Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

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? 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.

Simon Mason wrote:

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 5:03:07 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 3:06:04 PM UTC+1, 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.

That's why I took the letter to the police. It was obviously a malicous communication meant to cause me distress and alarm.

There you go, that says enough.

Sounds like a trauma none of us would like to go through. Even without
knowing the exact details, it's like you said, nasty people.

The worst thing was having senior management having to go through pages of hateful messages celebrating the deaths of toddlers on bikes, rejoicing when old cyclists died of heart attacks and much worse. All in the most disgusting of language.

Poor Guy Chapman had nutters ringing his wife up in the early hours on pay phones and hanging up. Calling him a murderer and publishing personal details incuding the names of his children, his phone number and medical details online. Nasty people indeed.

It must have been an absolute nightmare for all of you. Some people
are nasty beyond all understanding.

Just leave it where it all belongs, in the past. The only thing you
can do with the past is learn from it. Live in the present and, you
know, you don't have to rake all this up again with anybody that you
don't want to. It's nobody else's business anyway.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 6:21:36 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

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 police still have a copy of this letter on file.

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

Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 5:08:27 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 3:06:04 PM UTC+1, 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.

That's why I took the letter to the police. It was obviously a
malicous communication meant to cause me distress and alarm.

Forced to have a meal or a tea break. You would never have survived
in the real working world.

I worked for 40 years in the chemical industry.

Doing **** all. You would never have survived in the real world.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 8:22:06 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

I worked for 40 years in the chemical industry.

Doing **** all. You would never have survived in the real world.

It's a wonder how I survived all of the redundancies handed out every 3 years or so. I have never been fired or made redundant, so I must have been doing something right.

On 15:55 20 May 2020, Kelly said:

Pamela wrote:

On 15:06 20 May 2020, Kelly said:
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.

The Internet is not some protected playpen where people can act
illegally and get away with it. There is real-world accountability:


A JUDGE has ordered a Seattle man to stop posting to a skiing
discussion group on the Internet after a six-month flame war
developed into threats of violence.

Scott Abraham and several others had been involved in a long-running
feud, both on the Usenet newsgroup rec.skiing.alpine and sometimes in
person on the slopes. The battle started with an argument over free
ski-lift tickets, and escalated to a flame war with insults, personal
attacks and offers to fight.

Later an anonymous poster threatened to shoot Abraham, who responded
that he had started carrying a gun. Two of Abraham’s opponents
filed complaints charging him with harassment. And on 12 November, a
district court judge ordered Abraham not to contact the defendants or
post anything to rec.skiing.alpine.

Yes, but what has got nothing to do with ukrc. Who is talking about
anyone attempting to 'act illegally and get away with it' on this group?

It was you who gushed the following outrage at "heinous" behaviour when
people took online matters into real-life even though it happens often
enough.

"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."

On 16:17 20 May 2020, Kelly said:

(Kelly) wrote:

Pamela wrote:

On 15:06 20 May 2020, Kelly said:
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.

The Internet is not some protected playpen where people can act
illegally and get away with it. There is real-world accountability:


A JUDGE has ordered a Seattle man to stop posting to a skiing
discussion group on the Internet after a six-month flame war
developed into threats of violence.

Scott Abraham and several others had been involved in a long-running
feud, both on the Usenet newsgroup rec.skiing.alpine and sometimes
in person on the slopes. The battle started with an argument over
free ski-lift tickets, and escalated to a flame war with insults,
personal attacks and offers to fight.

Later an anonymous poster threatened to shoot Abraham, who responded
that he had started carrying a gun. Two of Abraham’s opponents
filed complaints charging him with harassment. And on 12 November,
a district court judge ordered Abraham not to contact the defendants
or post anything to rec.skiing.alpine.

Yes, but what has got nothing to do with ukrc.

Oh dear, let me start again.

You state, "The Internet is not some protected playpen where people
can act illegally and get away with it."

Okay, no, its not. But what is the relevance of your statement here?
Who exactly are you suggesting has acted illegally and sought to get
away with it?

Don't get distracted by illegality (or skiing for that matter). I gave an
example of online behaviour spilling over into real-life.

On 16:27 20 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 3:06:04 PM UTC+1, 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.

That's why I took the letter to the police. It was obviously a malicous
communication meant to cause me distress and alarm.

I have watched you post and goad many others while causing "distress and
alarm". I'm a neutral observer but your victims were not happy.

On 21:27 20 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 at 8:22:06 PM UTC+1, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:

I worked for 40 years in the chemical industry.

Doing **** all. You would never have survived in the real world.

It's a wonder how I survived all of the redundancies handed out every 3
years or so. I have never been fired or made redundant, so I must have
been doing something right.

I'm not sure you were doing everything right. You once provided a running
commentary of the various jobs you applied for when you were unemployed
(including a letter you posted from Nathan Fairhurst) but in the end you
failed to land any job at all.

It's hard to know why you posted all that info. In the d-i-y group of all
places.

On 20/05/2020 15:43, Pamela wrote:
On 20:32 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:
On 19/05/2020 14:08, Pamela wrote:
On 10:47 19 May 2020, TMS320 said:
Pamela wrote:

Cyclists in this group have taken the side of the father because
the girl was riding a bike but what if she was on a scooter or
skateboard and fell over after being unable to slow down for a
couple on the footpath? Would they still think she and her
father was in the right?

Perhaps the cyclists can get you for libel with your claim "that they
have taken the side of the father".

Simon has alleged the man committed a public order offence. Simon also
provided own false testimony. See:

MID

It's pointless making a link. If there is something you want to bring
forward just copy and past it. Not that it's relevant.

Wake up, duh! The link show the origin of what I quoted. I hope you're
pretending to be thick and that it's not natural.

I know what a link is. I know it's irrelevant. I also know that you
refuse to acknowledge that your comment at the top was not accurate.