Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Adrian on 16 Dec 2009 02:53 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> So, which part of the UK do you reside in? >>>> It's hardly a state secret that I live on the edge of the Chilterns, >>> You mean between Luton & Reading? >> Congratulations, you've narrowed it down to somewhere approaching 1/4 >> of the circumference of London. > I didn't fuckwit, you did. "the edge of the Chilterns". > Congratulations, you've narrowed it down to between Luton & Reading and > Hemel & Aylesbury. Which contains some of the most god awful places in > the UK. Indeed. Some of them are almost as bad as the Medway towns. Almost. Just as well I don't live in any of them, eh? There's also a lot of very nice places indeed around here. > "the edge of the Chilterns" rather than a specific location suggests you > have something to hide. No, not really. My identity - and full home address - isn't difficult to find for anybody with the vaguest of clue. I just don't feel it necessary to shout it quite as loudly as you do.
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 03:20 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:17:30 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> Phil W Lee wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >>> Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:40:27 GMT the perfect time to write: >>> >>>> MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: >>>>> On 14 Dec, 15:44, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:15:42 +0000, ChelseaTractorMan >>>>>> >>>>>> <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:14:23 +0000, Peter Grange >>>>>>> <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was responding to "Cyclists don't pay VED". I am a cyclist, I >>>>>>>> pay VED. The End. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not the end. VED is charged to car owners, if a car owner >>>>>>> happens to cycle that does not demonstrate anything at all. >>>>>>> Stupid point. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not stupid at all. Pedantic maybe, but I'm trying to get through >>>>>> to a man who wants me to pay a tax that doesn't exist. How stupid >>>>>> is that? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Pete - The Tax Paying Driving Licence Owning Cyclist >>>>> >>>>> Not only that, he wants to create a *new tax* that will costs >>>>> millions in admin and which will charge its recipients precisely >>>>> nothing. >>>> >>>> Who said I wanted to charge cyclists nothing? I want the >>>> freeloaders to pay their share. >>> >>> So you'll be supporting moves to raise motoring taxes to a level >>> that accurately reflects the costs to the taxpayer of providing the >>> facilities they make necessary then? >> >> I'd support moves to change motoring taxes to a level that reflects >> the costs of roads - because them us motorists would all get a >> rebate. >>> >>> That way, the costs to the general taxpayer of providing motoring >>> facilities would be zero, >> >> They already are. >> >>> and the excess general tax could be >>> redirected to providing far better cycling facilities, as well as >>> enabling a massive reduction in general taxation. >> >> Spoken like a true sponging freeloader. Get tax paying motorists to >> provide facilities to cyclists who don't pay to use th eroads. > > I know you're thick, so I'll type this slowly. Please don't steal my one liners. > The cost of motoring to society is about twice as much as the taxes > raised directly from motoring, Only if you spin the figures to support your silly argument. > That means that in order not to be spongers, the motorists would need > to pay twice as much in taxation on motoring. Oh no it doesn't. > That's right - for every pound a motorist pays in fuel duty, VED, VAT > on fuel and other motoring costs, another pound has to be contributed > from general taxation just to keep the system going. Complete rubbish and you know it. <SNIP BOLLOX> > Now, print this out and take it to your nearest adult education > centre, and they will explain it to you, since you clearly need the > help in comprehension that they are best equipped to provide. Give them a call & see if they help with maths. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 16 Dec 2009 03:22 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:20:48 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> Keitht wrote: >>> Happi Monday wrote: >>>> The Medway Handyman wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Janet & John see Simple Simon. >>>>> They call him Simple Simon because he's a bit thick. >>>>> Simple Simon thinks horses are vehicles! >>>>> Simple Simon thinks shoes are vehicles! >>>>> Simple Simon thinks children's toys are vehicles! >>>>> See Janet & John laugh at Simple Simon for making a prat out of >>>>> himself again. >>>> >>>> I confess, if you're as good at handymaning as you are at comedy, >>>> I'd use your services :-) >>> >>> Dunno, if that's his finished work I'd go elsewhere. >> >> You certainly would. Being a cyclist you wouldn't want to pay the >> going rate for the job. You'd just whinge & expect someone else to >> pay. > > More likely do it himself. Like I said, cheapskate. > Us cyclists are used to doing practical stuff - which may be why you > hate us so much. No, I just hate you because you are sponging freeloading whingers. > I'm sure you'd rather have more people who are only capable of > waddling to and from their cars than people who actually do stuff. So, now all motorists are fat bastards are they? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: Happi Monday on 16 Dec 2009 05:07 paul george wrote: > On 15 Dec, 12:31, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Peter Grange wrote: >> >>> Oi, what's wrong withGillingham? >> Nothing. Nice little place in Dorset, on the way to more important places. > > No, that's Gillingham, he said Gillingham. I meant gil'ham, home of the Chav, and worse, home of the lovely Chavette.
From: dan on 16 Dec 2009 06:27
NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> writes: > On 3 Dec, 10:17, d...(a)telent.net wrote: >> Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> > d...(a)telent.net gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >> >> keepers of vehicles cannot be a subset of motorists. >> >> > Of course they can. Or have you never heard of somebody driving a car of >> > which they are not the registered keeper? Hire car, company car, works >> > van? >> >> If "keepers of vehicles" are a subset of motorists, all keepers of >> vehicles must be motorists > > Not necessarily, there is no requirement for the registered keeper of > any vehicle to be a driving licence holder. I have drawn a picture to help you understand the relevance of your post in this discussion o /|\ <- NM the point -> . / \ | <---------------------- a long way -------------------------> | Thank you for you contribution. -dan |