"Pig MRSA" in the EU - long-awaited survey
Pat Gardiner
vets. They are not now going to get away with anything.
After a decade of faking everything in sight and intimidating anyone
who stood out againast their criminal activities, the game is up.
Everyone reads Maryn McKenna.
http://drugresistantstaph.blogspot.com/2009/11/pig-mrsa-in-eu-long-awaited-survey.html
26 NOVEMBER 2009
"Pig MRSA" in the EU - long-awaited survey
It's not very likely that people will be eating much pork today - OK,
maybe some pancetta in the Brussels sprouts - and that's good, because
there's lots of news today about MRSA in pigs.
(In fact, there's a ton of news just this week. Make it stop.)
The European Food Safety Authority has published a long-awaited,
European Union-wide survey looking for the presence of MRSA in pigs.
Here's the key points: Investigators found MRSA on 1 out of 4 farms
where pigs were being raised and in 17 of the 24 EU states. (Two
non-member states were included in the analysis.)
Strictly speaking, this is not a survey of MRSA in pigs; the study
samples not the pigs themselves, but the dust in pig-raising sheds.
The sites were 1,421 breeding farms and 3,176 farms where pig are
raised to slaughter age. By far the most common strain was MRSA ST398,
though other strains were detected, including some known human
strains. The prevalence in various countries went from a low of 0 to
as high as 46% of farms. (Highest, in descending order: Spain,
Germany, Belgium, Italy, Portugal. The Netherlands, where St398 was
first identified, had a prevalence of 12.8%. Countries reporting no
MRSA: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland,
Latvia. Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Norway and
Switzerland.)
The report closes by recommending comprehensive monitoring of pigs for
MRSA, as well as monitoring of poultry and cattle.
About the potential of ST398 crossing to humans, it has this to say:
In humans, colonisation with MRSA ST398 originating from pigs has been
identified as an occupational health risk for farmers and
veterinarians and their families. Although MRSA ST398 represents only
a small proportion of the total number of reports of human MRSA
infections in the EU... in some countries with a low prevalence of
human MRSA infection, CC398 is a major contributor to the overall MRSA
burden.
In most cases, colonisation with MRSA ST398 in humans is not
associated with disease, although clinical cases associated with MRSA
ST398 have been reported. MRSA ST398 can be introduced into hospitals
via colonised farmers and other persons in a region with intensive pig
farming. Therefore, MRSA ST398 may add substantially to the MRSA
introduced in health care settings. However, it seems that the
capacity for dissemination in humans (patient-to-patient transmission)
of livestock-origin MRSA, in particular ST398, is lower as compared to
hospital-associated MRSA).
... Food may be contaminated by MRSA (including ST398), however there
is currently no evidence for increased risk of human colonisation or
infection following contact or consumption of food contaminated by
ST398 both in the community and in hospital.
Britain's Soil Association, which pressed for the study to be done,
has released a statement quoting the food safety agency warning that
the testing method may have underestimated MRSA's presence on farms,
and warning that if ST398 is not yet in England, it is certainly soon
to arrive. Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment also
released a statement, admitting that ST398 in German pig stocks is
"widespread."
The report is here, executive summary here, and press release here.
All well worth reading.
Burkie
wrote:
> Pat's Note: Developing storm clouds for Britain's infamous government
> vets. They are not now going to get away with anything.
>
> After a decade of faking everything in sight and intimidating anyone
> who stood out againast their criminal activities, the game is up.
>
> Everyone reads Maryn McKenna.
>
Dear Pat: After doing some research on the net, due to your
allegations long ago, I can say, honestly, there is evidence available
which does confirm that ST398 was found as long ago as 2004 in pigs,
in the UK. Statements made on the part of the NPA and DEFRA are
proved by that database, currently used by the EFSA in this latest
study, to corroborate my findings. This should certainly raise some
investigative reporter's eyebrows, for sure.
Burkie
Burkie
Dear Pat: I will add to my previous comment, in that the research I
made into your own allegations that MRSA ST398 existed in the UK's
swine herds before 2004 was true or false. I had to satisfy my own
sense of belief and confidence, if you understand. As a result of
my own initiative, I tried to find anything that would substantiate
your commentary, and your allegations. You see, Pat Gardiner, your
own people, in the UK do not want the Truth to be divulged. There
seems to be an underlying reason for this concerted effort to "comply
to a point, without responsibility of telling the whole Truth, and
nothing but the Truth." In other words, "yeah, we have some
problems, but we ain't gonna tell nobody, till we get a commitment for
compensation repays." Sounds familiar, doesn't it, Pat? Make some
disease "NOTIFIABLE" and suddenly the UK producers have all kinds of
"Notifiable Disease Problems." Funny, that. Sick way to make a
living.
Piss poor way of masking piss poor management, too. Meanwhile, down
on the farm, life goes on, the whingeing and crying about the 'red
tape' involved in getting CAP through your RPA SFP's.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found this information regarding MRSA T398 test results that were
sent to a central German-maintained database, designed specifically
for recording incidents of MRSA testing for SPA-types. It is
publically-available information, anyone can access on the internet.
Contrary to the statements now being made by your own National Pig
Association and your DEFRA crowd, you have been recorded as having
found MRSA ST398-positive tests in UK Swine.in 2004.
So, Pat, you have been correct to advise people that it does exist in
the UK....and not only in the form of ST398, but in other SPA-types of
MRSA, as well, and also in other species of domesticated animals,
including pets.
You, sir, have been badgered on this website, for years, as you
pleaded for this to be made public. The situation now, is that we do
have Antibiotic Resistance problems, and they are causing health care
costs to rise disproportionately, excessively, and cause human pain,
suffering and death. In your country, alone, MRSA problems in your
hospitals have been swept under the rug, doing a monkey act of speak
no, see no, hear no, etc., so as to mask the seriousness of the spread
of these MRSA problems.
The infamous 'I didn't do it mate" defense, fails. Your public
officials and hospital administrators have failed to protect their own
constituents. It's just that simple.
http://spaserver.ridom.de/spaserver/spa-t398.shtml
Some people in the UK have been lying to you and everyone else on this
group for over 5 years.
Burkie in Kansas
Pat Gardiner
wrote:
Yes, without making this a mutual self congratulatory society, I
recall you finding that extraordinary information and posting it here.
I had spotted that some children in Scotland had been infected by
ST398 and that the news had been suppressed for six months. However, I
was not the only one to notice. Your Maryn McKenna noted that too, and
as she is now well ahead leading American investigative superbug
journalism, that is now well and truly in the public arena - and will
be exposed all over the world.
You are in good company - and your sharp eyes in spotting and
publicising the entry in the Ridom database here in
uk.business.agriculture won't be missed - well done.
The Scottish cover-up is odd. They covered the cases of MRSA st398 in
children up in hospital for six months and then came out with the
extraordinary statement that they could find no link to pigs.
Since nobody knew about it, nobody had been able to suggest a link
with pigs.
All this is in the archives of uk.business.agriculture for jouranists
to probe.
It is a real pleasure to turn one of the most sinister and evil
exploitations of the usenet on its head and to good use in the service
of humanity, decency and reform.
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
GrahamW
sent to a central German-maintained database, designed specifically
for recording incidents of MRSA testing for SPA-types. It is
publically-available information, anyone can access on the internet.
Contrary to the statements now being made by your own National Pig
Association and your DEFRA crowd, you have been recorded as having
found MRSA ST398-positive tests in UK Swine.in 2004.
http://spaserver.ridom.de/spaserver/spa-t398.shtml
Burkie in Kansas
Dear Burkie.
I guess you have been in touch with Dag Harmsen who maintains the above site
and also with Prof. Hajo Grundmann who submitted the information to Dags
site. I would be interested to know what information Hajo gave you. I note
that Hajo Grundman is based in the Netherlands.
Regards, Graham.
Burkie
Dear GrahamW: I have never been in any direct communication with
either of these scientists, although that they have devoted their life
work to such work is both necessary and essential. I have to admire
that kind of dedication. Obviously, they are key individuals who the
ECDC and EFSA think enough of to have used them to participate in this
first-of-a-kind survey regarding the typing and incidence and
proliferation of MRSA in the Member States of the EU.
That they have both been key people in the typing BURP and SEQNET
research is notable.
As I stated, I looked into this situation strictly as an independent
person, simply interested in discovery and hopeful that some kind of
standard system could be developed that would benefit mankind and the
animal, livestock keepers of the world. I hope this explains things
adequately as to your inquiry.
I guess I really hope some of our microbiologists, genetic code
researchers and others in the field of epidemiology can adopt the
protocols these people have worked so hard to establish. To me, they
seem to have developed some standards that can now be utilized by
others in these fields of research, all over the world.
Regards,
Gary "Burkie" Burkholder
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
> Pat's Note: Developing storm clouds for Britain's infamous government
> vets. They are not now going to get away with anything.
>
> After a decade of faking everything in sight and intimidating anyone
> who stood out againast their criminal activities, the game is up.
>
> Everyone reads Maryn McKenna.
>
> http://drugresistantstaph.blogspot.com/2009/11/pig-mrsa-in-eu-long-awaited-survey.html
Clearly you don't, or you failed your comprehension test.
Cheerio,
--
Pat Gardiner
We will see whether you are quite so cocky when Britain's merchant
navy historians correct you in your local press.
If you remember the archeologist who claimed to have located
St.Patricks grave in Cumbria was publicly exposed by serious
archaeologists.
As Britain's fleet has shrunk, the number of people interested in the
history grows. Look at the prices, marine books and models fetch.
You lot were daft enough to try it from places intimately connected
with the recent history of successful maritime developments. My
colleagues are proud of part they played in the development of
Britain's premier port and protective of their old colleague,
competitor and sometimes boss. Their organisations know that you have
been deliberately faking history and will at the appropriate time
arrange public corrections. Some will be reading this now, including
maritime journalists.
All the detailed official records of ship movements, the personalities
and the parts they played are at Colchester. They will be compared
against your claims.
Your mate is in for a public humiliation and I guess you won't be
welcome at the yacht club any more. Belfast will know too. The famous
Felixstowe ferries names don't end in "ic" by chance and one of
Belfast's main maritime historians has long been in touch.
Regard it as a kind of antiques road show exposing fakes.
We are all entitled to protect our reputation and you had better hope
that I'm still around to do it personally. Others will not be as soft
hearted.
GrahamW
> Association and your DEFRA crowd, you have been recorded as having
> found MRSA ST398-positive tests in UK Swine.in 2004.
>
> http://spaserver.ridom.de/spaserver/spa-t398.shtml
>
> Burkie in Kansas
>
> Dear Burkie.
> I guess you have been in touch with Dag Harmsen who maintains the above
> site
> and also with Prof. Hajo Grundmann who submitted the information to Dags
> site. I would be interested to know what information Hajo gave you. I note
> that Hajo Grundman is based in the Netherlands.
> Regards, Graham.
Dear GrahamW: I have never been in any direct communication with
either of these scientists, although that they have devoted their life
work to such work is both necessary and essential. I have to admire
that kind of dedication. Regards,
Gary "Burkie" Burkholder
So you do not know where this sample was taken. You don't know if it came
from pigs or a hospital in Nottinghamshire. Yet, as we all know, Pat
continues to claim this as evidence that MRSA was found in pigs in the UK in
2004.
Completely spurious.
Pat Gardiner
No, it does not mean it is spurious. It simply means that Burkie has
not been in direct touch with the publishers and has said so.
The facts are simple the Germans published in a database the fact that
Britain had MRSA st398 in livestock about five years ago, Burkie found
it and published the fact with references.
That contradicts Defra's pronouncements.
If you want to argue on behalf of Britain's bent government vets, take
it up with Berlin, not Burkie who has done honest battered Britain a
service.
You have to remember that Germany has also published the fact that
English and Scottish cattle have circovirus. That information has been
carefully suppressed in Britain by Defra's corrupt vets. That has rung
every alarm bell in Texas, especially since BSE/vCJD.
After the events overnight, I would imagine that the telephone lines
from Washington to London are red hot.
Burkie
Dear GrahamW: I think, sir, I am just "curious, definitely not
'spurious.' " What prompted me to look into this were statements
being made by so-called "experts" and quango representatives declaring
there was no MRSA in the UK, when we knew there was. They are the
people I find to be both "spurious" and "nefarious." I don't like to
be purposefully misled, and like another subject recently exposed now
regarding one of your East Anglian Universities, not exactly dealing
from the top of the deck, so to speak. (see Booker's article, today,
in your papers.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
As stated on one of the European websites, the Ridom Database was
designed and set up to record the findings of research contributors
from the Member States and the UK. To become a contributor, a
researcher has to go through a screening/background check/
recommendation process, before their results can ever be admitted to
the Ridom database. Once a submission is checked out, it then may be
admitted to the Database, which is available to anyone who can access
it on the internet. (At last count, there were four such individuals
residing in the UK that are approved.) And, as you are from the UK,
I'm sure you can find out who submitted the test results that I've
provided to find out the real and true answer to what species the
incident is attributable to. Perhaps you would be kind enough to do
so. In the meantime, ST398 is currently considered to be symbiotic
and usually found in pigs.
Now, as to Spa-typing, I shall include this link, which is a rather
good explanation of this whole process of Spa-typing Staphyloccus
Aureus bacteria: http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/42/2/792
As you, too, are interested and probably aware, there are numerous Spa-
types of SA, some of which are found in community situations, moreso
than others, of which T398 is just one. Regardless, T398 has been
found to be most prevalent in European Swine herds, swine workers,
veterinarians and other people that are involved with swine
production. That, sir, has been well-documented over the course of
the past four years, especially by the Dutch and Germans. That is
also confirmed and corroborated, acknowledged by such people as the
University of Guelph's Dr. Scott Weese, Canada, et al.
So if you really want to get to the bottom of this, I suggest you do
some calling, e-mailing, and disprove what's been reported
previously. If it's erroneous information, I'll accept that. But I
am also saying that the report and link I've provided is still
available, does exist, and it's up to you to set the record straight.
While you're about it, Please find out why your people aren't
demanding answers as to the primary sources of MRSA in your country,
especially with regard to nasal swabbing both people and animals.
And, sir, if found, why is that information not being made public.
You see, GrahamW, that really would settle all this nonsense, by
making things (using Margaret Beckett's infamous words: "Transparent
and Clear."
One more suggestion: You might want to take the time to look at some
of the stories of people that have acquired and had to deal with
MRSA. http://www.mrsasurvivors.org/id8.html
Good Luck,
Burkie
GrahamW
>>So you do not know where this sample was taken. You don't know if it came
>>from pigs or a hospital in Nottinghamshire. Yet, as we all know, Pat
>>continues to claim this as evidence that MRSA was found in pigs in the UK
>>in
>>2004.
>>Completely spurious.
>>
>
> No, it does not mean it is spurious. It simply means that Burkie has
> not been in direct touch with the publishers and has said so.
>
> The facts are simple the Germans published in a database the fact that
> Britain had MRSA st398 in livestock about five years ago
There is no mention on the German database as to where the sample came from.
Burkie has confirmed that he has not been in touch with either Hajo or Dag.
It's a very large leap to assume the sample came from a British livestock
rather than a hospital patient or other source.
As I said, "totally spurious" until you have evidence of the origin.
Pat Gardiner
Burkie has given his answer.
In the meantime, overnight the situation has deteriortated sharply
with critics, presumably myself and the Soil Association, being
threatened with arson attacks.
During the night, we sharpened up our existing security, took the
appropriate actions and made sure that the threats have been well
recorded. When we gave evidence in 2000/2001 to OLAF the serious fraud
squad of the EU, we insisted on witness protection, this is normally
provided by the police under OLAF instruction.
I imagine that arrests of the culprit(s), who did not even bother to
hide their identity, probably under the Terorism Act, are imminent.
My wife and myself have been terrorised for nearly a decade. I'm sick,
in pain and very tired of it all.
As far as I'm concerned they can share a cell with Al Quaeda. They are
no different.
Burkie
Not my responsibility to do so. Yours. In the meantime, ST398 is
associated, world-wide with swine production and pigs.
So it's up to you and you're crowd to prove me wrong.
Burkie
Burkie
Burkie
Burkie
Sir: There is mention of the people involved in the UK. We have those
records, and their names. You have to do the same. You can search
them out for yourself. It's already been done, here. I don't think
it's my responsibility to provide them to you. You haven't done
anything but chastise me, so far, for doing so. The Facts are, sir,
that there is someone in the UK that submitted that information to
Ridom's Database in July, 2004, confirming ST398 was found in the UK
at that time, with subsequent reports submitted to Ridom, which then
became, internationally available.
If you have a problem with that, and if you have a problem with the
current information being put out by your own National Pig
Association, your own DEFRA crowd, apparently trying to dismiss the
problems that exist in your own UK, then that's YOUR Problem, not
mine.
I'm just saying you've been lied to. STaph Aureus is in UK swine
herds. And you have health officials that can't tell the TRUTH.
Actually, I feel sorry for you and all the other people in the UK.
But go ahead and berate me for having done my research. That's
obviously your choice.
Doesn't bother me in the least that you want to attack me. There is
a multitude of support here in the States, now, that believe and have
better access to this information than I may have. They have titles,
like "Dr." ie, Doctor, that include Doctors in both the fields of
Veterinary and Human Medicine.
Public Awareness of MRSA problems have grown, now, courtesy of Pat
Gardiner's cries for help, to bring this situation to some ways and
means of dealing with this Antibiotic-Resistance in livestock and
human problem. That's progress.
But there has never been any real stand-out person, willing to address
these problems, in the U.K.
Too scared of retaliation from special pharma interests and quango
pressures is my guess.
Burkie
GrahamW
that there is someone in the UK that submitted that information to
Ridom's Database in July, 2004, confirming ST398 was found in the UK
at that time, with subsequent reports submitted to Ridom, which then
became, internationally available.
What makes you think that the sample was submitted by someone in the UK.
I've been in touch, some time ago, with Dag Harmsen who is one of the
keepers of the Ridom Database. He informed me that the information was
submitted by Hajo Grundmann from the Netherlands.
There is no indication in the database where or from what the sample was
taken and to just jump to the conclusions that fit Pats theory puts his
whole argument into question.
I like to deal in facts, not guesswork and supposition.
Graham
Pat Gardiner
No "Pats theory" any more, I'm afraid. The most senior ranks of
Britain's government veterinarians have hidden up zoonotic disease
dangerous to humans for the last decade and exported it in live
exports too.
It is the nightmare scenario and the Americans are hot on their trail.
A lot of people will be going to gaol for a very long time. They had
better hope that the Americans do not go for extradition.
I would imagine that the accommodation in the USA would be less than
the five star luxury enjoyed by the SVS in the past at taxpayers'
expense.
No wonder Gordon Brown is showing signs of bad temper. He is, one
imagines, getting orders to sort it out.
Anyway uk.business.agriculture and many of Britain's veterinary front
organisations have been so thoroughly penetrated by investigative
organisations that it resembles gang rape rather than a honey trap.
I've ben watching the brighter bolt for the last couple of years,
perhaps, in some cases, rather longer. The stupid have been left to
fight a rearguard action.
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
>Graham
>
>
Derek Moody
Burkie <URL:mailto:Burk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm just saying you've been lied to. STaph Aureus is in UK swine
> herds. And you have health officials that can't tell the TRUTH.
Woah.
SA infects practically all mammals. No-one has denied that pigs are
included and have been since before they were first domesticated.
The point is that for the thousands of years up to the end of the second
world war SA was more intractable than MRSA is nowadays. In consequence the
procedures evolved over those ages remain just as effective now as ever they
were.
> Public Awareness of MRSA problems have grown, now, courtesy of Pat
> Gardiner's cries for help
Pat Gardiner's bletherings are irrelevant and for the vast majority of the
population they can be classed as scurrilous scaremongering akin to crying
'fire' in a crowded theatre.
Pat Gardiner
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <10227b23-f309-4d37...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>Burkie <URL:mailto:Burk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm just saying you've been lied to. STaph Aureus is in UK swine
>> herds. And you have health officials that can't tell the TRUTH.
>
>Woah.
>
>SA infects practically all mammals. No-one has denied that pigs are
>included and have been since before they were first domesticated.
>
>The point is that for the thousands of years up to the end of the second
>world war SA was more intractable than MRSA is nowadays. In consequence the
>procedures evolved over those ages remain just as effective now as ever they
>were.
Cod science designed to mislead.
>
>> Public Awareness of MRSA problems have grown, now, courtesy of Pat
>> Gardiner's cries for help
>
>Pat Gardiner's bletherings are irrelevant and for the vast majority of the
>population they can be classed as scurrilous scaremongering akin to crying
>'fire' in a crowded theatre.
You obviously have a low opinion of your fellow countrymen. They will
rumble you, once Defra's disinformation campaign is exposed to public
gaze. You can't hide up excess human deaths for ever.
You would lock the exit doors and charge to let people out.
I have not forgotten how you preened yourself over the influence you
welded during the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak. You thought you were
going to make a fortune - and it showed.
How does it feel to face investigation and total disgrace?
I'm almost sorry for you.
Anyway, something cheered me up this morning - the railway station
built in 6 days in Cumbria, without any great fanfare by an
organisation not usually singled for praise.
We will need lots of people like that to rebuild rural Britain after
the ravages of criminals has been stopped.
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
>Cheerio,
Burkie
Good, so do I. As you have admitted that you have the personal
contact with Dag, perhaps you have the ability to inquire and find out
the who, what, where and when's as to that submission. I'm hoping you
can. In the meantime, there is a growing problem that needs your
attention in the UK. I've done some of that here over a very long
time. Just by talking to our own Public Health officials, the levels
of Public Awareness as to the risks of MRSA in our own hospitals and
care homes has been raised. What I learned was that there were
increasing levels of MRSA incidents, and our medical professionals
weren't having much success in treating these MRSA and other Staph-
related hospital or care home problems. No testing was being done.
Standard administration of the "normal" antibiotics were ineffective,
and patients and their families were suffering as a result.
Vancomycin was used, which helped at the time, but persistently higher
levels of it were even required. There was a lot of hand-wringing
going on and lots of questions, with very few answers. That's
beginning to improve. The State's Public Health officials have
modified their stances to try to address these growing MRSA
problems. Our CDC (Center for Disease Control) has been more pro-
active. And most recently, the use of non-therapeutic use of
antibiotics in commercial animal feeds is being seriously questioned -
Why?
Because such high levels of antibiotics are being fed willy-nilly to
millions of hogs and cattle, resulting in residues of antibiotics in
the meat from these animals. That's going to be changed.
There is an article in today's Telegraph that is yet another Red Flag
waving in the wind about the levels of care in the UK's NHS
hospitals. It is a scathing article, which reveals serious flaws in
the monitoring of such things as MRSA that are presently occurring at
the present time. Sad, but appears to be true.
Mind, I'm not really being critical. I'm just saying that if these
kinds of problems aren't addressed, aren't corrected, then it will
only get to be bigger problem, just like the way your whole Bovine TB
has grown to be the problem it is now.
Personally, I would never set foot in one of your hospitals now.
Would you?
By the way, the people I've personally known that got MRSA, got it at
our own KU Med Center, after undergoing surgeries there. Several
local people. They went there to have surgery done, and came out of
there having to fight MRSA for months, two of whom were forced to
undergo additional surgery to fight the devastating effects of their
hospital-acquired MRSA. They'll never be the same, again.
Burkie
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
>Personally, I would never set foot in one of your hospitals now.
>Would you?
One to two years ago I was an in-patient in two different NHS hospitals.
The first time was for diagnosis and the development of a medication
regime pending surgery. The second time I underwent a surgical
procedure. On neither occasion did I pick up an infection. I did not
hear of any fellow patients who caught anything nasty in those
hospitals.
In the first hospital one night I overheard the senior nurse on duty in
the group of wards talking to someone on the phone. She was refusing
politely but very firmly to allow a patient who had recently arrived at
the hospital into her "territory". The patient had severe but
unexplained diarrhoea. Her point was that he might have a serious
infection that could be easily spread as a result of his diarrhoea. She
flatly refused to allow him anywhere near "her patients". I don't know
where he went but he certainly didn't come into the group of wards I was
in.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)
Burkie
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:38:16 -0800 (PST), Burkie <Burki...@yahoo.com>
Hi, Peter: I am glad that your experience was so good. The
performance of that particular nurse was outstanding. I am sure there
are hundreds of other's that are just as good and just as responsible
throughout your health care systems, but this one's performance should
be both congratulated and emulated even more. The mark of a true
professional who was protecting the welfare of those she was looking
after. That's refreshing and positive news, up close and personal
from yourself. I think even Pat would second your statements about
the care he's received during and post surgery, recently. It sounds
like things are improving, in general. That's good news. From my
own interactions with some hospital administrators, nurses, doctors
and other health care people, here, their awareness quotients have
much improved over the course of the last four years. SA is still a
recurrent problem as is MRSA. Lots of precautionary actions have
been implemented and that's good for everyone.
Gary
Old Codger
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:06:05 +0000, Derek Moody
> <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <10227b23-f309-4d37...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Burkie <URL:mailto:Burk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm just saying you've been lied to. STaph Aureus is in UK swine
>>> herds. And you have health officials that can't tell the TRUTH.
>> Woah.
>>
>> SA infects practically all mammals. No-one has denied that pigs are
>> included and have been since before they were first domesticated.
>>
>> The point is that for the thousands of years up to the end of the second
>> world war SA was more intractable than MRSA is nowadays. In consequence the
>> procedures evolved over those ages remain just as effective now as ever they
>> were.
>
> Cod science designed to mislead.
An "expert" opinion from someone who, in the past, has said quite
specifically that he is not a scientist. Hmmmmm!
Subsequent libellous statements snipped.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Pat Gardiner
wrote:
>On Nov 30, 8:07�am, Peter Duncanson <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
Yes, I do concur. I have seen many things wrong, but many right too.
I have, in the past paid for private treatment many times, even twice
for cancer including radio therapy (in very unusual circumstances),
but for practical even when there are no financial imperative, in
Britain, we rely normally on the NHS.
When it gets something right, it gets it right on a massive world
beating scale - outperforming anybody anywhere. I'm basically proud of
the NHS and seek to protect it.
When it gets it wrong, it is like an elephant - difficult to redirect
- and it takes a long time.
The American system is more diverse and much less secret. At any one
time, some will get it right, some will get it wrong - and the best
can be more quickly adopted.
Recently I was talking to a friend, half Brit, half American and also
a qualified British lawyer about class actions. He is probably reading
this now.
I said that I had long disapproved of class actions, but was changing
my mind, because of their ability to bring reform. He was quick to
agree.
Whether we like it or not, there has been a dramatic increase in class
actions due to changes in British law, but typically these are being
paid by the taxpayer and much more seriously settled out of Court with
confidentiality agreements. That removes their capacity to force
change.
When it all comes tumbling out, the taxpayers are going to be amazed
at the huge sums disbursed secretly by the taxpayer to cover up for
corrupt civil servants in Defra. The sums are massive. The crimes
covered up, truly terrible.
The manpower of the NHS is massive - a vast army. When they find out
what the vets have done, there will be a veterinary wasteland here - a
sea of sacked and unwanted veterinary scientists unable ever to work
in their chosen profession again.
It is going to be hard for many. They were so high in British public
esteem, they have so far to fall. That is why they have to start the
process of reform themselves right now. They have to get their heads
above the parapet.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:06:05 +0000, Derek Moody
> <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <10227b23-f309-4d37...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >Burkie <URL:mailto:Burk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm just saying you've been lied to. STaph Aureus is in UK swine
> >> herds. And you have health officials that can't tell the TRUTH.
> >
> >Woah.
> >
> >SA infects practically all mammals. No-one has denied that pigs are
> >included and have been since before they were first domesticated.
> >
> >The point is that for the thousands of years up to the end of the second
> >world war SA was more intractable than MRSA is nowadays. In consequence the
> >procedures evolved over those ages remain just as effective now as ever they
> >were.
>
> Cod science designed to mislead.
Cod have very little trouble with SA.
Pat Gardiner
<de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <db27h5lb92csaugb9...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><URL:mailto:pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:06:05 +0000, Derek Moody
>> <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <10227b23-f309-4d37...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> >Burkie <URL:mailto:Burk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm just saying you've been lied to. STaph Aureus is in UK swine
>> >> herds. And you have health officials that can't tell the TRUTH.
>> >
>> >Woah.
>> >
>> >SA infects practically all mammals. No-one has denied that pigs are
>> >included and have been since before they were first domesticated.
>> >
>> >The point is that for the thousands of years up to the end of the second
>> >world war SA was more intractable than MRSA is nowadays. In consequence the
>> >procedures evolved over those ages remain just as effective now as ever they
>> >were.
>>
>> Cod science designed to mislead.
>
>Cod have very little trouble with SA.
You will have.
By the time your local media have had their say, all the Politburo
will be softened up and singing like little birdies, glad to blame one
another and everybody else involved.
Stalking and bullying a whistle-blower, who was right, for nearly a
decade is going to take some explaining away. You will have to shop
the others.
Burkie
<pat.gardi...@removeremovelive.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:28:38 -0800 (PST), Burkie <Burki...@yahoo.com>
Dear Pat: It seems you are advocating a dietary change for UK's
Veterinarians. Most pictures I've seen of 'em are ones that show
puffy eyes, hog jowls...overfat, and aneamia......indicating extreme
alcoholism. That's a shame. But the reasons why are explainable.
First, your people are well-documented to be prone to alcoholism.
Your vets were brought up in that rapturous educational experience.
Once implemented and condoned by your system (sorry, and ours) alcohol
became a part of their lives. It's not "across the board" Pat, but
it is reality. When a vet comes to a farm to treat a horse's eye
problems and proceeds to administer Furacin to the eye of a colt -
then argues with me that that's o.k.- he got the boot. He was drunk
when he came....and wanted more of what he'd been drinkin' -
proceeded to exercise his so-called "expertise" and was found to be
drunk. He Got MY Boot.
"Get off my property and NEVER come back.
Burkie
Burkie
As a Post Script: He apologised and admitted he didn't know what he
was attempting to do. Sometimes, knowledge and reason prevail, but
just because a veterinarian trys to be assertive, doesn't mean what
they assert it Right or Correct. After all, they claim fame for
successes, but NEVER advertise their failures.....of which there are
many.
"It's just a dumb dog, cat, horse or pig or steer or
heifer............expendable. "Oh, I can save her,
mate!"//////////////How Deep are your Pockets?" Human Doctors been
trained to do the same.
Burkie
Burkie
By the way, this particular Veterinarian and I still maintain an air
of decency and gentility. He knows he'll never have to deal with me
again, and I know not to ever ask him to come assist me with any
problem I have with animals I raise.
He also knows he failed me, in a time of need, and I know his
prescription for advised treatment of my colt's problem was wrong.
Had I NOT KNOWN, he would have "blown " the eye of that one colt.
driven away and charged me his bill.
Lesson Learned? Veterinarians are just people with some knowledge
most of us don't have access to. It's time that the People stand up
and say they've been raped and bludgeoned by these people and have had
enough of their bullshit.
These veterinarians chose their profession to protect and help
animals, in general, and, in turn, the people who maintain the lives
of the animals they own. Those people are being "raped" by the
veterinary profession, today.
Not good.
Time for change.
Burkie
Burkie
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 06:28:38 -0800 (PST), Burkie <Burki...@yahoo.com>
Dear Pat: I'm not into sueing people. I've never done that,
probably never will, but that's my choice. I still have that
ability. Why make things cost more for us people because of a
lawsuit? The companies or people sued, only have so much money.
Yes, in the past, there have been some huge settlements issued by
Judges, but who ever got was awarded by the Judge?
Burkie
Pat Gardiner
wrote:
>On Nov 30, 10:30�am, Pat Gardiner
I'm not into suing either. It's not to my taste. But others can and
will. I prefer to simply state the facts, as honestly as possible*,
and let others make their own decision.
If I was a member of the Politburo and had done such awful things, my
computer would go in the nearest pond and I would make myself very
scarce. Actually, I would apologise first, mostly because whatever the
lawyers may say, a generous apology and correction does much to turn
away anger. Otherwise disclosure, disgrace and worse awaits.
The losses over this animal health fiasco are massive and it won't be
compensation, it will be reparations. Vast quantities of assets will
acquire new owners. Fortunately you can't destroy land that easily and
the world will go on. England's land has changed ownership before and
we are still here, still speaking the same language.
There was a similar situation in the 1970s when Communists anarchists
and agitators were on strike and trying to close Britain's seaports.
Thirty years later, we know that all the leaders were informing on one
another to various security services. They were trying to outdo one
another in aggression to prove their credentials to onlookers. It
ended in chaos and disaster. Britain's seaports, excluding Felixstowe
became yacht harbours with yuppie flats. The dockers' and miners'
children are now unemployed or have moved on. This will be the same.
"The last sad squires ride slowly down towards the sea and a new
people take this land, and still it is not we."
*sometimes it has been necessary to hold back some information or more
commonly the sources of such information to protect decent people, who
are frankly terrified of retribution from the criminals that run
Britain's state veterinary services.
They are just starting to pick up their courage and talk. Watch!
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
>
>Burkie
Old Codger
>
> Stalking and bullying a whistle-blower, who was right, for nearly a
> decade is going to take some explaining away. You will have to shop
> the others.
I have asked you before to name those you accuse of bullying and
stalking and you have not done so. This accusation against Derek is
false just as all your previous accusations have been.
Old Codger
>
> I'm not into suing either. It's not to my taste. But others can and
> will. I prefer to simply state the facts, as honestly as possible*,
> and let others make their own decision.
Hmmm! So all your threats are empty then?
On February 13 2006 in Message-ID:
<dsqusk$5i7$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
you wrote:
"You will be the other one getting an injunction."
Later in the same thread, Message-ID:
<dsvs0h$etp$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
you wrote:
"Ok, just warn your wife and neighbours that enquiry agents will be
checking on your location and identity prior to issuing an injunction."
That is not the only occasion on which you have issued similar threats.
May we now assume that all these threats are empty threats then?
Burkie
> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>
> > I'm not into suing either. It's not to my taste. But others can and
> > will. I prefer to simply state the facts, as honestly as possible*,
> > and let others make their own decision.
>
> Hmmm! So all your threats are empty then?
>
> On February 13 2006 in Message-ID:
>
> you wrote:
>
> "You will be the other one getting an injunction."
>
> Later in the same thread, Message-ID:
>
> you wrote:
>
> "Ok, just warn your wife and neighbours that enquiry agents will be
> checking on your location and identity prior to issuing an injunction."
>
> That is not the only occasion on which you have issued similar threats.
>
> May we now assume that all these threats are empty threats then?
>
> --
> Old Codger
> e-mail use reply to field
>
> What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
> people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
I think it's time that all this kind of talk just stops. It isn't
constructive, at all. There are very real problems that need to be
rationally addressed and threats of suits don't make that very easy.
That is cerrtainly not my stance. Identify the problems, expose
them, and correct them is what I believe can be done....to everyone's
benefit.
Gary
Pat Gardiner
wrote:
>On Dec 1, 3:27�pm, Old Codger <oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
He is faking it up again. For a start, I doubt whether any vessel was
ever built at Felixstowe beyond a canoe. The idea that I would say
that the "Atlantic Conveyor was built there is ludicrous.
This is his signature. He obviously stupid enough to believe it.
>> What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
>> people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
I think is hoping to plead insanity when he gets the knock on the
door. Stalking is pretty much a crime here now and coupled with
everything else, he is in for a very bad time.
I repeat my comment:
> > I'm not into suing either. It's not to my taste. But others can and
> > will. I prefer to simply state the facts, as honestly as possible*,
> > and let others make their own decision.
What the Politburo has not realised is that there are a lot of people
who will make money if British pigs do have MRSA. Those people have
every interest in sparking an incident.
Threats of arson have been flying about - and if there are any
unfortunate incidents, the politburo are going to be rounded up
without so much as a "by your leave." They have made a lot of enemies
over the years.
Sad to see the Usenet misused so badly.
Anyway, enough of this. If the politburo are stupid enough to
encourage him, that is their problem.
Let's get back to the matters in hand: MRSA in British pigs.
The evidence is all there and British government vets are now at
loggerheads with EFSA. That cannot continue.
Old Codger
It was you who brought the subject up and Pat responded with his
statement that he is not in to suing. I merely pointed out that he has
threatened numerous people with lawsuits and gave an example.
I ask again, may we now assume that all Pats threats of lawsuits are
empty, in view of his above statement that he is not into suing?
Pat Gardiner
As you perfectly well know, I'm ill for the second time with cancer,
sent home early from hospital with open wounds and being nursed by my
wife and daily visits from community nurses.
I can't sue anyone. If I'm alive long enough, probably won't be well
enough to give evidence even. I have been house bound for months and
just have to sit here and wait for a petrol bomb to land on the
doorstep hoping that the police will get there first.
You have been stalking a sick man for the past five years with blatent
lies, deliberate libels and crafty veiled threats of violence.
Last night after threats of arson were published on the internet
obviously aimed at myself, or maybe the Soil Association, my wife
after a long day of nursing me, had to spend the night invoking
protection arrangements and moving fire extinuishers around. She is
terrified and worn out. We often have a young child staying here.
The authorities, possibly Special Branch, will have those threats in
hand and copies are in the United States.
I have no idea what the Soil Association make of it all.
Personally,I think you are very likely to have your collar felt. I
trust you take those who thought it so clever to encourage you with
lush ups in Oxfordshire, with you.
Aren't you a big brave fellow? When women and children can't sleep
safely in their beds?
Obviously very dangerous though.
Old Codger
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 13:51:01 -0800 (PST), Burkie <Burk...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 3:27 pm, Old Codger <oldcod...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not into suing either. It's not to my taste. But others can and
>>>> will. I prefer to simply state the facts, as honestly as possible*,
>>>> and let others make their own decision.
>>> Hmmm! So all your threats are empty then?
>>>
>>> On February 13 2006 in Message-ID:
>>> <dsqusk$5i...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
>>>
>>> you wrote:
>>>
>>> "You will be the other one getting an injunction."
>>>
>>> Later in the same thread, Message-ID:
>>> <dsvs0h$et...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
>>>
>>> you wrote:
>>>
>>> "Ok, just warn your wife and neighbours that enquiry agents will be
>>> checking on your location and identity prior to issuing an injunction."
>>>
>>> That is not the only occasion on which you have issued similar threats.
>>>
>>> May we now assume that all these threats are empty threats then?
>>>
>> constructive, at all. There are very real problems that need to be
>> rationally addressed and threats of suits don't make that very easy.
>> That is cerrtainly not my stance. Identify the problems, expose
>> them, and correct them is what I believe can be done....to everyone's
>> benefit.
>
> ever built at Felixstowe beyond a canoe. The idea that I would say
> that the "Atlantic Conveyor was built there is ludicrous.
I note you have not responded to my question: Are all your threats of
lawsuits empty threats in view of your above statement that you are not
into suing?
I am faking nothing and, IIRC, it was others who told you that Felistowe
was not capable of building any ship.
What I actually said in Message ID:
<4b156b9c$0$2528$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
in another thread by the way, was: "IIRC, you were the one claiming
something about the Atlantic Conveyor or its successor being built in
Felixtowe. No one else in this group has faked any ship movements and
you are the only one who claims relevant knowledge."
I was not that far out either. On the 27 September this year, in
Message-ID: <s8t0c5t8soagbqkek...@4ax.com>
you wrote: "I'm reminded of a true story. During the Falkland's War, a
major American vessel was forced to wait her berth for us to perform
some complicated maneuvers to create a replacement aircraft carrier
after the "Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by an exocet. The operation was
obviously secret"
Please note the reference to creating "a replacement aircraft carrier".
When challenged you continually tried to justify the above statement.
Perhaps any idea that you might tell the truth is ludicrous.
> This is his signature. He obviously stupid enough to believe it.
I didn't believe Felixtowe docks was capable of building any ship, let
alone an aircraft carrier. You were the one making the statement so
perhaps you are the stupid one.
> I think is hoping to plead insanity when he gets the knock on the door.
I am not the one who is insane, even if I don't have a certificate to
prove it.
> Stalking is pretty much a crime here now and coupled with
> everything else, he is in for a very bad time.
I merely respond to some of your ridiculous posts. That is *NOT*
stalking. You really should take some proper legal advice, your current
sources are obviously not very good.
> I repeat my comment:
>
>>> I'm not into suing either. It's not to my taste. But others can and
>>> will. I prefer to simply state the facts, as honestly as possible*,
>>> and let others make their own decision.
So can we now assume that all your threats of lawsuits were empty
threats and that you never had any intention of carrying them through?
> What the Politburo has not realised is that there are a lot of people
> who will make money if British pigs do have MRSA. Those people have
> every interest in sparking an incident.
I would think all the regulars here, and most other folk also, are well
aware that whatever happens someone will make money out of it. We do
not see that MRSA in pigs is any different in this respect.
> Threats of arson have been flying about - and if there are any
> unfortunate incidents, the politburo are going to be rounded up
> without so much as a "by your leave." They have made a lot of enemies
> over the years.
You appear to be accusing some of the regulars of threats of arson.
What evidence do you have for that?
> Sad to see the Usenet misused so badly.
You appear to have lead a very sheltered life. If you were to post your
crap in many other newsgroups there would be such a barrage of
antagonistic responses that your posts would be lost in the noise. You
actually get a peaceful ride in this group. Perhaps that is why you
descended on us, no one else would have you.
> Anyway, enough of this. If the politburo are stupid enough to
> encourage him, that is their problem.
If I was being encouraged, why is that a problem to anyone encouraging
me? Of course, I am posting entirely off my own back and I alone am
responsible for what I post.
> Let's get back to the matters in hand: MRSA in British pigs.
>
> The evidence is all there and British government vets are now at
> loggerheads with EFSA. That cannot continue.
So how many more years do we have to wait for your many "imminent"
activities to occur?
Old Codger
Why can't you just answer a simple question with a straightforward
answer. It really is easy. All you have to post is "Yes, they were all
empty threats". We don't need your claimed life history just to provide
you with a deniable assumption.
> I can't sue anyone. If I'm alive long enough, probably won't be well
> enough to give evidence even. I have been house bound for months and
> just have to sit here and wait for a petrol bomb to land on the
> doorstep hoping that the police will get there first.
If you really have been threatened then I have some sympathy but I
cannot accept the implied suggestion that those threats came from any of
this groups regulars. Pete is the only one who just might make those
types of threats and I doubt even he is that stupid.
> You have been stalking a sick man for the past five years
Responding to a few of your more ridiculous posts is not stalking. As I
have already said, it is time you got yourself some reasonably good
legal advice.
> with blatent lies, deliberate libels and crafty veiled threats of violence.
That is libellous.
I have told no lies, neither have I libelled you, you are the one
posting libellous comments whenever someone disagrees with you. I have
never threatened you in any way, crafty, veiled or openly.
> Last night after threats of arson were published on the internet
> obviously aimed at myself, or maybe the Soil Association, my wife
> after a long day of nursing me, had to spend the night invoking
> protection arrangements and moving fire extinuishers around. She is
> terrified and worn out. We often have a young child staying here.
As I said above, *if* that is true you have my sympathy. However, I
very much doubt it has anything to do with any of the regular posters to
this group.
> The authorities, possibly Special Branch, will have those threats in
> hand and copies are in the United States.
Good, your claimed American friends will obviously sort it PDQ. :-)
> I have no idea what the Soil Association make of it all.
Neither have I and I don't actually give a s***.
> Personally,I think you are very likely to have your collar felt. I
> trust you take those who thought it so clever to encourage you with
> lush ups in Oxfordshire, with you.
What you think and what actually happens is, as we know, usually totally
different.
> Aren't you a big brave fellow? When women and children can't sleep
> safely in their beds?
>
> Obviously very dangerous though.
By implication that appears to be an accusation of me threatening you
with arson. That is a very serious accusation made with absolutely no
justification. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never threatened you
with anything and certainly not arson. You really do need first class
legal advice before you get yourself into real trouble.
Burkie
Two Key Reports exist that outline the situation of sub-therapeutic
use of antibiotics in animal feed. These reports are available on
the internet. Antibiotic resistance is a problem for our societies
and countrys to deal with, and as these reports explain, there are
efforts being made now to make some corrections.
The Pew Report: http://www.ncifap.org/bin/s/y/212-4_EnvImpact_tc_Final.pdf
and an older report from the US Food and Drug Administration, (very
dated but still relevant, March 9, 1999) which outlines the extent of
the problem 10 years ago:
http://www.cspinet.org/ar/petition_3_99.html
(I will try and get an update on this issue)
Burkie
Old Codger
>
> Dear Pat: It seems you are advocating a dietary change for UK's
> Veterinarians. Most pictures I've seen of 'em are ones that show
> puffy eyes, hog jowls...overfat, and aneamia......indicating extreme
> alcoholism. That's a shame. But the reasons why are explainable.
> First, your people are well-documented to be prone to alcoholism.
> Your vets were brought up in that rapturous educational experience.
> Once implemented and condoned by your system (sorry, and ours) alcohol
> became a part of their lives. It's not "across the board" Pat, but
> it is reality.
Hmmm!
I have never met a vet that fits that description although I don't doubt
there probably are a few. I have met a few that fit that description in
the general population and I expect there are others. I also suspect
there are some Americans, including some American vets, who also fit
that description.
Something about beams and motes comes to mind.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
> Pat Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > Stalking and bullying a whistle-blower, who was right, for nearly a
> > decade is going to take some explaining away. You will have to shop
> > the others.
>
> I have asked you before to name those you accuse of bullying and
> stalking and you have not done so. This accusation against Derek is
Oops, have I missed one? Ta.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
> > Last night after threats of arson were published on the internet
> > obviously aimed at myself, or maybe the Soil Association, my wife
Post a URI and I'll have a go at tracing the stuff.
> > after a long day of nursing me, had to spend the night invoking
> > protection arrangements and moving fire extinuishers around. She is
> > terrified and worn out. We often have a young child staying here.
If you've been daft enough to treat someone local to you with a short fuse
as you've tried to treat us here then I'm not particularly surprised you've
had threats.
> As I said above, *if* that is true you have my sympathy. However, I
> very much doubt it has anything to do with any of the regular posters to
> this group.
>
> > The authorities, possibly Special Branch, will have those threats in
> > hand and copies are in the United States.
You have alerted your local force?
> Good, your claimed American friends will obviously sort it PDQ. :-)
>
> > I have no idea what the Soil Association make of it all.
>
> Neither have I and I don't actually give a s***.
Aol.
> > Personally,I think you are very likely to have your collar felt. I
> > trust you take those who thought it so clever to encourage you with
> > lush ups in Oxfordshire, with you.
>
> What you think and what actually happens is, as we know, usually totally
> different.
>
> > Aren't you a big brave fellow? When women and children can't sleep
> > safely in their beds?
> >
> > Obviously very dangerous though.
>
> By implication that appears to be an accusation of me threatening you
> with arson. That is a very serious accusation made with absolutely no
> justification. For the avoidance of doubt, I have never threatened you
> with anything and certainly not arson. You really do need first class
> legal advice before you get yourself into real trouble.
Mind you, extrapolating from Pat's demonstrated level of accuracy and
comprehension on his chosen subject, this testament might get you beatified
or at least venerated.
Old Codger
> In article <4b156c34$0$2528$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger
> <URL:mailto:oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> Stalking and bullying a whistle-blower, who was right, for nearly a
>>> decade is going to take some explaining away. You will have to shop
>>> the others.
>> I have asked you before to name those you accuse of bullying and
>> stalking and you have not done so. This accusation against Derek is
>
> Oops, have I missed one? Ta.
Well there are so many. :-)
Buddenbrooks
"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
news:4b15aae2$0$2490$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
I do some voluntary work with a group where mental health problems are a
secondary commonly related issue.
I really feel that ignoring Pat is the kindest thing to do.
Pat is either a completely false character, in which case there is little
point in any dialog or he is who he says and has developed problems in later
life.
If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
presumably having a difficult time
and working him up is probably not helping her.
So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
Pat Gardiner
As I have told you many times I have no history of mental illness and
a sound and successful history in business.
The most cursory examination of the public records and the usenet will
show me as being "kosher" and "Old Codger" as having a long history of
fabrications and stalking.
Your associates have sought over many years to disseminate lies and
fabrications that will be adopted by others to endanger my life and
that of other innocents. That may well be deliberate. Any incident
here will obviously result in you all being rounded up for questioning
and the local media always get hold of the story.
Jonathan Miller's famous Politburo face both investigation and
prosecution. The collection of evidence has been going on for quite
some years and by a number of organisations in various jurisdictions.
Disgrace and ruin are the likeliest outcome for you all.
You would be wise to dump the computer in the nearest pond and make
yourself scarce rather than encourage a persistent stalker with some
pretty unpleasant habits. It's bad. Don't make it worse.
A lot of people and organisations will be seeking someone to blame
over the animal health fiasco in Britain and you have made yourselves
the number one candidates.
Tim Lamb
<knights...@budweiser.com> writes
Hear, hear!
I suppose there is an argument that providing an arena for Pat to vent
his anger and frustration is worthwhile?
Those visitors who tried reasoned argument quickly spotted the
irrationality behind any direct response and dropped out. Usenet is
speckled with similar behaviour. Angus M. elsewhere, continues a spat
against the Woodland Trust and more latterly, RSPB.
I expect graduates studying Psychology might find enough for a
behavioural studies thesis:-)
We need fresh topics! Anyone looked at the ozone hole lately? Might be
fixed by 2040!
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Oz
>In message <UHIRm.42670$Xc2....@newsfe24.ams2>, Buddenbrooks
><knights...@budweiser.com> writes
>>
>>"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
>>news:4b15aae2$0$2490$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> I do some voluntary work with a group where mental health problems are
>>a secondary commonly related issue.
>>
>> I really feel that ignoring Pat is the kindest thing to do.
>> Pat is either a completely false character, in which case there is
>>little point in any dialog or he is who he says and has developed
>>problems in later life.
>>
>> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
>>application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
>>presumably having a difficult time
>> and working him up is probably not helping her.
>>
>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>
>Hear, hear!
Fortunately I have the responders killfiled, so I never see either
garener or his almost as moronic respondents.
>I suppose there is an argument that providing an arena for Pat to vent
>his anger and frustration is worthwhile?
How about sci.agric? There he can have worldwide coverage!
And some equally notty friends IIRC.
>I expect graduates studying Psychology might find enough for a
>behavioural studies thesis:-)
I think some have already been made, on 'flaming' at least.
>We need fresh topics! Anyone looked at the ozone hole lately? Might be
>fixed by 2040!
CO2 reduction strategy, and the various ignorant non-starters (like
electric cars) could be a good start. So much urban myth...
--
Oz
Pat Gardiner
Given the circumstances, quoting libels and fabrications and linking
those to other lengthy stalking campaigns is not so smart.
You have some very dirty and dangerous addictions. Piling on the
pressure in the hope, I will slip up and you can all fall on me in
your customary fashion is a waste of time.
The Politburo's policy of throwing mud in the hope that some of it
will stick, is foolish in the extreme.
It has the effect of encouraging the threatened arson attacks and you
are effectively providing the excuse for such attacks.
Not that there is any justification and you can be sure that if there
are any further incidents here, you will be picked up for questioning
and that will become widely known.
You won't look so smart then.
I won't even need to provide the names. As you must be aware, you have
all been under surveillance for years.
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
>
>regards
Pat Gardiner
>Tim Lamb <t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In message <UHIRm.42670$Xc2....@newsfe24.ams2>, Buddenbrooks
>><knights...@budweiser.com> writes
>>>
>>>"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4b15aae2$0$2490$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>> I do some voluntary work with a group where mental health problems are
>>>a secondary commonly related issue.
>>>
>>> I really feel that ignoring Pat is the kindest thing to do.
>>> Pat is either a completely false character, in which case there is
>>>little point in any dialog or he is who he says and has developed
>>>problems in later life.
>>>
>>> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
>>>application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
>>>presumably having a difficult time
>>> and working him up is probably not helping her.
>>>
>>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>>
>>Hear, hear!
>
>Fortunately I have the responders killfiled, so I never see either
>garener or his almost as moronic respondents.
>
>>I suppose there is an argument that providing an arena for Pat to vent
>>his anger and frustration is worthwhile?
Ah! Mr Big of broad Oxfordshire acres finally arrives on the scene to
restore discipline to his ragged beaten army. "Gardiner" Oz.
You have used so many variations of my name to try to defeat the
search engines that you look really stupid.
>
>How about sci.agric? There he can have worldwide coverage!
>And some equally notty friends IIRC.
No need. This is the place to come for the latest and best information
on Britain's animal and human health disaster - especially the news
denied to Britain's NHS and farmers by veterinary corruption. The rest
of the world reads what is deliberately suppressed in Britain.
The strangest thing is that it all happened by accident. I simply
followed the usual business practice of turning problems into
opportunities.
Not that any of your band of walking disasters would understand that.
>
>>I expect graduates studying Psychology might find enough for a
>>behavioural studies thesis:-)
I repeat that I have no history of mental illness. So stop repeating
the libels.
>
>I think some have already been made, on 'flaming' at least.
>
>>We need fresh topics! Anyone looked at the ozone hole lately? Might be
>>fixed by 2040!
>
>CO2 reduction strategy, and the various ignorant non-starters (like
>electric cars) could be a good start. So much urban myth...
You need your own private newsgroup. But I suppose there is no
satisfaction in failing to attract more innocents for bullying and
humiliating.
Jonathan Miller, the former Sunday Times Columnist (mean Fields)
called this the nastiest place on the internet and you are the man
that made it so.
Peter Duncanson
<t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>We need fresh topics! Anyone looked at the ozone hole lately? Might be
>fixed by 2040!
Simple. Totally destroy the ozone layer. There will then be nothing to
have a hole in.
Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <2vWLxhH4...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk>, Tim Lamb
><t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hasn't there just been a suggestion that the ozone hole has slowed down
>ice melt in Antarctica?
Malcolm is another one that is going to have to explain his actions
over the past decade to an extremely unsympathetic audience in
Scotland.
In fact, if the Westminster government are slow in rermoving crown
immunity from their corrupt veterinarians, he might find himself
dealing with other investigators.
Deliberately snipping the bits that are unfavourable to his warped
views - and a scam that costs Scottish lives is not going to go down
well.
This is what he does not want to talk about. Why? Don't bother to
answer, Malcolm, your record has crossed the Atlantic.
Pat's Note:
Had the question been worded slightly differently, they would have
been forced to admit that MRSA st398 has been found in Scotland in
children a couple of years ago and was covered up for 6 months. They
went so far as to say they could find no connection with pigs, when
they did own up.
Another wording would have produced the answer that st398 had been
found in England in unspecified livestock more than five years ago.
Presumably, Defra do know the difference between poultry, pigs and
cattle, but do not want to tell us.
So, our hospitals still have not introduced the eminently sensible and
proven precautions adopted by the Dutch more than five years ago, when
they bravely flew to the USA and told the world that their pigs were
carrying MRSA and that veterinarians, pig and pork workers were a
danger to themselves, their families and their hospitals.
It isn't complicated - and it is the worst scandal for many years. It
will break over the heads of those that conspired to keep it secret.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91202w0002.htm
Question
Asked by Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of any
connection between animal and human strains of MRSA; and whether they
will consider the experience of the Netherlands in that matter.
[HL360]
Baroness Thornton: The majority of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus (MRSA) infections are due to healthcare-associated strains.
However, given experience in the Netherlands and elsewhere the Health
Protection Agency asks diagnostic laboratories to send it unusual
isolates from people with a farming association for further
investigation. No cases of the pig-related strain ST398 have been
reported in England. The Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial
Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infections continue to keep
developments in relation to human and animal strains of MRSA under
review.
Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <mnfgh55q9dkh4evas...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Malcolm is another one that is going to have to explain his actions
>>over the past decade to an extremely unsympathetic audience in
>>Scotland.
>>
>>In fact, if the Westminster government are slow in rermoving crown
>>immunity from their corrupt veterinarians, he might find himself
>>dealing with other investigators.
>>
>>Deliberately snipping the bits that are unfavourable to his warped
>>views - and a scam that costs Scottish lives is not going to go down
>>well.
>>
>>This is what he does not want to talk about. Why? Don't bother to
>>answer, Malcolm, your record has crossed the Atlantic.
>>
>Oh, I think I shall answer, if only to thank you for your kind comments
>about me, Pat.
>
>It seems not to have occurred to you that I've been well known across
>the Atlantic for a great many years and indeed received the usual warm
>welcome from relatives, friends and colleagues, even ding I seem to
>recall a vet or two, last time I was there, just a couple of months ago.
>Perhaps my "record" over there differs from your wishful thinking.
>Didn't you used to claim that some of us wouldn't be allowed entry?
Patience. They will get to you.
Who do you think complained to your employers, if that is what they
are, about your activities a couple of years ago?
...and I did not instigate it either. But I do know what happened.
I keep telling you people, you are your own worst enemies. This is one
of several linked scandals that will go to international
investigation.
Unless, I'm very much mistaken (I was slightly sleepy) I have just
heard that "Climategate" is going to be investigated by the UN.
I'm especially fed up since my eldest granddaughter has a degree from
the University of East Anglia and is currently in for a second.My
wife's Uncle (probably Great Uncle) was the Professor of Economics and
a specialist in Titoism there in the 1970s.
East Anglia is going to be known as a nest of bad scientists. That
reflects on everyone.
And that is partly due to the Scottish Executive illegally
investigating criminal offences committed by their government vets in
England. OLAF (the serious Fraud Squad of the EU know all about it.
They have had the documentation for years. They regard it as an
internal matter. They are going to have to change their minds.
Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <ugmhh512gd6vja230...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>Wishful thinking. You have confidently claimed for a long time that some
>of us would not be allowed entry across the Atlantic. I've just proved
>you wrong.
Yes, I know. I'm a slow patient worker and well known for it in my
business life. Each step carefully considered, back carefully covered
before moving on. I did it by the book, all the complaints are in the
right order, carefully documented and stored abroad.
There is much more than I could ever publish here. The Americans were
here watching animal health before me, and unkown to me for a long
time.
Jeering at the security services for giving you plenty of rope is not
wise.
>>
>>Who do you think complained to your employers, if that is what they
>>are, about your activities a couple of years ago?
>>
>>...and I did not instigate it either. But I do know what happened.
>>
>Then you'll know that the complaint was rejected.
Only at the first instance. Following protests, It was later upheld
and you got a stiff warning. I was sent copies of the correspondence.
You ought to know by now that I don't bluff. You should not mess with
Uncle Sam.
You should know, if you don't know already, that some of those
currently suspended and under investigation share your hobbies and are
presumably known to you. I imagine the coincidence will not have been
missed. I'm waiting to see if I'm needed to give evidence. At that
point, I will obviously be under an obligation to say nothing pending
court action.
If I was you I would take a fishing boat to Ireland and hide up with
Mr Duncanson until he cracks, then move south to "Greymaus." who will
well understand that any enquiry from the Americans will be met with
enthusiastic help from the authorities.
He will probably shop you himself in total desperation.
Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <ffqih59urec0vpbc8...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:48:41 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <ugmhh512gd6vja230...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>
>>>>Who do you think complained to your employers, if that is what they
>>>>are, about your activities a couple of years ago?
>>>>
>>>>...and I did not instigate it either. But I do know what happened.
>>>>
>>>Then you'll know that the complaint was rejected.
>>
>>Only at the first instance. Following protests, It was later upheld
>>and you got a stiff warning. I was sent copies of the correspondence.
>>
>Wrong It was rejected both times.
Malcolm, wise up. They will know differently in Washington and
everyone reading this will know that I'm right.
You got a stiff warning for repeated stalking.
Old Codger
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:26:53 +0000, Malcolm
> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <ffqih59urec0vpbc8...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:48:41 +0000, Malcolm
>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <ugmhh512gd6vja230...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>> Who do you think complained to your employers, if that is what they
>>>>> are, about your activities a couple of years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and I did not instigate it either. But I do know what happened.
>>>>>
>>>> Then you'll know that the complaint was rejected.
>>> Only at the first instance. Following protests, It was later upheld
>>> and you got a stiff warning. I was sent copies of the correspondence.
>>>
>> Wrong It was rejected both times.
>
> Malcolm, wise up. They will know differently in Washington and
> everyone reading this will know that I'm right.
I suspect most folk will believe you to be wrong.
> You got a stiff warning for repeated stalking.
Responding to your ridiculous posts is *NOT* stalking, it is normal
usenet activity - discussion. That proves you are posting nonsense.
Pat Gardiner
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:26:53 +0000, Malcolm
>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <ffqih59urec0vpbc8...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:48:41 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In article <ugmhh512gd6vja230...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>> <pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>> Who do you think complained to your employers, if that is what they
>>>>>> are, about your activities a couple of years ago?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and I did not instigate it either. But I do know what happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then you'll know that the complaint was rejected.
>>>> Only at the first instance. Following protests, It was later upheld
>>>> and you got a stiff warning. I was sent copies of the correspondence.
>>>>
>>> Wrong It was rejected both times.
>>
>> Malcolm, wise up. They will know differently in Washington and
>> everyone reading this will know that I'm right.
>
>I suspect most folk will believe you to be wrong.
>
>> You got a stiff warning for repeated stalking.
>
>Responding to your ridiculous posts is *NOT* stalking, it is normal
>usenet activity - discussion. That proves you are posting nonsense.
Handy that, conspiracy to stalk, let alone with threats of violence
will attract longer sentences, I would imagine - and draw in the rest
of the diminishing ranks of the Politburo.
I don't think an Islay fishing boat will take "Old Codger". Malcolm
certainly, from what I hear, anything to get him off the island and
out of Scotland.
You lot are a laugh a minute. It has become a public duty to get you
out of circulation. Fortunately, it will be others' duty, not mine.
Old Codger
>
> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
> news:4b15aae2$0$2490$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>
> I do some voluntary work with a group where mental health problems are
> a secondary commonly related issue.
>
> I really feel that ignoring Pat is the kindest thing to do.
> Pat is either a completely false character, in which case there is
> little point in any dialog or he is who he says and has developed
> problems in later life.
I am strongly inclined to the completely false character diagnosis. How
many folk come on here proclaiming what their job is, or was? The only
one I can think of is Pat. For most posters one may eventually deduce
what their job probably is, or was, from the content of their posts.
One or two have said, when it has been relevant to a particular
discussion, and for others there have been enough clues, again when a
discussion has led in the right direction. One other thing is that as
opportunities have presented I have looked in "Compass" going back some
years. I have found not a single reference to any of the companies Pat
claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at
all, they are pretty insignificant.
> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
> application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
> presumably having a difficult time
> and working him up is probably not helping her.
May be helping him though. If he is as ill as his posts put in to that
scenario would suggest it is likely that the specialists would take a
real interest in his daily activities and seek to curtail any that were
not in his interests.
> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
Most of the time I do these days but when he attacks me I reserve the
right to respond and when he posts things that are readily provable
incorrect using his own posts it would be a shame not to point them out,
particularly as they always reinforce Pat's point that the full record
is available through Google Groups.
I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you
presented to respond in a different thread.
Old Codger
>
> As I have told you many times I have no history of mental illness and
> a sound and successful history in business.
Unfortunately Pat the record of your posts does not support your above
statement.
> The most cursory examination of the public records and the usenet will
> show me as being "kosher" and "Old Codger" as having a long history of
> fabrications and stalking.
Folk can make their own minds up but, IMHO, the record points strongly
to one of the scenarios presented by Buddenbrooks above. In particular
the record will show that you did indeed appear to be looking for help,
or at least sympathy, when you first posted here 9 or so years ago but
it will also show that the initial responses were intended to be helpful
and it was only when you rejected everything that did not accord with
your narrow view of events and started attacking posters that the
regulars here became critical of you. Your subsequent posts then
increasingly cast doubt on your claims.
> Your associates have sought over many years to disseminate lies and
> fabrications that will be adopted by others to endanger my life and
> that of other innocents. That may well be deliberate.
The record will show that the opinions about you expressed by the
regulars here are fully supported by your posts.
> Any incident here will obviously result in you all being rounded up for questioning
> and the local media always get hold of the story.
Posts by the regulars to this group are highly unlikely to be of any
interest to the legal authorities and even less likely to be considered
an "incident" by them. If you have in mind the fears of physical attack
that you have recently posted about the authorities will find nothing
posted by the regulars to this group that will have any relevance.
> Jonathan Miller's famous Politburo face both investigation and
> prosecution. The collection of evidence has been going on for quite
> some years and by a number of organisations in various jurisdictions.
That is complete rubbish. You are fantasising again Pat.
> Disgrace and ruin are the likeliest outcome for you all.
That is also complete rubbish. You are fantasising yet again Pat.
> You would be wise to dump the computer in the nearest pond and make
> yourself scarce rather than encourage a persistent stalker with some
> pretty unpleasant habits. It's bad. Don't make it worse.
Claptrap.
> A lot of people and organisations will be seeking someone to blame
> over the animal health fiasco in Britain
That is of course a possibility
> and you have made yourselves the number one candidates.
But that is complete rubbish.
Old Codger
>
> Given the circumstances, quoting libels and fabrications and linking
> those to other lengthy stalking campaigns is not so smart.
I don't believe anybody in this group has libelled you or fabricated
anything related to you. Anything posted purporting to be about you has
been gleaned from your own posts.
As has been pointed out many times the occasional response to your
posts, or even continual responses to you posts, is *NOT* stalking.
> You have some very dirty and dangerous addictions.
Evidence please Pat.
> Piling on the pressure in the hope, I will slip up and you can all fall on me in
> your customary fashion is a waste of time.
Nobody is, or has to, "pile on the pressure". You slip up all the time
and these days very few posters even respond.
> The Politburo's policy of throwing mud in the hope that some of it
> will stick, is foolish in the extreme.
That is your tactic Pat, not ours. We merely respond occasionally to
your posts.
> It has the effect of encouraging the threatened arson attacks and you
> are effectively providing the excuse for such attacks.
Rubbish.
> Not that there is any justification and you can be sure that if there
> are any further incidents here, you will be picked up for questioning
> and that will become widely known.
You are posting rubbish yet again Pat. This group consists of posts,
not incidents and, as I have already posted, if you have in mind the
fears of physical attack that you have recently posted about the
authorities will find nothing posted by the regulars to this group that
will have any relevance. Nobody from this group will therefore be
"picked up for questioning" and the only thing that might become widely
known is your nonsensical posts, but I doubt the media would find them
sufficiently interesting unless they linked you to some unsavoury acts.
> You won't look so smart then.
Claptrap
> I won't even need to provide the names. As you must be aware, you have
> all been under surveillance for years.
Also claptrap.
Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <nqtih5dr87c6ujsht...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:26:53 +0000, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <ffqih59urec0vpbc8...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:48:41 +0000, Malcolm
>>>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>In article <ugmhh512gd6vja230...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>>>>Who do you think complained to your employers, if that is what they
>>>>>>are, about your activities a couple of years ago?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>...and I did not instigate it either. But I do know what happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Then you'll know that the complaint was rejected.
>>>>
>>>>Only at the first instance. Following protests, It was later upheld
>>>>and you got a stiff warning. I was sent copies of the correspondence.
>>>>
>>>Wrong It was rejected both times.
>>
>>Malcolm, wise up. They will know differently in Washington and
>>everyone reading this will know that I'm right.
>>
>>You got a stiff warning for repeated stalking.
>>
>Pat. Wise up yourself. I couldn't care less what anyone thinks in
>Washington. I got no warning because the complaint against me was
>rejected.
Treating Washington with contempt is a mug's game when you are as in
as much trouble as you are.
But serial stalkers don't have any commonsense, which is why they take
up such a dangerous disgraceful hobby in the first place.
Old Codger
Do get yourself some vaguely sensible legal advice Pat before you really
do get in to trouble. Responding to your posts is not "stalking" and
there is no threat of anything in my post. We all know about your
imagination, it seems to work overtime all the time.
> I don't think an Islay fishing boat will take "Old Codger". Malcolm
> certainly, from what I hear, anything to get him off the island and
> out of Scotland.
>
> You lot are a laugh a minute. It has become a public duty to get you
> out of circulation. Fortunately, it will be others' duty, not mine.
Are you threatening us Pat?
Pat Gardiner
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>Buddenbrooks wrote:
>>
>> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b15aae2$0$2490$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> I do some voluntary work with a group where mental health problems are
>> a secondary commonly related issue.
>>
>> I really feel that ignoring Pat is the kindest thing to do.
>> Pat is either a completely false character, in which case there is
>> little point in any dialog or he is who he says and has developed
>> problems in later life.
>
>I am strongly inclined to the completely false character diagnosis. How
>many folk come on here proclaiming what their job is, or was? The only
>one I can think of is Pat. For most posters one may eventually deduce
>what their job probably is, or was, from the content of their posts.
It's really a legal point. If you declare your background truthfully,
you cover your back and at the time, I took the rest of the the
uk.business.agriculture Politburo at their own estimation and
description.
Slow and careful, that is me. I get there, legally and safely.
>One or two have said, when it has been relevant to a particular
>discussion, and for others there have been enough clues, again when a
>discussion has led in the right direction. One other thing is that as
>opportunities have presented I have looked in "Compass" going back some
>years.
You show your commercial ignorance and your obsession with following
your hero the former CLA national livestock advisor. You go to
Companies House as the definitive public record, not Compass. In fact,
somebody here did go to Companies House and found the entries. They
published it here years ago. It will be in the archives of the
newsgroup uk.business.agriculture
Actually, I don't think you are that stupid. Your defamations are
deliberate as indeed is known to those encouraging you. You have
Companies House and 17 company names, nobody can be that careless or
stupid, neither your backers nor you. There is a clear conspiracy to
libel and defame.
That is all pretty helpful to those currently investigating the arson
threats. I think I do know the link between the Politburo to the
person making the threats, but even I'm not quite sure. The
investigators may know more and be able to roll the whole organisation
up on conspiracy charges, based on the links between you and the main
body of the Politburo
> I have found not a single reference to any of the companies Pat
>claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at
>all, they are pretty insignificant.
As I say, you will not get away with failing to check with Companies
House. Just to remind you of one. Most of you driving in England will
pass James Kemball Ltd HGV's every day. They are much bigger than when
I sold the company in 1988 with well over 100 vehicles. (my late
brother's name was James Kemball Gardiner.)
Actually neither will anyone else. All your backers must know you are
lying, and any link between any of them and the wannabe arsonist will
implicate you all. I'm sure that is now your objective.
>
>> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
>> application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
>> presumably having a difficult time
>> and working him up is probably not helping her.
>
>May be helping him though. If he is as ill as his posts put in to that
>scenario would suggest it is likely that the specialists would take a
>real interest in his daily activities and seek to curtail any that were
>not in his interests.
I don't think the NHS will be keen to help you. They are more likely
to link you to the MRSA disasters in Essex hospitals and ring the
local press. I have actually met your local reporter recently.
>
>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>
>Most of the time I do these days but when he attacks me I reserve the
>right to respond and when he posts things that are readily provable
>incorrect using his own posts it would be a shame not to point them out,
>particularly as they always reinforce Pat's point that the full record
>is available through Google Groups.
Absolutely, it is all there. A careful check on "James Kemball" will
throw up the names of 17 companies and a free check on the Companies
House website will prove their existence some years ago. Any of the
many lurkers can do it in five minutes and KNOW that the entire
Politburo are deliberately lying and presumably encouraging arson.
>
>I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
>by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you
>presented to respond in a different thread.
I was advised not to respond to you but decided especially following
the arson threats that I had a responsibility to my wife and
grandchildren to make it clear your role.
Long ago the police advised me to make sure I complained publicly as
MAFF's investigation department were corrupt. Good advice, although I
must admit that if I had known that the lives of my wife and
grandchildren were likely to be endangered, I might well have crossed
the road and failed to do my civic duty.
Don't snip. It just makes you look even worse.
Old Codger
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:12:22 +0000, Old Codger
> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Buddenbrooks wrote:
>>> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b15aae2$0$2490$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>> I do some voluntary work with a group where mental health problems are
>>> a secondary commonly related issue.
>>>
>>> I really feel that ignoring Pat is the kindest thing to do.
>>> Pat is either a completely false character, in which case there is
>>> little point in any dialog or he is who he says and has developed
>>> problems in later life.
>> I am strongly inclined to the completely false character diagnosis. How
>> many folk come on here proclaiming what their job is, or was? The only
>> one I can think of is Pat. For most posters one may eventually deduce
>> what their job probably is, or was, from the content of their posts.
>
> It's really a legal point. If you declare your background truthfully,
> you cover your back and at the time, I took the rest of the the
> uk.business.agriculture Politburo at their own estimation and
> description.
>
> Slow and careful, that is me. I get there, legally and safely.
In your opinion.
>> One or two have said, when it has been relevant to a particular
>> discussion, and for others there have been enough clues, again when a
>> discussion has led in the right direction. One other thing is that as
>> opportunities have presented I have looked in "Compass" going back some
>> years.
>
> You show your commercial ignorance and your obsession with following
> your hero the former CLA national livestock advisor.
Posting rubbish again Pat.
> You go to Companies House as the definitive public record, not Compass.
Kompass is a very good and, for me at the times I used it, convenient
source. If a company is not listed in Kompass it probably does not
exist, it certainly is not of any significance. One puts oneself out
only when it is appropriate, not when other evidence suggests there is
nothing to find. You know that very well which is why you keep
insisting on going to companies house.
Even if those companies did exists and had a Pat Gardiner as a
significant employee we have no evidence that you are he. We don't even
know that your real, or usual, name is Pat Gardiner.
> In fact, somebody here did go to Companies House and found the entries. They
> published it here years ago. It will be in the archives of the
> newsgroup uk.business.agriculture
You will be able to post the link then Pat. I don't recall that at all
and a simple search in UBA for "Companies House" did not produce any
relevant hits.
> Actually, I don't think you are that stupid. Your defamations are
> deliberate as indeed is known to those encouraging you. You have
> Companies House and 17 company names, nobody can be that careless or
> stupid, neither your backers nor you. There is a clear conspiracy to
> libel and defame.
By you, not by anybody else. Any posts relating to you by the regulars
here are based solely on your posts. As such any opinions expressed are
fully justified as any good solicitor would tell you. You really should
follow my advice and get yourself some good legal advice based on the
full facts.
> That is all pretty helpful to those currently investigating the arson
> threats. I think I do know the link between the Politburo to the
> person making the threats, but even I'm not quite sure. The
> investigators may know more and be able to roll the whole organisation
> up on conspiracy charges, based on the links between you and the main
> body of the Politburo
You are fantasising and posting complete rubbish again Pat.
>> I have found not a single reference to any of the companies Pat
>> claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at
>> all, they are pretty insignificant.
>
> As I say, you will not get away with failing to check with Companies
> House. Just to remind you of one. Most of you driving in England will
> pass James Kemball Ltd HGV's every day. They are much bigger than when
> I sold the company in 1988 with well over 100 vehicles. (my late
> brother's name was James Kemball Gardiner.)
First time you have mentioned that name Pat. Did you just see one of
their lorries?
> Actually neither will anyone else. All your backers must know you are
> lying, and any link between any of them and the wannabe arsonist will
> implicate you all. I'm sure that is now your objective.
All total rubbish, as you know very well.
>>> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
>>> application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
>>> presumably having a difficult time
>>> and working him up is probably not helping her.
>> May be helping him though. If he is as ill as his posts put in to that
>> scenario would suggest it is likely that the specialists would take a
>> real interest in his daily activities and seek to curtail any that were
>> not in his interests.
>
> I don't think the NHS will be keen to help you. They are more likely
> to link you to the MRSA disasters in Essex hospitals and ring the
> local press. I have actually met your local reporter recently.
Which reporter is that Pat and which newspaper is he on?
>>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>> Most of the time I do these days but when he attacks me I reserve the
>> right to respond and when he posts things that are readily provable
>> incorrect using his own posts it would be a shame not to point them out,
>> particularly as they always reinforce Pat's point that the full record
>> is available through Google Groups.
>
> Absolutely, it is all there. A careful check on "James Kemball" will
> throw up the names of 17 companies and a free check on the Companies
> House website will prove their existence some years ago. Any of the
> many lurkers can do it in five minutes and KNOW that the entire
> Politburo are deliberately lying and presumably encouraging arson.
There is currently no website for "James Kemball"
>> I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
>> by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you
>> presented to respond in a different thread.
>
> I was advised not to respond to you but decided especially following
> the arson threats that I had a responsibility to my wife and
> grandchildren to make it clear your role.
If you are insinuating that I am somehow involved in arson threats that
is completely wrong, without any foundation and therefore libellous.
> Long ago the police advised me to make sure I complained publicly as
> MAFF's investigation department were corrupt. Good advice, although I
> must admit that if I had known that the lives of my wife and
> grandchildren were likely to be endangered, I might well have crossed
> the road and failed to do my civic duty.
Not sure what that has to do with me but that is par I suppose.
> Don't snip. It just makes you look even worse.
Do stop rambling Pat.
Buddenbrooks
> I am strongly inclined to the completely false character diagnosis. How
> many folk come on here proclaiming what their job is, or was? The only
> one I can think of is Pat. For most posters one may eventually deduce
> what their job probably is, or was, from the content of their posts. One
> or two have said, when it has been relevant to a particular discussion,
> and for others there have been enough clues, again when a discussion has
> led in the right direction. One other thing is that as opportunities have
> presented I have looked in "Compass" going back some years. I have found
> not a single reference to any of the companies Pat claims to have run.
> The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at all, they are pretty
> insignificant.
>
For a false character he is remarkably consistant.
Although that is odd in itself, most people become bored of a topic and move
on.
.
>
> I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
> by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you presented
> to respond in a different thread.
>
>
As I have kill filed him I have not seen that thread.
Buddenbrooks
>
>> Jonathan Miller's famous Politburo face both investigation and
>> prosecution. The collection of evidence has been going on for quite
>> some years and by a number of organisations in various jurisdictions.
>
Apart from the UK, where the newsgroup is 'published' the only
jurisdiction that shows an interest in
non-domestic activity is the US.
The US has a remarkably strong belief in freedom of speech and no
authority would attempt to prosecute
for newsgroup content. Except for Homeland Security, who are so paranoiac
spelling 'color' 'colour' might attract their attention.
Oh No
>
>>We need fresh topics! Anyone looked at the ozone hole lately? Might be
>>fixed by 2040!
>
>CO2 reduction strategy, and the various ignorant non-starters (like
>electric cars) could be a good start. So much urban myth...
>
least not if this includes cars powered by fuel cells, which are already
available in california, and I think one of the scandinavian countries.
I believe there are also two commercial scale farms for production of
algal diesel, open ponds in California and an enclosed system in Holland
iirc.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Buddenbrooks
"Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VoZ3wwBC...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> I do not see why you describe electric cars as ignorant non-starters,
I would have to agree that electric cars are a viable way ahead, although
perhaps not in their current form.
You only need to look at the battery packs from the early mobile phones to
the current ones to see how a technology can progress if their is enough
money behind it.
As for motors, again look at the old 60s valve tape recorders and the final
motor driven Sony Mini Disc players to see how motors can be miniaturized
while maintaining high torque and efficiency.
The fundamental problem is the amount of energy that needs to be stored and
how to get it into the vehicle within a reasonable period.
I may be that there will be a period when a car will be a 'local' means of
transport and journeys over 60 miles or so will be the train or bus.
However there are no viable mass produced electric cars now and even if
there was the natural decline of older technology cars would be15 years as
their working life expires
it is not going to impact to 2020 targets.
Pat Gardiner
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
You are wrong. Wading though a probably incomplete commercial
directory, even if you have done so properly, is no substitute for
examining the public record at Companies House.
You will not get away with that in Court - and much more importantly
neither will the remnants of the Politburo.
For all those readers, perhaps abroad, who wish to do their own
investigation - http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/
The most important compaanies of which I was chairman and usually
majority shareholder were
Anderson, Gardiner (Shipping) Ltd 1973 - sold 1988
Anderson Gardiner (Computers) Ltd sold 1988
James Kemball Ltd - 1973 sold 1988
These were grouped under Haven Businesses Ltd as the holding company -
sold 1988
In 1988 Pat Gardiner (Shipping) Ltd was formed ans sold as a going
concern to Paul Magnus Ltd in 1992 following continuing ill health.
The holding company was Pat Gardiner Ltd.
Much of this material is confirmed by media reports and similar on
http://www.go-self-sufficient.com/saint_john.htm
No business I have ever run has ever gone into compulsory liquidation
during the time, I was on the board or for two years afterwards.
None have ever been the subject of action in Court for unpaid bills
either during a similar timescale. A spotless record.
>One puts oneself out
>only when it is appropriate, not when other evidence suggests there is
>nothing to find. You know that very well which is why you keep
>insisting on going to companies house.
If you don't go to Companies House and deliberately fabricate or
conspire to repeat serious libels without, you are lilely to go to
gaol, simple as that.
>
>Even if those companies did exists and had a Pat Gardiner as a
>significant employee we have no evidence that you are he. We don't even
>know that your real, or usual, name is Pat Gardiner.
As is recorded in the archives of the newsgroup
uk.business.agriculture, searchable thrrough Google Groups and other
readers, my full name is George Patrick Gardiner.
You have been corrected many times.
You will not fool the police with this nonsense.
>
>> In fact, somebody here did go to Companies House and found the entries. They
>> published it here years ago. It will be in the archives of the
>> newsgroup uk.business.agriculture
>
>You will be able to post the link then Pat. I don't recall that at all
>and a simple search in UBA for "Companies House" did not produce any
>relevant hits.
I'm not responsible for your nonsense, others will find it, if they
feel they need it. It is a nice sunny morning, I would stroll down to
the police station and hand yourself in.
>
>> Actually, I don't think you are that stupid. Your defamations are
>> deliberate as indeed is known to those encouraging you. You have
>> Companies House and 17 company names, nobody can be that careless or
>> stupid, neither your backers nor you. There is a clear conspiracy to
>> libel and defame.
>
>By you, not by anybody else. Any posts relating to you by the regulars
>here are based solely on your posts.
I would not involve the "regulars" most of them face the same fate as
you for reasons I will explain later.
> As such any opinions expressed are
>fully justified as any good solicitor would tell you. You really should
>follow my advice and get yourself some good legal advice based on the
>full facts.
A victim of crime is not the one that needs the solicitor.
>
>> That is all pretty helpful to those currently investigating the arson
>> threats. I think I do know the link between the Politburo to the
>> person making the threats, but even I'm not quite sure. The
>> investigators may know more and be able to roll the whole organisation
>> up on conspiracy charges, based on the links between you and the main
>> body of the Politburo
>
>You are fantasising and posting complete rubbish again Pat.
No. You have reached the end of your rope, as have the Politburo. This
is now all over the internet and every amateur sleuth, let alone the
pros, can investigate without leaving home. The police have no option
but to act, given the threats of arson attacks and the obvious
conspiracy to publish defamation which may, at the least, encourage
such attacks.
>
>>> I have found not a single reference to any of the companies Pat
>>> claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at
>>> all, they are pretty insignificant.
>>
>> As I say, you will not get away with failing to check with Companies
>> House. Just to remind you of one. Most of you driving in England will
>> pass James Kemball Ltd HGV's every day. They are much bigger than when
>> I sold the company in 1988 with well over 100 vehicles. (my late
>> brother's name was James Kemball Gardiner.)
>
>First time you have mentioned that name Pat. Did you just see one of
>their lorries?
No, it has been mentioned before aand is in the archives. All
checkable at Companies House
>
>> Actually neither will anyone else. All your backers must know you are
>> lying, and any link between any of them and the wannabe arsonist will
>> implicate you all. I'm sure that is now your objective.
>
>All total rubbish, as you know very well.
I would not worry. You will have company in the dock. Not friendly
company, admitedly after they have finished blaming you, but faces
from Oxforsshire anyway.
>
>>>> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
>>>> application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
>>>> presumably having a difficult time
>>>> and working him up is probably not helping her.
>>> May be helping him though. If he is as ill as his posts put in to that
>>> scenario would suggest it is likely that the specialists would take a
>>> real interest in his daily activities and seek to curtail any that were
>>> not in his interests.
>>
>> I don't think the NHS will be keen to help you. They are more likely
>> to link you to the MRSA disasters in Essex hospitals and ring the
>> local press. I have actually met your local reporter recently.
>
>Which reporter is that Pat and which newspaper is he on?
"She" My last trip out, apart from visits to hospital was this
meeting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8121815.stm. It was your
local Colchester paper and there was difficulty in getting into the
"public" meeting. I prearranged her assistance and gave evidence.
I'm not giving the names of any lady here for you to stalk and pester.
You will find out when the story breaks. She knows my name, has met me
and will no doubt give the story her peronal touch, when she is ready.
>
>>>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>>> Most of the time I do these days but when he attacks me I reserve the
>>> right to respond and when he posts things that are readily provable
>>> incorrect using his own posts it would be a shame not to point them out,
>>> particularly as they always reinforce Pat's point that the full record
>>> is available through Google Groups.
>>
>> Absolutely, it is all there. A careful check on "James Kemball" will
>> throw up the names of 17 companies and a free check on the Companies
>> House website will prove their existence some years ago. Any of the
>> many lurkers can do it in five minutes and KNOW that the entire
>> Politburo are deliberately lying and presumably encouraging arson.
>
>There is currently no website for "James Kemball"
So what? As far as I know, virtually all their busineess is in house
for the parent company and long term contracts. They probably don't
feel they need one.
>
>>> I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
>>> by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you
>>> presented to respond in a different thread.
>>
>> I was advised not to respond to you but decided especially following
>> the arson threats that I had a responsibility to my wife and
>> grandchildren to make it clear your role.
>
>If you are insinuating that I am somehow involved in arson threats that
>is completely wrong, without any foundation and therefore libellous.
That is a matter that the police will be investigating. You may well
have nothing to do with them and merely provided indirect
encouragement. It is still an offence.
>
>> Long ago the police advised me to make sure I complained publicly as
>> MAFF's investigation department were corrupt. Good advice, although I
>> must admit that if I had known that the lives of my wife and
>> grandchildren were likely to be endangered, I might well have crossed
>> the road and failed to do my civic duty.
>
>Not sure what that has to do with me but that is par I suppose.
Oh! Just that I'm no hero. I have frequently been terrified over the
past years. Now the terror speads to the childrens' Christmas.
Speaks for itself really. You can't stoop much lower.
>
>> Don't snip. It just makes you look even worse.
>
>Do stop rambling Pat.
Anyway, later I will be spelling out in great detail, why the
Politburo have shot themselves in the foot and will all be the subject
of (presumably police) enquiries.
I need a rest for a while.
Pat Gardiner
Mumm. That's another one that bolted too late in a blast of libel.
I emphasise the "too late"
He too is going to have to claim he searched carefully though all the
records (probably old football programmes) and could find no trace of
my business career. He too will have to prtend he did not know that
somebody had already sdearched Companies House and published here on
the newsgroup uk.business.agriculture that I stacked up. I recall they
made much of a subseqent owner going bust, drawing all the wrong
deductions.
http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/
http://www.go-self-sufficient.com/saint_john.htm
Another one who would be wise to trot down to the police station and
turn himself in this fine morning. Make sure you give them both the
names you have used.
Pat Gardiner
Yes, I agree. It probably will be Homeland Security that will
extradite you.
A number of British investigations may take place, but if the
Americans are not satisfied, they will brush those aside.
grey...@mail.com
>
> "Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VoZ3wwBC...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
>> I do not see why you describe electric cars as ignorant non-starters,
>
> I would have to agree that electric cars are a viable way ahead, although
> perhaps not in their current form.
>
> You only need to look at the battery packs from the early mobile phones to
> the current ones to see how a technology can progress if their is enough
> money behind it.
I had an answer on this subject in another group, which effectively
debunked the `electric car' concept for me, unfortunately, I lost it.
Basically, stemming from a question I had posed (I was wondering
about electric powered quad bikes) on how much stored energy an
electric vehicle had in its batterys, against a tank of diesel.
Basically, the batterys would contain about 5% of the energy of a
tank of diesel, allowing for extra weight of batterys.
(Not all this energy would be available, get below 40% charge, and
the life of your batterys would be shortened).
Fill your tank with diesel, file again when its getting low, you
woud have an average load of about 60% of the weight, with batterys
you would have a constant weight, whether charge or discharged.
Charging time would be significent, up to 5 hours.
Range would be fairly low. Commuting, would be limited to about
40miles from place of employment, tops. (Given that real distances
would be roughly 140% of 'bird' distances, and ignoring the
possibility of recharging during idle time at workplace)
Finally, if a significent amount of electric cars came on the roads,
the whole electrical network would have to be re-done. Imagine
500,000 cars being plugged in for recharge at 6.00pm.
(Oh, the people who were selling the electric quad bikes went out of
business, signifient numbers of disappointed buyers)
--
greymaus
.
.
...
Pat Gardiner
You are still quite deliberately encouraging posting under the wrong
headers and thereby encouraging people subject to imminent arrest in
the United Kingdom for encouraging arson attacks
You obviously fancy a long spell in an American penitentiary too.
Ireland has problems with MRSA in pigs too. You will not get any
sympathy in Dublin. They will hand you over without so much as a "by
your leave."
Buddenbrooks
<grey...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhhkoor.d...@maus.org...
> On 2009-12-05, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
> I had an answer on this subject in another group, which effectively
> debunked the `electric car' concept for me, unfortunately, I lost it.
>
I did caveat that there is currently a major problem with power storage.
But it is the sort of problem that gets resolved.
Oh No
>
><grey...@mail.com> wrote in message news:slrnhhkoor.d3r.greymausg@mau
>s.org...
>> On 2009-12-05, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>>
>> I had an answer on this subject in another group, which effectively
>> debunked the `electric car' concept for me, unfortunately, I lost it.
>>
>
> I did caveat that there is currently a major problem with power storage.
>
> But it is the sort of problem that gets resolved.
In essence, the problem of fuel storage is already solved. In my
previous post I mentioned fuel cells. The fuel is stored as hydrogen or
methane, and converted directly to electricity in the fuel cell. The
basic technology is about 100yrs old, and already mature. The process is
something like 95% efficient - much better energy recovery than you can
get from an internal combustion engine. The result is an electric car
with range and performance very comparable to a typical petrol engine,
and which can potentially be filled from a pump, not so dissimilar to a
petrol pump.
The problem then is not power storage, but setting up an infrastructure
of fuel stations equipped to deliver the fuel. As I mentioned, there are
at least two places where steps have been taken to start setting up such
an infrastructure. There are even prototype systems which would convert
solar power to hydrogen in your own home, so that you could make your
own fuel to power both your house and your car.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:grey...@mail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-12-05, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Oh No" <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:VoZ3wwBC...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> >> I do not see why you describe electric cars as ignorant non-starters,
> >
> > I would have to agree that electric cars are a viable way ahead, although
> > perhaps not in their current form.
> >
> > You only need to look at the battery packs from the early mobile phones to
> > the current ones to see how a technology can progress if their is enough
> > money behind it.
>
> I had an answer on this subject in another group, which effectively
> debunked the `electric car' concept for me, unfortunately, I lost it.
It's a fast moving topic atm. There is a lot of activity in China right now
and there are quite a few manufacturers elsewhere looking to get over the
35-40km range which is reckoned to be the breakover commute target.
According to:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Average_uk_car_mileage_per_year
10k miles/yr is about average usage.
10k miles/yr = roughly 40m / workday
If you can also recharge while at work, or pick up a replacement battery
from a charging station then that does about cover it.
> Basically, the batterys would contain about 5% of the energy of a
> tank of diesel, allowing for extra weight of batterys.
>
> (Not all this energy would be available, get below 40% charge, and
> the life of your batterys would be shortened).
Starting to look less of a problem nowadays.
> Fill your tank with diesel, file again when its getting low, you
> woud have an average load of about 60% of the weight, with batterys
> you would have a constant weight, whether charge or discharged.
>
> Charging time would be significent, up to 5 hours.
New batteries can be dump-charged to over 60% in a few minutes.
> Range would be fairly low. Commuting, would be limited to about
> 40miles from place of employment, tops. (Given that real distances
> would be roughly 140% of 'bird' distances, and ignoring the
> possibility of recharging during idle time at workplace)
The supply of recharging car-park slots is going to make a big difference to
the whole picture. There are a few about, too few atm though.
> Finally, if a significent amount of electric cars came on the roads,
> the whole electrical network would have to be re-done. Imagine
> 500,000 cars being plugged in for recharge at 6.00pm.
But not if the charging started at midnight and used excess overnight
capacity.
Cheerio,
--
Buddenbrooks
"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant05180...@strongarm.half-baked-idea.co.uk...
.
>
> But not if the charging started at midnight and used excess overnight
> capacity.
>
If there was a control path then charging cars could become a variable
load allowing the generators to be kept at optimum.
Old Codger
Agreed but one needs convincing that something relevant will be found
before wasting time actually going to companies house.
> You will not get away with that in Court - and much more importantly
> neither will the remnants of the Politburo.
Why would I, or indeed anyone else need to "get away with that in
court". A reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence of your own
posts to this group, which is all the information we have, is that these
companies, should they exist, have little or nothing to do with you.
> For all those readers, perhaps abroad, who wish to do their own
> investigation - http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/
Look, Pat has provided a link.
> The most important compaanies of which I was chairman and usually
> majority shareholder were
>
> Anderson, Gardiner (Shipping) Ltd 1973 - sold 1988
> Anderson Gardiner (Computers) Ltd sold 1988
> James Kemball Ltd - 1973 sold 1988
Only James Kemball is listed on the Companies House website and even
then there is no information regarding your alleged ownership.
> These were grouped under Haven Businesses Ltd as the holding company -
> sold 1988
Not listed on the Companies House website
> In 1988 Pat Gardiner (Shipping) Ltd was formed ans sold as a going
> concern to Paul Magnus Ltd in 1992 following continuing ill health.
> The holding company was Pat Gardiner Ltd.
Neither are listed on the Companies House website.
> Much of this material is confirmed by media reports and similar on
> http://www.go-self-sufficient.com/saint_john.htm
That is your own website so confirms nothing.
> No business I have ever run has ever gone into compulsory liquidation
> during the time, I was on the board or for two years afterwards.
>
> None have ever been the subject of action in Court for unpaid bills
> either during a similar timescale. A spotless record.
Easy to claim.
>> One puts oneself out
>> only when it is appropriate, not when other evidence suggests there is
>> nothing to find. You know that very well which is why you keep
>> insisting on going to companies house.
>
> If you don't go to Companies House and deliberately fabricate or
> conspire to repeat serious libels without, you are lilely to go to
> gaol, simple as that.
Showing your ignorance yet again Pat? Gaol is not a punishment for
libel, not that I have libelled you.
>> Even if those companies did exists and had a Pat Gardiner as a
>> significant employee we have no evidence that you are he. We don't even
>> know that your real, or usual, name is Pat Gardiner.
>
> As is recorded in the archives of the newsgroup
> uk.business.agriculture, searchable thrrough Google Groups and other
> readers, my full name is George Patrick Gardiner.
So you tell us. We have no confirmation of that. You could be anybody.
> You have been corrected many times.
Really? With confirmation?
> You will not fool the police with this nonsense.
I have no reason to try to fool the police.
>>> In fact, somebody here did go to Companies House and found the entries. They
>>> published it here years ago. It will be in the archives of the
>>> newsgroup uk.business.agriculture
>> You will be able to post the link then Pat. I don't recall that at all
>> and a simple search in UBA for "Companies House" did not produce any
>> relevant hits.
>
> I'm not responsible for your nonsense, others will find it, if they
> feel they need it. It is a nice sunny morning, I would stroll down to
> the police station and hand yourself in.
As I thought nobody has made any such post.
>>> Actually, I don't think you are that stupid. Your defamations are
>>> deliberate as indeed is known to those encouraging you. You have
>>> Companies House and 17 company names, nobody can be that careless or
>>> stupid, neither your backers nor you. There is a clear conspiracy to
>>> libel and defame.
>> By you, not by anybody else. Any posts relating to you by the regulars
>> here are based solely on your posts.
>
> I would not involve the "regulars" most of them face the same fate as
> you for reasons I will explain later.
I await your explanation with great interest.
>> As such any opinions expressed are
>> fully justified as any good solicitor would tell you. You really should
>> follow my advice and get yourself some good legal advice based on the
>> full facts.
>
> A victim of crime is not the one that needs the solicitor.
Any alleged crimes are nothing to do with this newsgroup or any of the
posters. My advice for you to get yourself good legal advice is for
your own protection. A good lawyer just might be able to persuade you
that it is not a good idea to post false allegations and libels against
other people. Someone who doesn't know the history of your posts make
take it all at face value and take exception to being libelled. That
could cause you problems Pat.
>>> That is all pretty helpful to those currently investigating the arson
>>> threats. I think I do know the link between the Politburo to the
>>> person making the threats, but even I'm not quite sure. The
>>> investigators may know more and be able to roll the whole organisation
>>> up on conspiracy charges, based on the links between you and the main
>>> body of the Politburo
>> You are fantasising and posting complete rubbish again Pat.
>
> No. You have reached the end of your rope, as have the Politburo. This
> is now all over the internet and every amateur sleuth, let alone the
> pros, can investigate without leaving home. The police have no option
> but to act, given the threats of arson attacks and the obvious
> conspiracy to publish defamation which may, at the least, encourage
> such attacks.
That is total nonsense, as you well know. Indeed it could well be
defamatory.
>>>> I have found not a single reference to any of the companies Pat
>>>> claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at
>>>> all, they are pretty insignificant.
>>> As I say, you will not get away with failing to check with Companies
>>> House. Just to remind you of one. Most of you driving in England will
>>> pass James Kemball Ltd HGV's every day. They are much bigger than when
>>> I sold the company in 1988 with well over 100 vehicles. (my late
>>> brother's name was James Kemball Gardiner.)
>> First time you have mentioned that name Pat. Did you just see one of
>> their lorries?
>
> No, it has been mentioned before aand is in the archives. All
> checkable at Companies House
I don't recall it so would welcome a link to the message.
>>> Actually neither will anyone else. All your backers must know you are
>>> lying, and any link between any of them and the wannabe arsonist will
>>> implicate you all. I'm sure that is now your objective.
>> All total rubbish, as you know very well.
>
> I would not worry. You will have company in the dock. Not friendly
> company, admitedly after they have finished blaming you, but faces
> from Oxforsshire anyway.
Total nonsense again and the implication that anyone here has any
association with alleged threats of arson is libellous.
Not so long ago Pat you were alleging unsavoury activities outside your
residence and suggestion that folk here were implicated. You even went
so far as to suggest I would have the police at my door within days.
That never happened. I had no contact of any sort from the police.
>>>>> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
>>>>> application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
>>>>> presumably having a difficult time
>>>>> and working him up is probably not helping her.
>>>> May be helping him though. If he is as ill as his posts put in to that
>>>> scenario would suggest it is likely that the specialists would take a
>>>> real interest in his daily activities and seek to curtail any that were
>>>> not in his interests.
>>> I don't think the NHS will be keen to help you. They are more likely
>>> to link you to the MRSA disasters in Essex hospitals and ring the
>>> local press. I have actually met your local reporter recently.
>> Which reporter is that Pat and which newspaper is he on?
>
> "She" My last trip out, apart from visits to hospital was this
> meeting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8121815.stm. It was your
> local Colchester paper and there was difficulty in getting into the
> "public" meeting. I prearranged her assistance and gave evidence.
Evidence as in evidence to the Select Committee is that Pat?
There is more than one local paper in Colchester including some that
have a slightly wider circulation. Even though none of them are local
to me I would still be interested in which one has been taken in by you.
> I'm not giving the names of any lady here for you to stalk and pester.
> You will find out when the story breaks. She knows my name, has met me
> and will no doubt give the story her peronal touch, when she is ready.
Ah well, another non story. What a surprise.
>>>>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>>>> Most of the time I do these days but when he attacks me I reserve the
>>>> right to respond and when he posts things that are readily provable
>>>> incorrect using his own posts it would be a shame not to point them out,
>>>> particularly as they always reinforce Pat's point that the full record
>>>> is available through Google Groups.
>>> Absolutely, it is all there. A careful check on "James Kemball" will
>>> throw up the names of 17 companies and a free check on the Companies
>>> House website will prove their existence some years ago. Any of the
>>> many lurkers can do it in five minutes and KNOW that the entire
>>> Politburo are deliberately lying and presumably encouraging arson.
>> There is currently no website for "James Kemball"
>
> So what? As far as I know, virtually all their busineess is in house
> for the parent company and long term contracts. They probably don't
> feel they need one.
So how can "Any of the many lurkers" find out if you founded that
company and then sold it on, together with the past existence of 17
other companies in five minutes as you claimed.
>>>> I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
>>>> by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you
>>>> presented to respond in a different thread.
>>> I was advised not to respond to you but decided especially following
>>> the arson threats that I had a responsibility to my wife and
>>> grandchildren to make it clear your role.
>> If you are insinuating that I am somehow involved in arson threats that
>> is completely wrong, without any foundation and therefore libellous.
>
> That is a matter that the police will be investigating. You may well
> have nothing to do with them and merely provided indirect
> encouragement. It is still an offence.
I await with bated breath but, as I posted above nothing happened the
last time you made similar statements so I doubt anything will happen
this time.
>>> Long ago the police advised me to make sure I complained publicly as
>>> MAFF's investigation department were corrupt. Good advice, although I
>>> must admit that if I had known that the lives of my wife and
>>> grandchildren were likely to be endangered, I might well have crossed
>>> the road and failed to do my civic duty.
>> Not sure what that has to do with me but that is par I suppose.
>
> Oh! Just that I'm no hero. I have frequently been terrified over the
> past years. Now the terror speads to the childrens' Christmas.
Nothing to do with me or this newsgroup.
> Speaks for itself really. You can't stoop much lower.
What are you rambling on about now?
>>> Don't snip. It just makes you look even worse.
>> Do stop rambling Pat.
>
> Anyway, later I will be spelling out in great detail, why the
> Politburo have shot themselves in the foot and will all be the subject
> of (presumably police) enquiries.
I await your "spelling out in great detail, why the Politburo have shot
themselves in the foot and will all be the subject of (presumably
police) enquiries" with great interest. I doubt you will actually post
anything.
> I need a rest for a while.
Have one then.
Old Codger
>
> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
> news:4b19895c$0$2535$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> > I am strongly inclined to the completely false character diagnosis. How
>> many folk come on here proclaiming what their job is, or was? The
>> only one I can think of is Pat. For most posters one may eventually
>> deduce what their job probably is, or was, from the content of their
>> posts. One or two have said, when it has been relevant to a particular
>> discussion, and for others there have been enough clues, again when a
>> discussion has led in the right direction. One other thing is that as
>> opportunities have presented I have looked in "Compass" going back
>> some years. I have found not a single reference to any of the
>> companies Pat claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if
>> they exist at all, they are pretty insignificant.
>>
>
>
> For a false character he is remarkably consistant.
Indeed he is, on some thing. Presumably those thing he consider
essential to support his character. On others though he forgets what he
has already posted and contradicts himself.
> Although that is odd in itself, most people become bored of a topic and
> move on.
Indeed, but not good trolls. :-)
Pat Gardiner
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
...and provable.
>
>>> One puts oneself out
>>> only when it is appropriate, not when other evidence suggests there is
>>> nothing to find. You know that very well which is why you keep
>>> insisting on going to companies house.
>>
>> If you don't go to Companies House and deliberately fabricate or
>> conspire to repeat serious libels without, you are lilely to go to
>> gaol, simple as that.
>
>Showing your ignorance yet again Pat? Gaol is not a punishment for
>libel, not that I have libelled you.
I will leave you to find out otherwise.
>
>>> Even if those companies did exists and had a Pat Gardiner as a
>>> significant employee we have no evidence that you are he. We don't even
>>> know that your real, or usual, name is Pat Gardiner.
>>
>> As is recorded in the archives of the newsgroup
>> uk.business.agriculture, searchable thrrough Google Groups and other
>> readers, my full name is George Patrick Gardiner.
>
>So you tell us. We have no confirmation of that. You could be anybody.
Then you would be libelling somebody else wouldn't you. Your logic is
as screwed as your morals and your brain.
>
>> You have been corrected many times.
>
>Really? With confirmation?
All on the newsgroup uk.business.agriculture.
>
>> You will not fool the police with this nonsense.
>
>I have no reason to try to fool the police.
I think you are right. You will cry your eyes out when they turn up on
your door step, asking what you know about the threats of arson.
>
>>>> In fact, somebody here did go to Companies House and found the entries. They
>>>> published it here years ago. It will be in the archives of the
>>>> newsgroup uk.business.agriculture
>>> You will be able to post the link then Pat. I don't recall that at all
>>> and a simple search in UBA for "Companies House" did not produce any
>>> relevant hits.
>>
>> I'm not responsible for your nonsense, others will find it, if they
>> feel they need it. It is a nice sunny morning, I would stroll down to
>> the police station and hand yourself in.
>
>As I thought nobody has made any such post.
The post is there. I can't recall who checked but it was a prominent
member of the politburo, which makes them all accessories to your
libels.
It will be found and used in evidence. At the moment I see no
imperative to search it out.
>
>>>> Actually, I don't think you are that stupid. Your defamations are
>>>> deliberate as indeed is known to those encouraging you. You have
>>>> Companies House and 17 company names, nobody can be that careless or
>>>> stupid, neither your backers nor you. There is a clear conspiracy to
>>>> libel and defame.
>>> By you, not by anybody else. Any posts relating to you by the regulars
>>> here are based solely on your posts.
>>
>> I would not involve the "regulars" most of them face the same fate as
>> you for reasons I will explain later.
>
>I await your explanation with great interest.
They will be awaiting them with even more interest, but you have one
above.
>
>>> As such any opinions expressed are
>>> fully justified as any good solicitor would tell you. You really should
>>> follow my advice and get yourself some good legal advice based on the
>>> full facts.
>>
>> A victim of crime is not the one that needs the solicitor.
>
>Any alleged crimes are nothing to do with this newsgroup or any of the
>posters. My advice for you to get yourself good legal advice is for
>your own protection. A good lawyer just might be able to persuade you
>that it is not a good idea to post false allegations and libels against
>other people. Someone who doesn't know the history of your posts make
>take it all at face value and take exception to being libelled. That
>could cause you problems Pat.
You are wasting your time arguing. You will face criminal prosecution.
>
>>>> That is all pretty helpful to those currently investigating the arson
>>>> threats. I think I do know the link between the Politburo to the
>>>> person making the threats, but even I'm not quite sure. The
>>>> investigators may know more and be able to roll the whole organisation
>>>> up on conspiracy charges, based on the links between you and the main
>>>> body of the Politburo
>>> You are fantasising and posting complete rubbish again Pat.
>>
>> No. You have reached the end of your rope, as have the Politburo. This
>> is now all over the internet and every amateur sleuth, let alone the
>> pros, can investigate without leaving home. The police have no option
>> but to act, given the threats of arson attacks and the obvious
>> conspiracy to publish defamation which may, at the least, encourage
>> such attacks.
>
>That is total nonsense, as you well know. Indeed it could well be
>defamatory.
Not defamatatory as the many who have checked with Companies House
know. Be grateful, you have got away with criminal activities and
finally your time has come to be called to account.
>
>>>>> I have found not a single reference to any of the companies Pat
>>>>> claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at
>>>>> all, they are pretty insignificant.
>>>> As I say, you will not get away with failing to check with Companies
>>>> House. Just to remind you of one. Most of you driving in England will
>>>> pass James Kemball Ltd HGV's every day. They are much bigger than when
>>>> I sold the company in 1988 with well over 100 vehicles. (my late
>>>> brother's name was James Kemball Gardiner.)
>>> First time you have mentioned that name Pat. Did you just see one of
>>> their lorries?
>>
>> No, it has been mentioned before aand is in the archives. All
>> checkable at Companies House
>
>I don't recall it so would welcome a link to the message.
No. Do your own searches.
>
>>>> Actually neither will anyone else. All your backers must know you are
>>>> lying, and any link between any of them and the wannabe arsonist will
>>>> implicate you all. I'm sure that is now your objective.
>>> All total rubbish, as you know very well.
>>
>> I would not worry. You will have company in the dock. Not friendly
>> company, admitedly after they have finished blaming you, but faces
>> from Oxforsshire anyway.
>
>Total nonsense again and the implication that anyone here has any
>association with alleged threats of arson is libellous.
Explain to the police. They might even believe you.
>
>Not so long ago Pat you were alleging unsavoury activities outside your
>residence and suggestion that folk here were implicated. You even went
>so far as to suggest I would have the police at my door within days.
>That never happened. I had no contact of any sort from the police.
I would not brag about getting away with it, if I was you.
>
>>>>>> If we take the later then he has done things requiring rationality,
>>>>>> application and dedication which warrant respect. He has a wife who
>>>>>> presumably having a difficult time
>>>>>> and working him up is probably not helping her.
>>>>> May be helping him though. If he is as ill as his posts put in to that
>>>>> scenario would suggest it is likely that the specialists would take a
>>>>> real interest in his daily activities and seek to curtail any that were
>>>>> not in his interests.
>>>> I don't think the NHS will be keen to help you. They are more likely
>>>> to link you to the MRSA disasters in Essex hospitals and ring the
>>>> local press. I have actually met your local reporter recently.
>>> Which reporter is that Pat and which newspaper is he on?
>>
>> "She" My last trip out, apart from visits to hospital was this
>> meeting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8121815.stm. It was your
>> local Colchester paper and there was difficulty in getting into the
>> "public" meeting. I prearranged her assistance and gave evidence.
>
>Evidence as in evidence to the Select Committee is that Pat?
The minutes of the meeting will confirm my attendance and most of
those present will recall my words. Your local journalist will
remember it well and will doubtless be checking the records at
Companies House, Lloyds and putting a piece together.
>
>There is more than one local paper in Colchester including some that
>have a slightly wider circulation. Even though none of them are local
>to me I would still be interested in which one has been taken in by you.
I'm not having you stalking any female journalists. You will have to
wait until you are safely under lock and key.
>
>> I'm not giving the names of any lady here for you to stalk and pester.
>> You will find out when the story breaks. She knows my name, has met me
>> and will no doubt give the story her peronal touch, when she is ready.
>
>Ah well, another non story. What a surprise.
You have your answer.
>
>>>>>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>>>>> Most of the time I do these days but when he attacks me I reserve the
>>>>> right to respond and when he posts things that are readily provable
>>>>> incorrect using his own posts it would be a shame not to point them out,
>>>>> particularly as they always reinforce Pat's point that the full record
>>>>> is available through Google Groups.
>>>> Absolutely, it is all there. A careful check on "James Kemball" will
>>>> throw up the names of 17 companies and a free check on the Companies
>>>> House website will prove their existence some years ago. Any of the
>>>> many lurkers can do it in five minutes and KNOW that the entire
>>>> Politburo are deliberately lying and presumably encouraging arson.
>>> There is currently no website for "James Kemball"
>>
>> So what? As far as I know, virtually all their busineess is in house
>> for the parent company and long term contracts. They probably don't
>> feel they need one.
>
>So how can "Any of the many lurkers" find out if you founded that
>company and then sold it on, together with the past existence of 17
>other companies in five minutes as you claimed.
You abysmal ignorance of both business and the law is your problem not
mine. Explain it to the police.
>
>>>>> I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
>>>>> by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you
>>>>> presented to respond in a different thread.
>>>> I was advised not to respond to you but decided especially following
>>>> the arson threats that I had a responsibility to my wife and
>>>> grandchildren to make it clear your role.
>>> If you are insinuating that I am somehow involved in arson threats that
>>> is completely wrong, without any foundation and therefore libellous.
>>
>> That is a matter that the police will be investigating. You may well
>> have nothing to do with them and merely provided indirect
>> encouragement. It is still an offence.
>
>I await with bated breath but, as I posted above nothing happened the
>last time you made similar statements so I doubt anything will happen
>this time.
I would not jeer at the police, if I were you. Unless you are trying
to dcoewn grade the offence to waste of police time.
>
>>>> Long ago the police advised me to make sure I complained publicly as
>>>> MAFF's investigation department were corrupt. Good advice, although I
>>>> must admit that if I had known that the lives of my wife and
>>>> grandchildren were likely to be endangered, I might well have crossed
>>>> the road and failed to do my civic duty.
>>> Not sure what that has to do with me but that is par I suppose.
>>
>> Oh! Just that I'm no hero. I have frequently been terrified over the
>> past years. Now the terror speads to the childrens' Christmas.
>
>Nothing to do with me or this newsgroup.
Threats of arson put people behind bars for a long time. There is
sufficient evidence of illegal activity here, relevant to the threat
to warrent a full investigation - and that is what is going to happen.
>
>> Speaks for itself really. You can't stoop much lower.
>
>What are you rambling on about now?
Threats of arson.
>
>>>> Don't snip. It just makes you look even worse.
>>> Do stop rambling Pat.
>>
>> Anyway, later I will be spelling out in great detail, why the
>> Politburo have shot themselves in the foot and will all be the subject
>> of (presumably police) enquiries.
>
>I await your "spelling out in great detail, why the Politburo have shot
>themselves in the foot and will all be the subject of (presumably
>police) enquiries" with great interest. I doubt you will actually post
>anything.
Then with the help of Providence you will be once again wrong.
>
>> I need a rest for a while.
>
>Have one then.
--
Pat Gardiner
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
>"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
>news:4b19895c$0$2535$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> > I am strongly inclined to the completely false character diagnosis. How
>> many folk come on here proclaiming what their job is, or was? The only
>> one I can think of is Pat. For most posters one may eventually deduce
>> what their job probably is, or was, from the content of their posts. One
>> or two have said, when it has been relevant to a particular discussion,
>> and for others there have been enough clues, again when a discussion has
>> led in the right direction. One other thing is that as opportunities have
>> presented I have looked in "Compass" going back some years. I have found
>> not a single reference to any of the companies Pat claims to have run.
>> The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at all, they are pretty
>> insignificant.
>>
>
>
> For a false character he is remarkably consistant.
As this is commented on elsewhere, I'm sure you realise that is one of
the marks of someone telling the truth.
It is what bring me credibility and you the knock on the door
>
>Although that is odd in itself, most people become bored of a topic and move
>on.
Dedication and a determination to put people who stain the face of
England behind bars
> .
>>
>> I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
>> by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you presented
>> to respond in a different thread.
>>
>>
>
> As I have kill filed him I have not seen that thread.
Tell that to the Marines. You have all been saying that for years and
reading every word.
Old Codger
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 22:12:15 +0000, Old Codger
> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:54:50 +0000, Old Codger
>>> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
<Snip of stuff that appears to have stopped being in contention>
>>
>>> No business I have ever run has ever gone into compulsory liquidation
>>> during the time, I was on the board or for two years afterwards.
>>>
>>> None have ever been the subject of action in Court for unpaid bills
>>> either during a similar timescale. A spotless record.
>> Easy to claim.
>
> ...and provable.
Possibly but not in a newsgroup. Statements posted by you, or indeed
anyone else, are not proof or even evidence towards proof.
>>>> One puts oneself out
>>>> only when it is appropriate, not when other evidence suggests there is
>>>> nothing to find. You know that very well which is why you keep
>>>> insisting on going to companies house.
>>>
>>> If you don't go to Companies House and deliberately fabricate or
>>> conspire to repeat serious libels without, you are lilely to go to
>>> gaol, simple as that.
>> Showing your ignorance yet again Pat? Gaol is not a punishment for
>> libel, not that I have libelled you.
>
> I will leave you to find out otherwise.
Libel is a civil wrong with damages as the retribution. I suppose gaol
might be a possibility for criminal libel but we are not discussing that
and in any event I believe that disappears in January. However, if you
are claiming that I will find out that I have in fact libelled you
please take *all* the posts in any thread in which you claim I have
libelled you to a good solicitor. He will soon put you right.
>>>> Even if those companies did exists and had a Pat Gardiner as a
>>>> significant employee we have no evidence that you are he. We don't even
>>>> know that your real, or usual, name is Pat Gardiner.
>>> As is recorded in the archives of the newsgroup
>>> uk.business.agriculture, searchable thrrough Google Groups and other
>>> readers, my full name is George Patrick Gardiner.
>> So you tell us. We have no confirmation of that. You could be anybody.
>
> Then you would be libelling somebody else wouldn't you. Your logic is
> as screwed as your morals and your brain.
What on earth are you on about? Stating a name in a newsgroup does not
provide any evidence that you are that person. As I said, as far as we
know, you could be anybody.
>>> You have been corrected many times.
>> Really? With confirmation?
>
> All on the newsgroup uk.business.agriculture.
Your stating something in this group does not make it so.
>>> You will not fool the police with this nonsense.
>> I have no reason to try to fool the police.
>
> I think you are right. You will cry your eyes out when they turn up on
> your door step, asking what you know about the threats of arson.
Making false accusations again Pat, that is serious. I have not
threatened you with anything, let alone arson, and you have no grounds
to make such an accusation.
>>>>> In fact, somebody here did go to Companies House and found the entries. They
>>>>> published it here years ago. It will be in the archives of the
>>>>> newsgroup uk.business.agriculture
>>>> You will be able to post the link then Pat. I don't recall that at all
>>>> and a simple search in UBA for "Companies House" did not produce any
>>>> relevant hits.
>>> I'm not responsible for your nonsense, others will find it, if they
>>> feel they need it. It is a nice sunny morning, I would stroll down to
>>> the police station and hand yourself in.
>> As I thought nobody has made any such post.
>
> The post is there. I can't recall who checked but it was a prominent
> member of the politburo, which makes them all accessories to your
> libels.
>
> It will be found and used in evidence. At the moment I see no
> imperative to search it out.
You alleged a post had been made but cannot produce a link to that post.
It is therefore unlikely that post exists.
>>>>> Actually, I don't think you are that stupid. Your defamations are
>>>>> deliberate as indeed is known to those encouraging you. You have
>>>>> Companies House and 17 company names, nobody can be that careless or
>>>>> stupid, neither your backers nor you. There is a clear conspiracy to
>>>>> libel and defame.
>>>> By you, not by anybody else. Any posts relating to you by the regulars
>>>> here are based solely on your posts.
>>> I would not involve the "regulars" most of them face the same fate as
>>> you for reasons I will explain later.
>> I await your explanation with great interest.
>
> They will be awaiting them with even more interest, but you have one
> above.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
>>>> As such any opinions expressed are
>>>> fully justified as any good solicitor would tell you. You really should
>>>> follow my advice and get yourself some good legal advice based on the
>>>> full facts.
>>> A victim of crime is not the one that needs the solicitor.
>> Any alleged crimes are nothing to do with this newsgroup or any of the
>> posters. My advice for you to get yourself good legal advice is for
>> your own protection. A good lawyer just might be able to persuade you
>> that it is not a good idea to post false allegations and libels against
>> other people. Someone who doesn't know the history of your posts make
>> take it all at face value and take exception to being libelled. That
>> could cause you problems Pat.
>
> You are wasting your time arguing. You will face criminal prosecution.
I am not arguing. Anyone reading the above paragraph will see that I am
giving you good advice.
I don't believe even you could get someone prosecuted for providing
legal advice.
>>>>> That is all pretty helpful to those currently investigating the arson
>>>>> threats. I think I do know the link between the Politburo to the
>>>>> person making the threats, but even I'm not quite sure. The
>>>>> investigators may know more and be able to roll the whole organisation
>>>>> up on conspiracy charges, based on the links between you and the main
>>>>> body of the Politburo
>>>> You are fantasising and posting complete rubbish again Pat.
>>> No. You have reached the end of your rope, as have the Politburo. This
>>> is now all over the internet and every amateur sleuth, let alone the
>>> pros, can investigate without leaving home. The police have no option
>>> but to act, given the threats of arson attacks and the obvious
>>> conspiracy to publish defamation which may, at the least, encourage
>>> such attacks.
>> That is total nonsense, as you well know. Indeed it could well be
>> defamatory.
>
> Not defamatatory as the many who have checked with Companies House
> know. Be grateful, you have got away with criminal activities and
> finally your time has come to be called to account.
You believe that falsely implying someone has threatened you with arson
is not defamatory? You follow that up by falsely implying that I have
been involved in criminal activities, that is serious and more libel.
You really do need good legal advice before you get yourself into real
trouble.
>>>>>> I have found not a single reference to any of the companies Pat
>>>>>> claims to have run. The likelihood is therefore that, if they exist at
>>>>>> all, they are pretty insignificant.
>>>>> As I say, you will not get away with failing to check with Companies
>>>>> House. Just to remind you of one. Most of you driving in England will
>>>>> pass James Kemball Ltd HGV's every day. They are much bigger than when
>>>>> I sold the company in 1988 with well over 100 vehicles. (my late
>>>>> brother's name was James Kemball Gardiner.)
>>>> First time you have mentioned that name Pat. Did you just see one of
>>>> their lorries?
>>> No, it has been mentioned before aand is in the archives. All
>>> checkable at Companies House
>> I don't recall it so would welcome a link to the message.
>
> No. Do your own searches.
You claim something has been said but cannot provide a link to the post.
Hmmm!
>>>>> Actually neither will anyone else. All your backers must know you are
>>>>> lying, and any link between any of them and the wannabe arsonist will
>>>>> implicate you all. I'm sure that is now your objective.
>>>> All total rubbish, as you know very well.
>>> I would not worry. You will have company in the dock. Not friendly
>>> company, admitedly after they have finished blaming you, but faces
>>> from Oxforsshire anyway.
>> Total nonsense again and the implication that anyone here has any
>> association with alleged threats of arson is libellous.
>
> Explain to the police. They might even believe you.
Falsely implying that someone is an arsonist is a serious libel as I am
sure the police will agree.
>> Not so long ago Pat you were alleging unsavoury activities outside your
>> residence and suggestion that folk here were implicated. You even went
>> so far as to suggest I would have the police at my door within days.
>> That never happened. I had no contact of any sort from the police.
>
> I would not brag about getting away with it, if I was you.
Not bragging about anything. Posting fact.
<Snip>
>>>>> I don't think the NHS will be keen to help you. They are more likely
>>>>> to link you to the MRSA disasters in Essex hospitals and ring the
>>>>> local press. I have actually met your local reporter recently.
>>>> Which reporter is that Pat and which newspaper is he on?
>>> "She" My last trip out, apart from visits to hospital was this
>>> meeting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8121815.stm. It was your
>>> local Colchester paper and there was difficulty in getting into the
>>> "public" meeting. I prearranged her assistance and gave evidence.
>> Evidence as in evidence to the Select Committee is that Pat?
>
> The minutes of the meeting will confirm my attendance and most of
> those present will recall my words. Your local journalist will
> remember it well and will doubtless be checking the records at
> Companies House, Lloyds and putting a piece together.
So you went to a meeting about cancer facilities and expressed your
opinion. I doubt that would persuade a journalist to check records at
Companies House or Lloyds. Should you get a mention at all I suspect it
will be within a list of those who spoke unless you said something
medically newsworthy, when you might get a bit more.
>> There is more than one local paper in Colchester including some that
>> have a slightly wider circulation. Even though none of them are local
>> to me I would still be interested in which one has been taken in by you.
>
> I'm not having you stalking any female journalists. You will have to
> wait until you are safely under lock and key.
I do not stalk people and certainly would not stalk a journalist.
>>> I'm not giving the names of any lady here for you to stalk and pester.
>>> You will find out when the story breaks. She knows my name, has met me
>>> and will no doubt give the story her peronal touch, when she is ready.
>> Ah well, another non story. What a surprise.
>
> You have your answer.
Really? Not my local paper and a non story. Since you won't provide
any information I obviously will not know the result, if any, of your
attendance at that meeting.
>>>>>>> So best to ignore him if he is a Troll or ill.
>>>>>> Most of the time I do these days but when he attacks me I reserve the
>>>>>> right to respond and when he posts things that are readily provable
>>>>>> incorrect using his own posts it would be a shame not to point them out,
>>>>>> particularly as they always reinforce Pat's point that the full record
>>>>>> is available through Google Groups.
>>>>> Absolutely, it is all there. A careful check on "James Kemball" will
>>>>> throw up the names of 17 companies and a free check on the Companies
>>>>> House website will prove their existence some years ago. Any of the
>>>>> many lurkers can do it in five minutes and KNOW that the entire
>>>>> Politburo are deliberately lying and presumably encouraging arson.
>>>> There is currently no website for "James Kemball"
>>> So what? As far as I know, virtually all their busineess is in house
>>> for the parent company and long term contracts. They probably don't
>>> feel they need one.
>> So how can "Any of the many lurkers" find out if you founded that
>> company and then sold it on, together with the past existence of 17
>> other companies in five minutes as you claimed.
>
> You abysmal ignorance of both business and the law is your problem not
> mine. Explain it to the police.
I cannot see the police being interested in my depth of knowledge of
business and the law.
You post a company name and say a careful check will reveal the names of
17 companies and a free check on the companies house website will prove
their existence. You then say "any of the many lurkers can do it in
five minutes" yet you appear unsurprised that the company has no
website. Oh, a free check on the companies house website did not give
any indication that you were ever involved with James Kemball, did not
mention any other companies and none of the other companies that you
mentioned in another post appeared at all.
>>>>>> I do find it interesting that he is now ignoring my posts but responding
>>>>>> by starting a new thread or by taking an opportunity such as you
>>>>>> presented to respond in a different thread.
>>>>> I was advised not to respond to you but decided especially following
>>>>> the arson threats that I had a responsibility to my wife and
>>>>> grandchildren to make it clear your role.
>>>> If you are insinuating that I am somehow involved in arson threats that
>>>> is completely wrong, without any foundation and therefore libellous.
>>> That is a matter that the police will be investigating. You may well
>>> have nothing to do with them and merely provided indirect
>>> encouragement. It is still an offence.
>> I await with bated breath but, as I posted above nothing happened the
>> last time you made similar statements so I doubt anything will happen
>> this time.
>
> I would not jeer at the police, if I were you. Unless you are trying
> to dcoewn grade the offence to waste of police time.
Not jeering at the police. Just posting the fact that the last time you
made a similar statement nothing happened. There is nothing I have done
or said in relation to you that will interest the police so I doubt I
will see them this time either.
>>>>> Long ago the police advised me to make sure I complained publicly as
>>>>> MAFF's investigation department were corrupt. Good advice, although I
>>>>> must admit that if I had known that the lives of my wife and
>>>>> grandchildren were likely to be endangered, I might well have crossed
>>>>> the road and failed to do my civic duty.
>>>> Not sure what that has to do with me but that is par I suppose.
>>> Oh! Just that I'm no hero. I have frequently been terrified over the
>>> past years. Now the terror speads to the childrens' Christmas.
>> Nothing to do with me or this newsgroup.
>
> Threats of arson put people behind bars for a long time. There is
> sufficient evidence of illegal activity here, relevant to the threat
> to warrent a full investigation - and that is what is going to happen.
Complete balderdash Pat. I will point out yet again that false
allegations of illegal activity are a serious matter and, should the
police become involved, you could find yourself facing charges.
>>> Speaks for itself really. You can't stoop much lower.
>> What are you rambling on about now?
>
> Threats of arson.
False allegation Pat. Serious, very serious.
>>>>> Don't snip. It just makes you look even worse.
>>>> Do stop rambling Pat.
>>> Anyway, later I will be spelling out in great detail, why the
>>> Politburo have shot themselves in the foot and will all be the subject
>>> of (presumably police) enquiries.
>> I await your "spelling out in great detail, why the Politburo have shot
>> themselves in the foot and will all be the subject of (presumably
>> police) enquiries" with great interest. I doubt you will actually post
>> anything.
>
> Then with the help of Providence you will be once again wrong.
You mean you are going to post something? *If* you do please "spell out
in great detail, why the Politburo have shot themselves in the foot and
will all be the subject of (presumably police) enquiries" as you promised.
>>> I need a rest for a while.
>> Have one then.
>
--
Pat Gardiner
Old Codger
>
> Are you out on bail?
What has that libellous statement got to do with anything relevant to
this thread?
Pat Gardiner
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> Are you out on bail?
>
>What has that libellous statement got to do with anything relevant to
>this thread?
You have snipped the entire thread. How can anyone tell?
No answer, I notice.
Old Codger
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:49:31 +0000, Old Codger
> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> Are you out on bail?
>> What has that libellous statement got to do with anything relevant to
>> this thread?
>
> You have snipped the entire thread. How can anyone tell?
It wasn't relevant and, anyway it can be read on your post. You haven't
deleted it have you?
> No answer, I notice.
I said it is libellous, that should be answer enough.
Pat Gardiner
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:49:31 +0000, Old Codger
>> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>> Are you out on bail?
>>> What has that libellous statement got to do with anything relevant to
>>> this thread?
>>
>> You have snipped the entire thread. How can anyone tell?
>
>It wasn't relevant and, anyway it can be read on your post. You haven't
>deleted it have you?
>
>> No answer, I notice.
>
>I said it is libellous, that should be answer enough.
From a man that has been stalking me for a decade, the last five
knowing that I have been fighting cancer and, as now, usually house
bound!
That's without deliberately frabricating mischief about my buesiness
record, not 15 miles from your door.
Then deliberately exploiting threats of arson attacks by others to
pile on the pressure?
Now, obviously transferring his attentions to any female journalists
that he thinks might be planning to expose his dirty nasty habits.
No - I'm not giving you the names, and if you start pestering any of
the Colchester newspaper or their staff, I suggest they call the
police, immediately.
The police will be the quick to protect any journalists under threat.
Enough journalists read this newsgroup to tip them off - and take the
resulting story to the nationals as well as the locals.
I'm amazed that they have not picked you up yet, not least because, as
we all now, your obsession is getting more and more serious.
Once, a quiet warning to an unpleasant eccentric would have been
enough, but you are now looking very dangerous.
I will leave it to the media to look after their own. They can check
with Companies House. I'm sure they have done so.
Old Codger
have already answered. Oh well, once more:
Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:03:40 +0000, Old Codger
> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:49:31 +0000, Old Codger
>>> <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>>> Are you out on bail?
>>>> What has that libellous statement got to do with anything relevant to
>>>> this thread?
>>> You have snipped the entire thread. How can anyone tell?
>> It wasn't relevant and, anyway it can be read on your post. You haven't
>> deleted it have you?
>>
>>> No answer, I notice.
>> I said it is libellous, that should be answer enough.
I forgot, it is obvious from your posts that you don't understand about
libel.
> From a man that has been stalking me for a decade, the last five
> knowing that I have been fighting cancer and, as now, usually house
> bound!
Responding to your posts is *NOT* stalking and that is all I have done.
I know you have claimed to be fighting cancer but I don't know that
you are. If you are you have my sympathy, not pleasant at all, but it
doesn't justify you making serious false allegations and libels.
> That's without deliberately frabricating mischief about my buesiness
> record, not 15 miles from your door.
My opinions of your claimed business record are based solely on your
posts to this group. Nothing is fabricated. It is all fair comment
which is justified by your posts, accessible via Google Groups.
> Then deliberately exploiting threats of arson attacks by others to
> pile on the pressure?
Very serious false accusations, made without a thread of justification.
It is not only libellous, it could get you into trouble with the police.
> Now, obviously transferring his attentions to any female journalists
> that he thinks might be planning to expose his dirty nasty habits.
False accusation again without a thread of justification. In fact he
made it up.
> No - I'm not giving you the names, and if you start pestering any of
> the Colchester newspaper or their staff, I suggest they call the
> police, immediately.
Serious false implications again and there is nothing wrong with
contacting a newspaper. Not that I currently have any interest in any
of the Colchester newspapers.
> The police will be the quick to protect any journalists under threat.
> Enough journalists read this newsgroup to tip them off - and take the
> resulting story to the nationals as well as the locals.
Who is threatening journalists?
> I'm amazed that they have not picked you up yet, not least because, as
> we all now, your obsession is getting more and more serious.
What obsession?
> Once, a quiet warning to an unpleasant eccentric would have been
> enough,
Indeed but you are still posting false allegations and libels.
> but you are now looking very dangerous.
In what way. All I do is reply to a few of your posts. You are the one
making false allegations, not me.
> I will leave it to the media to look after their own. They can check
> with Companies House. I'm sure they have done so.
I am sure they have. :-)