Horse rider attacked with bicycle weapon and brick

On 26-Jan-17 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.


A very good description of evidence.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 8:43:34 PM UTC, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 26-Jan-17 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.


A very good description of evidence.


But is it credible?

On 26/01/2017 12:19, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:33:24 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 23:21, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 11:04:21 PM UTC, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 25-Jan-17 9:53 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.


The horse rider obviously made a statement to the police, that makes it
evidence.


This would be the same horse rider who tried to trample the victim with his horse and ran crying to his mummy when the victim fought back?

So it was *you*!

I wasn't there, were you?

I certainly was not.

You, OTOH, MUST have been there, because that is the only way in which
you you could know about the alleged attempted trampling (if it happened).

So it's either that or you are making that other bit up.

On 26/01/2017 12:51, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.

Perhaps you can dream up a justification for such an assault.

Or perhaps not.

On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:54:40 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2017 12:51, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.

Perhaps you can dream up a justification for such an assault.

Or perhaps not.

Thank you for proving my point.

On 26-Jan-17 10:03 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 8:43:34 PM UTC, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 26-Jan-17 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.


A very good description of evidence.


But is it credible?


No idea, but it is evidence.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 27/01/2017 00:19, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:54:40 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2017 12:51, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.

Perhaps you can dream up a justification for such an assault.

Or perhaps not.

Thank you for proving my point.

No-one claims that criminals are (or have to be) justified in their
criminal actions.

Well, no-one important, at any rate.

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 1:05:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 00:19, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:54:40 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2017 12:51, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.

Perhaps you can dream up a justification for such an assault.

Or perhaps not.

Thank you for proving my point.

No-one claims that criminals are (or have to be) justified in their
criminal actions.

So you agree the attack on the cyclist was unjustified and the victim acted purely in self defence.
Once again I thank you for proving my point.


Well, no-one important, at any rate.

'No one is really poor, at least no one worth speaking of', Douglas Adams

On 27/01/2017 01:31, wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 1:05:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 00:19, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:54:40 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2017 12:51, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.

Perhaps you can dream up a justification for such an assault.

Or perhaps not.

Thank you for proving my point.

No-one claims that criminals are (or have to be) justified in their
criminal actions.

So you agree the attack on the cyclist was unjustified and the victim acted purely in self defence.
Once again I thank you for proving my point.

There was no attack on any cyclist.

The evidence is that a cyclist attacked a horse and its rider. There is
no need to seek or assume justification for that criminal act on the
part of the cyclist: there is none and cannot be any.

Wake up.

Well, no-one important, at any rate.

'No one is really poor, at least no one worth speaking of', Douglas Adams

And?

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 2:12:19 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 01:31, wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 1:05:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 00:19, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 11:54:40 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 26/01/2017 12:51, wrote:
On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 1:32:53 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 25/01/2017 21:53, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 7:32:07 PM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:

Lovely cyclists, keep it up, you are putting the whole country against you.

http://horseandcountry.tv/horse-ride...-with-bicycle/

No evidence, as usual.

Other than the evidence of the cyclist's victim, do you mean?

There is a description of the assailant cyclist:

"...the offender, described as a white man in his 50s. He was wearing a
yellow hi-vis cycling jacket, black Lycra bottoms and a white cycling
helmet".

A 'victim' who claims someone approached him, threw a bicycle followed by a brick at him for no reason then casually walked away.

Perhaps you can dream up a justification for such an assault.

Or perhaps not.

Thank you for proving my point.

No-one claims that criminals are (or have to be) justified in their
criminal actions.

So you agree the attack on the cyclist was unjustified and the victim acted purely in self defence.
Once again I thank you for proving my point.

There was no attack on any cyclist.

The evidence is that a cyclist attacked a horse and its rider. There is
no need to seek or assume justification for that criminal act on the
part of the cyclist: there is none and cannot be any.

Wake up.

There is no evidence to support this other than the assailant's attempt to blame the victim.


Well, no-one important, at any rate.

'No one is really poor, at least no one worth speaking of', Douglas Adams

And?

Once again I thank you for proving my point.