Scum driver in the dock for attacking woman

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:31:18 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:56:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:

snip


And how is that worse than the allegation against Dennis Baker of ********************?

I think you may be ill.

Please can you explain your personal reason for continuing to publish this
person's full address details?

After all - you must have a very good reason. Can you not just share it with
us?

I wonder if anyone will contact Mr Baker and point out your publicising of his
address details - and where *you* live?

I guess if he decides to take legal action (if he is advised to of course) -

Milk no sugar, please barista.

then he will need to know your own details - so perhaps there will be a Good
Samaritan here.

Oh dear - I really have got you all in a twitter.

Entirely unintentional, I assure you.

"JNugent" wrote
On 06/01/2016 20:56, TMS320 wrote:
"Alycidon" wrote

What nice people these drivers are.
QUOTE:

"A delivery driver deliberately knocked a female cyclist off her bike
after she flashed a V-sign at him, a court heard today.

That's only an allegation.

Has the case concluded yet?

So she was alerting the driver to her presence.

It sounds like a completely unnecessary "alert" given that the original
story makes it clear beyond doubt that the driver knew full well that she
"was there" and that she knew that he knew she was there.

In fact, she was "alerting" the driver to nothing of the slightest
importance, unless her propensity to insult and provoke is "important".

You describe a horn.

A perfectly correct action.

Being insulting and provocative is hardly ever "correct", especially in
public to people you don't know from Adam.

Though it is remarkable how easily a driver can get offended when a
cyclist
makes a hand signal (like the other example you recently posted) yet we
have
people here that try and tell us that if a cyclist gets upset about a
horn
being sounded from behind at point blank range they are being a drama
queen.

Have cyclists got eyes in the backs of their heads?

They don't usually have mirrors on their bikes.

The day a driver uses their horn properly will an historical event.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 03:09:13 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:31:18 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:56:27 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:

snip


And how is that worse than the allegation against Dennis Baker of ********************?

I think you may be ill.

Please can you explain your personal reason for continuing to publish this
person's full address details?

After all - you must have a very good reason. Can you not just share it with
us?

I wonder if anyone will contact Mr Baker and point out your publicising of his
address details - and where *you* live?

I guess if he decides to take legal action (if he is advised to of course) -

Milk no sugar, please barista.

Why on earth would M'Lud Lee want to advise the defendant ?


And yet, you have no answer as to why you chose to publicise the defendant's
personal details.

As I said: you may be quite ill.

On 07/01/2016 11:22, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 06/01/2016 20:56, TMS320 wrote:
"Alycidon" wrote

What nice people these drivers are.
QUOTE:

"A delivery driver deliberately knocked a female cyclist off her bike
after she flashed a V-sign at him, a court heard today.

That's only an allegation.

Has the case concluded yet?

So she was alerting the driver to her presence.

It sounds like a completely unnecessary "alert" given that the original
story makes it clear beyond doubt that the driver knew full well that she
"was there" and that she knew that he knew she was there.

In fact, she was "alerting" the driver to nothing of the slightest
importance, unless her propensity to insult and provoke is "important".

You describe a horn.

I don't think so.

I describe - as is clear from the context and preceding information
provided by others - a hand "signal".

An unnecessary hand "signal" which provided no useful information to
anyone, that is.

A perfectly correct action.

Being insulting and provocative is hardly ever "correct", especially in
public to people you don't know from Adam.

Though it is remarkable how easily a driver can get offended when a
cyclist makes a hand signal (like the other example you recently
posted) yet we have people here that try and tell us that if a
cyclist gets upset about a horn being sounded from behind at
point blank range they are being a drama queen.

Have cyclists got eyes in the backs of their heads?
They don't usually have mirrors on their bikes.

The day a driver uses their horn properly will an historical event.

It's not as bad as that, but nevertheless, I have long believed that
horns on motor vehicles should be prohibited rather than required.

But whilst they are not, don't complain if drivers alert you to their
presence in circumstances where they have concluded that you were not
already aware of it (usually because you are doing, or have done,
spmething no reasonable road user would do if aware of all the traffic
around them).

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:16:16 +0000, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:00:52 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 7:43:37 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of
someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information
has already been in the newspaper,

You are lying Crispin. His *address* was not printed in the newspaper
at all.

Yes it was - or as good as. All I did was plug the address information
from the newspaper into a web search, and up popped Baker's full postal
address.


His address was *not* printed. And it does not "pop up" at all - it was
probably one of a hundred addresses which you then had to trawl through
in order to find the correct one.

Not at all - second hit on Gurgle Gropes.

You are really very sad.

Every time I read a post like this from you I smile.

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 1:28:38 PM UTC, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:16:16 +0000, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:00:52 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 7:43:37 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of
someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information
has already been in the newspaper,

You are lying Crispin. His *address* was not printed in the newspaper
at all.

Yes it was - or as good as. All I did was plug the address information
from the newspaper into a web search, and up popped Baker's full postal
address.


His address was *not* printed. And it does not "pop up" at all - it was
probably one of a hundred addresses which you then had to trawl through
in order to find the correct one.

Not at all - second hit on Gurgle Gropes.

You are really very sad.

Every time I read a post like this from you I smile.

Thank you for speaking on my behalf, 'Tom', but you are wrong. Every time I read a post like that from Judwit, I feel a pang of remorse that I have inadvertently upset her.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:25:56 -0000 (UTC), Tom Crispin wrote:

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 09:16:16 +0000, Judith wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 01:00:52 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 7:43:37 AM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 14:15:40 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip

Who says there is anything wrong with posting the name and address of
someone on trial for dangerous driving, when that same information
has already been in the newspaper,

You are lying Crispin. His *address* was not printed in the newspaper
at all.

Yes it was - or as good as. All I did was plug the address information
from the newspaper into a web search, and up popped Baker's full postal
address.


His address was *not* printed. And it does not "pop up" at all - it was
probably one of a hundred addresses which you then had to trawl through
in order to find the correct one.

Not at all - second hit on Gurgle Gropes.

You are really very sad.

Every time I read a post like this from you I smile.


Why thank you : Tom Crispin

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 06:24:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:

snip

You are really very sad.

Every time I read a post like this from you I smile.

Thank you for speaking on my behalf, 'Tom', but you are wrong. Every time I read a post like that from Judwit, I feel a pang of remorse that I have inadvertently upset her.


I can assure you that you just do not have the ability to "upset" me.

How about telling us why you found it necessary to look up the address and then
publicise it.

I assume that you have a good reason? Or perhaps just a reason?

What was it?

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 4:29:18 PM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 06:24:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin wrote:

snip

You are really very sad.

Every time I read a post like this from you I smile.

Thank you for speaking on my behalf, 'Tom', but you are wrong. Every time I read a post like that from Judwit, I feel a pang of remorse that I have inadvertently upset her.


I can assure you that you just do not have the ability to "upset" me.

How about telling us why you found it necessary to look up the address and then
publicise it.

I assume that you have a good reason? Or perhaps just a reason?

What was it?

You sound most upset to me.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:38:37 -0800, Tom Crispin wrote:

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 4:29:18 PM UTC, Judith wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 06:24:26 -0800 (PST), Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip

You are really very sad.

Every time I read a post like this from you I smile.

Thank you for speaking on my behalf, 'Tom', but you are wrong. Every
time I read a post like that from Judwit, I feel a pang of remorse
that I have inadvertently upset her.


I can assure you that you just do not have the ability to "upset" me.

How about telling us why you found it necessary to look up the address
and then publicise it.

I assume that you have a good reason? Or perhaps just a reason?

What was it?

You sound most upset to me.

Doesn't sound like that to me.

"Aroused" - more like it.

Why don't you tell her about the naughty bits on the car windscreen again
(she really liked it last time).