speed camera van in SHUT LAYBY

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

In my area I've seen a uniformed police officer in the van.

Are you one of those fists that got close enough to see he was a rear dibble or is that another guess?

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

As in the van is parked in a coned off layby. You're still making assumptions.

But so what? Probably over 90% of the posts on this forum require an assumption to be made. As I said, it's a fair bet.


I've also seen DVLA spy vans parked in coned-off lay-bys. A bit of a problem if you urgently need to stop, but you can't due to presence of parasites in a coned-off area.

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

But so what? Probably over 90% of the posts on this forum require an assumption to be made. As I said, it's a fair bet.


I've also seen DVLA spy vans parked in coned-off lay-bys. A bit of a problem if you urgently need to stop, but you can't due to presence of parasites in a coned-off area.

Even if they weren't there you couldn't stop.

I wonder what you've got previous for.

Aylesbury_Duck

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Probably over 90% of the posts on this forum require an assumption to be made.

Just gone up a bit from whatever it was.

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

Are you one of those fists that got close enough to see he was a rear dibble or is that another guess?

Did you have Autocorrect or something running when you typed this?

AdrianC

a.turner wrote: »

Are you one of those fists that got close enough to see he was a rear dibble or is that another guess?

He was probably parked behind it with his bonnet open.

a.turner

AdrianC wrote: »

He was probably parked behind it with his bonnet open.

I doubt he has the bottle.

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Did you have Autocorrect or something running when you typed this?

Yeah it does that, I still think you're a winker.

[Deleted User]

a.turner wrote: »

Yeah it does that, I still think you're a winker.

Try looking up ad hominem in the dictionary. If you can't put forward a case without resorting to personal attacks, then what you say is absolutely worthless.


Second thoughts, I'll save you the time; Here's definition:


Ad hominem is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.

a.turner

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Try looking up ad hominem in the dictionary. If you can't put forward a case without resorting to personal attacks, then what you say is absolutely worthless.


Second thoughts, I'll save you the time; Here's definition:


Ad hominem is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument.

One flaw with that is you haven't said anything to have a genuine discussion about. I bet you're at a real loss without Kyle.