|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[Long] ASA vs CTC
The ASA have adjudicated on a complaint againts a CTC helmet leaflet.
Complaint: Objections to a leaflet entitled "7 REASONS TO OPPOSE A CHILD HELMET LAW". Text on the front page stated "1. The principal threats to children''s lives are obesity, heart disease and other illnesses resulting in large part from inactivity. Cycling has a key role to play in preventing these illnesses. Less cycling through a helmet law would aggravate the situation ... 2. Cycling is a healthy activity, and the likelihood of serious head injury is widely exaggerated ... 3. Cycling becomes safer the more people do it. Encouraging cycling is by far the most effective way of reducing risk of injury ... 5. The benefits of helmets are greatly over-stated ... 7. A helmet law would make it a crime for children to take part in a health giving activity ...". Text inside the leaflet continued " ... Cycling gives a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger [*1] and a life expectancy 2 years above the average [*2]. The health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks involved [*3], by a factor of around 20:1 according to one estimate [*4] ... It takes over 3,000 years of on-road cycling to suffer a serious head injury ... In Australia, the courts rapidly became overloaded with the prosecution of those who had not paid their fines. The Victorian Children''s Court pleaded to the police to reduce the number of helmet fines being issued [*5]. On other occasions children faced detention for up to 3 months, tearing families apart [*6] ... MISLEADING CLAIMS Claim: "Cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" Fact: This claim originates from only one source [*7], and has never been approached by real-world evidence anywhere. In places where helmet use has become significant, there has been no detectable reduction in head injuries relative to cycle use. The research on which the prediction was made has been widely criticised (e.g. [*8]) for comparing two quite different groups of cyclists. The substitution of more robust data, collected at the same time as the original research, leads to the conclusion that helmets make no significant difference ... Claim: "Over 70% of child cyclist deaths involve head injury" Fact: Over 70% of all impact deaths involve head injury. In fact, 82% of cyclists and 86% of pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants who die in crashes suffer lethal head injuries. 71% of cyclists die primarily from head injuries, more than the other groups. However, this is not because cycling fatalities are more likely to involve head injury (they are not), but because they are less likely to involve lethal injuries to the thorax and abdomen [*9] ... "; the footnotes were sourced in a reference section and the last page of the leaflet stated "FOR MORE INFORMATION www.cyclehelmets.org, an international site supported by doctors, cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with professional involvement in helmet design and performance ... ". The complainants, who included a woman whose son died from the head injuries he received whilst cycling without a helmet, a paediatric nurse and two academics whose research was criticised in the leaflet: 1. objected that the approach used in the leaflet was irresponsible and could discourage children from wearing helmets; 2. challenged the claim "The principal threats to children''s lives are obesity, heart disease and other illnesses resulting in large part from inactivity ...", because they believed accidents, the subject of the leaflet, were the greatest threat to children''s lives; 3. challenged the claim "... the likelihood of serious head injury is widely exaggerated"; 4. challenged the claim "Cycling becomes safer the more people do it. Encouraging cycling is by far the most effective way of reducing risk of injury"; 5. challenged the claim "A helmet law would make it a crime for children to take part in a health giving activity"; 6. challenged the claim "Cycling gives a fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger and a life expectancy 2 years above the average. The health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks involved, by a factor of around 20:1 ... "; 7. challenged the claim "It takes over 3,000 years of on-road cycling to suffer a serious head injury ..."; 8. objected that the claim "On other occasions children faced detention for up to 3 months, tearing families apart" was alarmist, distressing and exaggerated; 9. challenged whether the claim "The benefits of helmets are greatly over-stated" was justified; 10. challenged whether the leaflet''s criticism of the claims "Cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" and "Over 70% of child cyclist deaths involve head injury" and the claims "In places where helmet use has become significant, there has been no detectable reduction in head injuries relative to cycle use ... The research on which the prediction was made has been widely criticised for comparing two quite different groups of cyclists" were misleading, especially because the latter two claims implied objective peer-view criticism, not opinion; 11. challenged the claim "www.cyclehelmets.org, an international site supported by doctors, cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with professional involvement in helmet design and performance". Codes Section: 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 47.2 (Ed 11) Adjudication: The advertisers said CTC, the Cycle Campaign Network (CNN) and the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) co-operated to produce the leaflet; CTC responded on behalf of the other two organisations. The advertisers said the leaflet was a policy briefing that targeted Members of Parliament (MPs) primarily and was intended to encourage them to oppose the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill, which was a Private Members'' Bill being considered in Parliament at the time the leaflet was distributed. They said the remaining leaflets were distributed to cycle campaigners who were engaged in lobbying MPs to oppose the Bill. The advertisers believed the leaflet was public relations material and did not fall within the remit of the Code. They said they did not oppose the wearing of helmets, but opposed a law that would make it illegal for children to cycle without a helmet. The Authority noted the advertisers'' assertions that the leaflet fell outside the remit of the Code but considered that, because it sought to persuade recipients to the advertisers'' point of view, the leaflet constituted advertising material. 1. Complaints not upheld The advertisers said the leaflet targeted MPs, policy makers and lobbying groups, not children; they believed its tone and language was unlikely to appeal to, or be understood by, children. The advertisers argued that the leaflet was not designed to discourage children from wearing helmets, but to point out that the evidence supporting the benefits of wearing helmets was not widely agreed, and to dissuade MPs from supporting a law that required children to wear helmets when cycling. The advertisers sent various studies and some peer-reviewed articles that they believed showed the evidence often cited in support of the legislation was greatly contested. The Authority noted the leaflet targeted MPs, policy makers and lobbying groups. Although it noted one of the complainants had received the leaflet by post, the Authority considered that the leaflet''s target audience was likely to understand that its purpose was to encourage people to oppose a child helmet law, not to discourage children from wearing helmets. The Authority did not object on that point. 2. Complaints upheld The advertisers argued that accidents were not the subject of the leaflet; they said the leaflet was about the proposed child helmet law and the health, safety and environmental consequences of such legislation. The advertisers argued that many threats to the lives and well-being of children, such as obesity and its potential to lead to diabetes, cardiovascular and heart disease in later life, resulted from inactivity and lack of exercise; they sent articles from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, the Journal of Clinical Nutrition, International Journal of Obesity, a report from the National Audit Office, and a briefing paper for the Regional Cycling Development Team that they believed showed how those additional threats could affect and shorten children''s lives and how exercise was important for their health. The advertisers also sent a graph taken from a report entitled "Road Casualties Great Britain 2003" that showed the number of deaths under the headings "child cyclists", "all cyclists", "all road users", "obesity" and "heart disease due to inactivity"; the graph showed the number of deaths for the latter group was 46,000, compared to 22 for child cyclists and 130 for all cyclists during that year. The advertisers believed the claim would not mislead, but offered to amend it to make clear that they were referring to the threats to children''s future life expectancy. The Authority noted the advertisers'' evidence showed how inactivity could lead to health problems, particularly later in life, with the potential to reduce life expectancy. It noted the figures from Road Casualties Great Britain 2003 showed the number of overall deaths due to inactivity was far greater than the number of deaths due to injury from cycling, but was concerned that those figures did not differentiate by age. The Authority considered that most readers would interpret the claim "The principal threats to children''s lives ..." to imply that illnesses caused by inactivity were the primary contributing factor to deaths among children, not deaths that occurred later in adulthood as a result of early lifestyle choices. Because the advertisers had not proved that was true, the Authority concluded that the claim was misleading. It welcomed the advertisers offer to amend the claim to avoid ambiguity and advised them to seek help with the amendment from the CAP Copy Advice team. 3. Complaints not upheld The advertisers believed the claims made in support of the campaign for a helmet law for cyclists under the age of 16 years were exaggerated; they said their leaflet was intended merely to highlight that and provide balancing evidence. The advertisers cited as examples some quotations from the literature in support of the legislation, including a press release from the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, a Parliamentary Early Day Motion and a letter to the Reading Press, which emphasised the high number of deaths and hospitalisations of cyclists due to head injuries. The advertisers sent evidence from Hansard and the Department of Health, some of which had been referenced in the leaflet, that they believed refuted those figures and suggested that the risk of head injury from cycling was not as great as claimed. The Authority noted the advertisers'' evidence showed that variations existed between records of deaths and hospitalisations of cyclists due to serious head injury and the available data was acknowledged to be unreliable. In the absence of a generally agreed figure of the number of deaths or hospitalisations of cyclists due to serious head injury, and in the context of a leaflet that discussed two opposing points of view, the Authority concluded that the claim was acceptable. 4. Complaints not upheld The advertisers believed a positive relationship existed between increased cycle use and cycle safety. They sent an article from Traffic Engineering and Control, a paper to the National Cycling Strategy Board entitled "Safety in Numbers" and an article from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that showed collision rates decreased as the number of people walking or cycling increased. The advertisers argued that, as the number of cyclists on the road increased, it was reasonable to expect a driver''s ability to interact safely with cyclists to improve, because they would become increasingly aware of cyclists. The Authority noted one complainant''s belief that children who cycled a lot could become over-confident and therefore less careful on the roads, but considered that the articles provided by the advertisers supported the idea that the safety of cyclists could increase as the number of cyclists increased. The Authority also considered that, in the context of a leaflet that discussed two opposing points of view, the claim "Encouraging cycling is by far the most effective way of reducing risk of injury" was likely to be seen as an expression of the advertisers'' opinion. The Authority did not object to the leaflet on that point. 5. Complaints upheld The advertisers argued that many health benefits could be gained from cycling; they maintained that the risks of cycling were overestimated and argued that more deaths were attributable to heart disease resulting from inactivity than the number of cyclists killed in road traffic accidents. The advertisers sent an article from the British Medical Association (BMA) entitled "Cycling; towards health and safety 1992", that claimed the benefits gained from regular cycling were likely to outweigh the loss of life through cycling for the current population and stressed the need to make exercise for children more fun; they also submitted an article from the Traffic Engineering Control that they believed showed increased cycle use would reduce risk per cyclist. The advertisers believed the passing of the Bill would criminalise a health-giving activity by making it a crime for children to cycle without a helmet; they said MPs would understand the intention of the Bill and would not be misled. The Authority noted the advertisers'' comments, but noted the leaflet was distributed to people who were not policy-makers, as well as those who were, and considered that those readers could interpret the claim "a helmet law would make it a crime for children to take part in a health giving activity …" to imply that the proposed legislation would make it illegal for children to cycle and take part in a health giving activity, not that such legislation would potentially deter children without a helmet from cycling. The Authority concluded the claim was misleading and told the advertisers to amend it to remove the implication that helmet legislation would criminalise all children for cycling. 6. Complaints upheld The advertisers sent copies of studies that they believed supported both claims; they said they believed the claims were true because they knew of no evidence that refuted them and argued that the leaflet''s intended audience was unlikely to interpret them literally. The Authority noted the advertisers'' evidence. It noted one BMA article entitled "Life-years lost versus life-years gained" compared the number of life-years lost through cycling with the number of life-years gained through improved health and fitness and argued that there were benefits to those undertaking regular exercise such as cycling through improved health and fitness and possible longevity. It noted another BMA article entitled "Road transport and health" referred to the results of studies that had appeared in other journals and included the figures quoted in the leaflet. The Authority acknowledged that the advertisers'' evidence showed regular cycling could decrease mortality when compared with not cycling. It nevertheless considered the claim "Cycling gives a fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger and a life expectancy 2 years above the average" to be an absolute one. The Authority was concerned that the case studies referred to in the advertisers'' evidence had been conducted on a select sample of people only and considered that they were not enough to substantiate the advertisers'' implication that all cyclists, and especially child cyclists, would benefit from a decrease in mortality of the level claimed. The Authority concluded that the claim was not justified and told the advertisers to amend it. 7. Complaints upheld The advertisers sent figures to show how the quoted figure of 3000 years of on-road cycling was derived. The advertisers said, in hindsight, they should have made clear it was an "on average" figure but argued, nevertheless, that it would not mislead. The Authority noted the advertisers had used figures from the Department of Transport''s "Transport Statistics Great Britain 2001" in the calculation. The Authority considered, however, that the use of 3000 years to describe the period of time, albeit of on-road cycling, after which one could or would suffer a serious head injury was, at best, ambiguous and, at worst, misleading, because it implied a single cyclist would never suffer from a serious head injury. It told the advertisers not to repeat the claim. 8. Complaints upheld The advertisers sent an article headed "Boy faces detention for unpaid bike fines" that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 December 1997 to support the claim. They acknowledged that the claim was exaggerated and offered to amend it to make clear that at least one child from Australia was reported to have faced detention for up to three months following the implementation of a helmet law. The Authority noted the article reported how a 12-year-old boy from Australia faced a possible three months'' detention for failing to pay fines for not wearing a bicycle helmet, as required by the Northern Territory law; the article also told of separate incidences when a 15-year-old boy was strip-searched and spent a night in a detention centre for not paying a bicycle helmet fine and a 14-year-old boy who spent the night in a cell because he crossed the road against a red traffic light. The Authority considered that, although the advertisers had shown that one boy faced a possible detention for up to three months, the claim "Children faced detention for up to 3 months ..." exaggerated the number of children who had faced detention for not wearing a helmet while cycling and the likelihood of that being a result of a change in British legislation. The Authority told the advertisers not to repeat the claim and welcomed their decision to amend it. 9. Complaints not upheld The advertisers believed the benefits of helmets were greatly overstated and were at best limited; they sent studies on the effects of similar legislation in Australia to show that. The Authority noted the leaflet was intended to communicate that the evidence for the safety benefits of cycle helmets was not universally agreed and considered that, in the context of a leaflet that discussed two opposing points of view, the claim was likely to be seen as an expression of the advertisers'' opinion on a controversial debate. The Authority did not object to the leaflet on that point. 10. Complaints upheld The advertisers said the quote "Cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" was from an American study in the NEJM entitled "A case control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets" and that that study had been widely supported in campaigns to promote a helmet law for children in the UK; they said several published critiques of the methodology and findings of that study existed and provided copies of those critiques. The advertisers argued that a recent report submitted to the Department for Transport Road Safety Research that reviewed evidence on the effectiveness of helmets found that the study''s authors had over-estimated the reduction in risk due to wearing helmets. They maintained that the leaflet made clear that they did not dispute the claim "Over 70% of child cyclists deaths involve head injury", but that they were simply highlighting that similar figures applied to all deaths due to head injuries including pedestrians and vehicle occupants, not just cyclists; they believed it was misleading to suggest that cyclists alone were particularly prone to fatal head injuries. The Authority noted the critiques of the article whose findings were disputed in the leaflet. The Authority also noted the studies on the effects of the legislation on Australia and noted one study from the BMA pointed out that bicycle helmets were designed primarily to protect the head during low speed impacts that would occur in a fall to the ground from a bicycle and were limited in preventing injury to the head and other parts of the body in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. The Authority noted some of the criticisms of the claim "Cycling prevents 85% of head injuries ..." had come from a peer-reviewed article in the BMJ and that the advertisers had referenced their claims in the leaflet. The Authority noted the leaflet was intended to communicate that the evidence for the safety benefits of cycle helmets was not universally agreed. It nevertheless considered that the presentation of the section of the leaflet in which those claims appeared, with those arguments with which the advertisers disagreed being presented as "misleading claims" and the advertisers'' arguments being presented as "FACT", misleadingly implied that the advertisers'' evidence was generally accepted. Because it understood that there was a significant division of informed opinion about the health and safety benefits of cycle helmets, the Authority concluded that the approach adopted by the advertisers was misleading. It told the advertisers to amend the presentation of the leaflet and advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again. 11. Complaints upheld The advertisers said the claim was taken from the independent site www.cyclehelmets.org; they believed the owner of the site was an epidemiologist, general practitioner and a member of the Faculty of Public Health, and that other contributors to the site included an Australian statistician, a UK cycle safety consultant and someone who had over 50 years experience of testing and designing headgear. The Authority noted the section of the site headed "Policy Statement" stated that the site was a website belonging to an international coalition of people with special interests in cycling and cycle helmets and that the coalition included doctors, cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with the professional involvement in helmet design and performance. The Authority considered that the claim " ... an international site supported by ..." implied the website was fully endorsed by doctors, cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with professional involvement in helmet design and performance. Because it was not, the Authority concluded that the claim was misleading. It told the advertisers to amend it and advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team in future. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ta, NR.
One bit that stood out for me: "one complainant's belief that children who cycled a lot could become over-confident and therefore less careful on the roads" Yoicks. Who would believe such a thing? Quick, stop people doing things just in case they get good at it. (more seriously, anybody know who did say this? could be used against them if people so desired...) cheers, clive |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
pedantic It's not the ASA vs CTC, as in the header. It's the h*lmet
lobby, probably our old friends B****, vs CTC with the ASA as adjudicator. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Zog The Undeniable wrote:
pedantic It's not the ASA vs CTC, as in the header. It's the h*lmet lobby, probably our old friends B****, vs CTC with the ASA as adjudicator. Apologies, I was in a rush and mistitled the post. Interestingly, the complainants are identified as "The complainants, who included a woman whose son died from the head injuries he received whilst cycling without a helmet, a paediatric nurse and two academics whose research was criticised in the leaflet..." A paediatric nurse, eh? I wonder who that could be, now? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Not Responding wrote:
"The complainants, who included a woman whose son died from the head injuries he received whilst cycling without a helmet, a paediatric nurse and two academics whose research was criticised in the leaflet..." A paediatric nurse, eh? I wonder who that could be, now? And I'll put bets on the 'mother' being the one who may have problems understanding the need for brakes on a bike. John B |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Not Responding wrote:
Interestingly, the complainants are identified as "The complainants, who included a woman whose son died from the head injuries he received whilst cycling without a helmet, a paediatric nurse and two academics whose research was criticised in the leaflet..." A paediatric nurse, eh? I wonder who that could be, now? Thus. All four (FOUR?) complainants are in the pay of Be Hit. Not in the least bit surprising however. Jon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Not Responding" wrote in message . co.uk... The ASA have adjudicated on a complaint againts a CTC helmet leaflet. Complaint: Objections to a leaflet entitled "7 REASONS TO OPPOSE A CHILD HELMET LAW". Interesting to compare the BHIT ASA complaint with this: the BHIT were knowingly telling outright lies, whereas every point here is at least arguable and is a matter of interpretation. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote:
Interesting to compare the BHIT ASA complaint with this: the BHIT were knowingly telling outright lies, whereas every point here is at least arguable and is a matter of interpretation. They fight dirty. Are you surprised? -- Dave... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:08:52 +0000, Not Responding
wrote in message k: The ASA have adjudicated on a complaint againts a CTC helmet leaflet. The leaflet was a joint effort by CTC, London Cycling campaign and others. We did (And do) dispute the ASA's jurisdiction, since it was not in any sense a marketing communication, and was distributed to those involved in the campaign against the Martlew bill - the majority of those distributed went to MPs and most of the rest to campaigners. 1. objected that the approach used in the leaflet was irresponsible and could discourage children from wearing helmets; 1. Complaints not upheld Not least because it begged the question... 2. challenged the claim "The principal threats to children''s lives are obesity, heart disease and other illnesses resulting in large part from inactivity ...", because they believed accidents, the subject of the leaflet, were the greatest threat to children''s lives; 2. Complaints upheld Although you will note that ASA did not challenge the fact that in life-years lost, Obesity is massively more significant than cycling. We could not get them to say who they thought might have been misled in the way they described, especially among the intended audience. 3. challenged the claim "... the likelihood of serious head injury is widely exaggerated"; 3. Complaints not upheld Quite so. Note that many of these claims are repeated in the BMA ********, as well as having been slapped down in ASA v BeHIT. 4. challenged the claim "Cycling becomes safer the more people do it. Encouraging cycling is by far the most effective way of reducing risk of injury"; 4. Complaints not upheld Which we thought was important :-) 5. challenged the claim "A helmet law would make it a crime for children to take part in a health giving activity"; 5. Complaints upheld I was never happy with that myself - I could not think of a way of wording it which was not either clumsy or misleading. In any case, the Bill would have criminalised parents, not children. But there you go. Either way, this has some importance, as the helmet laws have been used in NZ in a discriminatory fashion, with black and Maori children more likely to be arrested than white kids. 6. challenged the claim "Cycling gives a fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger and a life expectancy 2 years above the average. The health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks involved, by a factor of around 20:1 ... "; 6. Complaints upheld Which is ********, since we are restating claims which were also repeated by the BMA in their 1999 report. Much of this originates with Mayer Hillman, who I venture to suggest knows slightly more about the subject than the ASA. 7. challenged the claim "It takes over 3,000 years of on-road cycling to suffer a serious head injury ..."; 7. Complaints upheld That is laughable - how likely is it that anyone reading this claim - especially anyone in the intended audience of MPs and campaigners well used to seeing sociological statistics - would interpret this claim in the strictly literal sense BeHIT propose, that you would never suffer an injury unless you lived to be 3,000 years old? Given the average human lifespan that argues a wilful determination to misunderstand! 8. objected that the claim "On other occasions children faced detention for up to 3 months, tearing families apart" was alarmist, distressing and exaggerated; 8. Complaints upheld Unlike BeHIT's helmet videos, which are not alarmist at all really. Much. This is based on a single case. Some of us wanted to tone it down a bit, but there was time pressure. There is a documented case of a young girl held in jail overnight because she could not pay the spot fine - I think she was also an ethnic minority. There is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that in all helmet law jurisdictions, there is a tendency for those form ethnic minorities to be singled out. 9. challenged whether the claim "The benefits of helmets are greatly over-stated" was justified; 9. Complaints not upheld Quite right, too. And that was a major point in the leaflet, unlike some of the others. 10. challenged whether the leaflet''s criticism of the claims "Cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries" and "Over 70% of child cyclist deaths involve head injury" and the claims "In places where helmet use has become significant, there has been no detectable reduction in head injuries relative to cycle use ... The research on which the prediction was made has been widely criticised for comparing two quite different groups of cyclists" were misleading, especially because the latter two claims implied objective peer-view criticism, not opinion; 10. Complaints upheld Which is bizarre, because they also held in a separate case that these figures could not be justified! This refers to a "myths and facts" section. If you look at what they are saying, and this is also based on the exchanges of letters beforehand, they do not dispute that the things presented as myths are (a) claims made by the pro-helmet lobby and (b) insupportable; neither do they dispute that we have robust evidence to support each of the claims made as "fact" - their beef was (and for the life of me I cannot see this) that the acknowledged facts do not negate the acknowledged myths. There was a lot of argument about this and they were very clear: they accept that the myths are myths, that the judgment of them as myths is largely based on the facts presented, and that the facts are facts, but not that the facts contradict the myths. Go figure. 11. challenged the claim "www.cyclehelmets.org, an international site supported by doctors, cycling safety experts, statisticians and people with professional involvement in helmet design and performance". 11. Complaints upheld Apparently on the basis that not all doctors agree. Which, as anybody who knows about the problems of observational studies currently doing the rounds, will come as no surprise. The ASA never did say why they thought a political campaign document should come under their jurisdiction. Neither could they explain how they could uphold the complaint against the myths and facts section while actually accepting the facts it contained. Two claims will not be repeated, or at least not without much more in the way of caveats (5 and 8). The rest will be used again, because the ASA does not dispute them, only fine details of the wording. But then, no doubt BeHIT say the same about the complaint about them. The difference is, we are only selling scepticism. Guy -- "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:31:00 +0000, JohnB wrote in
message : A paediatric nurse, eh? I wonder who that could be, now? And I'll put bets on the 'mother' being the one who may have problems understanding the need for brakes on a bike. And I'll lay money on the two academics being Crook & Feikh. Guy -- "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RR:1st Singletrack of Spring [long] | Roger Buchanan | Mountain Biking | 3 | April 28th 04 06:24 PM |