Re: Salthouse Lane is being unlwafully obstructed.
Shadrack
news:491d465d$0$24451$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> Shadrack wrote:
>> "martin" <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:491c2c0d$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> pete wrote:
>>>> Peter Turtill <tur...@defmap.com> blabbered on.....
>>>> I have now moved to the next stage <snip spam> but it is not
>>>> proceeding quite as easily as expected.
>>>>
>>>> pete
>>> How expensive do you think this lawyer is and how many days costs
>>> have you caused to be rung up so far?
>>
>> Peter Turtill doesn't care what it costs us tax payers. He's a
>> benefit scrounger, a serial criminal, self confessed kiddie fiddler
>> and an ex-con.
>>
>> He fails to appreciate that in this day and age, building works may
>> have to temporarily close what he considers is a right of way. I
>> hope the Judge kicks his arse again, throws this ridiculous case out
>> of Court and lands him with mega costs.
>
> Oh so do I. That was what I was hinting at. A decent solicitor at 2
> grand/day, couple of days work, a pissed off judge. I'll bet the
> solicitor has all his [Pete's] history to hand as well ready for the
> case.
> >
Whilst I agree that keeping rights of way in the <countryside> open,
Peter Turtill fails to understand that we are a consumer driven society
and as such have an urgent need for new builds in towns and cities.
As a result, old footpaths, by-ways et al will be closed or built on
because we need housing, business premises and so forth. This may result
in what was previously a footpath or right of way being closed, either
temporarily or permanently whatever the case may be.
Peter Turtill completely fails to understand modern society, he is
motivated by greed and infamy. He is in my opinion, a selfish old man,
sponging off society and trying to gain some credibility for the sake of
his grandchildren, who I suspect despise him.
I pray the Judge in his latest case will see reason and kick this case
out of Court, land Peter Turtill with substantial costs and label him a
serial litigant.
--------------
A Peter Turtill Usenet Quote:
"I've had sex with 13 14 15 year olds and in this country too not
Bangkok. I see no problem with it personally if they can understand
what their bodies are telling them."
mogga
<shad...@nospamhere.com> wrote:
>Whilst I agree that keeping rights of way in the <countryside> open,
>Peter Turtill fails to understand that we are a consumer driven society
>and as such have an urgent need for new builds in towns and cities.
There are a million plus properties empty in the UK currently.
And you can't just keep building more houses on any bit of land
without adding in extra resources such as places at schools, doctors,
public transport, open spaces, play areas, car parking spaces etc.
>
>As a result, old footpaths, by-ways et al will be closed or built on
>because we need housing, business premises and so forth. This may result
>in what was previously a footpath or right of way being closed, either
>temporarily or permanently whatever the case may be.
>
>Peter Turtill completely fails to understand modern society, he is
>motivated by greed and infamy. He is in my opinion, a selfish old man,
>sponging off society and trying to gain some credibility for the sake of
>his grandchildren, who I suspect despise him.
>
>I pray the Judge in his latest case will see reason and kick this case
>out of Court, land Peter Turtill with substantial costs and label him a
>serial litigant.
>--------------
>A Peter Turtill Usenet Quote:
>"I've had sex with 13 14 15 year olds and in this country too not
>Bangkok. I see no problem with it personally if they can understand
>what their bodies are telling them."
>
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk
Ian.
m> <shad...@nospamhere.com> wrote:
m> >
m> >Peter Turtill completely fails to understand modern society, he is
m> >motivated by greed and infamy. He is in my opinion, a selfish old man,
m> >sponging off society and trying to gain some credibility for the sake of
m> >his grandchildren, who I suspect despise him.
I dont know Pete Turtill. He might be a thoroughly obnoxious character,
but then from my experience many campaigners are. The point is, that in
the cases he has brought to the attention of the rights of way ng,
he is doing very good stuff. There are too many ROWs being blocked,
too many of our rights being stolen, too many gates where there were
once footpaths. He is doing something about it. So go for it, Pete!
A flawed hero perhaps, but a hero nonetheless.
--
Ian.
Shadrack
news:20081115.12...@spamwonderland.yuk...
> I dont know Pete Turtill. He might be a thoroughly obnoxious
> character, but then from my experience many campaigners are.
Trust me they don't come any more obnoxious than Peter Turtill. Do a
Google for more info.
> The point is, that in the cases he has brought to the attention of the
> rights of way ng, he is doing very good stuff.
If that be the case then why does he always lose in Court?
> There are too many ROWs being blocked,
> too many of our rights being stolen, too many gates where there were
> once footpaths. He is doing something about it.
I agree in principal with what you say but Peter Turtill goes the wrong
way about righting a wrong. Committing criminal damage is not the way to
go, it solves nothing and antagonises Judges as Turtill is finding out.
> So go for it, Pete!
> A flawed hero perhaps, but a hero nonetheless.
Oh take it as read this character is <seriously> flawed in more ways
than one.
Would you call a woman's daughter who was brain damaged in a motor
accident "a mental cripple"?
Would you brag about shagging someone else's wife and post it on Usenet
for all the world to read?
Would you brag about having sex with children and post it on Usenet for
all the world to read?
Would you sue a blind and deaf person, pull out at the last minute
leaving the victim with substantial legal costs trying to defend his
good name?
And by the way, the definition of a hero is someone who commits an act
of <bravery> and IMHO is an often miss-used phrase to describe someone
who has done nothing more than do what any decent person would do in the
circumstances.
Peter Turtill is <not> a hero per se. What he is, is someone who has a
belief that <he> is always right and the rest of us are always wrong.
What Peter Turtill is, is a serial litigant who is costing the tax
payer, that's you and me, £thousands in wasted court cases because he is
uneducated, stupid and misguided.
Before you pass judgement on me, read the following message Peter
Turtill posted on Usenet. Then take a long hard look at yourself and ask
yourself, "is Peter Turtill someone I want to identify with?"
_____________
> Many years back I got done for causing death by dangerous driving. A
> chap and me were having a wild time in an E-Type Jaguar with a handful
> of cops chasing. I turned the car over and got it flying 15 foot off
> the ground going backwards. I hit a tree and I got chucked out into a
> field. The chap with me was thrown out into the road. We stopped
> pretty quickly by the tree. The cop couldn't stop and he ran over the
> chap in the road and decapitated him. It was never admitted by the
> cops in court but it was elsewhere. I got 3 years for causing death by
> dangerous driving. The cop wasn't charged.
> pete
Ian Rawlings
> Trust me they don't come any more obnoxious than Peter Turtill. Do a
> Google for more info.
And what you get is a vile abuser masquerading under the anonymous
name of Shadrack, stalking Turtill, claiming all sorts of shit. I've
seen a few people like you, thankfully not for long, as you are what
killfiles are made for.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
Brian
news:gfngdi$p1v$1...@aioe.org...
>>""Ian."" <ian.fre...@spamwonderland.yuk> wrote in message
>> news:20081115.12...@spamwonderland.yuk...
>> I dont know Pete Turtill. He might be a thoroughly obnoxious
>> character, but then from my experience many campaigners are.
>
> Trust me they don't come any more obnoxious than Peter Turtill. Do a
> Google for more info.
Pete Turthill gets my vote Shadrack. I wish him well in his court
appearance.
You and I choose to express our opinions within the fairly anonymous
confines of a newsgroup. He is open to public scrutiny and abuse, yet it
seems to me that he is still prepared to assert what he believes to be his
and our rights. Most would surely baulk at the daunting prospect of taking
an issue to court.
I think that he needs encouragement and support so I would like to offer
that once more.
Brian
Foggy Dewhurst
news:slrnghuq2r...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
Whilst I am reluctant to take sides in this discussion it has spread to
what I like to call my local group. For many years I subscribed to
UKLE-A group where like most contributors we had interesting and trivial
chats about the region, sausages, footie and whatever took your fancy.
Yes we had our share of trolls and trouble-makers but on the whole it
was a happy group and we all got along.
Then came Mr Turtill who for reasons only he knows began to viciously
attack the locals. Some of his attacks were deeply disturbing and
caused the majority of posters to leave and not come back.
The group is all but dead now which I find very sad. There's an old
saying "what ye shall sow, so shall ye reap" and I am afraid that is
what is happening to Mr Turtill.
Ian Rawlings
> I did my research one night when I couldn't sleep and found that the
> 'all sorts of shit'that people were claiming was indeed true.
> The man even went around trying to erase his abuses by getting Google
> to delete them. Does an innocent man do that.
No idea, and not inclined to check, but I do routinely ignore the wild
claims of people who don't have the courage to put their own name to
their own views. If you're not prepared to stand behind your own
words, why would anyone pay them any attention? You are quite
probably "shadrack" again using a different name.
Foggy Dewhurst
Yes but putting your real name on the internet these days is very
dangerous. I had a very unpleasant experience a few years ago because I
used my real name now that I have learnt my lesson so to speak I don't
do that. I first met Mr Turtell in the BT groups and he was not a
problem there it wasn't until he posted in UKLE-A that the problems
started. Shadrack took him on and to some people he was a local hero
for trying to regain our little group. Sadly it has died and I suspect
Mr Turtle will admit he was more than abit naughty in there and scared
people off?
Ian Rawlings
> Yes but putting your real name on the internet these days is very
> dangerous.
My first post to usenet was in 1991 and I've been using my real name
since then, that's 17 years of usenet posting with some quite heated
arguments in that time, never had any problems. I do tend to be
reasonable though.
The only time when I've had a problem was when I was threatened with
violence by a poster, however that was in a moderated web forum, not
on usenet.
Usenet has fallen out of use in my time with the rise of the awful web
forums, so it's not surprising that the group died, most niche groups
have died out as the users have moved to web forums, usenet is a
self-censoring system where unpleasant users can be easily removed by
individuals, and if they're bad enough for that then they tend to get
ingnored anyway so I doubt very much that it died because of a single
individual.
Also we (as in UKRROW members) still don't know if it was him causing
problems or you and your friends who were causing him problems, all we
know is that he is trying to defeat a bad council over ROW issues, and
you are coming in here flinging mud around, so on balance of
probability it looks like you who are the problem, not him. We've
never had a problem with him but you and your friends/pseudonyms are
irritating. For all we know you could be council employees. I've
already killfiled shadrack but not pete, as pete's not an issue,
shadrack is.
Foggy Dewhurst
I take your points so perhaps it will be better if the cross links to
UKLE-A are removed then you guys can be left in peace. No I don't work
for the council never had never would I am retired. Nor is Shadrack my
friend I only know of him from UKLE-A. Understand?
ratchet
<new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
>On 2008-11-15, Shadrack <shad...@nospamhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Trust me they don't come any more obnoxious than Peter Turtill. Do a
>> Google for more info.
>
>And what you get is a vile abuser masquerading under the anonymous
>name of Shadrack, stalking Turtill, claiming all sorts of shit. I've
>seen a few people like you, thankfully not for long, as you are what
>killfiles are made for.
What do you mean "claiming"? - all of those things stated are true,
and can be easily verified.
I would add:
Many years ago on a deserted beach in Libya and hungry for sexual
contact I saw 2 girls sun bathing. I tried being friendly but they
were Finnish and according to them gay. They asked me if I would keep
an eye on their camera while they went for a swim. My manhood was
with wrinkles and I took a snap of it with their camera.
Peter Turtill (Pervert) 28 June 2004
"I also require you to make a substantial payment in compensation to
me for the great injustice you have caused me and the expense and
health problems you have willingly and maliciously caused me."
A quote by Peter Turtill (the man with no balls) when attempting to
sue a man who is both deaf and blind. He failed
Those were the days my friend but they ended suddenly before I got to
be a dirty old man.
pete
13 May 2005
That is some rant that. Personally I think it would be really wild to
have a jump on the alter;-)
pete
26 Feb 2005
Ian Rawlings
> What do you mean "claiming"? - all of those things stated are true,
> and can be easily verified.
So why do you post them anonymously?
Killfile time, and I'd suggest that if people in FUTI and ULE-A fret
about their forum being wrecked, they might look at your own actions
as reasons for it, anonymous posters flooding groups with wild
accusations "backed up" with easily falsifiable "proof" are hardly
going to make a forum attractive, now please stop cross-posting this
shit to URROW.
Old Codger
>
> My first post to usenet was in 1991 and I've been using my real name
> since then,
Can you prove that (Ian Rawlings is your real name)?
I have no idea what your real name is and accept that it could well be
Ian Rawlings. However, just because someone posts using a name that
would appear to be real doesn't make it so. Should I post as John
Kimber, instead of Old Codger that might, or might not, mean that John
Kimber is my real name. Consistency and contactableness is more
important than the name under which any individual posts. I suspect you
meet both requirements.
--
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]
Ian Rawlings
> I have no idea what your real name is and accept that it could well be
> Ian Rawlings. However, just because someone posts using a name that
> would appear to be real doesn't make it so.
Indeed, so why all this waving around of "proof" with someone's name
attached? I could quite easily post all sorts of nasty stuff with
anyone's name attached, so how about giving it a break.
pete
""Ian."" <ian.fre...@spamwonderland.yuk> wrote in message
news:20081115.12...@spamwonderland.yuk...
> I dont know Pete Turtill. He might be a thoroughly obnoxious character,
> but then from my experience many campaigners are. The point is, that in
> the cases he has brought to the attention of the rights of way ng,
> he is doing very good stuff. There are too many ROWs being blocked,
> too many of our rights being stolen, too many gates where there were
> once footpaths. He is doing something about it. So go for it, Pete!
> A flawed hero perhaps, but a hero nonetheless.
I am definitely flawed:) What I do is serious though and I will fight this
issue as long as I am physically able to do so. This issue does not just
involve people using RoW or being denied the ability to do so. RoW are
important to disenfranchised young people who believe they do not have a
stake in this country. A young person can be jailed and bankrupted but their
'Right' to use a RoW remains theirs. That cannot be legally taken away
without the opportunity of a Public Inquiry where folks can exercise their
democratic right to oppose. To my mind this is the most important aspect of
RoW work as it can bring people back into society and teach them to use
their democratic rights to achieve something difficult and stay within the
law. Thank you for you support. There are exciting prospects opening up at
this very moment which I have to stay quiet about for now but suffice to say
I don't get excited easily:-)
pete
pete
"Brian" <brianw...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LyPTk.78179$AS2....@newsfe20.ams2...
> Pete Turthill gets my vote Shadrack. I wish him well in his court
> appearance.
>
> You and I choose to express our opinions within the fairly anonymous
> confines of a newsgroup. He is open to public scrutiny and abuse, yet it
> seems to me that he is still prepared to assert what he believes to be his
> and our rights. Most would surely baulk at the daunting prospect of taking
> an issue to court.
>
> I think that he needs encouragement and support so I would like to offer
> that once more.
Thank you Brian for your support. I do often wish I had stayed anonymous but
I was forced to break cover when I was threatened with a writ for libel over
a period by a determined but misguided individual. I in turn sued him and
that was a mistake as it gave him more credibility than he deserved and also
it took up too much of my time which could have been used more fruitfully.
It also exhibited flaws I would rather not have.
pete
martin
You threatened to sue me too you sad old git! Didn't have the bottle to
go ahead with your threats did you?
You also called me a pedophile and posted my name and address out (not
that I keep it hidden seeing as I have the balls to post with my own
name and own domain). You'd not have the balls to say what you posted to
my face.
>
> pete
>
>
martin
> ""Ian."" <ian.fre...@spamwonderland.yuk> wrote in message
> news:20081115.12...@spamwonderland.yuk...
>
>> I dont know Pete Turtill. He might be a thoroughly obnoxious character,
>> but then from my experience many campaigners are. The point is, that in
>> the cases he has brought to the attention of the rights of way ng,
>> he is doing very good stuff. There are too many ROWs being blocked,
>> too many of our rights being stolen, too many gates where there were
>> once footpaths. He is doing something about it. So go for it, Pete!
>> A flawed hero perhaps, but a hero nonetheless.
>
> I am definitely flawed:)
Does that mean sad, lonely, miserable bully"? If so I agree with you.
Shadrack
news:6obm4eF...@mid.individual.net...
> Thank you Brian for your support. I do often wish I had stayed
> anonymous but I was forced to break cover when I was threatened with a
> writ for libel over a period by a determined but misguided individual.
> I in turn sued him and that was a mistake as it gave him more
> credibility than he deserved and also it took up too much of my time
> which could have been used more fruitfully. It also exhibited flaws I
> would rather not have.
Now let's have the truth here "pete". You sued with no chance of success
and chickened out when it became obvious you were going to get stuffed
with considerable costs.
As for your bullshit about staying anononymous, can you explain why you
have posted to numerous newsgroups using the following aliases? NO, I
thought not!
As for your claims that many of the postings on Usenet were not made by
you, more bullshit and lies. I proved to you that you lied and you
didn't have the balls to correct me.
I say again Peter Turtill, if any claims I have made about you are
wrong, sue me. I will meet you face-to-face, anywhere, anytime. Oh,
by-the-by, next time I knock on your door, don't peep throught the
curtains like the shit scared old pervert that you are, open the door
and face me. I promise I won't hurt you.
---
Some of Peter Turtill's nefarious aliases:
Footpath Guardian
Thomas Garret
Edward Exworth
smicker
Smicker
Pierre Le Turtle
Rossprat
Serf
Martine
Sanni Abacha
delegiwa
dele giwa
pete
removespam
An Metet
Ding ding. Hear the bell
the...@theman.com
Anonymous
Secret
Emily
Bill
-------------
Want to contact Peter Turtill? Here's how:
Peter Turtill
12 Beatty Road
Ipswich
IP3 9HR.
Telephone number: 01473 712672.
Mobile 1: 07896 795273
Mobile 2: 07918 123301
Shadrack
> On 2008-11-15, Shadrack <shad...@nospamhere.com> wrote:
>
>> Trust me they don't come any more obnoxious than Peter Turtill. Do a
>> Google for more info.
>
> And what you get is a vile abuser masquerading under the anonymous
> name of Shadrack, stalking Turtill, claiming all sorts of shit. I've
> seen a few people like you, thankfully not for long, as you are what
> killfiles are made for.
That's fine by me because cowards like you cannot bear the truth. You
have your head so far up your own arse you cannot see reason.
As for my stalking Peter Turtill. No doubt you pair of muppets have
exchanged emails and Peter Turtill has whinged about me because he
cannot cope with the truth about himself.
He has admitted to having sex with children as young as 13 years old.
Is this the sort of person you want to identify with? Because if it is,
you seriously need to examine your own moral code.
Personally, I abhor paedophiles under any guise, under any pretence they
may have of being eco-warriors, RoW warriors or whatever, to try and
gain some respectability.
When you wake up and smell the coffee, you will thank me for exposing
Peter Turtill for what he is.
ratchet
was that the person who was totally deaf and blind who you thought
would be a walk-over for a bob or two?
I repeat - you are a nasty piece of work.
Mike Paley
"pete" <tur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6oblkgF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> ""Ian."" <ian.fre...@spamwonderland.yuk> wrote in message
> this issue as long as I am physically able to do so. This issue does not
> just involve people using RoW or being denied the ability to do so. RoW
> are important to disenfranchised young people who believe they do not have
> a stake in this country. A young person can be jailed and bankrupted but
> their 'Right' to use a RoW remains theirs. That cannot be legally taken
> away without the opportunity of a Public Inquiry where folks can exercise
> their democratic right to oppose.
Is that another of your flaws ? Come across any police 'do not cross' tape ?
Pat P
You can`t have been around this ng for long or you`d know better! Unless of
course, you`re just another alta ego.
Pat
Brian Watson
"Pat P" <eaxs...@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LA6El.7149$GR6....@newsfe30.ams2...
>
> "Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrngi0lvp...@desktop.tarcus.org.uk...
>> My first post to usenet was in 1991 and I've been using my real name
>> since then, that's 17 years of usenet posting with some quite heated
>> arguments in that time, never had any problems. I do tend to be
>> reasonable though.
> You can`t have been around this ng for long or you`d know better! Unless
> of course, you`re just another alta ego.
I've always used my real name and never had any problems.
Mind you, I've got two Dobermans, a shotgun, barbed wire round the top of my
12 foot walls, landmines....
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."