'Traffic is not a force of nature' Boris Johnson praises success of Low Traffic Neighbourhood and cycle schemes

Sadly for most of us this is far too often the reality, which in turn actively discourages people from cycling.  It's all well and good putting in cycle lanes and LTNs, but most of every journey undertake n by most of us on bikes will be on roads "shared' with motor vehicles.  Yet the evidence time and again is that some twats in cars and vans refuse to share properly, and there are no grown-ups around to make sure that they change their ways.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

The 'traffic is not like water' stuff is quite good. It's lifted almost word-for-word from Andrew Gilligan's Foreword to the 2016 report Human Streets - see p7.

It's a nice phrase. Is no one else allowed to use it or say something similar ever again?

There's no need to get shirty about me pointing this out. I remembered the original passage, because I thought it was good at the time.

The right thing to do would be to give credit to the original author, and it would be quite easy to do so. It is no surprise that Johnson has not done so, and the fact that he hasn't says a lot about his character.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

There's no need to get shirty about me pointing this out. I remembered the original passage, because I thought it was good at the time.

The right thing to do would be to give credit to the original author, and it would be quite easy to do so. It is no surprise that Johnson has not done so, and the fact that he hasn't says a lot about his character.

Erm, you're the one making baseless plagiarism accusations. It's a similar sentence on transport, from 5 years ago, that's all. Anything else has been inferred by you.

Anyone would think that Andrew Gilligan might just have been involved in this report...

Of course Gilligan supplied the lines, and of course he has given permission for Johnson to plagiarise him.

Still, if I were borrowing someone else's lines, I would choose to credit that person. It is no surprise that Johnson has not done so, and the fact that he hasn't says a lot about his character.

Do you think politicians write all their own speeches?

Do you think that every piece of text attributed to a politician was entirely authored by said politician?

There was a story in the press recently about Tony Blair and a statement credited to him about the Irish Famine which won him much praise at the time. He had neither written it nor even read it when it was released.

That was unusual in that Blair had not actually approved the text but politicians routinely give speeches and approve statements or newspaper columns that they had no part in writing.

Johnson has, on this occasion, done absolutely nothing unusual or wrong.

Ironically, your desperation to find something to condemn in an incredibly positive piece of news says a lot about your character.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

The 'traffic is not like water' stuff is quite good. It's lifted almost word-for-word from Andrew Gilligan's Foreword to the 2016 report Human Streets - see p7.

But probably not original.  There are many and various sources which might be original for that concept, and Andrew Gilligan doesn't seem to be complaining.

I know perfectly well that Andrew Gilligan is behind Johnson's speech.

I've provided the specific source of the words Johnson used. If you think there is another older source, I'd be interested in it. If it's just speculation that there probably might be, I'm less interested.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

The 'traffic is not like water' stuff is quite good. It's lifted almost word-for-word from Andrew Gilligan's Foreword to the 2016 report Human Streets - see p7.

You do of course know that Andrew Gilligan is one of if not the key advisor and architect behind all this so is likely to have written Johnson's speech and comments for him.

Yes I'm well aware of that.

I'm pointing out the source of Johnson's speech primarily because I think it's interesting. There is no reason this should raise your hackles.

I do believe that when quoting or paraphrasing someone else's words, the right thing to do is to be transparent about the source. Academic institutions insist on this, and plagiarism can land students in big trouble. My view is that the person with the most responsible job in the country should be held to at least the same standards as university students.

Given that Gilligan probably at least had a hand in writing the speech, it would be mighty bizarre of Boris to name-check him in that same speech. This isn't an essay. I'm no fan of Boris, but you are scraping the barrel.

When quoting or paraphrasing someone's text, it isn't bizarre at all to mention the original source.

I'm no fan of unnecessary jibes, but you're scraping the barrel.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

When quoting or paraphrasing someone's text, it isn't bizarre at all to mention the original source.

I'm no fan of unnecessary jibes, but you're scraping the barrel.

It's unusual in speeches though, especially political speeches.

Can I genuinely invite you to consider the case of Joe Biden plagiarising Neil Kinnock? Please read it with an open mind and tell me if there are at least some similarities with the present case.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Can I genuinely invite you to consider the case of Joe Biden plagiarising Neil Kinnock? Please read it with an open mind and tell me if there are at least some similarities with the present case.

There's some similarites, but also some differences. Neil Kinnock's speech was relatively famous in its own right, so Biden should (and intended to, but forgot) have given some attribution. Also, there's the question of how much was used. If it's just a phrase or two, then I don't think attribution is really needed, but if it's whole sections, then I'd say that the author should be recognised.

I don't pay much attention to what Boris says, so can't really judge this particular instance, but if in doubt I'd usually assume that Boris is dishonest and self-serving.

It's interesting that Biden thanked Kinnock for being his best speech writer and also saving his life.

It is bizarre in a speech. What was Boris going to say: "as the man who wrote this speech once said, traffic isn't a force of human nature"?

For once Boris has said and done something positive. I'm all for criticising the bad things he's done, but equally we need to acknowledge when he does something good. Otherwise we just sound like bitter trolls.

In academia you are correct.

In politics you are completely wrong.

How strange, then, that Joe Biden was accused of plagiarising Neil Kinnock - and nobody said 'it doesn't matter in politics'.

You may wish to appreciate that you are completely wrong.

You're accusing a politician of plagiarising his own speech writer, not another politician.

If Gilligan had simply written the words for Johnson you would be right.

Unfortunately for Johnson and for you, Gilligan published the words under his own name 5 years ago. It is then a problem for Johnson to try to pass the speech off as his own.

I appreciate that no amount of reason will move you from your emotional view, so I won't engage with you any further.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

I know perfectly well that Andrew Gilligan is behind Johnson's speech.

You are accusing Boris of plagiarising his own speech writer. I suppose that in some way that's literally true, but utterly meaningless.

Hole.

When in.

Stop digging.

Political reports and speeches are collaborations. Everybody knows this.

The report in question is a collaboration between Boris, Gilligan and others.

You're accusing Boris and Gilligan (et al) of plagiarising Gilligan (et al).

It just makes you look foolish.

There was (AFAIK) no overlap between Biden's staff and Kinnock's staff. So Biden and staff used somebody else's work.

Boris did not do that as everybody knows the report was a collaboration with Gilligan (et al).

Written attribution is not the protocol in political speeches/reports etc.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

When quoting or paraphrasing someone's text, it isn't bizarre at all to mention the original source.

I'm no fan of unnecessary jibes, but you're scraping the barrel.

Perhaps you should mention the source of your quote "scraping the barrel."?

the little onion wrote:

Well, it's a start. The stuff about the highway code was also good. But now let's fund the visiona and actually build some proper infrastructure. At a fraction of a cost of the scheduled motorway expansion, let alone HS2.

There is a lot of essential groundwork going in.
Things like the new LTN1/20 which is new statutory guidance and is really good, which will apply to new schemes.
They're jumping hard on councils who are just removing infra cos it upsets a councillor or two (Liverpool, Brighton, Cambridge).
Active travel England is going to be the new body leading and approving schemes and that's almost up. Boardman is one of the favourites for the top job.
Oh and they've kicked highways England in the nuts for concreting up old railway bridges

There seems to be a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes which is good and I think Gilligan and co are actually trying to make active travel as much of a given as provision for motors and to depoliticalise it so councils have to make provision.
I'm no Tory and it pains me to admit it, but I think they're doing a good job here. Shame about everything else