicycle."
Posted by: bgates | October 29, 2007 at 04:34 AM
It occurred in Scotland. The English use something else:
Karl Watkins, an electrician, was jailed for having sex with pavements in Redditch, Worcs, in 1993.
Jailed! The skin he left on the pavement wasn't punishment enough?
Posted by: Ralph L | October 29, 2007 at 09:02 AM
GMax,
I've had lots of trouble voting today. One time I entered the correct code and it didn't work, and now I can't get a voting box.
Posted by: Jane | October 29, 2007 at 02:56 PM
Jane, H&R is the portal.Personally I think it is his lure for you and Clarice.
Posted by: PeterUK | October 29, 2007 at 04:08 PM
Jane, quit out of the browser and restart it.
What I noticed is that I now have two cookies appearing (one when I reload the page, and one appears when I hit the vote button) where before I was only getting the sessionID cookie when I reloaded the page. If you get in the state where it has the second cookie and not the first, it gets really weird. Delete any soccer.seniorclass.com cookies and restart the browser and things should get better.
Posted by: cathyf | October 29, 2007 at 10:28 PM