|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtakingcyclist - SIMON
On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 18:21, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 15:06, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: ...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them, during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the internet as it was "free IT training". I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it out into real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion. It's a good job that it didn't happen then, isn't it? And it didn't. The poster concerned was a notorious wind-up merchant. Yes, you said, but wasn't that in relation to some BP AGM? All part of the same sequence of events. This 'Judith' person threatened to make trouble for Simon there, that could have been a wind up as you suggest. But there is also this letter that Simon took to the police: On Tue, 19 May 2020, Simon Mason wrote: Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter Grainger". https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ That couldn't have been a wind up - I mean how could Simon have been mistaken about that? Are these two separate incidents? Actually, I don't expect answers to any of these question, if it's all gossip I don't really want to hear what is none of my business. I believe what Simon says about this letter, which he took to the police because I don't see how he could have been mistaken about that. The "letter" quoted by Simon was apparently sent by someone *not* called Judith. Perhaps you have further and better particulars. It looks to me as though there is definitely one letter, and there may be another letter or two which may or may not have actually been sent. That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was no "deputation" to the BP AGM. AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that. Letter1 was posted to Hull HR and was apparently written by 'Peter' aka. Peter Granger and Peter Grainger (but in a post to ukrc Peter denies being either of those two named people and denies also being Judith Smith). This is the letter Simon took to the police (and the police currently hold a copy of this letter on record). This was not a wind-up and if 'Judith' was telling you the truth then this would have not been her. I never had an email from "Judith" on the subject of postal communication. The only matter communicated to me was the "visit to the AGM" affair. Following on from that there is Letter2 which does come from 'Judith'. In this letter2 'Judith' references a previous letter she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (this is presumably Letter1 from 'Peter'). So we have: LETTER1 which was allegedly written by 'Peter' (an anonymous person), who posted in ukrc the following message on 11/11/2011: Having seen various comments and accusation flying about regarding the letter, I think it is about time that I said something in public. Peter Granger is not my real name - and nor is Judith Smith; my real name is immaterial to the complaint; but I do post in the group regularly. People will understand why I did not use my real name in the light of the follow-up actions and unfounded accusations which were made. As the letter explains I am a share holder in the BP Group and I despaired over the way that the BP name was being treated by one of its employees. __ This is the Letter1 'Peter' wrote to Hull HC: Dear Sir or Madam Simon J Mason : Complaint I wish to draw to your attention, and make a complaint about, the actions of the above member of your staff at the Saltend site. I am making this complaint as someone who is a share holder in BP plc indirectly via my pension company. The complaint concerns the amount of BP funded time he spends and wastes on posting to newsgroups which are accessed via either BP IP addresses directly, or via your interface to the Scansafe system. He has been told by a number of people that his actions are bringing BP Chemicals in to disrepute and that it appears that BP do not know, or worse, do not care, what he is doing whilst he is supposed to be working. On one occasion when someone complained to him about posting in BP time - he replied derisively: only another hour to go. There were more than 360 posts made during working hours in the month of July alone from IP addresses : 80.254.147.180 and 80.254.147.172. I believe that these are both IP addresses allocated by Scansafe to BP. I trust that you will ask Mr Mason to desist from blatantly abusing the BP facilities and to crack on with his work in order to boost BP profits!! Yours faithfully __ LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from 'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could be the wind-up she claimed to you it was. STARTS: As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this group. I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers) to raise some points. I have just had a response. They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are ongoing. I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM. The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion. They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters; crafty.) For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together - it sounds like it could be quite a good day out. (I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull - and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if the person concerned contacts them) __ And that is it, as far as I can understand it. Unravel that if you can... ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist forthwith). I cannot assist in the unravelling of the above. I didn't know of any of the letters until they were mentioned in this thread recently. It is possible, I suppose, that they (the alleged letters) were mentioned in the newsgroup all those years ago, but it didn't make enough of an impression on me to stick in my memory. Had I been asked a week or two back whether the BP AGM saga involved letters, I'd have said "No". |
Ads |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtakingcyclist - SIMON
On 21/05/2020 10:10, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote: On 09:21 21 May 2020, Kelly said: [SNIP] LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from 'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could be the wind-up she claimed to you it was. STARTS: As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this group. I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers) to raise some points. I have just had a response. They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are ongoing. I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM. The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion. They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters; crafty.) For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together - it sounds like it could be quite a good day out. (I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull - and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if the person concerned contacts them) Kelly, where does your LETTER2 come from? I haven't seen it before. That message was posted by Judith in ukrc cycling on 16th January 2012 (Message-ID: ). Obviously posted to get at Simon - even though she claimed to Mr Nugent it was really a wind-up and no such letter was actually ever sent. I don't think that last bit is quite correct. All that "Judith" told me by email was that there had been no visit to, and no intention to visit, the BP AGM and that the "threat" had been a simple wind-up. I don't recall any discussion(s) of letters - certainly not in any email sent to me. That email (the AGM caper) was eminently believable, given that "Judith" was pretty well-recognised as an accomplished wind-up merchant. If I remember correctly, there was a claim that when "Judith" first appeared in ukrc, her intention (perhaps in winning a bet) was to extend a thread to some impossibly long lost of posts and responses - in the hundreds, I think. I could find out more by mining the Google archive, I suppose. But I can't be bothered... ;-) |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtakingcyclist - SIMON
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist forthwith). I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge. |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtakingcyclist - SIMON
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 10:38:09 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
Quite why Mister X would post as Peter or Judith depends on what was happening back then and I don't know the details. It doesn't help that Simon's rather skewed account of those events (in which Simon needs to be portrayed as the victim) can't be relied upon. Here is the post where "Judith" admits sending the letter to BP which then turned up at work a few days later signed by "Peter Grainger". https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...c/J8CtbQjoujYJ |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist - SIMON
JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 18:21, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 15:06, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: ...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them, during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the internet as it was "free IT training". I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it out into real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion. It's a good job that it didn't happen then, isn't it? And it didn't. The poster concerned was a notorious wind-up merchant. Yes, you said, but wasn't that in relation to some BP AGM? All part of the same sequence of events. This 'Judith' person threatened to make trouble for Simon there, that could have been a wind up as you suggest. But there is also this letter that Simon took to the police: On Tue, 19 May 2020, Simon Mason wrote: Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter Grainger". https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ That couldn't have been a wind up - I mean how could Simon have been mistaken about that? Are these two separate incidents? Actually, I don't expect answers to any of these question, if it's all gossip I don't really want to hear what is none of my business. I believe what Simon says about this letter, which he took to the police because I don't see how he could have been mistaken about that. The "letter" quoted by Simon was apparently sent by someone *not* called Judith. Perhaps you have further and better particulars. It looks to me as though there is definitely one letter, and there may be another letter or two which may or may not have actually been sent. That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was no "deputation" to the BP AGM. AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that. This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group, seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards. Letter1 was posted to Hull HR and was apparently written by 'Peter' aka. Peter Granger and Peter Grainger (but in a post to ukrc Peter denies being either of those two named people and denies also being Judith Smith). This is the letter Simon took to the police (and the police currently hold a copy of this letter on record). This was not a wind-up and if 'Judith' was telling you the truth then this would have not been her. I never had an email from "Judith" on the subject of postal communication. The only matter communicated to me was the "visit to the AGM" affair. Right. Following on from that there is Letter2 which does come from 'Judith'. In this letter2 'Judith' references a previous letter she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (this is presumably Letter1 from 'Peter'). So we have: LETTER1 which was allegedly written by 'Peter' (an anonymous person), who posted in ukrc the following message on 11/11/2011: Having seen various comments and accusation flying about regarding the letter, I think it is about time that I said something in public. Peter Granger is not my real name - and nor is Judith Smith; my real name is immaterial to the complaint; but I do post in the group regularly. People will understand why I did not use my real name in the light of the follow-up actions and unfounded accusations which were made. As the letter explains I am a share holder in the BP Group and I despaired over the way that the BP name was being treated by one of its employees. __ This is the Letter1 'Peter' wrote to Hull HC: Dear Sir or Madam Simon J Mason : Complaint I wish to draw to your attention, and make a complaint about, the actions of the above member of your staff at the Saltend site. I am making this complaint as someone who is a share holder in BP plc indirectly via my pension company. The complaint concerns the amount of BP funded time he spends and wastes on posting to newsgroups which are accessed via either BP IP addresses directly, or via your interface to the Scansafe system. He has been told by a number of people that his actions are bringing BP Chemicals in to disrepute and that it appears that BP do not know, or worse, do not care, what he is doing whilst he is supposed to be working. On one occasion when someone complained to him about posting in BP time - he replied derisively: only another hour to go. There were more than 360 posts made during working hours in the month of July alone from IP addresses : 80.254.147.180 and 80.254.147.172. I believe that these are both IP addresses allocated by Scansafe to BP. I trust that you will ask Mr Mason to desist from blatantly abusing the BP facilities and to crack on with his work in order to boost BP profits!! Yours faithfully __ LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from 'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could be the wind-up she claimed to you it was. STARTS: As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this group. I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers) to raise some points. I have just had a response. They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are ongoing. I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM. The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion. They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters; crafty.) For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together - it sounds like it could be quite a good day out. (I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull - and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if the person concerned contacts them) __ And that is it, as far as I can understand it. Unravel that if you can... ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist forthwith). I cannot assist in the unravelling of the above. I didn't know of any of the letters until they were mentioned in this thread recently. It is possible, I suppose, that they (the alleged letters) were mentioned in the newsgroup all those years ago, but it didn't make enough of an impression on me to stick in my memory. Had I been asked a week or two back whether the BP AGM saga involved letters, I'd have said "No". It was nearly a decade ago. I was thinking how unexpectedly involved usenet was just a week or two ago but it looks like it was on a different level again so many years ago. I guess usenet didn't have all the competition from other social media outlets back then as it does today. |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist - SIMON
JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2020 10:10, Kelly wrote: Pamela wrote: Kelly, where does your LETTER2 come from? I haven't seen it before. That message was posted by Judith in ukrc cycling on 16th January 2012 (Message-ID: ). Obviously posted to get at Simon - even though she claimed to Mr Nugent it was really a wind-up and no such letter was actually ever sent. I don't think that last bit is quite correct. Okay. All that "Judith" told me by email was that there had been no visit to, and no intention to visit, the BP AGM and that the "threat" had been a simple wind-up. I don't recall any discussion(s) of letters - certainly not in any email sent to me. Right, I have been making an awful lot of assumptions (quite a few of them are mistaken, I now suspect). That email (the AGM caper) was eminently believable, given that "Judith" was pretty well-recognised as an accomplished wind-up merchant. If I remember correctly, there was a claim that when "Judith" first appeared in ukrc, her intention (perhaps in winning a bet) was to extend a thread to some impossibly long lost of posts and responses - in the hundreds, I think. I could find out more by mining the Google archive, I suppose. But I can't be bothered... ;-) Well I'm sure you have other things to do but I must say I find it quite fascinating just following and watching certain posters operate on usenet. Judith must have been quite a notorious character in her heyday (although I'm quite sure Simon would describe 'her' differently), and her name still crops up quite often in these newsgroups. Before I go can I just quickly mention this little tip. Remember a few days ago you were having trouble getting to see some text on some website because of all the ads and notifications blocking the page? There's this 'read and annotate without distractions' free service that can get rid of all that clutter and it just prints out the text you want to see. Its called ' outline.com ' you can go to their web page and enter into a box there the website address you want to read. Alternatively, and this is real handy, you can prefix the bit https://outline.com/.com/ onto the website address that you want to access. So if the website you want to read is, eg dummy example: https://www.thecantreadthis.driving-the-new-smoking/ Change it to: https://outline.com/https://www.this...e-new-smoking/ Paste this into your browser as usual and then when you enter the address the text appears clutter free. That dummy example won't work, of course, but the free service works a treat on a number of website addresses. Anyway, thanks for all your help in explaining some of the intrigue surrounding the goings on in ukrc past history - it wouldn't have been anywhere near possible without you. |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist - SIMON
Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist forthwith). I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge. Good. (By the way, I know I've got some things wrong, Simon, you think this 'Peter' poster was 'Judith' and you must know far better than I). It must have caused quite a stir in ukrc at the time to still be remembered and talked about nearly a decade later. And you must play a leading part in the history of this news group. |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtakingcyclist - SIMON
On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:03:43 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote: On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist forthwith). I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge. Good. (By the way, I know I've got some things wrong, Simon, you think this 'Peter' poster was 'Judith' and you must know far better than I). It must have caused quite a stir in ukrc at the time to still be remembered and talked about nearly a decade later. And you must play a leading part in the history of this news group. I have been here since urc first started in 1995. Judith first turned up in 2008 because of this incident. "The foray which led to my bet on the long thread when I first visited here, was as a result of me being told by a colleague they had visited uk.rec.cycling as part of some research project and had observed "an unusual strata (SIC) of newsnet society". https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...k/cHQ0rXqQsVMJ |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtakingcyclist - SIMON
On 21/05/2020 19:02, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 18:21, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 15:06, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: ...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them, during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the internet as it was "free IT training". I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it out into real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion. It's a good job that it didn't happen then, isn't it? And it didn't. The poster concerned was a notorious wind-up merchant. Yes, you said, but wasn't that in relation to some BP AGM? All part of the same sequence of events. This 'Judith' person threatened to make trouble for Simon there, that could have been a wind up as you suggest. But there is also this letter that Simon took to the police: On Tue, 19 May 2020, Simon Mason wrote: Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter Grainger". https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ That couldn't have been a wind up - I mean how could Simon have been mistaken about that? Are these two separate incidents? Actually, I don't expect answers to any of these question, if it's all gossip I don't really want to hear what is none of my business. I believe what Simon says about this letter, which he took to the police because I don't see how he could have been mistaken about that. The "letter" quoted by Simon was apparently sent by someone *not* called Judith. Perhaps you have further and better particulars. It looks to me as though there is definitely one letter, and there may be another letter or two which may or may not have actually been sent. That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was no "deputation" to the BP AGM. AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that. This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group, seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards. I think that was in the days when u.r.c.moderated was formed. Pete Whelans last post to this unmoderated group was: "Last post to this 'newsgroup'. Those that remain, enjoy the Troll-fest" (Oct 2009 I believe and not much has changed in the current abusive clique) You can read some of the sentiments he https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ave0%5B1-25%5D ----- irrelevant snipped ------ It was nearly a decade ago. I was thinking how unexpectedly involved usenet was just a week or two ago but it looks like it was on a different level again so many years ago. I guess usenet didn't have all the competition from other social media outlets back then as it does today. |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtakingcyclist - SIMON
On 21/05/2020 19:02, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote: On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 18:21, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: On 20/05/2020 15:06, Kelly wrote: Simon Mason wrote: ...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them, during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the internet as it was "free IT training". I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it out into real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion. It's a good job that it didn't happen then, isn't it? And it didn't. The poster concerned was a notorious wind-up merchant. Yes, you said, but wasn't that in relation to some BP AGM? All part of the same sequence of events. This 'Judith' person threatened to make trouble for Simon there, that could have been a wind up as you suggest. But there is also this letter that Simon took to the police: On Tue, 19 May 2020, Simon Mason wrote: Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter Grainger". https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ That couldn't have been a wind up - I mean how could Simon have been mistaken about that? Are these two separate incidents? Actually, I don't expect answers to any of these question, if it's all gossip I don't really want to hear what is none of my business. I believe what Simon says about this letter, which he took to the police because I don't see how he could have been mistaken about that. The "letter" quoted by Simon was apparently sent by someone *not* called Judith. Perhaps you have further and better particulars. It looks to me as though there is definitely one letter, and there may be another letter or two which may or may not have actually been sent. That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was no "deputation" to the BP AGM. AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that. This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group, seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards. I doubt that. From what I can remember of residential locations (real or imaginary), the two I recall most clearly were two hundred miles apart (at least). Letter1 was posted to Hull HR and was apparently written by 'Peter' aka. Peter Granger and Peter Grainger (but in a post to ukrc Peter denies being either of those two named people and denies also being Judith Smith). This is the letter Simon took to the police (and the police currently hold a copy of this letter on record). This was not a wind-up and if 'Judith' was telling you the truth then this would have not been her. I never had an email from "Judith" on the subject of postal communication. The only matter communicated to me was the "visit to the AGM" affair. Right. Following on from that there is Letter2 which does come from 'Judith'. In this letter2 'Judith' references a previous letter she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (this is presumably Letter1 from 'Peter'). So we have: LETTER1 which was allegedly written by 'Peter' (an anonymous person), who posted in ukrc the following message on 11/11/2011: Having seen various comments and accusation flying about regarding the letter, I think it is about time that I said something in public. Peter Granger is not my real name - and nor is Judith Smith; my real name is immaterial to the complaint; but I do post in the group regularly. People will understand why I did not use my real name in the light of the follow-up actions and unfounded accusations which were made. As the letter explains I am a share holder in the BP Group and I despaired over the way that the BP name was being treated by one of its employees. __ This is the Letter1 'Peter' wrote to Hull HC: Dear Sir or Madam Simon J Mason : Complaint I wish to draw to your attention, and make a complaint about, the actions of the above member of your staff at the Saltend site. I am making this complaint as someone who is a share holder in BP plc indirectly via my pension company. The complaint concerns the amount of BP funded time he spends and wastes on posting to newsgroups which are accessed via either BP IP addresses directly, or via your interface to the Scansafe system. He has been told by a number of people that his actions are bringing BP Chemicals in to disrepute and that it appears that BP do not know, or worse, do not care, what he is doing whilst he is supposed to be working. On one occasion when someone complained to him about posting in BP time - he replied derisively: only another hour to go. There were more than 360 posts made during working hours in the month of July alone from IP addresses : 80.254.147.180 and 80.254.147.172. I believe that these are both IP addresses allocated by Scansafe to BP. I trust that you will ask Mr Mason to desist from blatantly abusing the BP facilities and to crack on with his work in order to boost BP profits!! Yours faithfully __ LETTER2 This letter is from 'Judith' and references a previous letter she says she has written plus a further letter of complaint 'someone else' has written (presumably this is a reference to the letter from 'Peter' which we know exists). If this Letter2 (and the previous letter she claims) never was actually posted by 'Judith', this could be the wind-up she claimed to you it was. STARTS: As you may know as a shareholder I am (and others are) very concerned about some of the antics of BP employees which are reported in this group. I wrote a letter (as a shareholder - quoting my certificate numbers) to raise some points. I have just had a response. They say that they are addressing all of my concerns ie some are ongoing. I gave them five specific questions which I wanted to ask at the AGM. The bad news is that they have rejected three of my questions as they named a particular member of their staff; but they have said that whilst they will thoroughly investigate my concerns - they do not like to mention people by name at AGMs. However, they have put forward two of my questions in to the pot for possible inclusion. They have also said that they expect to get the other three issues resolved before the AGM. (I bet that is why they want me to ask a couple of questions, so that they can say they have addressed previously raised concerns and resolved all outstanding matters; crafty.) For the info' of other shareholders - or members of staff who may be attending, who are reading this - they have confirmed that the AGM will most probably be at the same time as last year - they are looking at 12 April 2012. Perhasp we could meet up and have a drink together - it sounds like it could be quite a good day out. (I told them that someone else had complained previously to BP at Hull - and the complaint had been passed on to the police. They were not impressed at all - and said that they will look in to that as well if the person concerned contacts them) __ And that is it, as far as I can understand it. Unravel that if you can... ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist forthwith). I cannot assist in the unravelling of the above. I didn't know of any of the letters until they were mentioned in this thread recently. It is possible, I suppose, that they (the alleged letters) were mentioned in the newsgroup all those years ago, but it didn't make enough of an impression on me to stick in my memory. Had I been asked a week or two back whether the BP AGM saga involved letters, I'd have said "No". It was nearly a decade ago. I was thinking how unexpectedly involved usenet was just a week or two ago but it looks like it was on a different level again so many years ago. I guess usenet didn't have all the competition from other social media outlets back then as it does today. It was indeed a much more lively place. Occasionally, we met up (not in ukrc, of course, but certainly in other groups). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Motorist who punched cyclist into oncoming traffic jailed for twoyears | Bod[_5_] | UK | 0 | October 27th 18 07:31 AM |
Video: Moment driver 'with cloudy windscreen' hits cyclist | Bod[_5_] | UK | 12 | April 7th 18 11:50 AM |
Driver caged for 8 months after overtaking cock up | Alycidon | UK | 7 | April 29th 16 12:07 PM |
Idiot bus driver hits idiot cyclist | [email protected] | UK | 112 | March 7th 12 09:14 AM |
Idiot bus driver hits idiot cyclist | Mr. Benn[_9_] | UK | 36 | March 7th 12 06:52 AM |