Eamonnator wrote: » I don't understand, why there are not more negative comments on UTube. Can Mikey delete comments, that he doesn't like? "I'm the guy, who caught Guy Richie" What a knob!
crazy 88 wrote: » On one YouTube comment someone calls him out for not wearing a helmet. His response is that helmets don't save lives...talk about double standards
crazy 88 wrote: » He must delete them. Abusive ones I can understand but there's not even constructive criticism allowed. I can't see how they can all be universally positive otherwise. Shows what kind of person he is.
Jim Gazebo wrote: » I do think similar to Mikey if he dropped the interaction and just posted the videos / reported he might enjoy cycling a little more.
Mc Love wrote: » Like the constructive criticism on this one, yeah?? He didnt even report it, which shows he's not a bellend to some on here. He's doing great work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNLHJYvcnBw
Mc Love wrote: » Like the constructive criticism on this one, yeah?? He didnt even report it, which shows he's not a bellend to some on here. He's doing great work
km991148 wrote: » How do you know he didn't report it? Because he didn't publish the result? I mean was it reported and rejected?
Mc Love wrote: » What makes you think he doesnt enjoy cycling?
Seve OB wrote: » Can’t see any critical comments on that
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The absence of critical comments is not exactly conclusive proof that he is deleting such comments. But so what if he is -its his channel, so he decides what to keep.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » When he reports, you won't see the video published for months or even years.
Seve OB wrote: » Mc love said there were critical comments on the clip he linked. That is what I was responding to.
km991148 wrote: » I just seen the tagline at the start. I missed the date. Wonder why right enough.
km991148 wrote: » Looking at the video - I think he knew there wasnt enough evidence to convict. The phone is shown between his legs (I am sure he was using it of course) - but I don't think the evidence was clear enough. Fair enough to him for not wasting police time on that. He still couldn't help himself with the goading and the lecturing (fortunately the driver wasn't actually going to get in a fight, even although he threatened it - some other ****ty behaviour as well).
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Seems fairly definitive to me though I'm not 100% clear on UK law, there is something in the Barrosso (sp?) judgement that requires evidence of messages being sent I think, which is why he often tries to see exactly what they are doing on the phone.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » He didn't mention comments at all.
Seve OB wrote: » There was a debate about critical comments not being shown on mikeys clips, but sure you just read between the lines.
km991148 wrote: » here's today's recommendation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qklan0aVvE I fear for the guy at this stage - its only a matter of time before someone does him serious damage. (I don't want to get into the tugging the forelock nonsense again, I am just leaving it there as a statement)
MojoMaker wrote: » Nowt wrong with that. It's a junction well known for folks trying it on. Cock in the Range Rover was quick enough to get back in lane as he knew he was being a cock. Also plenty of traffic coming up from the right of the picture that you couldn't possibly see when shaving that right turn, not just bikes.
Seve OB wrote: » He is so full of sh1t. You could hear him already riled up as he ran out. He goes on about the guy being so aggressive which I didn’t see at all. Mikey was the only aggressive person in this clip. Guy hit the brakes, then reversed and got back into his lane and showed absolutely no signs of aggression. I don’t think he drove into mikey, to me it looks like he just lifted off the brake and the car moved forward which is what happens with automatic cars and if you are thick enough to remain standing in front of one then an accident can and will happen someday.