Yet another speeding, uninsured, unlicenced, lying, killer motorist.

[Matt B]

John Hearns wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
>> say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.
>>
>> Sniper8052
>
> Hear hear. We're talking about a tragic death here.

And isn't it disgraceful that many are are so complacent and even
self-righteous about the causes.

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 12:41, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected]
>
> > This is Local London
> > 22 February 2001.
> > Mum's rage over death crash charge
>
> Tragic case, typical outcome in this petrol-headed world.
>
> Shame the OP made a little error with the date, making me wonder if this
> was old news. It isn't, but we'll no doubt hear similar stories for many
> years...
>
> --
> Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
> Edgware.

The only reason the Carr trial got such a positive result was because
of his high profile, in my opinion. Drivers routinely kill cyclists
and get away with it and the media lend free air time to pro-speeding
lobby groups like the one Troll B refuses to admit he is a member of,
populated by people who fantasise on their forums about killing
cyclists:

The story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/6309949.stm

The speedophile reaction:

"it is relevant though, cycle lanes are for a reason and although it
in no way excuses the driver of the car it would perhaps be a wake up
call to cyclists who believe riding on the road is safer than riding
on a dedicated cycle path"

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=350333&f=23&h=0



"I would probably ask myself whether the roads are just too busy for
cyclists in this country and that the cyclist is partly culpable. "

Same link.

 

[Matt B]

Paul - *** wrote:
> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>> relation to the following:
>
> What alternatives?

I could reel off the list again, but perhaps we could start by
re-stating our current measures for ensuring road safety.

To use a motor vehicle on the public road:
-Driver minimum age (for cars): 17.
-Driver experience required: none.
-Driver training required: none.
-Driver qualifications required: driving test pass (driver pays).
-Driver licence: onus on driver have one (driver pays).
-Vehicle road worthiness: onus on driver to maintain (driver pays).
-Vehicle test certificate: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).
-Insurance: onus on driver to cover 3rd party damages (driver pays).
-Vehicle licence: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).

If you use a motor vehicle on a public road:
-You are given a demarked "road", dedicated to your use, and largely
kept clear of pedestrians - you don't need to look or negotiate
right-of-way.
-You are told when to go and when to stop by traffic lights, road
markings, and signs - you don't need to look or negotiate right-of-way.
-You are given a speed limit which most other drivers behind you expect
you to at least achieve - you don't need to look or figure-out your own
comfortable speed.
-You don't really need to be too alert to your surroundings for most of
the time as the raft of regulations provide for every consequence - but
woe betide you if the unexpected happens, and you happen to be
contravening one of those thousands of regulations contrived to speed
you safely on your way.

Now contrast motor vehicle use with practically any other activity you
do in a public place.

Imagine if all school-leavers were competent road users and drivers,
imagine if the rules of passage for cars were the same as the rules
which control pedestrian flow.

--
Matt B

 

[Paul Boyd]

spindrift said the following on 22/02/2007 13:14:
(Quoting)

> "call to cyclists who believe riding on the road is safer than riding
> on a dedicated cycle path"

I thought there were stats out there somewhere to prove the exact opposite.

> "I would probably ask myself whether the roads are just too busy for
> cyclists in this country and that the cyclist is partly culpable. "

Speechless!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[p.k.]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> The only thing that makes humans behave properly in relation to one
> another is fear of the concequences on what ever level that might be.
> So, what I said before.
>
> Sniper8052

I disagree, personal ethics guide behaviour as much as fear of consequences.

pk

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 13:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Paul - *** wrote:
> > Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
> >> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> >> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> >> relation to the following:
>
> > What alternatives?
>
> I could reel off the list again, but perhaps we could start by
> re-stating our current measures for ensuring road safety.
>
> To use a motor vehicle on the public road:
> -Driver minimum age (for cars): 17.
> -Driver experience required: none.
> -Driver training required: none.
> -Driver qualifications required: driving test pass (driver pays).
> -Driver licence: onus on driver have one (driver pays).
> -Vehicle road worthiness: onus on driver to maintain (driver pays).
> -Vehicle test certificate: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).
> -Insurance: onus on driver to cover 3rd party damages (driver pays).
> -Vehicle licence: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).
>
> If you use a motor vehicle on a public road:
> -You are given a demarked "road", dedicated to your use, and largely
> kept clear of pedestrians - you don't need to look or negotiate
> right-of-way.
> -You are told when to go and when to stop by traffic lights, road
> markings, and signs - you don't need to look or negotiate right-of-way.
> -You are given a speed limit which most other drivers behind you expect
> you to at least achieve - you don't need to look or figure-out your own
> comfortable speed.
> -You don't really need to be too alert to your surroundings for most of
> the time as the raft of regulations provide for every consequence - but
> woe betide you if the unexpected happens, and you happen to be
> contravening one of those thousands of regulations contrived to speed
> you safely on your way.
>
> Now contrast motor vehicle use with practically any other activity you
> do in a public place.
>
> Imagine if all school-leavers were competent road users and drivers,
> imagine if the rules of passage for cars were the same as the rules
> which control pedestrian flow.
>
> --
> Matt B

This is pure garbage.

You've dressed it up since your exposure as an ABD member but the fact
is you are still claiming that motorists should pick and choose the
speed at which to travel.

Just like Denise Williams-Yelbert did, just before she killed Mr
Ward.

You sad, insensitive muppet, of all the threads to push your pro-
speeding agenda on, sheesh.

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Feb, 13:01, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On 22 Feb, 12:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On 22 Feb, 11:46, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
> >>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> >>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> >>>> relation to the following:
> >>>> 1. Expecting all those who drive a car to have first, under their own
> >>>> initiative, passed a driving test.
> >>>> 2. Expecting all those who drive a car to be conscientious enough to
> >>>> have insured themselves appropriately.
> >>>> 3. Giving the de facto priority on all non-motorway roads to those using
> >>>> them in motor vehicles.
> >>>> 4. Expecting all those who drive a car to be able to do it courteously
> >>>> and skilfully, and with appropriate respect for other road users.
> >>>> 5. Expecting all "vulnerable" road users to keep out of the path of
> >>>> motor traffic at their own peril.
> >>>> 6. Relying on punishment "after the event" as a deterrent to others,
> >>>> rather than prevention and elimination of crashes - we are only treating
> >>>> the symptoms and leaving the disease to fester unabated.
> >>>> The system we have ignores the "human factor", it treats motorists as
> >>>> automatons - and we are reaping the rewards of that disastrous approach
> >>>> in our road casualty figures.
> >>>> We need to start considering _sustainable_ road safety measures - those
> >>>> which deliver results without relying on stricter and stricter
> >>>> enforcement of more and more unrealistic regulations.
> >>>> What do we actually want - less road casualties /or/ more convicted
> >>>> motorists?
> >>> It is sometimes better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to
> >>> say something foolish and remove all possible doubt.
> >> Are our roads safe? Are all those who drive capable of so-doing? Are
> >> other (possibly more enlightened) countries reaping the benefits of
> >> re-humanising road use - by removing all "safety measures" and relying
> >> on human nature to prevail?
>
> >> It is easy to mock radical suggestions - but it is hard to eat hat.
>
> > The only thing that makes humans behave properly in relation to one
> > another is fear of the concequences on what ever level that might be.
>
> A good start. I'm not sure if it /is/ the _only_ thing, but, assuming
> that by "on what ever level" you include social and peer-level
> /consequences/, then it is exactly what we should be harnessing to
> achieve safe roads.
>
> Imagine if you had to walk through a busy public space carrying a large
> mirror. You'd behave very carefully before making any assumptions about
> priority at corners or crossing a stream of other pedestrians. You'd
> wait while an old lady walked across in front of you with her shopping.
> Someone, or even a few people, might wait for you to walk up some
> stairs before coming down them themselves. Someone else might hold a
> door open for you, and guide you carefully through it. If you saw a
> family cycling along together you'd keep back until they had all passed.
> Why wouldn't you run along at your maximum speed expecting everyone
> else to keep/get out of your way? It can't be because of specific laws
> targeted at mirror carriers - because there aren't any. Perhaps it is
> because you haven't been given a secure, demarked path through,
> dedicated to the safe and speedy passage of mirror carriers - with de
> facto priority - and woe betide anyone who crosses your path. You would
> probably die of embarrassment and apologise profusely if you bumped into
> anyone, or caused anyone to swerve or take evasive action to avoid you.
> Is it not your "fear of the [social] consequences" that makes you such
> a considerate mirror carrier?
>
> Imagine if driving a car through a town centre was similar to walking
> through a pedestrianised zone carrying a large mirror. Now explain to
> me why it has to be treated so differently - and why the same social
> norms wouldn't apply if all the "road safety paraphernalia" was removed.
>
> --
> Matt B


Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
caught up with your enlightened attitude.

Now apply your brains to answering your own questions and you will
find the answers.

Sniper8052

 

[Clive George]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
> caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>
> Now apply your brains to answering your own questions and you will
> find the answers.

Indeed. All he's done is rephrased the standard "put a spike on the steering
wheel" thing. Make cars out of glass, and indeed people would take more
care...

cheers,
clive

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 13:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
>>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>>>> relation to the following:
>>> What alternatives?
>> I could reel off the list again, but perhaps we could start by
>> re-stating our current measures for ensuring road safety.
>>
>> To use a motor vehicle on the public road:
>> -Driver minimum age (for cars): 17.
>> -Driver experience required: none.
>> -Driver training required: none.
>> -Driver qualifications required: driving test pass (driver pays).
>> -Driver licence: onus on driver have one (driver pays).
>> -Vehicle road worthiness: onus on driver to maintain (driver pays).
>> -Vehicle test certificate: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).
>> -Insurance: onus on driver to cover 3rd party damages (driver pays).
>> -Vehicle licence: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).
>>
>> If you use a motor vehicle on a public road:
>> -You are given a demarked "road", dedicated to your use, and largely
>> kept clear of pedestrians - you don't need to look or negotiate
>> right-of-way.
>> -You are told when to go and when to stop by traffic lights, road
>> markings, and signs - you don't need to look or negotiate right-of-way.
>> -You are given a speed limit which most other drivers behind you expect
>> you to at least achieve - you don't need to look or figure-out your own
>> comfortable speed.
>> -You don't really need to be too alert to your surroundings for most of
>> the time as the raft of regulations provide for every consequence - but
>> woe betide you if the unexpected happens, and you happen to be
>> contravening one of those thousands of regulations contrived to speed
>> you safely on your way.
>>
>> Now contrast motor vehicle use with practically any other activity you
>> do in a public place.
>>
>> Imagine if all school-leavers were competent road users and drivers,
>> imagine if the rules of passage for cars were the same as the rules
>> which control pedestrian flow.
>
> This is pure garbage.

Which bit in particular? Ah - none of it good.

> You've dressed it up

Dressed /what/ up?

> since your exposure as an ABD member

Eh? What leads you to believe that I'm an ABD member? Even if I was -
so what? Are you a member of any serious road safety organisation?

> but the fact
> is you are still claiming that motorists should pick and choose the
> speed at which to travel.

Well, sort of. Except that the speed choice would, of course, become
one which didn't endanger anybody.

> Just like Denise Williams-Yelbert did, just before she killed Mr
> Ward.

Yes, that was under the current measures - which like we've seen - DO
NOT WORK.

> You sad, insensitive muppet, of all the threads to push your pro-
> speeding agenda on, sheesh.

Back to the argument-loser-inspired unwarranted personal attacks - will
you ever learn?

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 13:18, Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:
> spindrift said the following on 22/02/2007 13:14:
> (Quoting)
>
> > "call to cyclists who believe riding on the road is safer than riding
> > on a dedicated cycle path"
>
> I thought there were stats out there somewhere to prove the exact opposite.
>
> > "I would probably ask myself whether the roads are just too busy for
> > cyclists in this country and that the cyclist is partly culpable. "
>
> Speechless!
>
> --
> Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Possibly the most common form of abuse hurled at cyclists:

"Get on the cycle path!"

Except the cycle paths are, of course, far more dangerous because they
are designed by idiots.

Mr Ward, of course, was on a cycle path anyway.

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 13:41, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > On 22 Feb, 13:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> >> Paul - *** wrote:
> >>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
> >>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
> >>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> >>>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> >>>> relation to the following:
> >>> What alternatives?
> >> I could reel off the list again, but perhaps we could start by
> >> re-stating our current measures for ensuring road safety.
>
> >> To use a motor vehicle on the public road:
> >> -Driver minimum age (for cars): 17.
> >> -Driver experience required: none.
> >> -Driver training required: none.
> >> -Driver qualifications required: driving test pass (driver pays).
> >> -Driver licence: onus on driver have one (driver pays).
> >> -Vehicle road worthiness: onus on driver to maintain (driver pays).
> >> -Vehicle test certificate: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).
> >> -Insurance: onus on driver to cover 3rd party damages (driver pays).
> >> -Vehicle licence: onus on driver to have one (driver pays).
>
> >> If you use a motor vehicle on a public road:
> >> -You are given a demarked "road", dedicated to your use, and largely
> >> kept clear of pedestrians - you don't need to look or negotiate
> >> right-of-way.
> >> -You are told when to go and when to stop by traffic lights, road
> >> markings, and signs - you don't need to look or negotiate right-of-way.
> >> -You are given a speed limit which most other drivers behind you expect
> >> you to at least achieve - you don't need to look or figure-out your own
> >> comfortable speed.
> >> -You don't really need to be too alert to your surroundings for most of
> >> the time as the raft of regulations provide for every consequence - but
> >> woe betide you if the unexpected happens, and you happen to be
> >> contravening one of those thousands of regulations contrived to speed
> >> you safely on your way.
>
> >> Now contrast motor vehicle use with practically any other activity you
> >> do in a public place.
>
> >> Imagine if all school-leavers were competent road users and drivers,
> >> imagine if the rules of passage for cars were the same as the rules
> >> which control pedestrian flow.
>
> > This is pure garbage.
>
> Which bit in particular? Ah - none of it good.
>
> > You've dressed it up
>
> Dressed /what/ up?
>
> > since your exposure as an ABD member
>
> Eh? What leads you to believe that I'm an ABD member? Even if I was -
> so what? Are you a member of any serious road safety organisation?
>
> > but the fact
> > is you are still claiming that motorists should pick and choose the
> > speed at which to travel.
>
> Well, sort of. Except that the speed choice would, of course, become
> one which didn't endanger anybody.
>
> > Just like Denise Williams-Yelbert did, just before she killed Mr
> > Ward.
>
> Yes, that was under the current measures - which like we've seen - DO
> NOT WORK.
>
> > You sad, insensitive muppet, of all the threads to push your pro-
> > speeding agenda on, sheesh.
>
> Back to the argument-loser-inspired unwarranted personal attacks - will
> you ever learn?
>
> --
> Matt B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

ABD:

Driver should be able to choose a safe speed themselves!

Sceptic:

You mean like Denise Williams-Yelbert did when she killed Mr Ward?

ABD:

Nah, she's a rubbish driver, I'm brilliant!

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
> caught up with your enlightened attitude.

Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
such measures.

The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
> > caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>
> Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
> such measures.
>
> The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
> persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
>
> --
> Matt B


Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
who disregard those proscriptions.

Sniper8052

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 13:59, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
> > > caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>
> > Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
> > such measures.
>
> > The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
> > persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
>
> > --
> > Matt B
>
> Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
> does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
> endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
> who disregard those proscriptions.
>
> Sniper8052

You could cite those European countries who have the assumed liability
in vulnerable road user collisions where cycling is up to ten times
safer than in the UK.

Moves to introduce the same legislation in the UK were violently
opposed by the ABD and motoring lobby.

 

[Paul - xxx]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
> Paul - *** wrote:
>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as
>>> it could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>>> relation to the following:
>>
>> What alternatives?
>
> I could reel off the list again,

Well that's what I asked for, I've not seen any 'alternatives' proposed
by you.

> (driver pays).

Who would you expect to pay other than the user of above
documents/licences/certificates?

> If you use a motor vehicle on a public road:
> -You are given a demarked "road", dedicated to your use,

No you're not. Millions of other people and other types of vehicle use
the road system, none of which is dedicated to you.

> you don't need to look or negotiate
> You are told when to go and when to stop
> you don't need to look or negotiate
> you don't need to look or
> You don't really need to be too alert

Jeez, what utter garbage.

> Now contrast motor vehicle use with practically any other activity you
> do in a public place.

No, I asked the question of you so why not just explain what you mean
instead of asking more stupid questions to which you obviously already
have an answer, but want to go 'round the houses' to get me to say
something remotely relevant.


--
Paul - ***

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Paul Boyd
('usenet.dont.work@plusnet') wrote:

> spindrift said the following on 22/02/2007 13:14:
> (Quoting)
>
>> "call to cyclists who believe riding on the road is safer than riding
>> on a dedicated cycle path"
>
> I thought there were stats out there somewhere to prove the exact
> opposite.

There are. In every single country in which this has been studied.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If any council in the country has anything to say to cyclists
;; about cycle paths, it should be: "We are terribly, terribly sorry."
- Zoe Williams, The Guardian, 13th Sept 2006

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>>
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>
> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> relation to the following:

Well, seeing it's cars that are causing the problem, let's ban cars then.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; making jokes about dyslexia isn't big, it isn't clever and
;; it isn't furry.

 

[Will Cove]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1172150535.924569.109840
@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

> You sad, insensitive muppet, of all the threads to push your pro-
> speeding agenda on, sheesh.

Enough!

I'm absolutely sick and tired of trolls like you that use personal tragedy
to take yet more cheap shots at the target of their bigotry. It is obvious
that you don't give two hoots for road safety because you'd at least
consider the alternatives if you did.

Spindrift: once again seeking to close the stable door after the horse has
bolted and execute the stable maid rather than seek a real and pre-emptive
solution.

Now why don't you post a ride report instead of bothering these good people
with your personal vendetta.

Welcome to the exclusive club of my killfile.

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Feb, 14:03, "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 13:59, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
> > > > caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>
> > > Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
> > > such measures.
>
> > > The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
> > > persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
>
> > > --
> > > Matt B
>
> > Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
> > does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
> > endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
> > who disregard those proscriptions.
>
> > Sniper8052
>
> You could cite those European countries who have the assumed liability
> in vulnerable road user collisions where cycling is up to ten times
> safer than in the UK.
>
> Moves to introduce the same legislation in the UK were violently
> opposed by the ABD and motoring lobby.


That would not prove the above. He needs to show that there is a
general road usege policy that relies purley on altruism and not on
penalties.

Sniper8052

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:

> spindrift wrote:
>> On 22 Feb, 13:18, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>> Paul - *** wrote:
>>>> Matt B" <"matt.bourke <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> typed:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...

[SCYTHE]

Matt, I very rarely let trolls wind me up. But you are the moral equivalent
of the man who designed this gate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT8235.JPG

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605