30 quid fixed penalty for parking in tescos!!!
07 February 2005, 07:29 AM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GCollier
Perhaps the supermarkets should sell off their car-parks to property developers and you can walk to collect your groceries? After all owning a car is your personal choice, the same as other peoples personal choice not to own one. Why should you get the privileged treatment of a subsidised car park due to your personal choices?
as long as you make sure that all the small local shops which were put out of buissness when all the supermarkets burst onto the scene are replaced.
thought not
flawed logic
07 February 2005, 08:42 AM
#62
Scooby Regular
Originally Posted by corradoboy
I agree if it's a parent on their own, but why both parents bring children of any age, unless a specific item is required which demands the childs' attendance, is beyond me. Supermarkets are not playgrounds, and parents usually end up stressed beyond belief when their kids run amok, upset others and insist on you buying extra crap thus putting up your already inflated shopping bill. It only takes one person to shop, so why not leave the brats at home with the other half, or at Granny's ? I also see having children as a personal choice, the same as my personal choice not to have any. Why should any group be given priveleged treatment due to their personal choices ? I agree with disabled slots, as no-one chooses that, but if you want kids deal with it yourself 
The only reason those bays are there is to butter up the bigger spenders. If they sold heroin and it was more profitable than baby food, they'd get their own spaces too !
The only reason those bays are there is to butter up the bigger spenders. If they sold heroin and it was more profitable than baby food, they'd get their own spaces too !
07 February 2005, 09:07 AM
#64
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by corradoboy
I agree if it's a parent on their own, but why both parents bring children of any age, unless a specific item is required which demands the childs' attendance, is beyond me. Supermarkets are not playgrounds, and parents usually end up stressed beyond belief when their kids run amok, upset others and insist on you buying extra crap thus putting up your already inflated shopping bill. It only takes one person to shop, so why not leave the brats at home with the other half, or at Granny's ? I also see having children as a personal choice, the same as my personal choice not to have any. Why should any group be given priveleged treatment due to their personal choices ? I agree with disabled slots, as no-one chooses that, but if you want kids deal with it yourself The only reason those bays are there is to butter up the bigger spenders. If they sold heroin and it was more profitable than baby food, they'd get their own spaces too !
The only reason those bays are there is to butter up the bigger spenders. If they sold heroin and it was more profitable than baby food, they'd get their own spaces too !Geezer
07 February 2005, 11:18 AM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder about this Les. I've never looked into the precise legality of clamping people but I suspect that, at the very least, it is on pretty dodgy ground. I would need to consult with a man who knows but would imagine that any clamping that demanded a release fee would also fall foul of the Bill of Rights.
As we are all aware most of these schemes are just a further erosion of our rights and while I am all for a law abiding society it seems to me that the laws current being enforced are aimed at removing the rights of the generally law abiding person with an investment in society. If, for example, you exceed the speed limit then the law forces you to admit who was driving the car before you even get the chance to enter a court. So, in effect, you have to incriminate yourself before you even get a chance to plead your case and once in court you must then prove yourself innocent. However, if you break into someone's home and are caught red handed you have a right not to say anything, you have a right not to incriminate yourself and you are presumed innocent unless the court can prove you guilty.
So, while I have no particular love of people who park badly I think that there are more fundamental issues at stake here and we must take care that our dislike of people who park in an inconsiderate manner doesn't allow the administration to further erode the fundamental rights in law of all of us. Just watching the development of this thread lets you see just how effective the divide and conquer approach has been for them as people focus on a trivial "crime" rather than on the fact that it opens the door for a man with a baseball bat to be legally allowed to fine us all.
For the majority of sane, normal and law abiding people on SN these fundamental principles upon which our society has been based are much more important than a minor parking, or for that matter speeding, "error" because in the near future the fact that this protection under the law has gone is going to be significant for all of us. Those people in for the biggest shock are likely to be the ones currently saying "I never break the law so it will be no problem for me..." The very point of many of the changes is to ensure that you do break the law.
As we are all aware most of these schemes are just a further erosion of our rights and while I am all for a law abiding society it seems to me that the laws current being enforced are aimed at removing the rights of the generally law abiding person with an investment in society. If, for example, you exceed the speed limit then the law forces you to admit who was driving the car before you even get the chance to enter a court. So, in effect, you have to incriminate yourself before you even get a chance to plead your case and once in court you must then prove yourself innocent. However, if you break into someone's home and are caught red handed you have a right not to say anything, you have a right not to incriminate yourself and you are presumed innocent unless the court can prove you guilty.
So, while I have no particular love of people who park badly I think that there are more fundamental issues at stake here and we must take care that our dislike of people who park in an inconsiderate manner doesn't allow the administration to further erode the fundamental rights in law of all of us. Just watching the development of this thread lets you see just how effective the divide and conquer approach has been for them as people focus on a trivial "crime" rather than on the fact that it opens the door for a man with a baseball bat to be legally allowed to fine us all.
For the majority of sane, normal and law abiding people on SN these fundamental principles upon which our society has been based are much more important than a minor parking, or for that matter speeding, "error" because in the near future the fact that this protection under the law has gone is going to be significant for all of us. Those people in for the biggest shock are likely to be the ones currently saying "I never break the law so it will be no problem for me..." The very point of many of the changes is to ensure that you do break the law.
07 February 2005, 11:49 AM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: None of your business.
Posts: 11,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by apples24
actually i agree on the mother baby parking
Got a pass for parent and child parking at Tescos but babs isn't due until after the summer
07 February 2005, 11:57 AM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sort of cr@p really gets me steemed up.
Picking up point. Is for picking people up, not parking in, you muppet.
Mother and baby is for those of us with small kids. Not flash motors! I have a "flash motor" and park at the far end of the car park, away from other cars, and walk. The reason these bays have wide spaces is not because its closer to the shop entrance. Its so we can open our doors wide to get the kids out, without dinging the door of the car next to us. FFS, its the tw@ts that wrongly park in these, that force us to park in the normal spaces, and then when the cant get a M&B space, they moan when their doors get dinged!
I'm rapidly coming to the point where the driver of the next car I see being wrongly parked in a M&B spot, will come out to find 4 flats tyres. At best! Argh!!!!!
Picking up point. Is for picking people up, not parking in, you muppet.
Mother and baby is for those of us with small kids. Not flash motors! I have a "flash motor" and park at the far end of the car park, away from other cars, and walk. The reason these bays have wide spaces is not because its closer to the shop entrance. Its so we can open our doors wide to get the kids out, without dinging the door of the car next to us. FFS, its the tw@ts that wrongly park in these, that force us to park in the normal spaces, and then when the cant get a M&B space, they moan when their doors get dinged!
I'm rapidly coming to the point where the driver of the next car I see being wrongly parked in a M&B spot, will come out to find 4 flats tyres. At best! Argh!!!!!
07 February 2005, 12:12 PM
#71
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
I wonder about this Les. I've never looked into the precise legality of clamping people but I suspect that, at the very least, it is on pretty dodgy ground. I would need to consult with a man who knows but would imagine that any clamping that demanded a release fee would also fall foul of the Bill of Rights.
As we are all aware most of these schemes are just a further erosion of our rights and while I am all for a law abiding society it seems to me that the laws current being enforced are aimed at removing the rights of the generally law abiding person with an investment in society. If, for example, you exceed the speed limit then the law forces you to admit who was driving the car before you even get the chance to enter a court. So, in effect, you have to incriminate yourself before you even get a chance to plead your case and once in court you must then prove yourself innocent. However, if you break into someone's home and are caught red handed you have a right not to say anything, you have a right not to incriminate yourself and you are presumed innocent unless the court can prove you guilty.
So, while I have no particular love of people who park badly I think that there are more fundamental issues at stake here and we must take care that our dislike of people who park in an inconsiderate manner doesn't allow the administration to further erode the fundamental rights in law of all of us. Just watching the development of this thread lets you see just how effective the divide and conquer approach has been for them as people focus on a trivial "crime" rather than on the fact that it opens the door for a man with a baseball bat to be legally allowed to fine us all.
For the majority of sane, normal and law abiding people on SN these fundamental principles upon which our society has been based are much more important than a minor parking, or for that matter speeding, "error" because in the near future the fact that this protection under the law has gone is going to be significant for all of us. Those people in for the biggest shock are likely to be the ones currently saying "I never break the law so it will be no problem for me..." The very point of many of the changes is to ensure that you do break the law.
As we are all aware most of these schemes are just a further erosion of our rights and while I am all for a law abiding society it seems to me that the laws current being enforced are aimed at removing the rights of the generally law abiding person with an investment in society. If, for example, you exceed the speed limit then the law forces you to admit who was driving the car before you even get the chance to enter a court. So, in effect, you have to incriminate yourself before you even get a chance to plead your case and once in court you must then prove yourself innocent. However, if you break into someone's home and are caught red handed you have a right not to say anything, you have a right not to incriminate yourself and you are presumed innocent unless the court can prove you guilty.
So, while I have no particular love of people who park badly I think that there are more fundamental issues at stake here and we must take care that our dislike of people who park in an inconsiderate manner doesn't allow the administration to further erode the fundamental rights in law of all of us. Just watching the development of this thread lets you see just how effective the divide and conquer approach has been for them as people focus on a trivial "crime" rather than on the fact that it opens the door for a man with a baseball bat to be legally allowed to fine us all.
For the majority of sane, normal and law abiding people on SN these fundamental principles upon which our society has been based are much more important than a minor parking, or for that matter speeding, "error" because in the near future the fact that this protection under the law has gone is going to be significant for all of us. Those people in for the biggest shock are likely to be the ones currently saying "I never break the law so it will be no problem for me..." The very point of many of the changes is to ensure that you do break the law.
We have no written contstitution to fall foul of.
When people don't like something, they always refer to 'having their rights eroded'.
I call it being law abiding, and where the law does not apply, such as in situations like this, then it is simply a moral way to behave. If you choose to ignore either, then you pay the consequences.
You have no rights, only what the govt. or society allows you.
Geezer
07 February 2005, 01:43 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doesnt the pick up point have a sign saying no unattended vehicles (ie parked) maximum waiting time 15 minutes.
If you parked there you are a muppet and deserve the fine. No matter what your choice of vehicle. Most supermarkets have big spaces at the back for caravans, motorhomes / people towing stuff, why didnt you use one of those ?. What 4x4 is it ?. My uncle doesnt have a problem getting his Nissan Patrol into most parking spaces, and that doesnt fit through most width restrictors.
As for "baby and Toddler" parking, Anyone who parks there without being accompanied by said sprogs deserves to get their door keyed you selfish *****.
If you parked there you are a muppet and deserve the fine. No matter what your choice of vehicle. Most supermarkets have big spaces at the back for caravans, motorhomes / people towing stuff, why didnt you use one of those ?. What 4x4 is it ?. My uncle doesnt have a problem getting his Nissan Patrol into most parking spaces, and that doesnt fit through most width restrictors.
As for "baby and Toddler" parking, Anyone who parks there without being accompanied by said sprogs deserves to get their door keyed you selfish *****.
07 February 2005, 01:44 PM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The world has gone to crap and it's this exact "I know it's wrong but **** you all" attitude that is one of the biggest erosions of our society. It's also the exact same reason why half of you say you want to leave the country ("Whine whine - too many chavs, no respect, Claims Direct, etc, etc ") when in the next breath you're helping to exacerbate the causes by having no morality or goodness in your day-to-day being and are too lazy to walk an extra 50 yards to the shop door. Tescos car park full - bo11ocks I say.
Wherever it is you end up, it will turn to the same shade of crap if you don't change your ways and have some decency in the way you behave, as that same awful and pathetic behaviour rubs off on all around you.
The fact that other people do this is no excuse - just walk on by. No need to ding their doors as you are morally aloof to them. As for calling in the lawyers, or protecting your human rights to do something that is morally dubious or just downright lazy - get a life
Joolz
Wherever it is you end up, it will turn to the same shade of crap if you don't change your ways and have some decency in the way you behave, as that same awful and pathetic behaviour rubs off on all around you.
The fact that other people do this is no excuse - just walk on by. No need to ding their doors as you are morally aloof to them. As for calling in the lawyers, or protecting your human rights to do something that is morally dubious or just downright lazy - get a life
Joolz
07 February 2005, 02:27 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tiggs
lol...typical post to bring out all the sad selfish retards.......only good news is that their "lifestlye" choice to avoid kids/etc will be interesting when they are sad lonley old men trying to park at Tescos but cant find a space because some tool has used them all up!
I wont care because my kids will pick up my shopping for me
I wont care because my kids will pick up my shopping for me
At best you'll get a last minute thought Christmas card and a picture of their snott ridden offspring for your birthday. You can then sit there head in hands by yourself drinking cheap whiskey while I'm in SE asia with my 20 yr old wife and her sisters.
BTW I park in mother and baby spaces if I feel like it and always make sure I smash the doors of the old banger I use for doing the shopping etc into whatever tasteless, oversize school run mobile I park next to.
Last time it was an X5 who knows what's next it's all part of the excitement of a care free childless existence.
07 February 2005, 02:41 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hedgehog
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your communication. Unfortunately you are requesting a "fine or forfeiture before conviction" which is an act in contravention of the Bill of Rights 1689. Unless the Bill of Rights has been explicitly repealed by an Act of Parliment for Tesco's car parks then your actions are unlawful and amount to harassment.
I would be grateful if you could inform me by return of any such Act of Parliment which specifically and explicitly repeals the Bill of Rights for your carpark. Please note, to save you some time, that the RTA 1984 does not repeal the Bill of Rights.
If no such Act exists then I would be grateful if you could desist from further personal harassment. Should such an Act not exist and should you continue with your harassment then I will be reviewing my position in relation to the 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act. As you may be aware this makes harassment a criminal offence and so I would be grateful if you could provide me with the name of the person responsible for the administration of these matters within your organisation so that I can ensure that the police arrest the correct person.
Should Tesco's car parks not be exempt from the Bill of Rights by an Act of Parliment and should you have previously demanded, and received, payment of a "fine or forfeiture before conviction" from other motorists then I think it important that your organisation ensures that all such fines are returned forthwith. Perhaps the best way to ensure that all those previously illegally fined by your organisation, assuming that the Act detailed above does not exist, have their money returned would be by way of a prominent series of advertisements placed in local and national newspapers. Should you not be able to provide evidence of the explicit repeal of the Bill of Rights by return I will be watching the newspapers closely for these advertisements.
Regards
etc. etc.
Probably not exactly the letter I would write but you can see that they leave themselves wide open and put you in a position to gain much entertainment from them. Just remember that many laws are there to protect your rights to a fair trial and it is important that you stand up and protect these laws, otherwise the current administration will just ignore them. The Bill of Rights has been around for a very long time but the current administration thinks it is above being bound by it.
Thank you for your communication. Unfortunately you are requesting a "fine or forfeiture before conviction" which is an act in contravention of the Bill of Rights 1689. Unless the Bill of Rights has been explicitly repealed by an Act of Parliment for Tesco's car parks then your actions are unlawful and amount to harassment.
I would be grateful if you could inform me by return of any such Act of Parliment which specifically and explicitly repeals the Bill of Rights for your carpark. Please note, to save you some time, that the RTA 1984 does not repeal the Bill of Rights.
If no such Act exists then I would be grateful if you could desist from further personal harassment. Should such an Act not exist and should you continue with your harassment then I will be reviewing my position in relation to the 1997 Prevention of Harassment Act. As you may be aware this makes harassment a criminal offence and so I would be grateful if you could provide me with the name of the person responsible for the administration of these matters within your organisation so that I can ensure that the police arrest the correct person.
Should Tesco's car parks not be exempt from the Bill of Rights by an Act of Parliment and should you have previously demanded, and received, payment of a "fine or forfeiture before conviction" from other motorists then I think it important that your organisation ensures that all such fines are returned forthwith. Perhaps the best way to ensure that all those previously illegally fined by your organisation, assuming that the Act detailed above does not exist, have their money returned would be by way of a prominent series of advertisements placed in local and national newspapers. Should you not be able to provide evidence of the explicit repeal of the Bill of Rights by return I will be watching the newspapers closely for these advertisements.
Regards
etc. etc.
Probably not exactly the letter I would write but you can see that they leave themselves wide open and put you in a position to gain much entertainment from them. Just remember that many laws are there to protect your rights to a fair trial and it is important that you stand up and protect these laws, otherwise the current administration will just ignore them. The Bill of Rights has been around for a very long time but the current administration thinks it is above being bound by it.
(a) You'll look like a mug if you can't spell Parliament properly
(b) I have no idea about the accuracy of the laws quoted, but really, YOU know you weren't being harassed, so why try to escape by the back door
(c) You were in the wrong - why not pay the fine, rather than trying to get off? Accept that you've made an error, and change your ways for next time - not so hard, is it?
More generally, this BBS is full of people complaining about others who are, apparently, evil spongers, taking what's not theirs, and who refuse to play by the rules.** Yet here we have exactly the same, albeit in a different context, and you're being encouraged to avoid payments. Rules obviously only apply in certain circumstances ........
British hypocrisy at its finest.
**For the hard of thinking, I mean asylum seekers and economic migrants
07 February 2005, 02:45 PM
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by the moose
**For the hard of thinking, I mean asylum seekers and economic migrants
07 February 2005, 02:53 PM
#78
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Flatcapdriver][QUOTE=the moose
**For the hard of thinking, I mean asylum seekers and economic migrants[/QUOTE]
Hey, there's an idea. But then they never obey the rules, and they all drive uninsured cars, every last man jack of 'em, I know 'cos I heard it from a bloke down the pub ....... and they've all got diseases**
**This last bit I actually heard verbatim from a driver last week. He genuinely believes that immigrants are almost all AIDS-ridden. Just as my jaw hit the floor, he followed it up with "well, not the white ones obviously". You can guess that that particular driver won't be picking up any more work from my company .....
**For the hard of thinking, I mean asylum seekers and economic migrants[/QUOTE]
Surely you're not suggesting that asylum seekers are allowed to use the Parent and Brat spaces?
Hey, there's an idea. But then they never obey the rules, and they all drive uninsured cars, every last man jack of 'em, I know 'cos I heard it from a bloke down the pub ....... and they've all got diseases**
**This last bit I actually heard verbatim from a driver last week. He genuinely believes that immigrants are almost all AIDS-ridden. Just as my jaw hit the floor, he followed it up with "well, not the white ones obviously". You can guess that that particular driver won't be picking up any more work from my company .....
07 February 2005, 03:17 PM
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by the moose
More generally, this BBS is full of people complaining about others who are, apparently, evil spongers, taking what's not theirs, and who refuse to play by the rules.** Yet here we have exactly the same, albeit in a different context, and you're being encouraged to avoid payments. Rules obviously only apply in certain circumstances ........
British hypocrisy at its finest.
**For the hard of thinking, I mean asylum seekers and economic migrants
British hypocrisy at its finest.
**For the hard of thinking, I mean asylum seekers and economic migrants
07 February 2005, 03:20 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try home delivery - no bother with parking then!
Perhaps you could also try painting a no stopping bay outside your house, so when the tesco van pulls up to drop of the shopping, you can slap a ticket on the van! (May need to live down a private road for this one though, just a small thought!)
Perhaps you could also try painting a no stopping bay outside your house, so when the tesco van pulls up to drop of the shopping, you can slap a ticket on the van! (May need to live down a private road for this one though, just a small thought!)
07 February 2005, 03:25 PM
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^^
that is a fantastic idea my road is private, im off to b& q to get a wheel clamp and some glue for the fine paperwork. postie wont know what hit him tommorow.
that is a fantastic idea my road is private, im off to b& q to get a wheel clamp and some glue for the fine paperwork. postie wont know what hit him tommorow.
07 February 2005, 03:38 PM
#82
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno if its been mentioned but you might find that tescos aint issuing the parking ticket. its probably the council. this is the case with ASDA in our town. the carpark is the councils its their choice to charge, ASDA dont have a choice in the matter. and fine goes to the council etc. you'll find that if you go into Tescos the chances are they'll say sorry not our problem as we dont govern the car park 
ohh I think you should pay the fine too
ohh I think you should pay the fine too
07 February 2005, 03:53 PM
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geezer
You have no rights, only what the govt. or society allows you.
Geezer
The point of it:
"not to give us rights, but to recognise that they are inherent and may not be removed."
07 February 2005, 04:39 PM
#86
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
LOL!
There you go Tiggs, have a stalker on me!
There you go Tiggs, have a stalker on me!
Anyway my comments are heartfelt and true it's these poor saps bringing up their ADD/mental kids that deserve a bit of a kicking.
Message to you parents, nobody but you thinks your kids are special, the rest of us regard them as little better than people's pets. Parent and child spaces? Don't make me laugh.
07 February 2005, 05:04 PM
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TORQUEamada
You are yesterdays news, you haven't said anything worthy of a bit of banter for a long time. Do try to move on you poor deluded child.
07 February 2005, 05:19 PM
#88
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: In the garage or in bed
Posts: 7,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ajm
Well I think it's encouragingly healthy that you have finally been able to move on. I wish you all the best with stalking Tiggs!
I have much more important things to do than stalk Tiggs and there are far more intresting people on here I can think of
You ask HC I've done all the stalking that I needed to do,
And if she says anything, I was going into the shop to get me lottery
07 February 2005, 05:24 PM
#89
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are flattering yourself. I'm not stalking anyone, I merely reserve this account for commenting on subjects raised by people whose viewpoints mark them out as deluded morons.
Tiggs in this case fits the mould, thus the comment.
Plus I'd like to add my utter contempt for mother and baby space users, who on earth decided that just because you knocked up some bint/are some bint who got knocked up that you get preferential treatment?
I'd give them special treatment all right, make them park as far away from the exit as possible. Most of the ugly ******* I see need the exercise, obese swine, children and parents.
Tiggs in this case fits the mould, thus the comment.
Plus I'd like to add my utter contempt for mother and baby space users, who on earth decided that just because you knocked up some bint/are some bint who got knocked up that you get preferential treatment?
I'd give them special treatment all right, make them park as far away from the exit as possible. Most of the ugly ******* I see need the exercise, obese swine, children and parents.
07 February 2005, 05:36 PM
#90
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TORQUEamada
I think you are flattering yourself. I'm not stalking anyone, I merely reserve this account for commenting on subjects raised by people whose viewpoints mark them out as deluded morons.
Tiggs in this case fits the mould, thus the comment.
Plus I'd like to add my utter contempt for mother and baby space users, who on earth decided that just because you knocked up some bint/are some bint who got knocked up that you get preferential treatment?
I'd give them special treatment all right, make them park as far away from the exit as possible. Most of the ugly ******* I see need the exercise, obese swine, children and parents.
Tiggs in this case fits the mould, thus the comment.
Plus I'd like to add my utter contempt for mother and baby space users, who on earth decided that just because you knocked up some bint/are some bint who got knocked up that you get preferential treatment?
I'd give them special treatment all right, make them park as far away from the exit as possible. Most of the ugly ******* I see need the exercise, obese swine, children and parents.