City of York Council warned not to spend Lendal Bridge fines cash

Council warned not to spend Lendal Bridge fines cash

Council warned not to spend Lendal Bridge fines cash

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

COUNCIL officials have warned City of York Council not to spend any of the £700,000 it earned from the Lendal Bridge trial until the legal wrangle over the trial is over.

The warning comes in the council’s official final evaluation of the trial, which was presented to the council’s cabinet meeting last night.

More than 48,000 fines were issued during the six month trial, the evaluation report said, netting the council more than £1 million in income.

Once the capital costs of setting up the scheme - including buying traffic cameras and warning signs - as well as management and advertising costs are removed the council is still left with around £700,000, but council officials recommended that money should not be spent until legal challenges are over and the council is certain it will not need to refund all the fine cash.

Of those fines, around 80 per cent were given to people from outside the YO postcode area, the report said, and the papers acknowledge that visitors to the city who would be unfamiliar with York’s streets were be more severely hit by the fines.

Cllr Dave Merrett, who as the then cabinet member for transport oversaw much of the Lendal Bridge trial’s evaluation, told the cabinet that the problem of congestion in York was not going to go away and needed to be addressed urgently.

“We have got to persuade one on five, or one in four, journeys that are currently made by car to be made by public transport,”he added.

The report also recommended an independently led, cross party commission be set up to tackle growing congestion problems in York in the coming years.

It says: “Traffic congestion is recognised as a significant impediment to the economic prosperity of the city. However a consensus on measure to resolve the issues are much less easy to agree.”

Cllr Merrett accused critics of the trail of suffering from “collective amnesia” saying local transport plans put forward by previous council administrations in both 2006 and 2011 had included similar plans to introduce bus priority lanes to the city centre.

But speaking at the meeting, Green councillor Andy D’Agorne urged the cabinet not to let the traffic commission “sideline” the issue of traffic congestion and the resulting air pollution.

He said evidence showed the bridge’s closure had clear benefits, but problems with its implementation had been exploited for political gain, and called on the council to follow the example of towns like Huddersfield, where free shuttle bus helps residents get around the centre without relying on their cars.

He added: “Councillors of all parties must now move on to seriously evaluate all options to cut traffic and create a pedestrian and cycle friendly city centre environment, served by frequent clean and reliable public transport.”

Conservative councillors also criticised the scheme’s implementation, saying if the trial had been carried out properly it could have been a success but instead the city was left with no tangible metrics to show what the aims had been, or measure whether they had been achieved.

The Cabinet accepted all four of evaluation report’s recommendations, included council leader Cllr James Alexander’s decision to set up a cross party congestion commission, the recommendation not to spend the £700,000 net receipts from the trial, and a move to defer a council motion prepared by Liberal Democrat councillor Ann Reid which dubbed the plan “botched” and called for an apology to be deferred back to a full council meeting in July.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:30am Wed 7 May 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Once again Mr Merrett appears regarding traffic in York giving the same old messages that he has been giving since he joined the various traffic related council committees in 2006, during the previous Liberal era, and more significantly during which time he has been the chair of the traffic congestion subcommittee since 2007, a position which I am sure could have been used to steer debate whilst he handed out his articles from Cycle Digest no doubt obtained through his “non prejudicial” honorary membership of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and a member of Cycling England. Mr Merrett talks about the Liberal Parties amnesia on traffic but who, I would ask, pushed for the measures he claims the Liberals gave us given his activity and control in this area?

Some other non Liberal members of this traffic congestion subcommittee over the same period have been Tracey Simpson-Laing (Labour) and Andy D'Agorne (Green Party) Ben Hudson (Conservative). Is this not a cross party group? So what is the point of this new cross party commission if it just leads to the same old medicine as being prescribed by Mr D’Agorne?.

What this so called new group needs to look at is what happened in the period 2002 to 2005 when York’s traffic volume decreased along with pollution. If we did not see the same bullying tactics being used then what did cause these decreases? Also the targets for this group should be to get pollution levels lower than in 2005 without unnecessarily harming the economy of York through using congestion creation measures aimed at cars.

Mr Merrett claims he cares about pollution which he has also said is killing York residents yet he himself presided over, on his various committees since 2006, massive increases in pollution, up by as much as 48% and more generally 33% with no increase in the volume of traffic or background pollution and during a period where car emission systems improved significantly. This coincided with the anti car campaign spearheaded by deliberate attempts to bully drivers out of cars by extending journey times and causing unnecessary delays and pollution through the use of traffic lights and various other measures designed specifically to dissuade car use.

Given the record of the past traffic congestion subcommittee should the people who sat on this not be sacked for their bungled attempts to create a traffic free city which have done nothing but create congestion and pollution along with harming York’s economy and the health of its residents?.
Once again Mr Merrett appears regarding traffic in York giving the same old messages that he has been giving since he joined the various traffic related council committees in 2006, during the previous Liberal era, and more significantly during which time he has been the chair of the traffic congestion subcommittee since 2007, a position which I am sure could have been used to steer debate whilst he handed out his articles from Cycle Digest no doubt obtained through his “non prejudicial” honorary membership of the Cyclists’ Touring Club and a member of Cycling England. Mr Merrett talks about the Liberal Parties amnesia on traffic but who, I would ask, pushed for the measures he claims the Liberals gave us given his activity and control in this area? Some other non Liberal members of this traffic congestion subcommittee over the same period have been Tracey Simpson-Laing (Labour) and Andy D'Agorne (Green Party) Ben Hudson (Conservative). Is this not a cross party group? So what is the point of this new cross party commission if it just leads to the same old medicine as being prescribed by Mr D’Agorne?. What this so called new group needs to look at is what happened in the period 2002 to 2005 when York’s traffic volume decreased along with pollution. If we did not see the same bullying tactics being used then what did cause these decreases? Also the targets for this group should be to get pollution levels lower than in 2005 without unnecessarily harming the economy of York through using congestion creation measures aimed at cars. Mr Merrett claims he cares about pollution which he has also said is killing York residents yet he himself presided over, on his various committees since 2006, massive increases in pollution, up by as much as 48% and more generally 33% with no increase in the volume of traffic or background pollution and during a period where car emission systems improved significantly. This coincided with the anti car campaign spearheaded by deliberate attempts to bully drivers out of cars by extending journey times and causing unnecessary delays and pollution through the use of traffic lights and various other measures designed specifically to dissuade car use. Given the record of the past traffic congestion subcommittee should the people who sat on this not be sacked for their bungled attempts to create a traffic free city which have done nothing but create congestion and pollution along with harming York’s economy and the health of its residents?. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -14

11:54am Wed 7 May 14

Kevin Turvey says...

‘Cllr Merrett accused critics of the trail of suffering from “collective amnesia”’


First this was meant to be a trial not a ‘trail’ big difference York Press.

Secondly this trial would require objective and independently verifiable data and surveys undertaken by recognised scientific means before and after the trial – This had neither!

Merely the attempted end result was the bridge planned to be shut and the data to be fudged in a vain attempt at supporting the closure.



‘But speaking at the meeting, Green councillor Andy D’Agorne urged the cabinet not to let the traffic commission “sideline” the issue of traffic congestion and the resulting air pollution.
He said evidence showed the bridge’s closure had clear benefits, but problems with its implementation had been exploited for political gain, and called on the council to follow the example of towns like Huddersfield, where free shuttle bus helps residents get around the centre without relying on their cars. ‘

Is york council thinking of running free shuttle buses?
If so, has this been robustly planned from a financial, logistics, infrastructure and congestion point of view?
Is there robust data supporting this initiative? Or is it the vision of the deluded?
How would running buses that pollute the air mitigate individuals using other forms of transport from polluting the air?
Surely exchanging one for the other leaving people with less choice but the result is largely the same sounds insane to me, but I am sure it makes the contract award winning bus company even more powerful in the lobbying department!
So who is actually driving this in the background?
I predicate another costly disaster for the residents of York, hopefully taking down another local politicians career at the same time.



‘Conservative councillors also criticised the scheme’s implementation, saying if the trial had been carried out properly it could have been a success but instead the city was left with no tangible metrics to show what the aims had been, or measure whether they had been achieved.’

It’s largely irrelevant which political party criticized or supported the scheme as it was hair brained and lacked any integrity whichever political party/fool dreamed it up.
This issue among many others is way above petty mainstream politics and hence why it will never be solved in a sensible manner as there is far too much expensive for the council taxpayer petty political scoring to be gained without actually resolving the issue!

Never mind the gravy train rolls on at our expense whilst resolving nothing….. again.

And you wonder why mainstream politics is of no interest to many?

PS:
By the way why is Merret, Alexander and Simply Wrong still in any form of public office?
‘Cllr Merrett accused critics of the trail of suffering from “collective amnesia”’ First this was meant to be a trial not a ‘trail’ big difference York Press. Secondly this trial would require objective and independently verifiable data and surveys undertaken by recognised scientific means before and after the trial – This had neither! Merely the attempted end result was the bridge planned to be shut and the data to be fudged in a vain attempt at supporting the closure. ‘But speaking at the meeting, Green councillor Andy D’Agorne urged the cabinet not to let the traffic commission “sideline” the issue of traffic congestion and the resulting air pollution. He said evidence showed the bridge’s closure had clear benefits, but problems with its implementation had been exploited for political gain, and called on the council to follow the example of towns like Huddersfield, where free shuttle bus helps residents get around the centre without relying on their cars. ‘ Is york council thinking of running free shuttle buses? If so, has this been robustly planned from a financial, logistics, infrastructure and congestion point of view? Is there robust data supporting this initiative? Or is it the vision of the deluded? How would running buses that pollute the air mitigate individuals using other forms of transport from polluting the air? Surely exchanging one for the other leaving people with less choice but the result is largely the same sounds insane to me, but I am sure it makes the contract award winning bus company even more powerful in the lobbying department! So who is actually driving this in the background? I predicate another costly disaster for the residents of York, hopefully taking down another local politicians career at the same time. ‘Conservative councillors also criticised the scheme’s implementation, saying if the trial had been carried out properly it could have been a success but instead the city was left with no tangible metrics to show what the aims had been, or measure whether they had been achieved.’ It’s largely irrelevant which political party criticized or supported the scheme as it was hair brained and lacked any integrity whichever political party/fool dreamed it up. This issue among many others is way above petty mainstream politics and hence why it will never be solved in a sensible manner as there is far too much expensive for the council taxpayer petty political scoring to be gained without actually resolving the issue! Never mind the gravy train rolls on at our expense whilst resolving nothing….. again. And you wonder why mainstream politics is of no interest to many? PS: By the way why is Merret, Alexander and Simply Wrong still in any form of public office? Kevin Turvey
  • Score: -17

12:04pm Wed 7 May 14

Oaklands Resident says...

No point in having another "congestion committee" until after the next local elections.

Traffic congestion hasn't got "worse" in the City over the last 10 years for all sorts of reasons. More people are using alternative transport modes at busy times, better use is being made of available road space, some junctions have been increased in capacity, park and ride users are increasing etc.

There is heavy congestion from time to time, but that is usually caused by accidents, roads works, weather or special events. The Council haven't helped by letting their VMS early warning signs fall into a state of disrepair. Ditto some of the web based information streams need improvement.

But Labour's plan to dramatically expand the size of the City casts a shadow over the future.

Development should be restricted to sustainable levels.

If a "commission" can't make that its first recommendation then it is doomed to fail.
No point in having another "congestion committee" until after the next local elections. Traffic congestion hasn't got "worse" in the City over the last 10 years for all sorts of reasons. More people are using alternative transport modes at busy times, better use is being made of available road space, some junctions have been increased in capacity, park and ride users are increasing etc. There is heavy congestion from time to time, but that is usually caused by accidents, roads works, weather or special events. The Council haven't helped by letting their VMS early warning signs fall into a state of disrepair. Ditto some of the web based information streams need improvement. But Labour's plan to dramatically expand the size of the City casts a shadow over the future. Development should be restricted to sustainable levels. If a "commission" can't make that its first recommendation then it is doomed to fail. Oaklands Resident
  • Score: -27

12:12pm Wed 7 May 14

holden79 says...

Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.
Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master. holden79
  • Score: -27

12:58pm Wed 7 May 14

meme says...

why not ask the public for their views on congestion and ideas for resolving it
and then, CoYC, actually look at ideas put forward by the public and not assume you know better than all of us and just implement your own schemes.
I suspect you may be surprised by some of the ideas which can be trialled to see if they work
why not ask the public for their views on congestion and ideas for resolving it and then, CoYC, actually look at ideas put forward by the public and not assume you know better than all of us and just implement your own schemes. I suspect you may be surprised by some of the ideas which can be trialled to see if they work meme
  • Score: -12

1:51pm Wed 7 May 14

YorkPatrol says...

holden79 wrote:
Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.
They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B

I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.[/p][/quote]They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****? YorkPatrol
  • Score: -15

1:57pm Wed 7 May 14

purelobo says...

has anyone noticed the recent spate of traffic light failures in york.never a week goes by without several malfunctions.a cynic could be excused for thinking that they could be used to further disrupt traffic flow at certain points at certain times or have merrett and co just made me paranoid.
has anyone noticed the recent spate of traffic light failures in york.never a week goes by without several malfunctions.a cynic could be excused for thinking that they could be used to further disrupt traffic flow at certain points at certain times or have merrett and co just made me paranoid. purelobo
  • Score: -13

2:54pm Wed 7 May 14

Alf Garnett says...

Oh dear, another slow news day in York, European Capital of Misery.
Oh dear, another slow news day in York, European Capital of Misery. Alf Garnett
  • Score: 29

3:22pm Wed 7 May 14

Mr. Marcus says...

Mr. Merrett: you and your officers suffer from creative writing syndrome.
Saying that Lendal Bridge causes air pollution is simply lies. Any physics student that air. especially air over the river Ouse, dispels pollution.
Air pollution my right foot.
If Merrett and his officers are truthful, they know that York is a medieval city in parts, and traffic congestion is a way of life.
If York City Council is serious about air pollution and congestion, build a new inner road system, not the rehashed one they have inherited. Also dual the outer ring road, starting right now.
Of course they won't.
Why are they afraid of introducing a congestion charge, like London? Charge the taxis and busses, as well as cars and vans to use the central business district of York!
Mr. Merrett: you and your officers suffer from creative writing syndrome. Saying that Lendal Bridge causes air pollution is simply lies. Any physics student that air. especially air over the river Ouse, dispels pollution. Air pollution my right foot. If Merrett and his officers are truthful, they know that York is a medieval city in parts, and traffic congestion is a way of life. If York City Council is serious about air pollution and congestion, build a new inner road system, not the rehashed one they have inherited. Also dual the outer ring road, starting right now. Of course they won't. Why are they afraid of introducing a congestion charge, like London? Charge the taxis and busses, as well as cars and vans to use the central business district of York! Mr. Marcus
  • Score: -25

4:30pm Wed 7 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

i had to sit through the pain of the new lights at the p&r the other night... turned off the A64 and as its down to one lane for no reason at all the traffic was in danger of heading back onto the a64 (which kills people!)... i had time to look and assess the situation... after all i was waiting for about 20mins.... i was thinking why are they stopping cars at these lights yet ahead of this there is no traffic... it then dawned on me... The traffic light sequencing was too short to let cars from either side move forward. By extending both sequences this would have allowed the traffic to flow to the next set (set 2 of 4)... i then noticed that the lights are actually set to working for the cars turning in and out of the p&r... yet more traffic... Strange as they don’t have a completion date of this mess... being of a construction background it doesn’t look close to finishing either...

Who ever plans these traffic layouts if it be the council or halcrow themselves needs shooting. I also suspect that as the traffic builds up this new p&r wont get used half as much as the old one. You've now driving out of the way to get to it past yet more lights. I mean how is getting a traffic jam off a high speed motorway better then a slow moving one into the centre? The whole junction just needed and underpass (for traffic coming from the centre outbound....as yes they now have to drive out of the centre to go back in) and a turn off (for those coming off both A64 exits)... not a load of lights... allowing every flow that isn’t needed...... FAILURE YET AGAIN! WAIT FOR THE TRAFFIC AND LACK OF USE!
i had to sit through the pain of the new lights at the p&r the other night... turned off the A64 and as its down to one lane for no reason at all the traffic was in danger of heading back onto the a64 (which kills people!)... i had time to look and assess the situation... after all i was waiting for about 20mins.... i was thinking why are they stopping cars at these lights yet ahead of this there is no traffic... it then dawned on me... The traffic light sequencing was too short to let cars from either side move forward. By extending both sequences this would have allowed the traffic to flow to the next set (set 2 of 4)... i then noticed that the lights are actually set to working for the cars turning in and out of the p&r... yet more traffic... Strange as they don’t have a completion date of this mess... being of a construction background it doesn’t look close to finishing either... Who ever plans these traffic layouts if it be the council or halcrow themselves needs shooting. I also suspect that as the traffic builds up this new p&r wont get used half as much as the old one. You've now driving out of the way to get to it past yet more lights. I mean how is getting a traffic jam off a high speed motorway better then a slow moving one into the centre? The whole junction just needed and underpass (for traffic coming from the centre outbound....as yes they now have to drive out of the centre to go back in) and a turn off (for those coming off both A64 exits)... not a load of lights... allowing every flow that isn’t needed...... FAILURE YET AGAIN! WAIT FOR THE TRAFFIC AND LACK OF USE! Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -13

5:50pm Wed 7 May 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Mr. Marcus wrote:
Mr. Merrett: you and your officers suffer from creative writing syndrome.
Saying that Lendal Bridge causes air pollution is simply lies. Any physics student that air. especially air over the river Ouse, dispels pollution.
Air pollution my right foot.
If Merrett and his officers are truthful, they know that York is a medieval city in parts, and traffic congestion is a way of life.
If York City Council is serious about air pollution and congestion, build a new inner road system, not the rehashed one they have inherited. Also dual the outer ring road, starting right now.
Of course they won't.
Why are they afraid of introducing a congestion charge, like London? Charge the taxis and busses, as well as cars and vans to use the central business district of York!
You were going so well until the last paragraph. Congestion charge - no thanks.
[quote][p][bold]Mr. Marcus[/bold] wrote: Mr. Merrett: you and your officers suffer from creative writing syndrome. Saying that Lendal Bridge causes air pollution is simply lies. Any physics student that air. especially air over the river Ouse, dispels pollution. Air pollution my right foot. If Merrett and his officers are truthful, they know that York is a medieval city in parts, and traffic congestion is a way of life. If York City Council is serious about air pollution and congestion, build a new inner road system, not the rehashed one they have inherited. Also dual the outer ring road, starting right now. Of course they won't. Why are they afraid of introducing a congestion charge, like London? Charge the taxis and busses, as well as cars and vans to use the central business district of York![/p][/quote]You were going so well until the last paragraph. Congestion charge - no thanks. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -26

6:16pm Wed 7 May 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
i had to sit through the pain of the new lights at the p&r the other night... turned off the A64 and as its down to one lane for no reason at all the traffic was in danger of heading back onto the a64 (which kills people!)... i had time to look and assess the situation... after all i was waiting for about 20mins.... i was thinking why are they stopping cars at these lights yet ahead of this there is no traffic... it then dawned on me... The traffic light sequencing was too short to let cars from either side move forward. By extending both sequences this would have allowed the traffic to flow to the next set (set 2 of 4)... i then noticed that the lights are actually set to working for the cars turning in and out of the p&r... yet more traffic... Strange as they don’t have a completion date of this mess... being of a construction background it doesn’t look close to finishing either...

Who ever plans these traffic layouts if it be the council or halcrow themselves needs shooting. I also suspect that as the traffic builds up this new p&r wont get used half as much as the old one. You've now driving out of the way to get to it past yet more lights. I mean how is getting a traffic jam off a high speed motorway better then a slow moving one into the centre? The whole junction just needed and underpass (for traffic coming from the centre outbound....as yes they now have to drive out of the centre to go back in) and a turn off (for those coming off both A64 exits)... not a load of lights... allowing every flow that isn’t needed...... FAILURE YET AGAIN! WAIT FOR THE TRAFFIC AND LACK OF USE!
Merretts favourite weapon - the short set lights. These cause more congestion than any other method employed by the anti car fanatics at the council.
The length of time the construction takes is all part of the conditioning process causing congestion for months in the hope that motorists will start to think they can't wait for the P&R to open and use it. A couple of kids with spoons could have completed the work on the A59 roundabout quicker than it is progressing.
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: i had to sit through the pain of the new lights at the p&r the other night... turned off the A64 and as its down to one lane for no reason at all the traffic was in danger of heading back onto the a64 (which kills people!)... i had time to look and assess the situation... after all i was waiting for about 20mins.... i was thinking why are they stopping cars at these lights yet ahead of this there is no traffic... it then dawned on me... The traffic light sequencing was too short to let cars from either side move forward. By extending both sequences this would have allowed the traffic to flow to the next set (set 2 of 4)... i then noticed that the lights are actually set to working for the cars turning in and out of the p&r... yet more traffic... Strange as they don’t have a completion date of this mess... being of a construction background it doesn’t look close to finishing either... Who ever plans these traffic layouts if it be the council or halcrow themselves needs shooting. I also suspect that as the traffic builds up this new p&r wont get used half as much as the old one. You've now driving out of the way to get to it past yet more lights. I mean how is getting a traffic jam off a high speed motorway better then a slow moving one into the centre? The whole junction just needed and underpass (for traffic coming from the centre outbound....as yes they now have to drive out of the centre to go back in) and a turn off (for those coming off both A64 exits)... not a load of lights... allowing every flow that isn’t needed...... FAILURE YET AGAIN! WAIT FOR THE TRAFFIC AND LACK OF USE![/p][/quote]Merretts favourite weapon - the short set lights. These cause more congestion than any other method employed by the anti car fanatics at the council. The length of time the construction takes is all part of the conditioning process causing congestion for months in the hope that motorists will start to think they can't wait for the P&R to open and use it. A couple of kids with spoons could have completed the work on the A59 roundabout quicker than it is progressing. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -33

8:15pm Wed 7 May 14

piaggio1 says...

Who are tbese officer's? Whats their name .how much do WE pah them.
And yes mr d.argone levels went down on the bridge (pollution). , but they rocketed down leemo..........but you dont live there do you.so f*** em.
Who are tbese officer's? Whats their name .how much do WE pah them. And yes mr d.argone levels went down on the bridge (pollution). , but they rocketed down leemo..........but you dont live there do you.so f*** em. piaggio1
  • Score: -40

9:08pm Wed 7 May 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Wondered when the score adjuster would get to work. All of the posts at the top have been steadily rising all day now suddenly they are negative.
Wonder if Anne or Dave can shed any light on this as they seem to have an arrangement for organising mass letters to mislead people.
Wondered when the score adjuster would get to work. All of the posts at the top have been steadily rising all day now suddenly they are negative. Wonder if Anne or Dave can shed any light on this as they seem to have an arrangement for organising mass letters to mislead people. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -27

9:50pm Wed 7 May 14

Silver says...

LOL Council warned not to spend cash, doesn't sound like this LA gets to keep it
LOL Council warned not to spend cash, doesn't sound like this LA gets to keep it Silver
  • Score: -19

10:40pm Wed 7 May 14

holden79 says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
holden79 wrote:
Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.
They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B

I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?
Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes?

Who is the "goon" now?

Talk about 'owned'...
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.[/p][/quote]They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?[/p][/quote]Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes? Who is the "goon" now? Talk about 'owned'... holden79
  • Score: 107

9:43am Thu 8 May 14

YorkPatrol says...

holden79 wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
holden79 wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.
They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?
Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes? Who is the "goon" now? Talk about 'owned'...
I'm afraid you are the "owned" one sir in not knowing about the score rigging on this site

So....A goon who copies others people's pathetic statements and one who has had thier head in the clouds for 6 months

Please don’t insult yourself further by furnishing me with a response
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.[/p][/quote]They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?[/p][/quote]Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes? Who is the "goon" now? Talk about 'owned'...[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you are the "owned" one sir in not knowing about the score rigging on this site So....A goon who copies others people's pathetic statements and one who has had thier head in the clouds for 6 months Please don’t insult yourself further by furnishing me with a response YorkPatrol
  • Score: -26

12:12pm Thu 8 May 14

holden79 says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
holden79 wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.
They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?
Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes? Who is the "goon" now? Talk about 'owned'...
I'm afraid you are the "owned" one sir in not knowing about the score rigging on this site

So....A goon who copies others people's pathetic statements and one who has had thier head in the clouds for 6 months

Please don’t insult yourself further by furnishing me with a response
One minute you're call me a 'goon' and the next minute you're calling me 'sir'.

I wish you'd make your right wing mind up.
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.[/p][/quote]They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?[/p][/quote]Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes? Who is the "goon" now? Talk about 'owned'...[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you are the "owned" one sir in not knowing about the score rigging on this site So....A goon who copies others people's pathetic statements and one who has had thier head in the clouds for 6 months Please don’t insult yourself further by furnishing me with a response[/p][/quote]One minute you're call me a 'goon' and the next minute you're calling me 'sir'. I wish you'd make your right wing mind up. holden79
  • Score: 52

1:46pm Thu 8 May 14

YorkPatrol says...

holden79 wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
holden79 wrote:
YorkPatrol wrote:
holden79 wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.
They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?
Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes? Who is the "goon" now? Talk about 'owned'...
I'm afraid you are the "owned" one sir in not knowing about the score rigging on this site So....A goon who copies others people's pathetic statements and one who has had thier head in the clouds for 6 months Please don’t insult yourself further by furnishing me with a response
One minute you're call me a 'goon' and the next minute you're calling me 'sir'. I wish you'd make your right wing mind up.
ok, Sir Goon
[quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holden79[/bold] wrote: Cars are a good servant but can also be a bad master.[/p][/quote]They are neither a servant nor a master you goon - They are simply a vehicle for getting from A to B I am presuming you are on a wind up mimicking a ****?[/p][/quote]Well if I'm a "goon" how come my comment has many positive votes whilst your response to my comment has many negative votes? Who is the "goon" now? Talk about 'owned'...[/p][/quote]I'm afraid you are the "owned" one sir in not knowing about the score rigging on this site So....A goon who copies others people's pathetic statements and one who has had thier head in the clouds for 6 months Please don’t insult yourself further by furnishing me with a response[/p][/quote]One minute you're call me a 'goon' and the next minute you're calling me 'sir'. I wish you'd make your right wing mind up.[/p][/quote]ok, Sir Goon YorkPatrol
  • Score: -42

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree