Demand for cyclists number plates.

[TheBigYin]

Has anyone else noticed the unfying effect ST4 has on the forum - pretty much everyone thinks hes a complete berk, so those who'd otherwise be arguing about all sorts of stuff all come together in their shared antipathy, thus creating a fellow feeling that wasnt there before ( Like Jeeve's Uncle George) ... I'm beginig to wonder if he's actually admin with a dupe account

If they were THAT imaginative pete, don't you think they'd be channelling their efforts into something a little more lucrative than this Forum ?

 

[big soft moose]

Plenty of people pay their taxes at the punitive upper rates.

True , and a high percentage of unemployed people claim benefits honestly while trying to find work. My point was that the percentage of benefits claimants cheating is smalller than the percentage of high earners cheating, so if the benefits cheats make everyone in their demographic scum, what do the actions of the cheating high earners make you ?

 

[SFTPhotography]

no, thats not what i said. i just think you bring nothing to this place other than the ability to train wreck a thread.

Do you ever post photos or take part in other parts of the forum. If you did, you might not post blatant trolling remarks.

 

[SFTPhotography]

True , and an equal percentage of unemployed people claim benefits honestly while trying to find work. My point was that the percentage of benefits claimants cheating is smalller than the percentage of high earners cheating, so if the benefits cheats make everyone in their demographic scum, what do the actions of the cheating high earners make you ?

Is it smaller. I imagine there are many more claimants that put in nothing to the country than there are millionaires who use tax efficient legal processes to minimise their tax liability which is still massive.

 

[neil_g]

Do you ever post photos or take part in other parts of the forum. If you did, you might not post blatant trolling remarks.

ha. i take it youve never been into any computer based threads/section.

kindly go back and answer the posts that ask for information that may break your opinion and i might take you more seriously.

 

[big soft moose]

Do you ever post photos or take part in other parts of the forum. If you did, you might not post blatant trolling remarks.

 

[Yv]

Lets not get too personal chaps, its Friday and almost beer o'clock, time to argue the point, not the person.

 

[Cobra]

indeed. scrivens got permabanned for less controversy.

Actually, you may all think you know why a certain member was finally banned.
But that wasn't it

Has anyone else noticed the unfying effect ST4 has on the forum - pretty much everyone thinks hes a complete berk, so those who'd otherwise be arguing about all sorts of stuff all come together in their shared antipathy, thus creating a fellow feeling that wasnt there before ( Like Jeeve's Uncle George) ... I'm beginig to wonder if he's actually admin with a dupe account

Actually I don't think he's a complete berk, there are more members that deserve that title than him,
he's quite a long way down the queue TBH

Steve loves to play devils advocate that's quite clear,
but he intersperse his thoughts on life & universe with some rather fine landscapes

And no he is not a "admin duplicate" either

 

[SFTPhotography]

ha. i take it youve never been into any computer based threads/section.

kindly go back and answer the posts that ask for information that may break your opinion and i might take you more seriously.

I'm comfortable with computers.

Back on topic just why should cyclists who's mode of traffic pays nothing into the system, who are most vulnerable should be treated more preferentially than motorists. Why should they be able to use our roads ununsured and cause accidents and not be liable just because they are more vulnerable.

 

[big soft moose]

Is it smaller. I imagine there are many more claimants that put in nothing to the country than there are millionaires who use tax efficient legal processes to minimise their tax liability which is still massive.

I imagine a prolonged threesome in a hot tub with angelina jolie and a young michelle pffeier ... my scenerio has a greater chance of coming true than yours does

 

[LCPete]

Is it smaller. I imagine there are many more claimants that put in nothing to the country than there are millionaires who use tax efficient legal processes to minimise their tax liability which is still massive.

Not picking on you Steve but you're wrong I'm afraid
if the top few percent paid their way the deficit would be cleared in two years

 

[SFTPhotography]

Not picking on you Steve but you're wrong I'm afraid
if the top few percent paid their way the deficit would be cleared in two years

They pay in millions and in relative terms and absolute terms a lot more than the poor do.

 

[big soft moose]

Back on topic just why should cyclists who's mode of traffic pays nothing into the system, who are most vulnerable should be treated more preferentially than motorists. Why should they be able to use our roads ununsured and cause accidents and not be liable just because they are more vulnerable.

on that point I agree with steve

Imo insurance should be mandatory for every road user including cyclists and horse riders - if you cause an accident or damage to annother road user you should have to pay - I also don't agree with the automatic presumption of fault on the part of the car driver .. every accident should be judged on its merits

 

[SFTPhotography]

I imagine a prolonged threesome in a hot tub with angelina jolie and a young michelle pffeier ... my scenerio has a greater chance of coming true than yours does

There are more claimants than millionaires, and your assuming that many illegally dodge tax.

Very few illegally dodge tax, they're just tax efficient and will make efficient use of spousal allowances etc

 

[Musicman]

They pay in millions and in relative terms and absolute terms a lot more than the poor do.

I have already proven that claim to be false in an earlier reply: #140

 

[big soft moose]

They pay in millions and in relative terms and absolute terms a lot more than the poor do.

some do - some pay next to F all - as said above if you include total taxation including such things as VAT , the poor are paying greater than their share.

 

[LCPete]

ha. i take it youve never been into any computer based threads/section.

kindly go back and answer the posts that ask for information that may break your opinion and i might take you more seriously.

Yes Neil has helped myself and others on many occasions in the computer section
when I upgraded my PC is one example

 

[big soft moose]

There are more claimants than millionaires, and your assuming that many illegally dodge tax.

Very few illegally dodge tax, they're just tax efficient and will make efficient use of spousal allowances etc

but then very few claimants are illegally cheating either

Also while tax avoidance/efficiency is legal - at the end of the day it still means not paying tax

 

[Marc]

on that point I agree with steve

Imo insurance should be mandatory for every road user including cyclists and horse riders - if you cause an accident or damage to annother road user you should have to pay - I also don't agree with the automatic presumption of fault on the part of the car driver .. every accident should be judged on its merits

Any horse rider who rides anywhere other than a riding/livery establishment needs shooting if they don't have PL insurance!

 

[neil_g]

time to argue the point, not the person.

tried that, he ignores the posts that may disprove his point.. doesnt help his cause to be fair.

 

[big soft moose]

I have already proven that claim to be false in an earlier reply: #140

Don't expect such triffling things as facts tp have any bearing on this debate

 

[big soft moose]

Any horse rider who rides anywhere other than a riding/livery establishment needs shooting if they don't have PL insurance!

indeed - but its not a mandatory requirement like it is for motorists ... and it should be (and for cyclists).

End of the day many will argue that cyclists don't need it because they are low risk n- to that i'd say if you are low risk premiums will be cheap so its no problem to have it.

 

[neil_g]

Actually, you may all think you know why a certain member was finally banned.
But that wasn't it

maybe not but he certainly got his wrist slapped many a time for bickering/baiting or "playing devils advocate".

i think its sad that some people are getting annoyed enough at one particular user. perhaps to the point someone may "do an arkady" and tell it like it is and end up banned.

 

[LCPete]

They pay in millions and in relative terms and absolute terms a lot more than the poor do.

Yes most do the decent thing a pay their due but many individuals and companies pay little if any tax
anyway it's Xbox time I'm off now

 

[Musicman]

Back on topic just why should cyclists who's mode of traffic pays nothing into the system, who are most vulnerable should be treated more preferentially than motorists. Why should they be able to use our roads ununsured and cause accidents and not be liable just because they are more vulnerable.

or, with a little change

Back on topic just why should child pedestrians under 16 who's mode of traffic pays nothing into the system, who are most vulnerable should be treated more preferentially than motorists. Why should they be able to use our roads ununsured and cause accidents and not be liable just because they are more vulnerable.

The logic of your argument seems to suggest compulsory third party insurance of all children from the age they can walk [?]

 

[Marc]

indeed - but its not a mandatory requirement like it is for motorists ... and it should be (and for cyclists).

End of the day many will argue that cyclists don't need it because they are low risk n- to that i'd say if you are low risk premiums will be cheap so its no problem to have it.

I agree as far as horses are concerned as the potential for damage is that much greater. I wonder if cyclists could be covered under home insurance.

 

[Cobra]

maybe not but he certainly got his wrist slapped many a time for bickering/baiting or "playing devils advocate".

And a lot of wrist slapping goes on in private too, just because you don't see it,
doesn't mean that it doesn't happen
Disclaimer, that above comment has no resemblance to any person in this thread,
living dead or undead my remarks are purely coincidental.

i think its sad that some people are getting annoyed enough at one particular user. perhaps to the point someone may "do an arkady" and tell it like it is and end up banned.

Arkady, again way off the mark

Arguments are a fact of life especially in OoF.
Everyone loves to play devils advocate from time to time.
Steve does seem to have the habit of playing the fall guy,
and of course he gets jumped on. That's life.

If you think about it, I've not seen one personal attack from him to another member,
but there ate plenty of instances where he has been berated for being him.
Over certain issues that keep getting referred back to, although irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

 

[big soft moose]

The logic of your argument seems to suggest compulsory third party insurance of all children from the age they can walk [?]

they'd be the parents responsibility and covered under the legal policy part of most home insurance policies

 

[neil_g]

I agree as far as horses are concerned as the potential for damage is that much greater.

also the unpredictability factor.

I wonder if cyclists could be covered under home insurance.

some tack legal cover on, ive not seen any with 3rd party liability (etc) on personally?

membership to british cycling (includes liability) isnt expensive though.. - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership

 

[big soft moose]

Over certain issues that keep getting referred back to, although irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

to be honest the main issue reffered back to is the 138 MPH speeding - which is directly relevant to the issue in hand when he's arguing that mororists don't drive recklessly.

He also seems to be arguing that the rich should pay less tax (which is completely irrelevant to the thread but hey ho) , so the fact that he is himself a super tax payer is relevant there

and on the issue of personal attacks , so far in this thread he's accused two people of being trolls (one was neil, i'm not sure who the first one was directed at)

 

[SFTPhotography]

The logic of your argument seems to suggest compulsory third party insurance of all children from the age they can walk [?]

I think cyclists should have insurance, what if they damage someones car on injure a padestrain and its their fault.

 

[neil_g]

I think cyclists should have insurance, what if they damage someones car on injure a padestrain and its their fault.

what if a pedestrian damages your car? should they have insurance too?

 

[SFTPhotography]

I have already proven that claim to be false in an earlier reply: #140

You wrote this

In absolute terms (£s received by the treasury) the very richest may pay more, but relative to their disposable income, they pay less than anyone else and nearly half the proportion of taxes paid by the poorest.

 

[Mattyd]

also the unpredictability factor.



some tack legal cover on, ive not seen any with 3rd party liability (etc) on personally?

membership to british cycling (includes liability) isnt expensive though.. - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership

Im insured via 3 separate parties.

My home cover (M&S I believe) is one that covers my liability on my bike (the other two are via my club membership and CTC)

I recommend every cyclist be insured, but I don't advocate making it a legal obligation.

 

[SFTPhotography]

to be honest the main issue reffered back to is the 138 MPH speeding - which is directly relevant to the issue in hand when he's arguing that mororists don't drive recklessly.

He also seems to be arguing that the rich should pay less tax (which is completely irrelevant to the thread but hey ho) , so the fact that he is himself a super tax payer is relevant there

and on the issue of personal attacks , so far in this thread he's accused two people of being trolls (one was neil, i'm not sure who the first one was directed at)

You are trolling. What has my offence got to do with 30million other road users, may you please explain. My offence is of no relevance to this thread. Why mention it? Other than to troll and derail.

I have never said motorists do not drive wrecklessly, please point me in the direction, to state that I said this. Please, rather than just make up stuff.

Can you also please tell me where I stated what I earned was, and what my tax liabilities were?

Can you also please explain why cyclists, some who do ride wrecklessly eg running red lights, are not an issue that needs addressed?

 

[Marc]

also the unpredictability factor.



some tack legal cover on, ive not seen any with 3rd party liability (etc) on personally?

membership to british cycling (includes liability) isnt expensive though.. - http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership

Well yes, I was factoring in unpredictability as part of that.

I was just wondering as far as home insurance was concerned as there is often a lot more covered than people realise.

 

[POAH]

to support what, scum?

hi "waves" just think your hard earned tax gives me 6k a year because I have kids and will be going up when our third arrived. you are so kind

 

[Cobra]

@big soft moose
Pete, I'm not specifically talking about this thread with my last comments, but every other thread he has started or jumped in on,
regardless of subject, someone will mention his little jaunt around the highlands.
No one can defend his actions, and he has admitted he was wrong.
But to keep referring back to that one instance, could well fall under the "trolling act"

Trolling, you wouldn't believe the amount of RTMs we get in one day saying "he / she / they are trolling.
I think that at some point, just about everyone that posts in OoF has been reported for trolling, because
the other party didn't agree with their post.

But then trolling isn't the same as personal attacks.

Anyway this is about cyclists (I think )
and not about personal achievements

 

[SFTPhotography]

what if a pedestrian damages your car? should they have insurance too?

the scenario of a drunk padestrain walking infront of me whilst driving and I hit them through no fault of my own and my car is damaged, then yes, it would seem fair I am held liable for something I am not liable for. But the potential risk they pose to property and others is a lot less than a cyclist does?

 

[viv1969]

hi "waves" just think your hard earned tax gives me 6k a year because I have kids and will be going up when our third arrived. you are so kind

Bloody hell! Tie a knot it it you money grubbing, superbreeding "look how fabulous my swimmers are" ne'er do well!!
I feel a letter to the Guardian coming on........