Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should we be concerned?
#9
(16-08-13, 01:34 PM)mr self destruct link Wrote: The fact that we're now passing laws based on "pet hates"...

I thought they were already rules and that they are merely being enforced more rigorously? If that's the care then filtering should be fine but moving to the front of a queue at lights/roundabouts and using the bike's acceleration to get might be punishable? I think it's purposefully vague to prevent people protesting against "judgements".
thou shalt not kick
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Should we be concerned? - by DryRob - 16-08-13, 10:26 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by Chillum - 16-08-13, 11:04 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by red98 - 16-08-13, 11:23 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by Simon.Pieman - 16-08-13, 11:28 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by mickvp - 16-08-13, 01:38 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by peterjca - 16-08-13, 02:24 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by DryRob - 16-08-13, 03:13 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by stevierst - 16-08-13, 04:42 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by AdieR - 16-08-13, 05:47 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by Grahamm - 16-08-13, 05:55 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by ChristoT - 16-08-13, 08:00 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by Skippernick - 16-08-13, 09:20 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by stevierst - 17-08-13, 07:49 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by Grahamm - 18-08-13, 12:57 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by Grahamm - 18-08-13, 12:59 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by JZS 600 - 18-08-13, 12:08 PM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by Lawrence - 19-08-13, 12:03 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by stevierst - 19-08-13, 07:04 AM
Re: Should we be concerned? - by DryRob - 19-08-13, 07:38 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)