Popularity of cycling.

[David Lang]

"UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

Cycling now has a participation level of close to nine-million according
to a new report from SPORTS MARKETING SURVEYS INC. (SMS INC.).

The independent sports research firm has put together a report that
found 16.9% of adults in the UK are cyclists, with the average
participant cycling 48.9 times in the past year."

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uk-cycling-population-hits-8-7-million/017155



8,700,000 regular cyclists? In an island with an area of 94.600 square
miles?

92 cyclists per square mile?

I'm guessing this might be where the Crispin idiot gets the figures that
there is an RTC with injury every 3.7 miles of road.

Or most cyclists are Ninjas?

[Tom Crispin]

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

You then take the highest figure as fact.
You then calculate that there is only ever one injury per road traffic collision, giving 920,000 collisions per year.
You then Google the length of road in the UK and find an answer of about 250,000 miles.
You divide collisions by miles and get an answer of 3.68.
You round this up to 3.7 (not unreasonably)
You then state that there is a collision every 3.7 miles.

Hahahahahaha

If all your logic was correct, and your maths unflawed, you would have given a figure of 3.7 collisions per mile of road.

Unfortunately you have plankwitted logic and you cannot make trivial mathematical calculations.

However, what can be deduced from the Government report is that there is a 95% probability that the number of road traffic injuries per mile of highway per year lies somewhere between 2.72 injuries and 3.68.

[David Lang]

On 25/11/2015 00:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 11:10:28 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>> "UK cycling population hits 8.7 million
>>
>> UK cycling population hits 8.7 million
>>
>> Cycling now has a participation level of close to nine-million
>> according to a new report from SPORTS MARKETING SURVEYS INC. (SMS
>> INC.).
>>
>> The independent sports research firm has put together a report
>> that found 16.9% of adults in the UK are cyclists, with the
>> average participant cycling 48.9 times in the past year."
>>
>> http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uk-cycling-population-hits-8-7-million/017155
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
8,700,000 regular cyclists? In an island with an area of 94.600 square
>> miles?
>>
>> 92 cyclists per square mile?
>>
>> I'm guessing this might be where the Crispin idiot gets the figures
>> that there is an RTC with injury every 3.7 miles of road.
>
> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
> chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
>

Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

> You then take the highest figure as fact.

Only an idiot like you would do that.

> You then calculate that there is only ever one injury per road
> traffic collision, giving 920,000 collisions per year. You then
> Google the length of road in the UK and find an answer of about
> 250,000 miles. You divide collisions by miles and get an answer of
> 3.68. You round this up to 3.7 (not unreasonably) You then state that
> there is a collision every 3.7 miles.
>
> Hahahahahaha

You appear to be shooting yourself in the foot - again. More than one
one injury per RTC makes your figures even more ridiculous.

>
> If all your logic was correct, and your maths unflawed, you would
> have given a figure of 3.7 collisions per mile of road.

Which is exactly what you are claiming, and it simply doesn't happen,
does it, halfwit?

>
> Unfortunately you have plankwitted logic and you cannot make trivial
> mathematical calculations.

Your problem is that I can do exactly that. Which is why I consistently
make a fool of you.

>
> However, what can be deduced from the Government report is that there
> is a 95% probability that the number of road traffic injuries per
> mile of highway per year lies somewhere between 2.72 injuries and
> 3.68.

Which is clearly utter bollox. Do you see that on a daily basis?

[David Lang]

OMG! It gets worse!

920.000 RTCs with injury every year. Allegedly.

Average mileage 10,000 per year. So according to Ready Salted we should
each see 92 RTCs a year! Or 10 every square mile!

[Tom Crispin]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

> > And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
> > chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
> >
>
> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
> halfwit.

No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

[John Smith]

You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement and
superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.

--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

[JNugent]

You are the one who does/did not know what the words "inter" and "alia"
mean.

When they were separated and used independently, you were lost.

[Tom Crispin]

I too have a limited knowledge of Latin. Two years of learning the language, and all I can recall is reciting "porto, portas portat, portamus, portatis, portant."

But I would expect everyone to understand basic mathematics. And while the odd mistake can be forgiven, making fundamental errors time and again is sheer plankwittery.

[John Smith]

Which, presumably, is why I have used the expression eighty-one times on
Usenet, not counting the times I was using graphical news clients and
didn't archive my posts ..

[~] john@server% (103) grep "inter alia" Documents/Usenet/My_Posts | wc -l
81

For example, on Monday 17 August 2015 in the UPM thread 'Re: Unemployed
will have to attend boot camps'. Or in the thread, 'Re: The EU in 12
lessons: Lesson Nine'. That was on Sunday 19 July 2015. Lots more where
that came from. How about Friday 19 September 2014 in the thread, 'Re: The
referendum'? I can go further back, if you'd like. The first time I have
a record of having used it was on Tuesday 16 June 2009 in a thread on
alt.activism.death-penalty (crossposted to talk.politics.misc and
misc.legal) entitled 'Re: Several States Abandon Death Penalty Because Of
Cost'.

[JNugent]

On 25/11/2015 17:03, John Smith wrote:
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>
>>>>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
>>>>>> chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
>
>>>>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
>>>>> halfwit.
>
>>>> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile
>>>> of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
>>>> could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.
>
>>> You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement
>>> and superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.
>>>
>>> He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
>>> non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.
>
>> You are the one who does/did not know what the words "inter" and "alia"
>> mean.
>
> Which, presumably, is why I have used the expression eighty-one times on
> Usenet, not counting the times I was using graphical news clients and
> didn't archive my posts ..

It doesn't matter that you didn't archive your posts. It wouldn't help
if you had.

Using common Latin phrases as terms of art does not show that one is
skilled in the language or that one has ever studied it. Or, indeed,
that one understands the Latin legal phrases other than as "titles" for
various propositions.

In case you didn't know (and given your reaction on this topic, it seems
highly likely that you didn't), whilst most British lawyers are familiar
with a range of legal concepts identified by handy Latin phrases, most
of them (nowadays) have never studied Latin. It is no longer the
commonly-encountered school subject it once was.

It's all Anthony Crosland's fault, of course.

[David Lang]

On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:

> Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>
>>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance
>>>> of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
>
>>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
>>> halfwit.
>
>> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of
>> road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
>> could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.
>
> You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement and
> superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

Could you explain how I can be a handyman and unemployed at the same time?

My sense of superiority is unshakeable. If it wavers, I just compare
myself to you and all is well again.

>
> He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
> non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.
>

One doesn't have to admit to something that isn't true, halfwit.

[David Lang]

On 25/11/2015 17:03, John Smith wrote:

Using words doesn't prove you know what they mean. As you prove so often.

As in Del Boy's "Mange tout, Rodney".

[David Lang]

I decided to start calling Crispin 'Ready Salted' because that was
probably what he was called at school. Especially when the others kid's
were choosing sides and nobody wanted him on their team.

However I've decided that "Salt & Wriggler" is more appropriate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[David Lang]

On 25/11/2015 16:52, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 12:00:05 PM UTC, John Smith
> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a
>>>>> 95% chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920
>>>>> thousand.
>>
>>>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some
>>>> sense, halfwit.
>>
>>> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per
>>> mile of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage
>>> on our roads could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths
>>> suggest.
>>
>> You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of
>> entitlement and superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.
>>
>> He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is
>> as non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.
>
> I too have a limited knowledge of Latin.

And indeed everything else.

? Two years of learning the

> language, and all I can recall is reciting "porto, portas portat,
> portamus, portatis, portant."
>
> But I would expect everyone to understand basic mathematics. And
> while the odd mistake can be forgiven, making fundamental errors time
> and again is sheer plankwittery.
>

Then you should stop doing it.

[Tom Crispin]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 7:09:43 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
> On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
> > Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
> >
> >>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance
> >>>> of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
> >
> >>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
> >>> halfwit.
> >
> >> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of
> >> road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
> >> could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.
> >
> > You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement and
> > superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.
>
> Could you explain how I can be a handyman and unemployed at the same time?

Valid point - how about we just call you Plankwit.

[John Smith]

Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 7:09:43 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>> On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
>> > Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

>> >>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
>> >>>> chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

>> >>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
>> >>> halfwit.

>> >> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per
>> >> mile of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on
>> >> our roads could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

>> > You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement
>> > and superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

>> Could you explain how I can be a handyman and unemployed at the same
>> time?

> Valid point - how about we just call you Plankwit.

Wankstain's hilarious inability to understand even basic English, never
fails to amuse.

'Unemployed _n_' where _n_ is the occupation previously held, or habitually
held.

[David Lang]

On 25/11/2015 22:58, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 7:09:43 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>> On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance
>>>>>> of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
>>>
>>>>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
>>>>> halfwit.
>>>
>>>> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of
>>>> road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
>>>> could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.
>>>
>>> You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement and
>>> superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.
>>
>> Could you explain how I can be a handyman and unemployed at the same time?
>
> Valid point - how about we just call you Plankwit.

Fine, make a bigger fool of yourself, Salt & Wriggler.

[David Lang]

On 25/11/2015 23:05, John Smith wrote:
> Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 7:09:43 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>
>>>>>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
>>>>>>> chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
>
>>>>>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
>>>>>> halfwit.
>
>>>>> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per
>>>>> mile of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on
>>>>> our roads could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.
>
>>>> You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement
>>>> and superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.
>
>>> Could you explain how I can be a handyman and unemployed at the same
>>> time?
>
>> Valid point - how about we just call you Plankwit.
>
> Wankstain's hilarious inability to understand even basic English, never
> fails to amuse.

Please don't say that about Salt & Wriggler, he gets upset easily.

>
> 'Unemployed _n_' where _n_ is the occupation previously held, or habitually
> held.
>

Did you get that from your subscription to the OED <SNIGGER>?

"unemployed
adjective
(of a person) without a paid job but available to work."

Now explain how I can be 'a handyman and 'unemployed' at the same
time?

Oh dear, you fucked up again.

[Tom Crispin]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:06:04 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:
> Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 7:09:43 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
> >> On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
> >> > Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>
> >> >>>> And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
> >> >>>> chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.
>
> >> >>> Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
> >> >>> halfwit.
>
> >> >> No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per
> >> >> mile of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on
> >> >> our roads could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.
>
> >> > You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement
> >> > and superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.
>
> >> Could you explain how I can be a handyman and unemployed at the same
> >> time?
>
> > Valid point - how about we just call you Plankwit.
>
> Wankstain's hilarious inability to understand even basic English, never
> fails to amuse.
>
> 'Unemployed _n_' where _n_ is the occupation previously held, or habitually
> held.

He has just bought himself a brand new 2015 Citron Nemo van. He must have paid about £9,000 excl VAT for it out of the proceeds of downsizing the family home. I have no doubt that he occasionally unblocks drains, does a decking bodge job with his trademark one white plank, or installs a crooked awning. Medway has enough mugs to keep Plankwit off the unemployed role. However, he is, like many care in the community cases, both unemployable and employed.

[David Lang]

On 25/11/2015 23:46, Tom Crispin wrote:

Oh dear. The sad little wanker stalks me again.

>
> He has just bought himself a brand new 2015 Citron Nemo van. He must
> have paid about £9,000 excl VAT for it out of the proceeds of
> downsizing the family home.

Liar, liar bib shorts on fire.

> I have no doubt that he occasionally
> unblocks drains, does a decking bodge job with his trademark one
> white plank, or installs a crooked awning. Medway has enough mugs to
> keep Plankwit off the unemployed role. However, he is, like many care
> in the community cases, both unemployable and employed.

It's really nice to know how much I've got under your skin, you tosser.

I take the piss out of you relentlessly, you consistently make a fool of
yourself and the best you can do is stalk me on the internet. What a
sad bastard.

Still, I'd probably have to resort to that if I had a butt ugly wife,
two kids of uncertain parentage and was a 46 year old fat bastard with
man boobs.

Nice to see the chancellor has fucked up your plans BTW.

[Tom Crispin]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:38:09 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:

> Now explain how I can be 'a handyman and 'unemployed' at the same
> time?

On this occasion, I think that you have a valid point. But not for the reason you think.

Someone with a trade or a profession can be an unemployed [insert trade or profession]. E.g. an unemployed teacher, or an unemployed plumber.

A handyman has neither a trade or profession, so you cannot be an unemployed handyman, you can only be an unemployed former handyman, or just plain unemployed.

> Oh dear, you fucked up again.

Compared to some of your almighty blunders, it can hardly be called a "fuck up". An oversight perhaps.

Remind us how you divided 250,000 miles by 920,000 casualties and ended up with a figure of one casualty every 3.7 miles?

Or how you completely failed to understand the relationship between speed, time and distance?

Or how you were not able to calculate a simple percentage?

Or how you feel that 0.3% of deaths per year cannot be extrapolated to 0.3% of deaths per lifetime?

Or how you fail to understand that a death at the age of 40 means a greater loss of potential life than a death at the age of 120?

[David Lang]

On 26/11/2015 00:01, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:38:09 PM UTC, David Lang
> wrote:
>
>> Now explain how I can be 'a handyman and 'unemployed' at the same
>> time?
>
> On this occasion, I think that you have a valid point. But not for
> the reason you think.
>
> Someone with a trade or a profession can be an unemployed [insert
> trade or profession]. E.g. an unemployed teacher, or an unemployed
> plumber.

You can be "a handyman" or an "unemployed handyman" but not both, halfwit.

>
> A handyman has neither a trade or profession, so you cannot be an
> unemployed handyman, you can only be an unemployed former handyman,
> or just plain unemployed.
>
>> Oh dear, you fucked up again.
>
> Compared to some of your almighty blunders, it can hardly be called a
> "fuck up". An oversight perhaps.

I don't make blunders.

>
> Remind us how you divided 250,000 miles by 920,000 casualties and
> ended up with a figure of one casualty every 3.7 miles?

Remind us how you multiplied the reported RTC deaths by the entire
population of the UK?

>
> Or how you completely failed to understand the relationship between
> speed, time and distance?
>
> Or how you were not able to calculate a simple percentage?
>
> Or how you feel that 0.3% of deaths per year cannot be extrapolated
> to 0.3% of deaths per lifetime?
>
> Or how you fail to understand that a death at the age of 40 means a
> greater loss of potential life than a death at the age of 120?
>

None of that is relevant, it;s just an example of your desperate wriggling.

You can't deal with simple facts.

Must go now, up early to do some unemployed work 12 miles away. Bound
to be at least 3 RTCs with injuries and 1,100 cyclist.

[Judith]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 15:46:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:

<snip>

>He has just bought himself a brand new 2015 Citron Nemo van.

You really are very, very sad you know: I can see why you "chose" to leave
teaching.

I see that they used to call you Micron Spit at school. I can't see where they
got that from - can you explain?

You should stick to your vivid imagination of female sex organs sliding down
windscreens.

Has the imagination moved on to real life yet? You could sit in your car, get
a female you know to get her knickers off and slide down your windscreen - I'm
sure that you could "come" to enjoy the experience.

As I say - you are one sad bastard.

[Tom Crispin]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 12:17:51 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

> You can be "a handyman" or an "unemployed handyman" but not both, halfwit.

Fool.

Anyone can call themselves a handyman, so anyone who is unemployed can call themselves an unemployed handyman. It has no meaning other than unemployed.

> > A handyman has neither a trade or profession, so you cannot be an
> > unemployed handyman, you can only be an unemployed former handyman,
> > or just plain unemployed.
> >
> >> Oh dear, you fucked up again.
> >
> > Compared to some of your almighty blunders, it can hardly be called a
> > "fuck up". An oversight perhaps.
>
> I don't make blunders.

LOL

> > Remind us how you divided 250,000 miles by 920,000 casualties and
> > ended up with a figure of one casualty every 3.7 miles?
>
> Remind us how you multiplied the reported RTC deaths by the entire
> population of the UK?

No I didn't.

I multiplied the percentage of people who died from Road Traffic Collisions in 2013 by the population of the UK to calculate the number of people now living who we would expect to be killed in road traffic collisions if the carnage continues.

Of course, that process is a little complicated for you for you to understand.

[John Smith]

Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 11:06:04 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:

>> 'Unemployed _n_' where _n_ is the occupation previously held, or
>> habitually held.

> He has just bought himself a brand new 2015 Citron Nemo van.

This one - YW15 FRR ?

[Tom Crispin]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 9:12:02 AM UTC, John Smith wrote:


> > He has just bought himself a brand new 2015 Citron Nemo van.
>
> This one - YW15 FRR ?

Unknown. That's the registration mark on it, but it is not confirmed that the registration belongs to the vehicle. It is highly likely that the registration has been photo shopped as no sane person would show a genuine registration on a public forum.

[John Smith]

He's not sane. That much is obvious.

[Alycidon]

That registration mark was issued 5 miles from where I live - what is it doing with a Yorkshire reg number?

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:14:41 +0000, David Lang wrote:

> halfwit.

That is a great honour.
Especially from the plankwit.

[Tom Crispin]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 9:39:24 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:

> > > > He has just bought himself a brand new 2015 Citron Nemo van.
> > >
> > > This one - YW15 FRR ?
> >
> > Unknown. That's the registration mark on it, but it is not confirmed that the registration belongs to the vehicle. It is highly likely that the registration has been photo shopped as no sane person would show a genuine registration on a public forum.
>
> That registration mark was issued 5 miles from where I live - what is it doing with a Yorkshire reg number?

It is well known that Citron dealers give substantial discounts on their commercial vehicles. He claims not to have spent about £9,000 on the van, so perhaps he managed to negotiate a better discount with a Yorkshire dealership.

[Tom Crispin]

On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 9:39:24 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:

> That registration mark was issued 5 miles from where I live - what is it doing with a Yorkshire reg number?

You are making the assumption that Plankwit is insane, and has not photo shopped his vehicle registration mark before posting his van's photo in a public forum.

[Judith]

The prices are much lower in Hull, as the general population there cannot
afford book prices, so perhaps he got a real bargain.

[Cycle-Ops]

Or perhaps you're a complete fuckwit.

I don't own a van.

LIAR.

--
Dave
Dedicated to finding a cure for cycling.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 26/11/2015 09:10, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 12:17:51 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
>
>> You can be "a handyman" or an "unemployed handyman" but not both,
>> halfwit.
>
> Fool.
>
> Anyone can call themselves a handyman,

You certainly couldn't. I recall a picture of the summerhouse you made
a fuck up of.

> so anyone who is unemployed
> can call themselves an unemployed handyman. It has no meaning other
> than unemployed.

Slight flaw. I'm not unemployed.

>
>>> A handyman has neither a trade or profession, so you cannot be
>>> an unemployed handyman, you can only be an unemployed former
>>> handyman, or just plain unemployed.
>>>
>>>> Oh dear, you fucked up again.
>>>
>>> Compared to some of your almighty blunders, it can hardly be
>>> called a "fuck up". An oversight perhaps.
>>
>> I don't make blunders.
>
> LOL
>
>>> Remind us how you divided 250,000 miles by 920,000 casualties
>>> and ended up with a figure of one casualty every 3.7 miles?

I was laughing so much at your idiotic figures I got them the wrong way
round.

Of course, this makes your figures even more preposterous. Thanks.

>>
>> Remind us how you multiplied the reported RTC deaths by the entire
>> population of the UK?
>
> No I didn't.

Oh yes you did, a fuck up of epic proportions.

>
> I multiplied the percentage of people who died from Road Traffic
> Collisions in 2013 by the population of the UK to calculate the
> number of people now living who we would expect to be killed in road
> traffic collisions if the carnage continues.

Bollox. You fucked up.

[Cycle-Ops]

When you wind up a group of fuckwit cyclists to the point that they all
start discussing your new van.

Ha ha ha ha!

What a sad bunch of wankers!!

[Tom Crispin]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:50:19 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> On 26/11/2015 09:10, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 12:17:51 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:
> >
> >> You can be "a handyman" or an "unemployed handyman" but not both,
> >> halfwit.
> >
> > Fool.
> >
> > Anyone can call themselves a handyman,
>
> You certainly couldn't. I recall a picture of the summerhouse you made
> a fuck up of.

Still standing, still water tight, and looking as good as it was the day it was finished.

> > so anyone who is unemployed
> > can call themselves an unemployed handyman. It has no meaning other
> > than unemployed.
>
> Slight flaw. I'm not unemployed.

I never said you were. My point is that anyone can call themselves an unemployed handyman.

> >>> A handyman has neither a trade or profession, so you cannot be
> >>> an unemployed handyman, you can only be an unemployed former
> >>> handyman, or just plain unemployed.
> >>>
> >>>> Oh dear, you fucked up again.
> >>>
> >>> Compared to some of your almighty blunders, it can hardly be
> >>> called a "fuck up". An oversight perhaps.
> >>
> >> I don't make blunders.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> >>> Remind us how you divided 250,000 miles by 920,000 casualties
> >>> and ended up with a figure of one casualty every 3.7 miles?
>
> I was laughing so much at your idiotic figures I got them the wrong way
> round.

And spent a week tossing about the figure of one casualty every 3.7 miles that you didn't even notice that even using the figure for the number of casualties reported to the police, the figure you were laughing at for being ridiculously high was too low.

Didn't you notice the knowing chortles behind your back?

> Of course, this makes your figures even more preposterous. Thanks.

Not my figures, Plankwit. 920,000 road traffic casualties per year is the upper estimate in a government report, and 250,000 miles comes for a Google search.

> >> Remind us how you multiplied the reported RTC deaths by the entire
> >> population of the UK?
> >
> > No I didn't.
>
> Oh yes you did, a fuck up of epic proportions.
> >
> > I multiplied the percentage of people who died from Road Traffic
> > Collisions in 2013 by the population of the UK to calculate the
> > number of people now living who we would expect to be killed in road
> > traffic collisions if the carnage continues.
>
> Bollox. You fucked up.

You just don't know, do you. So poor at maths, that you cannot even check. Sad really.

[Tom Crispin]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:07:53 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> When you wind up a group of fuckwit cyclists to the point that they all
> start discussing your new van.

Liar.

You don't own a van. Or were you lying about not owning one.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 27/11/2015 20:05, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 6:50:19 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> On 26/11/2015 09:10, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 at 12:17:51 AM UTC, David Lang
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can be "a handyman" or an "unemployed handyman" but not
>>>> both, halfwit.
>>>
>>> Fool.
>>>
>>> Anyone can call themselves a handyman,
>>
>> You certainly couldn't. I recall a picture of the summerhouse you
>> made a fuck up of.
>
> Still standing, still water tight, and looking as good as it was the
> day it was finished.

You mean 'looking as bad as it did'. You couldn't even get the boards to
line up. Oh, and what did you support it on? 'Wind bricks' or
something you said.

>
>>> so anyone who is unemployed can call themselves an unemployed
>>> handyman. It has no meaning other than unemployed.
>>
>> Slight flaw. I'm not unemployed.
>
> I never said you were. My point is that anyone can call themselves an
> unemployed handyman.

Wrong again then.

>
>>>>> A handyman has neither a trade or profession, so you cannot
>>>>> be an unemployed handyman, you can only be an unemployed
>>>>> former handyman, or just plain unemployed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear, you fucked up again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compared to some of your almighty blunders, it can hardly be
>>>>> called a "fuck up". An oversight perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> I don't make blunders.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>>>> Remind us how you divided 250,000 miles by 920,000
>>>>> casualties and ended up with a figure of one casualty every
>>>>> 3.7 miles?
>>
>> I was laughing so much at your idiotic figures I got them the wrong
>> way round.
>
> And spent a week tossing about the figure of one casualty every 3.7
> miles that you didn't even notice that even using the figure for the
> number of casualties reported to the police, the figure you were
> laughing at for being ridiculously high was too low.
>
> Didn't you notice the knowing chortles behind your back?
>
>> Of course, this makes your figures even more preposterous. Thanks.
>
> Not my figures, Plankwit. 920,000 road traffic casualties per year is
> the upper estimate in a government report, and 250,000 miles comes
> for a Google search.

But you were the only one who believed them. 920,000 casualties and you
were daft enough to think that could be accurate.

>
>>>> Remind us how you multiplied the reported RTC deaths by the
>>>> entire population of the UK?
>>>
>>> No I didn't.
>>
>> Oh yes you did, a fuck up of epic proportions.
>>>
>>> I multiplied the percentage of people who died from Road Traffic
>>> Collisions in 2013 by the population of the UK to calculate the
>>> number of people now living who we would expect to be killed in
>>> road traffic collisions if the carnage continues.
>>
>> Bollox. You fucked up.
>
> You just don't know, do you. So poor at maths, that you cannot even
> check. Sad really.

You quite clearly fucked up and have been wriggling ever since. That's
why you are known as Salt & wriggler.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 27/11/2015 20:06, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:07:53 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> When you wind up a group of fuckwit cyclists to the point that they all
>> start discussing your new van.

And still are! How sad.

>
> Liar.
>
> You don't own a van. Or were you lying about not owning one.
>

I don't own a van, thicko.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Your are too stupid to read between his words.

[Tom Crispin]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 8:45:23 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> On 27/11/2015 20:06, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:07:53 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> >> When you wind up a group of fuckwit cyclists to the point that they all
> >> start discussing your new van.
>
> And still are! How sad.
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > You don't own a van. Or were you lying about not owning one.
> >
> I don't own a van, thicko.

So Plankwit leases a van?

Another financial blunder...

[Cycle-Ops]

On 27/11/2015 22:21, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Cycle-Ops <da...@medwayhandyman.co.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2015

> So the bailiffs have already visited?
>
> Jolly good.

Thank you for confirming you are as big a twat as Salt & Wriggler.
>
> And yet another false identity for my killfile.
>
The last refuge of the intellectually retarded.

[Cycle-Ops]

It finally got through your thick skull into what we laughingly call
your brain.
>
> Another financial blunder...
>
Oh is it? Perhaps you can explain why? And make a twat of yourself again.

<Waits for good laugh>

[Tom Crispin]

Honest John:
=====
When you need a new van, there are many decisions to be made, but prime among these will be how you pay for it. The traditional route of buying the van outright with cash or a bank loan has long been supplemented with two more versatile and lower cost options: contract hire and leasing. We'll look at the benefits and drawbacks of each of these in turn.

Let's start with the tried and tested route of buying your next van outright. It's often said you should only buy something that will appreciate in value, while anything that depreciates should be leased. It's sound advice in lots of ways, but many businesses still like to own their van outright, especially small businesses or sole traders where the van is their most important work tool.

One of the key advantages to owning a van outright is you then have no additional outgoing payment, or a fixed cost to repay the loan used to buy it. This makes it easy to budget over a long period. Also, a new or nearly new van with will come with a full manufacturer's warranty that guards against any problems with the van.

A further advantage is you can do what you like with the van without any restrictions, so if you cover a very high mileage there are no additional costs other than servicing and fuel. You can also specify the van to your needs and tastes, and even have it sign written in whatever fashion you like.

Financially, owning your van means you can offset only the capital allowances against tax if the van is only used for business purposes and not personal use. If the van was bought using a bank loan, the interest charges can be reclaimed against tax too. All of the van's running costs can also be offset against tax when it's only used for business. You can also claim your own capital allowances and you don't have to be VAT-registered.
=====

Auto Express:
=====
Undoubtedly the simplest and most obvious way of getting hold of a van for business use is to buy it outright.

The advantage of this is that it's then yours to do with as you wish; you have complete control. You can service it where you like, insure it with whichever company you wish, and keep it for as long or a short a time as you need - some or all of these areas might be subject to certain restrictions with lease or contract purchase agreements.
=====

Which
=====
Five ways to pay for your car

Pay cash
PROS The cheapest way to buy in the long term. No monthly repayments. Less paperwork to fill in.

CONS You must pay the full cost upfront. It could mean spending savings and losing interest. Cars depreciate - investing in an appreciating asset (such as your home) may be wiser if you can also afford to pay for a car on a monthly plan.

VERDICT The simplest and cheapest way of buying a new or used car, if you can afford it.

Bank loan
PROS Spreads the cost over time. You can shop around for the best loan. Often cheaper than dealer finance. You can still push for a 'cash discount'.

CONS Cost of credit varies widely. Difficult with a poor credit rating. As with cash, you bear the brunt of any depreciation.

VERDICT A sensible option if you don't have the means to buy a car in one go. Be sure to shop around, though.

Hire purchase (HP)
PROS You buy the car outright, in instalments. Easy to arrange via car dealer. You can return the car part way through the repayment plan.

CONS Can prove a lot more expensive than a bank loan. Servicing may cost extra - check the T&Cs. You don't own the car until the final payment is made - the car can be repossessed if you don't pay.

VERDICT A loan could save you £1,000s vs HP.

Personal contract purchase (PCP)
PROS Low monthly payments - you're hiring the car for most of the deal, with the option to buy at the end. You can get a new car whenever it suits you - even every year. Competitive deals.

CONS Servicing unlikely to be included. Mileage limits will apply. 'Balloon' payment at the end.

VERDICT A tempting way to drive a new car every few years, but don't forget the 'balloon'.

Leasing
PROS Monthly payments are low. Servicing is often included. It's easy to change cars, with no need to buy or sell.

CONS You don't own the car, no matter how long the lease. A large upfront deposit is usually required. There may be a mileage limit - with penalties if you exceed it.

VERDICT The most convenient way to drive a new car, but unlikely to be the cheapest.
=====

My opinion:
As with nearly everything, cash is the cheapest way to make a van purchase, and large discounts can be negotiated with the dearlership. Leasing is simply idiotic, although an easy way to have a new vehicle. It is just another way money is transferred from the plankwitted to those with more than an ounce of intelligence.

Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.

[Alycidon]

On Saturday, 28 November 2015 09:03:08 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:

> My opinion:
> As with nearly everything, cash is the cheapest way to make a van purchase, and large discounts can be negotiated with the dearlership. Leasing is simply idiotic, although an easy way to have a new vehicle. It is just another way money is transferred from the plankwitted to those with more than an ounce of intelligence.
>
> Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.

There is another option.
Get the mug car company to give you a free deposit.
Charge you 0% over 4 years.
Pay a modest final sum and it's all yours.

http://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/finance-offers/giulietta

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 19:07:52 +0000, Cycle-Ops wrote:

> When you wind up a group of fuckwit cyclists to the point that they all
> start discussing your new van.
>
> Ha ha ha ha!
>
> What a sad bunch of wankers!!

I haven't noticed.

[Tom Crispin]

These offers always exclude the cash discount buyers can negotiate with the dealership.
http://broadspeed.com/new_cars/Alfa_Romeo/Giulietta/
Better discounts to those on this commercial website are also available, but showing this to a dealership should give you an automatic £3000 off the most basic model.

A finance purchase is infinitely preferable to leasing where you pay your money but have no asset to show for it.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

I'm not sure that would make a very good van.
Anyway, (back to NG topic) how many bicycles can you get in it?

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[Cycle-Ops]

On 28/11/2015 09:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 11:35:47 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 23:20, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 8:45:23 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>>>> On 27/11/2015 20:06, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:07:53 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> When you wind up a group of fuckwit cyclists to the point
>>>>>> that they all start discussing your new van.
>>>>
>>>> And still are! How sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't own a van. Or were you lying about not owning one.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't own a van, thicko.
>>>
>>> So Plankwit leases a van?
>>
>> It finally got through your thick skull into what we laughingly
>> call your brain.
>>>
>>> Another financial blunder...
>>>
>> Oh is it? Perhaps you can explain why? And make a twat of
>> yourself again.
>>
>> <Waits for good laugh>

> My opinion:

Worth nothing.

> As with nearly everything, cash is the cheapest way to
> make a van purchase, and large discounts can be negotiated with the
> dearlership.

An individual cannot negotiate a better discount with a "dearlership"
that a multi million pound lease company, you halfwit.

> Leasing is simply idiotic, although an easy way to have
> a new vehicle. It is just another way money is transferred from the
> plankwitted to those with more than an ounce of intelligence.

Which is why 80% of new vehicles are leased? Is everybody else out of
step?

>
> Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.
>

I've snipped all the stuff you Googled and didn't understand properly.
That doesn't count as an answer.

All you need to consider is depreciation and tax relief.

You are a special kind of stupid. You need to get yourself an accountant
before you go skint.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 28/11/2015 10:04, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 9:19:58 AM UTC, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Saturday, 28 November 2015 09:03:08 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion: As with nearly everything, cash is the cheapest way
>>> to make a van purchase, and large discounts can be negotiated
>>> with the dearlership. Leasing is simply idiotic, although an easy
>>> way to have a new vehicle. It is just another way money is
>>> transferred from the plankwitted to those with more than an ounce
>>> of intelligence.
>>>
>>> Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.
>>
>> There is another option. Get the mug car company to give you a free
>> deposit. Charge you 0% over 4 years. Pay a modest final sum and
>> it's all yours.
>>
>> http://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/finance-offers/giulietta
>
> These offers always exclude the cash discount buyers can negotiate
> with the dealership.

Wow! Salt & Wriggler can negotiate a better discount than a major lease
company that buys thousands of vehicles a year!
How does he manage it?

I'll bet he could have got a better price on my Citroen van than Citroen
Finance did!

Oh, hang on a minute.....

> http://broadspeed.com/new_cars/Alfa_Romeo/Giulietta/ Better discounts
> to those on this commercial website are also available, but showing
> this to a dealership should give you an automatic £3000 off the most
> basic model.
>
> A finance purchase is infinitely preferable to leasing where you pay
> your money but have no asset to show for it.
>

And in four years the 'asset' is worth 20% of the cash you paid for it.

Get yourself an accountant, you are clearly an incompetent fool.

[JNugent]

On 28/11/2015 10:04, Tom Crispin wrote:

Commercial vehicles, after a life of working hard, are usually worth
very little.

The "asset" - such as it is in those circumstances - can be illusory. A
well-used commercial vehicle can be difficult to liquidate, but still
needs to be maintained, garaged and kept up to date with MOT, insurance,
Road Tax, etc.

Trust me.

[Tom Crispin]

Oh - so your handyman business is also a multi million pound lease company?

> > Leasing is simply idiotic, although an easy way to have
> > a new vehicle. It is just another way money is transferred from the
> > plankwitted to those with more than an ounce of intelligence.
>
> Which is why 80% of new vehicles are leased? Is everybody else out of
> step?

Jeez - so now you compare your fleet of a single van to British Gas's fleet of vans.

> > Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.
> >
> I've snipped all the stuff you Googled and didn't understand properly.
> That doesn't count as an answer.
>
> All you need to consider is depreciation and tax relief.

No, Plankwit. All you need to consider is the overall annual cost of leasing compared with the overall annual cost of purchasing.

Citron Nemo - typical lease £1,136 + £145 pm
Citron Nemo - list price £11,365
Total cost after 72 months...
Lease car: £11,576 paid.
Purchase car: £11,365 paid less equity in van.

> You are a special kind of stupid. You need to get yourself an accountant
> before you go skint.

Have a read here...
http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/should-you-lease-or-buy-your-car.html
Come back if you understand what you have read.

[Tom Crispin]

I have little doubt that what you say is true. I also have little doubt that van leasing is more expensive in the long run than an outright purchase.

Unlike Plankwit, I am more inclined to value the opinion of consumer advice from Which and similar sources than the sales spiel of a van leasing company.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 28/11/2015 14:15, Tom Crispin wrote:

>>> A finance purchase is infinitely preferable to leasing where you
>>> pay your money but have no asset to show for it.
>>
>> Commercial vehicles, after a life of working hard, are usually
>> worth very little.
>>
>> The "asset" - such as it is in those circumstances - can be
>> illusory. A well-used commercial vehicle can be difficult to
>> liquidate, but still needs to be maintained, garaged and kept up to
>> date with MOT, insurance, Road Tax, etc.
>>
>> Trust me.
>
> I have little doubt that what you say is true. I also have little
> doubt that van leasing is more expensive in the long run than an
> outright purchase.

Then you are an idiot.

>
> Unlike Plankwit, I am more inclined to value the opinion of consumer
> advice from Which and similar sources than the sales spiel of a van
> leasing company.
>

Unlike Salt & Wriggler, I am more inclined to value the opinion of my
highly qualified and knowledgeable accountant than the opinion of an
utter fuckwit.

[Cycle-Ops]

No, halfwit they negotiate the deal. Comprehension problems again?

>
>>> Leasing is simply idiotic, although an easy way to have
>>> a new vehicle. It is just another way money is transferred from the
>>> plankwitted to those with more than an ounce of intelligence.
>>
>> Which is why 80% of new vehicles are leased? Is everybody else out of
>> step?
>
> Jeez - so now you compare your fleet of a single van to British Gas's fleet of vans.

You've just shot yourself in the foot, you idiot. Why would BG lease
vans when in your opinion "Leasing is simply idiotic"?

>
>>> Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.
>>>
>> I've snipped all the stuff you Googled and didn't understand properly.
>> That doesn't count as an answer.
>>
>> All you need to consider is depreciation and tax relief.
>
> No, Plankwit. All you need to consider is the overall annual cost of leasing compared with the overall annual cost of purchasing.
>
> Citron Nemo - typical lease £1,136 + £145 pm
> Citron Nemo - list price £11,365
> Total cost after 72 months...
> Lease car: £11,576 paid.
> Purchase car: £11,365 paid less equity in van.

Another catastrophic fuck up.

>
>> You are a special kind of stupid. You need to get yourself an accountant
>> before you go skint.
>
> Have a read here...
> http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/should-you-lease-or-buy-your-car.html
> Come back if you understand what you have read.
>

What I understand is that you are an idiot. You don't lease a
commercial vehicle over 72 months, you fool.

Was that the only way you could make the figures support your idiotic
claim? Try the same calculation over 48 months.

Then look at the tax position.

You need to get yourself an accountant before you go skint.

[JNugent]

There are other advantages.

One of them is that every penny paid to rent a vehicle on a lease is tax
deductible. No having to account for depreciation or anything similar.
>

[Cycle-Ops]

I was saving that for later. When he'd made a bigger fool of himself.

[Nick]

On 28/11/2015 14:50, JNugent wrote:

> There are other advantages.
>
> One of them is that every penny paid to rent a vehicle on a lease is tax
> deductible. No having to account for depreciation or anything similar.
>>

Do you understand this stuff? I think this is the way it works but I'm
not sure.

If I buy a car for say 10,000 and put it into a single pool.

Say write down over 2 years at 18%.

i.e. £1,800 + + £1,476 = £3,276

I get tax deduction on £3,276, I then have a capital allowance of £6,724.

If I then sell for say £6,000.

I get a balancing allowance on the difference = £724.

I get tax relief on the balancing allowance.

So on all I get tax relief on £3,276 + £724 = £4,000

which is the same as I spent on the van = £10,000 - £6,000 = £4,000


So even buying you can get all the tax back. Or have I misunderstood.







>

[Kerr Mudd-John]

Why are trying to help him? Leave him to his own devices.

[Tom Crispin]

Yes - I forgot.
You pay for 48 months use then start over...
Lease vehicle costs over 72 months:
Cost £1,136 plus £6,960 plus £1,136 plus £3,480 = £12,712

New vehicle over 72 months:
Cost £11,365 less the value of a six year old vehicle.

> Was that the only way you could make the figures support your idiotic
> claim? Try the same calculation over 48 months.

OK:

Vehicle lease over 48 months:
Cost: £8,096 and nothing to show for it

Vehicle purchase after 48 months:
Cost £11,365 less the value of a four year old vehicle with a known history.

> Then look at the tax position.
>
> You need to get yourself an accountant before you go skint.

I'm hardly likely to go skint, but I might one day out-source some of my paperwork to an accountant.

[Tom Crispin]

Question 3 gets to the crux of the matter:
http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/blogs/financeacar/getting-best-car-finance-deal-part-1-car-leasing-vs-car-buying/car-finance-how-dec

=====
3 Do you need to obtain finance to obtain the car? If no, proceed no further and buy a car with cash.
=====

Plankwit has just downsized his home, and, unless he squandered the equity released on something else, should have had sufficient cash to buy outright. So why didn't he? It is quite clearly the cheapest overall option.

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

He is not trying to help him.
He is trying and failing to score points over a proper road user. That's
what piss poor cyclists do.

[JNugent]

What business is it of yours?

Or mine?

[Cycle-Ops]

I did indeed.

> So why didn't he? It is quite clearly the cheapest
> overall option.
>

Because my experienced, qualified, chartered accountant advised me that
it isn't the cheapest option.

I think his advice overrides the opinion of a fuckwit like you who can't
handle simple 'sums'. As you have demonstrated in your silly
calculations for a 72 month lease.

[Cycle-Ops]

Clearly none, but Salt & Wriggler is a very sad little person.
>
> Or mine?

[Cycle-Ops]

On 28/11/2015 17:54, Tom Crispin wrote:

>

> Plankwit has just downsized his home, and, unless he squandered the
> equity released on something else, should have had sufficient cash to
> buy outright. So why didn't he? It is quite clearly the cheapest
> overall option.
>

Have you checked to see if you can get finance for some plastic surgery
for your butt ugly wife?

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Cycle-Ops wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 17:54, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>
>> Plankwit has just downsized his home, and, unless he squandered the
>> equity released on something else, should have had sufficient cash to
>> buy outright. So why didn't he? It is quite clearly the cheapest
>> overall option.
>>
>
> Have you checked to see if you can get finance for some plastic
> surgery for your butt ugly wife?

Or bleach for the brat?

[Cycle-Ops]

Still way out, idiot.

>
> Vehicle purchase after 48 months:
> Cost £11,365 less the value of a four year old vehicle with a known history.

Uncertain, probably low value. Plus loss of interest on capital tied up.

>
>> Then look at the tax position.

Unable to understand that?

>>
>> You need to get yourself an accountant before you go skint.
>
> I'm hardly likely to go skint, but I might one day out-source some of my paperwork to an accountant.
>

You need to get help now if those calculations are an example of your
accountancy skills.

[Cycle-Ops]

He's that last person able to help anyone. He's a total fuckwit.

[Tom Crispin]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 6:56:31 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:

> > Question 3 gets to the crux of the matter:
> > http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/blogs/financeacar/getting-best-car-finance-deal-part-1-car-leasing-vs-car-buying/car-finance-how-dec
> >
> > ===== 3 Do you need to obtain finance to obtain the car? If
> > no, proceed no further and buy a car with cash. =====
> >
> > Plankwit has just downsized his home, and, unless he squandered the
> > equity released on something else, should have had sufficient cash to
> > buy outright.
>
> I did indeed.
>
> > So why didn't he? It is quite clearly the cheapest
> > overall option.
> >
> Because my experienced, qualified, chartered accountant advised me that
> it isn't the cheapest option.
>
> I think his advice overrides the opinion of a fuckwit like you who can't
> handle simple 'sums'. As you have demonstrated in your silly
> calculations for a 72 month lease.

So, your super dooper accountant overrides all the best *free* advice on offer on the Internet? Why pay someone to give you false information?

[Cycle-Ops]

It must be true, it's on the internet. Just how fucking stupid are you?
>
He doesn't give false information, halfwit.

Do you actually know what a chartered accountant is?

[Cycle-Ops]

Mind you, he hasn't realised his biggest error yet. I doubt he will.

[Tom Crispin]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:08:14 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:

> > Vehicle lease over 48 months:
> > Cost: £8,096 and nothing to show for it
>
> Still way out, idiot.

The post what you pay per month, plus the upfront costs and the mileage restrictions.

> > Vehicle purchase after 48 months:
> > Cost £11,365 less the value of a four year old vehicle with a known history.
>
> Uncertain, probably low value. Plus loss of interest on capital tied up.

Citron Nemo 2011-61 reg with 40,000 miles. £4,285. £7,080 depreciation over 4 years.

> >> Then look at the tax position.
>
> Unable to understand that?

You won't save £1,000 in tax.

> >> You need to get yourself an accountant before you go skint.
> >
> > I'm hardly likely to go skint, but I might one day out-source some of my paperwork to an accountant.
> >
> You need to get help now if those calculations are an example of your
> accountancy skills.

No help needed.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 28/11/2015 14:06, Tom Crispin wrote:

>

> No, Plankwit. All you need to consider is the overall annual cost of
> leasing compared with the overall annual cost of purchasing.
>
> Citron Nemo - typical lease £1,136 + £145 pm Citron Nemo - list price
> £11,365 Total cost after 72 months... Lease car: £11,576 paid.
> Purchase car: £11,365 paid less equity in van.

Apart from the fact that you totally fucked up the figures and made a
fool of yourself, have you realised your biggest fuck up yet?
>
I'll repeat my advice. You are a special kind of stupid. You need to get

yourself an accountant before you go skint.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 28/11/2015 22:33, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:08:14 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>
>>> Vehicle lease over 48 months:
>>> Cost: £8,096 and nothing to show for it
>>
>> Still way out, idiot.
>
> The post what you pay per month, plus the upfront costs and the mileage restrictions.

You are so clever, you can work that out. Or try & fuck it up as usual.

>
>>> Vehicle purchase after 48 months:
>>> Cost £11,365 less the value of a four year old vehicle with a known history.
>>
>> Uncertain, probably low value. Plus loss of interest on capital tied up.
>
> Citron Nemo 2011-61 reg with 40,000 miles. £4,285. £7,080 depreciation over 4 years.
>
>>>> Then look at the tax position.
>>
>> Unable to understand that?
>
> You won't save £1,000 in tax.
>
>>>> You need to get yourself an accountant before you go skint.
>>>
>>> I'm hardly likely to go skint, but I might one day out-source some of my paperwork to an accountant.
>>>
>> You need to get help now if those calculations are an example of your
>> accountancy skills.
>
> No help needed.
>

Oh there is. Desperately. Haven't you spotted your biggest fuck up yet?

[Tom Crispin]

No one in their right mind would pay the list price for a Citron Nemo.
£11,365 OTR - more like £8,530 OTR
http://www.perrys.co.uk/citroen-nemo-1.3-hdi-enterprise-non-start-stop/business-users/offer-211829-15013

[Cycle-Ops]

You would, that was the figure YOU started with, halfwit. BTW, that's
not OTR.

£8,295 +VAT+RFL+REG

That's your second biggest fuck up.

Still can't work out what your biggest fuck up is yet?

[Tom Crispin]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:43:52 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> On 28/11/2015 22:33, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:08:14 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> >
> >>> Vehicle lease over 48 months:
> >>> Cost: £8,096 and nothing to show for it
> >>
> >> Still way out, idiot.
> >
> > The post what you pay per month, plus the upfront costs and the mileage restrictions.
>
> You are so clever, you can work that out. Or try & fuck it up as usual.

The best leasing deal I have found over 48 months is £868.98 up front then £144.83 per month. Total cost over 48 months £7820.82.
https://www.contracthireandleasing.com/car-leasing-companies/main-dealers/charters-citroen-aldershot/citroen/nemo/35843602/

The cheapest OTR price I have found is £8,530.
http://www.perrys.co.uk/citroen-nemo-1.3-hdi-enterprise-non-start-stop/business-users/offer-211829-15013

You will need a hell of a lot of included extras, e.g. servicing, insurance and RFL, and tax savings to make that £710 saving worth while. Plus you will need to keep your mileage to under 40,000.

A 4 year old Nemo with 40,000 miles is worth £4,250. Do you save £3,540 by leasing?

I think it is highly unlikely.

[Tom Crispin]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:51:57 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:

> > No one in their right mind would pay the list price for a Citron Nemo.
> > £11,365 OTR - more like £8,530 OTR
> > http://www.perrys.co.uk/citroen-nemo-1.3-hdi-enterprise-non-start-stop/business-users/offer-211829-15013
> >
> You would, that was the figure YOU started with, halfwit. BTW, that's
> not OTR.

Liar - I started by saying no one in their right mind would pay the list price. The figure I started with was "about £9,000".
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/uk.rec.cycling/sJKziOa0GKE/2KD6XsFVCQAJ

[Judith]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:03:34 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:43:52 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 22:33, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:08:14 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Vehicle lease over 48 months:
>> >>> Cost: £8,096 and nothing to show for it
>> >>
>> >> Still way out, idiot.
>> >
>> > The post what you pay per month, plus the upfront costs and the mileage restrictions.
>>
>> You are so clever, you can work that out. Or try & fuck it up as usual.
>
>The best leasing deal I have found over 48 months is £868.98 up front then £144.83 per month. Total cost over 48 months £7820.82.
>https://www.contracthireandleasing.com/car-leasing-companies/main-dealers/charters-citroen-aldershot/citroen/nemo/35843602/
>
>The cheapest OTR price I have found is £8,530.
>http://www.perrys.co.uk/citroen-nemo-1.3-hdi-enterprise-non-start-stop/business-users/offer-211829-15013

My word - you putting a lot of effort in to this.

Has anyone told you, that you are one sad bastard.

[Judith]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 01:19:54 -0800 (PST), Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 28 November 2015 09:03:08 UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> My opinion:
>> As with nearly everything, cash is the cheapest way to make a van purchase, and large discounts can be negotiated with the dearlership. Leasing is simply idiotic, although an easy way to have a new vehicle. It is just another way money is transferred from the plankwitted to those with more than an ounce of intelligence.
>>
>> Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.
>
>There is another option.
>Get the mug car company to give you a free deposit.
>Charge you 0% over 4 years.
>Pay a modest final sum and it's all yours.
>
>http://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/finance-offers/giulietta
>
>

Oh - have the windscreen wipers gone again - are you getting a new one?

Don't forget to get it serviced before you go on the Vindaloo tour this next
year; it would be a bummer if it broke down.

[Tarcap]

"Cycle-Ops" wrote in message news:n3d9p3$s1o$1...@dont-email.me...

He wouldn't understand.
The old maxim applies: He who does his own accounts, has a fool for an
accountant.

[Tarcap]

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
news:53d37f78-e886-4eeb...@googlegroups.com...

And everything on the internet is true, isn't it?...

In this life, once it dawns on you that you tend to get exactly what you pay
for, everything becomes a lot easier.
But then again, as a cyclist you will always go for the cheapest option, so
you will always fall into the same old traps.

[Tarcap]

"Kerr Mudd-John" wrote in message
news:op.x8tnt...@dell3100.dlink.com...

Where did you get the impression he's trying to help him?
If you believe that, then you are as silly as Crispin.

[Tarcap]

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
news:gkkk5b1cbbguup8m3...@4ax.com...

Tom Crispin <t...@britsc.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:20:43

-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

>On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 8:45:23 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> On 27/11/2015 20:06, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:07:53 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> >> When you wind up a group of fuckwit cyclists to the point that they
>> >> all
>> >> start discussing your new van.
>>
>> And still are! How sad.
>> >
>> > Liar.
>> >
>> > You don't own a van. Or were you lying about not owning one.
>> >
>> I don't own a van, thicko.
>
>So Plankwit leases a van?
>

>Another financial blunder...

Possibly not, if he is as hard on vans as he is on the English
language.

Have you managed to find an example of where a clear case of manslaughter
was judged to be murder yet?
You've had a more than enough time to find one...
Perhaps I'd better not hold my breath.

[Cycle-Ops]

It's wonderful isn't it? Salt & Wriggler has been up half the night
searching for deals on a van he doesn't want!

I love it when I get this far under his skin!

[Cycle-Ops]

On 28/11/2015 23:03, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 10:43:52 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> On 28/11/2015 22:33, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:08:14 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Vehicle lease over 48 months:
>>>>> Cost: £8,096 and nothing to show for it
>>>>
>>>> Still way out, idiot.
>>>
>>> The post what you pay per month, plus the upfront costs and the mileage restrictions.
>>
>> You are so clever, you can work that out. Or try & fuck it up as usual.
>
> The best leasing deal I have found over 48 months is £868.98 up front then £144.83 per month. Total cost over 48 months £7820.82.
> https://www.contracthireandleasing.com/car-leasing-companies/main-dealers/charters-citroen-aldershot/citroen/nemo/35843602/
>
> The cheapest OTR price I have found is £8,530.
> http://www.perrys.co.uk/citroen-nemo-1.3-hdi-enterprise-non-start-stop/business-users/offer-211829-15013

Except that isn't the OTR price, halfwit. £8,295 +VAT+RFL+REG

How much is the VAT on £8,295?

And you think you don't need an accountant?

[Cycle-Ops]

I like that. Certainly applies to Salt & Wriggler.

[Cycle-Ops]

Reminds me of a joke;

Woman with baby gets on a bus the driver says "that's the ugliest baby
I've ever seen".

The woman bursts into tears and sits down at the back. A bloke next to
her asks what the matter is.

"The driver upset me"

The bloke says "you go back and insist he appologises. I'll look after
the monkey!"

[Cycle-Ops]

WARNING!
This is so funny you are advised to empty you bladder before reading, in
case you wet yourself. You are also advised to remove any hot or cold
drinks from the vicinity of your keyboard.

Salt & Wriggler consistently makes a fool of himself and leaves himself
open to ridicule and humiliation from me and being intellectually
challenged decides to stalk me on the internet and attempt an ad hominem
attack.

Which leaves him making a bigger fool of himself;

25/11/15; “He has just bought himself a brand new 2015 Citron Nemo van.
He must have paid about £9,000 excl VAT”

27/11/15; He makes a twat of himself by saying “It is well known that
Citron dealers give substantial discounts on their commercial vehicles.
He claims not to have spent about £9,000 on the van, so perhaps he
managed to negotiate a better discount with a Yorkshire dealership.”

27/11/15; He states- “Liar. You don't own a van. Or were you lying about
not owning one.”

27/11/15; the thick twat finally works out that it is leased!

28/11/15: He takes the advice of ‘Honest John’ on the internet and
concludes that “Leasing is nearly always a financial blunder.”

28/11/15; He claims that “These offers always exclude the cash discount
buyers can negotiate with the dealership.” Not realising that a private
buyer can’t negotiate a better deal on a Citroen than Citroen Finance can.

28/11/15; He reinforces the stupidity of the advice from “Honest John”.

28/11/15; He claims “No one in their right mind would pay the list price
for a Citron Nemo” and gets the lost price completely wrong. His figure
changes from £9,000 excl VAT to £11,365 OTR and then to “more like
£8,530 OTR”. Not realising that doesn’t include VAT etc.

28/11/15; He then claims he knows more than a highly qualified chartered
accountant.

28/11/15; He then claims British Gas have made a ‘financial blunder’ by
leasing their vehicles.

28/11/15; The fuckwit now claims that most leases are over 72 months.
And that a Citron Nemo is - list price £11,365, altering his previous
figures and being unable to spell Citroen properly.

29/11/15; He spends half the night looking for the best deal on a van he
doesn’t want, then forgets to add the VAT!

[Tom Crispin]

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:47:47 AM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> WARNING!
> This is so funny you are advised to empty you bladder before reading, in
> case you wet yourself. You are also advised to remove any hot or cold
> drinks from the vicinity of your keyboard.

Do we really need to know about your incontinence problems.

The sad fact is the vehicle leasing is nearly always the worst option for a new vehicle.

1. It adds an extra layer of administration which adds to the cost.
2. The lessor will have to account for a percentage of lessees who cannot keep up with their payments and from whom they cannot recover costs. This will be included in the charges they make to lessees.
3. Lessees are limited to mileage or else they face punitive extra charges.
4. Costs are based on vehicles handed back in good condition (fair wear and tear accepted). Any blemishes will be charged to the lessee.
5. At the end of the lease, lessees have nothing to show for the money they have spent.

Plankwit is too daft to realise this, but at least he drives a shiny new van which is costing him 60% of the monthly mortgage interest I pay on a flat valued at £325,000. (Mortgage £108,000, interest rate 2.99%).

[Cycle-Ops]

On 29/11/2015 12:07, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:47:47 AM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> WARNING! This is so funny you are advised to empty you bladder
>> before reading, in case you wet yourself. You are also advised to
>> remove any hot or cold drinks from the vicinity of your keyboard.
>
> Do we really need to know about your incontinence problems.

Nice try. If they had been mine I'd have said "my" and not "your".

We can add English and Maths to the list of things you are crap at.

Which explains why 80% of new vehicles are leased does it?

>
> 1. It adds an extra layer of administration which adds to the cost.
> 2. The lessor will have to account for a percentage of lessees who
> cannot keep up with their payments and from whom they cannot recover
> costs. This will be included in the charges they make to lessees. 3.
> Lessees are limited to mileage or else they face punitive extra
> charges. 4. Costs are based on vehicles handed back in good condition
> (fair wear and tear accepted). Any blemishes will be charged to the
> lessee. 5. At the end of the lease, lessees have nothing to show for
> the money they have spent.

Where did you cut & paste that from, halfwit? Did that take you half the
night as well?

<FX> Sound of barrel being scraped<FX>

>
> Plankwit is too daft to realise this, but at least he drives a shiny
> new van which is costing him 60% of the monthly mortgage interest I
> pay on a flat valued at £325,000. (Mortgage £108,000, interest rate
> 2.99%).
>

Still haven't worked out the major fuck up in your calculations then?

And you don't think you need an accountant.

[Tom Crispin]

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 12:21:26 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> On 29/11/2015 12:07, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:47:47 AM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
> >> WARNING! This is so funny you are advised to empty you bladder
> >> before reading, in case you wet yourself. You are also advised to
> >> remove any hot or cold drinks from the vicinity of your keyboard.
> >
> > Do we really need to know about your incontinence problems.
>
> Nice try. If they had been mine I'd have said "my" and not "your".

It is obvious that your warning to others was due to your own problems.

So no comment from you.

It was not "cut and paste". They are my own common sense words explaining why car leasing is an expensive option.

Personally, I am on my fourth vehicle in 25 years. All bought second hand, and all driven until the cost of annual servicing became greater than the cars' value.

Keeping motoring costs down has been an essential part in keeping my standard of living up. Unlike property, motor vehicles are (nearly always) a depreciating asset.

[JNugent]

On 29/11/2015 12:07, Tom Crispin wrote:

It removes an entire layer of administration from the profit and loss
account. The leasing cost is a straightforward deduction. It does not
have to be calculated from its own P&L sub-calculation.

> 2. The lessor will have to account for a percentage of lessees who cannot keep up with their payments and from whom they cannot recover costs. This will be included in the charges they make to lessees.

Exactly the same thing occurs with interest payments on loans. And on
bank charges.

> 3. Lessees are limited to mileage or else they face punitive extra charges.

Various levels of lease contract are available (ask me how I know).

> 4. Costs are based on vehicles handed back in good condition (fair wear and tear accepted). Any blemishes will be charged to the lessee.

Wrong.

Commercial vehicles are certainly not expected to be handed back in
showroom condition. Unlike some (it seems), lessors are well aware of
what commercial vehicles are used for. Accident damage will, of course,
need to be remedied.

> 5. At the end of the lease, lessees have nothing to show for the money they have spent.

Except for having had the use of the vehicle.

One could make exactly the same erroneous claim, by the way, of tenants.
And one could blame rapacious landlords for living off the efforts of
those tenants.

> Plankwit is too daft to realise this, but at least he drives a shiny new van which is costing him 60% of the monthly mortgage interest I pay on a flat valued at £325,000. (Mortgage £108,000, interest rate 2.99%).

I dare say judith may have a comment on that. I wouldn't dream of it.

[Kerr Mudd-John]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:15:02 -0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

> On 29/11/2015 12:07, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:47:47 AM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:

Stuff about van leasing that has NOTHING to do with cycling.

There's probably a better forum for this. Try uk.rec.driving.
or maybe a financial group.


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug

[JNugent]

On 29/11/2015 14:27, Kerr Mudd-John wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:15:02 -0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>> On 29/11/2015 12:07, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:47:47 AM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:

> Stuff about van leasing that has NOTHING to do with cycling.

The thread about Mr Lang's housing and mortgage status, as well as the
one about his van, was entirely the brainchild of Mr Crispin.

> There's probably a better forum for this. Try uk.rec.driving.
> or maybe a financial group.

It seems that Mr Crispin's purpose in starting and maintaining the
thread is to show that cyclists are better at finance.

Or something.

Either way, it's his discussion, so take it up with him.

[Cycle-Ops]

I'm obliged. Saves me the trouble of explaining it to the idiot.

He still hasn't spotted his major fuck up.

[Cycle-Ops]

On 29/11/2015 12:40, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 12:21:26 PM UTC, Cycle-Ops wrote:
>> On 29/11/2015 12:07, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 10:47:47 AM UTC, Cycle-Ops
>>> wrote:
>>>> WARNING! This is so funny you are advised to empty you bladder
>>>> before reading, in case you wet yourself. You are also advised
>>>> to remove any hot or cold drinks from the vicinity of your
>>>> keyboard.
>>>
>>> Do we really need to know about your incontinence problems.
>>
>> Nice try. If they had been mine I'd have said "my" and not
>> "your".
>
> It is obvious that your warning to others was due to your own
> problems.

Is it? It seems it was only obvious to a fuckwit like you.

You wouldn't know common sense if it got up & bit you on the leg.

What makes you think you are more qualified than a chartered accountant
with 40 years experience?

>
> Personally, I am on my fourth vehicle in 25 years. All bought second
> hand, and all driven until the cost of annual servicing became
> greater than the cars' value.
>
> Keeping motoring costs down has been an essential part in keeping my
> standard of living up. Unlike property, motor vehicles are (nearly
> always) a depreciating asset.
>
>> <FX> Sound of barrel being scraped<FX>
>>>
>>> Plankwit is too daft to realise this, but at least he drives a
>>> shiny new van which is costing him 60% of the monthly mortgage
>>> interest I pay on a flat valued at £325,000. (Mortgage £108,000,
>>> interest rate 2.99%).
>>>
>>
>> Still haven't worked out the major fuck up in your calculations
>> then?
>>
>> And you don't think you need an accountant.

[Tarcap]

"Kerr Mudd-John" wrote in message

news:op.x8u83...@dell3100.dlink.com...

It's a SOP for psycholists to switch *any* post to motoring, so it's
*entirely* appropriate.

[Alycidon]

On Sunday, 29 November 2015 15:45:03 UTC, Tarcap wrote:

> There's probably a better forum for this. Try uk.rec.driving.
> or maybe a financial group.
>
>
> It's a SOP for psycholists to switch *any* post to motoring, so it's
> *entirely* appropriate.

Looks like a nice place.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/uk.rec.driving