Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 06:42 "Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote in message news:MPG.257f01b2a84e769b9899dd(a)news.eternal-september.org... > In article <hf2g0q$dp7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > >> If you crash into somone and kill them then yes, your actions must have >> been >> dangerous. If your actions were not dangerous you would not have crashed >> into them and they would not have died >> > My friend killed someone in their car. They dived out of a side road in > front of his lorry which was travelling at 50MPH on a dual carriageway. > They fucked it up (possibly missed a gearchange) and he went straight > over the car. > > He crashed into them however they created the situation. How were his > actions dangerous? He crashed into them. That is dangerous.
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 06:53 Adrian wrote: > > That VAT and duty is the _only_ contribution you make to the > exchequer AS A CYCLIST. You do not pay income tax, council tax or VAT > on non-cycling items AS A CYCLIST. That's right, you managed to work it out for yourself after that is ixactly what I posted. Well done! Re-read the whole original sentence (the one you cut short) which you are trying to make an argument out of. Then apologise. It may save the single shred of credibility you have left. Maybe not, I am living in cuckoo land :-)
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 07:03 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7nkeqdF3jkdn1U8(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>> That VAT and duty is the _only_ contribution you make to the exchequer >>> AS A CYCLIST. You do not pay income tax, council tax or VAT on >>> non-cycling items AS A CYCLIST. > >> That's right, you managed to work it out for yourself after that is >> ixactly what I posted. Well done! > > No, it isn't. It's the opposite of what you claimed. > >> Re-read the whole original sentence (the one you cut short) which you >> are trying to make an argument out of. > > Yes, gladly. You failed
From: Adrian on 1 Dec 2009 07:06 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> Re-read the whole original sentence (the one you cut short) which you >>> are trying to make an argument out of. >> Yes, gladly. > You failed That'll be why you snipped the relevant bit, then? >> >> > Not true. As a cyclist I pay income tax, council tax, VAT >> NO, YOU DO NOT PAY THOSE AS A CYCLIST. Your cycling is IRRELEVANT to >> those. >> >> > and specifically for cycling, import duty on the components of my >> >> > all bikes in addition to the VAT. >> Correct - and I've already asked you roughly how much that comes to in >> an average year - which you don't appear to have answered yet.
From: mileburner on 1 Dec 2009 07:30
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:7nkf69F3jkdn1U9(a)mid.individual.net... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding much > like they were saying: > >>>> Re-read the whole original sentence (the one you cut short) which you >>>> are trying to make an argument out of. > >>> Yes, gladly. > >> You failed > > That'll be why you snipped the relevant bit, then? You still failed - keep digging... |