Jump to content

Things that piss you off that shouldn't


theunderstudy

Recommended Posts

People who do 70 mph bang on in the fast lane, an give you the V sign when you finally overtake them. "If I wanna go faster its feck all to do with you"!

Did you get right up their arse even though they were visibly taking over someone in the middle lane?

If so then they were in the right, and lawfully, you shouldn't be going quicker than 70 anyway! Report this goon!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

People who do 70 mph bang on in the fast lane, an give you the V sign when you finally overtake them. "If I wanna go faster its feck all to do with you"!

It worries me that you think there is a 'fast lane'.

But it does tie in with the rest of your post.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lapal_fan said:

Did you get right up their arse even though they were visibly taking over someone in the middle lane?

If so then they were in the right, and lawfully, you shouldn't be going quicker than 70 anyway! Report this goon!

Quite right. If I'm overtaking someone at 70mph, the clearing in the woods flashing his lights behind me has literally no leg to stand on. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Quite right. If I'm overtaking someone at 70mph, the clearing in the woods flashing his lights behind me has literally no leg to stand on. 

You wouldn't be overtaking someone at 70 mph. Technically you would be over taking at a lower speed and maybe heading for the 70 mph limit, or else you will find yourself breaking the speed limit, heaven forbid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion.

It's my opinion that Lambert was a bad manager.

OK well here's some information and interpretation that might challenge that

No my opinion is unchanged

Why?

Because it's my opinion.

But why is it your opinion?

I don't have to discuss my opinion with you. If you don't like my opinion then that's not my fault.

So you're not willing to even consider contradictory information and discuss something that is contrary to your opinion, because you believe your opinion is some sort of sacred entity that bestows on you a level of sanctuary from having it challenged by anything? 

It's my opinion.

Your opinion is a cancer to your discussion of anything then?

That's just your opinion

Yes I suppose it is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned the other day I was getting a telling off at work for talking inappropriately to a member of staff. In my defense I was actually talking assertively, as to get something overdue done. I still got the bollocking. But I said off the record, it wouldn't stand up in a appeal, as there is very much a grey area, that some people could see any assertive conversation as inappropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, YLN said:

Spilled some TCP on the floor earlier. Just a few drops.

My goodness it is pungent. I'm getting the impression I'll still be smelling it next Christmas. 

You can still get TCP? The missus and I were only talking about this the other day, as we haven't seen it for years. Assumed it was no longer a thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mjmooney said:

You can still get TCP? The missus and I were only talking about this the other day, as we haven't seen it for years. Assumed it was no longer a thing. 

Used to throw a splosh in the bath after returning to camp from Military exercise. Fantastic stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mjmooney said:

You can still get TCP? The missus and I were only talking about this the other day, as we haven't seen it for years. Assumed it was no longer a thing. 

Oh yeah, got a bottle recently. Always handy to dry out spots!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dAVe80 said:

An oldie but a goodie, The Transfer Window. Hate everything about it. The obscene amount of money involved, the greedy players and agents, Harry Redknapp hanging out his car door, the ridiculous ITK twitter accounts, the silly rumours of Messi being spotted at a Yates’s in Stoke, the pointless and depressing transfer thread in VT, the goons hanging around the training grounds, Sky Sports News, the transfer gimp and his 15 mobile phones, oh and especially Jim White and his ******* yellow tie. Word removed.

Its amusing, the sheer panic of clubs trying to buy players from Russia in the last hour of the window!

As for the lying ITK twitter people, I kind of feel sorry for them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pair of spunktrumpets. Clearly doing it for attention.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845

 

Quote

A heterosexual couple who want to have a civil partnership rather than get married have lost a legal challenge.

Rebecca Steinfeld and Charles Keidan, from London, were told in 2014 that they could not have a civil partnership because they did not meet the legal requirement of being of the same sex.

They took their case to the High Court, saying they faced discrimination.

But Mrs Justice Andrews dismissed their claim for judicial review. The couple have said they intend to appeal.

One of the government's arguments was that now gay couples are able to marry, civil partnerships might be abolished or phased out in the future, and changing legislation before then would be "costly and complex".

A government spokesperson welcomed the ruling, saying the "current regime of marriage and civil partnership does not disadvantage opposite sex couples".

Family values

Ms Steinfeld, 34, and Mr Keidan, 39, said they wanted to commit to each other in a civil partnership as it "focuses on equality" and did not carry the patriarchal history and associations of marriage.

However, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 - which applies throughout the UK - requires that partners be "two people of the same sex". It grants gay couples legal rights similar to those given to married couples.

The introduction of same-sex marriage - which became legal in England, Wales and Scotland in 2014 - has since given gay couples a choice between that and civil partnership.

Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan argued that, as a heterosexual couple, they did not have the same choice as gay couples and were therefore discriminated against.

Current legislation was "incompatible" with their right to a private and family life, they said.

The government argued that civil marriage was an institution that protected the core values of family life and was entirely egalitarian, and that where the objection was ideological there was no infringement of rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â