Roy
That's no way to talk about Peter Harry.
Commiserations re. your sad loss. expat, you clearly don't want to debate -fair does, that's your prerogative. However, those of us that do want to continue to present an alternative view to the spin, lies and libel that Viaduct, User4549 and other members of the Peter Harry fan club are forever spouting, will continue to use the Dawlish LIVE! forums.
What would you like to have a debate about then expat? I've just had a quick look down the list of threads and can't see a single one started by yourself (apart from this one, of course!). So fire away, me owd china. :)
I aint sayin nuffink.
Thank you - apology accepted. Happy? Very, thank you.
Tut-tut User4549. You get caught out time and time again. Let me provide you with a quote from the fourth estate: Mr Harry was summoned to appear before magistrates in Newton Abbot but was fined £400 in his absence when he arrived a day late for the hearing. He appealed against the fine and the case was sent to Exeter Crown Court, but the prosecution was dropped by the DVLA before the case was ...
Why do the likes of you find it so hard to admit that you were wrong?? 7% = 2007 reduction. 14% = 2008 reduction. Come on donut, for once, admit you were wrong. When you do your "investigations" in future, I suggest that you look beyond the first page of Google... Gotcha!
You still haven't apologised to dawlishdame yet have you? Is saying "sorry" to ladies beneath you?
Nice one Don. :-) But aren't we the same person, according to some of the loons??
User 4549 wrote: Even the Judge agreed, unless of course you and Roy are better qualified than him, which I doubt. Yet more incorrect information! He didn't face a judge. Peter Harry failed to turn up at the original hearing and was duly fined £400 in his absence. The loon turned up a day late - says it all really! Then when he appealed, the DVLA dropped the prosecution before it could go to ...
