jonnyhonda

It would have to be polished to a very high degree before being chrome plated anyway , so I would just get it polished , but as TCH says , it is all down to personal preference.

Not at all , take a look at post #99 where your buddy had go at me , telling me I should answer your question before I should expect an answer to my own . This was mine and Halibut's first interaction on this thread . As far as I was aware I had answered your question but In case I was mistaken , I asked him to point out the question to which he was referring. He never replied . You and he are two peas in a pod. You are not able to debate without name calling or in your case making disgusting insinuations which have to be removed. When someone asks you a question you are uncomfortable with you both just go quiet or as in this case, reply with sarcasm .I have shown you the upmost courtesy (which quite frankly you do not deserve after that insinuation you made) on this thread . It is just a shame you cannot afford me the same .

As I thought ... you hadn't read the thread , you were just blindly supporting Waj . Why would you do that ? Or is that something else you find uncomfortable to answer ?

Your refusal to answer a very simple questions does indeed make your position clear. You absolutely believe faking a hate crime to shine a light on racism and discrimination is perfectly ok no matter what the possible consequences .

That is if the O.P. has a union rep. I imagine the percentage of workers in the private sector belonging to a trade union will unfortunately be quite low.

You could try answering mine in post #103. I'm still waiting Halibut....

Ok, I will humour you. Go on, which question has he/she asked me? But humour me too and please re- read posts #75 & #94.

You haven't read this thread have you?

Your silence speaks volumes Waj.

Waj , I was courteous enough to answer your earlier post. Would you be so kind as to offer me the same courtesy and answer my question to you in post #75 please ?

No , I don't disagree with that . I said as much in a much earlier post . Wanting to shine a light on injustice , racism and inequality by faking a hate crime is a bad thing. Do you agree or disagree with that ?

Now if that is not stating Jussie Smollet should be commended then I can't help you any further , but never mind . Just tell me , do you think faking a hate crime is a vile thing to do ?

It clearly states that Jussie Smollet should be commended for faking a hate crime to shine a light on discrimination and racism (if that is what he did). That doesn't sound like a statement from someone who thinks that faking a hate crime is a vile thing to do.

post #13

In an earlier post you state you think Jussie Smollet should be commended for faking a hate crime to shine a light on discrimination and racism ? It doesn't sound to me as though you think it is a vile thing to do.

Exposing inequality and racism is indeed a commendable thing to do but , and I will repeat , faking a hate crime would have the opposite effect once found out and is also a vile thing to do . You obviously don't think so .

How can faking a hate crime possibly help the cause of trying to eliminate discrimination and racism ? It would have the opposite effect wouldn't it ?

So , according to your twisted logic , no-one accused of using racially abusive language can ever be innocent of said crime and without any proof (other than the accuser's word) , should be found guilty . I notice on another current thread you assumed it was a father who had abandoned his three children , even going so far as to say you would bet money on this , only to then be told it was actually the kid's mother who had left. Your judgement was completely wrong in this case , what makes you so sure you are not wrong in the Forestieri case ? Just for the record , I believe racial abuse is abhorrent (as is any abuse) and quite rightly should be punished, but having read the evidence , I cannot be sure which one of the two players is telling the truth , or whether Pearce misheard Foristieri ,so think the only judgement would be to acquit . Unlike you , I certainly would never advocate bringing in a guilty verdict based on 'The black person wouldn't lie , so therefore the white person must be guilty' or indeed the other way round. Sounds very much like 1930's Mississippi in reverse to me. I

Do you have proof of Fernando Forestieri using racially abusive language ?

Answering your point is not picking on you 'matey', it is called debating. Your vehicle may be one of the least polluting but it is still polluting . Which car causes the least pollution in a year - a 2017 Kia Picanto 1.0 (105g/km CO2) travelling 10,000 miles or a 2005 Honda Accord 2.4 estate (229g/km CO2) travelling 1000 miles for example ?And which one attracts the most tax ? Well the Kia Attracts £20 VED whilst the Honda costs £325. Do you think that is fair and just ?

Ok , I hold my hands up. There is no such thing as road tax , it is now called VED. You , like Willman knew exactly what I meant though and being pedantic brings nothing to a debate.

I didn't say anyone did get away without paying any tax , if you want to be pedantic and call it VED then fine , but Vehicle Excise Duty is another name for road tax and well you know it and if you are saying avoiding it and getting away without paying it are 2 different things then you are just being awkward. There are many vehicles on the road without tax and so their owners are getting away without or avoiding paying it and it costs money to find these owners and prosecute them. If the road tax was abolished and replaced with extra fuel duty , I repeat no one would be able to get away without paying it if they drove their car. Just because you have bought a car which doesn't attract road tax , why shouldn't you pay fuel duty ? Your car is still polluting the atmosphere as are all internal combustion engine powered vehicles .

I have long been an advocate of this. It would mean those using the most fuel ie those who are polluting the air most would pay the most. No one using a vehicle would be able to get away without paying ,so the cost of finding and prosecuting road tax dodgers would be zero , and the cost of administering the tax would be saved. The reason I believe it has never been introduced is because it would penalise the rich and benefit the poor - hardly a vote winner for the Tories ,New Labour or the Metropolitan Luvvies whom Labour now like to cuddle up to.

I think they were pointing out the incorrect spelling of the surname in the thread title.

From what I have seen of her on TV (admittedly not much) being in a bad mood is her default position.....