Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote:
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.

That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing
that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was
no "deputation" to the BP AGM.

AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after
the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that.

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.

I never had an email from "Judith" on the subject of postal
communication. The only matter communicated to me was the "visit to the
AGM" affair.

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).

I cannot assist in the unravelling of the above. I didn't know of any of
the letters until they were mentioned in this thread recently.

It is possible, I suppose, that they (the alleged letters) were
mentioned in the newsgroup all those years ago, but it didn't make
enough of an impression on me to stick in my memory. Had I been asked a
week or two back whether the BP AGM saga involved letters, I'd have said
"No".

On 21/05/2020 10:10, Kelly wrote:
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.

I don't think that last bit is quite correct. All that "Judith" told me
by email was that there had been no visit to, and no intention to visit,
the BP AGM and that the "threat" had been a simple wind-up. I don't
recall any discussion(s) of letters - certainly not in any email sent to me.

That email (the AGM caper) was eminently believable, given that "Judith"
was pretty well-recognised as an accomplished wind-up merchant. If I
remember correctly, there was a claim that when "Judith" first appeared
in ukrc, her intention (perhaps in winning a bet) was to extend a thread
to some impossibly long lost of posts and responses - in the hundreds, I
think. I could find out more by mining the Google archive, I suppose.
But I can't be bothered... ;-)

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:


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).

I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge.

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 10:38:09 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

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.

Here is the post where "Judith" admits sending the letter to BP which then turned up at work a few days later signed by "Peter Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...c/J8CtbQjoujYJ

JNugent wrote:

On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote:
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.

That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing
that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was
no "deputation" to the BP AGM.

AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after
the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that.

This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group,
seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make
a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards.

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.

I never had an email from "Judith" on the subject of postal
communication. The only matter communicated to me was the "visit to the
AGM" affair.

Right.

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).

I cannot assist in the unravelling of the above. I didn't know of any of
the letters until they were mentioned in this thread recently.

It is possible, I suppose, that they (the alleged letters) were
mentioned in the newsgroup all those years ago, but it didn't make
enough of an impression on me to stick in my memory. Had I been asked a
week or two back whether the BP AGM saga involved letters, I'd have said
"No".


It was nearly a decade ago. I was thinking how unexpectedly involved
usenet was just a week or two ago but it looks like it was on a
different level again so many years ago. I guess usenet didn't have
all the competition from other social media outlets back then as it
does today.

JNugent wrote:

On 21/05/2020 10:10, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:
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.

I don't think that last bit is quite correct.

Okay.

All that "Judith" told me
by email was that there had been no visit to, and no intention to visit,
the BP AGM and that the "threat" had been a simple wind-up. I don't
recall any discussion(s) of letters - certainly not in any email sent to me.

Right, I have been making an awful lot of assumptions (quite a few of
them are mistaken, I now suspect).

That email (the AGM caper) was eminently believable, given that "Judith"
was pretty well-recognised as an accomplished wind-up merchant. If I
remember correctly, there was a claim that when "Judith" first appeared
in ukrc, her intention (perhaps in winning a bet) was to extend a thread
to some impossibly long lost of posts and responses - in the hundreds, I
think. I could find out more by mining the Google archive, I suppose.
But I can't be bothered... ;-)

Well I'm sure you have other things to do but I must say I find it
quite fascinating just following and watching certain posters operate
on usenet. Judith must have been quite a notorious character in her
heyday (although I'm quite sure Simon would describe 'her'
differently), and her name still crops up quite often in these
newsgroups.

Before I go can I just quickly mention this little tip. Remember a few
days ago you were having trouble getting to see some text on some
website because of all the ads and notifications blocking the page?
There's this 'read and annotate without distractions' free service
that can get rid of all that clutter and it just prints out the text
you want to see. Its called ' outline.com ' you can go to their web
page and enter into a box there the website address you want to read.
Alternatively, and this is real handy, you can prefix the bit
https://outline.com/.com/ onto the website address that you want to
access. So if the website you want to read is, eg dummy example:
https://www.thecantreadthis.driving-the-new-smoking/
Change it to:
https://outline.com/https://www.this...e-new-smoking/
Paste this into your browser as usual and then when you enter the
address the text appears clutter free. That dummy example won't work,
of course, but the free service works a treat on a number of website
addresses. Anyway, thanks for all your help in explaining some of the
intrigue surrounding the goings on in ukrc past history - it wouldn't
have been anywhere near possible without you.

Simon Mason wrote:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:


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).

I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge.

Good. (By the way, I know I've got some things wrong, Simon, you think
this 'Peter' poster was 'Judith' and you must know far better than I).

It must have caused quite a stir in ukrc at the time to still be
remembered and talked about nearly a decade later. And you must play a
leading part in the history of this news group.

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:03:43 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:


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).

I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge.

Good. (By the way, I know I've got some things wrong, Simon, you think
this 'Peter' poster was 'Judith' and you must know far better than I).

It must have caused quite a stir in ukrc at the time to still be
remembered and talked about nearly a decade later. And you must play a
leading part in the history of this news group.

I have been here since urc first started in 1995. Judith first turned up in 2008 because of this incident.

"The foray which led to my bet on the long thread when I first visited
here, was as a result of me being told by a colleague they had
visited uk.rec.cycling as part of some research project and had
observed "an unusual strata (SIC) of newsnet society".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...k/cHQ0rXqQsVMJ

On 21/05/2020 19:02, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote:
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.

That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing
that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was
no "deputation" to the BP AGM.

AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after
the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that.

This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group,
seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make
a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards.

I think that was in the days when u.r.c.moderated was formed.
Pete Whelans last post to this unmoderated group was:

"Last post to this 'newsgroup'. Those that remain, enjoy the
Troll-fest" (Oct 2009 I believe and not much has changed in the current
abusive clique)

You can read some of the sentiments he
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ave0%5B1-25%5D
-----
irrelevant snipped
------
It was nearly a decade ago. I was thinking how unexpectedly involved
usenet was just a week or two ago but it looks like it was on a
different level again so many years ago. I guess usenet didn't have
all the competition from other social media outlets back then as it
does today.

On 21/05/2020 19:02, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote:
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.

That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing
that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was
no "deputation" to the BP AGM.

AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after
the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that.

This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group,
seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make
a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards.

I doubt that. From what I can remember of residential locations (real or
imaginary), the two I recall most clearly were two hundred miles apart
(at least).

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.

I never had an email from "Judith" on the subject of postal
communication. The only matter communicated to me was the "visit to the
AGM" affair.

Right.

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).

I cannot assist in the unravelling of the above. I didn't know of any of
the letters until they were mentioned in this thread recently.

It is possible, I suppose, that they (the alleged letters) were
mentioned in the newsgroup all those years ago, but it didn't make
enough of an impression on me to stick in my memory. Had I been asked a
week or two back whether the BP AGM saga involved letters, I'd have said
"No".

It was nearly a decade ago. I was thinking how unexpectedly involved
usenet was just a week or two ago but it looks like it was on a
different level again so many years ago. I guess usenet didn't have
all the competition from other social media outlets back then as it
does today.

It was indeed a much more lively place.

Occasionally, we met up (not in ukrc, of course, but certainly in other
groups).