Last months, thirty thousand cyclist came together for a critical mass in the hungarian capital Budapest. The turnout was completely unexpected for everyone. Apparently there are lots of cyclecouriers in Budapest, who helped promote the event. And it seems the police there didn't have a problem with it.

Lets get this straight. This fellow declines to hand out your leaflets and now you want to put him out of business? So much for welcoming alternative views, eh?

While you're boycoting "Holloway Cycles", can I just let you all know that "Finsbury Cycles" is less than half a mile away in Seven Sisters Road and charges less for his services in any case.

You never know when you might need a new tyre eh!?

i have already written to the manager of the shop and invited him to fair right to reply on this website. if you think that it is reasonable for a cycle shop to refuse flyers inviting people to a pro-cycling event then your views would be of interest too - this is an open media site and all well-argued opinions are welcome. i thought i made my case clear - what is yours?

i look forward to hearing from the manager of holloway cycles who should receive the notification on tuesday morning (posted sunday).

First I think we have to establish whether we're talking about the same thing.

My understanding of a Critical Mass is that, once a month or so, cyclists (and others such as skateboarders if they're so minded) meet en masse and travel through the city. Although it might be argued that they're blocking traffic, the flip side (I'm a cyclist myself) is that they're simply reclaiming the road from motorised vehicles. Is that a fair initial summary?

Now one way of looking at this is as a political, or alternative, political event - a form of direct action against the tyranny of the vehicle. Okay, its got no hierarchical leadership structure (and we could point to its anarchitistic roots there) but its still a form of protest. Would you agree?

Its a bike ride - its when a number of cyclists get together and have a bike ride. Some people may think they're having a protest - others think that they're enjoying a bike ride - but it most certainly is not an organised protest.

If the bike shop doesn't support Critical Mass, it seems fair enough for Critical Massers not to support the bike shop.

Critical mass has long been a front for Anarchists, and it is widely known to have been infultrated by Anarchists. If someone does not want to hand out leaflets promoting Anarchist propaganda you can hardly blame them. I would not want to either.

Run away!

"If someone does not want to hand out leaflets promoting Anarchist propaganda you can hardly blame them."
ok, and if someone chooses to let those anarchists know, then who could blame them choosing not to shop there?

but all this stuff about anarchists is misleading. the reason people are promoting the next critical mass is because of the huge assault on freedom that the police (under instruction from the current government) are launching.

one by one our civil liberties are being eroded. now, if you're not a critical masser, this particular thing may not bother you, and if you have no intention of protesting in or around parliament square or in front of downing street, then the SOCA bill won't affect you. and if you don't mind the very real possibility of corporations, identity thieves, investigators, and pretty much anyone else having the chance to get all your personal data and life history in one fell swoop, then you may not care about id cards.

but one day my friend, they will erode your rights too, and you may be arrested for something you feel you should be able to do without special permission. and because you didn't think all those other rights were important, and because all those 'anarchists' and 'protestors' have already been repressed by the state, there will be no-one left to fight for your rights!

that is why i will be on critical mass. it IS important. and if people willfully try to obstruct it, then they should be shamed, because they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. the manager of the shop is free to help ban critical mass, but in return i am free to let people know that he has done so, and they are free to shop where they like. while we still hang on to these freedoms, let's exercise them.

Rikki, I'm puzzled.

Your first post says that it's a cycling event and that's why your upset at the owner not handing out leaflets. However your second post says:

"the reason people are promoting the next critical mass is because of the huge assault on freedom that the police (under instruction from the current government) are launching"

So in other words, it IS a political thing. And the shop owner has declined to hand out leaflets. And now you're trying to put him out of business? Doesn't seem fair to me.

It would only be "political" because the police/govt have *made* it political.
Before that, it was a monthly bike ride.

I've been on the mass in the past and have not been protesting anything.
I'll be on the mass this friday too, if only to witness the transition of the UK into a police state.
(no drama, i'm not an activist, just a sad middle-aged-spreading middle aged bloke).

If you require the police's permission to go about your business or even to demonstrate (which is NOT what i'll be doing on friday) then you no longer live in a democracy, And if that doesnt bother you now, sooner or later, it will.

...so you're saying that it IS a political event?

Only in so much as flying a kite would be political if the polititians decided to ban that as well.

EVERYTHING that the govt decide is political(duh!) - it not my choice to make riding a bike a political statement.

Whether or not CM constitutes a political or protest gathering is a separate argument to the one this series of posts hinges upon (the proposed boycott). Everyone has his/her own reason for taking part - or not - in CM, which is why arguing for a boycott against the shop in question severely undermines the case *for* boycotting.

Rikki, you assume a great deal and your case is too defensive and emotive to convince. Nor does name-calling help your argument. You seem to have taken this incident very personally. Did you consider writing to the shop management *before* deciding they were "part of the problem"? To suggest they are "help[ing] ban critical mass" is egregious. It seems to me the shop didn't "willfully try to obstruct it". Bending the facts to suit your position will not strengthen it; quite the opposite actually.

Yes, our civil liberties are being eroded in several insidious ways. But might I suggest that you acknowledge there are different views of CM? Not everyone sees CM as synonymous with freedom and the protection of civil liberties. This includes the many cycling campaigners who adopt other methods of promoting the activity. Naming and shaming on such a flimsy pretext - without any allowance for alternative positions - smacks of exclusivity and intolerance.

Nietzsche wrote: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." If this makes you angry, please think about why.

Incidentally, I don't have an angle here, apart from an intense dislike for specious, inflammatory nonsense. The reactionary attitude displayed above does the cause of cycling no good. Think about it: since when did boycotting a bike shop help the cause of cycling? Rikki, might I politely recommend you get your information straight and show some respect and decency. Then your case here will improve, or - more likely - disappear.

I AM THE OWNER OF HOLLOWAY CYCLES AND I WRITE WITH A CERTAIN DEGREE OF ANGER CONCERNING WHAT I HAVE JUST READ ON YOUR WEB SITE.
YOU COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH ABOUT MY SHOP AND THE MAJORITY OF THE STAFF.
THE MANAGER HAS WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMPLAINT BUT SURPRISINGLY IT HAS NOT BEEN POSTED WONDER WHY! (EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT ACTUALLY SPOKEN TO ANYONE FROM YOUR ORGANISATION AND IN FACT WHEN YOUR REPRESENTATIVE VISITED THE STORE IT WAS THE HIS DAY OFF).
WE AS A SHOP HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED ANY CYCLING ACTIVITY OVER THE PAST TWENTY OR SO YEARS THAT COMES WITHOUT QUESTION,AND WOULD WELCOME ANY LEAFLETS POSTERS ON ANY MASS CYCLING EVENT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND IN FACT MANY OF MY STAFF PAST AND PRESENT HAVE RIDEN ON PREVOIUS CRITICAL MASS EVENTS.
I FIND ALL THE WORDS YOU HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT MY BUISNESS TO BE DEFAMATORY AND EXTREMELY UPSETTING, WE PROVIDE AN EXCELLENT SERVICE TO THE NORTH LONDON COMMUNITY.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL AT ANY TIME TO DISCUSS FURTHER SUPPORT OF YOUR EVENTS AS I FEEL NO NEED TO PENALISE THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE THE CYCLISTS

in response to the rather LOUD piece from paul jenkins:

two different members of the shop staff told me on saturday that the manager had thrown away the previously left leaflets, and that they could not accept any leaflets for critical mass because he'd said it was "political".

another of the staff followed me outside and asked for some leaflets personally and he apologised for the shop's attitude.

so i'm not sure what the manager is telling you the owner, but it doesn't sound too much like what really happened.

also, in response to 'seahorse', my original post was mainly about the issues surrounding an attempted ban on critical mass. only part of it referred to the attitude of the management of holloway cycles. my suggestion to boycott them was indeed out of anger at their small-minded policy. people have the option to pursue this further if they wish, and they have the option of ignoring my suggestion of a boycott - it was just a suggestion and has certainly prompted some argument.

your own argument doesn't make a lot of sense - surely refusing to promote a mass cycling event on grounds of a 'political' decision is pretty much in the same area as labelling it a 'protest' and trying to close it down, which is what the police are doing.

and let's please not forget this isn't just about cycling or critical mass per se. it is much more about the continual creeping state control and erosion of freedom we are experiencing.

now forgive me for getting emotive and defensive about that, but anyone who isn't fighting it IS part of the problem, and i don't think it is reactionary or specious to shout from the rooftops about these terrifying attacks on all our liberties whether we are cyclists or not.

"THE MANAGER HAS WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMPLAINT BUT SURPRISINGLY IT HAS NOT BEEN POSTED WONDER WHY!"

No - he hasn't. Posts appear automatically and no comment has been hidden on this thread.

You want the freedom to cycle down the road without being bothered by the police.

The owner of a cycling shop wants the freedom to decide for himself which leaflets he distributes from his shop without abuse and the threat of mischief.

Now whether the owner or manager wants the leaflets or not, and for whatever reasons, the question you need to ask yourself is whether you believe in freedom for everyone, or just for yourself.

When campaigning, there is a time for persuasion and a time for coercion. Given the current state of affairs, getting out of your pram over a shop declining to distribute your leaflets shows considerable immaturity and lack of perspective.

I can only hope that after tomorrow the only thing you'll still be worrying about is whether this shop will take your leaflets.

I'm not sure that deciding to take business elsewhere is "abuse" or "threat of mischief".

Frankly I decide what to purchase based on various decisions on a daily basis, that would be my choice, not abuse or mischief.



Although "Way to go !" bike shop owner...

Getting all pissy in CAPS on indymedia probably isnt the best way to address the issue.

Unless of course...... you're not the *real owner* !

- OMG, false flag op ! (yep, i've been here waaaay too long)

>"....TO ANYONE FROM YOUR ORGANISATION...."

Not entirely sure that somebody entirely understands critical mass.

Just like the cops I guess :(

"anyone who isn't fighting it IS part of the problem"
Does that include the pacifists and the dead ?

Kudos rikki for your work and dedication, and doubtless the fault lies between the workers and the manager or the manager and the owner rather than with yourself. Still we expect mainstream journalists to do their homework, and so should we especially before calling for one more boycott (Boycott Everything!).

Loud people tend to CAPITALISE randomly, folk who do it throughout are generally ignorant of the Caps Lock key and therefore of computers, we were all there once, and if you may have unavoidably slighted someone unjustly then you shouldn't mock them for complaining until you have got to the bottom of the matter.

The bravest cyclist I ever knew was an average everyday Amsterdam resident, and they weren't that brave. If a cyclist ploughs into a car there the motorist goes to prison - I hope one day the same over-compensation applies in every city and every cyclist can be as arrogant and reckless as the Dutch ones are, as I was there. Good luck with your reclaiming but don't reach for the boycott-button everytime someone causes offence or else the tactic loses some of its power.

boycotting really happens on two levels. if performed successfully on a large scale, it can have the effect of changing the behaviour of even the largest of organisations - if it affects them enough and starts to actually affect their profit margin, then they sit up and listen when many customers vote with their spending power. this happens rarely.

on another and more common level, it is really about individual conscience as to who you choose to give your money to, and for this you need information. if i am given some information about the behaviour or attitude of a business or organisation, i can make the choice not to spend my money there, or on the positive side, to support them - it happens all the time amongst people who try to think about the consequences of their actions on this planet. many of us choose to boycott meat, or supermarkets, or mcdonalds. the business may not even notice it unless it is accompanied by communication, and it's not likely to put them out of business, but it means the individual is empowering themselves and not adding to the problem through their exercise of choice.

now, i wish indymedia were an all powerful media outlet swaying the minds of ordinary folk around the entire globe (actually erm, careful what you wish for on second thoughts), but i have no illusion that this is the case. so when i suggest boycotting a shop in north london (and where indymedia is the only place i posted this idea), then i think you have to accept i'm not expecting to victimise, defame, or put this place out of business - and anyone who wants to blow it up into that sort of powerful campaign is seriously deluded. how many indymedia reading cyclist users of 'holloway cycles' are there out there?

but knowing the likely readership of indymedia, (not including the increasingly annoying number of trolls and mischief makers), i reported exactly what happened at the shop that day, so that people can use their individual conscience about whether they want to spend their money there. i also contacted the manager of the shop to tell him i was doing so, and inviting him the right to reply. now, make up your own mind from the 'owner's' piece what happened next.

finally, and i really have had enough of this thread! - i would suggest to the 'owner' that he looks at the article on indymedia about critical mass, downloads the flier and sticks it in his shop window, then all those passing indymedia-reading, boycott-hungry, anarcho-cyclists that have been deserting his shop all week, will see the flier, realise that rikki got it wrong, or that the manager has relented, and rush in to buy stuff to keep the place afloat. since the relevant mass is today, just the 'cycling is not a crime' logo would probably suffice (or is that too political), or perhaps some literature from the critical mass site itself.

there is no organisation, i was not a representative of anyone. all i did, individually, was print out a few leaflets from the net and try to distribute them around. and where people blocked this process, i reported it like it was, offered them the right of reply, and suggested you might want to make the choice not to support them in return. i didn't expect such a lot of debate - but if it has helped keep the issue of critical mass repression alive then it served some purpose.

now let's all have a fantastic mass tonight, show the police and the government we will not be threatened off our streets to make way for the car or conform to their bureaucratic, rights-strangling, petty laws. oh, and please all go and buy something at holloway cycles when the owner "WELCOME(s) ANY LEAFLETS POSTERS ON ANY MASS CYCLING EVENT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY" by placing the 'cycling is not a crime' logo up in his window.

Rikki, I think that what those of whom are in objection to your statements, are trying to say is that you were wrong to publish a request for a business to be boycotted on the following basis: (1) The business in question has declined to accept leaflets for the purpose of issuing them to the general public on your behalf, (2) A member of staff said that another person (the manager) said (which, in itself amounts to hearsay) that the reason the leaflets could not be accepted was because the leaflets were of a political nature, and (3) regardless of who said what and whether the manager did in fact say what someone else told you that he said, you have taken it upon yourself to victimise (i) the manager by inciting others to call him up "to tell him what [they] think", without having spoken directly to him yourself, and (ii) the proprietor, by discouraging customers from his business. Furthermore your actions thus far, namely to boycott an entity on the shaky alleged basis of its refusal to hand out the leaflets on your behalf, implies that you are somewhat a dogmatic authoritarian. You are a hypocrite and not in the least a believer in freedom for all because if you were to believe in freedom, as other people interpret the word, you'd be able to accept that other people may or may not share your views, which in this particular case is unclear because your lack any factual evidence and are relying purely on hearsay.

Informing someone that you are going to do something i.e. publish their contact details and encourage the public to "tell him [the manager] what [they] think" does not in any way justify your actions. Similarly, if I were to write to inform you that I have published your contact details and encouraged the public at large to obstruct your path when you mount your bicycle this evening (because I was told that someone else said that you are a hypocrite), would you still feel that because I have made the effort to inform you of my actions, that my actions are automatically justified? And what about the shop owner, did you contact him, and if so does this justify you also?

I should also point out that in the event of someone taking your advice and telling the manager what they think, and in doing so, that person causes any injury, harm, loss or damage to any member of staff, the business or its property, you in addition will also be held accountable/legally responsible for the injury, loss, harm or damage. Secondly you could be sued in the civil courts and I refer you to the common law rules relating to libel, slander and defamation and The Defamation Act of 1996.

Think about it

Many good points made above. Thank you all. Also, given the passions aroused here there has been refreshingly little name-calling.

Rikki, loath as I am to drag this out, please take the time to reflect on your "logic", since you use it to make points that are supposed to express your point of view, a facility worth constant improvement in anyone interested in personal freedom. You assert that my argument doesn't make sense, when I know that it does because I used logical constructions, avoiding the need for emotive appeal, hearsay, hyperbole and double exclamation marks.

You wrote: "your own argument doesn't make a lot of sense - surely refusing to promote a mass cycling event on grounds [sic] of a 'political' decision is pretty much in the same area as labelling it a 'protest' and trying to close it down, which is what the police are doing."

No, it isn't, any more than my deciding not to support Iraq with a Baghdad holiday this weekend (even if offered, for free) is "pretty much in the same area as" supporting the imposition of international sanctions on the place. The world is not composed of problems and solutions, "us" and "them". Yes, you're fighting a tough fight, and more power to you for taking impassioned stands, but you waste energy (and carelessly urge antisocial action against someone you've apparently not met or spoken to) by deciding that anyone less committed to your ideals is an enemy.

How many people have to ask you to allow for alternative points of view before the message begins to sink in?

I'm not surprised you want to end this debate quickly. You lost it before it started and got yourself on dodgy legal ground, something not mitigated by unacknowledged back-pedalling, from the fiery
"i would strongly recommend that north london cyclists boycott this shop." and
"don't stop at 'holloway cycles'!!"
to the undeniably tepid
"i ... suggested you might want to make the choice not to support them in return."

Just because someone allegedly disagrees with your methods does not make them your enemy, fair game in your narrow world view, no matter what kind of distorted spin you - unconsciously and otherwise - put on the version of events you think of as "reality". Boycotting may "really" happen on two levels, but the world as you think you know it operates on as many levels as there are people, multiplied by every moment they have. That makes things considerably more complex than your Manichaean chequerboard notion of morality. Think.

I use this cycle shop on many occassions and I think it is the one shop that have dealt with fair and square.

So they didn't want to take the leaflets about the critical mass demo. I cycle regularly to work and that gives me the authorisation as a responsible cyclist to be as frustrated as any car driver stuck behind your convoy whose progress is impeded.

I am all for a little bit of consideration for all road users and this is the way to peacefully coexist and not to engage in a zero sum game.

If they don't want to take your leaflets then that is up to them and shouldn't be confronted by neo-Stalinist call s for some boycott for not toeing the party line. As a cyclist I would rather have my interests looke after by such shops then by you.