Man hurls abuse and kicks a youngster's cycle

On 21:39 13 May 2020, TMS320 said:

On 13/05/2020 20:46, Pamela wrote:
On 20:16 13 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 13/05/2020 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2020 13:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/2020 12:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

"Arrested"?! The brat should not have been on the path in the
first place, you know that as well as I do.

"You can walk, jog, bike, cross-country ski or ride horseback
on most trails at Blackwell."

...as long as you stay 2 metres away from everyone else and do
not expose your children to avoidable danger by failing to
control them, particularly in the matters of staying at least 2
metres away from other people and not running into other people
on a bike.

What has this got to do with a correction of Pounders's incorrect
fact?

You quoted that "You can walk, jog, bike, cross-country ski or ride
horseback on most trails at Blackwell" and Nugent correctly pointed
out that a 2 metre distance was still required for those activities.

Which does nothing to change the meaning of the word 'can'.

What did you intend to convey by quoting that text? Please explain.

It may be Pounder also meant that although it's not entirely clear
what he meant about her not being on the path in the first place.

I am sure Mr Pounder is capable of speaking for himself.

On 11:47 14 May 2020, JNugent said:

On 14/05/2020 08:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/2020 01:57, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2020 20:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/2020 15:27, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2020 13:13, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/2020 12:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

"Arrested"?!
The brat should not have been on the path in the first place, you
know that as well as I do.

"You can walk, jog, bike, cross-country ski or ride horseback on
most trails at Blackwell."

...as long as you stay 2 metres away from everyone else and do not
expose your children to avoidable danger by failing to control them,
particularly in the matters of staying at least 2 metres away from
other people and not running into other people on a bike.

What has this got to do with a correction of Pounders's incorrect fact?

Your "explanation" was flawed because it did not take account of all
the relevant factors, which I than addes to put your deficient reply
into the correct context.

Oh for goodness's sake.

Another collection of words snipped

TRANSLATION: "Curses! Caught out again."

Happens a lot here.

On 10:42 14 May 2020, Peter Parry said:

On Wed, 13 May 2020 13:13:36 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 13/05/2020 12:24, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


"Arrested"?!
The brat should not have been on the path in the first place, you know
that as well as I do.

"You can walk, jog, bike, cross-country ski or ride horseback on most
trails at Blackwell."

Possibly so buy it is an awful long way to Blackwell Park in Illinois
whose rules you quote.

OMG !!!

He's been quoting the wrong park.

roflmao

On 14/05/2020 12:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/2020 11:47, JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2020 08:56, TMS320 wrote:


Another collection of words snipped

TRANSLATION: "Curses! Caught out again."

Translation: Nugent has an obsession.

When are you going to tell us you never break speed limits when you
drive? (Or that you have to constantly recite the rule book to your
driver.)

I have not been asked that question.

Even I were now to be asked it, the answer - whatever it might be -
would not be relevant to the discussion in which you have now obviously
given up because you cannot win, which was about frequent and serial
anti-social law-breaking by cyclists.

It wouldn't matter if I had a record as long as your proverbial arm for
safe-breaking, aggravated burglary, malicious wounding, littering,
debasing the Queen's coinage, High Treason and failing to answer bail.

None of it would justify your riding your bike along the footway or
ignoring red traffic lights.

Fancy your not knowing that.

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 6:15:39 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2020 18:11, Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 6:02:31 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2020 16:17, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 3:36:52 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Not only that but the poor dog could be traumatised. The RSPCA
should investigate why the child was so out of control that she
startled the helpess animal. It's obvious the poor thing wouldn't
understand the father saying "excuse me".

The police are currently investigating the foul language and the
criminal damage to the child's vehicle, not the RSPCA.

Were you investigated when you chucked yourself off that bridge.
"Foul language" try not to be sissy.


Why do you stoop so low by constantly having a dig at Simon when he was
clearly in a depressed state at the time of the incident.
I'm sure he wants to put it all behind him.
Good luck to Simon for the future.
--
Bod

Thanks - I had suffered from a horrible incurable illness for 15 months which was so bad it drove me to make an attempt on my life in 2013. I am OK now.

You're welcome, Simon. Good to hear that you are doing well :-)

--
Bod

Thanks once again - it is appreciated.

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 4:17:39 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:


The police are currently investigating the foul language and the
criminal damage to the child's vehicle, not the RSPCA.

Were you investigated when you chucked yourself off that bridge.

Yes - by mental health people.

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This has just appeared on my FB feed.

QUOTE:

This is the arsehole who wouldnt move for a 6 year old girl on her bike, actually causing her to crash into him. He then proceeded to argue with her Father before walking away, kicking her bike as he went. all this time she was crying. As he is now, in most of the newspapers today, I'm wondering how he's feeling, not concerned, just wondering. I really hope its something along the lines of "****ting Himself". There really is no hiding place you tool.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This has just appeared on my FB feed.

QUOTE:

This is the arsehole who wouldnt move for a 6 year old girl on her
bike, actually causing her to crash into him. He then proceeded to
argue with her Father before walking away, kicking her bike as he
went. all this time she was crying. As he is now, in most of the
newspapers today, I'm wondering how he's feeling, not concerned, just
wondering. I really hope its something along the lines of "****ting
Himself". There really is no hiding place you tool.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

FB. What a ****** you really are.

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 6:51:59 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 5:55:21 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This has just appeared on my FB feed.

QUOTE:

This is the arsehole who wouldnt move for a 6 year old girl on her
bike, actually causing her to crash into him. He then proceeded to
argue with her Father before walking away, kicking her bike as he
went. all this time she was crying. As he is now, in most of the
newspapers today, I'm wondering how he's feeling, not concerned, just
wondering. I really hope its something along the lines of "****ting
Himself". There really is no hiding place you tool.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EX_tawzX...pg&name=medium

FB. What a ****** you really are.

I didn't write it!

On 14/05/2020 16:06, JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2020 12:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/2020 11:47, JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2020 08:56, TMS320 wrote:

Another collection of words snipped

TRANSLATION: "Curses! Caught out again."

Translation: Nugent has an obsession.

When are you going to tell us you never break speed limits when you
drive? (Or that you have to constantly recite the rule book to your
driver.)

I have not been asked that question.

I asked in my post at 22:52 on the 11th. I have asked you on 2 or 3
occasions previously.

Even I were now to be asked it, the answer - whatever it might be -
would not be relevant to the discussion

It is relevant if you want to stand on moral high ground.

in which you have now obviously
given up because you cannot win, which was about frequent and serial
anti-social law-breaking by cyclists.

It wouldn't matter if I had a record as long as your proverbial arm for
safe-breaking, aggravated burglary, malicious wounding, littering,
debasing the Queen's coinage, High Treason and failing to answer bail.

None of it would justify...

I don't believe anybody on urc has ever suggested that anything
justifies something else. But none of the crimes on your list feature in
my copy of the Highway code so even if you have been convicted of bank
robbery your speeding habit would still be relevant.

your riding your bike along the footway or ignoring red traffic lights.

....and nothing justifies you making things up.

Fancy your not knowing that.

Fancy, you not knowing that 'your' is incorrect.