Traffic congestion as bad as it was before C-charge

[Pete Biggs]

TheMgt wrote:
> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
> uk.transport.

What stuff?

~PB

[Nuxx Bar]

The con charge hasn't improved congestion, yet the trolls still
support it. Is this because:

a. they want to see fewer motorists on the roads, despite not being
anti-motorist?
b. they like motorists to have to pay more and more as a punishment
for daring to drive in the first place?
c. they never wanted the con charge to reduce congestion in the first
place, as that would have made things easier for motorists?
d. all of the above?

And I'm sure the trolls also love the fact that the scheme is heavily
dependent on fines from drivers. Doubtless they were furious about
fivepounds.co.uk, and relieved when a stop was put to it. Why would
anyone who wasn't anti-motorist be so eager for motorists to be
fined? Ask the trolls, though a straight answer is highly unlikely.

http://tinyurl.com/concharge

Traffic congestion as bad as it was before C-charge

David Williams, Motoring Editor
06.08.08

Central London congestion has soared back to levels last seen before
the C-charge was introduced, an official report discloses today.

Transport for London's annual impacts monitoring study is the first
time the organisation has formally admitted that the battle against
congestion has gone into reverse.

Traffic levels in central London are 21 per cent lower than they were
before the C-charge was launched in 2003. Traffic entering the western
extension has fallen by 14 per cent.

But roadworks and traffic management measures have seen road space
squeezed, triggering severe delays.

Mayor Boris Johnson today ordered TfL to bring forward emergency
measuresto boost traffic flow. He told TfL to re-phase traffic lights
to smooth out traffic and said he was now exercising new powers to
fine utility companies that cause delays through badly planned work.

Talks were also under way with Thames Water to reduce the impact of
mains repair work. TfL was pushing through plans to cover excavations
with steel sheeting when work is not in progress so roads remain in
use.

Mr Johnson was also bringing forward plans to let motorcyclists use
bus lanes and was pushing for a bicyclehire scheme. The report said
the C-charge generated provisional net income of £137 million in
2007/08 and that 70,000 fewer cars were entering the original charging
zone each day compared to pre-charging levels.

Some £73 million in revenue came from motorists who were fined for not
paying the daily £8 charge.

Paul Watters, the AA's head of roads and transport policy, said: "It
is very concerning that congestion is now back to pre-charge levels.

"It means that motorists are getting very poor value for money when
they pay the charge. It also costs a huge sum of money to run the
scheme and it is still heavily dependent on fines income from drivers.
The scheme depends on a high level of non-compliance."

[TheMgt]

Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
uk.transport.

[Pete Biggs]

TheMgt wrote:
>>> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
>>> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
>>> uk.transport.
>>
>> What stuff?
>
> Nuxx Bar's congestion charge rant. I didn't quote any of it. Doesn't
> Outlook Express thread?

I have NB KF'd. Your post appeared as a new thread in my OE.

~PB

[Colin Nelson]

Anyone know the stats re unpaid C charges (and fines) due to false number plates/ 'dodgy' vehicle registration details? I'm sure I've seen it mentioned somewhere (Google didn't help me find an answer).

--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

[TheMgt]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> TheMgt wrote:
>> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
>> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
>> uk.transport.
>
> What stuff?

Nuxx Bar's congestion charge rant. I didn't quote any of it. Doesn't
Outlook Express thread?

[TheMgt]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> TheMgt wrote:
>>>> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
>>>> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
>>>> uk.transport.
>>> What stuff?
>> Nuxx Bar's congestion charge rant. I didn't quote any of it. Doesn't
>> Outlook Express thread?
>
> I have NB KF'd. Your post appeared as a new thread in my OE.
>
> ~PB

*smacks forehead*

Didn't think of that.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Aug 6, 9:06 pm, "Pete Biggs"
<p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs. tc> wrote:
> TheMgt wrote:
> >>> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
> >>> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
> >>> uk.transport.
>
> >> What stuff?
>
> > Nuxx Bar's congestion charge rant. I didn't quote any of it. Doesn't
> > Outlook Express thread?
>
> I have NB KF'd.

PETE BIGGS IS A **** AND A PAEDO WHO KILLED HIS DAUGHTER AND ****ED
HER BOTH BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS.

Anyone else who boasts about killfiling me will have to constantly
worry that I might be making allegations about them that they can't
see. If someone wants to killfile me because they don't like reading
the truth about cameras, I really couldn't care less, as it says more
about them than it does about me. But if they're going to
pathetically brag about it, as if they think it's somehow clever of
them to go "La la la not listening" towards those who disseminate true
facts about cameras etc, all they're going to do is create unnecessary
friction.

A poster's killfile is between them and their computer. Trolls who
can't bear to read the truth about cameras, because they prefer to
delude themselves that cameras save lives when they know deep down
that they don't, should remember that. (Or better still, they should
come to terms with the facts about cameras and accept that no matter
how wonderful they are at persecuting motorists, they kill people, and
desperately trying to avoid reading the truth wherever it crops up is
not going to change that in the slightest.)

And before any trolls start with their tiresome, predictable idiocy, I
hereby declare that the above allegation is untrue, as far as I know
anyway.

[nully[_3_]]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> Anyone else who boasts about killfiling me will have to constantly
> worry that I might be making allegations about them that they can't
> see.

Of course, that only works (presuming that you were actually kf'ed) if
someone repeats it so he can see it. And I for one aint gonna repeat it!

> A poster's killfile is between them and their computer.

But in fairness, I agree with the rest of your sentiment.

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:12:05 +0100, nully > wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> >
> > Anyone else who boasts about killfiling me will have to constantly
> > worry that I might be making allegations about them that they can't
> > see.

Err, no. Hate to break it to you Nuxx, but your output is such patent
nonsense that it doesn't matter one jot what you say. No-one is
obliged to worry about what you might be saying. Such a high
proportion of your spew is such absolute crap every single statement
is worthless.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, nully wrote:
>Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>
>> Anyone else who boasts about killfiling me will have to constantly
>> worry that I might be making allegations about them that they can't
>> see.
>
>Of course, that only works (presuming that you were actually kf'ed) if
>someone repeats it so he can see it. And I for one aint gonna repeat it!

No, it only works if anyone cares what allegations Nuxx might make.
So long as everyone knows that Nuxx is a lying ****, it doesn't matter
what he says. (His being a lying **** is a good reason not to quote his
allegations, of course, so the two are correlated.)


>> A poster's killfile is between them and their computer.
>But in fairness, I agree with the rest of your sentiment.

There's a long tradition of and good reasons for public announcement
of killfiling. Some posters are actually capable of learning to behave
better if they notice that it happens much, others will attempt to
pretend that a lack of response means their arguments are unrefutable.

On the other hand if you killfile someone just because you find them
tedious, lacking clarity of thought, and slow to learn, there's less
reason to announce the fact.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
Colin Nelson > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
> Anyone know the stats re unpaid C charges (and fines) due to false
> number plates/ 'dodgy' vehicle registration details? I'm sure I've
> seen it mentioned somewhere (Google didn't help me find an answer).

I confidently expect to find out in the next week or two after some scrote
stole my plates last week. Should I encounter said scrote on a moonlit
byway, he will learn that Mr Shovel is not someone with whom one should
trifle.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Electricity comes from other planets.

[Brian Robertson[_5_]]

"Nuxx Bar" > wrote in message
...
>
> PETE BIGGS IS A **** AND A PAEDO WHO KILLED HIS DAUGHTER AND ****ED
> HER BOTH BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS.
>

Wow, having once been a regular on uk.transport I thought that I had rubbed
shoulders with the lowest of the low that it is possible to find on usenet.
Thank you for improving my education in this regard.You really do take low
to new levels.

Let me try to explain a couple of simple truths to you. Firstly, you show
yourself up by accusing anyone who disagrees with your point of view as
being a troll. IMHO, that proves YOU are the troll. Anybody, even someone
who is sympathetic towards the right of people to kill when behind the wheel
of the car simply because speed gives them an erection, is going to take
your arguments with a pinch of salt when they are peppered with hate,
insults, swearing and contradictions.

Secondly, there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest that speed cameras
cause deaths rather than prevent them. Besides, that isn't what you are
concerned with. You come on here shouting about other people not caring that
speed cameras (allegedly) kill people, but that isn't your concern at all.
Your only concern, there for all to see, is that you want to be able to
break the law with impunity. You can't be surprised when decent people
disagree.

I remember a thread on uk.transport once where people were up in arms about
someone being banned from driving for doing 172 m.p.h. on a dual
carriageway. You are in the same league as that crowd and seriously not fit
to be allowed behind a wheel, even at 30 m.p.h.

Brian.

[nully[_3_]]

Brian Robertson wrote:

(Inappropriate material snipped - Brian, you of all people should know
that your news server holds you responsible for text that you *quote* as
well as that which you write yourself.)
>
> You are in the same league as that crowd and seriously not fit
> to be allowed behind a wheel, even at 30 m.p.h.
>
But coming from someone who had no moral problem in confessing to
drinking and then driving a *public service vehicle*, that condemnation
could almost be a positive, right?

[Nuxx Bar]

On Aug 7, 2:38*pm, nully > wrote:
> Brian Robertson wrote:
>
> (Inappropriate material snipped - Brian, you of all people should know
> that your news server holds you responsible for text that you *quote* as
> well as that which you write yourself.)
>
> > You are in the same league as that crowd and seriously not fit
> > to be allowed behind a wheel, even at 30 m.p.h.
>
> But coming from someone who had no moral problem in confessing to
> drinking and then driving a *public service vehicle*, that condemnation
> could almost be a positive, right?

Jesus! No ****!

[nully[_3_]]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2:38 pm, nully > wrote:
>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>
>> (Inappropriate material snipped - Brian, you of all people should know
>> that your news server holds you responsible for text that you *quote* as
>> well as that which you write yourself.)
>>
>>> You are in the same league as that crowd and seriously not fit
>>> to be allowed behind a wheel, even at 30 m.p.h.
>> But coming from someone who had no moral problem in confessing to
>> drinking and then driving a *public service vehicle*, that condemnation
>> could almost be a positive, right?
>
> Jesus! No ****!

Nope, no ****. Google is your friend... :o)

[Bertie Wooster]

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> wrote:

>On Aug 6, 9:06 pm, "Pete Biggs"
><p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs. tc> wrote:
>> TheMgt wrote:
>> >>> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
>> >>> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
>> >>> uk.transport.
>>
>> >> What stuff?
>>
>> > Nuxx Bar's congestion charge rant. I didn't quote any of it. Doesn't
>> > Outlook Express thread?
>>
>> I have NB KF'd.
>
>PETE BIGGS IS A **** AND A PAEDO WHO KILLED HIS DAUGHTER AND ****ED
>HER BOTH BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS.
>
>Anyone else who boasts about killfiling me will have to constantly
>worry that I might be making allegations about them that they can't
>see. If someone wants to killfile me because they don't like reading
>the truth about cameras, I really couldn't care less, as it says more
>about them than it does about me. But if they're going to
>pathetically brag about it, as if they think it's somehow clever of
>them to go "La la la not listening" towards those who disseminate true
>facts about cameras etc, all they're going to do is create unnecessary
>friction.
>
>A poster's killfile is between them and their computer. Trolls who
>can't bear to read the truth about cameras, because they prefer to
>delude themselves that cameras save lives when they know deep down
>that they don't, should remember that. (Or better still, they should
>come to terms with the facts about cameras and accept that no matter
>how wonderful they are at persecuting motorists, they kill people, and
>desperately trying to avoid reading the truth wherever it crops up is
>not going to change that in the slightest.)
>
>And before any trolls start with their tiresome, predictable idiocy, I
>hereby declare that the above allegation is untrue, as far as I know
>anyway.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:49:56 +0000, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

>On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 6, 9:06 pm, "Pete Biggs"
>><p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs. tc> wrote:
>>> TheMgt wrote:
>>> >>> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
>>> >>> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
>>> >>> uk.transport.
>>>
>>> >> What stuff?
>>>
>>> > Nuxx Bar's congestion charge rant. I didn't quote any of it. Doesn't
>>> > Outlook Express thread?
>>>
>>> I have NB KF'd.
>>
>>PETE BIGGS IS A **** AND A PAEDO WHO KILLED HIS DAUGHTER AND ****ED
>>HER BOTH BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS.
>>
>>Anyone else who boasts about killfiling me will have to constantly
>>worry that I might be making allegations about them that they can't
>>see. If someone wants to killfile me because they don't like reading
>>the truth about cameras, I really couldn't care less, as it says more
>>about them than it does about me. But if they're going to
>>pathetically brag about it, as if they think it's somehow clever of
>>them to go "La la la not listening" towards those who disseminate true
>>facts about cameras etc, all they're going to do is create unnecessary
>>friction.
>>
>>A poster's killfile is between them and their computer. Trolls who
>>can't bear to read the truth about cameras, because they prefer to
>>delude themselves that cameras save lives when they know deep down
>>that they don't, should remember that. (Or better still, they should
>>come to terms with the facts about cameras and accept that no matter
>>how wonderful they are at persecuting motorists, they kill people, and
>>desperately trying to avoid reading the truth wherever it crops up is
>>not going to change that in the slightest.)
>>
>>And before any trolls start with their tiresome, predictable idiocy, I
>>hereby declare that the above allegation is untrue, as far as I know
>>anyway.

While I feel that Nuxxy's post was wholly offensive and unnecessary, I
do not find anything wrong with the point Nugent made.
=====Quote=====
Do you mean the comments which were declared to be untrue in the same
post (and were stated to have been made - falsely - only to
demonstrate a point)?
=====/Quote=====
Message-ID: >

In the 'small print' at the end of his message, Nuxxy did post a
disclaimer.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Bertie Wooster wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> > wrote:

> > And before any trolls start with their tiresome, predictable
> > idiocy, I hereby declare that the above allegation is untrue, as
> > far as I know anyway.

Wouldn't just the above have done?

FFS, there really wasn't any need to re-post the actual articles,
you're almost stooping to their level doing things like that. Most
(sane) people have already seen it in the original posting and didn't
need to be reminded ...

Unless you're posting for those who appear to 'care' what some people
say about or to others and want to argue about it ad infinitum ...

--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.

[Bertie Wooster]

On 4 Nov 2011 22:06:19 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

>Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>> > wrote:
>
>> > And before any trolls start with their tiresome, predictable
>> > idiocy, I hereby declare that the above allegation is untrue, as
>> > far as I know anyway.
>
>Wouldn't just the above have done?
>
>FFS, there really wasn't any need to re-post the actual articles,
>you're almost stooping to their level doing things like that. Most
>(sane) people have already seen it in the original posting and didn't
>need to be reminded ...

I'd forgotten. And without the first deeply offensive line the context
of the final paragraph is lost. I could have snipped the bit in
between the first and final paragraphs, but again some of the context
would have been lost.

>Unless you're posting for those who appear to 'care' what some people
>say about or to others and want to argue about it ad infinitum ...

Personally I would rather a line was drawn under the entire episode.
But that will not happen unless people are allowed to make their own
minds up based on real evidence. Unless there is something I have
missed, Mason has misrepresented Nugent.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 04/11/2011 20:49, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> > wrote:
>
>> On Aug 6, 9:06 pm, "Pete Biggs"
>> <p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs. tc> wrote:
>>> TheMgt wrote:
>>>>>> Could people who can't control the impulse to reply to this stuff at
>>>>>> least set the Followup-To: header to something more appropriate like
>>>>>> uk.transport.
>>>
>>>>> What stuff?
>>>
>>>> Nuxx Bar's congestion charge rant. I didn't quote any of it. Doesn't
>>>> Outlook Express thread?
>>>
>>> I have NB KF'd.
>>
>> PETE BIGGS IS A **** AND A PAEDO WHO KILLED HIS DAUGHTER AND ****ED
>> HER BOTH BEFORE AND AFTERWARDS.
>>
>> Anyone else who boasts about killfiling me will have to constantly
>> worry that I might be making allegations about them that they can't
>> see. If someone wants to killfile me because they don't like reading
>> the truth about cameras, I really couldn't care less, as it says more
>> about them than it does about me. But if they're going to
>> pathetically brag about it, as if they think it's somehow clever of
>> them to go "La la la not listening" towards those who disseminate true
>> facts about cameras etc, all they're going to do is create unnecessary
>> friction.
>>
>> A poster's killfile is between them and their computer. Trolls who
>> can't bear to read the truth about cameras, because they prefer to
>> delude themselves that cameras save lives when they know deep down
>> that they don't, should remember that. (Or better still, they should
>> come to terms with the facts about cameras and accept that no matter
>> how wonderful they are at persecuting motorists, they kill people, and
>> desperately trying to avoid reading the truth wherever it crops up is
>> not going to change that in the slightest.)
>>
>> And before any trolls start with their tiresome, predictable idiocy, I
>> hereby declare that the above allegation is untrue, as far as I know
>> anyway.

That last bit is fairly interesting, isn't it?

[The Medicated Handyman[_2_]]

On 04/11/2011 22:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
> Personally I would rather a line was drawn under the entire episode.
> But that will not happen unless people are allowed to make their own
> minds up based on real evidence. Unless there is something I have
> missed, Mason has misrepresented Nugent.

impossible to say with only half the evidence - what form did this
'misrepresentation' take?

[Simon Mason]

"Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message >
> While I feel that Nuxxy's post was wholly offensive and unnecessary, I
> do not find anything wrong with the point Nugent made.
> =====Quote=====
> Do you mean the comments which were declared to be untrue in the same
> post (and were stated to have been made - falsely - only to
> demonstrate a point)?
> =====/Quote=====
> Message-ID: >
>
> In the 'small print' at the end of his message, Nuxxy did post a
> disclaimer.

I must remember that.
I will go up to a copper and call him all the names under the sun using the
most foul and abusive language and then sign off with "only joking" and see
where that gets me.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Mentalguy2k8[_2_]]

"Simon Mason" > wrote in message
. uk...
>
> "Bertie Wooster" > wrote in message >
>> While I feel that Nuxxy's post was wholly offensive and unnecessary, I
>> do not find anything wrong with the point Nugent made.
>> =====Quote=====
>> Do you mean the comments which were declared to be untrue in the same
>> post (and were stated to have been made - falsely - only to
>> demonstrate a point)?
>> =====/Quote=====
>> Message-ID: >
>>
>> In the 'small print' at the end of his message, Nuxxy did post a
>> disclaimer.
>
> I must remember that.
> I will go up to a copper and call him all the names under the sun using
> the most foul and abusive language and then sign off with "only joking"
> and see where that gets me.

You wouldn't have the balls. The only person you can abuse is your missus.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:02:47 +0000, The Medicated Handyman
> wrote:

>On 04/11/2011 22:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>
>> Personally I would rather a line was drawn under the entire episode.
>> But that will not happen unless people are allowed to make their own
>> minds up based on real evidence. Unless there is something I have
>> missed, Mason has misrepresented Nugent.
>
>impossible to say with only half the evidence - what form did this
>'misrepresentation' take?

=====Quote=====
> way to deal with the repetitive deluded postings of a drunk is to filter
> them out. Nugent is OK if you just ignore him. All he wants is an argument.

What shocked me was the way Nugent defended Nuxx Bar when he called
Pete Biggs a paedophile, murderer and that Pete had raped his own
daughter.

That told me all I needed to know about Nugent - he is a hateful and
spiteful idiot who imagines he has some sort of audience that he plays
up to. In reality, he is simply a deluded fool who just wastes huge
chunks of own time writing out long texts that nobody ever reads, let
alone replies to.

Like you say, worthy of simply being ignored.
=====/Quote=====
Message-ID:
>

Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:10:36 +0000, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

>In the 'small print' at the end of his message, Nuxxy did post a
>disclaimer.

Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
a web developer.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 05/11/2011 16:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:10:36 +0000, Bertie >
> wrote:
>
>> In the 'small print' at the end of his message, Nuxxy did post a
>> disclaimer.
>
> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
> a web developer.

I imagine they will just have a good laugh at a couple of ******* & bin
the file.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 5, 4:39*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
> a web developer.
>

And of course JMS's cowardly malicious letter to my HR department is
being followed up by the police after I went to them with a cyber
stalking and online harassment claim.

--
Simon Mason

[Mr. Benn[_7_]]

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...

On Nov 5, 4:39 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
> a web developer.
>

And of course JMS's cowardly malicious letter to my HR department is
being followed up by the police after I went to them with a cyber
stalking and online harassment claim.
================================================

UNSUBSTANTIATED

Let's see some proof.

You call people taking the **** out of you "harassment"? If you didn't make
such a donkey out of yourself, people wouldn't take the mickey. It seems
you just can't help yourself.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 05/11/2011 17:03, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 5, 4:39 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>>
>> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
>> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
>> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
>> a web developer.

> And of course JMS's cowardly malicious letter to my HR department is
> being followed up by the police after I went to them with a cyber
> stalking and online harassment claim.

Presumably, in order for you to be able to conclude (rather than guess) at
the source of the letter, it must have been signed and accompanied by a valid
ID and address - whether or not those were made known to you by the employer.
One hopes that a reasonable, community-minded employer would not necessarily
expose complainants to the wrath of delinquent employees as part of the process.

So... "malicious"?

Well, possibly... it's a matter of judgment and attitude. It's just as easy
to make the case that it was public-spirited, or, for a shareholder in the
company, quite reasonably self-interested. It'd be difficult to dissuade
either sort of adherent from their view.

But "cowardly"?

Not by *any* stretch of the imagination. If the letter identifies the sender
as JMS (or JMS's real identity if different), it will, in context, have been
a braver letter to send than any I would care to in respect of anything on
usenet.

OTOH, if the letter did not identify JMS definitively, you have no idea who
sent it and your accusation of "cowardice" is not well-founded.

But you know all this (or ought to).

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 17:01:06 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR
> wrote:

>On 05/11/2011 16:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:10:36 +0000, Bertie >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the 'small print' at the end of his message, Nuxxy did post a
>>> disclaimer.
>>
>> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
>> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
>> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
>> a web developer.
>
>I imagine they will just have a good laugh at a couple of ******* & bin
>the file.


Perhaps Numbnuts tame trio would lend a hand.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 10:03:01 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason >
wrote:

>On Nov 5, 4:39*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>>
>> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
>> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
>> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
>> a web developer.
>>
>
>And of course JMS's cowardly malicious letter to my HR department is
>being followed up by the police after I went to them with a cyber
>stalking and online harassment claim.


Excellent - did you tell them about the map I published showing where you
lived.

Oh - hang on - it wasn't *me* who published your home details - it was *you*.
who published mine.

So someone who is a share holder sends a letter to BP and complains about one
of their employees wasting company time.

Now compare that with the publication of personal details - now which would you
say was malicious? I guess that there must have been much more in the famous
letter to make it malicious and harassment - are you going to share the
content with us. Come on - lets see how awful it was.

Are you going to share with us the other activities I must have carried out :
stalking you, following you, phoning you up, emailing you, setting up a
Facebook page, pictures of you on Youtube, contacting your wife, contacting
your daughters - you must have quite a lot of evidence of those activities to
constitute cyber stalking and harassment. You have got such evidence haven't
you?

Come on now - don't be shy - why not tell everyone - they will be able to see
how malicious and harassing it is.

Oh PS : I trust that you have some evidence that it was me that sent the
letter. I am very surprised that you have not shown it here - you do have some
I assume?

PPS Have you wondered how I *know* that you don't have any such evidence?

I bet BP will really love the publicity - more than 1600 posts made by you
during work's time - they are going to love that in the Hull Daily Mail.

You really are not bright.

Oh bummer - I have just realised that you won't even read this.

Never mind - you will get a chance later :-)

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 5, 4:39*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:10:36 +0000, Bertie Wooster >
> wrote:
>
> >In the 'small print' at the end of his message, Nuxxy did post a
> >disclaimer.
>
> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
> a web developer.
>

That would tend to limit his options of working in that field, yes.

--
Simon Mason

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 17:23:03 -0000, "Mr. Benn"
> wrote:

>"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
>
>On Nov 5, 4:39 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>>
>> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
>> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
>> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
>> a web developer.
>>
>
>And of course JMS's cowardly malicious letter to my HR department is
>being followed up by the police after I went to them with a cyber
>stalking and online harassment claim.
>================================================
>
>UNSUBSTANTIATED
>
>Let's see some proof.
>
>You call people taking the **** out of you "harassment"? If you didn't make
>such a donkey out of yourself, people wouldn't take the mickey. It seems
>you just can't help yourself.

Just as a matter of interest, what would you consider proof? I can
give you the crime number for Nuxx Bar, and the case numbers for the
Norwich Pharmacal orders, but nobody at HMCS or Thames Valley Police
would confirm anything to you even under an FOI request.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 19:19:43 +0000, Judith wrote:


>
> You really are not bright.

It is a very great honour to be really not brighted by the hagfish.

>




--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 05/11/2011 17:23, Mr. Benn wrote:
> "Simon Mason" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Nov 5, 4:39 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>>
>> Much good may it do him. Of more concern (to him) may be whether the
>> police will charge him with offences under the Computer Misuse Act. I
>> imagine a conviction under that Act would limit your career options as
>> a web developer.
>>
>
> And of course JMS's cowardly malicious letter to my HR department is
> being followed up by the police after I went to them with a cyber
> stalking and online harassment claim.
> ================================================
>
> UNSUBSTANTIATED
>
> Let's see some proof.
>
> You call people taking the **** out of you "harassment"? If you didn't
> make such a donkey out of yourself, people wouldn't take the mickey. It
> seems you just can't help yourself.

The idiot lives in a fantasy world.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[The Medicated Handyman[_2_]]

On 05/11/2011 09:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:02:47 +0000, The Medicated Handyman
> > wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/2011 22:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally I would rather a line was drawn under the entire episode.
>>> But that will not happen unless people are allowed to make their own
>>> minds up based on real evidence. Unless there is something I have
>>> missed, Mason has misrepresented Nugent.
>>
>> impossible to say with only half the evidence - what form did this
>> 'misrepresentation' take?
>
> =====Quote=====
>> way to deal with the repetitive deluded postings of a drunk is to filter
>> them out. Nugent is OK if you just ignore him. All he wants is an argument.
>
> What shocked me was the way Nugent defended Nuxx Bar when he called
> Pete Biggs a paedophile, murderer and that Pete had raped his own
> daughter.
>
> That told me all I needed to know about Nugent - he is a hateful and
> spiteful idiot who imagines he has some sort of audience that he plays
> up to. In reality, he is simply a deluded fool who just wastes huge
> chunks of own time writing out long texts that nobody ever reads, let
> alone replies to.
>
> Like you say, worthy of simply being ignored.
> =====/Quote=====
> Message-ID:
> >
>
> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.

i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 06/11/2011 12:53, The Medicated Handyman wrote:

> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> The Medicated Handyman > wrote:
>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:

>>>> Personally I would rather a line was drawn under the entire episode.
>>>> But that will not happen unless people are allowed to make their own
>>>> minds up based on real evidence. Unless there is something I have
>>>> missed, Mason has misrepresented Nugent.

>>> impossible to say with only half the evidence - what form did this
>>> 'misrepresentation' take?

>> =====Quote=====
>>> way to deal with the repetitive deluded postings of a drunk is to filter
>>> them out. Nugent is OK if you just ignore him. All he wants is an argument.

>> What shocked me was the way Nugent defended Nuxx Bar when he called
>> Pete Biggs a paedophile, murderer and that Pete had raped his own
>> daughter.

>> That told me all I needed to know about Nugent - he is a hateful and
>> spiteful idiot who imagines he has some sort of audience that he plays
>> up to. In reality, he is simply a deluded fool who just wastes huge
>> chunks of own time writing out long texts that nobody ever reads, let
>> alone replies to.

>> Like you say, worthy of simply being ignored.
>> =====/Quote=====

>> Message-ID:
>> >

>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.

> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court

There was actually no "mitigation" and no comment. My post was a single
sentence question to the PP (Mason).

I asked whether the PP had meant the post in which another poster (apparently
NB, though one can never be that sure of anything in this NG) had apparently
posted something potentially libellous about a third party (of whom I know
nowt) but had also, within the same post, made it clear that the "libellous"
part was not true and was only posted in order to illustrate a point.

None of the content of the post was mentioned - just the fact that the post
contained both the potential libel and a passage saying that it was NOT true
anyway.

Only an idiot could mistake that for anything other than a reminder of the
full contents of the referenced post (whereas the PP had ignored the latter
bit for his own purposes). If that is what Mr Mason objected to, he's trying
on the idiot cap for size. And it seems to fit, near enough.

[Simon Mason]

"The Medicated Handyman" > wrote in message
news:j9600p$ho8$1@dont-
>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>
> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.

Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[The Medicated Handyman[_2_]]

On 06/11/2011 15:14, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/11/2011 12:53, The Medicated Handyman wrote:
>
>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>> The Medicated Handyman > wrote:
>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>
>>>>> Personally I would rather a line was drawn under the entire episode.
>>>>> But that will not happen unless people are allowed to make their own
>>>>> minds up based on real evidence. Unless there is something I have
>>>>> missed, Mason has misrepresented Nugent.
>
>>>> impossible to say with only half the evidence - what form did this
>>>> 'misrepresentation' take?
>
>>> =====Quote=====
>>>> way to deal with the repetitive deluded postings of a drunk is to
>>>> filter
>>>> them out. Nugent is OK if you just ignore him. All he wants is an
>>>> argument.
>
>>> What shocked me was the way Nugent defended Nuxx Bar when he called
>>> Pete Biggs a paedophile, murderer and that Pete had raped his own
>>> daughter.
>
>>> That told me all I needed to know about Nugent - he is a hateful and
>>> spiteful idiot who imagines he has some sort of audience that he plays
>>> up to. In reality, he is simply a deluded fool who just wastes huge
>>> chunks of own time writing out long texts that nobody ever reads, let
>>> alone replies to.
>
>>> Like you say, worthy of simply being ignored.
>>> =====/Quote=====
>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> >
>
>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>
>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court
>
> There was actually no "mitigation" and no comment. My post was a single
> sentence question to the PP (Mason).
>
> I asked whether the PP had meant the post in which another poster
> (apparently NB, though one can never be that sure of anything in this
> NG) had apparently posted something potentially libellous about a third
> party (of whom I know nowt) but had also, within the same post, made it
> clear that the "libellous" part was not true and was only posted in
> order to illustrate a point.
>
> None of the content of the post was mentioned - just the fact that the
> post contained both the potential libel and a passage saying that it was
> NOT true anyway.
>

but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it
had some significance?

newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by
saying they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7

Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 6, 6:42*pm, The Medicated Handyman > wrote:

>
> but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it
> had some significance?
>
> newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by
> saying they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7
>
> Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That was my point - there was no mitigation at all to Nuxx's foul and
libellous attack on Mr Biggs and Nugent showed his true colours in
trying to find one.
He should have just kept his nose out instead of trying to ally
himself with a nasty piece of scum like Nuxx.

--
Simon Mason

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:45:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 6, 6:42*pm, The Medicated Handyman > wrote:
>
>>
>> but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it
>> had some significance?
>>
>> newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by
>> saying they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7
>>
>> Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>That was my point - there was no mitigation at all to Nuxx's foul and
>libellous attack on Mr Biggs and Nugent showed his true colours in
>trying to find one.
>He should have just kept his nose out instead of trying to ally
>himself with a nasty piece of scum like Nuxx.

I think you are wrong to infer all that from Nugent's post.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 06/11/2011 18:42, The Medicated Handyman wrote:
> On 06/11/2011 15:14, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/11/2011 12:53, The Medicated Handyman wrote:
>>
>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>>> The Medicated Handyman > wrote:
>>>>> Bertie Wooster wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Personally I would rather a line was drawn under the entire episode.
>>>>>> But that will not happen unless people are allowed to make their own
>>>>>> minds up based on real evidence. Unless there is something I have
>>>>>> missed, Mason has misrepresented Nugent.
>>
>>>>> impossible to say with only half the evidence - what form did this
>>>>> 'misrepresentation' take?
>>
>>>> =====Quote=====
>>>>> way to deal with the repetitive deluded postings of a drunk is to
>>>>> filter
>>>>> them out. Nugent is OK if you just ignore him. All he wants is an
>>>>> argument.
>>
>>>> What shocked me was the way Nugent defended Nuxx Bar when he called
>>>> Pete Biggs a paedophile, murderer and that Pete had raped his own
>>>> daughter.
>>
>>>> That told me all I needed to know about Nugent - he is a hateful and
>>>> spiteful idiot who imagines he has some sort of audience that he plays
>>>> up to. In reality, he is simply a deluded fool who just wastes huge
>>>> chunks of own time writing out long texts that nobody ever reads, let
>>>> alone replies to.
>>
>>>> Like you say, worthy of simply being ignored.
>>>> =====/Quote=====
>>
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> >
>>
>>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>>
>>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court
>>
>> There was actually no "mitigation" and no comment. My post was a single
>> sentence question to the PP (Mason).
>>
>> I asked whether the PP had meant the post in which another poster
>> (apparently NB, though one can never be that sure of anything in this
>> NG) had apparently posted something potentially libellous about a third
>> party (of whom I know nowt) but had also, within the same post, made it
>> clear that the "libellous" part was not true and was only posted in
>> order to illustrate a point.
>>
>> None of the content of the post was mentioned - just the fact that the
>> post contained both the potential libel and a passage saying that it was
>> NOT true anyway.

> but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it had
> some significance?

In order to identify the post to which he (Mason) was referring. I could not
readily believe that he was identifying a post which contained a rider (to
the effect that none of it was true) as a libel.

> newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by saying
> they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7

I have seen and read such stories in newspapers. AFAICR, there was no legal
fallout and none even suggested. Perhaps you ought to forget the Daily Mirror
and read one with news in it.

> Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him

Can you really not tell the difference between a question and a statement, or
are you just (like Mason) seeking a straw to hold on to?

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 06/11/2011 18:45, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 6, 6:42 pm, The Medicated > wrote:
>
>>
>> but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it
>> had some significance?
>>
>> newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by
>> saying they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7
>>
>> Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That was my point - there was no mitigation at all to Nuxx's foul and
> libellous attack on Mr Biggs and Nugent showed his true colours in
> trying to find one.
> He should have just kept his nose out instead of trying to ally
> himself with a nasty piece of scum like Nuxx.

Reading and comprehension obviously not your long suits.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 06/11/2011 18:06, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "The Medicated Handyman" > wrote in message
> news:j9600p$ho8$1@dont-
>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>>
>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.
>
> Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
> street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
> legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
> they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".

What "court case" is this that you are fantasising about?

[Bertie Wooster]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:16:03 +0000, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 06/11/2011 18:06, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>> "The Medicated Handyman" > wrote in message
>> news:j9600p$ho8$1@dont-
>>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>>>
>>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.
>>
>> Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
>> street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
>> legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
>> they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".
>
>What "court case" is this that you are fantasising about?

Clearly you don't know. But it's not for me to tell...

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 06/11/2011 21:37, Bertie Wooster wrote:

> > wrote:
>> Simon Mason wrote:
>>> "The Medicated > wrote:

>>>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.

>>>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>>>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.

>>> Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
>>> street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
>>> legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
>>> they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".

>> What "court case" is this that you are fantasising about?

> Clearly you don't know. But it's not for me to tell...

Intriguing...

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 18:06:26 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"The Medicated Handyman" > wrote in message
>news:j9600p$ho8$1@dont-
>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>>
>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.
>
>Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
>street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
>legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
>they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".

They would struggle to explain away the nuisance phone calls, logged
and evidenced from third-party records.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:37:20 +0000, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:16:03 +0000, JNugent >
>wrote:
>
>>On 06/11/2011 18:06, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>
>>> "The Medicated Handyman" > wrote in message
>>> news:j9600p$ho8$1@dont-
>>>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>>>>
>>>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>>>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.
>>>
>>> Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
>>> street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
>>> legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
>>> they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".
>>
>>What "court case" is this that you are fantasising about?
>
>Clearly you don't know. But it's not for me to tell...

Aye. Given the length and vileness of Nuxx's campaign it is hard for
me to keep the fires of righteous anger banked here, but probably best
to do so.

In the end I think it is sad. He is old enough to know better and has
done things that may render him unemployable; he may even have a child
by now though I don't know.

He has failed to think through the consequences of his actions, and
his reaction to the wake-up calls he has had (e.g. service
disconnections) has been spectacularly inappropriate. I am surprised
that JMS did not caution him to rein back on it. JMS takes an interest
in legal matters so must surely have realised that the ice on which
Nuxx was skating was perilously thin.

I suspect that the whole business will take at least a year to put to
bed. At that point the beers are on me.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:45:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 6, 6:42*pm, The Medicated Handyman > wrote:
>
>>
>> but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it
>> had some significance?
>>
>> newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by
>> saying they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7
>>
>> Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>That was my point - there was no mitigation at all to Nuxx's foul and
>libellous attack on Mr Biggs and Nugent showed his true colours in
>trying to find one.
>He should have just kept his nose out instead of trying to ally
>himself with a nasty piece of scum like Nuxx.

Or Nugent was being naive and foolish. Actually that seems quite
likely to me. He does not strike me as evil, just daft.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 18:06:26 -0000, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:

>
>"The Medicated Handyman" > wrote in message
>news:j9600p$ho8$1@dont-
>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>>
>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.
>
>Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
>street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
>legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
>they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".


I'm sorry - have you confused Mr Nugent with Anchor Lee or Porky Chapman?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 22:58:08 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:37:20 +0000, Bertie Wooster >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:16:03 +0000, JNugent >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 06/11/2011 18:06, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "The Medicated Handyman" > wrote in message
>>>> news:j9600p$ho8$1@dont-
>>>>>> Unless Simon is referring to something else, all Nugent did was
>>>>>> mitigate Nuxx's abusive post by pointing out the disclaimer at the
>>>>>> end. I wouldn't call it 'defending' other than in the broadest
>>>>>> possible definition of the meaning - i.e. a misrepresentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> i wouldn't be surprised if Nuxx's defence lawyers came up with a similar
>>>>> 'mitigation' should the current police investigation end up in court.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe Nugent himself could represent Nuxx in court, it would be right up his
>>>> street in defending one of his allies and he always fancies himself as a
>>>> legal eagle. Maybe he could invite his "children" to the court room so that
>>>> they can witness the "great man" dish out his defence "in spades".
>>>
>>>What "court case" is this that you are fantasising about?
>>
>>Clearly you don't know. But it's not for me to tell...
>
>Aye. Given the length and vileness of Nuxx's campaign it is hard for
>me to keep the fires of righteous anger banked here, but probably best
>to do so.
>
>In the end I think it is sad. He is old enough to know better and has
>done things that may render him unemployable


I am guessing - but I suspect that what you mean is that *you* have done
something which could effect his future employment.

But no surprise there - you have always been an arsehole.


> JMS takes an interest
>in legal matters so must surely have realised that the ice on which
>Nuxx was skating was perilously thin.

What the **** has that to do with me


>At that point the beers are on me.

I recall now why people say that you are a despicable ****.

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 6, 7:59*pm, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:45:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 6:42*pm, The Medicated Handyman > wrote:
>
> >> but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it
> >> had some significance?
>
> >> newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by
> >> saying they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7
>
> >> Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >That was my point - there was no mitigation at all to Nuxx's foul and
> >libellous attack on Mr Biggs and Nugent showed his true colours in
> >trying to find one.
> >He should have just kept his nose out instead of trying to ally
> >himself with a nasty piece of scum like Nuxx.
>
> I think you are wrong to infer all that from Nugent's post.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fine - but the fact the Nugent was willing to leap to Nuxx's defence
*at all* was very telling to me at least.

--
Simon Mason

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 6, 10:58*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>
> He has failed to think through the consequences of his actions, and
> his reaction to the wake-up calls he has had (e.g. service
> disconnections) has been spectacularly inappropriate. I am surprised
> that JMS did not caution him to rein back on it. JMS takes an interest
> in legal matters so must surely have realised that the ice on which
> Nuxx was skating was perilously thin.
>
> I suspect that the whole business will take at least a year to put to
> bed. At that point the beers are on me.
>

I will hold you to that - I would be willing to come down to your
place to share a few brews after all that we have been through :-)

--
Simon Mason

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 11:40:14 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


>
> The idiot

It is a very great honour to be idiotted by the vorephilic dave



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:37:02 +0000, Judith wrote:

> Porky
> Chapman?

Vampyroteuthis was first discovered and described in 1903 by the German
marine biologist Dr Carl Chun, who served aboard the research ship
Valdavia, then engaged in deep-sea surveys off the Guinea Basin in the
Atlantic Ocean, during which the first specimen was trawled at a depth of
1,400 meters. So taken by the bizarre appearance of this animal, Chun
named it Vampyroteuthis infernalis, literally the 'Vampire Squid from
Hell', owing to its dark-red skin, purplish-black web, fins, white beak
and deep-set red eyes -- giving it a somewhat nightmarish appearance.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:43:11 +0000, Judith wrote:

you have always been an arsehole.

It is a very great honour to be arseholed by the judith.
>
>

you are a despicable ****.


And despicably ****ed by the judith.


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:20:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:43:11 +0000, Judith wrote:
>
> you have always been an arsehole.
>
>It is a very great honour to be arseholed by the judith.
>>
>>
>
> you are a despicable ****.
>
>
>And despicably ****ed by the judith.

Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on them,
and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly acceptable,
while reporting such things to the police is despicable. I venture to
suggest that most people would see that the other way round, but then
most people probably don't have as much to fear in that regard as JMS
does.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_33_]]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 19:38:07 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
> wrote:

>On Nov 6, 7:59*pm, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:45:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason

>> >That was my point - there was no mitigation at all to Nuxx's foul and
>> >libellous attack on Mr Biggs and Nugent showed his true colours in
>> >trying to find one.
>> >He should have just kept his nose out instead of trying to ally
>> >himself with a nasty piece of scum like Nuxx.
>>
>> I think you are wrong to infer all that from Nugent's post.- Hide quoted text -

>Fine - but the fact the Nugent was willing to leap to Nuxx's defence
>*at all* was very telling to me at least.

I don't think that even Nugent would defend Nuxx under the present
circumstances, so probably best to drop it. As I say, I think Nugent
is foolish, not evil.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Simon Weaseltemper[_2_]]

On 07/11/2011 03:40, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> He has failed to think through the consequences of his actions, and
>> his reaction to the wake-up calls he has had (e.g. service
>> disconnections) has been spectacularly inappropriate. I am surprised
>> that JMS did not caution him to rein back on it. JMS takes an interest
>> in legal matters so must surely have realised that the ice on which
>> Nuxx was skating was perilously thin.
>>
>> I suspect that the whole business will take at least a year to put to
>> bed. At that point the beers are on me.
>>
>
> I will hold you to that - I would be willing to come down to your
> place to share a few brews after all that we have been through :-)
>
> --
> Simon Mason

Awww, can I join you guys too?

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 7, 9:11*am, Simon Weaseltemper >
wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 03:40, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 10:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > > *wrote:
>
> >> He has failed to think through the consequences of his actions, and
> >> his reaction to the wake-up calls he has had (e.g. service
> >> disconnections) has been spectacularly inappropriate. I am surprised
> >> that JMS did not caution him to rein back on it. JMS takes an interest
> >> in legal matters so must surely have realised that the ice on which
> >> Nuxx was skating was perilously thin.
>
> >> I suspect that the whole business will take at least a year to put to
> >> bed. At that point the beers are on me.
>
> > I will hold you to that - I would be willing to come down to your
> > place to share a few brews after all that we have been through :-)
>
> > --
> > Simon Mason
>
> Awww, can I join you guys too?
>
> --

Sure - I would have an overnight stop and take the wife for a weekend
break in Berkshire at the same time.
She likes the area and especially the white horse at Uffington which
we visited when the kids were young.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith[_4_]]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 08:30:34 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:20:13 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 23:43:11 +0000, Judith wrote:
>>
>> you have always been an arsehole.
>>
>>It is a very great honour to be arseholed by the judith.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> you are a despicable ****.
>>
>>
>>And despicably ****ed by the judith.
>
>Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on them,
>and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly acceptable,
>while reporting such things to the police is despicable. I venture to
>suggest that most people would see that the other way round, but then
>most people probably don't have as much to fear in that regard as JMS
>does.
>
>Guy


What do you think about someone who posts a link to a map on the web to
identify where another poster lives.

What do you think of someone who says that a tradesman is a "bodger".

What do you think about people who discuss by email what is the best way to
"deal" with another poster?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 19:40:17 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason >
wrote:

>On Nov 6, 10:58*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> He has failed to think through the consequences of his actions, and
>> his reaction to the wake-up calls he has had (e.g. service
>> disconnections) has been spectacularly inappropriate. I am surprised
>> that JMS did not caution him to rein back on it. JMS takes an interest
>> in legal matters so must surely have realised that the ice on which
>> Nuxx was skating was perilously thin.
>>
>> I suspect that the whole business will take at least a year to put to
>> bed. At that point the beers are on me.
>>
>
>I will hold you to that - I would be willing to come down to your
>place to share a few brews after all that we have been through :-)


"we have been through"?

Diddums - did the nasty person call you a ****wit on usenet?

Did the nasty person comment on each piece of ****e you posted?

Did the nasty person say that you had an IQ less then 80?

PS Has the letter from Dave's solicitor arrived yet?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:11:11 +0000, Simon Weaseltemper
> wrote:

>On 07/11/2011 03:40, Simon Mason wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 10:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> He has failed to think through the consequences of his actions, and
>>> his reaction to the wake-up calls he has had (e.g. service
>>> disconnections) has been spectacularly inappropriate. I am surprised
>>> that JMS did not caution him to rein back on it. JMS takes an interest
>>> in legal matters so must surely have realised that the ice on which
>>> Nuxx was skating was perilously thin.
>>>
>>> I suspect that the whole business will take at least a year to put to
>>> bed. At that point the beers are on me.
>>>
>>
>> I will hold you to that - I would be willing to come down to your
>> place to share a few brews after all that we have been through :-)
>>
>> --
>> Simon Mason
>
>Awww, can I join you guys too?


You are already in the club.

I have clearly said that all three of you are ****wits; of you go now, run to
the police. I understand that Simple has three tame ones you can use.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 07/11/2011 03:38, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 6, 7:59 pm, Bertie > wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:45:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 6:42 pm, The Medicated > wrote:
>>
>>>> but why would you even mention the 'disclaimer' unless you thought it
>>>> had some significance?
>>
>>>> newspapers cannot get away with libellous front page headlines just by
>>>> saying they might not be true in small print at the bottom of page 7
>>
>>>> Nuxx was trying that one on and you appear to agree with him- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> That was my point - there was no mitigation at all to Nuxx's foul and
>>> libellous attack on Mr Biggs and Nugent showed his true colours in
>>> trying to find one.
>>> He should have just kept his nose out instead of trying to ally
>>> himself with a nasty piece of scum like Nuxx.
>>
>> I think you are wrong to infer all that from Nugent's post.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Fine - but the fact the Nugent was willing to leap to Nuxx's defence
> *at all* was very telling to me at least.

What "defence" would that be (other than in your fantasy world)?

And do non-existent situations *frequently* "tell" you things?

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 7, 8:32*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>
> I don't think that even Nugent would defend Nuxx under the present
> circumstances, so probably best to drop it. As I say, I think Nugent
> is foolish, not evil.
>
> Guy

Fair enough - I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

--
Simon Mason

[Simon Mason]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>
> Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on them,
> and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly acceptable,
> while reporting such things to the police is despicable. I venture to
> suggest that most people would see that the other way round, but then
> most people probably don't have as much to fear in that regard as JMS
> does.

JMS also believes it is OK to send a letter using a false name to the HR
department of my employers in an attempt to blacken my name as a hard
working member of staff. The inference was that I was wasting their time by
posting to urc, when in fact I work flat out for 8 hours a shift with no
meal breaks or tea breaks. After this malicious attempt to besmirch my good
reputation that I had built up over 25 years, I reported the matter to the
police.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:38:58 +0000, Judith wrote:

> all three of you are ****wits;

What a great compliment coming from the judith!



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 07/11/2011 16:57, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>>
>> Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on them,
>> and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly acceptable,
>> while reporting such things to the police is despicable. I venture to
>> suggest that most people would see that the other way round, but then
>> most people probably don't have as much to fear in that regard as JMS
>> does.
>
> JMS also believes it is OK to send a letter using a false name to the HR
> department of my employers

Do you have any proof to back up that allegation?


> in an attempt to blacken my name as a hard
> working member of staff.

ROFLMAO!

> The inference was that I was wasting their time by
> posting to urc, when in fact I work flat out for 8 hours a shift with no
> meal breaks or tea breaks.

But you still use their e mail facility?

> After this malicious attempt to besmirch my good
> reputation that I had built up over 25 years, I reported the matter to the
> police.

Well done. I expect they had a good laugh.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 7, 11:14*pm, Peter Keller > wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:38:58 +0000, Judith wrote:
> > all three of you are ****wits;
>
> What a great compliment coming from the judith!
>
> --
> An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

I look forward to praise like that - it makes my day.

--
Simon Mason

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 07/11/2011 16:57, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
>> message
>>>
>>> Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on them,
>>> and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly acceptable,
>>> while reporting such things to the police is despicable. I venture
>>> to suggest that most people would see that the other way round, but
>>> then most people probably don't have as much to fear in that regard
>>> as JMS does.
>>
>> JMS also believes it is OK to send a letter using a false name to
>> the HR department of my employers
>
> Do you have any proof to back up that allegation?
>
>
> > in an attempt to blacken my name as a hard
>> working member of staff.
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
>> The inference was that I was wasting their time by
>> posting to urc, when in fact I work flat out for 8 hours a shift
>> with no meal breaks or tea breaks.
>
> But you still use their e mail facility?
>
>> After this malicious attempt to besmirch my good
>> reputation that I had built up over 25 years, I reported the matter
>> to the police.
>
> Well done. I expect they had a good laugh.

working 8 hours in one shift is contrary to the WTD

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 7, 8:03*pm, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
> "Judith" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > What do you think about someone who posts a link to a map on the web to
> > identify where another poster *lives.
>
> > What do you think of someone who says that a tradesman is a "bodger".
>
> > What do you think about people who discuss *by email what is the best way
> > to
> > "deal" with another poster?
>
> As a list of evil deeds this doesn't add up to much.

Some people get really touchy at the merest of slights though -
usually the same ones who dish out the foulest personal abuse and
practice obsessive cyberstalking themselves.

--
Simon Mason

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:16:05 -0800, Simon Mason wrote:

> On Nov 7, 11:14Â*pm, Peter Keller > wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:38:58 +0000, Judith wrote:
>> > all three of you are ****wits;
>>
>> What a great compliment coming from the judith!
>>
>> --
>> An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.
>
> I look forward to praise like that - it makes my day.


And mine too.
It is nice to have other people's comments.


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Man at B&Q]

On Nov 10, 8:43*am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 07/11/2011 16:57, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> >> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
> >> message
>
> >>> Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on them,
> >>> and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly acceptable,
> >>> while reporting such things to the police is despicable. I venture
> >>> to suggest that most people would see that the other way round, but
> >>> then most people probably don't have as much to fear in that regard
> >>> as JMS does.
>
> >> JMS also believes it is OK to send a letter using a false name to
> >> the HR department of my employers
>
> > Do you have any proof to back up that allegation?
>
> > *> in an attempt to blacken my name as a hard
> >> working member of staff.
>
> > ROFLMAO!
>
> >> The inference was that I was wasting their time by
> >> posting to urc, when in fact I work flat out for 8 hours a shift
> >> with no meal breaks or tea breaks.
>
> > But you still use their e mail facility?
>
> >> After this malicious attempt to besmirch my good
> >> reputation that I had built up over 25 years, I reported the matter
> >> to the police.
>
> > Well done. *I expect they had a good laugh.
>
> working 8 hours in one shift is contrary to the WTD

Wrong.

MBQ

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 10, 1:00*pm, "Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>
> > > Well done. *I expect they had a good laugh.
>
> > working 8 hours in one shift is contrary to the WTD
>
> Wrong.
>
> MBQ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Our plant guys work 12 hour shifts, four days on the trot.
Two days and two nights.
And as for the guys on the offshore rigs, well...

--
Simon Mason

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:52:05 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason >
wrote:

>On Nov 7, 8:03*pm, "Zapp Brannigan" > wrote:
>> "Judith" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > What do you think about someone who posts a link to a map on the web to
>> > identify where another poster *lives.
>>
>> > What do you think of someone who says that a tradesman is a "bodger".
>>
>> > What do you think about people who discuss *by email what is the best way
>> > to
>> > "deal" with another poster?
>>
>> As a list of evil deeds this doesn't add up to much.
>
>Some people get really touchy at the merest of slights though -
>usually the same ones who dish out the foulest personal abuse and
>practice obsessive cyberstalking themselves.


Now I wonder what is this "cyberstaking" you talk about? Do your perhaps have
a definition?

Please sir - the nasty person kept calling me a ****wit and simple; they
followed me around wherever I went.

ie in uk.rec.cycling only, where they have posted for years.

Is that what cyberstalking is?


PS - you need to keep your PC security up to date. I loved the email exchange
with Killer.

"Cyber stalking is when a person is followed and pursued on line. Their privacy
is invaded, their every move watched."

I did not watch you having a wank via your web-cam. (Honestly :-)

--
"You get a real feeling of elation just for the simple act of cycling past the local hospital
where there are people of my age who have abused their bodies and suffered all sorts of ailments"

Simon Mason 8 Novemebr 2011

It is believed that he has a wank on the thought of it once he gets home

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Man at B&Q wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:43 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 07/11/2011 16:57, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>
>>>>> Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on
>>>>> them, and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly
>>>>> acceptable, while reporting such things to the police is
>>>>> despicable. I venture to suggest that most people would see that
>>>>> the other way round, but then most people probably don't have as
>>>>> much to fear in that regard as JMS does.
>>
>>>> JMS also believes it is OK to send a letter using a false name to
>>>> the HR department of my employers
>>
>>> Do you have any proof to back up that allegation?
>>
>>>> in an attempt to blacken my name as a hard
>>>> working member of staff.
>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>
>>>> The inference was that I was wasting their time by
>>>> posting to urc, when in fact I work flat out for 8 hours a shift
>>>> with no meal breaks or tea breaks.
>>
>>> But you still use their e mail facility?
>>
>>>> After this malicious attempt to besmirch my good
>>>> reputation that I had built up over 25 years, I reported the matter
>>>> to the police.
>>
>>> Well done. I expect they had a good laugh.
>>
>> working 8 hours in one shift is contrary to the WTD
>
> Wrong.
>
> MBQ

there are exceptions but it is correct for most average employees.
"As an adult worker (over 18), you will normally have the right to a 20
minute rest break if you are expected to work more than six hours at a
stretch. A lunch or coffee break can count as your rest break. Additional
breaks might be given by your contract of employment. There is no statutory
right to 'smoking breaks'.
The requirements are:

the break must be in one block
it cannot be taken off one end of the working day - it must be somewhere in
the middle
you are allowed to spend it away from the place on your employer's premises
where you work
your employer can say when the break must be taken, as long as it meets
these conditions"
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeOff/DG_10029451

[Man at B&Q]

On Nov 10, 2:23*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Man at B&Q wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 8:43 am, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> >> Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
> >>> On 07/11/2011 16:57, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> >>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
> >>>> message
>
> >>>>> Apparently JMS thinks that visiting people's houses to spy on
> >>>>> them, and making crank calls in the small hours, are perfectly
> >>>>> acceptable, while reporting such things to the police is
> >>>>> despicable. I venture to suggest that most people would see that
> >>>>> the other way round, but then most people probably don't have as
> >>>>> much to fear in that regard as JMS does.
>
> >>>> JMS also believes it is OK to send a letter using a false name to
> >>>> the HR department of my employers
>
> >>> Do you have any proof to back up that allegation?
>
> >>>> in an attempt to blacken my name as a hard
> >>>> working member of staff.
>
> >>> ROFLMAO!
>
> >>>> The inference was that I was wasting their time by
> >>>> posting to urc, when in fact I work flat out for 8 hours a shift
> >>>> with no meal breaks or tea breaks.
>
> >>> But you still use their e mail facility?
>
> >>>> After this malicious attempt to besmirch my good
> >>>> reputation that I had built up over 25 years, I reported the matter
> >>>> to the police.
>
> >>> Well done. I expect they had a good laugh.
>
> >> working 8 hours in one shift is contrary to the WTD
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > MBQ
>
> there are exceptions but it is correct for most average employees.
> "As an adult worker (over 18), you will normally have the right to a 20
> minute rest break if you are expected to work more than six hours at a
> stretch. *A lunch or coffee break can count as your rest break. Additional
> breaks might be given by your contract of employment. There is no statutory
> right to 'smoking breaks'.
> The requirements are:
>
> the break must be in one block
> it cannot be taken off one end of the working day - it must be somewhere in
> the middle
> you are allowed to spend it away from the place on your employer's premises
> where you work
> your employer can say when the break must be taken, as long as it meets
> these conditions"http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkingHoursAndTimeO...

And you point is? Anyone can cut and paste from google.

It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
you are entitled to.

For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
to not take those breaks.

Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.

MBQ

[Simon Mason]

"Man at B&Q" > wrote in message
news:e0f05223-2ba7-4c59-a308-
>It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
>you are entitled to.

>For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
>to not take those breaks.

>Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
>contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.

>MBQ

I have been told by manager after manager over the 25 years I have worked at
my current employers to take a break and go to dinner or at least have a tea
break. I have never been to dinner, nor had a single tea break in all that
time.

I get very well paid and in return they get 8 hours of flat out work as I
don't get paid to drink tea and eat food. I get paid to work.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:06:46 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"Man at B&Q" > wrote in message
>news:e0f05223-2ba7-4c59-a308-
>>It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
>>you are entitled to.
>
>>For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
>>to not take those breaks.
>
>>Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
>>contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.
>
>>MBQ
>
>I have been told by manager after manager over the 25 years I have worked at
>my current employers to take a break and go to dinner or at least have a tea
>break. I have never been to dinner, nor had a single tea break in all that
>time.
>
>I get very well paid and in return they get 8 hours of flat out work as I
>don't get paid to drink tea and eat food. I get paid to work.

I thought that you got paid to make pointless posts to usenet.

Excellent - think of the negative Compo as you have a serious accident towards
the end of the 8 hours.

What a ****wit you are.

--
"You get a real feeling of elation just for the simple act of cycling past the local hospital
where there are people of my age who have abused their bodies and suffered all sorts of ailments"

Simon Mason 8 Novemebr 2011

It is believed that he has a wank on the thought of it once he gets home

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 10, 2:51*pm, "Man at B&Q" > wrote:

>
> And you point is? Anyone can cut and paste from google.
>
> It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
> you are entitled to.
>
> For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
> to not take those breaks.
>
> Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
> contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.
>
> MBQ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Will Cheerless shop me for working from 1430 - 2230 today?
Gulp.

--
Simon Mason

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:34:59 +0000, Judith wrote:


>
> What a ****wit you are.

It is a great honour to be ****witted by the judith

>
> --
>

<swallowed>

--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/11/2011 18:06, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "Man at B&Q" > wrote in message
> news:e0f05223-2ba7-4c59-a308-
>> It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
>> you are entitled to.
>
>> For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
>> to not take those breaks.
>
>> Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
>> contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.
>
>> MBQ
>
> I have been told by manager after manager over the 25 years I have
> worked at
> my current employers to take a break and go to dinner or at least have a
> tea
> break. I have never been to dinner, nor had a single tea break in all that
> time.
>
> I get very well paid and in return they get 8 hours of flat out work as I
> don't get paid to drink tea and eat food. I get paid to work.
>
>
Lying ****. You spend half your time posting ****e here.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/11/2011 18:06, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "Man at B&Q" > wrote in message
> news:e0f05223-2ba7-4c59-a308-
>> It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
>> you are entitled to.
>
>> For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
>> to not take those breaks.
>
>> Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
>> contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.
>
>> MBQ
>
> I have been told by manager after manager over the 25 years I have
> worked at
> my current employers

Never bright enough to become one though....

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 10, 2:51*pm, "Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>
> It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
> you are entitled to.
>
> For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
> to not take those breaks.
>
> Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
> contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.
>
> MBQ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have decided to heed my gaffers' advice after all and spend all of
this afternoon shift posting to usenet instead of working.
All of those lost tea breaks over 25 years is a huge amount of time to
get back what I am owed.

--
Simon Mason

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:14:51 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


>>
> Lying ****.

It is a very great honour to be lyingly ****ted by the vorephilic dave.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 16:57:24 -0000, "Simon Mason" >
wrote:



>JMS also believes it is OK to send a letter using a false name to the HR
>department of my employers in an attempt to blacken my name as a hard
>working member of staff. The inference was that I was wasting their time by
>posting to urc, when in fact I work flat out for 8 hours a shift with no
>meal breaks or tea breaks. After this malicious attempt to besmirch my good
>reputation that I had built up over 25 years, I reported the matter to the
>police.

What did they say - **** off and stop wasting our time?

Why are you telling Porky that again - did he not read the email you sent him?

I trust that you have some evidence to back up this unsubstantiated claim; but
of course I know that you haven't don't I?

What is this work flat out for 8 hours?

How the **** can you be working flat out when you've posted something in excess
of 1600 posts to usenet from BP systems when you were supposed to be working

Do they actually pay you to make a post every two or three minutes as soon as
you arrive at work? 300+ posts in one month - is that working flat out?

I tell you what sunshine - if someone had not already written that letter - I
would do so. In fact I think I will - just to reinforce the other complaint.
Writing it now - as we say.

I would not have referred to a workman as a "bodger" - unless of course you
have some evidence of shoddy workmanship to back it up. Have you?
Have you had the letter from Dave's solicitor yet?

The problem sunshine, is that once you get usenet life and real life muddled up
and start involving the law - you have lost the plot - and you have absolutely
no idea where it is going to end: almost certainly in tears (for you)

People may start asking exactly why did you post a map on usenet - to show
precisely where I lived. A map almost implies directions for someone. Was
that the intention? How do you justify doing that - I assume that you will be
able to do so?

PS I loved the bit where you told us that you booked all your holiday hotels
online, printed them out at work and then posted them home. BP are very good
allowing you to do that. Is everyone allowed to do that - or just you.

Working flat out my arse.

Now **** off and get some work done.

--
"You get a real feeling of elation just for the simple act of cycling past the local hospital
where there are people of my age who have abused their bodies and suffered all sorts of ailments"

Simon Mason 8 November 2011

It is believed that he has a wank on the thought of it once he gets home

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 10, 2:51*pm, "Man at B&Q" > wrote:
>
> It is contrary to the WTD for the employer to not allow you the breaks
> you are entitled to.
>
> For the employee, in general, it is not contrary to the WTD directive
> to not take those breaks.
>
> Therefore your original statement "working 8 hours in one shift is
> contrary to the WTD" is wrong from the perspective of an empoyee.
>
> MBQ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have the opportunity to take breaks, but I choose not to.
My choice.

--
Simon Mason

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:41:05 +0000, Judith wrote:


>
> Porky that again -
>

Giant Amazon Leech. This parasite gets to be a foot long. I'm just glad
the movie Stand By Me wasn't filmed in the Amazon basin.
>

>
> --

<snip>



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.