Horse rider attacked with bicycle weapon and brick

On 28/01/17 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 has to be remembered that when a bicycle user says a driver did
something wrong (usually while actually driving a vehicle, not merely by
some vague association with a vehicle), Nugent tells us it is merely a
"cyclists" story. Whereas anything said about a "cyclist", even when the
bicycle is a complete irrelevance, is obviously true.

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.

If that is a question, the answer is that it was the other bloke who
asserted (quite incorrectly) that the brick had been thrown at the cyclist.

It was thrown *by* the cyclist, at the victim.

Well, that's what happened unless the victim has just made it all up.

But cyclists are so popular with the general public that one immediately
wonders why he would do such a thing.

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:14:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
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.

If that is a question, the answer is that it was the other bloke who
asserted (quite incorrectly) that the brick had been thrown at the cyclist.

Do you know that for certain that did not happen?


It was thrown *by* the cyclist, at the victim.

Do you have proof of this?


Well, that's what happened unless the victim has just made it all up.

Is that not a possibility?


But cyclists are so popular with the general public that one immediately
wonders why he would do such a thing.

So what your are saying is that someone can make up a story about a cyclist throwing a brick at them and bigots like you will automatically believe it?

On 31/01/2017 22:24, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:14:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
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.

If that is a question, the answer is that it was the other bloke who
asserted (quite incorrectly) that the brick had been thrown at the cyclist.

Do you know that for certain that did not happen?


It was thrown *by* the cyclist, at the victim.

Do you have proof of this?

Where have you been?

This has already been the subject of various exchanges.

Well, that's what happened unless the victim has just made it all up.

Is that not a possibility?

Is it not a possibility that 50% of the house burglaries reported in
England and Wales are put-up jobs for the insurance?

But cyclists are so popular with the general public that one immediately
wonders why he would do such a thing.

So what your are saying is that someone can make up a story about a cyclist throwing a brick at them and bigots like you will automatically believe it?

Why are you so intent on proving beyond all doubt that you are an idiot?

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:12:41 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2017 22:24, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:14:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
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.

If that is a question, the answer is that it was the other bloke who
asserted (quite incorrectly) that the brick had been thrown at the cyclist.

Do you know that for certain that did not happen?


It was thrown *by* the cyclist, at the victim.

Do you have proof of this?

Where have you been?

This has already been the subject of various exchanges.

And proof has yet to be offered.
Since you have made such a definitive statement I assumed you had some.


Well, that's what happened unless the victim has just made it all up.

Is that not a possibility?

Is it not a possibility that 50% of the house burglaries reported in
England and Wales are put-up jobs for the insurance?

It only takes one.


But cyclists are so popular with the general public that one immediately
wonders why he would do such a thing.

So what your are saying is that someone can make up a story about a cyclist throwing a brick at them and bigots like you will automatically believe it?

Why are you so intent on proving beyond all doubt that you are an idiot?

I think it's time I followed Rachel Riley's advice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwXbLWww6Cw

On 01/02/2017 18:59, wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:12:41 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 31/01/2017 22:24, wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:14:13 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
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.

If that is a question, the answer is that it was the other bloke who
asserted (quite incorrectly) that the brick had been thrown at the cyclist.

Do you know that for certain that did not happen?


It was thrown *by* the cyclist, at the victim.

Do you have proof of this?

Where have you been?

This has already been the subject of various exchanges.

And proof has yet to be offered.
Since you have made such a definitive statement I assumed you had some.

You haven't read the thread, have you, you bad lad?

Proof is for courts. It is derived from evidence.

We *have* evidence.

And no rebuttal.

Well, that's what happened unless the victim has just made it all up.

Is that not a possibility?

Is it not a possibility that 50% of the house burglaries reported in
England and Wales are put-up jobs for the insurance?

It only takes one.

What only takes one what?

But cyclists are so popular with the general public that one immediately
wonders why he would do such a thing.

So what your are saying is that someone can make up a story about a cyclist throwing a brick at them and bigots like you will automatically believe it?

Why are you so intent on proving beyond all doubt that you are an idiot?

I think it's time I followed Rachel Riley's advice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwXbLWww6Cw

You're an even bigger idiot than you have already made out if you think
I'm going to click that.