Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

In article ,
Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

If he's asking for witnesses, the chances are that he's telling the
truth. Of course, if Emma Way hadn't been so forthcoming after knocking
down a cyclist, you'd have been implying that he made it up, too.

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Which all goes to convince me even more that a camera on my crash helmet
is an essential tool that every cyclist should have. Such behaviour by
car drivers should lead, inevitably, to prosecution and a substantial ban.

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

I take it that you think knocking a cyclist off his bike and possibly
causing him/her serious injury or death is a reasoned response?

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

On 21/08/2013 08:55, Brian Robertson wrote:

On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Which all goes to convince me even more that a camera on my crash helmet
is an essential tool that every cyclist should have. Such behaviour by
car drivers should lead, inevitably, to prosecution and a substantial ban.

A disqualification from driving for a physical assault with the fists?

Would you extend it to all crimes, or just those alleged to have been
committed against cyclists?

Would you, for instance, impose a "substantial ban" (from driving) for
criminal damage committed by someone damaging a car with a cycle-lock?
Or by hurling a bicycle onto a vehicle's bonnet?

And if not, why not?

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 08:55:01 UTC+1, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range

Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's

antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some

witnesses.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876



Which all goes to convince me even more that a camera on my crash helmet

is an essential tool that every cyclist should have. Such behaviour by

car drivers should lead, inevitably, to prosecution and a substantial ban.

Tell you what, you tie the rope and I will borrow his vehicle of choice.

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 19:43:10 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Thank you for your crackpot interpretation of this news report, psychiatric help is available.

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 20 August 2013 19:43:10 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range
Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's
antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some
witnesses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876

Thank you for your crackpot interpretation of this news report, psychiatric
help is available.


You obviously know that from first hand experience.

Cyclist hunts for witnesses
 

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 10:23:09 UTC+1, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 20/08/2013 19:43, Mrcheerful wrote:

Cyclist just manages to stop before running into the back of a Range

Rover and is surprised that the owner takes exception to the cyclist's

antics. Cyclist claims he was knocked off and wants to drum up some

witnesses.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23757876



I take it that you think

Not recently been shown as a strong for MrCheerful. Perhaps Mrcheerful has contracted a Sickness. I wonder if Mrcheerful is receiving the Best treatMent. I wonder if Mrcheerful holds multiple contracts of Sickness and is factually unwell and in receipt of the Best treatMents.

Perhaps Mrcheerful may like to CONsider changing DIEt.

Does Mcheerful like eggs?

knocking a cyclist off his bike and possibly

causing him/her serious injury or death is a reasoned response?

the wrongings of Society and the rightings of man through knowledge.
 

On Wednesday, 21 August 2013 11:55:25 UTC+1, Partac wrote:

You obviously know that from first hand experience.

amazingly we have a language (in common use, but not of the commoner) which has been so corrupted that slight differences in the placement of letters on the page have totally opposite meanings. I believe (and I am wary of the dangers) that some thought has gone into making the commoner obviously oblyvious to the techniques of textural conJury.

For the purpose of Society it IS necessary to train the minds of common men and women to ignore that which is texturally obvious. It is that Schooling is required, to read without knowing, for Society's gain. The keystone to the heir-arch-y (note architecture and (free)masonry)) is to fill with under-standing so there is no place for knowledge. The common man has historically lost out to Society, as Society has stolen the lives and labours of the common man, all in full view, but only comprehensible by those who have escaped Societal organised shooling, or have chosen to ignore the non-sense and eventually see the bindings of books ARE all that binds man to the legal NON-SENSE.

Do you understand or do you know?

Use your knowse!