On 18/08/2022 13:02, Spike wrote:
> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And I was right. You still haven't worked out what triggered my comment
>> about 20 limits.
>
> Well, it wasn’t my comment, that’s for sure.

Oh?

On 09/08/2022 17:28, Spike wrote:
>
> There was a recent admission by a cyclist and quoted on the group
> that said something very close to “I don’t like being passed in a 20
> even if I’m doing over 20 myself”.
>
> It’s time that laws were enforced on cyclists in the interim to them
> being upgraded.
>

On 25/08/2022 12:14 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 18/08/2022 13:02, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> And I was right. You still haven't worked out what triggered my comment
>>> about 20 limits.
>
>> Well, it wasn’t my comment, that’s for sure.
>
> Oh?
> On 09/08/2022 17:28, Spike wrote:
> >
> > There was a recent admission by a cyclist and quoted on the group
> > that said something very close to “I don’t like being passed in a 20
> > even if I’m doing over 20 myself”.

Erm...

TRANSLATION:

Spike at 17:28 on 09/08/2022:

"There was a recent admission *by* *a* *cyclist* and *quoted* on the
group that said something very close to “I don’t like being passed in a
20 even if I’m doing over 20 myself. It’s time that laws were enforced
on cyclists in the interim to them being upgraded.”

[my emphases]

That means that it was someone else's comment (we know whose),
referenced by Spike.

When he reminded you that it had not been his comment, he was thus
speaking truth.

QUOTE: Mr Hanlon did not give during the four-day trial but summing up this morning, his barrister Clare Howell told jurors at the Old Bailey that even if Mr Hanlon hadn't been breaking the speed limit, he wouldn't have had time to stop before Ms Cihan walked in front of him anyway. ENDS

What is this "speed limit" which was being "broken". There isn't one and it wasn't being "broken".

On 25/08/2022 02:07, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/08/2022 12:14 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 18/08/2022 13:02, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> And I was right. You still haven't worked out what triggered my
>>>> comment about 20 limits.
>>
>>> Well, it wasn’t my comment, that’s for sure.
>>
>> Oh?

>> On 09/08/2022 17:28, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> There was a recent admission by a cyclist and quoted on the
>>> group that said something very close to “I don’t like being
>>> passed in a 20 even if I’m doing over 20 myself”.

Part you snipped restored.

>>> It’s time that laws were enforced on cyclists in the interim to
>>> them being upgraded.
>
>
> Erm...
>
> TRANSLATION:

I, Nugent still don't have a clue.

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/08/2022 13:02, Spike wrote:
>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> And I was right. You still haven't worked out what triggered my comment
>>> about 20 limits.

>> Well, it wasn’t my comment, that’s for sure.

> Oh?

> On 09/08/2022 17:28, Spike wrote:

>> There was a recent admission by a cyclist and quoted on the group
>> that said something very close to “I don’t like being passed in a 20
>> even if I’m doing over 20 myself”.

>> It’s time that laws were enforced on cyclists in the interim to them
>> being upgraded.

Thanks for proving I was correct in my statement.

--
Spike

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 25/08/2022 12:14 am, TMS320 wrote:

>> On 18/08/2022 13:02, Spike wrote:
>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> And I was right. You still haven't worked out what triggered my comment
>>>> about 20 limits.
>>> Well, it wasn’t my comment, that’s for sure.

>> Oh?
>> On 09/08/2022 17:28, Spike wrote:

>>> There was a recent admission by a cyclist and quoted on the group
>>> that said something very close to “I don’t like being passed in a 20
>>> even if I’m doing over 20 myself”.

> Erm...

> TRANSLATION:

> Spike at 17:28 on 09/08/2022:

> "There was a recent admission *by* *a* *cyclist* and *quoted* on the
> group that said something very close to “I don’t like being passed in a
> 20 even if I’m doing over 20 myself. It’s time that laws were enforced
> on cyclists in the interim to them being upgraded.”

> [my emphases]

> That means that it was someone else's comment (we know whose),
> referenced by Spike.

> When he reminded you that it had not been his comment, he was thus
> speaking truth.

Many thanks for having the patience to spell that out for TMS320 in words
of one syllable.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> QUOTE: Mr Hanlon did not give during the four-day trial but summing up
> this morning, his barrister Clare Howell told jurors at the Old Bailey
> that even if Mr Hanlon hadn't been breaking the speed limit, he wouldn't
> have had time to stop before Ms Cihan walked in front of him anyway. ENDS

> What is this "speed limit" which was being "broken". There isn't one and
> it wasn't being "broken".

What might be more pertinent is for the workings of that analysis of the
video to be shown so that it can be assessed for accuracy. As it stands it
appears to be a mere assertion - but then again, like most people, I
haven’t seen an authoritative account of the trial.

AFAIAA we don’t have trial by assertion in this country, as much as
whingeing cyclists wish it so.

--
Spike

On 25/08/2022 09:15, Spike wrote:

> AFAIAA we don’t have trial by assertion in this country, as much as
> whingeing cyclists wish it so.

Just as whingeing non-cyclists would wish on cyclists.

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:52:30 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

> Just as whingeing non-cyclists would wish on cyclists.

Just use an effective killfile like I do - it gets rid of all of the raw sewage.

On 25/08/2022 08:35 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 25/08/2022 02:07, JNugent wrote:
>> On 25/08/2022 12:14 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 18/08/2022 13:02, Spike wrote:
>>>> TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And I was right. You still haven't worked out what triggered my
>>>>> comment about 20 limits.
>>>
>>>> Well, it wasn’t my comment, that’s for sure.
>>>
>>> Oh?
>
>>> On 09/08/2022 17:28, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There was a recent admission by a cyclist and quoted on the
>>>> group that said something very close to “I don’t like being
>>>> passed in a 20 even if I’m doing over 20 myself”.
>
> Part you snipped restored.
>
>>>> It’s time that laws were enforced on cyclists in the interim to
>>>> them being upgraded.
>>
>>
>> Erm...
>>
>> TRANSLATION:
>
> I, Nugent still don't have a clue.

Does such idiocy and dishonesty come naturally to you?

QUOTE: “I read he had no licence for for an electric motor on his bike, how was this possible?

“I’m not happy he’s walking free, he’s back out on the streets and this could happen again to someone else. ENDS

If you are "not happy", how about joining forces with Mr Arsehole and get the law changed?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> QUOTE: “I read he had no licence for for an electric motor on his bike,
> how was this possible?

> “I’m not happy he’s walking free, he’s back out on the streets and this
> could happen again to someone else. ENDS

> If you are "not happy", how about joining forces with Mr Arsehole and get the law changed?

This post must have a parallel with the case of an infinite number of
monkeys sitting at typewriters inasmuch as one post must say something
sensible…

--
Spike

On Monday, Augu st 29, 2022 at 1:19:18 PM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: “I read he had no licence for for an electric motor on his bike, how was this possible?
> “I’m not happy he’s walking free, he’s back out on the streets and this could happen again to someone else. ENDS
> If you are "not happy", how about joining forces with Mr Arsehole and get the law changed?

I think Herr Freeman is still licking his wounds after his last pasting.