Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
giff77 wrote:
We have no idea what the circumstances are, so that’s just a meaningless statement. For all we know, the kid just cycled straight off the pavment without lookingThis young fella should NEVER have been knocked down.
Neither of them expressd an opinion, they made an assertion. Also you did not mention them in your post.
You seem rather confused.So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ?When you say opinion, you mean speculation. You know, given we don’t even know the circumstances.
Nope, no confusion from me – the Cambridge English dictionary on the word opinion is
“We use opinion as a noun to mean beliefs or judgements about someone or something. When it refers to the beliefs or judgements of individuals”
There you go, it is the opinion of the Police officer and the mam or the opinion of many on here.
However you are right as well, from the same dictionary Speculation:
“the act of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain”.
In the end they are both very similar, hope that clears it up for you.
You also said “So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ? “
That is speculation as we don’t even know the circumstances, and especially if you couch it in terms of “might ot might not”.
You seem rather confused.So then are people not allowed to give their opinion on what might or might not have been the outcome if the laddie had been wearing a helmet ?When you say opinion, you mean speculation. You know, given we don’t even know the circumstances.
“Us as parents can prevent
“Us as parents can prevent this from happening, all it takes is a cycle helmet, and make it compulsory for us and especially our children for their own safety. Act now before it’s too late.”As simple as that.
In her spare time PC Stanton specialises in string theory, anglo saxon history and fluid mechanics.
Si ¡
Si ¡
barbarus wrote:
You also need to check the rack limit.120kg according to Mavic. But it’s the distribution that bothers me. I don’t have a suitable fork for front panniers so can’t spread the load.Compulsory air horn !
Compulsory air horn !Something like thishttps:/
Something like this
You can’t tell too much from the picture, but the Eazy mount is highly adaptable
The small bracket on the left can rotate slightly to vary the angle, then the bit it clips into can rotate around the seat tube and also when in position, it can rotate like a clock face ie if the initial position is 3 o’clock, you can make it 2 o’clock or 4 o’clock.From my minority
From my minority conversations: helmet hair, lack of showers, general affect on appearance, too dark, adverse weather
Lack of good routes would be in another set of reasons.
I wouldn’t consider using a
I wouldn’t consider using a browser without an ad blocker. The number of ad related malware incidents even from legit sites is too high to risk your phone or pc being compromised.
Serious leg and arm injuries
Serious leg and arm injuries but could have been worse.
Maybe he should have been wearing body armour or an inflatable cocoon.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
But that model works … they haven’t stopped the return being made. The issue is that the customer feels that having part-paid using a voucher, the voucher should have been applied against the goods that they kept rather than being returned as part of the refund.
As far as I can see, the only issue is that the OP believes he has been hard done by because he has spent £85 in cash where he believes he should have spent £35 in cash and £50 from the voucher which would leave him more cash to spend in the store of his choice rather than being forced to spend that additional £50 with Wiggle.
My only question would be … what, if anything, do the T&Cs of the voucher itself say about a situation where the voucher is used as part payment for an order which ends up being part-refunded?
There seem 2 different strands here, one whether it is ok to order 3 sizes and see which fits and two how the voucher should be handled. When I say model I mean the idea that you order more that one item and return one that does not fit.
As to the voucher, I not convinced that just because the outcome is as it is, that this is what should have happened. I’ve used enough systems to know that things don’t always work correctly or work only if you do things in a certain order.
Last interaction with Wiggle was to send a light back that had developed a fault. I had one bloke in one dept telling my to print off a label and send it back to him, so he could get the manufacturer to look at it. Then I get “refunds department” telling me my refund will be issued tomorrow. Then I get the refund on the card and the next day the first bloke telling me they don’t have that light in stock and he will put a credit on my account so I can get another light sent to me! I don’t think that was was Wiggle intended!Not sure why there is an
Not sure why there is an assumption that the system worked in the way intended…
Wiggle are an online retailer, if they can’t recognise in their model that people might need to order more than one item to get a fit, then the model needs revising.
Caution about what? Did the
Caution about what? Did the path have the type of barriers as per http://road.cc/content/news/241261-safety-fears-raised-over-cycle-path-viaduct-bristol ?
Did she have a phone in her back pocket ?
Someone is dead but “No one
Someone is dead but “No one is in trouble”.
OK…
