This is what cyclists waste tax payers' money on

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:05:39 -0000, wrote:

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:43:50 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:31:15 -0000, wrote:

This happened to me overnight with Fentanyl.

http://allnurses.com/general-nursing...67c6dd2be8f99n some talk of having them tested before they leave the factories."

It amuses me that people get upset when they have an erection for a long time. So bloody what?

Read the conclusion - it left me impotent as priapism is serious if not treated, but luckily I have a cure and the GP that caused it will help.

I know a cure. Lots of sex.

--
A guy says, "I remember the first time I used alcohol as a substitute for women."
"Yeah what happened?" asked the other.
The first guy replies, "Well, I got my penis stuck in the neck of the bottle."

On 08/02/2017 18:05, wrote:

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:43:50 PM UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:31:15 -0000, wrote:

This happened to me overnight with Fentanyl.

http://allnurses.com/general-nursing...67c6dd2be8f99n some talk of having them tested before they leave the factories."

It amuses me that people get upset when they have an erection for a long time. So bloody what?

Read the conclusion - it left me impotent as priapism is serious if not treated, but luckily I have a cure and the GP that caused it will help.

Oh... oh... oh...

Way too much information.

Simon - are you SURE that this is what you ought to be posting in public?

We've had our differences, but this is well-meant advice.

Stop!

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 18:05, wrote:

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 3:43:50 PM UTC, James Wilkinson
Sword wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:31:15 -0000,
wrote:
This happened to me overnight with Fentanyl.

http://allnurses.com/general-nursing...67c6dd2be8f99n
some talk of having them tested before they leave the factories."

It amuses me that people get upset when they have an erection for a
long time. So bloody what?

Read the conclusion - it left me impotent as priapism is serious if
not treated, but luckily I have a cure and the GP that caused it
will help.

Oh... oh... oh...

Way too much information.

Simon - are you SURE that this is what you ought to be posting in
public?
We've had our differences, but this is well-meant advice.

Stop!

Yes Simon, leave it out.
Posting about erections will attract the well known ****** Hucker.
.............. Oh, I see it already has.

On 08/02/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 17:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 14:35, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 01:24, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How plausible can a recounting of facts be?

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If nothing is
certain,
the law should get the **** out of the way. If we start assuming
guilt,
all is lost, and we need to blow up the houses of parliament.

"innocent until proven guilty" is when the party is accused of being a
criminal. Rarely applicable in traffic crashes where the issue is
incompetence or negligence. Easy, start from a basis that it is the
entitled one that messed up.

Start from the basis of what is least the unlikely of the possible
causes.

Is that a typo or a version of scouse?

Like a cyclist ignoring a red traffic light, or swerving into the parth
of faster traffic.

If that happened, the driver would have no difficulty with a requirement
to provide evidence that the one that came to harm was at fault. What's
the problem?

No problem at all. That's the whole point.

So what are motorists worrying about when anybody suggest changing the
system?

Pointing out that a cyclist
involved in a RTA ignored the law, the Highway Code and the general
principles of roadcraft and courtesy will always have a definite air of
truth about it. Won't it?

Not particularly. Besides, the defence of mowing down a cyclist 'cos
they break the rules, innit? doesn't work - unless the jury works by
your logic).

But I pre-empted that in this paragraph -

Though it is remarkable how many cyclists get mown down for going
through a red light when the nearest lights are 3 miles away.

How interesting.

On 08/02/2017 19:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 17:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 14:35, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 01:24, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How plausible can a recounting of facts be?

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If nothing is
certain,
the law should get the **** out of the way. If we start assuming
guilt,
all is lost, and we need to blow up the houses of parliament.

"innocent until proven guilty" is when the party is accused of being a
criminal. Rarely applicable in traffic crashes where the issue is
incompetence or negligence. Easy, start from a basis that it is the
entitled one that messed up.

Start from the basis of what is least the unlikely of the possible
causes.

Is that a typo or a version of scouse?

Like a cyclist ignoring a red traffic light, or swerving into the parth
of faster traffic.

If that happened, the driver would have no difficulty with a requirement
to provide evidence that the one that came to harm was at fault. What's
the problem?

No problem at all. That's the whole point.

So what are motorists worrying about when anybody suggest changing the
system?

Pointing out that a cyclist
involved in a RTA ignored the law, the Highway Code and the general
principles of roadcraft and courtesy will always have a definite air of
truth about it. Won't it?

Not particularly. Besides, the defence of mowing down a cyclist 'cos
they break the rules, innit? doesn't work - unless the jury works by
your logic).

But I pre-empted that in this paragraph -

Though it is remarkable how many cyclists get mown down for going
through a red light when the nearest lights are 3 miles away.

How interesting.


So under the 'presumed liability' stuff, what would be the situation
where a cyclist jumps a red light and is mown down by a solitary driver,
no witnesses, no cameras. Would it be fair for the motorist to be held
totally to blame, jailed and sued? Imagine a similar example, a cyclist
mows down and kills a jaywalking pedestrian, no witnesses, no cameras,
the cyclist is held accountable and goes down for 15 years and is sued
for the pedestrians lost earnings, would that be fair? Under the
'presumed liability' idea, that is exactly what could happen

On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:44:48 -0000, MrCheerful wrote:

On 08/02/2017 19:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 17:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 14:35, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 01:24, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How plausible can a recounting of facts be?

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If nothing is
certain,
the law should get the **** out of the way. If we start assuming
guilt,
all is lost, and we need to blow up the houses of parliament.

"innocent until proven guilty" is when the party is accused of being a
criminal. Rarely applicable in traffic crashes where the issue is
incompetence or negligence. Easy, start from a basis that it is the
entitled one that messed up.

Start from the basis of what is least the unlikely of the possible
causes.

Is that a typo or a version of scouse?

Like a cyclist ignoring a red traffic light, or swerving into the parth
of faster traffic.

If that happened, the driver would have no difficulty with a requirement
to provide evidence that the one that came to harm was at fault. What's
the problem?

No problem at all. That's the whole point.

So what are motorists worrying about when anybody suggest changing the
system?

Pointing out that a cyclist
involved in a RTA ignored the law, the Highway Code and the general
principles of roadcraft and courtesy will always have a definite air of
truth about it. Won't it?

Not particularly. Besides, the defence of mowing down a cyclist 'cos
they break the rules, innit? doesn't work - unless the jury works by
your logic).

But I pre-empted that in this paragraph -

Though it is remarkable how many cyclists get mown down for going
through a red light when the nearest lights are 3 miles away.

How interesting.


So under the 'presumed liability' stuff, what would be the situation
where a cyclist jumps a red light and is mown down by a solitary driver,
no witnesses, no cameras. Would it be fair for the motorist to be held
totally to blame, jailed and sued? Imagine a similar example, a cyclist
mows down and kills a jaywalking pedestrian, no witnesses, no cameras,
the cyclist is held accountable and goes down for 15 years and is sued
for the pedestrians lost earnings, would that be fair? Under the
'presumed liability' idea, that is exactly what could happen

The law is getting increasingly stupid every day. At least leaving the EU gets rid of some of it.

The simple phrase "innocent until proven guilty" should ALWAYS be followed. ALWAYS. Nobody even gets taken to a cell or handcuffed until someone has some evidence.

--
Q. What's hairy on the outside, wet on the inside, begins with a "C" and ends with a "T"?
A. A coconut.

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2017 20:44:48 -0000, MrCheerful
wrote:
On 08/02/2017 19:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 17:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 14:35, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 01:24, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How plausible can a recounting of facts be?

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If nothing is
certain,
the law should get the **** out of the way. If we start
assuming guilt,
all is lost, and we need to blow up the houses of parliament.

"innocent until proven guilty" is when the party is accused of
being a criminal. Rarely applicable in traffic crashes where
the issue is incompetence or negligence. Easy, start from a
basis that it is the entitled one that messed up.

Start from the basis of what is least the unlikely of the
possible causes.

Is that a typo or a version of scouse?

Like a cyclist ignoring a red traffic light, or swerving into
the parth of faster traffic.

If that happened, the driver would have no difficulty with a
requirement to provide evidence that the one that came to harm
was at fault. What's the problem?

No problem at all. That's the whole point.

So what are motorists worrying about when anybody suggest changing
the system?

Pointing out that a cyclist
involved in a RTA ignored the law, the Highway Code and the general
principles of roadcraft and courtesy will always have a definite
air of truth about it. Won't it?

Not particularly. Besides, the defence of mowing down a cyclist 'cos
they break the rules, innit? doesn't work - unless the jury works by
your logic).

But I pre-empted that in this paragraph -

Though it is remarkable how many cyclists get mown down for going
through a red light when the nearest lights are 3 miles away.

How interesting.


So under the 'presumed liability' stuff, what would be the situation
where a cyclist jumps a red light and is mown down by a solitary
driver, no witnesses, no cameras. Would it be fair for the motorist
to be held totally to blame, jailed and sued? Imagine a similar
example, a cyclist mows down and kills a jaywalking pedestrian, no
witnesses, no cameras, the cyclist is held accountable and goes down
for 15 years and is sued for the pedestrians lost earnings, would
that be fair? Under the 'presumed liability' idea, that is exactly
what could happen

The law is getting increasingly stupid every day. At least leaving
the EU gets rid of some of it.
The simple phrase "innocent until proven guilty" should ALWAYS be
followed. ALWAYS. Nobody even gets taken to a cell or handcuffed
until someone has some evidence.

Prick.

"The Peeler" wrote in message
eb.com...

Oh, shut the **** up finally, you abysmally stupid twit! tsk

Hmm still suffering from Tourette Syndrome I see (potty mouth). Putting you
in a padded cell isn't the best cure. Feel free to disagree.

How do you manage to type properly, wearing a straight-jacket, with a pencil
shoved up your nose?

2B or nor 2B ?? .... that is the question.

On 08/02/2017 19:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 17:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 14:35, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 01:24, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How plausible can a recounting of facts be?

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If nothing is
certain,
the law should get the **** out of the way. If we start assuming
guilt,
all is lost, and we need to blow up the houses of parliament.

"innocent until proven guilty" is when the party is accused of being a
criminal. Rarely applicable in traffic crashes where the issue is
incompetence or negligence. Easy, start from a basis that it is the
entitled one that messed up.

Start from the basis of what is least the unlikely of the possible
causes.

Is that a typo or a version of scouse?

Like a cyclist ignoring a red traffic light, or swerving into the parth
of faster traffic.

If that happened, the driver would have no difficulty with a requirement
to provide evidence that the one that came to harm was at fault. What's
the problem?

No problem at all. That's the whole point.

So what are motorists worrying about when anybody suggest changing the
system?

Remember the EU politician whose motto was "Tell a big and damned enough
lie and some idiot will believe it"?

Pointing out that a cyclist
involved in a RTA ignored the law, the Highway Code and the general
principles of roadcraft and courtesy will always have a definite air of
truth about it. Won't it?

Not particularly.

Only to the extent that "not particularly" means "You're absolutely
right, but I, of course, cannot admit that".

Besides, the defence of mowing down a cyclist 'cos
they break the rules, innit? doesn't work - unless the jury works by
your logic).

But I pre-empted that in this paragraph -

Though it is remarkable how many cyclists get mown down for going
through a red light when the nearest lights are 3 miles away.

How interesting.

Did you have a point you were goping to try to make?

And why have you snipped the much longer list of things that cyclists do
wrong all the time?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 08/02/2017 20:44, MrCheerful wrote:
On 08/02/2017 19:51, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 17:58, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 17:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 14:35, JNugent wrote:
On 08/02/2017 09:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/02/17 01:24, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

How plausible can a recounting of facts be?

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? If nothing is
certain,
the law should get the **** out of the way. If we start assuming
guilt,
all is lost, and we need to blow up the houses of parliament.

"innocent until proven guilty" is when the party is accused of
being a
criminal. Rarely applicable in traffic crashes where the issue is
incompetence or negligence. Easy, start from a basis that it is the
entitled one that messed up.

Start from the basis of what is least the unlikely of the possible
causes.

Is that a typo or a version of scouse?

Like a cyclist ignoring a red traffic light, or swerving into the
parth
of faster traffic.

If that happened, the driver would have no difficulty with a
requirement
to provide evidence that the one that came to harm was at fault. What's
the problem?

No problem at all. That's the whole point.

So what are motorists worrying about when anybody suggest changing the
system?

Pointing out that a cyclist
involved in a RTA ignored the law, the Highway Code and the general
principles of roadcraft and courtesy will always have a definite air of
truth about it. Won't it?

Not particularly. Besides, the defence of mowing down a cyclist 'cos
they break the rules, innit? doesn't work - unless the jury works by
your logic).

But I pre-empted that in this paragraph -

Though it is remarkable how many cyclists get mown down for going
through a red light when the nearest lights are 3 miles away.

How interesting.


So under the 'presumed liability' stuff, what would be the situation
where a cyclist jumps a red light and is mown down by a solitary driver,
no witnesses, no cameras. Would it be fair for the motorist to be held
totally to blame, jailed and sued? Imagine a similar example, a cyclist
mows down and kills a jaywalking pedestrian, no witnesses, no cameras,
the cyclist is held accountable and goes down for 15 years and is sued
for the pedestrians lost earnings, would that be fair? Under the
'presumed liability' idea, that is exactly what could happen

Maybe.

If the cyclist could be traced.

Under a legal presumption like that, even more would scarper.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com