Horse rider attacked with bicycle weapon and brick

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.



All we know for certain is that a horse rider threw a brick at a cyclist.

On 27-Jan-17 2:41 AM, wrote:
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.


So you now agree that that statement was evidence, glad that's cleared up.


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.



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

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:08:06 AM UTC, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 27-Jan-17 2:41 AM, wrote:
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.


So you now agree that that statement was evidence, glad that's cleared up.

So now you agree it is not proof, glad that's cleared up.

On 27/01/2017 05:05, wrote:
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.



All we know for certain is that a horse rider threw a brick at a cyclist.

You're as silly as the other bloke.

The cyclist atacked the victim with a bike AND a brick.

But it's alright; it's obvious that English must be your second
language. It'sthe only real explanation for your getting it so wrong.

On 27-Jan-17 5:52 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 10:08:06 AM UTC, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 27-Jan-17 2:41 AM, wrote:
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.


So you now agree that that statement was evidence, glad that's cleared up.

So now you agree it is not proof, glad that's cleared up.



I have never been asked if it is proof, care to point out when you did that?

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

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:09:43 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 05:05, wrote:
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.



All we know for certain is that a horse rider threw a brick at a cyclist.

You're as silly as the other bloke.

The cyclist atacked the victim with a bike AND a brick.

But it's alright; it's obvious that English must be your second
language. It'sthe only real explanation for your getting it so wrong.

Is that the other bloke who pointed out that just because someone said someone threw a bicycle and a brick at him does not prove it actually happened.

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:14:59 AM UTC, wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:09:43 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 05:05, wrote:
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.



All we know for certain is that a horse rider threw a brick at a cyclist.

You're as silly as the other bloke.

The cyclist atacked the victim with a bike AND a brick.

But it's alright; it's obvious that English must be your second
language. It'sthe only real explanation for your getting it so wrong.

Is that the other bloke who pointed out that just because someone said someone threw a bicycle and a brick at him does not prove it actually happened.

Precisely.
According to the 'victim' a cyclist with a 'poodle-like' dog in tow randomly decided to throw his bicycle at a horse rider. The the alleged assailant followed this unprovoked assault with a brick; not a half brick, not a piece of a brick, not a stone, not a rock, but a whole house brick.
What are the chances of the alleged assailant managing to find a whole brick at that time and place.
Or maybe the 'victim' thinks cyclists carry house bricks with them at all times.
Did the alleged 'assailant' leave his bicycle or did he retrieve it and his brick before fleeing with his 'poodle-like' dog?

On 28/01/2017 06:14, wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:09:43 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 05:05, wrote:
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.



All we know for certain is that a horse rider threw a brick at a cyclist.

You're as silly as the other bloke.

The cyclist atacked the victim with a bike AND a brick.

But it's alright; it's obvious that English must be your second
language. It'sthe only real explanation for your getting it so wrong.

Is that the other bloke who pointed out that just because someone said someone threw a bicycle and a brick at him does not prove it actually happened.

It is evidence.

As you so insightfully say, it is not (yet) proof.

On 28/01/2017 07:35, wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:14:59 AM UTC, wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:09:43 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 05:05, wrote:
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.



All we know for certain is that a horse rider threw a brick at a cyclist.

You're as silly as the other bloke.

The cyclist atacked the victim with a bike AND a brick.

But it's alright; it's obvious that English must be your second
language. It'sthe only real explanation for your getting it so wrong.

Is that the other bloke who pointed out that just because someone said someone threw a bicycle and a brick at him does not prove it actually happened.

Precisely.
According to the 'victim' a cyclist with a 'poodle-like' dog in tow randomly decided to throw his bicycle at a horse rider. The the alleged assailant followed this unprovoked assault with a brick; not a half brick, not a piece of a brick, not a stone, not a rock, but a whole house brick.
What are the chances of the alleged assailant managing to find a whole brick at that time and place.
Or maybe the 'victim' thinks cyclists carry house bricks with them at all times.
Did the alleged 'assailant' leave his bicycle or did he retrieve it and his brick before fleeing with his 'poodle-like' dog?

At least you have now realised and accepted that the assault was all one
way - the cyclist's attack on the equestrian victim.

It's a start.

On 28/01/2017 13:24, JNugent wrote:
On 28/01/2017 07:35, wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 6:14:59 AM UTC,
wrote:
On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 11:09:43 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 27/01/2017 05:05, wrote:
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.



All we know for certain is that a horse rider threw a brick at a
cyclist.

You're as silly as the other bloke.

The cyclist atacked the victim with a bike AND a brick.

But it's alright; it's obvious that English must be your second
language. It'sthe only real explanation for your getting it so wrong.

Is that the other bloke who pointed out that just because someone
said someone threw a bicycle and a brick at him does not prove it
actually happened.

Precisely.
According to the 'victim' a cyclist with a 'poodle-like' dog in tow
randomly decided to throw his bicycle at a horse rider. The the
alleged assailant followed this unprovoked assault with a brick; not a
half brick, not a piece of a brick, not a stone, not a rock, but a
whole house brick.
What are the chances of the alleged assailant managing to find a whole
brick at that time and place.
Or maybe the 'victim' thinks cyclists carry house bricks with them at
all times.
Did the alleged 'assailant' leave his bicycle or did he retrieve it
and his brick before fleeing with his 'poodle-like' dog?

At least you have now realised and accepted that the assault was all one
way - the cyclist's attack on the equestrian victim.

It's a start.

Other reports say the cyclist made off with his bicycle. But of course
he was not a cyclist at all, just a jogger, out for a run with a poodle,
a brick and a bicycle-weapon.