The (Sir) Alwaysright Gordon Road Stand Thread

I think his name is 'Richard.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37315488
I was also 'disrupted' by a 'Richard' on a flight to Florida. My Richard insisted on being taken to Amsterdam first. ( he had an appointment to keep - before needing to fly to the USA - and had made 2 flight bookings on that day !! ). My family, and other passengers, were on board the plane, for 2 hours before Richard was removed, and we were cleared for take off............ and all that after enduring a nightmare crawl of a journey to Gatwick - because both sections of the M25 had closed following a pile up that ended up on the opposite carriageway.

 

Talking of idiots - this one's going to take some beating

I've just been listening to Radio Kent - and all I want to do is punch the damned idiot who has just telephoned the station.

Today's topic is the charges at the Dartford Crossing. The idiot called to say that he's just received a penalty notice for not paying the charge for using the crossing.
What was his excuse - go on - have a guess - do you need a clue ?

The pillock didn't know that a charge was relevant....... OK, so you're going to tell me to have a little sympathy - because the reason could be genuine. OK - let's just accept that he didn't know... ouch - I just got hit by a low flying pig !

- but what is his excuse for saying that he didn't see the signs - and that they are not clear - in either direction ! - Who is this idiot ? Mr.Magoo ? Does he have a white steering wheel - perhaps he should have blamed his guide dog for not alerting him to the signs.

Alright - I'm extracting the urine - but the serious implication is that, if this moron cannot see the signs - that we all can see from the surface of the Moon, then what else is he not seeing on the road as he drives his car ?.....................................

the Dartford Crossing management team have realised he is an idiot, because

when he phoned them to complain about the charge and 'lack' of visible signs - they let him off and made him pay only the £5.00 charge ( 2 crossings - where he didn't see any signs ) - maybe not an idiot after all ! -- I must try that sometime....... " Hello - Dartcharge. I wish to plead insanity....."

 

A bit of nonsense for you - as we all eagerly await 3 o'clock
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37317057

1 . That is useful information - a bit like algebra..... has anyone seen my slide rule ?
2, Send Mrs. alwaysright to get the groceries. ( the only drawback is that the bill will be twice as it should be )
3. Yeah - and one of them recently failed to pay for using the Dartford Crossing
4. Because he tried to select a player with an English sounding name - it got spat out after everyone had a good laugh !
5. I bet my sarcasm could test that dicktator's sense of humour ( no spelling mistakes here )
6. ..... until the fat settles on the ladies hips - then they'll get suicidal - perhaps they could cheer themselves up by singing rap music
7. He only needs one of those notes - and he could buy Gills a better striker ( and probably get some change as well - Mr.Scally would insist ).
8. Lyrics are the least of my problems with (c)rap musick ( although depressed fat women make it sound quite nice )
9. They might be lonely - but - Hawaii -- who'd be in a rush to leave ?
10. Obviously not in the Vatican - it's not technically a part of Italy. ( and it wouldn't be the first thing on my 'to do' list ) -- what the hec - you know what they say "when in Rome..."

edit - Look, I don't normally expect you all to award a 'like' for the rubbish I put in here - but - I've put some effort into this one - so do the decent thing ----- or should I just satisfy myself with seeing JET surpass my exertion ? ( maybe his summer holiday destination means that he needs a holiday to get over it ! )

 

We're criminals - but our numbers will probably reduce !

If the performance of The Gills continues to be so undynamic and uninspiring as per the last couple of games, then the number of fans wishing to travel to away games is in danger of falling ------ but that might not be a bad thing - - because it would result in fewer of us becoming ( or constantly being ) criminals !!!!!
what the hell is alwaysright on about on a Sunday morning ?

Well - every time I get on the Gills coaches, Peter Lloyd gives us a H & S lecture. He always tells us that it is a criminal offence not to wear a seat belt if one is provided, and advises us that the maximum penalty is a £2000 fine.

There is seldom an occasion when more than two people ( inclusive of the driver ) are complying - and this means that the rest of us are criminals - including Mr.Lloyd as he walks down the aisle, collecting the fares.

How about passengers on buses and trains - are they criminals ? - to my knowledge there are no seat belts for these people - and yet they travel at speeds that are likely to mean injury and death if there is an accident - or even if the vehicle has to brake sharply.

I raise the subject because - on the way to the game yesterday, I saw a toddler standing on the top deck of a moving bus - with his head pressed against the font window. If the driver had to do an emergency stop, or if the bus was in a collision, the child would probably have been killed ---- so -

Why do we not routinely have public transport fitted with seat belts ?

........ ps - message for Peter Lloyd - it is not a criminal offence not to use a seat belt - you can be fined - but do not incur a criminal record

 

I laughed out loud - and I'm not even sorry !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37339981

Ever since I suggested the best (worst) idiot - more of them just keep coming out of the woodwork.
I laughed at the suggestion made by the council in question, - expecting the deceased previous occupant to confirm his death.

 

So - you want your penis chopped off ? I'd be happy to oblige !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37357959
Thanks for making the World a safer place by leaking 700,000 pieces of classified military information.
I'd let the US Army perform the 'surgery' -but I'd insist that;
1.They use a rusty, blunt and bent meat cleaver - no, actually - make that a hacksaw ( and a harpoon gun to shoot off your testicles )
2 They use absolutely no anaesthetic

 

If you 'Google' idiot, it should come up with the answer ; ' Google' !

They didn't fool me - I could still tell it was a cow ---although I would have already struggled to pick it out in a field containing only one cow - even without the blur!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37378007

 

And the idiots just keep on coming.

This woman had more money than sense - now she's obviously devoid of both !

On the radio, yesterday, a woman phoned a show to complain about the Child Support Agency ( or whatever they are now called ). She claimed that the CSA were expecting her to locate her ex husband. She came from South Africa 7 years ago - when a court ordered her ex to pay £40 a week for child maintainance.(which, allegedly has not been paid ). She makes the point that the CSA should track down her ex - and use all the data bases which would help in this quest - to which she would have no access. ( fair enough ! )

Up to this point I have reasonable sympathy for the woman - and any child(ren) that may be suffering for the unpaid money. The woman laboured this point by repeating, several times, that she was a 'struggling single parent.' and needed the £40 to pay for food etc

-- OK, fair enough - I understand - I'm not heartless - and I'm beginning to need to cry !

BUT - then she gets stupid !

After reminding the listeners, for the 4th time, that she is a 'struggling single parent', the woman goes on to say that the parents of her ex husband should be made to pay what she is owed ! WHY ? What have they done that is wrong ? She then said that her ex husband has wealthy grand parents and that they should also be made to pay ! I'm now beginning to think she only married her ex for his inheritance.

To compound the woman's stupidity - she then went on to say that it wasn't fair that her ex should be allowed to live his lavish lifestyle - whilst she is a struggling single parent. -- please let me explain. ........ HOW can she claim not to know the whereabouts of her ex husband - but yet - she knows that he has a lavish lifestyle ? He might be dead !.........................

and this is where it gets really stupid.............
The struggling single parent has been chasing her ex husband for 7 years. He has (allegedly) a debt to her of around £ 14,560. But this woman -- sorry, I meant to say struggling single parent- then claimed that in her quest to hunt down her ex husband, she has spent £ 500,000 on solicitors fees ----- NO - that's not a typing error - it's half a million pounds ! -- not bad for a (now) struggling single parent.
If she had £500,000 in the first place, she was hardly a struggling single parent. She hardly needed an extra £40 for food etc. It would take her ex husband over 24,000 years to give the woman £500,000 for her solicitors fees ( which she was also expecting from him ).

If she is now genuinely struggling for cash - the only sympathy I have is for any child(ren) - to have a stupid mother who has wasted half a million pounds in order to try to recover a £15,000 debt...................

that makes about as much sense as getting a bag of cement and expecting it to play football.

 

Well, beggar me - Nottingham city council do not like the truth ! ( now, I'm the idiot )
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-37488612

The poster does not accuse 'all' beggars - but portrays information which [sadly] is correct - and suggests that benefactors would be best donating to charities - who would be better placed to provide much more all round support for the beggars.............. and that 'often', to give a direct hand-out, the cash will not be wisely used..............

.......I had an experience of such an event a few weeks ago. A 'beggar' had persistently pestered me for some 'spare' cash. -- I happened to know that this beggar was NOT homeless. ! On the day in question I was feeling particularly generous - and gave the beggar £10. The beggar promptly thanked me ( at least showing gratitude ) - but then said something which meant that I had just been taken for a fool......... the beggar said " Thanks, now I can afford to pay for a cup of tea in the cafe - it costs £2 just for one cup." -- Well that's the last 5 cups of tea the beggar's getting out of me !

I appreciate that 'my' beggar wasn't going to use my donation to smoke, drink or do drugs - but I would have hoped that 'my' beggar might enter the Tesco store - outside of which many beggars ask for money - to buy a box of tea bags - my beggar would be able to make around 1000 cups of tea with my donation - not just 5.

So - if you'e a beggar - go to Nottingham - but don't expect that the city council are interested in sorting you out - other than being happy for you to scrounge the price of a cup of tea - and if you want to waste the donation on drink, tobacco or drugs - then go ahead - that's their message to people who need much more proper help that charities could provide - if generous fools like me weren't stupid enough to throw their money away.......... but then, I've had so much practise following The Gills

 

I take your point but not being homeless myself, where would he get the boiling water from to make the tea?

Now his options could be, go to the local bogs and risk stomach upset from hot water from a basin tap, problem being most public toilets have been closed, secondly i suppose he could P in his cup, at least it would be luke warm, or third and finally he could do like the East Europeans, buy a kettle and build himself a camp fire in the middle of the street.

 

brb - of course you'e not homeless - you're a pikey.

I did say that I knew that 'my' beggar was not homeless - so I presume that 'my' beggar would probably have a kettle ( not a luxury item )................. also my main point was that giving a beggar money is only a 'quick fix' --- and that the structure of charities are more geared to try to address the long term problems of beggars ---

now - get back in your caravan and break open another Pot Noodle

 

Fair enough but define the difference between a beggar and a homeless person please - the latter to whom you should have given your tenner

 

An interesting question !
I only used the term 'homeless' because the article mentioned that a petition was signed by people who stated that the poster vilified the homeless ! It was the complainants who made 'negative' presumptions about the intentions of the poster - which is clear to anyone of average intelligence.

nb - you may be correct about the direction of my charity - but then you're making presumptions that I don't support homeless charities !.............. can you see how making presumptions can get you grief? - I suppose it's better to just ignore the beggars - or tell them to go home !

 

I would never make presumptions, just spreading my wisdom and if you think I'm giving you a hard time, you ought to feel sorry for monacoger

 

brb -no hard time for me - but I try to cover all angles - especially when it's obvious that some people - ( not saying you - but referring to the people who signed the petition ) - open their mouths without bothering to think !
The posters give a message that most people understand - but then, as I have pointed out - there are plenty of idiots out there ...... now - let me have a little wander onto another forum

 

brb - Kevin - Gerry - who the hell are you ? - I know - Damian !
...... see I can be unkind - and my name's not even Toby

 

Well - stick it in your pipe and smoke it -- at least you won't get fined !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37518371

What a waste of time ( and tax payers money ), creating the legislation.
One year on - and the Police do not have powers to enforce the law ! And local authority wardens do not have powers to stop vehicles --- what morons are in charge of making such decisions - the MPs --- and now( post Brexit ), they want to make laws for our nation.

 

The most ridiculous part of that law is the age, you can be prosecuted for smoking in a car with a 16 year old who might be smoking quite legally.

 

Big brother is watching us...is it right CCTV is used to tail a human's every move?...wow if this had been 40 years ago there would have been public outrage, show's how quickly a government can clone a nation into its way of thinking - less than half a century. Scary to think in another 40 years we will all be micro chipped, you think i jest, but the laws today would have been just as shocking as my thoughts of the future people are allowing themselves to be led into.