kitwe

Members
  • Content count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About kitwe

  • Rank
    MF Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Reduced to £80 Has variable speed settings and incline settings and programmes with emergency auto cutoff. rd.jones9@btinternet.com
  2. £30 rd.jones9@btinternet.com 01624 880 568
  3. Wooden extending dining room table with four chairs. Table is 1.22M diameter and extends to 1.22M X 1.73M with centre piece. £40 including four chairs. rd.jones9@btinternet.com 01624 880 568
  4. This has to go! All reasonable offers considered.
  5. As requested some pics attached
  6. Kettler Tempest 200 Treadmill. This has about 7 preset modes and also speed and incline can be set manually. I don't have the manual but could probably be found online. This is large and heavy and will require man power and a van to collect. £150 ONO rd.jones9@btinternet.com 01624 880 568
  7. I have had to do this very recently as executor of my mother's estate. NS&I were accepting of the IOM Grant of probate but the uk share registrars wanted UK probate so had to go through the palava of filling in all the IHT forms and getting confirmation from HMRC that no inheritance tax was due. You will need a court sealed IOM grant of probate to get the UK probate as the deceased's will will have already been lodged with the IOM registrars, when I obtained IOM probate is wasn't courted sealed as a matter of course but when I explained the situation to them they very kindly sent me a court sealed grant. I would check with the share registrars/brokers whether they will be accepting of the IOM probate to save you a lot of hassle.
  8. The Isle of Man is on the OECD white list - i.e it not considered a tax haven by the OECD.
  9. I can't think of any other than on the mountain. There are places you could safely accelerate to 80+ but you'd then have to immediately decelerate back to something sane. Ballamodha for example, too many junctions. Or St Johns to Peel where you could spend a few seconds at 90, twice, but no more than that. I can safely drive at 90mph on the M6 for 20 minutes at a time. Against the law of course. Completely true. Unfortunately this is an opinion without knowing the full facts as you are insinuating that the biker could not stop in the distance he could see ahead of him . One of the expert witnesses in the trial stated the biker could have stopped safely, if he was indeed travelling at 100 mph, in 200 m - his view down that stretch was in excess of 600 m. I was basing that comment off the reports in the paper that said the biker did not have sufficient space to stop. If those are inaccurate I apologise. Because the driver pulled out in front of him at less than 200 m! The impression I got from the (admittedly sparse!) reports was that the bike was not round the corner when the maneuver started? If that's not the case then the fault entirely lies with the driver. Though the comment about being able to stop in the distance you can see still stands, even if it's not applicable in this case. That is probably why the jury of 5 women and 2 men found the driver guilty of death by careless driving then at the end of a seven day trial.
  10. I can't think of any other than on the mountain. There are places you could safely accelerate to 80+ but you'd then have to immediately decelerate back to something sane. Ballamodha for example, too many junctions. Or St Johns to Peel where you could spend a few seconds at 90, twice, but no more than that. I can safely drive at 90mph on the M6 for 20 minutes at a time. Against the law of course. Completely true. Unfortunately this is an opinion without knowing the full facts as you are insinuating that the biker could not stop in the distance he could see ahead of him . One of the expert witnesses in the trial stated the biker could have stopped safely, if he was indeed travelling at 100 mph, in 200 m - his view down that stretch was in excess of 600 m. I was basing that comment off the reports in the paper that said the biker did not have sufficient space to stop. If those are inaccurate I apologise. Because the driver pulled out in front of him at less than 200 m! - The tyre marks left by the bike after his brakes locked to point of collision was just over 60 m.
  11. I can't think of any other than on the mountain. There are places you could safely accelerate to 80+ but you'd then have to immediately decelerate back to something sane. Ballamodha for example, too many junctions. Or St Johns to Peel where you could spend a few seconds at 90, twice, but no more than that. I can safely drive at 90mph on the M6 for 20 minutes at a time. Against the law of course. Completely true. Unfortunately this is an opinion without knowing the full facts as you are insinuating that the biker could not stop in the distance he could see ahead of him . One of the expert witnesses in the trial stated the biker could have stopped safely, if he was indeed travelling at 100 mph, in 200 m - his view down that stretch was in excess of 600 m.
  12. According to google maps, the longest stretch of straight, sighted road at Bulgham is 0.3 miles. From the published details, I'm going to assume the bike was doing 90 mph. So if the car driver looked down the straight and it was completely, utterly empty, and then began his manoeuvre, he had a mere 12 (max) seconds to get the job done. By choosing to ride at 90, any rider is giving themselves precious little scope to stop for pedestrians, slow moving cars, cows on the road, debris, 3-point-turners, fallen rocks...... The road was not completely, utterly empty before he began his manoeuvre he had just been over taken by three vehicles the last one being a van before he started his manouvre, yet in his statement to the police two days later he couldn't remember being over taken by these other vehicles and said he didn't see them in the road ahead of him yet two of the vehicles stopped after the accident to give assistance.