Not quite a spoiler 28/9
Fenny
get a car, or driving lessons, for his birthday. Everyone in the
village knows this. Ed has not yet taking his driving test (unless he
did it very quietly one day this week). Everyone in the village knows
this.
So....
WTF did anyone a) get in the car with him or b) allow anyone else to get
in the car with him.
Surely Tom and Kirsty would have thought about this when offering lifts
and William sould have made some comment about it too.
--
Fenny - C-COITUS (co)
Spike: The truth is - I like this world. You've got dog racing,
Manchester United and you've got people. Billions of people walking
around like Happy Meals with legs. It's alright here.
Pat Hanby
> Ed has just turned 17. Everyone in the village knows this. Ed didn't
> get a car, or driving lessons, for his birthday. Everyone in the
> village knows this. Ed has not yet taking his driving test (unless he
> did it very quietly one day this week). Everyone in the village knows
> this.
Indeed - I've been wondering this too. His birthday is actually 28th,
Friday, so unless he passed his test that day, with no previous
lessons, even with a provisional licence it's the first day he could
legally drive with another driver. All the fuss seems to be about him
pinching William's car, not about the fact that he was breaking the law. I
think Jazzer was doing the driving when they went joyriding, wasn't he?
So.... >
> WTF did anyone a) get in the car with him or b) allow anyone else to get
> in the car with him.
>
> Surely Tom and Kirsty would have thought about this when offering lifts
> and William sould have made some comment about it too.
> --
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pat Hanby Acquisitions Manager Reading University Library
PO Box 223 Whiteknights READING RG6 6AE UK
P.M....@reading.ac.uk Tel. 0118 9318777 Fax 0118 9316636
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Serena Blanchflower
(and...@hodgsons.clara.co.uk) said...
> Also, nobody seemed to be to bothered about the fact that William had
> said that his car had been stolen by his brother - Tom and Kirsty seemed
> to think it was quite funny.
I think this may prove significant when he tries to claim on his
insurance. I don't think they are likely to accept that it was
stolen. William had known that Ed had taken the car and had chosen
not to take any official action. I think the insurance company are
likely to take this as giving tacit consent to him driving.
Therefore, no insurance to replace the car.
I predict that his fairy godmother will come to the rescue and buy him
a new one.
--
Serena OSTENT(ATIOUS)
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind---Gandhi
anon...@firedrake.org
>P.S, as only a short time listener of Ta (96), has there ever been doom
>music at the end (the only time was when John died and there was no
>music), but any other time has there been any other music?
The Beetle aka VW has decreed that the Doom Music shall not be played,
because ..... um, I forget her footling reason. So it hasn't been for a
while. It did used to happen, honest, before she took over.
Weevil
AttLSM, UBBBA, UNCEMPT BAG
authorised to mend holes in the fabric of the continuum
Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
Serena Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I think this may prove significant when he tries to claim on his
> insurance. I don't think they are likely to accept that it was
> stolen. William had known that Ed had taken the car and had chosen
> not to take any official action. I think the insurance company are
> likely to take this as giving tacit consent to him driving.
> Therefore, no insurance to replace the car.
When William discovered the theft he demanded that Ed return the keys.
When he ran William pursued him. This should convince any insurance co,
--
Glynn Greenwood
In Stony Stratford, gateway to the mystical city of Milton Keynes
Brenda Selwyn
>Ed has just turned 17. Everyone in the village knows this. Ed didn't
>get a car, or driving lessons, for his birthday. Everyone in the
>village knows this.
>WTF did anyone a) get in the car with him or b) allow anyone else to get
>in the car with him.
>
>Surely Tom and Kirsty would have thought about this when offering lifts
>and William sould have made some comment about it too.
I don't suppose Fallon or Emma would be bothered. I am a bit
surprised Tom didn't make some comment, but if he had Ed would only
have laughed in his face, Fallon still wouldn't have been bothered,
and I can't see Tom making any attempts to stop them physically.
I'm even more surprised Will didn't make a fuss about Ed driving his
car without a licence or insurance, but he did at least try to stop
him from driving it, for whatever reason.
So, what charges are they going to hit Ed with then? Driving without
a licence for sure. Speeding, perhaps? Careless driving, or driving
without due care and attention?
Taking without consent is an interesting one. If Will decides not to
press the matter on this one, he will be seen as giving consent for Ed
to be driving. In which case not only would the insurance probably
not pay up, but wouldn't he also be in trouble himself for allowing
someone without a licence to drive his car? So he may have no choice
but to say Ed had stolen the car.
BTW, did anyone else find the noise made by the car's engine, and the
speed they appeared to be travelling on impact, did not fit with their
image of any car Eddie could afford to buy, or William could afford to
insure and run?
Brenda
--
***************************************************************
Brenda M Selwyn
Nr Bath, North East Somerset
bre...@matson.demon.co.uk
http://www.matson.demon.co.uk/brenda.htm
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>allspamwil...@rickmansworth.mersinet.co.uk (Fenny) wrote:
>
>>Ed has just turned 17. Everyone in the village knows this. Ed didn't
>>get a car, or driving lessons, for his birthday. Everyone in the
>>village knows this.
>
>>WTF did anyone a) get in the car with him or b) allow anyone else to get
>>in the car with him.
>>
>>Surely Tom and Kirsty would have thought about this when offering lifts
>>and William sould have made some comment about it too.
>
>I don't suppose Fallon or Emma would be bothered. I am a bit
>surprised Tom didn't make some comment, but if he had Ed would only
>have laughed in his face, Fallon still wouldn't have been bothered,
>and I can't see Tom making any attempts to stop them physically.
>
>I'm even more surprised Will didn't make a fuss about Ed driving his
>car without a licence or insurance, but he did at least try to stop
>him from driving it, for whatever reason.
>
>So, what charges are they going to hit Ed with then? Driving without
>a licence for sure. Speeding, perhaps? Careless driving, or driving
>without due care and attention?
1. Driving without a licence.
2. Driving without insurance.
3. Aggravated theft of a motor vehicle (a.k.a. A-level Twocking)
4. Speeding, and
5. Dangerous Driving.
--
Stephen Tilley - Um...@aol.com
Driven by Improbability
Al Menzies
Selwyn dashed across the keyboard to create this message:
>BTW, did anyone else find the noise made by the car's engine, and the
>speed they appeared to be travelling on impact, did not fit with their
>image of any car Eddie could afford to buy, or William could afford to
>insure and run?
The reason he left the keys on the kitchen table was so that Eddie
could take a look at the exhaust, hence it was sounding a bit
'throaty'.
al
LSM
Rachael Reynolds
<anon...@firedrake.org> wrote in message
news:20010930122656....@firedrake.org...
I must have heard it at some time but don't remember it. Is it available
anywhere to listen to?
Rachael
>
>
>
Iain Archer
>On returning from my virus check I saw that Brenda had said ...
>>
>>a licence for sure. Speeding, perhaps? Careless driving, or driving
>>without due care and attention?
>
>1. Driving without a licence.
>2. Driving without insurance.
>3. Aggravated theft of a motor vehicle (a.k.a. A-level Twocking)
>4. Speeding, and
>5. Dangerous Driving.
>
near indispensable for FOTWD enthusiasts]
Aggravated vehicle taking: it has to be proved that
1) the vehicle was TWOC'd
2) it was driven dangerously on the public road
3) the driving of the vehicle caused an accident which damaged
another vehicle or caused personal injury
4) the vehicle was itself damaged.
Were there is only physical damage under UKP 5,000, the case has to be
tried by magistrates (max sentence 6 months, vs 2 years at crown court,
and 5 years if a death). Otherwise "Although no mode of trial guidance
has been issued it is apparent that these will be serious offences by
their nature and that justices will accept jurisdiction only after
careful consideration. Cases involving death should got to the crown
court for trial.// Seriousness factors, such as prolonged high speed
chases with the police, disregard for passenger pleas to stop and
alcohol, may indicate a custodial sentence ...".
As to TWOCing:
"If the court is satisfied the defendant acted in the belief that he
had lawful authority, or that the owner would have consented if the
owner knew the circumstances, then he must be acquitted. The defendant
only has to raise the defence. The absence of lawful authority or the
owner's consent is an essential ingredient of the offence and it remains
the prosecutor's duty to prove the allegation".
So if Ed is minded to follow Tom's noble example and want to try
an "honest belief" defence, it could make for some interesting
conversations chez Grundy.
TWOCing also includes knowingly allowing oneself to be carried.
And the dangerous driving:
"Dangerous driving ie driven in a way which falls far below what would
be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious
to a competent and careful driver that driving a vehicle in that way
would be dangerous".
I'd wager that they'd need expert police examiner's evidence, and
maybe Emmur's testimony, to prove this, if true. If they can't do so,
they'd have to fall back on bare TWOCing and a lesser driving offence.
--
Iain Archer
Mike McMillan
anon...@firedrake.org writes
Toodle Pip,
Mike
--
Mike McMillan
Mike McMillan
<rachael....@btinternet.com> writes
Slightly higher and louder ..
Dum-Dum-Dum-Dum Duddle Diddle Dum,.
Dum-ti-Tiddle-Dum-ti Tiddle Dum ....
er.. you get the gist I think!
(Somerat will be along to correct my feeble attempts shortly)
Robert Carnegie
100000@suma3>, Pat Hanby <vlsh...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Fenny wrote:
>
>> Ed has just turned 17. Everyone in the village knows this. Ed didn't
>> get a car, or driving lessons, for his birthday. Everyone in the
>> village knows this. Ed has not yet taking his driving test (unless he
>> did it very quietly one day this week). Everyone in the village knows
>> this.
>
>Indeed - I've been wondering this too. His birthday is actually 28th,
>Friday, so unless he passed his test that day, with no previous
>lessons, even with a provisional licence it's the first day he could
>legally drive with another driver. All the fuss seems to be about him
>pinching William's car, not about the fact that he was breaking the law. I
>think Jazzer was doing the driving when they went joyriding, wasn't he?
No, Ed took Emma driving without Jazzer, too.
>So.... >
>> WTF did anyone a) get in the car with him or b) allow anyone else to get
>> in the car with him.
>>
>> Surely Tom and Kirsty would have thought about this when offering lifts
>> and William sould have made some comment about it too.
Tom and Kirsty are a pair of irresponsible little twits. William
wouldn't have been interested in whether the brother who stole
his car had a licence or any experience or not, and of course he
knows that Ed doesn't think these matters are important either.
I presume that as I read on there will be a concensus that Eddie,
pere, is the worst of all, and the main reason why Ed turned out
like this?
Mind you, I was listening when Roy Tucker found his adult voice,
and he's turned out better than he was - now. Although he's still
good for a punch-up with one of those weak-jawed media types...
Nigel Whittington
following:
> In message <HDGS19...@hodgsons.clara.co.uk> Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>
> >P.S, as only a short time listener of Ta (96), has there ever been doom
> >music at the end (the only time was when John died and there was no
> >music), but any other time has there been any other music?
>
> The Beetle aka VW has decreed that the Doom Music shall not be played,
> because ..... um, I forget her footling reason. So it hasn't been for a
> while. It did used to happen, honest, before she took over.
>
> Weevil
Beetle decreed that the DOOM music would not be played because she
thought it too melodramatic. Pah !
Nigel: Friend Of Archers DOOM-music.
(And what happened to the intro by Tom Forrest, and latterly by other
denizens of Ambridge to the Omni then !!
Tony Walton
Sounded more like a turbo kicking in than a throaty exhaust to me.
--
Tony
Marjorie Clarke
"Glynn & Kathy Greenwood" <gw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4ac21d3...@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.1620edb71...@news.freeserve.net>,
> Serena Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I think this may prove significant when he tries to claim on his
> > insurance. I don't think they are likely to accept that it was
> > stolen. William had known that Ed had taken the car and had chosen
> > not to take any official action. I think the insurance company are
> > likely to take this as giving tacit consent to him driving.
> > Therefore, no insurance to replace the car.
>
> When William discovered the theft he demanded that Ed return the keys.
> When he ran William pursued him. This should convince any insurance co,
... except that Eddie hasn't thought this through, and will be trying to
persuade William to say he gave permission for Ed to drive. This would not
only invalidate his insurance claim but make it more difficult for William
to get cover on another car.
--
Marjorie Clarke
Eleanor King
> a licence for sure. Speeding, perhaps? Careless driving, or driving
> without due care and attention?
>
> Taking without consent is an interesting one. If Will decides not to
> press the matter on this one, he will be seen as giving consent for Ed
> to be driving. In which case not only would the insurance probably
> not pay up, but wouldn't he also be in trouble himself for allowing
> someone without a licence to drive his car? So he may have no choice
> but to say Ed had stolen the car.
your car.
Mike McMillan
Whittington <coast...@my-dejanews.com> writes
>(And what happened to the intro by Tom Forrest, and latterly by other
>denizens of Ambridge to the Omni then !!
TF used to lean on a gate whilst doing his mono log; since such times,
the whole set up has changed in the control room, they have digital
desks that are stereo capable so the mono log has had to be updated.
Secondly, I suspect the old mixing desk had compressors and such like on
the input channels that would have included a gate, maybe the new mixing
desk no longer features the said (5 bar?) gate ;-)))
Sorry 'bout that, the above is more likely (well ever so slightly) to
appeal to Jim E. than most other UMRATS.
Toodle Pip,
Mike
--
Mike McMillan, Mike Sounds
Digital Recording, Editing & CD Production.
Tel: 0118 9265450 Fax: 0118 9668167.
http://www.mikesounds.demon.co.uk
Tony Walton
IIRC the endorsement codes on your licence include not only doing a
Naughty Thing, but also "Causing and Permitting" the Naughty Thing, and
"Counselling and Procuring" the Naughty Thing. So code IR10 is driving
without insurance and IR13 is permitting someone to drive without
insurance.
By the sounds of Ed's whinging on 1st Oct Willyum has dropped Ed in it
for TWOC, though.
--
Tony
anon...@firedrake.org
>In message <2449d998.01093...@posting.google.com>, Nigel
>Whittington <coast...@my-dejanews.com> writes
>>(And what happened to the intro by Tom Forrest, and latterly by other
>>denizens of Ambridge to the Omni then !!
>Ah now I think I can put a finger on the reason for this...
>TF used to lean on a gate whilst doing his mono log; since such times,
>the whole set up has changed in the control room, they have digital
>desks that are stereo capable so the mono log has had to be updated.
>Secondly, I suspect the old mixing desk had compressors and such like on
>the input channels that would have included a gate, maybe the new mixing
>desk no longer features the said (5 bar?) gate ;-)))
LoL! *snortle* Look here, Mike, that was my first cup of coffee of
the morning. Be a bit careful can't you?
>Sorry 'bout that, the above is more likely (well ever so slightly) to
>appeal to Jim E. than most other UMRATS.
Huh.
Nick Atty
<gw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <MPG.1620edb71...@news.freeserve.net>,
> Serena Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I think this may prove significant when he tries to claim on his
>> insurance. I don't think they are likely to accept that it was
>> stolen. William had known that Ed had taken the car and had chosen
>> not to take any official action. I think the insurance company are
>> likely to take this as giving tacit consent to him driving.
>> Therefore, no insurance to replace the car.
>
>When William discovered the theft he demanded that Ed return the keys.
>When he ran William pursued him. This should convince any insurance co,
Never mind the insurance company. What about the police? He may get off
dangerous/reckless/slightly-unthinking driving, (we know one reason he
hit an animal in the fog was that he was going too fast, but it will be
hard to prove) but he was certainly driving without insurance.
What I found odd is that we'd been told that half of Borsetshire was at
the event, there were cars everywhere, yet in order the three cars to
pass the spot where:
Ed's (well, William's)
William's (well, whoever's it was - I can't remember)
Neil
That's taking dramatic license a bit far if you ask me. And they all
stopped because they saw an accident, not because of who it was. I
can't believe that everyone in Ambridge is a good samaritan and noone
else is.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
Bob Hardwick
"Tony Walton" <tony....@uk.sun.com> wrote in message
news:3BB98E67...@uk.sun.com...
snip>
> IIRC the endorsement codes on your licence include not only doing a
> Naughty Thing, but also "Causing and Permitting" the Naughty Thing, and
> "Counselling and Procuring" the Naughty Thing. So code IR10 is driving
> without insurance and IR13 is permitting someone to drive without
> insurance.
>
> By the sounds of Ed's whinging on 1st Oct Willyum has dropped Ed in it
> for TWOC, though.
>
>
> --
> Tony
Eddie Snr. will try to muddy the water somehow.
It might be in character for him to say "It was all a tragic
misunderstanding. Willum left me the keys & asked me to look at the
exhaust. But I thought he said 'Give the car to Ed' - an easy mistake that
anyone could make."
Bob Hardwick
Brenda Selwyn
>On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:46:03 +0100, Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
><gw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>When William discovered the theft he demanded that Ed return the keys.
>>When he ran William pursued him. This should convince any insurance co,
Does anyone one else think Neil is being rather unreasonable, blaming
William for going off and leaving Emma? I suppose it is
understandable, given that he is so upset, but ISTM Emma is big enough
to look after herself and make her own decisions (wrong in this case,
but ISTM she has no-one to blame for that decision but herself. Ed
can be blamed for the accident, but she decided to get into the car).
She certainly doesn't need a man to look after her. Anyway, William
left her with Tom and Kirsty; he can hardly be blamed for her deciding
not to stay with them and/or stay where he left her[1].
>What I found odd is that we'd been told that half of Borsetshire was at
>the event, there were cars everywhere, yet in order the three cars to
>pass the spot where:
>
>Ed's (well, William's)
>William's (well, whoever's it was - I can't remember)
>Neil
>
>That's taking dramatic license a bit far if you ask me. And they all
>stopped because they saw an accident, not because of who it was. I
>can't believe that everyone in Ambridge is a good samaritan and noone
>else is.
This depends on where the accident took place (did Tom say where it
was when he summoned the Ambulance? I kind of think he did, but I
can't remember what was said). The BBC summaries call it a "dark
lane", and it certainly didn't sound like an A-road to me. In which
case, consulting the OS-style map of Borsetshire, IMHO the accident
must have taken place quite close to Ambridge, and it's unlikely that
anyone other than residents of Ambridge and a handful of other local
villages would have passed.
[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine. I have wasted plenty
of time myself trying to find people (mainly Husbad:-( who have not
stayed where I left them when I have popped to the ladies, for
example.
Min Lacey
<bre...@matson.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine.
(not strong enough to be a hate) - in WH Smith or whatever suddenly
turning to a complete stranger and asking him whether to buy the latest
Paul Britton "because he's particularly strong on sadistic psychosexual
motivation" is *not* an experience I care to repaeat...
--
Min
Make them an otter they can't defuse.
Proud Person with a PHIL. GULP.
anon...@firedrake.org
>>nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk (Nick Atty) wrote:
>
>Does anyone one else think Neil is being rather unreasonable, blaming
>William for going off and leaving Emma? I suppose it is
>understandable, given that he is so upset, but ISTM Emma is big enough
>to look after herself and make her own decisions (wrong in this case,
>but ISTM she has no-one to blame for that decision but herself. Ed
>can be blamed for the accident, but she decided to get into the car).
>She certainly doesn't need a man to look after her. Anyway, William
>left her with Tom and Kirsty; he can hardly be blamed for her deciding
>not to stay with them and/or stay where he left her[1].
Neil is not being reasonable full stop full stop full stop. If he hadn't
been being a worry-wart in the first place, Emmur wouldn't have been
wandering around on her own waiting for him to come and collect her.
>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine. I have wasted plenty
>of time myself trying to find people (mainly Husbad:-( who have not
>stayed where I left them when I have popped to the ladies, for
>example.
I also can't remember how anyone knew Emmur had gone off with Ed. Was it
William who saw them, and told Neil? Maybe that was why Neil blames him:
for not stopping her? (If nobody did, how come Neil was casually driving
off back to Ambridge rather than rushing about in the car-park looking for
her with increasing panic?)
Kate Lambert
>
>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine. I have wasted plenty
>of time myself trying to find people (mainly Husbad:-( who have not
>stayed where I left them when I have popped to the ladies, for
>example.
>
car" and when you come back she's decided to walk halfway to meet you or
crossed the road "to be helpful".
--
Kate Lambert
Serena Blanchflower
anon...@firedrake.org (anon...@firedrake.org) said...
> I also can't remember how anyone knew Emmur had gone off with Ed. Was it
> William who saw them, and told Neil?
I think Tom and Kirsty saw her in the car as Ed drove off. Presumably
they told Neil, who then agreed to take William home (it was never
clear how William had been planning to get back).
Serena Blanchflower
> Does anyone one else think Neil is being rather unreasonable, blaming
> William for going off and leaving Emma?
>
it's understandable though. He's busy putting the blame on everyone,
including himself, except Emma. She's still his baby, so she can't be
responsible for any of it.
Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
Brenda Selwyn <bre...@matson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> This depends on where the accident took place (did Tom say where it
> was when he summoned the Ambulance? I kind of think he did, but I
> can't remember what was said). The BBC summaries call it a "dark
> lane", and it certainly didn't sound like an A-road to me. In which
> case, consulting the OS-style map of Borsetshire, IMHO the accident
> must have taken place quite close to Ambridge, and it's unlikely that
> anyone other than residents of Ambridge and a handful of other local
> villages would have passed.
Tom et al were in the car park when they heard the explosion. The real
mystery is why no one else turned up at the scene.
Tony Walton
>
>
> I also can't remember how anyone knew Emmur had gone off with Ed. Was it
> William who saw them, and told Neil?
Kirsty saw them, IIRC. Something along the lines of "mumble mumble Ed
and Fallon" from Tom (he wasn't mumbling but I can't remember what he
said) followed by
Kirsty: "That wasn't Fallon, it was Emma!"
Tom (incredulously): "You sure?"
Kirsty: "Yes - she waved!"
> Maybe that was why Neil blames him:
> for not stopping her? (If nobody did, how come Neil was casually driving
> off back to Ambridge rather than rushing about in the car-park looking for
> her with increasing panic?)
I don't quite understand why everybody had conveniently left their
mobiles at home because *one person* (Willyum, was it?) had theirs with
them. Shirley one of the more useful things about mobiles is to be able
to contact people when you're both out and say things like "Where the
bloody hell are you, I've been wandering about this car park for ages
looking for you?". Or does Borchesternet only allow calls between
mobiles and fixed lines, not between mobiles?
--
Tony
Robert Carnegie
> >nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk (Nick Atty) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:46:03 +0100, Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
> ><gw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >What I found odd is that we'd been told that half of Borsetshire was at
> >the event, there were cars everywhere, yet in order the three cars to
> >pass the spot where:
> >
> >Ed's (well, William's)
> >William's (well, whoever's it was - I can't remember)
> >Neil
> >
> >That's taking dramatic license a bit far if you ask me. And they all
> >stopped because they saw an accident, not because of who it was. I
> >can't believe that everyone in Ambridge is a good samaritan and noone
> >else is.
>
> This depends on where the accident took place (did Tom say where it
> was when he summoned the Ambulance? I kind of think he did, but I
> can't remember what was said). The BBC summaries call it a "dark
> lane", and it certainly didn't sound like an A-road to me. In which
> case, consulting the OS-style map of Borsetshire, IMHO the accident
> must have taken place quite close to Ambridge, and it's unlikely that
> anyone other than residents of Ambridge and a handful of other local
> villages would have passed.
He hit a deer, does that imply it was the road past or through
Home Farm's deer park?
Stephen GC Tilley
>
>In article <c1fkrtc7fm02b90db...@4ax.com>, Brenda Selwyn
><bre...@matson.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine.
>People (ok then, Alex) wandering away while I'm talking is a pet peeve
>(not strong enough to be a hate) - in WH Smith or whatever suddenly
>turning to a complete stranger and asking him whether to buy the latest
>Paul Britton "because he's particularly strong on sadistic psychosexual
>motivation" is *not* an experience I care to repaeat...
I was told off (by wofe/chauffeuse) for vanishing this morning while walking the
5 metres from the front door to the car. I was wondering how to mention this to
umra - shouldn't have worried really.
Penny
<bre...@matson.demon.co.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>This depends on where the accident took place (did Tom say where it
>was when he summoned the Ambulance?
I think he said Berrow Wood - does that appear on the OS map?
--
Penny Peter Hesketh memorial sig.
Thirty reasons why we men have good reason to be proud of ourselves: number 12
Everything on our faces stays the original color.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.bigwig.net/umra/nicks.html
Martin Clark
about...
>in WH Smith or whatever suddenly
>turning to a complete stranger and asking him whether to buy the latest
>Paul Britton "because he's particularly strong on sadistic psychosexual
>motivation" is *not* an experience I care to repaeat...
It's an original chat-up line.
--
Martin up in t' Pennines
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. (Mark Twain)
Robin Somes
anon...@firedrake.org writes
>>She certainly doesn't need a man to look after her. Anyway, William
>>left her with Tom and Kirsty; he can hardly be blamed for her deciding
>>not to stay with them and/or stay where he left her[1].
>
>Neil is not being reasonable full stop full stop full stop. If he
>hadn't been being a worry-wart in the first place, Emmur wouldn't have
>been wandering around on her own waiting for him to come and collect her.
Ummm, yes. But wasn't there the occasion a few months ago when she was
at some dubious party, with Grungy/ies Junior, and had to be rescued
when a fight broke out? IANAParent, but maybe Neil's entitled to be
unreasonable, given some of the company she keeps. BICBAVBM.
cheers,
robin
--
EMU & RHEUM - Turgidity Is My Watchword
Amazonian Fish & Their Habitats - www.amazonian-fish.co.uk
www.badminston.demon.co.uk www.robinsomes.co.uk
www.blackwell-science.com/southwood www.irchouse.demon.co.uk
Trust me, I'm a webmaster......
Martin Clark
about...
>Shirley one of the more useful things about mobiles is to be able
>to contact people when you're both out and say things like "Where the
>bloody hell are you, I've been wandering about this car park for ages
>looking for you?".
At the May Bank Holiday Stalybridge Festival (1) there were more people
in Stalybridge than I have ever seen there at one time before. All
weekend long I passed people wandering through the crowds shouting into
their mobiles things like: "I'm on the bridge - where are you?"
How did people become un-lost before mobiles, or did they just stay
together better?
(1) As seen in http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/huddersfield/open21.htm
--
Martin up in t' Pennines
It takes less time to do things right that to explain why you
did them wrong. - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Iain Archer
Oct 2001:
>At the May Bank Holiday Stalybridge Festival (1) there were more people
>in Stalybridge than I have ever seen there at one time before. All
>weekend long I passed people wandering through the crowds shouting into
>their mobiles things like: "I'm on the bridge - where are you?"
>
>How did people become un-lost before mobiles, or did they just stay
>together better?
So The mobile phone is doing for X? what the bicycle did for exogamy.
--
Iain Archer
badriya
>>nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk (Nick Atty) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:46:03 +0100, Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
>><gw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>When William discovered the theft he demanded that Ed return the keys.
>>>When he ran William pursued him. This should convince any insurance co,
>
>Does anyone one else think Neil is being rather unreasonable, blaming
>William for going off and leaving Emma? I suppose it is
>understandable, given that he is so upset, but ISTM Emma is big enough
Yes, and Soozan was nasty to Clarrieluv too. I wish Clarrie had not
accepted all the blame but had blacked both Soosan's eyes.
>to look after herself and make her own decisions (wrong in this case,
>but ISTM she has no-one to blame for that decision but herself. Ed
>can be blamed for the accident, but she decided to get into the car).
>She certainly doesn't need a man to look after her. Anyway, William
>left her with Tom and Kirsty; he can hardly be blamed for her deciding
>not to stay with them and/or stay where he left her[1].
>
>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine. I have wasted plenty
>of time myself trying to find people (mainly Husbad:-( who have not
>stayed where I left them when I have popped to the ladies, for
>example.
>
>Brenda
Everyone in my family always wandered off or was not where you said
you'd meet them. I hated that too. But my mum said I used to wander
off as a child, so it could be heredity.
I 'd claim it was but bluerose has just had a law class where they
talked about logic and he came back with a series of statements you
had to find the flaw in logic in and I had to do it too. He keeps
challenging me to do the things they had to in class :). I've been ok
so far but it's only been 2 weeks. And next week no lessons! Just
one tutorial to see if they feel they are on the right course. Seems
a bit drastic, cut the whole week for that.
Nick Leverton
Robin Somes <ro...@badminston.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Ummm, yes. But wasn't there the occasion a few months ago when she was
>at some dubious party, with Grungy/ies Junior, and had to be rescued
>when a fight broke out? IANAParent, but maybe Neil's entitled to be
>unreasonable, given some of the company she keeps. BICBAVBM.
Well he clearly thought so, but he seems to have come round to her point
of view now ...
Nick
Chris McMillan
<bre...@matson.demon.co.uk> writes
>>nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk (Nick Atty) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 13:46:03 +0100, Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
>><gw...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>When William discovered the theft he demanded that Ed return the keys.
>>>When he ran William pursued him. This should convince any insurance co,
>
>Does anyone one else think Neil is being rather unreasonable, blaming
>William for going off and leaving Emma? I suppose it is
>understandable, given that he is so upset, but ISTM Emma is big enough
>to look after herself and make her own decisions
>
Chrisduffer as kids. And the fact that Soozan stayed at home to look
after them while he went off to HRH's little pad. Emmur's just 17 for
heaven's sake. Even our Haze will cook a meal for Toodles if I'm not
here these days. (She's as lazy as the average teen when it comes to
food).
>This depends on where the accident took place (did Tom say where it
>was when he summoned the Ambulance? I kind of think he did, but I
>can't remember what was said).
>
Im not sure Tom said where they were, but I think Ed was describing it
just before he crashed. Did he say something about driving through
woods? I didn't catch the name of the woods and I'm not a regular omni
listener. He was saying something about 'it won't be long before we get
through these ...... woods' as they hit the deer.
>
>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine.
>
My nightmare - I have occasionally been left waiting in supermarkets for
people while they dive off on their own affairs and aren't where I
expect them to be at the time I get through the check out.
Sincerely, Chris
--
Chris McMillan
Chris McMillan
<ro...@badminston.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <20011003010704....@firedrake.org>,
>anon...@firedrake.org writes
>>>She certainly doesn't need a man to look after her. Anyway, William
>>>left her with Tom and Kirsty; he can hardly be blamed for her deciding
>>>not to stay with them and/or stay where he left her[1].
>>
>>Neil is not being reasonable full stop full stop full stop. If he
>>hadn't been being a worry-wart in the first place, Emmur wouldn't have
>>been wandering around on her own waiting for him to come and collect her.
>
>Ummm, yes. But wasn't there the occasion a few months ago when she was
>at some dubious party, with Grungy/ies Junior,
>
Chris McMillan
<o...@deathsdoor.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:34:14 +0100, Brenda Selwyn
><bre...@matson.demon.co.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>This depends on where the accident took place (did Tom say where it
>>was when he summoned the Ambulance?
>
>I think he said Berrow Wood - does that appear on the OS map?
Dunno, but it would make sense. So near Ambridge as some-rat surmised.
Who apart from Biriani would own deer. Or is Berrow Wood part of the
estate that we haven't heard about?
Chris McMillan
Whittington <coast...@my-dejanews.com> writes
>following:
>
>
>> In message <HDGS19...@hodgsons.clara.co.uk> Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>>
>> >P.S, as only a short time listener of Ta (96), has there ever been doom
>(And what happened to the intro by Tom Forrest, and latterly by other
>denizens of Ambridge to the Omni then !!
It never quite worked after Tom stopped doing it apparently. (Can't
remember who took it over: its in TATTS).
Chris McMillan
<rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010929180948.18930M-
>100000@suma3>, Pat Hanby <vlsh...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Fenny wrote:
>>
>>> Ed has just turned 17. Everyone in the village knows this. Ed didn't
>>> get a car, or driving lessons, for his birthday. Everyone in the
>>> village knows this. Ed has not yet taking his driving test (unless he
>>> did it very quietly one day this week). Everyone in the village knows
>>> this.
>>
>>Indeed - I've been wondering this too. His birthday is actually 28th,
>>Friday, so unless he passed his test that day, with no previous
>>lessons, even with a provisional licence it's the first day he could
>>legally drive with another driver.
You can't have lessons until you're 17: you can't have a provisional
licence in the UK until you're 17. (Must be dreadful for any Us-ian
euph coming over here at 16 and being denied his wheels). The number of
17 year olds who have their first lesson on their 17th birthdays!
Elizabeth
wrote:
>In article <c1fkrtc7fm02b90db...@4ax.com>, Brenda Selwyn
><bre...@matson.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine.
>People (ok then, Alex) wandering away while I'm talking is a pet peeve
>(not strong enough to be a hate) - in WH Smith or whatever suddenly
>turning to a complete stranger and asking him whether to buy the latest
>Paul Britton "because he's particularly strong on sadistic psychosexual
>motivation" is *not* an experience I care to repaeat...
Which reminds me of when I was in a bookshop in Atlanta with my friend
Di. I get quite engrossed in those places and didn't realise how long
I'd been there until she tapped me on the shoulder and said "I've been
away shopping for an hour" I didn't care I had the car keys.
Lizbuff
badriya
I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
and took the test on their 17h birthday. Well, at least one. I
can't actually recall who. #2 daughter was 17 in May and passed the
test in July. #1 never managed to pass.
But I think William said Ed had not got a lisence, didn't he?
nick odell
<bad...@dragonslair.uk.com> wrote:
>I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
>and took the test on their 17h birthday. Well, at least one. I
>can't actually recall who. #2 daughter was 17 in May and passed the
>test in July. #1 never managed to pass.
>
Me too. Knew someone who did that & can't recall who. He was the son
of a chap I worked with in Southend-on-Sea. Chap was an electronic
engineer and lived on Canvey Island. Jim something or other??? I only
mention this sort of thing in the hope of reviving the "Six Degrees of
UMRA" thread from time to time.
Nick
--
real e-mail is themusic dot workshop at ntlworld dot com
Neil Hopkins
<ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine.
> >
>My nightmare - I have occasionally been left waiting in supermarkets for
>people while they dive off on their own affairs and aren't where I
>expect them to be at the time I get through the check out.
^^^^^^^
Love amongst the frozen peas?
--
neil h.
Buffy: What are you doing? Five words or less.
Spike: Out. For. A. Walk. ......... Bitch.
Robert Carnegie
That would have been a year ago - but wasn't it a birthday party
for Emma, at the Grundy flat and some months before _that_, that
Neil rescued her from? The worst thing that happened at the last
party they were both at was that she got very drunk and kissed him.
Time flies, doesn't it. Newspapers still banging on about Euan Blair
getting drunk that time and Paddy Ashdown having an affair...
wasn't that long _before_ Robin Cook's, which we seldom hear of now?
(Margaret Cook got a name-check in _Front Row_'s round-up of
wives' biographical hatchet-jobs last night, but otherwise.)
Kirsten Procter
Serena Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <c1fkrtc7fm02b90db...@4ax.com>, Brenda
>Selwyn (bre...@matson.demon.co.uk) said...
>> Does anyone one else think Neil is being rather unreasonable, blaming
>> William for going off and leaving Emma?
>>
>Of course he is; to the extent that even Susan's noticed. I think
family all her life, and she's fed up of it.
--
Kirsten Procter ghoti
UHB UNCEMPT UBBBA
Bernard M. Earp
>[1] People wandering away is a pet hate of mine. I have wasted plenty
>of time myself trying to find people (mainly Husbad:-( who have not
>stayed where I left them when I have popped to the ladies, for
>example.
I may be a meringue but you could try pointing out to him that according
to game theory the chances of two people meeting up again are greater if
one stays still. Of course you lay yourself out to him pointing out
this also means that if you return to the agreed spot then your best
chance is to stay there rather than search for him .
If however he has the car keys and is likely to forget you are with
him and drive off home then all bets are off.
So your best chance is to have the car keys / return tickets on you
(ideally his wallet / credit cards as well but even the most amiable of
partners may baulk at this)
--
Bernard M. Earp
Holding the Lancastrian heights of Bromley Cross
and the PLOP Award 2001
Penny
<mar...@auluk.nospamplease.freeserve.co.uk> scrawled in the dust...
>How did people become un-lost before mobiles, or did they just stay
>together better?
Well, in places like Ramsgate there would be periodic announcements over a
public address system saying things like "We have a little lost boy..." I
use my phobile more when I am out shopping 'with' d#2 than at any other
time. It means you don't have to pre-arrange where and when to meet up and
if she finds something she wants/needs but doesn't have enough cash for or
I find something I think she will like we can summon each other without my
having to hang around being bored in sports shops or her doing similar in
book shops.
Stephen GC Tilley
The Big Book mentions 110 acres of woodland as part of the Berrow Estate.
Chris McMillan
Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>Chris McMillan <ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<xxLmSUWv...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk>...
>> In message <6zk9I1AI...@badminston.demon.co.uk>, Robin Somes
>> <ro...@badminston.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >In article <20011003010704....@firedrake.org>,
>> >anon...@firedrake.org writes
>> >>>She certainly doesn't need a man to look after her. Anyway, William
>> >>>left her with Tom and Kirsty; he can hardly be blamed for her deciding
>> >>>not to stay with them and/or stay where he left her[1].
>> >>
>> >>Neil is not being reasonable full stop full stop full stop. If he
>> >>hadn't been being a worry-wart in the first place, Emmur wouldn't have
>> >>been wandering around on her own waiting for him to come and collect her.
>> >
>> >Ummm, yes. But wasn't there the occasion a few months ago when she was
>> >at some dubious party, with Grungy/ies Junior,
>> >
>> Yes that was Edwood's 16th. At Jazzer's flat rather than his own IIRC.
>
>That would have been a year ago - but wasn't it a birthday party
>for Emma, at the Grundy flat and some months before _that_, that
>Neil rescued her from?
Not sure now. Should go and look at the summaries shouldn't I.
Chris McMillan
<bad...@dragonslair.uk.com> writes
>On Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:21:26 +0100, Chris McMillan
><ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <GT$K4gAdr...@redjac.demon.co.uk>, Robert Carnegie
>><rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
>>>In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010929180948.18930M-
>>>100000@suma3>, Pat Hanby <vlsh...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>>>>On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Fenny wrote:
>
>>You can't have lessons until you're 17: you can't have a provisional
>>licence in the UK until you're 17. (Must be dreadful for any Us-ian
>>euph coming over here at 16 and being denied his wheels). The number of
>>17 year olds who have their first lesson on their 17th birthdays!
>>
>>Sincerely, Chris
>
>I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
>and took the test on their 17h birthday. Well, at least one.
>
out if he thought he'd get away with it.
K Richard W
with the following opinion of recent events:
>I was told off (by wofe/chauffeuse) for vanishing this morning while walking the
>5 metres from the front door to the car.
I am always being told off for getting lost when out shopping. Now I
resent this - I always know where I am and I usually have a fairly good
idea where my towel is, sadly the wofe is unable to grasp the concept
that she has not bothered to identify my need to investigate a different
part of the shop. She has been known to phone me when I could plainly
see her and wonder who she might be phoning (sadly the signal level was
so low she got my answering machine - or voicemail as it is apparently
now known) rather than looking in the direction from which she was being
waved at.
--
Kosmo Richard W
LSS super-numerary
Serena Blanchflower
(ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk) said...
> I didn't know that (of course), but I bet Edwood does and would trot it
> out if he thought he'd get away with it.
He's already tried it; without much success. When Usha was going
through he charges with him he tried to defend himself on the basis
that he could pass it easily. He got rather short shrift from Usha.
I think it is likely though that he has been driving on the farm for
several years and knows the basics pretty well. What he is lacking is
a licence and the kind of road skills which would have made him aware
that deer could well be around.
--
Serena OSTENT(ATIOUS)
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind---Gandhi
anon...@firedrake.org
>In message <9lvnrtgss1v0pdmv5...@4ax.com>, badriya
><bad...@dragonslair.uk.com> writes
>>I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
>>and took the test on their 17h birthday. Well, at least one.
>I didn't know that (of course), but I bet Edwood does and would trot it
>out if he thought he'd get away with it.
I think he might have trouble proving it, lacking a relevant bit of paper;
and I think it's just possible the magistrates might not take his
unsupported word!
Weevil
AttLSM, UBBBA, UNCEMPT BAG
authorised to mend holes in the fabric of the continuum
anon...@firedrake.org
>In article <NqEZk3LV...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk>, Chris McMillan
>(ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk) said...
>I think it is likely though that he has been driving on the farm for
>several years and knows the basics pretty well. What he is lacking is
>a licence and the kind of road skills which would have made him aware
>that deer could well be around.
He ought to have known as well that it is the deer's mating season and that
this can make them unpredictable: goodness knows we've had that year after
year (until this one) with the Home Farm herd roaring at each other and
keeping people awake and so on. I wonder whether Ed will think of saying
in court that it wasn't his fault a stag attacked him....
badriya
<richard....@whitbread.freeuk.com> wrote:
>I am always being told off for getting lost when out shopping. Now I
>resent this - I always know where I am and I usually have a fairly good
>idea where my towel is, sadly the wofe is unable to grasp the concept
>that she has not bothered to identify my need to investigate a different
>part of the shop. She has been known to phone me when I could plainly
>see her and wonder who she might be phoning (sadly the signal level was
>so low she got my answering machine - or voicemail as it is apparently
>now known) rather than looking in the direction from which she was being
>waved at.
Men! Captain Ex used to do that when we were married and still does
it. When I went to see sofas with him because he had just bought one
and I diverted to tvs and washing machines he actually huffed off
outside the shop looking grumpy which spoiled the ambience. The
whole point was to get a second opinion and someone looking impatient
means you can't concentrate on buying.
And taking bluerose along is not good either. He doesn't look grumpy
or wander off but begins to look very ill after an hour or so of
shopping and then is in pain for the rest of the day.
Helen Brace
<anon...@firedrake.org> wrote in message
news:20011004233823....@firedrake.org...
> In message <NqEZk3LV...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> Chris McToodles
wrote:
>
> >In message <9lvnrtgss1v0pdmv5...@4ax.com>, badriya
> ><bad...@dragonslair.uk.com> writes
> >>I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
> >>and took the test on their 17h birthday. Well, at least one.
> >I didn't know that (of course), but I bet Edwood does and would trot it
> >out if he thought he'd get away with it.
>
> I think he might have trouble proving it, lacking a relevant bit of paper;
> and I think it's just possible the magistrates might not take his
> unsupported word!
>
A large part of Edwood's problem has been caused by his inhereting the
Grundy attitude to the law. As far as they are concerened the law doesn't
matter as long as you don't get caught. Edwood might be a more unpleasent
example of the type than his father, but the thinking is the same.
Helen B
Tony Walton
>
> I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
> and took the test on their 17h birthday.
Is that possible nowadays? I've known it happen back when there was
just The Driving Test, but don't you have to do a written thingy now,
then wait for the result of that then (if you pass that bit) make an
appointment to do the practical test?
--
Tony
Tony Walton
>
>
> He ought to have known as well that it is the deer's mating season and that
> this can make them unpredictable
That sort of "boring", "sad", "useless" gamekeepery knowledge is
Willyum's province.
I'm quite surprised that Ed recognised it as a deer, myself.
--
Tony
Bernard M. Earp
<tony....@uk.sun.com> writes
>That sort of "boring", "sad", "useless" gamekeepery knowledge is
>Willyum's province.
>I'm quite surprised that Ed recognised it as a deer, myself.
Don't be silly, it was a dead one and he is used to Eddie sneaking those
in at the back door
Tony Gardner
<nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> say
>In article <NqEZk3LV...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk>, Chris McMillan
>(ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk) said...
>> I didn't know that (of course), but I bet Edwood does and would trot it
>> out if he thought he'd get away with it.
>
>He's already tried it; without much success. When Usha was going
>through he charges with him he tried to defend himself on the basis
>that he could pass it easily. He got rather short shrift from Usha.
>
>I think it is likely though that he has been driving on the farm for
>several years and knows the basics pretty well. What he is lacking is
>a licence and the kind of road skills which would have made him aware
>that deer could well be around.
>
...and the elementary common sense that would have enabled him to
drive at a reasonable speed.
Ed's reaction is fairly typical of some motorists, IME. "It wasn't my
fault, it was an accident, a deer jumped out in front of me", says Ed
(and his Dad agrees with him) .
"It WAS your fault, you were driving too bloody fast for the
conditions and bad driving does not count as an "accident", you
twonker" says I in reply.
Sorry to rant, but there are just too many motorists who cannot or
will not distinguish between crashes caused by bad driving and crashes
caused by genuine accidents. Many of them kill people, and too few of
them are convicted of manslaughter.
Tony Gardner
LSS_UK_COITUS
Chris McMillan
Brace <helen...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
><anon...@firedrake.org> wrote in message
>news:20011004233823....@firedrake.org...
>> In message <NqEZk3LV...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> Chris McToodles
>wrote:
>>
>> >In message <9lvnrtgss1v0pdmv5...@4ax.com>, badriya
>> ><bad...@dragonslair.uk.com> writes
>example of the type than his father, but the thinking is the same.
>
box stealing episodes.
Siderius Nuncius
Bernard M. Earp wrote in message ...
>In article <3BBD9C84...@uk.sun.com>, Tony Walton
><tony....@uk.sun.com> writes
>>That sort of "boring", "sad", "useless" gamekeepery knowledge is
>>Willyum's province.
>>I'm quite surprised that Ed recognised it as a deer, myself.
>
>Don't be silly, it was a dead one and he is used to Eddie sneaking those
>in at the back door
Now, Eddie may have his faults, but to accuse him of bestial necrophilia is
going a bit .......eh?
<blush>
Oh, right. Sorry.
--
Sid
Shepherds Bush, West London
Chris McMillan
<tony....@uk.sun.com> writes
>badriya wrote:
>
>>
>> I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
>> and took the test on their 17h birthday.
>
>Is that possible nowadays? I've known it happen back when there was
>just The Driving Test, but don't you have to do a written thingy now,
>then wait for the result of that then
>
8.40am tomorrow for our Haze!
Her instructor is SO nice, he went to a lot of trouble to locate a video
he uses with students and brought it round today: sadly he didn't make
it until 5pm, too late: she was just leaving for four hours of music -
but there was also a little book which she can use for last minute
revision. Its called 'What if ...' He's also given her lots of extra
typed sheets of paper for revision which she's been reading all week.
Serena Blanchflower
(to...@gardner214.freeserve.co.uk) said...
>
> ...and the elementary common sense that would have enabled him to
> drive at a reasonable speed.
I don't think this counts as elementary common sense so much as
elementary driving skill. I wouldn't expect a non driver to be able
to read the road conditions and judge the appropriate speed to drive.
I would expect a driver to be able to do it though. This is the sort
of skill which can't be learnt by driving a land rover (or whatever)
round the fields at Grange Farm.
>
> Ed's reaction is fairly typical of some motorists, IME. "It wasn't my
> fault, it was an accident, a deer jumped out in front of me", says Ed
> (and his Dad agrees with him) .
>
> "It WAS your fault, you were driving too bloody fast for the
> conditions and bad driving does not count as an "accident", you
> twonker" says I in reply.
>
AOL. I think that a large proportion of accidents are caused by one
person (or deer) doing something chancy and meeting someone else who
isn't driving well enough to take evasive action. You often hear
either one of them claiming that the accident was entirely the other
person's (or deer's) fault.
In this case, my sympathy is with the deer.
Chris McMillan
Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>While dodging the deer in Berrow Wood, Tony Gardner
>(to...@gardner214.freeserve.co.uk) said...
>>
>> ...and the elementary common sense that would have enabled him to
>> drive at a reasonable speed.
>
>I
This is what I think will fail Haze. She just hasn't got the experience
to read roads in conditions she's not seen yet. She's not had those
conversations I've seen other teenagers have with their driving parents.
Although she knows what speeds to take over things like humps (and the
different ones), she doesn't yet have the 'go for it' attitude on big
roundabouts and the like.
badriya
Have you heard the Woody Allen monologue about hitting a deer?
badriya
<ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You get the written test result immediately and can then book the test.
>
>8.40am tomorrow for our Haze!
>
>Her instructor is SO nice, he went to a lot of trouble to locate a video
Fingers crossed!
Neil Hopkins
<ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3BBD9C05...@uk.sun.com>, Tony Walton
><tony....@uk.sun.com> writes
>>badriya wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I do know of people who learned to drive on private land, which is ok,
>>> and took the test on their 17h birthday.
>>
>>Is that possible nowadays? I've known it happen back when there was
>>just The Driving Test, but don't you have to do a written thingy now,
>>then wait for the result of that then
> >
>You get the written test result immediately and can then book the test.
>
>8.40am tomorrow for our Haze!
Good luck Haze for (looks at watch) 3 and a half hours ago
Neil Hopkins
Midtown Madness 2 is good for practicing that sort of thing.
Neil Hopkins
... or that Frank Muir anecdote where an oncoming woman motorist
narrowly missed him, wound down her window and shouted "Pig!" at him,
at which point he went round the corner and hit a pig ...
Robin Parkinson
> In message <2449d998.01093...@posting.google.com>, Nigel
> Whittington <coast...@my-dejanews.com> writes
>>(And what happened to the intro by Tom Forrest, and latterly by other
>>denizens of Ambridge to the Omni then !!
> Ah now I think I can put a finger on the reason for this...
>
> TF used to lean on a gate whilst doing his mono log; since such times,
> the whole set up has changed in the control room, they have digital
> desks that are stereo capable so the mono log has had to be updated.
> Secondly, I suspect the old mixing desk had compressors and such like on
> the input channels that would have included a gate, maybe the new mixing
> desk no longer features the said (5 bar?) gate ;-)))
Don't forget that TF was a martyr to soft knee compression.
- Robin.
--
Trout: slightly fishy, but never coarse. http://www.troutmag.org
Robin Parkinson
Moose.
'The moose - mingles.'
Chris McMillan
<neil_h...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 22:27:37 +0100, Chris McMillan
><ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <MPG.16282499d...@news.freeserve.net>, Serena
>>Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>While dodging the deer in Berrow Wood, Tony Gardner
>>>(to...@gardner214.freeserve.co.uk) said...
Sadly she failed on (a) observation wasn't obvious enough and (b) her
emergency stop was too vicious. Her instructor admitted afterwards he
hadn't explained to her about what new brakes do (he'd had to have some
work done on them on Thurs). She is exceedingly disappointed about
this. And of course we *can't* actually help her out in this.
I do get so very frustrated at times like this!
nick odell
<ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <3bbee7c5...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Neil Hopkins
><neil_h...@hotmail.com> writes
>>On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 22:27:37 +0100, Chris McMillan
>><ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <MPG.16282499d...@news.freeserve.net>, Serena
>>>Blanchflower <nos...@sblanchflower.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>>While dodging the deer in Berrow Wood, Tony Gardner
>>>>(to...@gardner214.freeserve.co.uk) said...
>>Midtown Madness 2 is good for practicing that sort of thing.
>
>Sadly she failed on (a) observation wasn't obvious enough and (b) her
>emergency stop was too vicious. Her instructor admitted afterwards he
>hadn't explained to her about what new brakes do (he'd had to have some
>work done on them on Thurs). She is exceedingly disappointed about
>this. And of course we *can't* actually help her out in this.
>
>I do get so very frustrated at times like this!
>
Never mind: all the best people pass second-try :)
Nick
--
real e-mail is themusic dot workshop at ntlworld dot com
Jennifer
And some of the better people take their time and pass third-try.
Jen
Robin Parkinson
I suppose I might as well be the first person to admit to fourth try. I
make no comment on my driving skills, though....
Min Lacey
<ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>Sadly she failed on (a) observation wasn't obvious enough and (b) her
>emergency stop was too vicious. Her instructor admitted afterwards he
>hadn't explained to her about what new brakes do (he'd had to have some
>work done on them on Thurs). She is exceedingly disappointed about
>this. And of course we *can't* actually help her out in this.
>
>I do get so very frustrated at times like this!
--
Min
Make them an otter they can't defuse.
Proud Person with a PHIL. GULP.
Nick Atty
wrote:
>In article <u1$hTtJ7f...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk>, Chris McMillan
><ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>>Sadly she failed on (a) observation wasn't obvious enough and (b) her
>>emergency stop was too vicious. Her instructor admitted afterwards he
>>hadn't explained to her about what new brakes do (he'd had to have some
>>work done on them on Thurs). She is exceedingly disappointed about
>>this. And of course we *can't* actually help her out in this.
"Observation" is the way they fail you when they are not completely
confident with your driving, but can't actually pin it on anything.
So to get through you have to learn to drive in a very silly way -
moving your head from side-to-side to look in the mirror.
Well, it worked for me.
I thought they might have grown out of that in the last 20 years.
>Tell her *all* the best people pass the second time.....
Absolutely! I'm sure I drove better on the first one too.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
BrritSki
Ahem ! Passed first time in UK, Texas and France.
Iain Archer
>In article <u1$hTtJ7f...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk>, Chris McMillan
><ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>>Sadly she failed on (a) observation wasn't obvious enough and (b) her
>>emergency stop was too vicious. Her instructor admitted afterwards he
>>hadn't explained to her about what new brakes do (he'd had to have some
>>work done on them on Thurs). She is exceedingly disappointed about
>>this. And of course we *can't* actually help her out in this.
>>
>>I do get so very frustrated at times like this!
>Tell her *all* the best people pass the second time.....
Precisely. I got failed initially on (a) and one other point as well,
which I thought was a misconstruing of my unwillingness to move my
whole head in a dreadfully obvious way when scanning. But I don't
think a first failure's a bad thing or anything to get worked up
about. I half suspect they also make an implicit overall judgement as
to your general confidence and ability to avoid scrapes, and if they
have any doubts, err on the side of refusal, picking out some of the
more iffy elements to be a guide.
--
Iain Archer
Stephen GC Tilley
Re (a) the solution is to wear a baseball cap with a long peak in a bright
colour. Then every head movement made is exagerrated as the examiner can't help
but notice.
Umatrica knows.
BTW wofe will agree about second-timers; son about fourth-timers.
--
Stephen Tilley - Um...@aol.com
Driven by Improbability
Kim Andrews
<brri...@inameNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Never mind: all the best people pass second-try :)
>>
>
>Ahem ! Passed first time in UK, Texas and France.
QED :o))))
--
Cheers, Kimbo
Best of umra at www.totternhoe.demon.co.uk & click on the chicken!
BT winner FAUX award 2000 & Special Distasteful Category Award 1999
GULP & PHIL - Strumpet Extraordinaire & Founding FONT
www.foca.co.uk
David Roy
news:9ppk4...@drn.newsguy.com:
> On returning from my virus check I saw that Iain had said ...
>>
>>Min Lacey <M...@mygaff0.demon.co.uk> wrote on Sun, 7 Oct 2001:
>>>In article <u1$hTtJ7f...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk>, Chris McMillan
>>><ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>>>>Sadly she failed on (a) observation wasn't obvious enough and (b) her
>>>>emergency stop was too vicious. Her instructor admitted afterwards
>>>>he hadn't explained to her about what new brakes do (he'd had to have
>>>>some work done on them on Thurs). She is exceedingly disappointed
>>>>about this. And of course we *can't* actually help her out in this.
>>>>
>>>>I do get so very frustrated at times like this! Tell her *all* the
>>>>best people pass the second time.....
>>
>>Precisely. I got failed initially on (a) and one other point as well,
>>which I thought was a misconstruing of my unwillingness to move my
>>whole head in a dreadfully obvious way when scanning. But I don't
>>think a first failure's a bad thing or anything to get worked up about.
>> I half suspect they also make an implicit overall judgement as to your
>>general confidence and ability to avoid scrapes, and if they have any
>>doubts, err on the side of refusal, picking out some of the more iffy
>>elements to be a guide.
Got to agree with that. I passed first time despite (or in my view
*because of*) driving through a bush during the test.
A confident (competent) driver is going to make it through, even with
some rough decisions, because the main question they want answered is "is
this person going to be a danger on the road?" Given some of the fools
you see around, this question needs a stricter answer.
Bottom line: now she knows what the test is like, so there's less
reason to fear it. Like all exams, it's about past papers and likely
questions (as applied to driving a car, but still). Having done one
should help the preparation for next time.
Good luck
David
Tim Hall
>Re (a) the solution is to wear a baseball cap with a long peak in a bright
>colour. Then every head movement made is exagerrated as the examiner can't help
>but notice.
Or dangly earrings, apparently.
I wonder if using tiny windchimes instead of earrings would help or
hinder?
>Umatrica knows.
Of course.
>
Tim
anon...@firedrake.org
>While dodging the deer in Berrow Wood, Tony Gardner
>(to...@gardner214.freeserve.co.uk) said...
>> ...and the elementary common sense that would have enabled him to
>> drive at a reasonable speed.
>I don't think this counts as elementary common sense so much as
>elementary driving skill. I wouldn't expect a non driver to be able
>to read the road conditions and judge the appropriate speed to drive.
>I would expect a driver to be able to do it though. This is the sort
>of skill which can't be learnt by driving a land rover (or whatever)
>round the fields at Grange Farm.
The rule for driving after dark _used_ to be, Drive so that you could stop
within the distance illuminated by your headlights. That requires you to
know braking distances. Something they teach in the test lessons AIUI, but
of course Ed is such a natural driver he doesn't need lessons. According
to him.
Judging by the number of people who go blasting past on the motorway doing
a ton plus in fog, driving rain, or just dark-and-frosty-weather, he's not
alone in thinking this particular safety-notion doesn't apply to him.
>> Ed's reaction is fairly typical of some motorists, IME. "It wasn't my
>> fault, it was an accident, a deer jumped out in front of me", says Ed
>> (and his Dad agrees with him) .
>> "It WAS your fault, you were driving too bloody fast for the
>> conditions and bad driving does not count as an "accident", you
>> twonker" says I in reply.
>AOL. I think that a large proportion of accidents are caused by one
>person (or deer) doing something chancy and meeting someone else who
>isn't driving well enough to take evasive action. You often hear
>either one of them claiming that the accident was entirely the other
>person's (or deer's) fault.
Which driver, hand on heart, can honestly claim never to have done
something whilst driving which in retrospect would make them say "God, I
was lucky there!"? It is my considered opinion that anyone, me included,
who says "No, I never have" is either a self-deceiver or talking to a
policeman.
Has it ever struck anyone else how _busy_ God must be with small miracles
all the time, considering how very few accidents there are compared with
how many there ought to be by rights?
>In this case, my sympathy is with the deer.
It seems to have got away with it, unlike Emma. Anyone know the Deer for
"God, I was lucky there!"? That'll teach it to drive more carefully; and
unlike Ed, it probably has enough sense to learn from its mistake. He has
had near-accidents before, and hasn't learnt from them.
Weevil
AttLSM, UBBBA, UNCEMPT BAG
authorised to mend holes in the fabric of the continuum
Serena Blanchflower
anon...@firedrake.org (anon...@firedrake.org) said...
> Which driver, hand on heart, can honestly claim never to have done
> something whilst driving which in retrospect would make them say "God, I
> was lucky there!"? It is my considered opinion that anyone, me included,
> who says "No, I never have" is either a self-deceiver or talking to a
> policeman.
>
I agree, we've all done silly things behind the wheel and got away
with them.
I was thinking more about the tendency to self-deceit after an
accident has happened. If I had been driving through woodland at
night and had an accident when I had to swerve to avoid a deer, I hope
I would admit that perhaps I was going too fast for the conditions.
Especially if it was through the woodland where I had been brought up
and knew that there were deer around. All too often though you hear
people react like Ed and Eddie did.
Serena Blanchflower
Burton West (ro...@nospam.firedrake.org) said...
> I often get amazed looks when rain starts on a motorway: the people who
> were going at 65, whom I've just gone past at, um, 70 of course, are
> very surprised when I've slowed down to 40 and they're still doing
> 65...
AOL. When challenged, they claim that it isn't safe to slow down, as
some idiot driving too fast would run into the back of them.
Bernard M. Earp
anon...@firedrake.org writes
>The rule for driving after dark _used_ to be, Drive so that you could stop
>within the distance illuminated by your headlights. That requires you to
>know braking distances. Something they teach in the test lessons AIUI, but
>of course Ed is such a natural driver he doesn't need lessons. According
>to him.
>
>Judging by the number of people who go blasting past on the motorway doing
>a ton plus in fog, driving rain, or just dark-and-frosty-weather, he's not
>alone in thinking this particular safety-notion doesn't apply to him.
Years ago I was in a party returning from the Liverpool Everyman where
we had just seen "Return to The Forbidden Planet" and we ran into fog on
the motorway. Our driver is a placid teetotaller who had been driving
for years.
"What speed are you doing?"
"40"
"Why?. . .I am sat next to you and I can hardly see beyond the bonnet"
"The motorway illuminated signs say you can do 40"
"Slow down till you can see your braking distance"
Actually that sentence had a few more words in it most of them not above
four letters.
We carried on with me hanging my head out the window to see the lane
markings till we could turn off the motorway. The number of times a
blur flashed past our off side was terrifying. It made me decide there
and then that I will never willingly go on a motorway when there is fog
about. If one of those speeding blurs had been in the same lane as we
were then there is a good chance I would not be here now
--
Bernard M. Earp
Holding the Lancastrian heights of Bromley Cross
and the PLOP Award 2001
anon...@firedrake.org
>In article <20011008091118....@firedrake.org>, Roger
>Burton West (ro...@nospam.firedrake.org) said...
>> I often get amazed looks when rain starts on a motorway: the people who
>> were going at 65, whom I've just gone past at, um, 70 of course, are
>> very surprised when I've slowed down to 40 and they're still doing
>> 65...
>AOL. When challenged, they claim that it isn't safe to slow down, as
>some idiot driving too fast would run into the back of them.
Me too, I slow down and watch them rushing on their Doom....
Small laugh, a tale of the ultimate tail-gater:
A friend of mine was driving home over country roads once in snow and ice,
after dark, with patchy fog. Close behind her, almost in the boot, was
another car, sticking like glue to her tail. His headlights were dazzling,
and she was getting increasingly fed up with him, driving more and more
slowly in the hope that he would overtake her, but no luck: he just stayed
in the mirror. She got down to twenty, to ten, to five.... and at last saw
a layby ahead, and pulled in completely and stopped. Blow me down, he
pulled in behind her. So she locked the doors and sat and waited, pulling
around her the sleeping-bag she keeps in the front seat in case she ends up
sleeping in the car ever (a canny, well-prepared lady, my friend Pat.)
After about five minutes, he banged on her window. She rolled it down an
inch or so, and he demanded to know when she was going to drive on so that
he could follow her, and said that he thought she might go a bit faster
because she was holding him up!
"Sorry," says Pat; "I'm sleeping here, I don't like the look of the weather."
As she wound the window back up she heard him start to swear at her as a
bloody gutless woman frightened of a bit of snow. Then he got back in his
car and drove off at some speed, skidding past her and missing her car by a
couple of foot...
I wish I could say that when she drove on again after a suitable interval
she passed his car in a ditch, but there ain't no justice, as Ben's sig
remarks sometimes, and that isn't part of the story as she tells it.
mi...@ellwoods.org.uk
:
: This is what I think will fail Haze. She just hasn't got the experience
: conversations I've seen other teenagers have with their driving parents.
pains-in-the-neck who always sat in the front seat, and always
reckoned I'd be able to drive better than my Dad. However, when
I first got in front of the wheel, I realised that it was a
little bit more difficult than it looked...not the mechanics, but
the road skills.
The moral being that children of driving parents are not necessarily
at any advantage here.
mi...@ellwoods.org.uk
:>
: Never mind: all the best people pass second-try :)
And the really class acts do it on the third one :)
Neil Hopkins
<snip>
>
>I wish I could say that when she drove on again after a suitable interval
>she passed his car in a ditch, but there ain't no justice, as Ben's sig
>remarks sometimes, and that isn't part of the story as she tells it.
Have I ever told you about the time I went up Winnats Pass in the snow
in my little micra and passed a four wheel drive monstrosity on its
side in the ditch after the hapless driver had tried to turn round in
the lane by driving up the embankment? Schadenfreude, don't ya just
love it.
Eleanor King
> Has it ever struck anyone else how _busy_ God must be with small miracles
> all the time, considering how very few accidents there are compared with
> how many there ought to be by rights?
>
Chris McMillan
<M...@mygaff0.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <u1$hTtJ7f...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk>, Chris McMillan
><ch...@mikesounds.demon.co.uk> used the electronic medium to say
>Tell her *all* the best people pass the second time.....
I will. Thanks everyone.
Chris McMillan
<nos...@nandj.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>confident with your driving, but can't actually pin it on anything.
>
the hospital could say if or when it would recover - but we won't know
that for some time as it depends on how her joints mature.
>
>So to get through you have to learn to drive in a very silly way -
>moving your head from side-to-side to look in the mirror.
>
>Well, it worked for me.
>
her - and it just isn't the same. OTOH to date none of her friends have
passed either.