https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

glad I have never owned one.....

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

glad I have never owned one.....

Red elswwhere (but not read the actual document) that they are going to
clamp down on aftermarket HID conversions - even if the beam pattern
passes the test. But as usual are behind the times, as it's LEDs which are
being used these days. And are often worse for scatter etc than HID,
depending on headlight design.

--
*On the seventh day He brewed beer *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/01/2018 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

glad I have never owned one.....

Red elswwhere (but not read the actual document) that they are going to
clamp down on aftermarket HID conversions - even if the beam pattern
passes the test. But as usual are behind the times, as it's LEDs which are
being used these days. And are often worse for scatter etc than HID,
depending on headlight design.

That'll be interesting, as VOSA already issued a letter some years ago
stating that they would not prevent the use of aftermarket conversions,
as long as they had good beam pattern, as it would be unfair to hold
aftermarket conversions to a higher standard that type approved vehicles
- some of which had neither self-levelling nor wash.

SteveW

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

glad I have never owned one.....

Red elswwhere (but not read the actual document) that they are going to
clamp down on aftermarket HID conversions - even if the beam pattern
passes the test. But as usual are behind the times, as it's LEDs which are
being used these days. And are often worse for scatter etc than HID,
depending on headlight design.

I hate those lights with a blue ting...I think it is the Polis and slow down
..........

On 25/01/2018 12:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:03:26 +0000, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...-test-changes-
May-2018-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

glad I have never owned one.....

Ours is on Motability. They'll have to suck it up ...

Do you have to declare it on your P11D as a benefit in kind
(that the rest of the family also benefit from too) ?.

People with company cars have to.

On 26/01/2018 16:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:03:43 +0000, Andrew wrote:

On 25/01/2018 12:24, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:03:26 +0000, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...-test-changes-
May-2018-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

glad I have never owned one.....

Ours is on Motability. They'll have to suck it up ...

Do you have to declare it on your P11D as a benefit in kind (that the
rest of the family also benefit from too) ?.

People with company cars have to.

Interesting question.

The actual blurb states that the car has to be used "for the benefit of
the PIP recipient" (and is registered in their name). Motability have
confirmed to me that this includes the partner using it to/from work.
After all, that's benefiting the disabled person ?

I suspect if the use were restricted to solely carrying the disabled
person *and nothing else* the need for second cars would rather make a
mockery of any green credentials any government might want to parade.

Bearing in mind there will be quite a few situations (like ours) where
the recipient of the car is unable to drive it themselves.

https://www.motability.co.uk/about-t...r-can-be-used/

QUOTE
The car is used by, or for the benefit of, the disabled person. This does
not mean that the disabled person needs to be in the car for every
journey. In practice, this means other named drivers in the household can
use the car for shopping and other routine activities, as long as the
disabled customer will benefit
ENDQUOTE


As I suspected. One rule for company car users, and an entirely
separate set of relaxed rules for motability. Unless the person
on benefits cannot drive, surely it should be restricted to
'driver only' ?.

I once watched that program on C5 when the High Court Sheriffs were
trying to recover a debt owed by a young lady to a funeral director.
Apparently ladies mother had died of cancer. She really put on the
whole drama queen entertainment, telling the debt collectors that
they were scum of the earth blah, blah, blah, that she was 'suffering'
from agrophobia and stress and on disability benefits, so had no
assets.

According to lady the Sheriffs were 'picking' on her and her *wife*
because were living in a rented house (quite new) which was all
funded by housing benefit etc.

When they checked her car, it turned out to be a motability car.

They mused on camera, just what her disability was, since she had
no problems giving them the 3rd degree on the doorstep.

A Ford garage near my fathers house in South Wales has a big sign
in their showroom advertising the motability deals they do.
Apparently that, plus PCP loans are their entire business.

On 29/01/2018 11:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
AS I said, SWMBO cannot drive (eyesight ****ed). She is in receipt of the
benefit which provides a Motability car (plus a few thousand non-
refundable "deposit" from us)

Thousands are in that situation, including Brian who posts here.

Are you saying that they all get a motability car for the rest
of their family to benefit from ?.

A trip to Wilsons of Epsom is an eye-opener. Their forecourt
is awash with 3-year old cars, and a great many 7 seater people
carriers. All of them ex-motability, and few with an auto box.
I think this indicates an unacceptable level of abuse, just
like the infamous blue (free parking) badges.

On 29/01/2018 11:51, Andrew wrote:
On 29/01/2018 11:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
AS I said, SWMBO cannot drive (eyesight ****ed). She is in receipt of the
benefit which provides a Motability car (plus a few thousand non-
refundable "deposit" from us)

Thousands are in that situation, including Brian who posts here.

Are you saying that they all get a motability car for the rest
of their family to benefit from ?.


I think only two people can be insured.

And anyway, why not? It's a meagre compensation for a disability.

A trip to Wilsons of Epsom is an eye-opener. Their forecourt
is awash with 3-year old cars, and a great many 7 seater people
carriers. All of them ex-motability, and few with an auto box.
I think this indicates an unacceptable level of abuse, just
like the infamous blue (free parking) badges.


I'm sure we all have an anecdote or two - I certainly do. And it does
annoy me when the non-disabled driver uses the car/badge to park in
disabled spaces for themselves. Many a shouting match in my local
Waitrose car park :-)

But to my mind, there's a greater good. Even if a few thousand abuse the
system, many hundreds of thousands benefit, deservedly so.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 29/01/2018 11:51, Andrew wrote:
On 29/01/2018 11:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
AS I said, SWMBO cannot drive (eyesight ****ed). She is in receipt of the
benefit which provides a Motability car (plus a few thousand non-
refundable "deposit" from us)

Thousands are in that situation, including Brian who posts here.

Are you saying that they all get a motability car for the rest
of their family to benefit from ?.

A trip to Wilsons of Epsom is an eye-opener. Their forecourt
is awash with 3-year old cars, and a great many 7 seater people
carriers. All of them ex-motability, and few with an auto box.
I think this indicates an unacceptable level of abuse, just
like the infamous blue (free parking) badges.


What's auto got to do with it?
The majority of disabled with motability cars probably can't drive them
anyway.

Maybe we should just give then twice as much every week so they can use
taxis? You don't get many taxi journeys out of ~£60 a week.
It would cost me a fortune as I have been going to the hospital 3-4
times a week for three months. Maybe they should give me a car and save
me money? Or maybe I can get patient transport. that would cost even
more for the NHS.

On 29/01/2018 11:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
I take it that it was an in-depth, medically knowledgeable discussion,
where all forms of disability and their manifestation were examined ?

Or (more likely) two blokes spouting ********. Funny, I bet there was no
"balance" there.

It was fly-on-the wall documentary and the two blokes were wearing
body cams, so what we saw, was what they saw, heard and recorded.
They checked for assets and asked their office to check the car for
finance, and that was when it turned out to be a motability car,
and having jusgt had a confrontation with the 'disabled' driver,
quite rightly mused on the nature of her alledged disability.

You are beginning to sound suspiciously defensive of your and this
ladies 'entitlement'. She was not in any way physically disabled,
so why and how did she obtain a motability car ?.

If she she hadn't tried to avoid a funeral bill then she (and i suspect
thousands more like her) would simply have stayed under the radar until
someone dropped her in it to the benefits hotline.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 29/01/2018 11:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
I take it that it was an in-depth, medically knowledgeable discussion,
where all forms of disability and their manifestation were examined ?

Or (more likely) two blokes spouting ********. Funny, I bet there was no
"balance" there.

It was fly-on-the wall documentary and the two blokes were wearing
body cams, so what we saw, was what they saw, heard and recorded.
They checked for assets and asked their office to check the car for
finance, and that was when it turned out to be a motability car,
and having jusgt had a confrontation with the 'disabled' driver,
quite rightly mused on the nature of her alledged disability.

You are beginning to sound suspiciously defensive of your and this
ladies 'entitlement'. She was not in any way physically disabled,
so why and how did she obtain a motability car ?.

At our railway station there is a large poster - the message on it is "Not
all disabilty is visble."
For example: People, who look quite normal, can get very short of breath
when walking any significant distance. People with only one leg look quite
normal when wearing trousers. etc, etc



If she she hadn't tried to avoid a funeral bill then she (and i suspect
thousands more like her) would simply have stayed under the radar until
someone dropped her in it to the benefits hotline.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , Jethro_uk
writes
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:06:32 +0000, Andrew wrote:

On 29/01/2018 11:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
I take it that it was an in-depth, medically knowledgeable discussion,
where all forms of disability and their manifestation were examined ?

Or (more likely) two blokes spouting ********. Funny, I bet there was
no "balance" there.

It was fly-on-the wall documentary and the two blokes were wearing body
cams, so what we saw, was what they saw, heard and recorded.
They checked for assets and asked their office to check the car for
finance, and that was when it turned out to be a motability car,
and having jusgt had a confrontation with the 'disabled' driver,
quite rightly mused on the nature of her alledged disability.

You are beginning to sound suspiciously defensive of your and this
ladies 'entitlement'. She was not in any way physically disabled,
so why and how did she obtain a motability car ?.

I have no idea. Just like you. You judgemental prick.

My wifes entitlement comes from filling out forms, providing copious
evidence (100 pages of scans) and a formal interview with an assessor on
behalf of the DWP.

Twice.

If she she hadn't tried to avoid a funeral bill then she (and i suspect
thousands more like her) would simply have stayed under the radar until
someone dropped her in it to the benefits hotline.

Mysteriously, an awful lot of "reports" to the authorities merely result
in confirmation that any benefits were awarded correctly.

If you want to stop looking like you have a hidden agenda, I suggest you
cast a glance over this

https://syesworldview.files.wordpres...01/image38.jpg

Benefit fraud: £1.2 billion (DWPs own figure)

Tax avoidance: £30 billion (HMRCs own figure)

There's no figure can be put on tax avoidance as it is legally not tax
due.
as it asks, where you *you* start ?

The DWP start with benefit fraud
HMRC should start with tax evasion.
--
bert

On 29/01/2018 13:11, Jethro_uk wrote:
Benefit fraud: £1.2 billion (DWPs own figure)

Which everyone knows is DETECTED fraud, usually as a result
of someone phoning the hotline, and not because the DWP and
all the other useless penpushers have done their job properly.

The real figure could well be many times that amount, and
probably is, if you are a typical example of the Britains
endemic 'entitlement' culture. Are you claiming all these
benefits because you actually *need* them, or simply because there
is a juicy loophole and you can ?. If so you are no better than
our MPs and local councillors who grab every penny they can.

Are you now saying that Benefit fraud is socially and economically
acceptable while (much exagerated) tax fraud is not ?. Trying to
justify your position based on nonsense figures from the Grundian
and the Inde, (all the usual suspects) won't help.

The so-called tax fraud amounts that Grady, Corbyn and that lot
regularly bandy about have been done to death by numerous commentators
on the TV and radio and the figures are wildly exagerated.

I once met a couple of not-very-old people at an RSPB cafe who were
enjoying their retirement with their two gold-plated public service
pensions. He was ex-fire chief retired well before 60, and she was
a teacher, and very clearly left-wing and made the mistake of mentioning
the original £120 Billion 'tax evasion', and then threw in all the names
of the Coffee shops. 'Starbucks, Costa, ..' I stoppped her at that point
and asked if she knew who Costa were ?. 'Oh its one of those multi-
nationals who send their profits abroad'.

Except that Costa are wholly owned by Whitbread PLC, who employ a lot
of people in Costa, Premier Inns, and other leasure outlets and pay
all their NI and corporation tax in the UK. This didn't cut the mustard
with ex-teacher, she just carried on banging on and on about all those
dreadful tax-evaders.

On 29/01/2018 11:31, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 10:41:59 +0000, Andrew wrote:

8


As I suspected. One rule for company car users, and an entirely separate
set of relaxed rules for motability. Unless the person on benefits
cannot drive, surely it should be restricted to 'driver only' ?.

AS I said, SWMBO cannot drive (eyesight ****ed). She is in receipt of the
benefit which provides a Motability car (plus a few thousand non-
refundable "deposit" from us)

There are plenty of motability cars that don't require any additional
upfront payments.
Its just a lease hire scheme where the mobility payment makes up
part/all of the costs.



I once watched that program on C5 when the High Court Sheriffs were
trying to recover a debt owed by a young lady to a funeral director.
Apparently ladies mother had died of cancer. She really put on the whole
drama queen entertainment, telling the debt collectors that they were
scum of the earth blah, blah, blah, that she was 'suffering'
from agrophobia and stress and on disability benefits, so had no assets.

According to lady the Sheriffs were 'picking' on her and her *wife*
because were living in a rented house (quite new) which was all funded
by housing benefit etc.

When they checked her car, it turned out to be a motability car.

They mused on camera, just what her disability was, since she had no
problems giving them the 3rd degree on the doorstep.

I take it that it was an in-depth, medically knowledgeable discussion,
where all forms of disability and their manifestation were examined ?

Or (more likely) two blokes spouting ********. Funny, I bet there was no
"balance" there. If only they'd linked it to climate change. We'd have
had to have a full panel of "views".

Some disabled people are fine for days at a time and then suffer.


A Ford garage near my fathers house in South Wales has a big sign in
their showroom advertising the motability deals they do. Apparently
that, plus PCP loans are their entire business.

For PIP/DLA recipients at the *highest* rate, it is possible to sign over
the entire mobility component to Motability as a monthly payment on a
lease car. A quick look at government data suggests a total of 157,000
people are getting this award. Or c. 0.25% of the entire population of
the UK. Eliminating that benefit with no replacement wouldn't even equal
a days worth of uncollected *due* tax from business.

You can sign over less if you go for a cheaper(1) car, however there
isn't much saving.

1: Cheaper is the cost over the lease and a cheap to buy car may cost
more than one with a better resale value. Quite often a better spec
model of a car is cheaper on motability.

The manufacturers also tend to throw in extras which make the resale
value better.



It's also worth knowing that the plural of anecdote is not data.

On 29/01/2018 13:46, dennis@home wrote:
Some disabled people are fine for days at a time and then suffer.

Translation:

When being observed or assessed they 'suffer', but the rest of the
time they are fine.

On 29/01/2018 15:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
It's incredibly annoying that the single most useful "adaptation" - an
automatic gearbox - isn't the baseline spec for*all* motability cars.

You are claiming benefits based on your wifes apparently poor eyesight
and have been since 1999, that's 19 years. Can we assume that she
doesn't work, and has no need to be ferried to and from home ?

In what way would a lack of auto-box 'annoy' her, if she isn't
doing the driving ?.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:05:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

"Other changes include checks to whether brake discs are obviously warn, oil
contamination of the discs and how well they are securely attached to the wheel
hubs. "

To see how well discs are "securely attached to the wheel hubs" requires removal
of the wheel in just about all cases

In the case of inboard discs they are not even attached to the wheel hubs

From
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...2018-draft.pdf
Page 12

"The MOT test must be carried out without dismantling"


--

On 25/01/2018 13:15, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:05:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

"Other changes include checks to whether brake discs are obviously warn, oil
contamination of the discs and how well they are securely attached to the wheel
hubs. "

To see how well discs are "securely attached to the wheel hubs" requires removal
of the wheel in just about all cases

In the case of inboard discs they are not even attached to the wheel hubs

From
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...2018-draft.pdf
Page 12

"The MOT test must be carried out without dismantling"



Its only a draft so it may change.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 16:18:22 +0000, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 25/01/2018 13:15, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:05:35 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

"Other changes include checks to whether brake discs are obviously warn, oil
contamination of the discs and how well they are securely attached to the wheel
hubs. "

To see how well discs are "securely attached to the wheel hubs" requires removal
of the wheel in just about all cases

In the case of inboard discs they are not even attached to the wheel hubs

From
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...2018-draft.pdf
Page 12

"The MOT test must be carried out without dismantling"



Its only a draft so it may change.

Except the no dismantling thing has been in the MOT handbook for a very long
time knocking up 20 years to my knowledge and maybe 'forever'

Have a vehicle with undertrays that obscure the bottom of the engine, suspension
parts and steering and the MOT document you get back makes specific mention of
undertrays preventing inspection.

Back in 1999, with the first tests of the Lotus Elise some garages refused to
test without removal of the undertrays either by the owner or as a chargeable
item. After a number of complaints VOSA got involved and sanctioned testing of
those vehicles and many others since without any removal requirements. Testers
do not remove the undertrays, they only make an advisory note on the MOT
documentation they provide after the test.

For example from one of my recent MOT's

engine covers obscuring testable items.
undertrays fitted obscuring testable items.

Going back to the wheel, if they did remove them, then what torque setting would
they use to reattach the wheels when the vehicle is not listed in any data
handbook or the owner either refuses or is unable to provide that figure?

What about the situation where three eared knock on wheels are fitted and the
application of a torque setting requires a specialist spanner adaptor that is
not, nor ever will be in the toolkit of the MOT testing station. I'll admit
that such vehicles will now fall outside the 40 year rule but there is nothing
preventing an owner of any vehicle of any age submitting it for a test. That
ranges from something from the 19th Century to one straight out of the showroom.

The public liability implications of removing parts to perform a safety test are
huge.

I would suggest the "securely attached to the wheel hubs" requirement for brake
discs is inherent untestable for virtually all vehicles except those with 'flat
discs' and removable disc bells, and for those vehicles with that arrangement of
they have cooling air scoops feeding the hub to disc gap there is zero visibilty
of the fixings.
--

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:05:54 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

"The MOT test must be carried out without dismantling"

So ? Just change the rules.

The document I quoted that line from IS the (draft) rules from May 2018!

--

On 25/01/2018 15:41, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:05:54 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

"The MOT test must be carried out without dismantling"

So ? Just change the rules.

The document I quoted that line from IS the (draft) rules from May 2018!


It also shows that ABS systems fail major if the warning light doesn't
work. Just proves that JWS talks BS all the time.

In article ,
harry writes
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...changes-May-20
18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.
So Advisory Notes now become Minor Faults. Big Deal

Failures are spilt into Dangerous and Major to discourage drivers from
driving away to get a "Dangerous" fault fixed, which is illegal at the
moment if it renders the vehicle non-roadworthy. So just making that
clearer.

Diesel particulate filter must be present and doing the job it is
intended for which will help keep the really stinking diesels off the
road.

As a diesel owner I don't have a problem with that.
--
bert

On 25/01/2018 14:16, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...changes-May-20
18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.
So Advisory Notes now become Minor Faults. Big Deal

Failures are spilt into Dangerous and Major to discourage drivers from
driving away to get a "Dangerous" fault fixed, which is illegal at the
moment if it renders the vehicle non-roadworthy. So just making that
clearer.

Diesel particulate filter must be present and doing the job it is
intended for which will help keep the really stinking diesels off the road.

It might catch the fake filter fitters out too.
Ebay is full of particulate filter bypasses and other fiddles.


As a diesel owner I don't have a problem with that.

Only criminals should have a problem with that.

On Thursday, 25 January 2018 14:20:57 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
harry writes

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...changes-May-20
18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

So Advisory Notes now become Minor Faults. Big Deal

Failures are spilt into Dangerous and Major to discourage drivers from
driving away to get a "Dangerous" fault fixed, which is illegal at the
moment if it renders the vehicle non-roadworthy. So just making that
clearer.

Diesel particulate filter must be present and doing the job it is
intended for which will help keep the really stinking diesels off the
road.

As a diesel owner I don't have a problem with that.

the stinky diesels don't have filters.


NT

On 25/01/2018 14:16, bert wrote:
will help keep the really stinking diesels off the road.

But those are pre euro5 and will carry on being used.

On 25/01/18 08:05, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

Anybody else appalled by the spelling and grammar in that article?

Oh, only me then...

Nick

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:25:18 +0000, Nick Odell
wrote:

On 25/01/18 08:05, harry wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

Anybody else appalled by the spelling and grammar in that article?

Oh, only me then...

No, not just you, it's a POS. 'checks to whether brake discs are obviously
warn' FFS

Similar and almost identical text has been used in other parts of the press
today. Makes you wonder who actually writes this crap and how much they get
paid for it.

--

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:45:13 +0000, The Other Mike wrote:

No, not just you, it's a POS. 'checks to whether brake discs are
obviously warn' FFS

At least they got "brake" right!

Similar and almost identical text has been used in other parts of the
press today. Makes you wonder who actually writes this crap and how
much they get paid for it.

You've only just started to spot that an awful lot of "news" is
nothing but regurgitated Press Releases? Quite often a verbatim, copy
'n paste job, sometimes few words altered and may be a bit of intro.

There *might* be a hint about a stories status depending if its from
a "reporter" or "correspondant, the latter having written it, the
former just reporting something.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:28:56 +0000 (GMT)
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

a stories status

Whoops. :-)

On 26/01/2018 01:38, Rob Morley wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:28:56 +0000 (GMT)
"Dave Liquorice" wrote:

a stories status

Whoops. :-)

:-)

Is this not a little like shutting the stable door after the horses have all
left?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style...18-diesel-cars

Plus diesel emissions to be lower.

On 25/01/18 08:05, harry wrote:

Harry! Darren Osborne is doing life and the papers are crying out for
action against the right wing internet bull****ters who wound him up
into such a state of hatred. When the law have picked through his
internet history, if they find he ever browsed ukdiy, you will be doing
time with him. They will go for the small time creeps like you of
course, not the journalists at the Mail and the Express.

Best keep a low profile, no? Or why not **** forever?

TW

In article ,
TimW wrote:
On 25/01/18 08:05, harry wrote:

Harry! Darren Osborne is doing life and the papers are crying out for
action against the right wing internet bull****ters who wound him up
into such a state of hatred. When the law have picked through his
internet history, if they find he ever browsed ukdiy, you will be doing
time with him. They will go for the small time creeps like you of
course, not the journalists at the Mail and the Express.

Best keep a low profile, no? Or why not **** forever?

It's very sad that someone can be influenced by hatred posted on the
internet to the point of killing. Not the sort of thing you'd expect of
anyone with a UK education and half a brain cell still working. But as an
alcoholic, his brain had likely stopped functioning normally.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.