icowden
Pharaoh
Ah - so she can't even see what car she drives, as she repeatedly describes it as a Fiat 500.There's an SUV version, the 500X, which seems to be what this lady owns.
Ah - so she can't even see what car she drives, as she repeatedly describes it as a Fiat 500.There's an SUV version, the 500X, which seems to be what this lady owns.
Yup. Two speeding fines, one fine for £160 for driving down a road because she failed to read the signage that stated that cars were not permitted (presumably outside of certain times). She also failed to read the signs that the resident parking bay was suspended for a neighbours building delivery.
Apparently the only way you find out if you have been speeding (at 34mph in a 30 zone) is with the delivery of a fine from the Police making you feel like a criminal, almost as if speeding is a statutory criminal offence under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
In a desperate cry for help, Miranda's friend Jemma wails that having moved to Brighton she's got three speeding fines and two bus lane tickets in 6 months.
Some numpty called Brian (described as a retired chemical industry executive living between Darlington and Stockton - it completely slips Miranda's mind that Brian is the Direct of the "Alliance of British Drivers" a right wing Brexit supporting agit-prop group) bemoans that the tax payer had to shell out £800k for the new Bath 20mph zone and that the Council had the gall to bolster their budgets with the proceeds (which seems to indicate that the zone was very cost effective and cost the tax payer nothing at all)
Fiona got fined for driving down a bus lane, and for driving into the green zone in a polluting car.
Amazingly Miranda does actually make a good point, which is the sheer expense of getting the train to/from Manchester.
Then we get a rant about the lack of parking spaces, charges for Hospital parking.
Finally Miranda lists an agit-prop rant from Brian again about the "War on Drivers", telling us we should back Reform as they have pledged to get rid of LTNs (even though they can't do it easily as it would take legislation).
So, what have we learned?
We have learned that Miranda , Jemma and Fiona shouldn't be driving because they can't read farking road signs.
As a footnote, the article starts with a picture:
View attachment 13861
Miranda Levy is forced to question whether to keep her Fiat 500 in London Credit: Rii Schroer
Now, I'm no car expert, but my daughter has a Fiat 500 and that does not appear to be a Fiat 500.
Damn! Things have changed.
Also, I remember when a Mini was mini sized as I had one.
View attachment 13863
Damn! Things have changed.
Also, I remember when a Mini was mini sized as I had one.
View attachment 13863
I'm guessing that this is the Telegraph. I wonder if she'd considered not doing all the stuff that she was fined for. Just a thought. Though not having a car in London wouldn't be a bad move, as (assuming that's where she is) she's got the best public transport system in the country on her doorstep.
View attachment 13859
Haha, when in Rome... measure a Fiat 500... (I still use the shorts regularly)
View attachment 13872
But not sunscreen.
The rest of the Glasgow building is going to be demolished, as bits are still falling off.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn71n7krrk4o
The remaining section of a historic Glasgow building wrecked by a fire is to be demolished.
Glasgow City Council said the decision was made for safety reasons as parts of the Union Corner building, next to Glasgow Central Station, have continued to fall off.
The fire started in a vape shop on Sunday afternoon and spread through the B-listed Victorian building. There were no casualties in the blaze.
Firefighters are still on site to continue to cool any remaining hot spots, with the station to remain closed for the rest of the week.
It gets worse. Although this may just be speculation and rumour.
The new owners had only moved in 2 weeks ago. They were not licensed, and therefore will not be insured. They cannot be traced.
The insurance issue is mute.
The vap shop owners would be tenants and only insure their fittings and stock in the shop.
The freeholder insures their building.
And there is no right of recourse for a landlord against a tenant anyway.
Fair enough.
But no recourse what so ever? That doesn't seem right. 🤔