Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Keitht on 1 Dec 2009 13:18 Adrian wrote: > Keitht <KeithT> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >> It is also frequently demonstrated in court when an offence is >> committed by the actual driver cannot be identified and the case thrown >> out. > > ITYF that that particular "loophole" has long been closed, and there's > now a legal responsibility on the registered keeper to identify the > driver. > Theoretically - there are still plenty of holes. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Keitht on 1 Dec 2009 13:27 Steve Firth wrote: > Keitht <KeithT> wrote: > >> Steve Firth wrote: >>> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> See previous comment about "tu quoque" it really does draw you like a >>>>> moth to a candle, doesn't it? >>>> I repeat, I didn't attempt to justify either of them being there, and >>>> never have. >>> Still struggling with that "tu quoque" business I see. >> Still using that false legal bollocks I see. > > It's nothing to do with "false legal bollocks". But thanks for the > demonstration of the extent of your ignorance. > >> "Oooh, it's in Latin, it must be important" > > I like it when thick people pretend something isn't apposite based > purely on the depths of their ignorance. Erm "However, the argument tu quoque, from the basis of international humanitarian law is completely irrelevant, as the ICTY has stated in these cases.[2]" Yes, from Wiki but cited for once. Me thick - nah, you unable to look any further than the end of your nose, just finding an already quoted bandwagon to jump onto without knowing where it's come from or where it's going. when you've got something original - please come back and share. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Keitht on 1 Dec 2009 13:30 Steve Firth wrote: > Keitht <KeithT> wrote: > >> Idiot. > > Keep the sig. What sig, where? If you supplied one for me to look at I might have considered it. -- You too thick to include one?
From: Keitht on 1 Dec 2009 13:35 Conor wrote: > In article <hf2eoj$agp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > >> Not true. As a cyclist I pay income tax, council tax, VAT and specifically >> for cycling, > > No you don't. The only thing out of all of that lot that is specific to > cycling is the VAT on any purchases directly connected to the bicycle. >> I also pay VED and fuel taxes for running a car. > > > And the council tax doesn't pay for local roads? Must be the road pixies that do it. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Keitht on 1 Dec 2009 13:36
Steve Firth wrote: > Huge <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >> "cyclists are a bandit tribe who blithely ignore the usual laws of the road"; > > "riding a bike has to stop being a lawless occupation" > >> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6936082.ece > > (ibid.) Another bandwagon for you, surprised you have any idea where you are going. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle |