Ribble launch new clothing range

Unless he acquired it in the last year and a half, wouldn't it be "why did he sign for Man U in the first place?"

Surely you mean "why is he still playing for Man U?"

No, you can't retrospectively try to edit your post, that is no longer allowed. You have to stand by what you initially post however bad your misteaks!

If Yoro has a crystal ball to see into the future, why isn't he Man Utd's best player by a mile?

Using his phone at the wheel.

His attitude is further shown by publishing a photos of himself using his the wheel knowing it is illegal. A big middle finger to the law.

How to go from clean licence to six points in under a minute One of the comments on the video is that in Belgium, phone-driving results in immediate confiscation of the car for fifteen days. I bet that works a lot better than our points system, but since we live in a car obsessed society, it ain't gonna happen here.

Yoro definitely has not learned his lesson. "...72mph in a 30mph zone, past homes and a school..." Given this sort of driving would lead to straight driving test failure, coupled with the attitude: "...he believed he was unlikely to come into “contact with any vulnerable road users”." "He was also fined £666 and ordered to pay £120 in costs, as well as a £266 victim surcharge." Given his status how long would it take him to "earn" those amounts, alongside having to pay someone else to drive him around and any increase in car insured premiums? Not long, I'm guessing. The only thing that might lead people like this to think twice is a life-long driving ban, or as I advocate: loss of taste buds and libido.

I'm always astonished when people reverse H&S principles for driving. It's been going on since the dawn of the motor vehicle age though, it's the victim's fault for walking/cycling in the wrong place at the wrong time and for not being covered in flashing lasers. I finally got on to LBC two days ago, when they were talking about hi-viz and helmets, and put my point that both are victim-blaming and that helmets didn't reduce the death rate of cyclists. It got the usual responses of "my mate's helmet shattered and it must have saved his life" and "If it saves just one life...."

Hi-vis is so effective that any SMIDSY, close pass, failure to give priority etc etc will then be presumed to be deliberate intent and charged accordingly?