BBC TV this week

On 18/05/2012 21:30, Simon Mason wrote:

I just downloaded and saved some old Bo Hansson tracks and I have a
backwind as well :-).

Have you tried imodium?

On Fri, 18 May 2012 20:05:45 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

silly old sod

Silly old sod you mad nutter? that is a bit weak isn't it? What is
wrong with having bad breath breath you degenerate, noxious and depraved
moron? You insults are pathetic. What about satanic, fraudulent,
libellous, and bilious you hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent,
vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome,
despicable ****?



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

On May 12, 2:44*pm, Deux wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:21:21 +0100, JNugent wrote:
This habit the police seem to have adopted of arresting first (before
there is any evidence that an offence has been committed) and asking the
relevant questions later has to be of concern. The very fact of having
been arrested, irrespective of whether a charge or report is later made,
can have fairly serious consequences. Surely there must be a better way
of handling these things?

What if she was guilty, do you think it's a good idea for the police to
not take her into questioning and give her time to invent a defence and
destroy any evidence?

Here's why you never talk to the police;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

McK.

On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:30:44 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On May 16, 9:48*pm, "Simon Mason"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Mason wrote:
Because I enjoy the feel of the wind in the small amount of hair that
remains on my head. The extra chance of a head injury without a helmet
is small - the benefits outweigh that small risk.

Same here - I have a full head of hair and especially in summer I love
to feel the warm wind going through it.

I bet there's a loud whistling sound as it blows in one ear and out the
other through the empty space inbetween.

Not so - I wear a set of £230 Sennheiser IE8 noise cancelling earpieces
which keeps out the sound of the wind a treat.
Currently listening to Solar Music by Grobschnitt - lovely stuff :-)

And the advantage of having your own laptop at work means that I can
download music and add it to my Walkman for the ride home.
I just downloaded and saved some old Bo Hansson tracks and I have a
backwind as well :-).


It is amazing that you need the internet to do your work - and yet you have to
take your own lap top in.

Most odd.

Is there a smell here ???


--
Simon Mason used to post from BP Chemicals where he works.
He repeatedly said that he was wasting BP's time; and not his own
time - like other posters were.
After the BP AGM in April 2012 Mason suddenly stopped posting from
a BP IP address. People have asked why - but he won't say :-)

"dr6092" wrote in message
...
On May 14, 8:29 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

What if you got blown into the gutter and fell off simply from the wake
of
a large vehicle? Or went over the handlebars because of a pothole or hit
a
big bit of debris? Why risk getting your head smashed in on a kerbstone
when a crash hat will give you some protection?

Weren't you around when Derek C kept trying to insist that going over
the handlebars caused the head to hit the ground yet dismally failed
to show how? Don't you ever learn anything?

Cheerless has not even learned how to tie his shoe laces yet.
He once insisted that he only had to go outside to see law breaking cyclists
all over the shop and yet when he went and stood outside his local 99p shop
to conduct a proper survey, he found no cyclists at all.

Not a single one - uncanny.

--
Simon Mason

On 16/05/2012 20:59, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2012 20:39, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 14/05/2012 23:42, JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2012 21:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 13/05/2012 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2012 19:59, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2012 12:21, JNugent wrote:

She was arrested at her home on suspicion of CDBDD (even though
there was
no evidence of any offence, let alone one of that seriousness), but
eventually "not charged" (for the simple reason that she had done
nothing
wrong).

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co....of-appeal.html


Which bit of the quoted article shows that she had done anything wrong?

There is no evidence to support an implication that I suggested that the
quoted article showed that she had done anything wrong.

So what was the thrust of the cited article?

Analysis of cases of arrest with reasonable suspicion and the court of
appeal for criminal law and justice in the UK.

Any analysis of the (presumably) unintended consequences for those arrested
for no good reason?

Yes.

On 22/05/2012 21:05, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 16/05/2012 20:59, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2012 20:39, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 14/05/2012 23:42, JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2012 21:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 13/05/2012 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2012 19:59, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2012 12:21, JNugent wrote:

She was arrested at her home on suspicion of CDBDD (even though
there was
no evidence of any offence, let alone one of that seriousness), but
eventually "not charged" (for the simple reason that she had done
nothing
wrong).

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co....of-appeal.html



Which bit of the quoted article shows that she had done anything wrong?

There is no evidence to support an implication that I suggested that the
quoted article showed that she had done anything wrong.

So what was the thrust of the cited article?

Analysis of cases of arrest with reasonable suspicion and the court of
appeal for criminal law and justice in the UK.

Any analysis of the (presumably) unintended consequences for those arrested
for no good reason?

Yes.

And what were the "conclusions"?

"Stuff 'em"?

On 23/05/2012 14:31, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2012 21:05, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 16/05/2012 20:59, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2012 20:39, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 14/05/2012 23:42, JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2012 21:41, Nick Finnigan wrote:

On 13/05/2012 23:31, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2012 19:59, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2012 12:21, JNugent wrote:

She was arrested at her home on suspicion of CDBDD (even though
there was
no evidence of any offence, let alone one of that seriousness), but
eventually "not charged" (for the simple reason that she had done
nothing
wrong).

http://www.criminallawandjustice.co....of-appeal.html




Which bit of the quoted article shows that she had done anything wrong?

There is no evidence to support an implication that I suggested that the
quoted article showed that she had done anything wrong.

So what was the thrust of the cited article?

Analysis of cases of arrest with reasonable suspicion and the court of
appeal for criminal law and justice in the UK.

Any analysis of the (presumably) unintended consequences for those arrested
for no good reason?

Yes.

And what were the "conclusions"?

None.

"Stuff 'em"?

No.