What made you (want to) Swear Today IV?

[jooool]

A **** on a bike. I'm turning off at the first exit on a roundabout. Mr Green & Black Spandex, unqualified, uninsured on the cycle path thinks he has right of way, so he slows and points ahead as I approach the exit and makes to cross the road (BTW, ignoring the "road" markings on the cycle path). I then get the arm wave and finger as I proceed, within the speed limit, with a full licence, and fully insured on the highway following my right of way.

I have had it with people on bikes thinking that they are saving the planet and therefore they own it.

Had he not stopped, and had I hit him, where do I claim for damage to my car?

[charliehunt]

Had he not stopped, and had I hit him, where do I claim for damage to my car?

You don't think you would have been found the innocent party, do you....?? The cyclist would probably have taken you to court!!

[Lincoln 7]

A **** on a bike. I'm turning off at the first exit on a roundabout. Mr Green & Black Spandex, unqualified, uninsured on the cycle path thinks he has right of way, so he slows and points ahead as I approach the exit and makes to cross the road (BTW, ignoring the "road" markings on the cycle path). I then get the arm wave and finger as I proceed, within the speed limit, with a full licence, and fully insured on the highway following my right of way.

I have had it with people on bikes thinking that they are saving the planet and therefore they own it.

Had he not stopped, and had I hit him, where do I claim for damage to my car?

Quite possibly from the cyclists home Insurance Policy, if he has one.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[silver fox]

Quite possibly from the cyclists home Insurance Policy, if he has one.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

You're joking, cyclists are NEVER wrong, the cycling fraternity is busily campaigning for it to become law, that in any incident involving cyclists and motorised traffic, the driver is automatically responsible.

Don't laugh this is already the case in some countries.

[charliehunt]

Exactly - see #122!

[spit1940]

My ex boss.He was jailed this week for stealing ladies under wear,four counts of robbery and attempted theft.He ran a shop in a local village for over 25yrs and for the last ten had been doing the crimes.When i saw his picture in the local paper i couldnt help but say fxxxing hell!

[neil osborne]

My ex boss.He was jailed this week for stealing ladies under wear,four counts of robbery and attempted theft.He ran a shop in a local village for over 25yrs and for the last ten had been doing the crimes.When i saw his picture in the local paper i couldnt help but say fxxxing hell!

would of been easier to buy the underwear instead of nicking it.

[paul178]

I suppose it depends if the lady was wearing it at the time!

[Lincoln 7]

Only YOU would come up with that Paul
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[charliehunt]

Words fail me!

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonli...py_arrest.aspx

[Derekf]

Absolutely! What happened to freedom of expression!

[charliehunt]

You are free to publish what you like as long as you do not break the law.

The man was arrested on suspicion of an offence under the Malicious Communications Act.

Perhaps he is guilty of an offence or perhaps he is not but why anyone would want to post that on a social network saddens me.

[Lincoln 7]

Methinks there are a few chaps Stationed in Hereford who would like to have a "Chat" with him. Bet he wouldn't do it again.
S*d taking him to Court for a possible slap on the wrist.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

[Derekf]

So you're advocating he gets beaten up for posting a picture on the internet? Tell me you're joking.

It's a total over-reaction by the authorities - and not the first either. They should be catching proper criminals instead of wasting their time and our money with trivia like this. Honestly....

[charliehunt]

Trivial? Ah, well, perhaps it is to some....

[Derekf]

Don't try and tar me with some of anti-Remembrance day, anti-poppy garbage either. Nowhere did I condone the sentiment of what he did. What I find staggering these days is getting the law involved over such matters. Posting a picture on the internet is trivia.

Then again, maybe I should contact the law over Moggy's photo of Tony Blair on the Jimmy Savile thread- well I found it offensive.

[charliehunt]

with trivia like this.

Come on, come on - I am not tarring anyone. That's what you wrote and that's what I quoted back to you.

[Lincoln 7]

So you're advocating he gets beaten up for posting a picture on the internet? Tell me you're joking.

It's a total over-reaction by the authorities - and not the first either. They should be catching proper criminals instead of wasting their time and our money with trivia like this. Honestly....

NO, I am NOT joking it's about time these stupid prats, like those who, last year *****d on War Memorials.were taught a lesson, folks died so they could roam these streets and do mindless things like that, I bet if it was one of your family that had been killed in Conflict your opinions would change.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[Derekf]

So you're contradicting yourself (not for the first time). Our men died so that people can do what they like but you're advocating they get their head's kicked in for doing so. Nice.

[Scott Marlee]

Derek, im stating willingly (i dont care if i cause you offence) people like this kid (who will be doing it to impress their friends) should receive a smack or two around the head, they have no respect these days for memorials etc, so why shouldnt they ? if you question them about it then all you'll receive is a volley of profanities

people these days are far too fickle, if they want to do sh!t like this to get themselves some attention...so be it, but they cant cry about it when the attention they receive is negative and violent, (sadly thats the world we live in, deal with it!)

[Derekf]

So basically what you are saying is that men died to maintain our freedom of speech but God help you if do exercise that right.

By the way, by advocating violence on the internet you may be violation of the act anyway.

According to the website of the CPS, the Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1, "deals with the sending to another of any article which is indecent or grossly offensive, or which conveys a threat, or which is false, provided there is an intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient".

I just love irony.

[Lincoln 7]

So you're contradicting yourself (not for the first time). Our men died so that people can do what they like but you're advocating they get their head's kicked in for doing so. Nice.

Stop trying to be a clever dick. I stated that the boys down at Hereford would like a "chat" with him.I never mentioned "Kicking his head in" YOUR words not mine.
It's your usual misinterpretation again, as , and as all ways being argumental, as you are on most of your threads, your in a minority, just accept it.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[Lincoln 7]

Derek, im stating willingly (i dont care if i cause you offence) people like this kid (who will be doing it to impress their friends) should receive a smack or two around the head, they have no respect these days for memorials etc, so why shouldnt they ? if you question them about it then all you'll receive is a volley of profanities

people these days are far too fickle, if they want to do sh!t like this to get themselves some attention...so be it, but they cant cry about it when the attention they receive is negative and violent, (sadly thats the world we live in, deal with it!)

Scott.......+1
Jim

Lincoln .7

[Derekf]

Stop trying to be a clever dick. I stated that the boys down at Hereford would like a "chat" with him.I never mentioned "Kicking his head in" YOUR words not mine.

So what is a "Chat" in inverted commas eh? I think I hear the sound of a complete reversal. I can almost hear the brakes squealing from here.

It's your usual misinterpretation again, as , and as all ways being argumental, as you are on most of your threads, your in a minority, just accept it.

You'd like that. Nobody pointing out the many flaws in your "arguments" Minority? I don't think so. I could provide tons of evidence but what would be the point?

[Lincoln 7]

See what I mean about being argumentative?, I bet your a barrel of fun on a Friday night.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[Blue_2]

I bet your a barrel of fun on a Friday night.

I bet he'll now argue that he isn't.

[Lincoln 7]

Blue 2.
Graham, best laugh I have had in ages.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

[Derekf]

Looks like Lincoln 7 can't answer my points either, something he accused me of on the other thread? Odd isn't it..... I guess that means I win.:diablo:

Seriously though, if that's the best laugh you've had in ages then you really do need to get out more.....

[tantrum]

My point is/was they don't put up with attacks against their own country.
As for this country being a civilised society, Jim makes a valid point. I would also suggest you venture into any one of our towns or cities after dark and view the civilised antics of our citizens.
Take enough money with you in certain areas and you can buy or rent a gun.
As for drugs you can usually buy them in the street near a school gate or outside a Tesco Metro.

Which Tesco Metro would that be? Rather than baying for other peoples blood perhaps we all should sit down with a big fat spliff and chill?

[tantrum]

So what made me want to swear today? Well it was this thread.

One bigoted post here slams a religion and it's leader without any actual reason or inclination to debate. Later posts include thinly veiled threats of violence, actively inciting violence and even murder.

And you know what? It's all cool with me, I am a strong believer in freedom of expression, including the right to burn a poppy. Though it is clear that some here would obviously disagree.

By the way I am newish to the forum and I am a responsible cyclist, hello.