Brian Reay, First order Scumbag

[Paul Cummins]

I got an email from my old boss today.

I call her my old boss, but actually I employe and trained her, so she's
really my replacement...

Apparently my old company has received an email from a Kentish gentleman
by the name of REAY, informing them that I am a convicted sex offender,
and they may wish to consider my position.

Luckily for me, this company knows whether I am or not due to the CRB
Check I did 8 months ago, and as a result has dismissed his allegations.

However, does anyone else remember REAY denying that he contacted
employers? I do, and so does my solicitor. Indeed we have his email when
he said so.

Strangely enough my old boss also says she got a similar email from STC
just before christmas, the monday AFTER I left...

I leave to your imagination what will happen to these fine, upstanding
kentish gentlemen when the police knock on their doors, real soon now.

Fair Warning. ANYONE from this group or elsewhere who tries to endanger
my safety or employment with lies and undue/improper interference will
face the highest possible penalties the law allows. I'm sick of the lies,
and will not stand for it any longer, from Kentish Fuckwits or anyone
else.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Jim Stewart]

"Paul Cummins" <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2014012...@postmaster.cix.co.uk...

>I got an email from my old boss today.
>
> I call her my old boss, but actually I employe and trained her, so she's
> really my replacement...
>
> Apparently my old company has received an email from a Kentish gentleman
> by the name of REAY, informing them that I am a convicted sex offender,
> and they may wish to consider my position.
>
> Luckily for me, this company knows whether I am or not due to the CRB
> Check I did 8 months ago, and as a result has dismissed his allegations.
>
> However, does anyone else remember REAY denying that he contacted
> employers? I do, and so does my solicitor. Indeed we have his email when
> he said so.
>
> Strangely enough my old boss also says she got a similar email from STC
> just before christmas, the monday AFTER I left...
>
> I leave to your imagination what will happen to these fine, upstanding
> kentish gentlemen when the police knock on their doors, real soon now.
>
> Fair Warning. ANYONE from this group or elsewhere who tries to endanger
> my safety or employment with lies and undue/improper interference will
> face the highest possible penalties the law allows. I'm sick of the lies,
> and will not stand for it any longer, from Kentish Fuckwits or anyone
> else.
>

> Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead

shocking but not unexpected from that pair...more power to you OM......

[Jim Stewart]

> Luckily for me, this company knows whether I am or not due to the CRB
> Check I did 8 months ago, and as a result has dismissed his allegations.
>

my local scumbags put about that I had been prosecuted for jamming Glasgow
airport Fxs......what they seemed to overlook was that I had been checked
for a pass for access to Airside.....then they found out it was a GM4 friend
of theirs that had been done...laugh ? I nearly did ........and they wrote
to my employers a few times...the world is fecked and the hobby is full of
scumbags mostly FLs and M3/G8s.....

[Lordgnome]

On 24/01/2014 18:19, Paul Cummins wrote:
> Apparently my old company has received an email from a Kentish gentleman
> by the name of REAY, informing them that I am a convicted sex offender,
> and they may wish to consider my position.

You might just like to get confirmation of the source and validity of
that email, since in the occasion of it being a forgery, I would suggest
that Mr. Reay might have a case against you in regard to this posting!

Les.

[gareth]

"Lordgnome" <l...@nospam.null> wrote in message
news:UOyEu.99$Qa6...@fx10.fr7...

<potential libel, and its repeat excised>

>
> Les.

If you repeat a libel, then you are guilty of libel, irrespective of the
condition
of the original transgressor.

Use of the words, "alleged" or "allegedly" is no defence, because by their
very use,
you acknowledge that you ARE repeating someone else's words.

[Brian Reay]

On 24/01/14 19:04, Lordgnome wrote:
>
> You might just like to get confirmation of the source and validity of
> that email, since in the occasion of it being a forgery, I would suggest
> that Mr. Reay might have a case against you in regard to this posting!
>
> Les.

Wise advice, especially as he has made numerous other false claims (ie
relating to a police caution, a police note book, .....)

I've a whole chunk of his posts ready to show his false claims, and
those who have repeated them.

[Rambo]

They won't care, all they'll be interested is the email itself, you
know this Brian. If the origin of the email can be proven (or not)
thats what the case will depend on.

[gareth]

"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:lbudv0$iul$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Wise advice, especially as he has made numerous other false claims (ie
> relating to a police caution, a police note book, .....)
>

Unfortunately, with your record of attempting to rewrite history, eg your
repeated Asperger's denial, you have no credibility should you accuse
someone
else of lying.

[Brian Reay]

I'm not bothered about the Email, I don't believe it exists, any more
than the police caution, the note book incident, etc.

However, the repeated false allegations can be established.

[gareth]

"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message

news:lbuh1f$69i$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> However, the repeated false allegations can be established.
>

Such as your repeated libels against Paul ZPK in reference to lavatory
cleaning?

Or against me saying that I am unemployable and on benefits?

Or your repeated comments saying that I don't know how to tune a PA stage,
despite that I've been doing it since 1970 when as a Class B I operated
G3UOE
under supervision, and subsequently had the use here of a KW Vanguard?
How silly of you to interpret great care being taken over a
pristine museum piece as though it was a lack of knowledge of fundamental
tuning!

Or your repeated comments about me being drunk despite that I have been
completely dry since 1987, some 6 years before I even appeared on Usenet?

What prompted you to publish all those confabulations and lies?

[Rambo]

As we all know the NG is crammed with false allegations and lies just
like any playground in the UK. It would be to everyone's benefit to
keep what's happens in the NG within the NG. Things get dangerous when
external forces are employed. I know I'm peeing in the wind, but lets
just hope common sense prevails.

[gareth]

"Rambo" <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote in message
news:toi5e99ck11kk352u...@4ax.com...

>It would be to everyone's benefit to
> keep what's happens in the NG within the NG.

That is no longer the law in this country, wrt two prison sentences
given today because of tweet messages.

Is it to my benfit to be in receipt of so much hate and verbal abuse?
Hardly.

[Brian Reay]

On 24/01/14 20:26, Rambo wrote:
>>
> As we all know the NG is crammed with false allegations and lies just
> like any playground in the UK. It would be to everyone's benefit to
> keep what's happens in the NG within the NG. Things get dangerous when
> external forces are employed. I know I'm peeing in the wind, but lets
> just hope common sense prevails.

Oh, I'm sure you would prefer that.
Some would prefer your chums pay for their mischief.



>

[Rambo]

Like I said I'm peeing in the wind!

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Hambo, I agree, which is why I've never contacted anybody IRL regarding
anything that is said in this group excepting for that time recently when I
contacted Wiltshire Constabulary regarding Big G's veiled threats to
maliciously contact social services.

--
Stephen Thomas Cole.
UK Usenet Head of Social Media and PR.

This post was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking, so may have typos
or bizarre auto-corrects.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Indeed, Hambo. As I have never sent any such email, it will not be proven
that I did.

BTW, might see you tomorrow! I'll give you a nod and a wink, bruv.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Brian, email me.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

As have I, Les. Cummins is a fucking idiot.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Suomynona <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:12:26 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:
>
>> them.
>
> Here's a song to cheer you up:
>
> # Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to Kent I go.
> # With a cease and desist, I'm a mentalist.
> # Hi Ho, Hi Ho Hi Ho Hi Ho, Hi Ho.

To the M25!

Paul, knock on my door next time you burn £50 worth of petrol to put a tear
stained love letter through my door as I would enjoy immensely laughing in
your fat, speccy face, you greasy haired twat.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Strangely enough my old boss also says she got a similar email from STC
> just before christmas, the monday AFTER I left...

You're a lying cunt, Paul. Pure and simple. I have never contacted your
employer, or anybody else, regarding you. Go and fuck yourself, you useless
sack of shit.

[gareth]

"Rambo" <Ra...@thisaintreal.org> wrote in message
news:toi5e99ck11kk352u...@4ax.com...

> It would be to everyone's benefit to
> keep what's happens in the NG within the NG.

Perhaps you should make that comment to M3OSN who in 2005
started getting people arrested for no other reason that they stood
up to his bullying in this NG and would not shut up?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Didn't you stand up for yourself by breaking the law, G?

[Trembler]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:06:23 +0000 (UTC), Stephen Thomas Cole
<use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

>Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Strangely enough my old boss also says she got a similar email from STC
>> just before christmas, the monday AFTER I left...
>
>You're a lying cunt, Paul. Pure and simple. I have never contacted your
>employer, or anybody else, regarding you. Go and fuck yourself, you useless
>sack of shit.

I think I saw a photo of Paul once in a newspaper a few years back:
does anyone know if he has a gingerish beard?

I can't find the link now, but I am sure it was of a Paul Cummins.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <memo.2014012...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:

<snip>

In reply to my own post, having reviewed the comments of others, I have
only two words to say about fuckwit the Younger:-

Gotten to!


--

Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead

Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <memo.2014012...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
> agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> In reply to my own post, having reviewed the comments of others, I have
> only two words to say about fuckwit the Younger:-
>
> Gotten to!
>

An apparent admission that your accusations were, in fact, malicious and
knowingly false. Bit of a faux pas and tactical error there, Paul, my
greasy haired friend. Post saved, to go with all the other evidence.

Ciao!

[gareth]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
news:356137160412298052.268621u...@news.eternal-september.org...

> Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <memo.2014012...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
>> agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>> In reply to my own post, having reviewed the comments of others, I have

>> only two words to say about f*wit the Younger:-

>>
>> Gotten to!
>
> An apparent admission that your accusations were, in fact, malicious and
> knowingly false.

So, you admit that on every occasion that you sneered, "Gotten to", it was
as
the result of a malicious and knowingly false posting from you.

So much for your claim that what takes place in this NG is childish
humourous banter.

Typical behaviour for the playground bully that you undoubtedly are, to
start
sobbing and screaming when your own ghosts come back to haunt you.

[gareth]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message

news:519001648412293805.291753u...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Hambo, I agree, which is why I've never contacted anybody IRL regarding
> anything that is said in this group excepting for that time recently when
> I
> contacted Wiltshire Constabulary regarding Big G's veiled threats to
> maliciously contact social services.
>

I made no veiled threats; I merely drew attention to your own nasty comments
about prison.

However, for someone who repeatedly claims that what takes place in this NG
is chidish humorous banter, suddenly you show a double standard when things
that you started rebound on you, and you run sobbing and screaming.

Why did you originate your grossly offensive comments about prison, if you
were going to morph into the cowardly bully when you were riposted?

You are a snivelling hypocrite, gratuitously unpleasnt in your manner, and
a good public example of the entirely wrong sort of personality being
attracted by the Fools' Licence scheme

[Percy Picacity]

In article <lbuta3$q17$1...@dont-email.me>,

"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:

> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
> news:519001648412293805.291753u...@news.eternal-septem
> ber.org...

snip

>
> You are a snivelling hypocrite, gratuitously unpleasnt in your manner, and
> a good public example of the entirely wrong sort of personality being
> attracted by the Fools' Licence scheme

Gareth does talk a lot of nonsense sometimes, but one can't really argue
with that paragraph. I can remember when most radio amateurs had a
little dignity at least. I am not denying that many fine amateurs have
to join now by the Foundation route, but it does seem to have let in a
bunch who are neither intellectually nor socially suitable.

--

Percy Picacity

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
> news:356137160412298052.268621u...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <memo.2014012...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>,
>>> agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>>> In reply to my own post, having reviewed the comments of others, I have
>>> only two words to say about f*wit the Younger:-
>>>
>>> Gotten to!
>>
>> An apparent admission that your accusations were, in fact, malicious and
>> knowingly false.
>
> So, you admit that on every occasion that you sneered, "Gotten to", it was
> as
> the result of a malicious and knowingly false posting from you.
>

Gotten to.

> So much for your claim that what takes place in this NG is childish
> humourous banter.
>

Not my claim, Big G, but that of District Judge Simon Cooper.

> Typical behaviour for the playground bully

Pinning you to the ground and detrousering you? Big G, my rotund good
buddy, how many times did you have to walk home from school in emergency
y-fronts from the lost-property box due to the bigger boys throwing your
short trousers on the school roof?

>that you undoubtedly are, to
> start
> sobbing and screaming when your own ghosts come back to haunt you.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/9317744.Porn_slur_leads_to_dock/

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Gareth, Old Bean, what comments did I make about prison? Earlier, you were
talking about bestiality, now it's prison. I'm confused, as I often am when
it comes to you.

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

And you're saying that Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW the convicted criminal is
suitable? How queer.

[Brian Reay]

On 24/01/14 23:48, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
>
> I am not denying that many fine amateurs have
> to join now by the Foundation route, but it does seem to have let in a
> bunch who are neither intellectually nor socially suitable.
>

Well, of the most socially unsuitable amateurs I can think of (ie with
criminal records), none entered via the Foundation and several have
passed the morse test.

While Jimbo makes his rants, which I discount as baseless, I'm not aware
of any M3/M6 with a record, although I expect there are some.

So, I suppose it rather depends on what you considered 'socially
acceptable'.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <lbuv3m$3gn$1...@dont-email.me>, no...@m.com (Brian Reay) wrote:

> Well, of the most socially unsuitable amateurs I can think of (ie
> with criminal records), none entered via the Foundation and
> several have passed the morse test.

Going to name them? Or state how you "know" they ave criminal records?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <UOyEu.99$Qa6...@fx10.fr7>, l...@nospam.null (Lordgnome) wrote:

> I would suggest
> that Mr. Reay might have a case against you in regard to this
> posting!

No. For it to be defamation, the claimant has to have a reputation worth
defaming.

Clearly this does not apply to the Ku^H^H^Hentish fuckwittery.

[Turdey]

"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> Wrote in message:

> "Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
> news:lbuh1f$69i$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> However, the repeated false allegations can be established.
>>
>
> Such as your repeated libels against Paul ZPK in reference to lavatory
> cleaning?
>
> Or against me saying that I am unemployable and on benefits?
>
> Or your repeated comments saying that I don't know how to tune a PA stage,
> despite that I've been doing it since 1970 when as a Class B I operated
> G3UOE
> under supervision, and subsequently had the use here of a KW Vanguard?
> How silly of you to interpret great care being taken over a
> pristine museum piece as though it was a lack of knowledge of fundamental
> tuning!
>
> Or your repeated comments about me being drunk despite that I have been
> completely dry since 1987, some 6 years before I even appeared on Usenet?
>
> What prompted you to publish all those confabulations and lies?
>
>
>
>
>

That explains it ! You need a fucking drink
--




----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://www.piaohong.tk/newsgroup

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Turdey" <tur...@thecrapper.com> wrote in message
news:E_qdnQI4KoT9rH7P...@supernews.com...

> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> Wrote in message:

>> Or your repeated comments about me being drunk despite that I have been
>> completely dry since 1987, some 6 years before I even appeared on Usenet?
>> What prompted you to publish all those confabulations and lies?
>
> That explains it ! You need a fucking drink

I'm not an alcoholic, alcoholics go to meetings, I go to the pub.
--
;-)
.
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

[Percy Picacity]

In article
<400823743412300166.847203u...@news.eternal-sept
ember.org>,

Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:

> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <lbuta3$q17$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
> >> news:519001648412293805.291753u...@news.eternal-sep
> >> tem
> >> ber.org...
> > snip
> >
> >>
> >> You are a snivelling hypocrite, gratuitously unpleasnt in your manner, and
> >> a good public example of the entirely wrong sort of personality being
> >> attracted by the Fools' Licence scheme
> >
> > Gareth does talk a lot of nonsense sometimes, but one can't really argue
> > with that paragraph. I can remember when most radio amateurs had a
> > little dignity at least. I am not denying that many fine amateurs have
> > to join now by the Foundation route, but it does seem to have let in a
> > bunch who are neither intellectually nor socially suitable.
>
> And you're saying that Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW the convicted criminal is
> suitable? How queer.

Logic failure.

--

Percy Picacity

[Jim Stewart]

> While Jimbo makes his rants, which I discount as baseless,

like hell they are ......but I wouldn't expect you to believe them anyway
....

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <400823743412300166.847203u...@news.eternal-sept
> ember.org>,
> Stephen Thomas Cole <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote:
>
>> Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <lbuta3$q17$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:519001648412293805.291753u...@news.eternal-sep
>>>> tem
>>>> ber.org...
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are a snivelling hypocrite, gratuitously unpleasnt in your manner, and
>>>> a good public example of the entirely wrong sort of personality being
>>>> attracted by the Fools' Licence scheme
>>>
>>> Gareth does talk a lot of nonsense sometimes, but one can't really argue
>>> with that paragraph. I can remember when most radio amateurs had a
>>> little dignity at least. I am not denying that many fine amateurs have
>>> to join now by the Foundation route, but it does seem to have let in a
>>> bunch who are neither intellectually nor socially suitable.
>>
>> And you're saying that Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW the convicted criminal is
>> suitable? How queer.
>
> Logic failure.

Yes, that's what I thought when I read your post too. Thanks for clearing
it up, bro.

[Jim Stewart]

"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message

news:lbuv3m$3gn$1...@dont-email.me...

most are teachers.....just like the FLs .....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10596502/Drug-taking-teachers-can-return-to-class.html

[gareth]

"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message
news:lbuv3m$3gn$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 24/01/14 23:48, Percy Picacity wrote:
>> I am not denying that many fine amateurs have
>> to join now by the Foundation route, but it does seem to have let in a
>> bunch who are neither intellectually nor socially suitable.
>>
>
> Well, of the most socially unsuitable amateurs I can think of

With a history of breaching the Communications Act 2003 by repeated
offensive remarks about sheep; with an admitted history of criminal pirating
with a 19 set; having been convicted of speeding, an offence which can carry
a prison sentence; having committed perjury in a so-called "Victim
Statement"?

[gareth]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message

news:305341363412299878.014548u...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Pinning you to the ground and detrousering you? Big G, my rotund good
> buddy, how many times did you have to walk home from school in emergency
> y-fronts from the lost-property box due to the bigger boys throwing your
> short trousers on the school roof?
>

There is no truth in that repeated infantile outburst from you.

[gareth]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" <use...@stephenthomascole.com> wrote in message

news:400823743412300166.847203u...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> And you're saying that Gareth Alun Evans G4SDW the convicted criminal is
> suitable? How queer.
>

How long, I wonder, before Stephen Thomas Cole himself becomes a convicted
criminal because of his repeated offences under section 127 of CA2003?

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

You yourself posted relating your experience of being pinned to the ground
by a mob of police officers to experiences you had in the school
playground. So, seeing as you also say that you stand by everything you've
ever posted to a Usenet...

[Stephen Thomas Cole]

You're not "sobbing and screaming" are you, Big G? Not after the hundreds
of times you've attacked Brian for supposedly doing same, eh? Surely you're
not a rank hypocrite?

[Brown Sugar]

On 24/01/2014 18:19, Paul Cummins wrote:
> I got an email from my old boss today.
>
> I call her my old boss, but actually I employe and trained her, so she's
> really my replacement...
>
> Apparently my old company has received an email from a Kentish gentleman
> by the name of REAY, informing them that I am a convicted sex offender,
> and they may wish to consider my position.
>
> Luckily for me, this company knows whether I am or not due to the CRB
> Check I did 8 months ago, and as a result has dismissed his allegations.
>
> However, does anyone else remember REAY denying that he contacted
> employers? I do, and so does my solicitor. Indeed we have his email when
> he said so.

>
> Strangely enough my old boss also says she got a similar email from STC
> just before christmas, the monday AFTER I left...
>

> I leave to your imagination what will happen to these fine, upstanding
> kentish gentlemen when the police knock on their doors, real soon now.
>
> Fair Warning. ANYONE from this group or elsewhere who tries to endanger
> my safety or employment with lies and undue/improper interference will
> face the highest possible penalties the law allows. I'm sick of the lies,
> and will not stand for it any longer, from Kentish Fuckwits or anyone
> else.
>
Police? surely it's a civil matter.


--
J

[Paul Cummins]

In article <lc0b9a$trq$1...@news.albasani.net>, bo...@softbrownsugar.net

(Brown Sugar) wrote:

> Police? surely it's a civil matter.

Not if the allegations lead to (or are likely to lead to) vigilante
action.

[Jim Stewart]

"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message
news:lc01pm$no8$1...@dont-email.me...

I think his biggest offence is thinking he is a radio amateur ........

[Brown Sugar]

On 25/01/2014 13:16, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article <lc0b9a$trq$1...@news.albasani.net>, bo...@softbrownsugar.net
> (Brown Sugar) wrote:
>
>> Police? surely it's a civil matter.
>
> Not if the allegations lead to (or are likely to lead to) vigilante
> action.
>

What a scary intolerant world we live in.

--
J

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"Brown Sugar" <bo...@softbrownsugar.net> wrote in message
news:lc18gn$qr6$1...@news.albasani.net...

Nah, Beanie lives in a little world all of his own.

[Brown Sugar]

On 25/01/2014 21:41, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:
> "Brown Sugar" <bo...@softbrownsugar.net> wrote in message
> news:lc18gn$qr6$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> On 25/01/2014 13:16, Paul Cummins wrote:
>>> In article <lc0b9a$trq$1...@news.albasani.net>, bo...@softbrownsugar.net
>>> (Brown Sugar) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Police? surely it's a civil matter.
>>>
>>> Not if the allegations lead to (or are likely to lead to) vigilante
>>> action.
>>>
>> What a scary intolerant world we live in.
>>
> Nah, Beanie lives in a little world all of his own.

It would be frightening if he was typical. Somebody with his issues
should really be under psychiatric care.


--
J

[gareth]

"Brian Reay" <no...@m.com> wrote in message

news:lbuj5c$lno$1...@dont-email.me...
> Some would prefer your chums pay for their mischief.
>

None of the "chums" originate any mischief, such as egregious comments about
blankets

[FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI]

"gareth" <no....@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message

news:lc016r$l49$1...@dont-email.me...

Does squeaking on a repeater contravene the Communications Act 2003, and is
the Act retrospective?

[Kafkaësque]

On 03/02/2014 13:37, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

> Does squeaking on a repeater contravene the Communications Act 2003, and
> is the Act retrospective?

<bartsimpson>
I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything!
</bartsimpson>

[arthur c. grindhouse]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 6:39:31 PM UTC, Jim Stewart wrote:
> > Luckily for me, this company knows whether I am or not due to the CRB
>
> > Check I did 8 months ago, and as a result has dismissed his allegations.
>
> >
>

> my local scumbags put about that I had been prosecuted for jamming Glasgow
>
> airport Fxs......what they seemed to overlook was that I had been checked
>
> for a pass for access to Airside.....then they found out it was a GM4 friend
>
> of theirs that had been done...laugh ? I nearly did ........and they wrote
>
> to my employers a few times...the world is fecked and the hobby is full of
>
> scumbags mostly FLs and M3/G8s.....

i'm glad i wasn't included there.
better class of il you see.....

[Jeff]

On 03/02/2014 13:37, FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI wrote:

No, as a repeater is not a 'public communications network' as defined by
the Act, and it is not retrospective.

Also to breach the Act the comments have to be *grossly* offensive, and
we already know that a judge as deemed these remarks to be nothing more
than banter, so there was no breach of the Act in the first place.

Squeaking on a repeater *may* be a breach of the terms of the Amateur
licence (depending on content and callsigns etc) but that would be
covered by the WTA. Squeaking (talking in a funny voice) per se is not a
breach.

Jeff

[GM4DHJ]

"arthur c. grindhouse" <jon...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:00b349aa-27d3-46b3...@googlegroups.com...

if you are a 2m0 you are an FL ........

[gareth]

"GM4DHJ" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:YE3Iu.327$x8...@fx12.am4...

>>
> if you are a 2m0 you are an FL ........

Not "Cessenarily" if you did the previous Novice exam, which IMHO
was on a par with the then multiple-cheat RAE.

I wonder why that Novice facility was done away with after only a couple of
years of existence? Not enough income to fill the coffers?

The Intermediate licence (when taken out by 10-year-olds morphing to
the Idiots' licence when taken out by grown men, excepting those with
professional electronics experience) seemingly does not address the topics
covered by the previous stage; topics which were forgotten by the
candidature
as soon as they left the examination room, and therefore is at a lower
standard than
was the Novice licence.

[arthur c. grindhouse]

doesn't make sense that reply,
2m0 is the next stage of licence above mm6.
you really have to look at the various stages of amateur radio licence.
its part of your licence conditions that you know and can identify these.
when did you last look at your licence conditions ?

[arthur c. grindhouse]

you really know nothing of the current exam structure and what is involved do you.
it may be of interest to you that the current full exam is similar than the old R.A.E.but it GOES INTO GREATER DETAIL than the old exam.
so is technically better.

[arthur c. grindhouse]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:08:26 AM UTC, gareth wrote:

the Intermediate exam also covers the same topics as the Foundation but also goes into greater detail.
for someone who offered his services for tuition purposes you show a distinct lack of knowledge.

[GM4DHJ]

>> if you are a 2m0 you are an FL ........
>
> doesn't make sense that reply,
> 2m0 is the next stage of licence above mm6.
> you really have to look at the various stages of amateur radio licence.
> its part of your licence conditions that you know and can identify these.
> when did you last look at your licence conditions ?
>

it is now a free for all anything goes...so why bother?......

[gareth]

"GM4DHJ" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:FS5Iu.13096$MB1....@fx09.am4...

Of course I, "know and can identify these", which is how I diligently
avoid QSOing with what are essentially non-technical CB-like licensees,
and the thin end of the wedge for the powers-that-would-be to restrict
amateur privileges once it seems that all newcomers are only
CB-like appliance operators.

[arthur c. grindhouse]

there is more to Amateur radio than fiddling about with bits and pieces.
to each their own and if that's what floats your boat in the hobby then more power to your elbow.
but refusing to qso with those with a lesser grade of licence shows how shallow and petty you really are.
and blows out of the water your argument of gentlemanly traditions in Amateur radio.
its a shame as we look to those who have been licenced for many years to impart knowledge that we need to improve our understanding and enjoyment of the hobby.
at the end of the day the loss is your's not our's.

[GM4DHJ]

"arthur c. grindhouse" <jon...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:a0005d32-2919-485a...@googlegroups.com...

bollocks ......

[arthur c. grindhouse]

yes it's true,
what you say is bollocks.
if you hate the hobby so much then why stay ?
i'm sure there are other things you can put your time and effort into.
i just don't hear this free for all on air.
you must stay in a particularly busy area of free for all on air traffic in scotland.

[gareth]

"GM4DHJ" <jim.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:yF9Iu.209$QB...@fx26.am4...

WHS. There is no contradiction of the gentlemanly traditions when radio
amateurs
confine their QSO partners to other radio amateurs and carefully avoid the
non-technical
CB-type licences.

[arthur c. grindhouse]

your on-air conversations must be extremely boring.
confined to rig-checks....very much like the average cber.