On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:12:08 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 24/06/2019 22:14, Simon Jester wrote:


Once again you are the one who introduced the motor insurance analogy.
Now answer the question about 50:50 faukt,

Ah... I see where you are going wrong.

You are behaving as though both parties each had claims against the
other before the civil court.

But as you would know had you read and understood the reports, they
*didn't*.

Only the pedestrian victim has a claim before the court. Any losses or
injuries allegedly caused to the defendant cyclist are not relevant,
becase he hasn't made a claim.

This had already been explained to you, but you obviously didn't
understand. Do you see it now?

whether you do or not, I shan't be explaining it a third time.

So why did you introduce the motor insurance analogy?




No witty response to that?

Why would I respond to such a childish comment?


You said
"We are repeatedly told that cyclists are always insured via their mum's Prudential payments"
All you have to do is provide evidence to support this claim or admit you are wrong and apologise to the group.

The evidence has been posted. All you need to do is sort through the
1,000+ posts I cited for you.

Let me know when you've read them all.

Did your invisible friend post these invisible cites?
Does your invisible friend know it is up to him to provide the actual cite?

If a solicitor wants the court to take notice of a legal precedent can he tell the Judge "It's in the library"?