Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Adrian on 10 Dec 2009 14:42 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> Cash always makes them smile, and cash will get you a better deal. They >> should still issue a receipt for cash but often they won't "because you >> paid cash". Why is that I wonder?... >> >> ...Because they are thieving tax evading fiddlers. > If you wern't such a fuckwit you would know why. > > Cheques take 4 'working' days to clear, cash is credited to a business > acount by noon the next day. > > Its called 'cash flow'. Does your business really operate on such ludicrously tight margins that a couple of days is so important? BTW, had a look at the cash handling charges on your business account lately? ITYF it costs you a lot more to pay cash in than a cheque...
From: Steve Firth on 10 Dec 2009 14:31 MasonS(a)BP.com <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote: > Nice try, Ah yes, the Hansen admission of defeat. Excellent.
From: The Medway Handyman on 10 Dec 2009 14:56 Adrian wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled > happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >>> Cash always makes them smile, and cash will get you a better deal. >>> They should still issue a receipt for cash but often they won't >>> "because you paid cash". Why is that I wonder?... >>> >>> ...Because they are thieving tax evading fiddlers. > >> If you wern't such a fuckwit you would know why. >> >> Cheques take 4 'working' days to clear, cash is credited to a >> business acount by noon the next day. >> >> Its called 'cash flow'. > > Does your business really operate on such ludicrously tight margins > that a couple of days is so important? All business's need to keep a very close eye on their cash flow. It's the single biggest reason for small business failure IMO. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: Judith M Smith on 10 Dec 2009 18:02 On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:06:45 +0000, Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:52:52 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" ><davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: <snip> >>Even better, HMRC should insist you cyclists pay your way. > >Well, why don't you put your stupid proposals to them then insead of >looking like a prat here. Post your reply, I'm sure all cyclists would >be interested to hear what they said. I have written with my suggestions and my MP is very interested - they will be taken up with the DfT: All cyclists over 16 who wish to ride on public roads must take and pass a written test based on the Highway Code and basic cycle maintenance; passing the test entitles them to a cycle licence and gives them a cyclist registration number. Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they possess a cycle licence. Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they possess third party liability insurance. Cyclists over the age of 16 must only ride cycles which conform to some required standards when on public roads Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they wear a hi-viz outer garment (or slip on vest) on the back of which is clearly displayed their cyclist registration number. The cycles of habitual cycling law breakers will be confiscated and crushed. (With many thanks to KeithT for the ideas) -- "Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking. A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code. Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."
From: The Medway Handyman on 10 Dec 2009 19:26
Judith M Smith wrote: > On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:06:45 +0000, Peter Grange > <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:52:52 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" >> <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > <snip> > > >>> Even better, HMRC should insist you cyclists pay your way. >> >> Well, why don't you put your stupid proposals to them then insead of >> looking like a prat here. Post your reply, I'm sure all cyclists >> would be interested to hear what they said. > > > I have written with my suggestions and my MP is very interested - they > will be taken up with the DfT: > > All cyclists over 16 who wish to ride on public roads must take and > pass a written test based on the Highway Code and basic cycle > maintenance; passing the test entitles them to a cycle licence and > gives them a cyclist registration number. > > Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they > possess a cycle licence. > > Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they > possess third party liability insurance. > > Cyclists over the age of 16 must only ride cycles which conform to > some required standards when on public roads > > Cyclists over the age of 16 must not ride on public roads unless they > wear a hi-viz outer garment (or slip on vest) on the back of which is > clearly displayed their cyclist registration number. > > The cycles of habitual cycling law breakers will be confiscated and > crushed. Would you consider a proposal of marriage Judith :-) -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |