Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

JNugent wrote:

On 20/05/2020 18:21, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 20/05/2020 15:06, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them,
during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the
internet as it was "free IT training".

I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have
with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it
out into real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion.

It's a good job that it didn't happen then, isn't it?

And it didn't. The poster concerned was a notorious wind-up merchant.

Yes, you said, but wasn't that in relation to some BP AGM?

All part of the same sequence of events.

This
'Judith' person threatened to make trouble for Simon there, that could
have been a wind up as you suggest. But there is also this letter that
Simon took to the police:

On Tue, 19 May 2020, Simon Mason wrote:

Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ

That couldn't have been a wind up - I mean how could Simon have been
mistaken about that? Are these two separate incidents? Actually, I
don't expect answers to any of these question, if it's all gossip I
don't really want to hear what is none of my business.

I believe what Simon says about this letter, which he took to the
police because I don't see how he could have been mistaken about that.

The "letter" quoted by Simon was apparently sent by someone *not* called
Judith.

Perhaps you have further and better particulars.

It looks to me as though there is definitely one letter, and there may
be another letter or two which may or may not have actually been sent.


Letter1 was posted to Hull HR and was apparently written by 'Peter'
aka. Peter Granger and Peter Grainger (but in a post to ukrc Peter
denies being either of those two named people and denies also being
Judith Smith). This is the letter Simon took to the police (and the
police currently hold a copy of this letter on record). This was not a
wind-up and if 'Judith' was telling you the truth then this would have
not been her.

Following on from that there is Letter2 which does come from 'Judith'.
In this letter2 'Judith' references a previous letter she has written
plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (this is
presumably Letter1 from 'Peter').

So we have:

LETTER1 which was allegedly written by 'Peter' (an anonymous person),
who posted in ukrc the following message on 11/11/2011:

Having seen various comments and accusation flying about regarding the
letter, I think it is about time that I said something in public.
Peter Granger is not my real name - and nor is Judith Smith; my real
name is immaterial to the complaint; but I do post in the group
regularly. People will understand why I did not use my real name in
the light of the follow-up actions and unfounded accusations which
were made. As the letter explains I am a share holder in the BP Group
and I despaired over the way that the BP name was being treated by one
of its employees.
__

This is the Letter1 'Peter' wrote to Hull HC:

Dear Sir or Madam

Simon J Mason : Complaint

I wish to draw to your attention, and make a complaint about, the
actions of the above member of your staff at the Saltend site. I am
making this complaint as someone who is a share holder in BP plc
indirectly via my pension company.

The complaint concerns the amount of BP funded time he spends
and wastes on posting to newsgroups which are accessed via either BP
IP addresses directly, or via your interface to the Scansafe system.
He has been told by a number of people that his actions are bringing
BP Chemicals in to disrepute and that it appears that BP do not know,
or worse, do not care, what he is doing whilst he is supposed to be
working. On one occasion when someone complained to him about posting
in BP time - he replied derisively: only another hour to go.

There were more than 360 posts made during working hours in the month
of July alone from IP addresses : 80.254.147.180 and 80.254.147.172.
I believe that these are both IP addresses allocated by Scansafe to
BP. I trust that you will ask Mr Mason to desist from blatantly
abusing the BP facilities and to crack on with his work in order to
boost BP profits!!

Yours faithfully
__

LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter
she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone
else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from
'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous
letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could
be the wind-up she claimed to you it was.

STARTS:

As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned
about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this
group.

I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers)
to raise some points. I have just had a response.

They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are
ongoing.

I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM.

The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they
named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that
whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like
to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two
of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion.

They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues
resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a
couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed
previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters;
crafty.)

For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be
attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM
will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking
at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together
- it sounds like it could be quite a good day out.

(I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull
- and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not
impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if
the person concerned contacts them)
__


And that is it, as far as I can understand it. Unravel that if you
can...

ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we
are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist
forthwith).

On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

[SNIP]

LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter
she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone
else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from
'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous
letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could
be the wind-up she claimed to you it was.

STARTS:

As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned
about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this
group.

I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers)
to raise some points. I have just had a response.

They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are
ongoing.

I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM.

The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they
named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that
whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like
to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two
of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion.

They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues
resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a
couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed
previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters;
crafty.)

For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be
attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM
will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking
at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together
- it sounds like it could be quite a good day out.

(I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull
- and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not
impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if
the person concerned contacts them)

Kelly, where does your LETTER2 come from? I haven't seen it before.

On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

Letter1 was posted to Hull HR and was apparently written by 'Peter' aka.
Peter Granger and Peter Grainger (but in a post to ukrc Peter denies
being either of those two named people and denies also being Judith
Smith).

My initial reading is the writer says he's not called "Judith" in real
life but he writes it in such a way that he may be saying he's posted as
"Judith".

This is the letter Simon took to the police (and the police currently
hold a copy of this letter on record). This was not a wind-up and if
'Judith' was telling you the truth then this would have not been her.

Following on from that there is Letter2 which does come from 'Judith'.
In this letter2 'Judith' references a previous letter she has written
plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (this is
presumably Letter1 from 'Peter').

Pamela wrote:

On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

[SNIP]

LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter
she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone
else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from
'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous
letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could
be the wind-up she claimed to you it was.

STARTS:

As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned
about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this
group.

I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers)
to raise some points. I have just had a response.

They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are
ongoing.

I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM.

The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they
named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that
whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like
to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two
of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion.

They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues
resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a
couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed
previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters;
crafty.)

For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be
attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM
will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking
at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together
- it sounds like it could be quite a good day out.

(I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull
- and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not
impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if
the person concerned contacts them)

Kelly, where does your LETTER2 come from? I haven't seen it before.

That message was posted by Judith in ukrc cycling on 16th January 2012
(Message-ID: ). Obviously
posted to get at Simon - even though she claimed to Mr Nugent it was
really a wind-up and no such letter was actually ever sent.

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:10:12 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

My reading of the content of link you gave above suggested it was from
"Judith" as it said this:

"Peter Granger is not my real name - and nor is Judith Smith; my real
name is immaterial to the complaint"

I think "Judith's" real name is Anthony Bournes of Andover.
Ophelia once confirmed "her" real identity.

Pamela wrote:

On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

Letter1 was posted to Hull HR and was apparently written by 'Peter' aka.
Peter Granger and Peter Grainger (but in a post to ukrc Peter denies
being either of those two named people and denies also being Judith
Smith).

My initial reading is the writer says he's not called "Judith" in real
life but he writes it in such a way that he may be saying he's posted as
"Judith".

Maybe he didn't want 'Judith' to get the credit for his work. Anyway,
why would Judith post as Peter, she had no problem posting as herself
in the second letter?

On 10:22 21 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 12:10:12 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

My reading of the content of link you gave above suggested it was from
"Judith" as it said this:

"Peter Granger is not my real name - and nor is Judith Smith; my real
name is immaterial to the complaint"

I think "Judith's" real name is Anthony Bournes of Andover.
Ophelia once confirmed "her" real identity.

Anthony Bournes is also known as "Fat Tony" and Ophelia has also made the
claim that I am him. See:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=154859795300

However if one believe mistakes like that then it will be almost impossible
to work out what happened, if anyone is bothering.

On 10:10 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:

On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

[SNIP]

LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter
she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone
else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from
'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous
letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could
be the wind-up she claimed to you it was.

STARTS:

As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned
about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this
group.

I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers)
to raise some points. I have just had a response.

They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are
ongoing.

I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM.

The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they
named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that
whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like
to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two
of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion.

They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues
resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a
couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed
previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters;
crafty.)

For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be
attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM
will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking
at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together
- it sounds like it could be quite a good day out.

(I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull
- and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not
impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if
the person concerned contacts them)

Kelly, where does your LETTER2 come from? I haven't seen it before.

That message was posted by Judith in ukrc cycling on 16th January 2012
(Message-ID: ). Obviously
posted to get at Simon - even though she claimed to Mr Nugent it was
really a wind-up and no such letter was actually ever sent.

Thanks for the reference. How did you know where to look?

On 10:25 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:

On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

Letter1 was posted to Hull HR and was apparently written by 'Peter' aka.
Peter Granger and Peter Grainger (but in a post to ukrc Peter denies
being either of those two named people and denies also being Judith
Smith).

My initial reading is the writer says he's not called "Judith" in real
life but he writes it in such a way that he may be saying he's posted as
"Judith".

Maybe he didn't want 'Judith' to get the credit for his work. Anyway,
why would Judith post as Peter, she had no problem posting as herself
in the second letter?

I can't answer that question as I have no idea what happened back then.

What happened more recently is Simon complained Judith had reported him to
the company he worked for and then, all of a sudden, Simon posted a letter
from a Peter Grainger who seems to one of Simon's persecutors.

As the letter says I am not called Peter Grainger nor am I called Judith, I
presumed the author of the message (no doubt called something else entirely
in real life) was posting as both Peter and Judith.

Quite why Mister X would post as Peter or Judith depends on what was
happening back then and I don't know the details. It doesn't help that
Simon's rather skewed account of those events (in which Simon needs to be
portrayed as the victim) can't be relied upon.

Pamela wrote:

On 10:10 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:

On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said:

[SNIP]

LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter
she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone
else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from
'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous
letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could
be the wind-up she claimed to you it was.

STARTS:

As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned
about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this
group.

I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers)
to raise some points. I have just had a response.

They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are
ongoing.

I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM.

The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they
named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that
whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like
to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two
of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion.

They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues
resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a
couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed
previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters;
crafty.)

For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be
attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM
will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking
at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together
- it sounds like it could be quite a good day out.

(I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull
- and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not
impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if
the person concerned contacts them)

Kelly, where does your LETTER2 come from? I haven't seen it before.

That message was posted by Judith in ukrc cycling on 16th January 2012
(Message-ID: ). Obviously
posted to get at Simon - even though she claimed to Mr Nugent it was
really a wind-up and no such letter was actually ever sent.

Thanks for the reference. How did you know where to look?

I wasn't going to say (and make myself appear clever than I am) - but
you've got all that info in your very first post at the started of
your thread. So it's really you who takes the credit for that.