Precisely, I can actually remember when to get down for speeding it had to involve human interaction. It generated great lines of sardonic Police speak like :-

1) Enroute to wifes Uncles funeral, obviously getting an ear bashing from er’indoors….. “give me a break officer you can see I’m late for a funeral”…. “Better late for one than early for another sir”

2) Having lost the car big style, and nearly wiped myself out due to a flood in a hidden dip, Policeman beckons me away from the scene and asks…. “do you know why I’ve brought you back here sir?”… “No officer”… “its because you drive like a c**t and I wanted to tell you so” ….. “erm thank you officer” …. now bugger off before I cease to have pity on you”

But more imnportantly a modicum of common sense was applied. Case 1, on reflection he was right, Case no 2 actually wasn’t really my fault, and I was extremely shaken up at the time. He realised that, made sure that I was contrite and probably had learnt from the experience, then sent me off with a flea in my ear. Net result = More care in future and some respect for the plod and the law.

With the we (the jocks) own everything, and you sassenach bastards have stolen it all business, I get the oil argument, but how about the costs bit? All the figures I’ve ever seen conveniently forget Scotlands share of the National debt, and payment for the armed forces and stuff like that.

Thanks zokes, incidentally that is not to say that the punsihment for D & D is too low, just that there are many instances where it is not proportionate to other sentences. Similarly with speeding, with certain notable exceptions, such as in built up areas I’ve never come across a situation where driving at speed per se was unsafe, generally its driving inappropriately for the conditions thats unsafe.

acracer : Who said anything about too light?

How about we play a different game? I’ll post something, then you answer something else and I’ll try to guess what you’re on about…

Just out of curiosity G, at what point should your mate have been banned? Or should he be allowed to carry on speeding (or being caught speeding to be precise) forever?

Answer :

there does need to be some sort of proportion in these things, otherwise it is simply unjust

If you want it more concise than that, I think he should have been banned when he was. However, I can’t totally see the point of giving him a 6 month ban which in all liklihood will put him out of work, and thus cause a burden on society. I think 4 – 6 weeks, which is still severe in the circumstances, but just about survivable would be more sensible, plus perhaps a driver re-education prgoramme, or possibly a resit of his test before being able to drive again. I also think that the penalties across the piece should be proprotionate. If you really want to go off on one, try the penalties for drink driving. Seriously disproportionate IMHO.

What the **** it got to do with you?

LOL at the five fingered Death ****.. but then I’m sick too

Nope, only insomuch as there does need to be some sort of proportion in these things, otherwise it is simply unjust

acracer : Check this out

Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong, but is this punishment, that looks like making him unemployed, as the sole breadwinner in a family of 5 (given that for example the driver who recklessly killed the Rhyll cycling club 4 only got £180 fine and 6 penalty points), reasonable and proportionate.

No sermonising please, but I am thinking about writing to my MP about what seems to me to be an injustice, and the huge discrepancy in sentencing. Am I wrong to be outraged?

Now I can see how you can, if you wish take it that way, but as I’ve repeatedly stated, my point is, is it reasonable and proportionate in relation to the attitude the system takes to much more serious transgressions on the roads? For yet another example, its now starting to look like no charges will be made against the driver who killed the Army major on the A1 at St. Neots the other week. So whilst I admit, that from a defensive viewpoint I personally wouldn’t even consider cycling on the A1, the facts are that the guy was doing what he is perfectly legally entitled to do, and he was mown down from behind by a driver, on a clear open road with something like a mile of visibility, and yet apparently they’ve done nothing wrong. Consider that next to the £4000 mtb rider who ran down the lass and was villified. There again there was no real evidence of wrong doing on his part, other than the outcome, yet, he is charged and given the maximum sentence. Not right at all IMHO.

Oh right, so its selective law breaking thats OK then. Incidentally, wheres the bleating thing come from?

(No No officer, I made a value judgement based on my knowledge of my vehicle, the road conditions and the excessive use of legislation by you lot, and it was IMHO perfectly OK for me to ignore the law 8) )

zaskar, do you know mine apart, (obviously), that is the most sensible post on this whole thread. Totally agree with your point of view.

Slightly disturbed at your admission that you’ve broken lots of other traffic laws

Yep, I’m a complete nutter me, I’ve parked on double yellows, stopped and dropped my Mrs off at the shops in a no stopping zone, crossed the white lines on a cross hatched area, and worst of all, I’ve answered my phone whilst not moving in a queue of traffic!! Not to mention obviously the numerous times I’ve transgressed the speeding rules.

So call me Josef Mengele and whip me with a rolled up copy of Walk! I’m sure I deserve it.

PS : For the record I’ve held a full UK licence since 1979, on average I’ve done 60,000 pa for all of that time, I’ve never had a major accident, (been nudged in a car park a few times, sort of thing) and I’ve had 4 endorsements for speeding over those 30 years and 1.8 million miles.

Go on the Smee, what your situation, 1 2 or 3??

All speeding.. nothing else.

Finished my DIY chores for the weekend, so hurrah and back again.

1) So lets start with a hands up from everyone whose never broken any traffic law?

2) Then a hands up from those who’ve broken a traffic law and never been caught?

3) Been caught braking traffic laws.

No need for a long post, just go for No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3

I’m 1 and 2, in fact I had 11 points on my licence for 12 months once. Had 6 on there, then got done again. Plus I’ve been done prior to that , so thats 4 speeding tickets over 32 years as a driver. Broekn loads of other laws and not been caught.

Thanks… age is against me.

This is him…. how the **** he gets 37mph out of it is beyond me

Why thank you sir.

No they can’t – particularly not when going downhill

If you can’t stop your bike quicker than car at the same speed and in the same conditions I’d get your brakes serviced urgently if I were you. Consider the fact that your using pretty much the same technology, and weigh a fraction of what a car does… well at least I do.

crikey – Member
I’m really glad you used the death of my friend to help while away the boredom…

Sorry if you feel that way, my view however is obviously different. I happen to beleive that what happened to those guys, and significantly their familes afterwards, and therefore to the greater cycling fraternity by implication was an absolute disgrace. Regretably despite many attempts it has remained a fact that the opportunity to build something positive from that horrible event seems to have been completely ignored. Personally, I’m unlikely to stop banging on about it, or winding people up who seem intent on ignoring the inequities in the way cyclists are treated and riding off on some holier than crusade instead.

TJ, I despair. The point is that without investigation my mate, truly did get banned for 6 months, he has lost his livlihood, and great hardship has been brought down on him for the error of his ways. Likewise without investigation, the Police for it was they who failed to charge the driver, not the CPS who had no evidence presented to them, chose to treat the incident as “one of those things” and not important enough to warrant serious investigation and thought. Thats not my interpretation of it, thats the interpretation of the coroner and the Home Secretary. So yep you’re right the Rhyl fella wasn’t taken to court and it wasn’t tested in a court of law. However, the point is the motivation behind that. i.e. the “system” doesn’t take deaths of cyclists seriously. Step away from the Rhyl 4 for a moment and consider any one of numerous other incidents and think about it. The guy on the Dunwich Dyanmo in 07 (i mention it as I happened to be there). To the best of my knowledge no charges were ever brought. The guy on the A1 the other week, anyone know if any charges have been brought? I’m guessing not.

Now then for those who think I’ve tried to slip off the hook with dignity, read what I’ve written, (especially this bit)

In the meantime, lets see how many more posts go on without actually reading what any of its about.

and then return here highlighting whether you would like the half hour argument, or the full hour, for I can go on indefinitely and happily will do.

Finally for those who cannot fully get it. I am not now, never have and will not be drawn on trying to defend my mates actions. That is not what this is about. It is about the inequity between the way some traffic offences are treated in relation to extremely serious offences aginst cyclists. (I don’t actually have a view particularly on pedestrains incidentally, viewing them as I do as a sub species). I have used the Rhyl 4 as an illustration, being as it is a notorious case where, the investigating authorities were directly criticised for their woeful lack of diligence in dealing with it. The catalyst for these thoughts was indeed my mate appearing with his tale of woe, and me thinking that doesn’t seem right in relation to all of these numerous other cases of cyclists being wiped out and nothing being done about it. However, it is not about him, it is about the lack of support for cyclists.

Now then you’ll have to make do with moaning about this post for now, as I’ve got stuff to do today. However, never fear I shall return to wind the handle even more.

Bye for now.

djglover – Member
I can only hear the laughing at you and the endless banging of head against keyboard

Fair point, but to be honest, I’ve had a really crappy and very dull day at work, so the thread whilst all fundamentally true started off mischievously through boredom, on a subject, that I know brings the self righteous out of their cupboard, it is basically a troll.

Nonetheless I honestly do think the underlying point is absolutely correct, in that cyclists and their safety do not get a fair shake of the stick, but then they never will as long as nobody, not even fellow cyclists seem able to grasp the basic inequity that lies at the base of it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, love em or hate em, at least the red socks stick together and get stuff done. We’re crap at that, as the above sanctimonious outpouring does rather prove….

Anyway, can’t put it off any longer, DIY beckons

In the meantime, lets see how many more posts go on without actually reading what any of its about.

PS: Sorry if any offence was caused by any of the above, but you probably deserved it if there was. ABSOLUTELY NO DISRESPECT IS IMPLIED OR INTENDED TO THE RHYL 4 OR ANY OTHER BROTHER/SISTER CYCLIST WHO HAS LOST THEIR LIFE ON THE ROADS, AND IF JUST ONE MORE PERSON REALISES HOW UNFAIR THE CYCLISTS TREATMENT ON THE ROAD IS AS A RESULT, THEN THAT IS A POWERFUL ADDENDUM TO THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES.

Stu_N – Member

**** me!!!!!

You really can’t read can you??

G – your mate is an idiot who deserved to be banned

No he isn’t hes a very hard working family guy who has been a bit unlucky. Neither he nor I have sought to justify or pardon his actions.

but at the end of the day the DPP decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute for anything more than dodgy tyres

No, the Police failed to investigate the matter properly and didn’t lay any charges, therfore the CPS, (not the Director of Public Prosecutions) didn’t have anything to make a decision about. Not only that, it wasn’t really a big deal to investigate the driver admitted driving too fast for the conditions….. how difficult does it have to be to figure out the charge from there???? Subsequent to that at the inquest the coroner criticised the police for exactly that and then complained about the matter to the Home Secretary. Whats so F***ing hard to understand about that FFS!!!!!!!

neverfastenuff – Member
I think your mate could hire a pensioner to drive him round for a bit of cash in hand…

But cash in hand is illegal, so prepare yourself for a major shafting by the holier than though brigade…. I can hear the sucking in of breath and the self righteous indignation-o-meter building up a head of steam right now!

I give in!!!!!!! Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No TJ you are getting muddled up, I’m well aware of the facts of the case. The whole point is that the Police did not take the matter seriously, and were roundly criticised afterwards for that fact. The fact that they didn’t is the symptom, the actual illness is that the “system” doesn’t treat cyclists lives as having any worth, so the case was treated as “poor fella, he’s going to have to live with killing those people”, as opposed to “this is a very serious incident, and has to be fully and properly invesitgated and if someone is culpable they should be taken to book for it”.

Which bit was too difficult?

druidh – Member

That’s a valiant attempt to garner sympathy for your view based on making it so sort of “us and them” type of argument..

Yep thats right, its what you do in a discussion/debate, you argue your point of view against others. So take yourself a gold star off the shelf and add to that the one for spotting that I don’t think cyclists get treated fairly in these circumstances.

However, do you feel that the Rhyl driver was left off lightly because it was “only” cyclists and that it would have been different if he had killed pedestrians

Yes I do. Think of the scenario where a driver with 4 bald tyres on an icy road has ploughed through a group of pedestrians, killing 4, admits openly that he was going too fast for the conditions, and only gets charged with having bald tyres, then on top of that the Police are literally bollocked up hill and down dale by the coroner for their lack of diligence on several levels, and then tell me that there wouldn’t be a public outcry about it.

Having crossed that bridge, see if why as a cyclist when you see others getting punished more severely for lesser crimes which luckily or not had lesser consequences that it wouldn’t make you mindful of that disparity.

Frankly I cannot see what people have issue with, so please explain it to me, anyone ……

G my point being that you are getting all muddled up

No TJ you are getting muddled up, I’m well aware of the facts of the case. The whole point is that the Police did not take the matter seriously, and were roundly criticised afterwards for that fact. The fact that they didn’t is the symptom, the actual illness is that the “system” doesn’t treat cyclists lives as having any worth, so the case was treated as “poor fella, he’s going to have to live with killing those people”, as opposed to “this is a very serious incident, and has to be fully and properly invesitgated and if someone is culpable they should be taken to book for it”.

Whereas my mates pecadillos are minor by comparision, have never had any investigation as to the prevailing circumstances surrounding them and he has been punished more severely than most people who kill a cyclist on the roads. Yet as per usual this thread is full of twerping idiots who a) totally have missed the point, and b) have actully admitted that there by the grace of God go I, and then are idiot enough to be crticising not only my mate but themselves by implications as well. THINK ABOUT IT FFS!!!!

Try thinking about it another way, remember the guy on the £4000 moutnain bike he ran into a girl who was killed when her head hit the kerb a wee while back? Remember the villifying and public outrage surrounding that?
It seemed to be centred around the fact that he was riding a £4000 MTB, and had shouted for the girl to get out of the way while he was doing 27mph in a 30mph area. Totally overlooked the fact that on a £4000 mtb there are hydraulic brakes which actually can stop you quicker than car in the same circumstances, the girl and her friends had been drinking all day and that she stepped backwards off the kerb into his path and that he apparently bunny hopped on to the path in an attempt to avoid her, and that doing 27 mph on a public highway with a 30mph limit is in fact perfcetly legal. So wheres the similar level outrage about the Rhyl boys, even on here a cycling forum??? Seems to me that even here all you get is people totally missing the point and prattling on about irrelevancies. No doubt in a moment some jerk will come along and start warbling on about how its a choice you take and the responsibility is with the cyclist who goes out and does what he is legally entitled to, and is then subsequently killed for it.

TandemJeremy – Member
And as repeatedly pointed out the driver in the Rhyl case did not get a small fine for the killing – he got a small fine for a minor offense because thats all he was charged with

And as repeatedly pointed out right back at you the Police were roundly criticised for it, not only that just a few weeks ago there was a report highlighting the disproprtionately high number of deaths of cyclists on the roads, so whats your point??

stufield – Member
it takes 4 years for points to come off your license

No actually it takes 3 as it always had done, its just that you can’t have them physically removed for 4, so as to avoid people deferring their cases so they can present aclean licence. however, regardless of that whats your point?

IdleJon – Member

aracer – Member

As I’ve said repeatedly, it just seems injust NOT TO MY MATE, but to the ever increasing list of cyclists who lose their lives on the roads. Basically if you want to assasinate someone, buy them a bike and then run them down. You will get away with it.

With which we all generally agree. Why bring your mate’s justified sentence into it and so confuse the issue?

Because the original question was made with direct reference to his mate with the Rhyl cyclists thrown in for good measure, and then when he didn’t get the answers he wanted the focus changed to the sentences handed out for killing cyclists or pedestrians.

Get yourself up to the top of the thread, read the last two sentences that you have conveniently ignored. That apart I would argue that the sentence is excessive if you take ALL of the circumstances into account, and that the Rhyll one is ridiculously slight if again you take ALL of the circumstances into account…. its called comparision, a technique often used in conversations and discussions. In fact, the inequity being displayed here is what has motivated me to raise the matter as quite rightly mentioned after all of this time, however it could equally be the guy on the Dunwich Dynamo in O7 or the guy on the A1 time trail the other week, or any number of other cases, it just is happens that the Rhyll case is a notoriously extreme example.

Also, in respect of this, “With which we all generally agree” I actually don’t think that is the case from what I’ve read above, most of the thread is wabbling on about my mate, which actually isn’t what I asked at all.

now is moaning about a relatively tame punishment. 6 months is not really a long time at all

Firstly hes not moaning about it, and nor am I, he is however, very upset about letting us and his family down. So stop pontificating, Secondly 6 months is not tame at all, the norm with the circumstances that appertain here is somewhere between 3 and 6 weeks. Even the court officals were taken aback by the severity of the punishment.

Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly,

You cannot compare the Rhyl incident to this

yes I can and that is precisely what I am doing, in terms of the sentencing handed down.

thegreatape – Member
G – have you got a link for the inquest findings?

Nope but this will give you a flavour of it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

Post the inquest the coroner made a complaint to the Home Secretary and the issue was then taken up and I believe some Police folks were hung out to dry for their failure to even charge the guy.

Stu_N – Member
From now on, should only people who wish to agree with the OP and validate his point of view be able to post on this thread?

I couldn’t give a flying toss who agrees with my point of view, which incidentally is that I’m not defending his actions, but I think there is disparity in the sentences handed down for relatively minor traffic offences, and what happens if you kill a cyclist negligently at best and culpably at worst. However what really does boil my piss is idiots like you who choose either not to read or simply can’t, but apparently have no problem with typing shite.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it just seems injust NOT TO MY MATE, but to the ever increasing list of cyclists who lose their lives on the roads. Basically if you want to assasinate someone, buy them a bike and then run them down. You will get away with it.

Spot on Mastiles.

TJ : Read up on the inquest and the general aftermath to the Rhyll disaster. You will find that the Police who ARE the people who press charges, didn’t investigate properly and failed to offer any evidence of all of the other things that the driver could have been charged with. They not the CPS were roundly criticised for their failures. Basically I do hear what you are saying, but frankly its not relevant or correct.

So in these circumstances where in my mates case no discretion (all speed camera jobbies) has been exercised there is one particularly severe sentence, and then in the Rhyll case where discretion (or perhaps more accurately lack of it!) has been exercised and a ludicrous outcome has occurred. To me that rather suggests that cyclists lives aren’t actually taken as having much importance.

Are you taking the piss?

druidh – Member
G – I’d have more sympathy for your feelings of injustice, if it wasn’t for the fact that your mate had already ignored three previous warnings and was fully aware of the consequences of doing so again.

So precisely which bit of “Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong” or “No sermonising please” is too difficult for you to understand???? The injustice I’m talking about is to cyclists, not to my mate

mastiles_fanylion Thanks,

The fact is he is self employed, scrapes a living and was fully represented in court by a solicitor. Apparently pretty much every traffic offence came out with a 6 month ban on that day. PMT behind the bench perhaps? Who knows.

Anyway, not defending him, just saying it doesn’t seem in proportion to other things I know of.

Interestingly overlooking these bits Drac :-

Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong, but is this punishment, that looks like making him unemployed, as the sole breadwinner in a family of 5 proportionate, (given that for example the driver who recklessly killed the Rhyll cycling club 4 only got £180 fine and 6 penalty points), reasonable and proportionate.

No sermonising please, but I am thinking about writing to my MP about what seems to me to be an injustice, and the huge discrepancy in sentencing. Am I wrong to be outraged?

G – is a fair summary of your original question “Am I wrong to be outraged that my mate, a habitual speeder, has been banned from driving for getting caught speeding 4 times in 3 years though he hasn’t actually killed anyone yet?”

Or alternatively “Should someone who habitually flouts the law be allowed to keep on driving until they kill someone before they deserve a ban?”

No, the question is how is a 6 month ban in these circumstances proportionate when taken in relation to sentences handed down to people who negligently run over cyclists? The reference to the Rhyll 4 was deliberate and considered. The Police chose to only charge the guy with the offence of driving a vehicle with bald tyres. At the inquest they were deeply criticised for making NO ATTEMPT WHSTSOEVER to charge the guy with any of the numerous other offences that were justifiable and that he actually admitted in court. Their statement that bald tyres had no bearing on the accident was also shown to be inaccurate. The sentence handed down was proper and correct in accordance with what he was charged with, and the sentencing guidelines for that offence.

Frankly the above makes me puke. It is a given that cyclists are disproportinately vulnerable and harmed on British roads and there is little or nothing done about it. Read through the above and ask yourself why. All I’m doing is expressing my annoynace at what seems to me to be a ludicrous situation with massive disparity over sentencing, and saying that I intend to actually do something about it.

Do you ever wonder why cycling generally doesn’t get anywhere in advancing its issues????

I’m going to get a tee-shirt with RTFT! on it specially for you TJ. If you don’t follow that, which I’m suspecting you won’t thats short for Read The **** Thread!!!

G – as regards the Rhyl case it is clear that the court did not consider the bald tyres to be a contributing factor. I think the driver should have gone to jail but the court did not. What you and many others forget is that the punishment for breaking the law is based upon what the driver did – not on what the consequences were

You will find if you read up on the case and the subsequent inquest that you are talking uttert boll-ocks. In fact if you take the time and bother to read my preceding post you wouldn’t have been so stupid as to post this.

As regards driving offences – I have not driven much in the last few years. In 30 yrs since I got my license I have had 3 speeding fines – never more than one on my license at a time.

Like I said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You drive very little, no doubt therefore under little or no pressure, and you’ve been done. My mate and I for that matter drive a huge amount under great pressure and mile for mile I suspect have made less mistakes than you. Which really makes it amazing that you have the barefaced cheek to rant on about this on a thread which has not at any point sought to justify my mates actions.

However if and when I am caught I simply accept the punishment. I am a firm believer in “if you cant do the time don’t do the crime”

Which is immensely noble of you, but as before, how about reading the thread, and not misconstruing it as being about the punishment meted out to my mate, but about the lack of punishment handed out to people who run down and kill cyclists, and before you launch off about the Rhyll situation again, may I suggest that you go and read up on the case before you do. Even the limited information I have posted on this thread should give you an indication as to how stupid you have been in what you have posted already.

and if you are trolling, then you have in fact succeeded in winding me up. 👿

You comparison to the Ryl (sp) case is spurious as that was a single offense of having an unroadworthy car that in the opinion of the court did not contribute to the accident

Frankly TJ I am stunned that you of all people should write that. You could not be more wrong!

The Police only ever charged the guy with having 3 bald tyres. (The fixed penatly for which is 3 points each and a £60 fine), so he didn’t even get the maximum penalty for that. He pleaded guilty in court, and admitted that he was going too fast for the conditions. He had previous for traffic offences as long as your arm. At the inquest the Police were roundly criticised for their inept handling of the case, for not charging the guy with the full range of offences that he committed, and I beleive senior officers were forced to resign over it.

You sir, unusual as it may well be, are frankly talking bol-locks in this instance!

I presume therefore, and rather surprisingly, that your name is the first on the list of patronising twunts who have never made any sort of mistake whilst driving in the last 6 years!

In the meantime, any danger at all of reading the thread, and in particular my two posts, and actually either getting lost, or answering the question?

I just love the way folk answer a different question to the one asked, well done mastiles_fanylion for actually reading the OP.

Right to answer a few points, he does approx 60,000 miles per annum, he offers rapid support services to a quite widespread customer base, so is on call 24/7 and is expected to respond on demand. That sort of mileage is some 5 to 6 times the national average, so what you are looking at is the equivalent of one speeding offence per 6 years of average driving. I don’t think cycling is an answer in these circumstances do you?

Anyway, could all those who have not made any error in 6 years of driving please sign below, so I can demonstrate to him what a worthless piece of shite he is in comparision to the holier than though wussacks on here.

In the meantime, try to get your collective heads around the fact that the reason I was writing to my MP was in respect of the disparity between sentencing for injury, death and damage done to cyclists, in proportion to sentences handed out for relatively minor traffic infringments where no injury/damage/harm is sustained. (and before the wolf pack winds up to full howl, there is a difference in English Law where the consequences of your actions are proportionately more serious, I think you will find its not taken into account in the verdict, but is covered in sentencing guidelines.)

In the meantime, try to get your heads around the meaning behind the following segements of the OP

Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong,

No sermonising please, but I am thinking about writing to my MP about what seems to me to be an injustice, and the huge discrepancy in sentencing. Am I wrong to be outraged?

FFS………. <wanders off to calm down muttering and shaking head>

Yep, those were the arguments used on the Chinese, as they slowed their rate of poulation growth and the rest of the worlds carried on expanding exponentially.

Bit like an argument that its your personal freedom to guarantee the end of humanity though isn’t it?

PS: southern softee shandy drinking mate ??? Shandy drinking???? I may well wet the bed, but I never, ever drink shandy, never, never, ever!!!

**** me slaps, all the time I’ve known you, I thought you were an uneducated, coarse, tick, Irish barsteward, and all that time there was a knowledgable, well informed, caring environmentalist inside bursting to get out! 😉

Well said

My all time favourite was during a particularly rubbish Ipswich v Grimsby match where the away fans were taking a load of stick from the home lot, until they started chanting “We piss on your fish and you know we do!”

Personally I’ll admit to stopping for a moment and thinking … “do they?”

Another favourite came during an Ipswich v Liverpool game where the away lot were giving it a lot of Oww Arr Oww Arr, the instant rejoinder to which was “I’d rather be a farmer than a thief”

Scratching my head a tad over Dr Ian Gibson, by all accounts a very good constituency MP and with considerable support from his local party. The buzz is that he crticised the leadership once too often for his own good.

Mind you he represents Norwich, and who knows what people think up there….

Get pissed with him and you’ll find out! I did and I’m only now starting to recover.

Did I actually see a footy fan who honestly thought a players motivation might be something other than dosh?… trail monkey have you been on the moon since 1992?? Nobody has even made a pretence of it being anything other than a gravy train since then…..

Lucrative testemonial my arse…. most of them (even in the Championship) give the money to charity nowadays, did you not know that??

… Well I think all gay people are gay! Thats not jey incidentally, which is entirely different, and neither is it gay in the rather strange use of the word meaning “of the light on your loafers persuasion”, but gay in the happy, blowing up balloons and waving flags kind of a way, just in case any half witted PC fetished moron takes my innocent and “feeling the love” remark the wrong way!

Anyway, since when did a someones sexuality become a political movement?