Hot off the Press : Simon Mason Letter - Porky Chapman

[Judith]

Porky Chapman has claimed that "Mason has seen a letter" in a post in
uk.net.news.moderation

(One must assume a letter to him or someone else at BP)

He also claims that I have admitted sending !!!

This is a total lie - I have no idea whether the first claim is true - or what
it actually means.

See thread : "Steve Walker's mod comment in ULM" which I have cross-posted to
here.

Porky living up to his name yet again !!!!

It is worth reading the full thread in UNNM - and also the thread in ULM to
which it refers if you want to see Porky at his best - and getting his arse
kicked by "ordinary" people with no ace to grind.


--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

[JNugent]

On 21/09/2011 19:21, Judith wrote:

> Porky Chapman has claimed that "Mason has seen a letter" in a post in
> uk.net.news.moderation

> (One must assume a letter to him or someone else at BP)
> He also claims that I have admitted sending !!!

> This is a total lie - I have no idea whether the first claim is true - or what
> it actually means.

To be fair and accurate, what he says is:

"Simon Mason has seen the letter and Judith admits sending it, *I* *am*
*told*".

[my emphasis, and leaving out those three words in a quotation changes its
meaning]

Taken at face value, it is a standard form of acknowledgement that the
information might not be correct, even if there if there a strong underlying
thrust to the effect that it is believed (by the writer) to be correct.
Admittedly, he then goes on to discuss other, circumstantial, evidence in
suppport of the proposition.

[The Medicated Handyman]

On 21/09/2011 19:21, Judith wrote:
>
>
> Porky Chapman

http://www.ocduk.org/

[Paul - xxx]

Judith wrote:

>
>
> Porky Chapman has claimed that "Mason has seen a letter" in a post in
> uk.net.news.moderation
>
> (One must assume a letter to him or someone else at BP)
>
> He also claims that I have admitted sending !!!
>
> This is a total lie - I have no idea whether the first claim is true
> - or what it actually means.
>
> See thread : "Steve Walker's mod comment in ULM" which I have
> cross-posted to here.
>
> Porky living up to his name yet again !!!!
>
> It is worth reading the full thread in UNNM - and also the thread in
> ULM to which it refers if you want to see Porky at his best - and
> getting his arse kicked by "ordinary" people with no ace to grind.

Isn't this somewhat akin to the thread you started in UKLM
"Hypothetical libel" likening Halfrauds to chocfords?

I think your ass was kicked there ...

--
Paul - xxx

[Judith]

Hardly the same at all sunshine.

It was a genuine legal discussion - as others have acknowledged. Porky Chapman
chose to jump in and turned it to rat shit with totally false accusations about
me.

What would you say if I said : "Paul has admitted having an interest in stolen
property, I am told"

I suppose that is also "akin" - and therefore OK.

Tag on "I am told" and it makes it OK does it?

Care to comment on that.

Well in my opinion it isn't at all - to effectively say that I have admitted
sending a letter to Mason's employers when I haven't is a typical Porky stunt.

(PS : Just for the record my example above regarding Paul - is purely that -
there is no accusation that he has such interest or that anyone has said that
he has same)

[Paul - xxx]

Judith wrote:

> On 21 Sep 2011 19:22:57 GMT, "Paul - xxx"
> <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Judith wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Porky Chapman has claimed that "Mason has seen a letter" in a post
> in >> uk.net.news.moderation
> >>
> >> (One must assume a letter to him or someone else at BP)
> >>
> >> He also claims that I have admitted sending !!!
> >>
> >> This is a total lie - I have no idea whether the first claim is
> true >> - or what it actually means.
> >>
> >> See thread : "Steve Walker's mod comment in ULM" which I have
> >> cross-posted to here.
> >>
> >> Porky living up to his name yet again !!!!
> >>
> >> It is worth reading the full thread in UNNM - and also the thread
> in >> ULM to which it refers if you want to see Porky at his best -
> and >> getting his arse kicked by "ordinary" people with no ace to
> grind.
> >
> > Isn't this somewhat akin to the thread you started in UKLM
> > "Hypothetical libel" likening Halfrauds to chocfords?
> >
> > I think your ass was kicked there ...
>
>
> Hardly the same at all sunshine.
>
> It was a genuine legal discussion - as others have acknowledged.

Give over, you were simply trying for a new angle with which to kick
out at cyclists.

> Porky Chapman chose to jump in and turned it to rat shit with totally
> false accusations about me.

We don't know if they were false or not.

> What would you say if I said : "Paul has admitted having an interest
> in stolen property, I am told"

I'd either ignore it or deny it, of course. Depend's if it were true
or not .. and whether I thought it was usenet fuckwittery or a
genuinely held belief .. ;)

> I suppose that is also "akin" - and therefore OK.
>
> Tag on "I am told" and it makes it OK does it?

Depends if he were told, I guess, but we aren't to know that, only you,
he and whoever told him, if someone did tell him.

> Care to comment on that.

As above. 'It all depends' on so many factors.

> Well in my opinion it isn't at all - to effectively say that I have
> admitted sending a letter to Mason's employers when I haven't is a
> typical Porky stunt.

Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle and
probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of you let
go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same bone when
there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play with.

If just one of you simply stopped goading the other you'd both be a lot
more interesting to read. Probably.

> (PS : Just for the record my example above regarding Paul - is purely
> that - there is no accusation that he has such interest or that
> anyone has said that he has same)

;)

--
Paul - xxx

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
>are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle and
>probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of you let
>go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same bone when
>there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play with.

When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
was a while back and maybe she's changed since.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Paul - xxx]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
> > are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle
> > and probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of
> > you let go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same
> > bone when there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play
> > with.
>
> When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
> posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
> was a while back and maybe she's changed since.

I was trying to give her a little benefit of the doubt, I see most of
her posts, probably 99% or more, as abusive even if only by dint of her
sigs, let alone actual content ..

While I'm being brutally honest, which is most of the time BTW, most of
your posts are NOT abusive, but you do dig where a dig isn't really
necessary, thus you also fuel the flames. It's definitely more
one-sided than 50:50, but you do still keep going at it.

I dislike sitting on the fence so I have to say, I'm on your side, Guy,
not Judiths, but I will try to see some good in her, I try to see
something positive in everyone [1]. Which is getting harder ....

I might even start using the bozo bin soon .. ;)

[1] I've given up on Doug, he's a retarded fuckwit and in my view
irredeemable.

--
Paul - xxx

[Squashme]

On Sep 22, 9:42 am, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>

> > On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
> > > are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle
> > > and probably shouldn't be made.  The real trouble is, neither of
> > > you let go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same
> > > bone when there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play
> > > with.
>
> > When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
> > posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
> > was a while back and maybe she's changed since.
>
> I was trying to give her a little benefit of the doubt, I see most of
> her posts, probably 99% or more, as abusive even if only by dint of her
> sigs, let alone actual content ..
>
> While I'm being brutally honest, which is most of the time BTW, most of
> your posts are NOT abusive, but you do dig where a dig isn't really
> necessary, thus you also fuel the flames.  It's definitely more
> one-sided than 50:50, but you do still keep going at it.
>
> I dislike sitting on the fence so I have to say, I'm on your side, Guy,
> not Judiths, but I will try to see some good in her

Mistake no. 1.

It might be easier to do if there were a level playing-field, but
there isn't. Both JzG and Simon Mason allow themselves to be
identifiable, and so you can judge what they say partly in the light
of the fact that they are traceable. TMH ditto, surprisingly. There
are no such constraints on the postings of JMS and Nuxx Bar, as far as
I know.

So you must judge accordingly.

Yours
Squashme

c/o Velocipedes'r'us
The Gutter,
Little Wobbling,
Beds and Herts.
N1 PPL5

[Judith]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:06:21 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
>>are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle and
>>probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of you let
>>go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same bone when
>>there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play with.
>
>When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
>posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
>was a while back and maybe she's changed since.
>
>Guy

Please provide your evidence regarding this lettter which no-one but you knows
fuck-all about.

Or is it just yet another little Porky?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 21 Sep 2011 19:22:57 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Isn't this somewhat akin to the thread you started in UKLM
>"Hypothetical libel" likening Halfrauds to chocfords?

In retrospect how could anyone possibly misinterpret Judith's words:

"[...] I have just had a scan at your posting history

Did you know that you have abused the BP system and stolen their
time by posting more than 900 messages via their system whilst
you were at "work".

I am just composing the letter now.

It's a pity that you won't see this heads-up and the first you
will know about it will be the call from HR next week."


<https://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/b30c98f0c4f84680?hl=en&dmode=source>

as being an admission to poring over Simon's posting history and
writing letters to his employer? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't
it? Obviously nobody could possibly interpret the perfectly innocent
statement, constructive and impersonal statement above as being an
admission that Judith was the malicious weasel who wrote to BP in
order to pursue a pointless personal grudge.

What a fool I've been to allow myself to be deceived into believing
that "I am just composing the letter now" is anything other than an
outright denial of responsibility for this cowardly, spiteful and
childish act.

[Judith]

On 22 Sep 2011 08:42:20 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
>> > are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle
>> > and probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of
>> > you let go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same
>> > bone when there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play
>> > with.
>>
>> When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
>> posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
>> was a while back and maybe she's changed since.
>
>I was trying to give her a little benefit of the doubt, I see most of
>her posts, probably 99% or more, as abusive even if only by dint of her
>sigs, let alone actual content ..
>
>While I'm being brutally honest, which is most of the time BTW, most of
>your posts are NOT abusive, but you do dig where a dig isn't really
>necessary, thus you also fuel the flames. It's definitely more
>one-sided than 50:50, but you do still keep going at it.
>
>I dislike sitting on the fence so I have to say, I'm on your side, Guy,
>not Judiths

Ahhhh - how touching.

You've found a little friend Porky.

ffs - "I am on your side" : says one sad bastard to another

Don't forget to ask him what makes him think I sent a letter to someone as he
has clearly claimed.

Or did you just make it up?

You little Porky you !!!!!

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 22 Sep 2011 08:42:20 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>

wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
>> > are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle
>> > and probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of
>> > you let go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same
>> > bone when there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play
>> > with.
>>
>> When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
>> posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
>> was a while back and maybe she's changed since.
>
>I was trying to give her a little benefit of the doubt, I see most of
>her posts, probably 99% or more, as abusive even if only by dint of her
>sigs, let alone actual content ..
>
>While I'm being brutally honest, which is most of the time BTW, most of
>your posts are NOT abusive, but you do dig where a dig isn't really
>necessary, thus you also fuel the flames. It's definitely more
>one-sided than 50:50, but you do still keep going at it.

A bit, yes, for the same reason that a man will continue to swat
occasionally at the mosquito which bites him. I am up front about
this, and I acknowledge my own fault.

>[1] I've given up on Doug, he's a retarded fuckwit and in my view
>irredeemable.

I think he's a crank, but mostly harmless. He does not seem (form what
little slips through in quoted text) to want to personalise things. I
suspect that most of us on usenet these days are a little odd in one
way or another, my test is: would they be welcome in the shed? Doug,
probably not, as Mike Corley.

[Simon Weaseltemper]

On 21/09/2011 19:21, Judith wrote:
>
>

> Porky Chapman has claimed that "Mason has seen a letter" in a post in
> uk.net.news.moderation
>

Is anyone bothered?

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

[Roger Thorpe]

On 22/09/2011 14:39, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> <https://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/b30c98f0c4f84680?hl=en&dmode=source>
>
> as being an admission to poring over Simon's posting history and
> writing letters to his employer? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't
> it? Obviously nobody could possibly interpret the perfectly innocent
> statement, constructive and impersonal statement above as being an
> admission that Judith was the malicious weasel who wrote to BP in
> order to pursue a pointless personal grudge.
>
> What a fool I've been to allow myself to be deceived into believing
> that "I am just composing the letter now" is anything other than an
> outright denial of responsibility for this cowardly, spiteful and
> childish act.
>
> Guy

And expressions from Judith like

".............. then the gloves are off"

Are merely references to the warm weather, not meant to intimidate at all.


--
Roger Thorpe

[Judith]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 15:54:12 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>I think he's a crank, but mostly harmless. He does not seem (form what
>little slips through in quoted text) to want to personalise things. I
>suspect that most of us on usenet these days are a little odd in one
>way or another, my test is: would they be welcome in the shed? Doug,
>probably not, as Mike Corley.
>
>Guy

ffs - you could not make it up:

" I suspect that most of us on usenet these days are a little odd"

"my test is: would they be welcome in the shed?"

[Judith]

Oh dear oh dear - an empty threat to the fuckwit Mason (who does not even read
my posts) from a couple of months ago translates in to reality does it.

It was a wind up? Have you heard of those?

You need to get a life sunshine.

Are you now saying that someone has written to BP?

Why has Mason not claimed that?

Who was it?

Frankly I would not put it past you to write such a letter in those
circumstances just to point blame.

What did the letter say?

[Roger Thorpe]

On 22/09/2011 23:08, Judith wrote:

>
> Frankly I would not put it past you to write such a letter in those
> circumstances just to point blame.
>

You're forgetting, guy didn't write pretending to be someone else, that
was you wasn't it?

--
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 22/09/2011 09:06, Just zis Twat, you know? wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2011 04:51:11 GMT, "Paul - xxx"<notchec...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Keeping it on the level I would say, somewhat in your defence, there
>> are some posts made by both 'sides' that are close to the knuckle and
>> probably shouldn't be made. The real trouble is, neither of you let
>> go, you're like a pair of Labradors tugging at the same bone when
>> there's loads of others lying around to pick up and play with.
>
> When you say "some posts", have you seen what proportion of Judith's
> posts are abusive? Last time I checked it was 100% for one week. That
> was a while back and maybe she's changed since.
>
> Guy

Then again, 100% of your posts are utterly fucking stupid.

Maybe you will change one day?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Or indeed Squashme.

[Squashme]

On Sep 23, 12:57 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

Sigh. Everybody else will have understood that.

[Simon Mason]

On Sep 22, 11:25 pm, Roger Thorpe
<myinitialdotmysurn...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

> > Frankly I would not put it past you to write such a letter in those
> > circumstances just to point blame.
>
> You're forgetting, guy didn't write pretending to be someone else, that
> was you wasn't it?
>
> --
> Roger Thorpe
>
>

JMS tried the same stunt with bugbear in May by posing as an "Andy
Wagstaff" which they had a good laugh about. When JMS sent the letter
to my employers, they couldn't even get their fake name correct as
they spelt it differently in the bogus email address and the false
name at the foot of the letter. The police seemed to take the
admission by JMS in sending the online threat at the end of July to
the letter turning up at my place of work shortly afterwards seriously
enough. I also showed them JMS's IP address that I have from a private
email they sent 2 1/2 years ago which also matches the IP address of
someone who looks at my website quite often. It comes back as a
Virginmedia address in the north Manchester area. Streetview shows it
to be a pretty grotty area with lots of boarded up dwellings.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 02:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Please feel free to explain what you are on about - and then provide proof of
what you are accusing me of doing : "When JMS sent the letter".

Is this some reference to the "letter" which Porky mentioned?

I guess that - just like Porky - you think that if you throw enough shit it
will stick.

Any chance of sharing it with us. You can then explain what you think it has
to do with me.

You can be sure if I wanted to grass you up to your employers (which seems to
be the gist of what you are saying) I would not formally announce it in a
newsgroup before doing so.

We are not all as stupid as you.

If someone genuinely complained to your employer about the amount of their time
which you wasted I am sure that the police would be very interested. It would
also be a genuine complaint from anyone with BP shares.

You have certainly brought the name of BP in to disrepute - and not just
recently

Oh, I am not sure what law would have been broken - can you help?

--
Simple Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users.
The actions of a true psycholist.

[The Medicated Handyman]

so you don't deny posing as "Andy Wagstaff" ?

[Mr. Benn]

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
news:44331299-d638-4515...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

=============================================

I think you are going to get yourself into a whole load of bother over this
accusation.

[Mr. Benn]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:dacn7712sm1pjqjel...@4ax.com...

Who was it?

================================================

Yes, I would like to know the same. Chapman and Mason are making vague
accusations but won't provide any details when questioned.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:27:21 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
<invalid...@invalid.com> wrote:

>Yes, I would like to know the same. Chapman and Mason are making vague
>accusations but won't provide any details when questioned.

Can't speak for Simon, I am going by what was posted in this group.
Having posted "I am just composing the letter now" (Message-ID:
<oslv27dr2nfovd2pb...@4ax.com>), JMS can hardly then
complain that people draw the inference that it was she, rather than
some other anonymous coward, who wrote the letter.

The tone of faux wounded innocence is also incompatible with "As far
as I am concerned, if people post from their work system whilst they
are at work and they are having a go at me, then the gloves are off."
(Message-ID: <t25c671m8bmphec1d...@4ax.com>).

I believe I did specifically allow for the fact that JMS may simply be
claiming "credit" for the actions of some other anonymous coward, but
Occam's razor does seem to suggest that it was JMS.

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:55:09 +0100, Judith wrote:


>
> You've found a little friend Porky.

A webbing of skin connects its eight arms, each lined with rows of
fleshy spines or cirri. The inside of this "cloak" is black. Only the
distal half (farthest from the body) of the arms have suckers. Its
limpid, globular eyes—which appear red or blue, also depending on lighting
—are proportionately the largest in the animal kingdom at 2.5 cm (1 inch)
in diameter.




--
An oft-repeated lie is sill a lie.

[Simon Mason]

On Sep 24, 8:59 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

<usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>
> I believe I did specifically allow for the fact that JMS may simply be
> claiming "credit" for the actions of some other anonymous coward, but
> Occam's razor does seem to suggest that it was JMS.
>

As JMS itself might say.

"Threats to shop SM to his employers via a malicious letter to HR in
37 years - 1.

"Number of real letters to turn up at HR in 37 years - 1.

Coincidence?

Plus JMS admitted sending it a mere 4 days before it actually did turn
up.

The police saw it that way as well when I showed them the train of
events from foul and abusive personal insults, taking an unusual and
unhealthy interest in you, your wife, your children, your lifestyle,
your location, your place of work, which then gets ramped up to
cyberstalking through posting habits, IP addresses, shifts patterns,
when you leave work and when you get home.

Then constant mentions of your employer in a public forum, followed by
threats to contact your employer culminating with a malicious letter
being sent. The police saw the whole chain of events unfold.

--
Simon Mason

--
Simon Mason

[Mr. Benn]

"Simon Mason" wrote in message

news:b43923e9-f1fe-4dd5...@20g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...

On Sep 24, 8:59 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>
> I believe I did specifically allow for the fact that JMS may simply be
> claiming "credit" for the actions of some other anonymous coward, but
> Occam's razor does seem to suggest that it was JMS.
>

As JMS itself might say.

"Threats to shop SM to his employers via a malicious letter to HR in
37 years - 1.

"Number of real letters to turn up at HR in 37 years - 1.

Coincidence?

Plus JMS admitted sending it a mere 4 days before it actually did turn
up.

========================================

If someone has contacted your employer to complain that you waste too much
time at work, then I hope your employer has warned you to mend your ways.
We'll see.

[Judith]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:59:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:27:21 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
><invalid...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I would like to know the same. Chapman and Mason are making vague
>>accusations but won't provide any details when questioned.
>
>Can't speak for Simon, I am going by what was posted in this group.
>Having posted "I am just composing the letter now" (Message-ID:
><oslv27dr2nfovd2pb...@4ax.com>), JMS can hardly then
>complain that people draw the inference that it was she, rather than
>some other anonymous coward, who wrote the letter.
>
>The tone of faux wounded innocence is also incompatible with "As far
>as I am concerned, if people post from their work system whilst they
>are at work and they are having a go at me, then the gloves are off."
>(Message-ID: <t25c671m8bmphec1d...@4ax.com>).
>
>I believe I did specifically allow for the fact that JMS may simply be
>claiming "credit" for the actions of some other anonymous coward, but
>Occam's razor does seem to suggest that it was JMS.
>
>Guy

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Do you really think if I was going to write to someone's employer I would
advertise it here?

Do you really think I was composing a letter at the same time as I was
responding to newsgroup messages?

Any chance of you now providing evidence of the things you accuse me of doing?

How's *your* dealings with the police going over the nuisance calls you claim
you have received.

If (big if) I actually wanted to do anything underhand I would just do it and
keep quiet.

Unlike you, I do not need a blaze of publicity associated with the things I do.
--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

[Judith]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 01:03:25 +0100, wrote:

Feel free to explain what you and/or Mason are talking about.

If you have an accusation to make, then just make it.

[Clive George]

On 24/09/2011 13:04, Mr. Benn wrote:

> If someone has contacted your employer to complain that you waste too
> much time at work, then I hope your employer has warned you to mend your
> ways. We'll see.

If somebody contacted me in that situation regarding a valued employee,
I'd tell the employee not to worry. The opinions of a third party on
whether an employee is wasting time are simply irrelevant.

[Simon Mason]

On Sep 24, 2:13 pm, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If somebody contacted me in that situation regarding a valued employee,
> I'd tell the employee not to worry. The opinions of a third party on
> whether an employee is wasting time are simply irrelevant.

They actually found out that I take no dinner breaks or tea breaks so
I was *told* to take things more easy and not to work so hard. I am
known as a bit of a workaholic and so they were concerned over my
welfare as I do not take any breaks.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 04:32:00 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Mason you are an incredible fool - the above post is an all time great fuck up.

Looks like you have now grassed up Porky for wasting police time !!!

You have now reproduced the email from Porky Chapman (which I have referred to
previously :-) telling you what to do - but you have forgotten to alter it !!!

Come on now - come clean.

Who went to the police - was it you or Porky? What did you tell them? What
did they say?

For the record : I have not done or admitted doing anything in the context
under discussion.

Also or the record - I have no interest in your wife (who you yourself have
told us is 16 stone and sweaty) your children, or where you live.

I also do not intend to publish my best guess at your home address - in the
same way that you have recently done for me. (Can you ask Porky - is that
harassment?)

(PS will someone - Mr Benn/JNugent - please just reply to this post so that
Mason will actually see it)

[Judith]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:13:17 +0100, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:

You're quite right

What on earth would it have to do with share-holders if employees were wasting
company time by posting more than 200 messages to newsgroups in a couple of
days.

It would just be sad if it was from a home address - to do it in works time is
taking the piss.

Actually - I think I will write to BP and complain about Mason to reinforce
what it looks like they have already been told.

[Mr. Benn]

"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qPmdnXVPUOfwSuDT...@brightview.co.uk...

If it was one of my employees, he'd get a warning and wouldn't get another
if caught time wasting again.

[Mr. Benn]

"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b43923e9-f1fe-4dd5...@20g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...

Let's see some evidence then.

[Judith]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 06:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 24, 2:13 pm, Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>>
>> If somebody contacted me in that situation regarding a valued employee,
>> I'd tell the employee not to worry. The opinions of a third party on
>> whether an employee is wasting time are simply irrelevant.
>
>They actually found out that I take no dinner breaks or tea breaks so
>I was *told* to take things more easy and not to work so hard.

Snigger : 200 posts over 2 or 3 days is working hard is it.

It beggars belief.

BP shares ? : Sell, sell, sell

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I'd launch an investigation & if evidence were found, take disciplinary
action.

[The Medway Handyman]

And I bet they pissed themselves laughing.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

[Mr. Benn]

The Medway Handyman" <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MEnfq.14$qY6...@newsfe19.ams2...

I doubt anything happened at all. It's a made-up story, a stupid game that
Mason is playing.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 14:37:58 +0100, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

Where in any of the above does Simon say I talked to the police about
you at all? Regardless, feel free to bring a complaint on that basis
if you believe I have wasted police time in this way. I am sure they
will be very happy to investigate and not consider it a waste of time
at all.

As to your protestations of wounded innocence, if you did not want to
be accused of being the spiteful anonymous coward who wrote to Simon's
employer then perhaps you should not have written "I am just composing
the letter now" (Message-ID:
<oslv27dr2nfovd2pb...@4ax.com>). The fact that you wrote
this four days before said spiteful anonymous coward's letter arrived,
does rather tend to point the finger of blame your way. I am equally
happy to believe, if you say it's the case, that you were lying about
writing the letter and that it was some other anonymous coward who
wrote it.

The question of harassment does not arise in Simon's case. The offence
of harassment is defined by the relevant act thus:

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the
other.

The course of conduct must encompass two or more events, and must be
actions which a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or
intended to cause alarm or distress.

Incidentally, you might also want to read the Telecommunications Act,
which defines an offence as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description
which conveys—
(i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;
(ii)a threat; or
(iii)information which is false and known or believed to be
false by the sender
(b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or
part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,

is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in
sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a)
or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any
other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature
should be communicated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

An example of a threat might be: "As far as I am concerned, if people

post from their work system whilst they are at work and they are
having a go at me, then the gloves are off." (Message-ID:

<t25c671m8bmphec1d...@4ax.com>). Or: "Did you know that

you have abused the BP system and stolen their time by posting more

than 900 messages via their system whilst you were at "work". I am
just composing the letter now." (Message-ID:
<oslv27dr2nfovd2pb...@4ax.com>).

Gosh, that's two occurrences - a course of conduct, as it's known in
law.

It is a general principle of common law that a person is entitled to
know the identity of their accuser. I doubt you have the balls to
break your cover. If you think I have committed the above offences, or
any related civil tort, then my response to you is: bring it on. I
strongly suspect that Simon would be of the same mind.

I believe you are a coward and I sincerely doubt that you are prepared
to actually stand up, identify yourself, and say to people's faces
that which you have been saying on usenet for years. Feel free to
prove me wrong by bringing either a criminal or a civil case against
me.

Put up or shut up.

Responses from JMS by email, thanks, as otherwise I probably won't see
them.

[Simon Mason]

On Sep 24, 9:02 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >> If somebody contacted me in that situation regarding a valued employee,
> >> I'd tell the employee not to worry. The opinions of a third party on
> >> whether an employee is wasting time are simply irrelevant.
>
> >If it was one of my employees, he'd get a warning and wouldn't get another
> >if caught time wasting again.
>

> I'm sure they'd be glad of the opportunity to find another employer at
> your expense.

It would also be good if people did not poke their noses into what
does not concern them and somehow extrapolate their own working
circumstances and confer them onto others who may have an entirely
different working environment to theirs.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

Did you email Mason regarding some letter he or his employer had received?

When "Mason" says above:

"The police saw it that way as well when I showed them the train of
events from foul and abusive personal insults, taking an unusual and
unhealthy interest in you, your wife, your children, your lifestyle,"

What on earth does he mean?

Who is "you", "your wife" "your children" - is it really Mason saying that - or
is it someone else?

What an odd thing for *him* to say - or is it Porky?

I think we should be told.

<pure shite snipped>

I see your kill-file is broken yet again !!!!! How come I have jumped out????

>Guy

Are you known as Porky because you fuck pigs?

[Adam Lea]

It would be good if people on this ng would behave like civilised,
responsible adults instead of all this willy waving, but sometimes what
is good and what actually happens are two different things.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 24/09/2011 21:02, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Mr. Benn"<%%@invalid.com> considered Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:13:35 +0100

> I'm sure they'd be glad of the opportunity to find another employer at
> your expense.

Sorry to interject m'lud, but using a companies e mail & time to post
excessively would be an entirely fair case for disciplinary action.

[JNugent]

Why so defensive?

[Mr. Benn]

"Judith" wrote in message
news:m1mr77h69rbg0tqpp...@4ax.com...

==============================================

You're probably not even in his killfile. I supposedly am as well but he's
still replying to some of my posts.

[Simon Mason]

> is good and what actually happens are two different things.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

One can only wish, but sadly some peoples' lives are so pathetic that
the only enjoyment they get is by hurling abuse at others.
I actually pity them.

--
Simon Mason

[Mr. Benn]

"Simon Mason" wrote in message

news:f57dd258-d7d9-46f2...@i9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

===========================================

I pity those who make up stories about police involvement in trivial
matters.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:38:03 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
<invalid...@invalid.com> wrote:

>I pity those who make up stories about police involvement in trivial
>matters.

Judith wasn't making up stories so much as wriggling when caught bang
to rights. Still pitiful, though, I agree.

[Simon Mason]

On Sep 25, 12:20 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

<usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:38:03 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
>

> <invalidaddr...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >I pity those who make up stories about police involvement in trivial
> >matters.
>
> Judith wasn't making up stories so much as wriggling when caught bang
> to rights. Still pitiful, though, I agree.
>
> Guy

What gets me is the sheer amount of time this business has cost
innocent people. OK, the 3 police officers involved have to deal with
reading threats and abuse all the time, but our HR and management has
had to wade through pages and pages of foul messages written by JMS,
which is not really their job.

And what did the letter achieve apart from wasting all of these
peoples' time?

Nothing whatsoever.

--
Simon Mason

[Simon Mason]

On Sep 25, 4:00 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:31:18

> Do we know that for certain?
> Has all the dust settled, or is the real prospect of legal redress?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I stand corrected, I now have to take proper breaks, so it did have an
impact.
I'll have to get used to having 45 minute dinner breaks and several
tea breaks where I have to talk about cars and football instead of
grafting.

Ho hum.
--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:31:18 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sep 25, 12:20 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:38:03 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
>>
>> <invalidaddr...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >I pity those who make up stories about police involvement in trivial
>> >matters.
>>
>> Judith wasn't making up stories so much as wriggling when caught bang
>> to rights. Still pitiful, though, I agree.
>>
>> Guy
>
>What gets me is the sheer amount of time this business has cost
>innocent people. OK, the 3 police officers involved have to deal with
>reading threats and abuse all the time, but our HR and management has
>had to wade through pages and pages of foul messages written by JMS,
>which is not really their job.

Could you perhaps let me have copies of these pages and pages of "foul
messages" written by me, as I can't seem to find them.

You do seem to be making quite a few allegations about me in public don't you;
you need to ask Porky for his best legal advice again if you are going to
continue down this path.

>And what did the letter achieve apart from wasting all of these
>peoples' time?
>
>Nothing whatsoever.

Oh - THREE police officers eh? Has there been a major crime committed
somewhere? Has there been any crime committed anywhere?

So it looks like Porky is not just wasting the time of one officer ; but now
THREE.

Any chance of the name of the investigating officer and whether it was you, BP
Personnel or Porky Chapman who called the police. I think we should be told.

(Assuming that someone did of course)

I am afraid if HR told you to let things quieten down - you haven't listened
have you?

I found it most odd that it was Porky who broke the news of this phantom
"letter".

I wonder what exactly is his interest? Perhaps he said it was pay back time
for me and offered you his advice?

Is that how it worked?
--
Simple Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20mph limits just because the limits do not apply to cyclists.
This includes exceeding the speed limit past three schools. A total disregard for the well-being of vulnerable road users.
The actions of a true psycholist.

[Simon Mason]

On Sep 25, 4:00 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:31:18
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
>
>

> Do we know that for certain?

> Has all the dust settled, or is the real prospect of legal redress?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The dust has not settled - not by a long chalk.
--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:14:39 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>I stand corrected, I now have to take proper breaks, so it did have an
>impact.
>I'll have to get used to having 45 minute dinner breaks and several
>tea breaks where I have to talk about cars and football instead of
>grafting.
>
>Ho hum.

Surely you will be able to use the internet in that time?

[JNugent]

Is that a classroom reference or a Wimbledon/McEnroe thing?

[Mr. Benn]

"Simon Mason" wrote in message

news:260e90e6-0518-4d51...@t11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

==============================================

Are you going to make up another story now?

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:21:07 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Porky Chapman has claimed

Mature adults have a pair of ear-like fins. These fins stand out from the
lateral sides of the mantle. They serve as the adult's primary means of
propulsion (moving around): Vampire Squid are said to "fly" through the
water by way of flapping their fins.

--

<snip>


--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Mr. Benn]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:l7dv77t4889nltag4...@4ax.com...
> "Mr. Benn" <invalid...@invalid.com> considered Sun, 25 Sep 2011

> I strongly suspect that anything further would be sub-judice, so it
> may be a good idea not to speculate too publicly.

I am not aware of anything being considered by a judge at the moment. If
there is anything, please can someone give me some details of what is being
considered by a judge?

[Judith]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:12:12 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

>"Mr. Benn" <invalid...@invalid.com> considered Sun, 25 Sep 2011

>I strongly suspect that anything further would be sub-judice, so it
>may be a good idea not to speculate too publicly.

Ah yes - the well known legal advisor : Wanker Lee.
Here are some of his previous gems:

====================================================================
If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones, you must
have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.
(Anchor Lee)

If you claim to be held up by a cyclist, you are admitting to dangerous
driving, since the only way you could be held up is if your intention was to
pass dangerously close.
(Anchor Lee)

Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under the
heading of "causing an obstruction",
and should be investigated by the police as such.
(Anchor Lee)

If Traffic Lights are not working, then you can telephone the police for
permission to proceed.
If this is not forthcoming, then you can reports it as "unlawful detention".
(Anchor Lee)

The police have clearly not been persuaded by the Law Lords, and still
try to treat the procession as unlawful. In this they are now equally
clearly in contempt of court. (Anchor Lee)

It could usefilly <sic> be pointed out to motorists that if they are within
range of a swung D lock, they are too close, and could be held liable
for any collision (including with the D lock).

If you are watching your kids in the rear view mirror, you are not
driving safely or legally.

I would find it very hard to condemn anyone who beat the van driver
into permanent inability to drive,

===========================================================

And then of course we have his incitement comment:



If the bastards won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Message-ID: <2s2mk6treuao9eofe...@4ax.com>
Phil W Lee 3 February 2011

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:03:56 +0100, "Mr. Benn" <%%@invalid.com> wrote:

>I am not aware of anything being considered by a judge at the moment. If
>there is anything, please can someone give me some details of what is being
>considered by a judge?

I am aware of several things under consideration by judges, but for
obvious reasons I can't discuss them here...

[Judith]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:24:04 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:03:56 +0100, "Mr. Benn" <%%@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>I am not aware of anything being considered by a judge at the moment. If
>>there is anything, please can someone give me some details of what is being
>>considered by a judge?
>
>I am aware of several things under consideration by judges, but for
>obvious reasons I can't discuss them here...
>
>Guy

Good old Porky.

Snigger.

Are they trying to decide if you are a "thought leader" or just one of the
biggest wankers there has ever been on usenet?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

And those who post holiday snaps to a bunch of uninterested strangers
because they are Billy no Mates.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Grafting <snigger>.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Just as well this only happened in your imagination then isn't it.

Billy no Mates, Walter Mitty, Billy Liar......

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 25/09/2011 16:00, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Simon Mason<swld...@gmail.com> considered Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:31:18

> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>

> Do we know that for certain?
> Has all the dust settled, or is the real prospect of legal redress?

Would you agree to represent him M'lud?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 25/09/2011 17:27, Simon Mason wrote:

Whats the next step - telling your Mum?

[Simon Mason]

"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:l7dv77t4889nltag4...@4ax.com...

>
> I strongly suspect that anything further would be sub-judice, so it
> may be a good idea not to speculate too publicly.

I shall say no more on the matter then.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

[JNugent]

On 26/09/2011 17:30, Simon Mason wrote:

> "Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

>> I strongly suspect that anything further would be sub-judice, so it
>> may be a good idea not to speculate too publicly.

> I shall say no more on the matter then.

Now come on... that IS funny!

[Judith]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:20:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:38:03 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
><invalid...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>I pity those who make up stories about police involvement in trivial
>>matters.
>
>Judith wasn't making up stories so much as wriggling when caught bang
>to rights. Still pitiful, though, I agree.
>
>Guy

What one earth do you mean Porky : "Bang to rights" with what?

[Simon Weaseltemper]

Isn’t wading through message source code to establish that Guy may have
posted under a different name at some point a tad sad?

After all, its not as if Judith/JMS has not used a multitude of posting
identities.

Besides, the same IP address proves nothing.

Could well be coincidence.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

[Simon Mason]

On Oct 1, 4:35 pm, Simon Weaseltemper <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID>
wrote:

>
> Isn t wading through message source code to establish that Guy may have
> posted under a different name at some point a tad sad?
>
> After all, its not as if Judith/JMS has not used a multitude of posting
> identities.
>
> Besides, the same IP address proves nothing.
>
> Could well be coincidence.
>

It could also be a coincidence that JMS admitted to sending a
malicious letter to my employers 4 days before one atcually turned up
there. I have been told that JMS then lied and wriggled by back
tracking and saying they were not the composer of that letter, when it
is quite plain that they were.

I showed the police that admittance and the letter along with similar
letter sent to Bugbear using yet another false name.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

Yes of course it was.

The point was that someone (Lou Knee) posted a message just to call another
poster "a shit" - it was pretty clear from what had been said previously that
it was most likely Guy Chapman (as he was known as in those days)

A quick look at the headers showed that a particular IP address was used.

A quick investigation showed that that IP address had only been used on
newsgroups in the past by Guy Chapman.

As you say - an amazing coincidence:
7 posts : 5 from Porky and 2 from Lou Knee

Chapman effectively denied it - via much obfuscation and wriggling. But being
a god-botherer he could not actually deny it.

As a result - he is now known as Porky.

--

"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

[Judith]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:43:21 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>It could also be a coincidence that JMS admitted to sending a
>malicious letter to my employers 4 days before one atcually turned up
>there. I have been told that JMS then lied and wriggled by back
>tracking and saying they were not the composer of that letter, when it
>is quite plain that they were.
>
>I showed the police that admittance and the letter along with similar
>letter sent to Bugbear using yet another false name.

So let's get this straight.

You think someone sent a "malicious" letter to your employer - and it is "quite
plain" that it was me. Oh dear.

You contacted Porky Chapman for legal advice - and he told you that a similar
letter had been sent to someone else - not too sure of the relevance of that
(if it is true) - and it must have been from me.

So the next question is : who advised you to go to the police. Was it BP
Chemicals who called them in; was it you on the advice of Porky Chapman; or
have you made it all up.

I wonder what law Porky advised you was being broken? Any chance of sharing
it with us. Is it the "Shareholders must not complain to a company about
dubious practices at the company" law?

You need to be careful that someone doesn't write to BP and ask whether
employees are permitted to take electronic devices such as
concealed/camouflaged/hidden cameras on to the Saltend site in order to take
surreptitious photographs of industrial processes.

I am sure you told us that electronic devices were banned from the site.

I can see it in the Hull Daily Mail now:

"Whistle blower interviewed by police after highlighting dubious practices to
local company" "Massive explosion at chemical plant after prohibited
electronic device is smuggled in"

I wonder if this whole issue will be brought up at the next BP AGM by a
"malicious" shareholder?

Unless you are lying of course.

[Simon Weaseltemper]

Yebbut, *who* is actually bothered?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Where there three policemen there Simple?

Who were they? Taggart, Columbo & Frost?

Possibly Regan & Carter?

I'd expect policemen of that calibre at the very least.

Do please let us know when you wake from this fantasy.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

The dickhead Mason by the look of it.

[Peter Keller]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:50:00 +0100, Judith wrote:


>
> As a result - he is now known as Porky.

only by deluded you.

[Nick]

Forgive me if I haven't been keeping up but what exactly is the alleged
crime being discussed. Surely a busy body writing a letter to someone's
employer making an allegation that is essentially true is not in itself
a crime?

[JNugent]

You may well ask.

Only a very few people here could give an authoritative answer, since it is
apparently a secret (and not one that is known to me, I hasten to add).