Vote against cycling - vote UKIP!

[Dr. Sandringham]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html

[White Spirit]

On 06/05/2015 12:40, Dr. Sandringham wrote:

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html

Does this mean that Judith will vote for UKIP?

[True Blue[_2_]]

"Dr. Sandringham" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html

"A brief examination of the stance of UKIP is all any cyclist would need to
know to establish them as the anti-cycling party. The last time they had an
official manifesto - 2010 - the sections relating to cycling were framed in
the traditional language used by people who hate cyclists, focusing on
"aggressive abuse of red lights" and lack of road courtesy. The document
goes on to recommend the introduction of liability insurance for cyclists to
cover "damage to cars and others", the mandatory carrying of a "Cycledisc"
ID to deter "dangerous cyclist behaviour", and increased powers for local
authorities to enforce a "cyclists dismount" or "no cycling" regulation on
busy junctions or bus lanes or "where the road would be too narrowed by
cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic".

Blimey, I'm a cyclist and the above policy would even get my vote.

The "lycra" cyclists and some urban cylists are the most arrogant, entitled
arseholes on our roads today. The problem is, they have developed a very
negative, aggressive culture which is why they are so disliked. Horse riders
are much slower even than cyclists, but are generally liked, because their
"culture" is one of politeness.

[Bod[_5_]]

On 06/05/2015 14:47, True Blue wrote:
> "Dr. Sandringham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
>> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html
>
> "A brief examination of the stance of UKIP is all any cyclist would need to
> know to establish them as the anti-cycling party. The last time they had an
> official manifesto - 2010 - the sections relating to cycling were framed in
> the traditional language used by people who hate cyclists, focusing on
> "aggressive abuse of red lights" and lack of road courtesy. The document
> goes on to recommend the introduction of liability insurance for cyclists to
> cover "damage to cars and others", the mandatory carrying of a "Cycledisc"
> ID to deter "dangerous cyclist behaviour", and increased powers for local
> authorities to enforce a "cyclists dismount" or "no cycling" regulation on
> busy junctions or bus lanes or "where the road would be too narrowed by
> cycle lanes and cause unacceptable delays to traffic".
>
> Blimey, I'm a cyclist and the above policy would even get my vote.
>
> The "lycra" cyclists and some urban cylists are the most arrogant, entitled
> arseholes on our roads today. The problem is, they have developed a very
> negative, aggressive culture which is why they are so disliked. Horse riders
> are much slower even than cyclists, but are generally liked, because their
> "culture" is one of politeness.
>
>
+1

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 12:40:39 PM UTC+1, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 12:40:39 PM UTC+1, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html

Isn't it time we limited voting to university graduates.
Why should unwashed Sun readers get a say?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 12:40:39 PM UTC+1, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
>> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html
>
> Isn't it time we limited voting to university graduates.
>
Nope, because they are as thick as pig **** and will never be employed.
Pure cannon fodder.

Why should unwashed Sun readers get a say?

Because they have a job and can afford to buy a newspaper.


>

[Tarcap]

wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 12:40:39 PM UTC+1, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html

Isn't it time we limited voting to university graduates.


As long as the taxation system is confined to university graduates.
Last time we tried taxation without representation it all went horribly
wrong, didn't it?


Why should unwashed Sun readers get a say?
Because they usually are a lot more switched on to real life, in my
experience

[The Medway Handyman[_4_]]

On 07/05/2015 08:38, Tarcap wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 12:40:39 PM UTC+1, Dr. Sandringham wrote:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10846025/
>> Cyclists-dont-vote-for-an-anti-cycling-party.html
>
> Isn't it time we limited voting to university graduates.
>
>
> As long as the taxation system is confined to university graduates.
> Last time we tried taxation without representation it all went horribly
> wrong, didn't it?
>
>
> Why should unwashed Sun readers get a say?
> Because they usually are a lot more switched on to real life, in my
> experience

And most are far too sensible to ride push bikes.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Thu, 07 May 2015 09:12:10 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

> far too sensible to ride push bikes.

I am real glad I am not sensible in your eyes.