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?