"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1547... York_street/

"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1547... York_street/


Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling", rather
than "cyclist".

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1547... York_street/


Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling", rather
than "cyclist".

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one way
street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a cyclist*
would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky not to be up
on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.


[* If you don't like "cyclist", I suggest you stop using "motorist". The
correct term is "driver" - or "rider" where the vehicle is a motorbike.]

"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1547... York_street/


Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling",
rather than "cyclist".

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one way
street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why teacher
sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a cyclist*
would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky not to be up
on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.
So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get from
a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

[* If you don't like "cyclist", I suggest you stop using "motorist". The
correct term is "driver" - or "rider" where the vehicle is a motorbike.]

I rarely use the term "motorist". Look up the history. Oh, you don't
keep any. A bicycle or horse is also controlled by a rider.

"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

On 17/08/2017 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/17 16:09, MrCheerful wrote:
cyclist fined for wrong way in a one way !!!!

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1547... York_street/


Makes a nice change to see the headline "man fined for cycling",
rather than "cyclist".

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one
way street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why teacher
sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

He coiud only get the fine for being lippy if being lippy were an offence.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a cyclist*
would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky not to be
up on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.

So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get from
a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

Re-read your history of responses from your archive (see below). It'll
all be there.

[* If you don't like "cyclist", I suggest you stop using "motorist".
The correct term is "driver" - or "rider" where the vehicle is a
motorbike.]

I rarely use the term "motorist". Look up the history. Oh, you don't
keep any. A bicycle or horse is also controlled by a rider.

"Motorist" is such an oddly old-fashioned term, harking back to a time
when cars were the preserve of the aristocracy and men with handlebar
moustaches and cravats.

No-one normal ever uses the word outside the world of the press cub
reporter and sub-editor.

"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

On 17/08/17 12:23, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one
way street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why teacher
sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

He coiud only get the fine for being lippy if being lippy were an offence.

Sigh.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a
cyclist* would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky
not to be up on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.

So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get
from a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

Re-read your history of responses from your archive (see below). It'll
all be there.

A few times a year the press tells us about some nasty "cyclist",
therefore it must be universal.

So you don't have an answer.

"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

On 17/08/2017 17:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:23, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a one
way street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why
teacher sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

He coiud only get the fine for being lippy if being lippy were an
offence.

Sigh.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a
cyclist* would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky
not to be up on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.

So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get
from a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

Re-read your history of responses from your archive (see below). It'll
all be there.

A few times a year the press tells us about some nasty "cyclist",
therefore it must be universal.

There've been plenty of revelations from posters here. Artices in the
pres reinforce what they say, but are not the whole of it.

So you don't have an answer.

....to?

"Tried to educate first but he wasn't having it !!"
 

On 19/08/17 00:13, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 17:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 12:23, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 12:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/17 00:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2017 00:00, TMS320 wrote:

Seems like he got it for being lippy, not for riding the bike.

No, it was for breaking the law in proceeding the wrong way in a
one way street. Being lippy isn't an offence.

Good god. I didn't say it was the offence. Being lippy was why
teacher sent him to headmaster for running in the corridor.

He coiud only get the fine for being lippy if being lippy were an
offence.

Sigh.

Mind you, if he gave the CSO the same sort of mouthful that a
cyclist* would give any ordinary member of the public, he was lucky
not to be up on am "insulting words or behaviour" as well.

So what sort of mouthful does an ordinary member of the public get
from a "cyclist"? On planet Earth, not yours.

Re-read your history of responses from your archive (see below).
It'll all be there.

A few times a year the press tells us about some nasty "cyclist",
therefore it must be universal.

There've been plenty of revelations from posters here.

It's mostly mutial masturbation.

Artices in the
pres reinforce what they say, but are not the whole of it.

My offer to go walking with you still stands. You can't be afraid to
prove it, surely?