Why don't politicians like 4x4's

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:01:21 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>last I heard was that he was awaiting trial, wondered if there was any
>further news, that's all. I was aware of his secure holidaying. Not seen
>anything in the local rag, but then again, you can't actually rely on the
>local rag to print what you want to read...

Have to admit, I haven't been actively trying to gain any information
for a while, just enjoying the peace. Only trouble is, 'time' on
remand will come off his final sentence and I'm led to believe that
it's a lot more cushy whilst on remand...

I'm pretty sure 'that site' will be updated with the date of the trial
when it's known, though :)


--
Some Land Roveresque (101 biased), links available
from: http://links.solis.co.uk/Geek/X4_Land_Rover/
I also have a little Land Rover site biased toward
my beloved 101 "Grumble", at: http://www.101fc.net


Reading this in 'alt.fan.landrover'? Did you know
there's a group FAQ: http://www.aflfaq.dyndns.info
 
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:07:08 +0100, "Paul S. Brown"
<[email protected]> made me spill my meths when he wrote:

>I don't know about anybody else, but I'd personally support a separate
>license classification for offroad capable vehicles. It would certainly
>remove a lot of the muppets who get us bad names from the hills.

At the same time asking for a separate license classification for
sportscars. Might as well get the attention of others while at it. We
could all end up in Smart Cars.

Anyone put one onto a Range Rover chassis yet?

--
Wayne Davies - Mobile 07989 556213 - Harrogate, N.Yorks, UK
 
In message <[email protected]>, David_LLAMA4x4
<[email protected]> writes
>
>"hugh" <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In message <[email protected]>, David_LLAMA4x4
>> <[email protected]> writes
>> >Further to my above posting I have just seen on the news that the MP who
>has
>> >put the hunting bill up for discussion again has had to cancel 2
>appearances
>> >because of pro-hunt demonstrations. He says he is surprised that they
>have
>> >nothing better to do with their time than to demonstrate!!!!
>> > Surely he has better things to discuss in Parliament than foxes - wjat
>> >about Iraq? The faultering economy? Immigration? Train network collapse?
>and
>> >that isn't even touching on health and education!!!!
>> >
>> > I am not posting to support humting - each will have their own view on
>> >this. I am posting to highlight whay muppets we have in parliament at the
>> >moment! They doubt we should be allowed to demonstration despite being a
>> >democracy. They skirt any awkward issues and they threaten to miss out
>> >stages of Govornment by bypassing the Lords! And all of this from a party
>> >who only got 1 in 4 of the populations vote.
>> > Are we allowing a backdoor precedent of a Big Brother society to rule
>us??
>> >
>> >End of speach! Soapboxes should be racing not stood on I suppose!
>> >
>> Exactly. Stick to talking on things you know something about, and which
>> is relevant to alt.fan.landrover.
>> --
>> hugh
>> Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
>
> Relevance to the NG I accept your comments though it is not me who started
>the thread. But why am I not qualified to talk about politics - what is
>there to say I know nothing about it?
> On the subject of qualifications and Govt. - politicions don't need any and
>yet they are allowed to run a country! Try setting up as a Doctor or MOT
>tester without the correct qualification and you won't be allowed.
>
> MPs are not always right. They are not always the best informed or
>qualified on matters that they take decisions on. It is our job to question
>them and keep our democracy alive.
>
>David
>LLAMA 4x4
> www.llama4x4.co.uk
>
>
The Op was relevant as it related to 4x4's. I don't give **** about your
political views, I just don't want to read them on this particular
newsgroup.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>On or around Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:03:10 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
>@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:25:21 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>>>>End of speach! Soapboxes should be racing not stood on I suppose!
>>>>
>>>Exactly. Stick to talking on things you know something about, and which
>>>is relevant to alt.fan.landrover.
>>
>>What an empty and p'raps boring group this would be should people
>>follow your jackbooted assertion.
>
>aye, 'twould be boring. variety is the wossname of thing.
>
>and besides, I tend to agree - the hunting thing is just a smoke and mirrors
>exercise to distract the gullible from the state of the country in the
>run-up to el presidente Bliar's re-election campaign.
>
Bollocks
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>On or around Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:49:14 +0100, "Paul S. Brown"
><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>Tim Hobbs wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>'s all just more smoke and mirrors, anyway. summat else fro the plebs to
>>>>focus their attention on rather than criticise the govermint for making a
>>>>pig's ear of things.
>>>
>>> You're quite right. The Argentinians don't seem likely to oblige them
>>> by invading this time around, so they are having to make something up.
>>> Foxes and 4x4's are the bandwagons at the moment. After the
>>> considerable success (ahem) of the handgun ban, it has been decided
>>> that banning responsible driving of 4x4's will stop people from
>>> driving them in a way which is already illegal, or worse, annoying to
>>> people who don't like them.
>>>
>>> If we carry on long enough, we will all be legally required to ramble,
>>> cuddle foxes and grow beards to fit in with the norm. On the plus
>>> side, we will then only have people with stupid voices and big teeth
>>> to victimise, and the Janet Street-Snorter will have to be culled with
>>> hounds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Ban 4x4s and I'm going to go and give my trade to Alvis or GKN. After all, a
>>Saracen is 6x6, not 6x6.
>
>I think you mean 4x4.
>
>Too, I cam make a fortune building 6x6 discos... or maybe "converting" them
>to 2WD...
>
>
>
Just take a prop shaft off, don't you?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
hugh was greatly moved, and spake thus, saying:

> >>
> Now your getting the government confused with Guardian readers.

Easy to do. One pillock looks much like another.

--

Rich

Series 2a
RR 4.6
V8 trialler
dog, wife, kids, whatever


 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul S.
Brown <[email protected]> writes
>hugh wrote:
>
>> In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>On or around Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:39:04 +0000 (UTC), "Richard Brookman"
>>><[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>>
>>>>MAB wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a user and owner of two of the marques finest. What I am
>>>>> suggesting is to force, cajoll, frighten, or otherwise enforce drivers
>>>>> of all 4x4's to recognise the ability of their vehicles and to use
>>>>> them appropriately. It is my belief that if required to go through
>>>>> extra driver training the VAST majority would not be 4x4 drivers.
>>>>> This would leave only those that are prepared to raise their driving
>>>>> skills to meet the abilities of the vehicles they own/use and I would
>>>>> anticipate, as I said before, that some element of off road driving
>>>>> skills including respect and appreciation of the countryside would be
>>>>> included.
>>>>
>>>>I take your point, although if that were to happen, I doubt if Land Rover
>>>>as
>>>>a business would last a year. If it wasn't for the Disco, and latterly
>>>>the Freebie (the vast majority of which I would guess are never used off
>>>>road), LR would have gone down the pan years ago.
>>>
>>>'s all just more smoke and mirrors, anyway. summat else fro the plebs to
>>>focus their attention on rather than criticise the govermint for making a
>>>pig's ear of things.
>> Rubbish The government is doing such a good job that the press have to
>> find something else to stir things up.
>
>Hmm. A troll appears to have crawled out under his rock and accidentally put
>on rose coloured glasses over rose coloured contacts.
>
>P.
So anybody who disagrees with you is a troll.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
In message <[email protected]>, Mother <"@
{mother} @"@101fc.net> writes
>On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:14:45 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>The Op was relevant as it related to 4x4's. I don't give **** about your
>>political views, I just don't want to read them on this particular
>>newsgroup.
>
>Then please do feel free to exercise your right to **** off somewhere
>else and be a complete knob, then. ****witted confrontational
>trolling ****ish little prick that you appear to be.
>
Oh dear we are getting emotional aren't we. This is alt.fan.LANDROVER in
case you hadn't noticed.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:05:19 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>Oh dear we are getting emotional aren't we. This is alt.fan.LANDROVER in
>case you hadn't noticed.

Oh dear, I think you're confusing me for someone who gives a ****
about what a little ****ish netkop like you thinks. go figure,
clueless ****wit.

 
On or around Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:48:56 +0100, Mother <"@ {mother}
@"@101fc.net> enlightened us thusly:

>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:05:19 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>Oh dear we are getting emotional aren't we. This is alt.fan.LANDROVER in
>>case you hadn't noticed.
>
>Oh dear, I think you're confusing me for someone who gives a ****
>about what a little ****ish netkop like you thinks. go figure,
>clueless ****wit.

come now, Martyn, don't hold back, let him know what you really think of
him...



.... :)

 
hugh vaguely muttered something like ...

> The Op was relevant as it related to 4x4's. I don't give **** about your
> political views, I just don't want to read them on this particular
> newsgroup.

So why bother reading and responding to what is obviously, as it's noted in
the subject line, an overtly politically biased thread ? Politics and
peoples personal views are a damn certainty to be aired, otherwise there'd
be no friggin' thread at all.

I agree with Mother, you're a clueless ****wit .. ;)


--
Paul ...

(8(|) Homer Rules !!!

"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."


 
In message <[email protected]>, Mother <"@
{mother} @"@101fc.net> writes
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:05:19 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>Oh dear we are getting emotional aren't we. This is alt.fan.LANDROVER in
>>case you hadn't noticed.
>
>Oh dear, I think you're confusing me for someone who gives a ****
>about what a little ****ish netkop like you thinks. go figure,
>clueless ****wit.
>
Why don't you use your full name Mr ****er?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul - xxx
<[email protected]> writes
>hugh vaguely muttered something like ...
>
>> The Op was relevant as it related to 4x4's. I don't give **** about your
>> political views, I just don't want to read them on this particular
>> newsgroup.
>
>So why bother reading and responding to what is obviously, as it's noted in
>the subject line, an overtly politically biased thread ? Politics and
>peoples personal views are a damn certainty to be aired, otherwise there'd
>be no friggin' thread at all.
>
>I agree with Mother, you're a clueless ****wit .. ;)
>
>
Because what politician think about 4x4's is relevant to this group.
health service, education, Iraq and such like isn't. Is that too
complicated for you?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
hugh vaguely muttered something like ...
> In message <[email protected]>, Paul - xxx
> <[email protected]> writes
>> hugh vaguely muttered something like ...
>>
>>> The Op was relevant as it related to 4x4's. I don't give **** about your
>>> political views, I just don't want to read them on this particular
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>> So why bother reading and responding to what is obviously, as it's noted
>> in the subject line, an overtly politically biased thread ? Politics and
>> peoples personal views are a damn certainty to be aired, otherwise
>> there'd be no friggin' thread at all.
>>
>> I agree with Mother, you're a clueless ****wit .. ;)
>>
>>
> Because what politician think about 4x4's is relevant to this group.
> health service, education, Iraq and such like isn't. Is that too
> complicated for you?

While your point has some merit, it's also that same ideal that colours
anothers viewpoint of what a politician does, is and has affected people, so
'extra' comments are bound to crop up.

Learn to live with them, Usenet will be a much nicer place for you .. ;)

If you think everyone should stay rigidly to the topic on discussion then
setup your own moderated newsgroup and **** off.


--
Paul ...

(8(|) Homer Rules !!!

"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."


 
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:51:33 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

>Why don't you use your full name Mr ****er?

Oooh... I'm hurt. Seldom have I been the focus of such erudite and
thoughtful constructive criticism. Rarely do I find such a match. I
must concede to being beaten in colossal and monumental terms by
someone so obviously superior to my humbled self.

<PLONK>

--

Vs shpxjvgf pbhyq syl. Lbh'q unir lbhe bja nvecbeg.

 

"Mother" <"@ {mother} @"@101fc.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:51:33 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you use your full name Mr ****er?
>
> Oooh... I'm hurt. Seldom have I been the focus of such erudite and
> thoughtful constructive criticism. Rarely do I find such a match. I
> must concede to being beaten in colossal and monumental terms by
> someone so obviously superior to my humbled self.
>
> <PLONK>
>
> --
>
> Vs shpxjvgf pbhyq syl. Lbh'q unir lbhe bja nvecbeg.
>

I'd quite forgotten about ROT13 until I saw this!

--
Simon Isaacs

Peterborough 4x4 Club Vice Chairman, Newsletter Editor and Webmaster (how
much more....)
3.5V8 100" Hybrid, now LPG converted
Part owner of 1976 S3 LWT, Fully restored, ready for sale! Make me an
offer!
Suzuki SJ410 (Fiancée's) 3" lift kit fitted, body shell now restored and
mounted on chassis, waiting on a windscreen and MOT
Series 3 88" Rolling chassis...what to do next
1993 200 TDi Discovery (the Pug 106 is dead, long live the Pug)

Peterborough 4x4 Club http://www.peterborough4x4.co.uk


 
In message <[email protected]>, Paul - xxx
<[email protected]> writes
>hugh vaguely muttered something like ...
>> In message <[email protected]>, Paul - xxx
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>> hugh vaguely muttered something like ...
>>>
>>>> The Op was relevant as it related to 4x4's. I don't give **** about your
>>>> political views, I just don't want to read them on this particular
>>>> newsgroup.
>>>
>>> So why bother reading and responding to what is obviously, as it's noted
>>> in the subject line, an overtly politically biased thread ? Politics and
>>> peoples personal views are a damn certainty to be aired, otherwise
>>> there'd be no friggin' thread at all.
>>>
>>> I agree with Mother, you're a clueless ****wit .. ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Because what politician think about 4x4's is relevant to this group.
>> health service, education, Iraq and such like isn't. Is that too
>> complicated for you?
>
>While your point has some merit, it's also that same ideal that colours
>anothers viewpoint of what a politician does, is and has affected people, so
>'extra' comments are bound to crop up.
>
>Learn to live with them, Usenet will be a much nicer place for you .. ;)
>
>If you think everyone should stay rigidly to the topic on discussion then
>setup your own moderated newsgroup and **** off.
>
>
And so you come inevitably to the contradiction in your argument. I
don't expect you to see it, but it really is too tiresome to explain
everything to such an intellectual pigmy.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
In message <[email protected]>, Mother <"@
{mother} @"@101fc.net> writes
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:51:33 +0100, hugh <hugh@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>Why don't you use your full name Mr ****er?
>
>Oooh... I'm hurt. Seldom have I been the focus of such erudite and
>thoughtful constructive criticism. Rarely do I find such a match. I
>must concede to being beaten in colossal and monumental terms by
>someone so obviously superior to my humbled self.
>
><PLONK>
>
Oh good. Now hopefully I won't have to put up with any more of these
ignorant, abusive, moronic posts which are so so hurtful.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mutsnutz
found this on a site today
Replies
1
Views
1K
disco924
disco924
BOOMER
Time For A National Greenlaning Initiative?
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
muddydisco4
M
RealBeale
Education
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
8K
musky81
M
Dr_evil
Series King Cab
61 62 63
Replies
1K
Views
150K
discomark10
discomark10
T
4x4 enthusiast’s funeral procession Friday 23rd October 2009
Replies
0
Views
962
Tom Mc
T
Back
Top