In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article

rg,
Steve Firth wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:22:46 +0100, gremlin_95
wrote:
[snip]

You justify an atttack and I'm an idiot? Really?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
No one has the right to assault another person.
Oh I don't know. The BMW driver who tried to ram into my vehicle
yesterday
because he didn't know how to join a motorway, or use his mirrors or notice
that I was being overtaken hence could not move into lane 2 deserved a
slap. He didn't deserve a big slap until he overtook me then slowed down to
make pointing at his eyes gestures. It wasn't me that needed specs it was
the twerp trying to out-accelerate a vehicle that had already passed him
before he pulled the fool trick of trying to accelerate up the inside of
said vehicle.

Yes, there's a lot of this about. Usually BMW or often these days
Audis. What is it with these tosspots?

I'm a Land Rover driver - I couldn't give a f****
--
hugh

In message , H. Neary
writes
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:31:13 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:59:55 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance
arrived, had a month off work [ Or at the very least four
working days], and also contacted the police and a
solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a
110V extension lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical
assault against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick
poke when telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by
the 'poke' and the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone
anyway!!! So now, one of our units is gone completely tits up
until this mess is sorted.


That sort of thing happened where I worked when I was younger and
in a way was expected behaviour and accepted and at school as well..

I seriously don't think it did me and anyone I worked with and was
at school with any harm at all, just we learnt to behave and
respect others that bit quicker...

And No its no excuse for long term systematic abuse anywhere
either...

There is a separation between the two..

There is no seperation. Physical assault doesn't become acceptable
just because it is a one off.

Poking someone for ****ing around with their mobile phone is NOT assault.

It most certainly is!

No it isn't


Oh yes it is

Oh no it isn't
Try poking the next person you see using a mobile, you may welol find
out how erronious that statement is.


HN



--
hugh

In message , H. Neary
writes
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:50:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:31:13 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:59:55 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance
arrived, had a month off work [ Or at the very least four
working days], and also contacted the police and a
solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a
110V extension lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical
assault against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick
poke when telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by
the 'poke' and the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone
anyway!!! So now, one of our units is gone completely tits up
until this mess is sorted.


That sort of thing happened where I worked when I was younger and
in a way was expected behaviour and accepted and at school as well..

I seriously don't think it did me and anyone I worked with and was
at school with any harm at all, just we learnt to behave and
respect others that bit quicker...

And No its no excuse for long term systematic abuse anywhere
either...

There is a separation between the two..

There is no seperation. Physical assault doesn't become acceptable
just because it is a one off.

Poking someone for ****ing around with their mobile phone is NOT assault.

It most certainly is!

Nope, not if you are doing that just to get their attention!!!

Try poking the next person you see using a mobile,
you may welol find out how erronious that statement is.

Or you may not if for example you poke them to draw their
attention to the hole they are about to fall into or the car
that's about to run them over etc etc etc.

Never heard of Darwin?

Personally I would not bother coming into contact with some idiot
tranfixed by a mobile.

People (usually young women) walk out in front of my car all the time,
totally impervious to anything but their mobiles. Luckily my reflexes
have saved them from injury and me from a long drawn out sequence of
police interviews and paperwork sessions.

If they get flattened by someone else I would lose no sleep at all.
The fact that someone is about to walk under a bus or lorry under
their own free will, is no excuse to assault them.



HN
Now you really are being stupid
--
hugh

In message , tony sayer
writes
Well its in apprentices best interests to check, after all its his
"licence" that will get the blame, driver responsible for the
condition of his vehicle.

Commendable to see that Adam is enforcing these checks.....

I have my own van. I would not let those daft little *******s check it.

No Adam, for their benefit otherwise who will they learn;?..

After all what happens to young drivers?, they get "past" the test get a
car and who teaches them anything else?...
Usually the next brick wall/tree/hedge.
--
hugh

"H. Neary" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:50:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:31:13 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:59:55 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance
arrived, had a month off work [ Or at the very least four
working days], and also contacted the police and a
solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a
110V extension lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical
assault against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick
poke when telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by
the 'poke' and the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone
anyway!!! So now, one of our units is gone completely tits up
until this mess is sorted.


That sort of thing happened where I worked when I was younger and
in a way was expected behaviour and accepted and at school as well..

I seriously don't think it did me and anyone I worked with and was
at school with any harm at all, just we learnt to behave and
respect others that bit quicker...

And No its no excuse for long term systematic abuse anywhere
either...

There is a separation between the two..

There is no seperation. Physical assault doesn't become acceptable
just because it is a one off.

Poking someone for ****ing around with their mobile phone is NOT
assault.

It most certainly is!

Nope, not if you are doing that just to get their attention!!!

Try poking the next person you see using a mobile,
you may welol find out how erronious that statement is.

Or you may not if for example you poke them to draw their
attention to the hole they are about to fall into or the car
that's about to run them over etc etc etc.

Never heard of Darwin?

I'm not actually stupid enough to let anyone
get run over like that, specially with kids.

Personally I would not bother coming into
contact with some idiot tranfixed by a mobile.

You're always free to be a complete arsehole if you like.

People (usually young women) walk out in front of my car
all the time, totally impervious to anything but their mobiles.

There must be something about you that attracts them like flys.

Luckily my reflexes have saved them from injury and me from a long
drawn out sequence of police interviews and paperwork sessions.

If they get flattened by someone else I would lose no sleep at all.
The fact that someone is about to walk under a bus or lorry under
their own free will, is no excuse to assault them.

Stopping them from getting run over is not assaulting them
and even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that
its like to work a lot better than just trying an 'excuse me' when
they are yacking away on their phone to someone else.

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:18:43 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:59:55 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance arrived,
had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and
also
contacted the police and a solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V
extension
lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical assault
against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick poke
when
telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by the 'poke' and
the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone anyway!!! So now, one of
our units is gone completely tits up until this mess is sorted.


That sort of thing happened where I worked when I was younger and in a
way was expected behaviour and accepted and at school as well..

I seriously don't think it did me and anyone I worked with and was at
school with any harm at all, just we learnt to behave and respect others
that bit quicker...

And No its no excuse for long term systematic abuse anywhere either...

There is a separation between the two..

There is no seperation. Physical assault doesn't
become acceptable just because it is a one off.

Poking someone to get their attention when they are
concentrating on something else isnt physical assault.

I'm sure the systematic abuse that is still coming to light
in church schools, orphanages, detetion centres etc,

So is murder. Doesn't mean that poking
someone to get their attention is murder tho.

didn't start with any intention of prolonged repeated assaults either.

Bet most of it did.

To bully someone just because he is a few steps below you on the
professional ladder is a pretty lame and despicable thing to do.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt bullying anyone.

Even you must have noticed that the cops do grab people at times
and take them to their vans etc. That isnt physical assault either.

Fine next time you feel the urge to poke
someone, drag them off to your vehicle instead.

No thanks.

No problem, everything solved!

It clearly aint physical assault when the cops do it.

Sol your claim that anything physical is assault is just plain wrong.

I would tend to wonder about the motives behind this thuggery

Your problem.

No, The victims.

Nope, no problem for them when you are stopping them getting run over etc.

incidentally. When I did my "apprenticeship" I and the three or four
others working for the company had the benefit of day release, and
this gave us a technical knowledge of the subject that far exceeded
some of the engineers, who quite often were in place because of
experience in a field that was by this time mutating rapidly.

The professional jealousy coupled with the threats to their careers
was probably the reason behind the arrogance and insults a few were so
keen to dish out.

That clearly isnt the case with Adam.

No the IEE regs take a long time move up an edition.

That isnt the reason.

Although it never happened I am reasonably certain any assault on an
apprentice at my workplace even in those days would have been met with
instant dismissal.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt physical assault.

It certainly is.

The legal system has decided otherwise.

You get to like that or lump it.

And Adam clearly hasn't been dismissed, instantly or otherwise.

As I have not come across a contractor with his approach anywhere in the
UK,

Your pathetically limited experience is your problem.

the term Troll comes to mind.

You wouldn't know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.

You're much more of a troll than he is on this particular issue.

I have worked alonside people who's only achievement
in life was the CSCS card, they still managed to
communicate without resorting to filth or violence.

And hordes of others choose to do things differently.

You get to like that of lump that too.

If he was caught assaulting people on any site I
have worked on, he wouldn't hsave time to sign out.

And he wouldnt have had anything to do with you in the first
place unless he chose to jerk you around for a bit of light entertainment.

Me too. And you wouldn't be getting either of us sacked
for poking someone in the ribs when they are on the phone
and about to get run over either. You'd just make a complete
laughing stock of yourself if you were actually stupid enough
to trying getting us charged too.

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:06:11 +0100, gremlin_95
wrote:

On 03/06/2012 09:28, H. Neary wrote:

You justify an atttack and I'm an idiot? Really?

No one has the right to assault another person. How would you take it
if someone walked up and poked you, or is it a normal greeting in your
part of the country.

I went through many years of college and University and never saw
anyone get assaulted once. I is not a normal or acceptable form of
communication you know.

HN

Well it's just this 'claim' culture that annoys me. My point was, no
harm was really done at all by this so called assault.

I rest my case

I would say it was harmful.

It wasn't anyway.

People are in college to be taught not
poked and prodded. Where does it stop?

At the level at which it gets their attention but does not injure them.

If a lecturer has to resort to a phyusical assault

It was not a physical assault, whatever you claim.

to get a point across then he is not fit for purpose!

Mindlessly silly. He clearly is one of the best teachers.

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:22:46 +0100, gremlin_95
wrote:

On 02/06/2012 21:58, H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:17:47 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:54:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

Clive George wrote:
On 02/06/2012 07:09, ARWadsworth wrote:

You shouldn't. Foul language and shouting betrays a lack of
education and an inability to communicate.
So how do you give out a bollocking then?
It's possible to do it without swearing or shouting, and indeed
can be more menacing that way. The quick shout can be more
appropriate though.
There are other ways

A couple of weeks ago an apprentice who I had asked to drill some
holes came back to me about 15 minutes later to tell me the drill
was not working. I told him to make sure there was power to the
drill (it was already in place as I had used it earlier) and that
the extension lead was plugged into a transformer and that the
transformer was plugged into a socket. 15 minutes later he came
back and announced the drill was broken. I warned him that if I had
to get down from the tower scaffold to plug the drill in I would
punch him in the ******** and he needed to go and recheck the
extension lead and transformer as I was busy. He went away and 15
minutes later he came back to say they were fine so I climbed down
the scaffold walked across to where I had earlier plugged the
extension lead into a transformer to find the extension lead plug
sat on the floor and not plugged in to a transformer.

Just as I pulled the van into the unit I punched him in the
********.

Oh well I assume his pay doesn't impact on the company too much.


The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance arrived, had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and also
contacted the police and a solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V
extension
lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical assault
against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick poke when
telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by the 'poke' and
the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone anyway!!! So now, one of
our units is gone completely tits up until this mess is sorted.

You justify an atttack

It was not an attack, whatever you claim.

and I'm an idiot?

Yep, because you cant even work out the difference between
tapping someone on the shoulder and an assault etc.

Really?

Yep.

No one has the right to assault another person.

It was not an attack, whatever you claim.

And you are just plain wrong anyway. Anyone has a right
to assault another person when their own life is at risk,
or that of someone else is at risk and that is the best way
of removing that risk. Most obviously when some arsehole
iw walking around shooting people, as happens on occasion.

How would you take it if someone walked up and poked you,

I wouldn't give a damn.

or is it a normal greeting in your part of the country.

Doesn't matter if it's a normal greeting or not.

I went through many years of college and
University and never saw anyone get assaulted once.

It was not an assault, whatever you claim.

It is not a normal or acceptable form
of communication you know.

That's just plain wrong on the acceptable.

Its not normal to use usenet either. Plenty of us do that anyway.

H. Neary wrote:

I prefer to teach them to think for themselves. Something that we
do not often do these days.


Quite...

I set the apprentices tasks and challenges that mean they have to
think for themselves instead of me just wiping their arses. They
do not like it. They like to live in a world where they are
protected by their Mother and have everything done for them.


Indeed... Been there seen that..


Mine made it through to HNC's and probably degrees also and I would
hope it was in some part due to the fact that I ensured that any
question was answered and researched if I couldn't respond instantly.


I suppose I could come up with the odd sarcastic comment when
elemetary mistakes were made..... Still nobodies perfect. Incidentally
they all went home uncorrupted by foul language and their genitals
untouched.

What was so wrong with that?

Nothing. It's just not how it works with me. These are not degree material
apprentices.

--
Adam

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 23:19:58 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 03/06/2012 21:48, H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:50:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

People (usually young women) walk out in front of my car all the time,
totally impervious to anything but their mobiles. Luckily my reflexes
have saved them from injury and me from a long drawn out sequence of
police interviews and paperwork sessions.

If they get flattened by someone else I would lose no sleep at all.
The fact that someone is about to walk under a bus or lorry under
their own free will, is no excuse to assault them.



Please get your definition of assault corrected.

http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_a.htm and the case law on
that page in the appropriate paragraph is relevant.

It defines assault under the English legal system as requiring "an act
(noting DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003) DC) accompanied by a hostile intent
calculated to cause apprehension in the mind of the victim". Poking
someone to get their attention while they are talking on a mobile phone
does *not* constitute assault. On the other hand, just telling them
firmly but politely that if they don't finish the call *now* you'll
knock them out, could constitute what the police call Common Assault,
although the penalty for it is minimal.

If there is no hostile intent, then "Where the hostile intent is not
present, there will be no assault (R v Lamb [1967] CA) unless it is
proved that the alleged assailant was reckless as to whether the
complainant would apprehend immediate and unlawful violence." applies.

Even in the bad old days when I was stuying law, both an action and
hostile intent were required to prove assault.

This is for your information, as the Australian legal system, although
based on the UK system appears to differ in this case, assuming you are
correct about the way assault is viewed there.

Or, to put it another way, if you don't know what you're talking about,
STFU.

Go and helpfully poke a policeman then!

Why suspend a lecturer for the action if it was totally innocent and
"helpful"?


HN

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:44:02 +0100, H. Neary wrote:

On the whole they performed well and were extremely well motivated
considering the pay was relatively poor in those days.

Unless you have a generous company it is pretty bad
now:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employme...onalminimumwag
e/dg_10027201

"£2.60 - the apprentice rate, for apprentices under 19 or 19 or over
and in the first year of their apprenticeship."

Goes up by 5p in October, wow.

It doesn't say what you get as an apprentice over 19 and in your 2nd
year or greater. Maybe apprenticeships these days don't last
12months?

They get the national minimum wage

So £4.98 or £6.08 depending on their age.

I cannot remember what percentage of funding a firm gets for older
apprentices. ISTR it drops at 19 and then again at 25.


--
Adam

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:25:47 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:18:43 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:59:55 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance arrived,
had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and
also
contacted the police and a solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V
extension
lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical assault
against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick poke
when
telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by the 'poke' and
the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone anyway!!! So now, one of
our units is gone completely tits up until this mess is sorted.


That sort of thing happened where I worked when I was younger and in a
way was expected behaviour and accepted and at school as well..

I seriously don't think it did me and anyone I worked with and was at
school with any harm at all, just we learnt to behave and respect others
that bit quicker...

And No its no excuse for long term systematic abuse anywhere either...

There is a separation between the two..

There is no seperation. Physical assault doesn't
become acceptable just because it is a one off.

Poking someone to get their attention when they are
concentrating on something else isnt physical assault.

I'm sure the systematic abuse that is still coming to light
in church schools, orphanages, detetion centres etc,

So is murder. Doesn't mean that poking
someone to get their attention is murder tho.

didn't start with any intention of prolonged repeated assaults either.

Bet most of it did.

To bully someone just because he is a few steps below you on the
professional ladder is a pretty lame and despicable thing to do.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt bullying anyone.

Even you must have noticed that the cops do grab people at times
and take them to their vans etc. That isnt physical assault either.

Fine next time you feel the urge to poke
someone, drag them off to your vehicle instead.

No thanks.

No problem, everything solved!

It clearly aint physical assault when the cops do it.

Sol your claim that anything physical is assault is just plain wrong.

I would tend to wonder about the motives behind this thuggery

Your problem.

No, The victims.

Nope, no problem for them when you are stopping them getting run over etc.

incidentally. When I did my "apprenticeship" I and the three or four
others working for the company had the benefit of day release, and
this gave us a technical knowledge of the subject that far exceeded
some of the engineers, who quite often were in place because of
experience in a field that was by this time mutating rapidly.

The professional jealousy coupled with the threats to their careers
was probably the reason behind the arrogance and insults a few were so
keen to dish out.

That clearly isnt the case with Adam.

No the IEE regs take a long time move up an edition.

That isnt the reason.

Although it never happened I am reasonably certain any assault on an
apprentice at my workplace even in those days would have been met with
instant dismissal.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt physical assault.

It certainly is.

The legal system has decided otherwise.

You get to like that or lump it.

And Adam clearly hasn't been dismissed, instantly or otherwise.

As I have not come across a contractor with his approach anywhere in the
UK,

Your pathetically limited experience is your problem.

the term Troll comes to mind.

You wouldn't know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.

You're much more of a troll than he is on this particular issue.

I have worked alonside people who's only achievement
in life was the CSCS card, they still managed to
communicate without resorting to filth or violence.

And hordes of others choose to do things differently.

You get to like that of lump that too.

If he was caught assaulting people on any site I
have worked on, he wouldn't hsave time to sign out.

And he wouldnt have had anything to do with you in the first
place unless he chose to jerk you around for a bit of light entertainment.

Me too. And you wouldn't be getting either of us sacked
for poking someone in the ribs when they are on the phone
and about to get run over either. You'd just make a complete
laughing stock of yourself if you were actually stupid enough
to trying getting us charged too.

Actually you would be expelled from a large number of sites just using
a mobile. as thy are deemed to be a risk around traffic.

If you are in front of someone in a position to "poke him in the ribs"
I think there would be little danger of him walking into the traffic
anyway, at the rear it would be a stupid move, he may bolt forward
thinking some object was approaching from behind.

If you must produce some inane hypothetical situation to support a
flawed argument, pleas try to stick to something within the realms of
feasibility.


The audio output from a mobile isn't that great. A shout at a range
cose enough to perform an assault would certainly attract attention.


HN

H. Neary wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 23:19:58 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 03/06/2012 21:48, H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:50:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

People (usually young women) walk out in front of my car all the
time, totally impervious to anything but their mobiles. Luckily
my reflexes have saved them from injury and me from a long drawn
out sequence of police interviews and paperwork sessions.

If they get flattened by someone else I would lose no sleep at
all. The fact that someone is about to walk under a bus or lorry
under their own free will, is no excuse to assault them.



Please get your definition of assault corrected.

http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_a.htm and the case law
on that page in the appropriate paragraph is relevant.

It defines assault under the English legal system as requiring "an
act (noting DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003) DC) accompanied by a
hostile intent calculated to cause apprehension in the mind of the
victim". Poking someone to get their attention while they are
talking on a mobile phone does *not* constitute assault. On the
other hand, just telling them firmly but politely that if they
don't finish the call *now* you'll knock them out, could constitute
what the police call Common Assault, although the penalty for it is
minimal.

If there is no hostile intent, then "Where the hostile intent is not
present, there will be no assault (R v Lamb [1967] CA) unless it is
proved that the alleged assailant was reckless as to whether the
complainant would apprehend immediate and unlawful violence."
applies.

Even in the bad old days when I was stuying law, both an action and
hostile intent were required to prove assault.

This is for your information, as the Australian legal system,
although based on the UK system appears to differ in this case,
assuming you are correct about the way assault is viewed there.

Or, to put it another way, if you don't know what you're talking
about, STFU.

Go and helpfully poke a policeman then!

Why suspend a lecturer for the action if it was totally innocent and
"helpful"?

He has been suspended because a cocky little gob****e who was ****ing about
on his phone instead of paying attention has made a complaint. And it
appears that at least one student thinks that the suspension is OTT.


--
Adam

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:25:47 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:18:43 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:59:55 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance
arrived,
had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and
also
contacted the police and a solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V
extension
lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical assault
against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick poke
when
telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by the 'poke'
and
the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone anyway!!! So now, one of
our units is gone completely tits up until this mess is sorted.


That sort of thing happened where I worked when I was younger and in a
way was expected behaviour and accepted and at school as well..

I seriously don't think it did me and anyone I worked with and was at
school with any harm at all, just we learnt to behave and respect
others
that bit quicker...

And No its no excuse for long term systematic abuse anywhere either...

There is a separation between the two..

There is no seperation. Physical assault doesn't
become acceptable just because it is a one off.

Poking someone to get their attention when they are
concentrating on something else isnt physical assault.

I'm sure the systematic abuse that is still coming to light
in church schools, orphanages, detetion centres etc,

So is murder. Doesn't mean that poking
someone to get their attention is murder tho.

didn't start with any intention of prolonged repeated assaults either.

Bet most of it did.

To bully someone just because he is a few steps below you on the
professional ladder is a pretty lame and despicable thing to do.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt bullying anyone.

Even you must have noticed that the cops do grab people at times
and take them to their vans etc. That isnt physical assault either.

Fine next time you feel the urge to poke
someone, drag them off to your vehicle instead.

No thanks.

No problem, everything solved!

It clearly aint physical assault when the cops do it.

Sol your claim that anything physical is assault is just plain wrong.

I would tend to wonder about the motives behind this thuggery

Your problem.

No, The victims.

Nope, no problem for them when you are stopping them getting run over etc.

incidentally. When I did my "apprenticeship" I and the three or four
others working for the company had the benefit of day release, and
this gave us a technical knowledge of the subject that far exceeded
some of the engineers, who quite often were in place because of
experience in a field that was by this time mutating rapidly.

The professional jealousy coupled with the threats to their careers
was probably the reason behind the arrogance and insults a few were so
keen to dish out.

That clearly isnt the case with Adam.

No the IEE regs take a long time move up an edition.

That isnt the reason.

Although it never happened I am reasonably certain any assault on an
apprentice at my workplace even in those days would have been met with
instant dismissal.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt physical assault.

It certainly is.

The legal system has decided otherwise.

You get to like that or lump it.

And Adam clearly hasn't been dismissed, instantly or otherwise.

As I have not come across a contractor with his approach anywhere in the
UK,

Your pathetically limited experience is your problem.

the term Troll comes to mind.

You wouldn't know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.

You're much more of a troll than he is on this particular issue.

I have worked alonside people who's only achievement
in life was the CSCS card, they still managed to
communicate without resorting to filth or violence.

And hordes of others choose to do things differently.

You get to like that of lump that too.

If he was caught assaulting people on any site I
have worked on, he wouldn't hsave time to sign out.

And he wouldnt have had anything to do with you in the first
place unless he chose to jerk you around for a bit of light entertainment.

Me too. And you wouldn't be getting either of us sacked
for poking someone in the ribs when they are on the phone
and about to get run over either. You'd just make a complete
laughing stock of yourself if you were actually stupid enough
to trying getting us charged too.

Actually you would be expelled from a
large number of sites just using a mobile.

Nope.

as thy are deemed to be a risk around traffic.

Pity I wasn't using the mobile.

If you are in front of someone in a position to "poke him in the ribs"

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the ribs
actually extend around a lot more than just the front of everyone.

I think there would be little danger of him walking into the traffic
anyway,

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of
thought, or being able to work out what is assault either.

at the rear it would be a stupid move,

Wrong, as always.

he may bolt forward thinking some object was approaching from behind.

Saying 'excuse me' to someone yacking on
the phone isnt likely to work very well at all.

If you must produce some inane hypothetical
situation to support a flawed argument,

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

pleas try to stick to something within the realms of feasibility.

Go and **** yourself, again.

The audio output from a mobile isn't that great.

And a poke in the ribs is much less likely to not be noticed.

A shout at a range cose enough to perform
an assault would certainly attract attention.

You never said anything about a shout, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Grimly Curmudgeon
writes
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 11:35:13 +0100, H. Neary
wrote:

Oh, ffs. It's a question of intent. Please don't be an arse.

So there was no intention to assault then. Was the lecturer Insane or
did he suffer from some severe nervous trauma where he had no control
over his movements?


Suppose I were to come along and give you a quick poke, how would you
like it?

I could get a few friends in on the act too if you wanted, maybe a few
of your neighbours also. When they all hear how "right" it is, you
could enjoy being poked & prodded well into retirement.

Sorry, but you've reductio ad absurded yourself into arsedom.

Hands up all those who had a blackboard rubber chucked at them?

Not me, but a generation before me at my school a lad was mucking around
and annoyed the chemistry teacher. The teacher threw a board rubber at home
in a flat trajectory that parted his hair then went through a window. The
boy's name was Wright. The school motto was "Let right be done!" that was
the year it changed to stop boys chanting the motto at that teacher.

In message , Sam Plusnet
writes

Do you work for "home.com" or are you using their domain without
authority?
--
Iain Freely

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

snip

You never said anything about a shout, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

I have to agree with wodney, THE king of bull****.

https://www.messnerinc.com/catalog/g/MES-BSR/

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
Foul language is a good way to make them all laugh at you.
In better educated circles we never use foul language and can get along
without it.

No ****.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Sam Plusnet wrote:
I was once driving back from a job on a Sunday - unpaid.
The guy in the front passenger seat was being paid ordinary time because
he was a junior engineer.
The other chap, fast asleep on the back seat, was being paid at double
time because he was a technician.

I'm sure it all made sense to the accountants.

Before you make that sort of comparison, were all the other conditions of
employment identical? My guess is not.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
Then you could never have an apprentice then. They always **** up even
after repeated instructions.

I'd have thought with the current high unemployment you'd have a big
choice of applicants for an apprenticeship. Sounds like those choosing
them don't know what they're doing.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:31:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:25:47 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:18:43 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:59:55 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

The idiot must really be short of a few brain cells.

I would have
screamed in agony, rolled on the floor till the ambulance
arrived,
had
a month off work [ Or at the very least four working days], and
also
contacted the police and a solicitor.
So are you are saying that you could not manage to plug in a 110V
extension
lead to a 110V transformer?
No of couse not!

I'm saying that I would take full advantage of any physical assault
against me.

HN

Well you're an idiot then. We lost a very good lecturer in college
recently because some **** reported him for giving him a quick poke
when
telling him to get off his phone, no harm was caused by the 'poke'
and
the guy wasn't even meant to be on his phone anyway!!! So now, one of
our units is gone completely tits up until this mess is sorted.


That sort of thing happened where I worked when I was younger and in a
way was expected behaviour and accepted and at school as well..

I seriously don't think it did me and anyone I worked with and was at
school with any harm at all, just we learnt to behave and respect
others
that bit quicker...

And No its no excuse for long term systematic abuse anywhere either...

There is a separation between the two..

There is no seperation. Physical assault doesn't
become acceptable just because it is a one off.

Poking someone to get their attention when they are
concentrating on something else isnt physical assault.

I'm sure the systematic abuse that is still coming to light
in church schools, orphanages, detetion centres etc,

So is murder. Doesn't mean that poking
someone to get their attention is murder tho.

didn't start with any intention of prolonged repeated assaults either.

Bet most of it did.

To bully someone just because he is a few steps below you on the
professional ladder is a pretty lame and despicable thing to do.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt bullying anyone.

Even you must have noticed that the cops do grab people at times
and take them to their vans etc. That isnt physical assault either.

Fine next time you feel the urge to poke
someone, drag them off to your vehicle instead.

No thanks.

No problem, everything solved!

It clearly aint physical assault when the cops do it.

Sol your claim that anything physical is assault is just plain wrong.

I would tend to wonder about the motives behind this thuggery

Your problem.

No, The victims.

Nope, no problem for them when you are stopping them getting run over etc.

incidentally. When I did my "apprenticeship" I and the three or four
others working for the company had the benefit of day release, and
this gave us a technical knowledge of the subject that far exceeded
some of the engineers, who quite often were in place because of
experience in a field that was by this time mutating rapidly.

The professional jealousy coupled with the threats to their careers
was probably the reason behind the arrogance and insults a few were so
keen to dish out.

That clearly isnt the case with Adam.

No the IEE regs take a long time move up an edition.

That isnt the reason.

Although it never happened I am reasonably certain any assault on an
apprentice at my workplace even in those days would have been met with
instant dismissal.

Poking someone to get their attention isnt physical assault.

It certainly is.

The legal system has decided otherwise.

You get to like that or lump it.

And Adam clearly hasn't been dismissed, instantly or otherwise.

As I have not come across a contractor with his approach anywhere in the
UK,

Your pathetically limited experience is your problem.

the term Troll comes to mind.

You wouldn't know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.

You're much more of a troll than he is on this particular issue.

I have worked alonside people who's only achievement
in life was the CSCS card, they still managed to
communicate without resorting to filth or violence.

And hordes of others choose to do things differently.

You get to like that of lump that too.

If he was caught assaulting people on any site I
have worked on, he wouldn't hsave time to sign out.

And he wouldnt have had anything to do with you in the first
place unless he chose to jerk you around for a bit of light entertainment.

Me too. And you wouldn't be getting either of us sacked
for poking someone in the ribs when they are on the phone
and about to get run over either. You'd just make a complete
laughing stock of yourself if you were actually stupid enough
to trying getting us charged too.

Actually you would be expelled from a
large number of sites just using a mobile.

Nope.

as thy are deemed to be a risk around traffic.

Pity I wasn't using the mobile.

If you are in front of someone in a position to "poke him in the ribs"

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that the ribs
actually extend around a lot more than just the front of everyone.

I think there would be little danger of him walking into the traffic
anyway,

Not a shred of evidence that you are actually capable of
thought, or being able to work out what is assault either.

at the rear it would be a stupid move,

Wrong, as always.

he may bolt forward thinking some object was approaching from behind.

Saying 'excuse me' to someone yacking on
the phone isnt likely to work very well at all.

If you must produce some inane hypothetical
situation to support a flawed argument,

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?

pleas try to stick to something within the realms of feasibility.

Go and **** yourself, again.

The audio output from a mobile isn't that great.

And a poke in the ribs is much less likely to not be noticed.

A shout at a range cose enough to perform
an assault would certainly attract attention.

You never said anything about a shout, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

It seems a better means of getting attention than a physical assault.

Although your laguage suggests that verbal communication may not be
your forte'


HN

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:31:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

[long overdue snip]

You never said anything about a shout, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

It seems a better means of getting attention than a physical assault.

Although your laguage suggests that verbal communication may not be
your forte'

At the moment your communication is showing that you are too stupid to find
a "delete" key on a keyboard. If we're talking about a contest to find who
is from the shallow end of the gene pool then it is a fine matter of
judgement between you and Wodney.

On 04/06/2012 08:19, H. Neary wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 23:19:58 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 03/06/2012 21:48, H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:50:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

People (usually young women) walk out in front of my car all the time,
totally impervious to anything but their mobiles. Luckily my reflexes
have saved them from injury and me from a long drawn out sequence of
police interviews and paperwork sessions.

If they get flattened by someone else I would lose no sleep at all.
The fact that someone is about to walk under a bus or lorry under
their own free will, is no excuse to assault them.



Please get your definition of assault corrected.

http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_a.htm and the case law on
that page in the appropriate paragraph is relevant.

It defines assault under the English legal system as requiring "an act
(noting DPP v Santa-Bermudez (2003) DC) accompanied by a hostile intent
calculated to cause apprehension in the mind of the victim". Poking
someone to get their attention while they are talking on a mobile phone
does *not* constitute assault. On the other hand, just telling them
firmly but politely that if they don't finish the call *now* you'll
knock them out, could constitute what the police call Common Assault,
although the penalty for it is minimal.

If there is no hostile intent, then "Where the hostile intent is not
present, there will be no assault (R v Lamb [1967] CA) unless it is
proved that the alleged assailant was reckless as to whether the
complainant would apprehend immediate and unlawful violence." applies.

Even in the bad old days when I was stuying law, both an action and
hostile intent were required to prove assault.

This is for your information, as the Australian legal system, although
based on the UK system appears to differ in this case, assuming you are
correct about the way assault is viewed there.

Or, to put it another way, if you don't know what you're talking about,
STFU.

Go and helpfully poke a policeman then!

I have. I got gently poked back. No problem. :-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:17:35 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:31:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

[long overdue snip]

You never said anything about a shout, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

It seems a better means of getting attention than a physical assault.

Although your laguage suggests that verbal communication may not be
your forte'

At the moment your communication is showing that you are too stupid to find
a "delete" key on a keyboard. If we're talking about a contest to find who
is from the shallow end of the gene pool then it is a fine matter of
judgement between you and Wodney.

With all due respect, if you have nothing to contribute to the subject
of the post, can you perhaps save a bit of bandwidth and find
something else to do.


HN

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:17:35 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:31:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

[long overdue snip]

You never said anything about a shout, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

It seems a better means of getting attention than a physical assault.

Although your laguage suggests that verbal communication may not be
your forte'

At the moment your communication is showing that you are too stupid to find
a "delete" key on a keyboard. If we're talking about a contest to find who
is from the shallow end of the gene pool then it is a fine matter of
judgement between you and Wodney.

With all due respect, if you have nothing to contribute to the subject
of the post, can you perhaps save a bit of bandwidth and find
something else to do.

Your pig ignorance when it comes to the subject of Usenet posting is
showing. Snipping irrelevant content from replies is a skill that even
moody teenagers acquire. If you are going to use a medium for
communication, learn how to use it.

=====================
Q: I saw a long article that I wish to rebut carefully, what should I do?
A: Include the entire text with your article, particularly the signature,
and include your comments closely packed between the lines. Be sure to
post, and not mail, even though your article looks like a reply to the
original. Everybody loves to read those long point-by-point debates,
especially when they evolve into name-calling and lots of "Is too!" -- "Is
not!" -- "Is too, twizot!" exchanges.

Be sure to compare the poster to Adolph Hitler in some way. That's a novel,
underutilized rhetorical technique. In fact, the poster is probably worse
than the Nazis.

Be sure to follow-up everything, and never let another person get in the
last word on a net debate. Why, if people let other people have the last
word, then discussions would actually stop! Remember, other net readers
aren't nearly as clever as you, and if somebody posts something wrong, the
readers can't possibly realize that on their own without your elucidations.
If somebody gets insulting towards you in their net postings, the best
response is to get right down to their level and fire a return salvo. When
I read one net person make an insulting attack on another, I always
immediately take it as gospel unless a rebuttal is posted. It never makes
me think less of the insulter, so it's your duty to respond. Remember, a
net flame battle takes at least two participants, so do your best to make
sure you're one of them.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:43:15 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:17:35 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 19:31:53 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

[long overdue snip]

You never said anything about a shout, you pathetic excuse for a bull****
artist.

It seems a better means of getting attention than a physical assault.

Although your laguage suggests that verbal communication may not be
your forte'

At the moment your communication is showing that you are too stupid to find
a "delete" key on a keyboard. If we're talking about a contest to find who
is from the shallow end of the gene pool then it is a fine matter of
judgement between you and Wodney.

With all due respect, if you have nothing to contribute to the subject
of the post, can you perhaps save a bit of bandwidth and find
something else to do.

Your pig ignorance when it comes to the subject of Usenet posting is
showing. Snipping irrelevant content from replies is a skill that even
moody teenagers acquire. If you are going to use a medium for
communication, learn how to use it.

=====================
Q: I saw a long article that I wish to rebut carefully, what should I do?
A: Include the entire text with your article, particularly the signature,
and include your comments closely packed between the lines. Be sure to
post, and not mail, even though your article looks like a reply to the
original. Everybody loves to read those long point-by-point debates,
especially when they evolve into name-calling and lots of "Is too!" -- "Is
not!" -- "Is too, twizot!" exchanges.

Be sure to compare the poster to Adolph Hitler in some way. That's a novel,
underutilized rhetorical technique. In fact, the poster is probably worse
than the Nazis.

Be sure to follow-up everything, and never let another person get in the
last word on a net debate. Why, if people let other people have the last
word, then discussions would actually stop! Remember, other net readers
aren't nearly as clever as you, and if somebody posts something wrong, the
readers can't possibly realize that on their own without your elucidations.
If somebody gets insulting towards you in their net postings, the best
response is to get right down to their level and fire a return salvo. When
I read one net person make an insulting attack on another, I always
immediately take it as gospel unless a rebuttal is posted. It never makes
me think less of the insulter, so it's your duty to respond. Remember, a
net flame battle takes at least two participants, so do your best to make
sure you're one of them.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/emily.html

Sorry, but once again you are completely off topic. Ca I suggest you
take yourself off to a more suitable group to air your views on
usenet.


THIS IS UK. D-I-Y


Perhaps you would be good enough to bear that in mind next time you
wish to put unrelated drivel through the ether!

HN

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...

snip

Perhaps you would be good enough to bear that in mind next time you
wish to put unrelated drivel through the ether!

HN

Why should he? It's exactly what you're doing.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:54:49 +0100, "scorched" wrote:


"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Perhaps you would be good enough to bear that in mind next time you
wish to put unrelated drivel through the ether!

HN

Why should he? It's exactly what you're doing.


No I was expressing opinions on the topic when he barged in spouting
some totally irrelavant drivel. I realise that on two [now three]
occasions I have departed from the subject topic, but this has been
merely to point out to the previous poster, and now yourself of course
that what you are doing wastes bandwidth and contributes not one
miniscule iota of information related to the inital topic.


Shouldn't you start another thread in a more approprate group?

HN

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:54:49 +0100, "scorched" wrote:


"H. Neary" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Perhaps you would be good enough to bear that in mind next time you
wish to put unrelated drivel through the ether!

HN

Why should he? It's exactly what you're doing.

******** snipped to save bandwidth

Shouldn't you start another thread in a more approprate group?

Sounds as though you have the whole potato on your shoulder, sonny Jim.

Why don't you try here - alt.talk.******** or demon.local
T'would suit you a treat since wodney is the master of the subject.
Alternatively, get yourselves a room and argue the toss in there.
HTH.

On 04/06/2012 08:40, ARWadsworth wrote:
He has been suspended because a cocky little gob****e who was ****ing about
on his phone instead of paying attention has made a complaint. And it
appears that at least one student thinks that the suspension is OTT.



Yes, exactly. The student KNOWS he shouldn't have been on his phone but
still went on it.

--
David

On 03/06/2012 21:21, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
waves
It missed and clonked the idiot behind.

Well, if he had been paying attention he'd have ducked too!

Not allowed any more though. It _would_ be assault, and probably end of
career.

Andy

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:42:12 +0100, "scorched" wrote:


"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 12:54:49 +0100, "scorched" wrote:


"H. Neary" wrote in message
...

snip

Perhaps you would be good enough to bear that in mind next time you
wish to put unrelated drivel through the ether!

HN

Why should he? It's exactly what you're doing.

******** snipped to save bandwidth

Shouldn't you start another thread in a more approprate group?

Sounds as though you have the whole potato on your shoulder, sonny Jim.

Why don't you try here - alt.talk.******** or demon.local
T'would suit you a treat since wodney is the master of the subject.
Alternatively, get yourselves a room and argue the toss in there.
HTH.

Could I point out to you that I was discussing a topic directly
related to the group when yourself and the other newsgroup expert
butted in.

I have no "chip on my shoulder". I am just pointing out [helpfully I
hope], that the pair of you are well off topic.

Now I haven't been insulting, used bad language or been critical of
others personalities. I have just stated a couple of opinions on a
subject in the hope of either seeing where my opinion maybe flawed, or
maybe shedding light on what's right and wrong to the less mentally
agile of the group.

It is a low trick to tackle a subject you do not agree with or
understand with a load of garbage about bandwidth and usenet
formalities.


If you really want to hit the gutter you may wish to run everything
through a spellchecker.

BTW It's Sunny Jim. Not being critical you understand, but you seem a
bit of a stickler!


HN

gremlin_95 wrote:
On 04/06/2012 08:40, ARWadsworth wrote:
He has been suspended because a cocky little gob****e who was
****ing about on his phone instead of paying attention has made a
complaint. And it appears that at least one student thinks that the
suspension is OTT.

Yes, exactly. The student KNOWS he shouldn't have been on his phone
but still went on it.

Had that been one our our apprentices doing that while they were at college
they would soon be in the bosses office getting a written warning (and a
good bollocking).

--
Adam

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:
Then you could never have an apprentice then. They always **** up
even after repeated instructions.

I'd have thought with the current high unemployment you'd have a big
choice of applicants for an apprenticeship. Sounds like those choosing
them don't know what they're doing.

Choose them based on what? They are 16 year old school leavers.

The ability to pass exams (especially the ****e they take these days) means
nothing.

If I am choosing an apprentice then if they have not already got a job or
have done a part time job whilst at school then I am not interested. Even
paper lad will do.

--
Adam

hugh wrote:
In message , tony sayer
writes
Well its in apprentices best interests to check, after all its
his "licence" that will get the blame, driver responsible for
the condition of his vehicle.

Commendable to see that Adam is enforcing these checks.....

I have my own van. I would not let those daft little *******s
check it.
No Adam, for their benefit otherwise who will they learn;?..

After all what happens to young drivers?, they get "past" the test
get a car and who teaches them anything else?...

Usually the next brick wall/tree/hedge.

That does not mean they will learn from it:-)

--
Adam

Rod Speed wrote:
jgharston wrote
ARWadsworth wrote

1. Not doing the weekly vehicle checks [1] properly
and letting vans go out with bald tyres.

A good habit I've got into is to do a once-over every time I get
fuel.

They don't go bald quickly enough to warrant checking that often IMO.

But you are refering to your car. And you probably take care of it and know
how it runs.

These are company vans that they are checking. No driver will ever own up to
kerbing the van and knocking out the tracking (someone else did it). It does
not take long for bad tracking to scrub tyres and make the tyres illegal.

You also probably know if the engine burns a little oil and needs a litre
top up every 20000 miles. These pillocks will run the enginge until it
siezes up due to lack of oil or water. They will never look at the dash
warning lights or temperature gauge. They do not care as it is not their
van.


--
Adam

In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 03/06/2012 21:21, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
waves
It missed and clonked the idiot behind.

Well, if he had been paying attention he'd have ducked too!

Not allowed any more though. It _would_ be assault, and probably end
of career.

Yes. This has moved on to where physically restraining a child may lead
to an investigation.

At a rural primary school, we were all aware of the cane which lived in
the headmaster's cupboard. Class teacher might resort to a whack across
the palm with a wooden rule.

At secondary (county grammar) caning across the rump was permitted and
generally preferred to a Saturday morning detention.
Wooden backed board rubbers were occasionally thrown. The highlight of a
woodwork lesson was the master smashing a lath across a bench top when
the hubbub got too loud:-)

On language, I find it adapts to suit the company kept.

I suspect Adam's reported activities are slightly coloured to suit the
audience:-)

regards
--
Tim Lamb

On 04/06/2012 12:50, H. Neary wrote:

Sorry, but once again you are completely off topic. Ca I suggest you
take yourself off to a more suitable group to air your views on
usenet.


THIS IS UK. D-I-Y


Perhaps you would be good enough to bear that in mind next time you
wish to put unrelated drivel through the ether!

Hello Mr. Kettle, this is Mr. Pot here....


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:42:12 +0100, "scorched" wrote:

I have no "chip on my shoulder". I am just pointing out [helpfully I
hope], that the pair of you are well off topic.

Now I haven't been insulting, used bad language or been critical of
others personalities. I have just stated a couple of opinions on a
subject in the hope of either seeing where my opinion maybe flawed, or
maybe shedding light on what's right and wrong to the less mentally
agile of the group.

Do you consider me as one of the less mentally agile?

--
Adam

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:24:11 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:42:12 +0100, "scorched" wrote:

I have no "chip on my shoulder". I am just pointing out [helpfully I
hope], that the pair of you are well off topic.

Now I haven't been insulting, used bad language or been critical of
others personalities. I have just stated a couple of opinions on a
subject in the hope of either seeing where my opinion maybe flawed, or
maybe shedding light on what's right and wrong to the less mentally
agile of the group.

Do you consider me as one of the less mentally agile?

I'm sure youre capabilities are only exceeded by a DEC VAX. I'm glad
to have shown you how wrong it is to assault people.

I trust you will not molest your colleagues again?

HN