proposal to put number plates on bicycles



Mike Causer wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:06:42 +0000, John38 wrote:
>
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm

>
> Last Updated: Friday, 28 July 2006, 17:09 GMT 18:09 UK
>
> Old news.


True, but at least now we have someone to vote for instead:

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/pandora/article1209723.ece
> The campaign to persuade the petrolhead to stand for the Tories as London Mayor -
> against the "newt-keeping lunatic" Ken Livingstone (his words) - faces opposition from
> his friend and Top Gear colleague Richard Hammond.


> "If he stood he would win it," Hammond tells me. "But can you bloody imagine it? He'd be
> scary. He would roar around London in a Lamborghini with a huge mayoral flagpole,
> shooting cyclists. I hope he doesn't go for it."


If clarkson got in, the city would grind to a halt with the extra
traffic on the road, and cyclists would have a free reign. The large
flagpole would allow us to see him and take an alternative route :)
 
Paul Weaver wrote on 02/08/2006 09:46 +0100:
>
> If clarkson got in, the city would grind to a halt with the extra
> traffic on the road, and cyclists would have a free reign. The large
> flagpole would allow us to see him and take an alternative route :)
>


But even the BBC says you can't take the WHW seriously

"The Committee believed that the majority of the Top Gear audience would
have been aware that Jeremy Clarkson often uses the most exaggerated
stereotypes to support or defend his opinions and would not have taken
his comments seriously..... However, the Committee did not believe that,
when looking at the audience as a whole, they would have felt that the
comments were anything more than Jeremy Clarkson using outrageous
behaviour to amuse his audience"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/text/apps_aprjun2006_text.html


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:31:54 +0100, Paul - ***
<[email protected]> wrote:
> John38 came up with the following;:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm

>
> 'twould appear John38 doesn't bother reading the newsgroup before posting,
> or he/she/it would have seen this already being discussed.


umm, (he) *does* read the newsgroup before posting, just not every
flipping thread. The thread marked "Ken being a berk" is not immidiately
salient to the subject (especially if one doesn't live in London). As
you have gathered, I didn't read that thread, so, please accept my
humble apologies for putting your nose out of joint.

--
John38
 
John38 said the following on 02/08/2006 10:58:

> umm, (he) *does* read the newsgroup before posting, just not every
> flipping thread. The thread marked "Ken being a berk" is not immidiately
> salient to the subject (especially if one doesn't live in London).


You've made a basic mistake - London is the centre of the universe, and
things that happen there are representative of the rest of the country.
The rest of the country in turn is expected to know who "Ken" is
simply on hearing his first name uttered.

The above is all false, because everyone really knows that Somerset is
where it's all at :) Must remember to brush the straw out of smock
before going to visit "the city" (Wells!!!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
"Paul Boyd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John38 said the following on 02/08/2006 10:58:
>
>> umm, (he) *does* read the newsgroup before posting, just not every
>> flipping thread. The thread marked "Ken being a berk" is not immidiately
>> salient to the subject (especially if one doesn't live in London).

>
> You've made a basic mistake - London is the centre of the universe, and
> things that happen there are representative of the rest of the country.
> The rest of the country in turn is expected to know who "Ken" is simply on
> hearing his first name uttered.
>


And which Londoner posted the thread "Ken's being a berk"?
 
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 23:16:00 +0100, Sue White <[email protected]> wrote:
> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> whizzed past me shouting
> >in message <[email protected]>, John38
> >('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5225346.stm

> >
> >Yes, we know. It's stupid, and it won't happen. We'll have to waste time
> >opposing it, however. Yawn.
> >


I wouldn't put it past this lot who want to measure and record
everything you think, do and say.

> Could we do a deal where we get to keep newts instead?


possibly only if they're monitored 24/7 on CCTV (he says only
half-jokingly)

> --
> Sue ]:(:)
>
> Does anyone remember why they stopped licensing sound radios?


When the number of tv sets became a certain size, when most households
had one. I think that's correct. http://www.radiolicence.org.uk/

--
John38
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
22
Views
495
S