On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 12:38:34 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2017 10:48, Nick wrote:

On 13/06/2017 20:38, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

I refer you to the photo of the cyclist in the report.
Stupid is as stupid looks.
I bet he lives alone in his one bedroomed council flat, unable to get a
woman and on the dole. Same as yourself.
Oh hang on, he works in a fish and chip shop. Hell! A cyclist with a
job?!!!
He also claims benefits for his SIX brats. Yip, another benefit claiming
scum cyclist.

I'm confused if he already has SIX brats why would he want to "get"
another woman?

This was the poster's initial surmise:

"I bet he lives alone in his one bedroomed council flat, unable to get a
woman and on the dole. Same as yourself."

This is what he was able to glean from a press or online report (and
whiuch can be reasonable assumed to be factual):


Mr pounder's comment was directed at me personally, how did he glean such incorrect data from the press report?
Apology accepted in advance.

"Oh hang on, he works in a fish and chip shop. Hell! A cyclist with a
job?!!! He also claims benefits for his SIX brats. Yip, another benefit
claiming scum cyclist."


As always, happy to help (but really, it was fairly obvious when reading
and correctly understanding the post).

See above.
Double apology accepted in advance.