Jump to content

Recommended Posts

...who pulled out onto oncoming traffic without indicating or warning on Red Post Hill (I know it's not ED):


- YOU pulled out without indicating or warning

- YOU caused ME to do an emergency stop (luckily no-one behind me)

- even so, there was still enough room for you to carry on pulling out

- but then YOU started making offensive hand gestures at me

- when I decided not to to feel so generous and pulled next to you

- your female passenger jumped out of the van and became verbally agressive and deeply offensive, leaning into my car's open window


I hope you had a lovely day and managed to keep that chip on your shoulder from falling off.

I know the VW camper in question - I see it every time I walk to JAGS gym. It is plastered with pacifist, liberal, cr@p stickers like "drop acid not bombs" and these are mostly of US origin.


I'm surprised that camper is still there after all these years and that that P!k?$ havn't nicked it yet! But then you never know who the owners might be!!

Green Goose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I'm surprised that camper is still there after all

> these years and that that P!k?$ havn't nicked it

> yet!


xxxxxx


And would you care to fill in the missing letters of the word I've emphasised in bold, Green Goose?

Oh the poor cyclists paying the taxes for all the other I think you have been smoking too much green stuff cyclists are a waste of space and we could save millions of pounds by banning the green muesli munchers all the tax they pay what road tax do you pay nothing make the cyclists pay the congestion charge as well
Lady d the cyclists pay so much tax do they have insurance no do they pay a road fund licence no do they for fuel no the facts every thing you buy in the shops or buy online is delivered by those dirty vans or dirty lorries not not cyclists or by wind powered boats or solar cars

the man with a van Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lady d the cyclists pay so much tax do they have

> insurance no do they pay a road fund licence no do

> they for fuel no the facts every thing you buy in

> the shops or buy online is delivered by those

> dirty vans or dirty lorries not not cyclists or by

> wind powered boats or solar cars


I love that this post was edited two minutes after posting. Man With a Van clearly wrote and posted it. but on further consideration wasn't entirely content with the syntax and grammar so amended accordingly.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...