Squashme wrote:
On 17 Aug, 19:22, nully wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:44:46 +0100 someone who may be nully
wrote this:-
Anyone have a means of contacting Ms Wilkins? I'd like to send her a
walking stick and some advice about shoving it in the wheel spokes of
dangerous, aggressive, and malicious cyclists like yourself and the
person she recently met. I'm told it meets with the most *spectacular*
results!
You advocate responding to an incident in which a dog was scared
with an action which could well lead to the death of a human.
Dont like the time, dont do the crime. Hmmmm, that seems to fit nicely.
By the way, where did you get "scared" from? The article said that the
dog was *hit*.

Yeaahhh, and what people here are forgetting is that basically the dog
owner had paid for a licence, so the dog had a right to be on the
path, which it had paid for unlike the so-called "cyclist". Oh no,
wait, I mean ...

I presume you know that dog licences were done away with in the 80's (
where they were less than 50p),and that they only applied to dogs that
were pets, ie not working or "real" dogs?