H. Neary wrote:


Sorry, but once again you are completely off topic.

No, not at all. Educating newbies in the correct use of Usenet is always
on topic since, if the newbie has a clue, they will understand the
message, adjust their ways slightly and fit in with the community. This
overall saves bandwidth, is generally helpful to the few users we have
who cannot read through reams of over-quoted text and shows some
willingness to get on as a good net citizen.

Of course there are always some idiots who are clue resistant. Rod Speed
is one such, it looks as if you are self certifying as another.

Ca I suggest you take yourself off to a more suitable group to air your
views on usenet.

Ca I sugges tha yo lear ho t pos t Usene?


THIS IS UK. D-I-Y

No it's not.

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

Perhaps you'd be good enough to chew down on one of my enormous turds
and choke yourself to death?

On this instance my desktop computer kill file seems to have realised
that you're a brainless **** and has automatically added you to a list.
That means either (a) you're some morphing troll or (b) you are clueless
and your posts have been detected by some heuristic that decides to
killfile by trollish behaviour.

Whatever.

H. Neary wrote:

No I was expressing opinions on the topic when he barged in spouting
some totally irrelavant drivel.

You were busy flaming Rod Speed, which is not "opinions on the topic".
Now I have no objection to someone flaming Rod Speed, but I do object to
someone being so stupid that they quote all of the preceding 20-30 posts
in a thread to add a lame flame of a couple of lines. Hence the polite
message pointing out that you need to find, and use, the delete key from
time to time.

However you have now clarified, if clarification were needed, that you
are one of those brainless ****s who thinks that he can do no wrong.
Many thanks for the information, I hope that in the future your
braincell finds a friend.

H. Neary wrote:

Now I haven't been insulting, used bad language or been critical of
others personalities.

Do you expect to get a badge for that?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:17:26 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:

Now I haven't been insulting, used bad language or been critical of
others personalities.

Do you expect to get a badge for that?

No! It's my normal approach. You are still wasting bandwidth BTW!


HN

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
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
m...

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 see, so I'm off topic but you can continue to type crap about assault in a
diy group.

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

I can see it from here.

**** snipped

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.

You started the bandwidth crap, kiddo.

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

Pfffffffffft.

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

Oh boy, we have another dickhead guys.
Of all the newsgroups in oyl the woyld, wtf do they choose this one?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:17:26 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:

No I was expressing opinions on the topic when he barged in spouting
some totally irrelavant drivel.

You were busy flaming Rod Speed, which is not "opinions on the topic".
Now I have no objection to someone flaming Rod Speed, but I do object to
someone being so stupid that they quote all of the preceding 20-30 posts
in a thread to add a lame flame of a couple of lines. Hence the polite
message pointing out that you need to find, and use, the delete key from
time to time.

However you have now clarified, if clarification were needed, that you
are one of those brainless ****s who thinks that he can do no wrong.
Many thanks for the information, I hope that in the future your
braincell finds a friend.

Off topic! You obviously did not follow the thread.

I really do think you do a diservice to the newsgroup when you have to
stoop to the gutter to find the words to communicate.

If you must waste bandwith, I would consider it a personal favour if
you discontinued your use of profanity.

I do hope your demons leave you.

Forgiveness & best wishes


HN

H. Neary wrote:
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.

You have not shown or taught me anything other than that fact you are a wet
who thinks poking a student in the ribs for ****ing about on a mobile phone
instead of studying is assault.


I trust you will not molest your colleagues again?

They are not my colleagues. They are apprentices. And a punch in the
******** is not the same thing as molesting.

A punch in the ******** is probably assault. But guess what? I already knew
that and I do not care.

I can drag lads from the gutter and turn them into qualified electricians.
You cannot do that by being nice to them.

You can live in your nice fairy tale world of polite teens that want to
learn and never do anythng wrong and I will live in the real world where I
have sometimes have to pick them up from the police station on a Sunday
morning to take them home.


--
Adam

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...

Off topic! You obviously did not follow the thread.

I really do think you do a diservice to the newsgroup when you have to
stoop to the gutter to find the words to communicate.

If you must waste bandwith, I would consider it a personal favour if
you discontinued your use of profanity.

I do hope your demons leave you.

Forgiveness & best wishes


HN

It's a nice try Horace, but you just over-trolled yourself.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:09:50 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:


Sorry, but once again you are completely off topic.

No, not at all. Educating newbies in the correct use of Usenet is always
on topic since, if the newbie has a clue, they will understand the
message, adjust their ways slightly and fit in with the community. This
overall saves bandwidth, is generally helpful to the few users we have
who cannot read through reams of over-quoted text and shows some
willingness to get on as a good net citizen.

Of course there are always some idiots who are clue resistant. Rod Speed
is one such, it looks as if you are self certifying as another.

Ca I suggest you take yourself off to a more suitable group to air your
views on usenet.

Ca I sugges tha yo lear ho t pos t Usene?


THIS IS UK. D-I-Y

No it's not.

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

Perhaps you'd be good enough to chew down on one of my enormous turds
and choke yourself to death?

On this instance my desktop computer kill file seems to have realised
that you're a brainless **** and has automatically added you to a list.
That means either (a) you're some morphing troll or (b) you are clueless
and your posts have been detected by some heuristic that decides to
killfile by trollish behaviour.

Whatever.

I'll bet it hasn't!


You are still off topic BTW.

If I can make a small suggestion, chill out, use English and bear in
mind that excrement has little to do with the original post's.

[ It was apprentices, testicles 110V transformers and college
lecturers]

It may not be too late to enter a sensible dicussion if you get your
act in order.

HN

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:32:10 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
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.

You have not shown or taught me anything other than that fact you are a wet
who thinks poking a student in the ribs for ****ing about on a mobile phone
instead of studying is assault.


I trust you will not molest your colleagues again?

They are not my colleagues. They are apprentices. And a punch in the
******** is not the same thing as molesting.

A punch in the ******** is probably assault. But guess what? I already knew
that and I do not care.

I can drag lads from the gutter and turn them into qualified electricians.
You cannot do that by being nice to them.

You can live in your nice fairy tale world of polite teens that want to
learn and never do anythng wrong and I will live in the real world where I
have sometimes have to pick them up from the police station on a Sunday
morning to take them home.

Screws you for the nuclear and MOD sites then.

Why not pay a bit more for some quality staff?

God help your clients if you fob them off with people that can't be
trusted.

Does it worry you when you remove a JB lid and see whats inside?

Little surprises inside JB's and panels are the reason why I work with
good reliable staff.

My apprentices were definitely colleagues BTW. We all worked for the
same goals. I don't even think pay was the motivating factor, they
were paid a pittance.

HN




HN

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:22:38 +0100, "scorched" wrote:


"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .
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
om...

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 see, so I'm off topic but you can continue to type crap about assault in a
diy group.

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

I can see it from here.

**** snipped

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.

You started the bandwidth crap, kiddo.

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

Pfffffffffft.

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

Oh boy, we have another dickhead guys.
Of all the newsgroups in oyl the woyld, wtf do they choose this one?

I find it difficult to comprehend why you continue to post off topic
rubbish that has no place in this NG.

I don't want to arge but I think it is youself that was responsible
for the original waste of bandwidth.


Shouldn't the "k" in "kiddo" be upper case.

Not a criticism BTW, only trying to assist.

HN

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...

snip

I find it difficult to comprehend why you continue to post off topic
rubbish that has no place in this NG.

I'm sure we all wonder why you do it to.

I don't want to arge but I think it is youself that was responsible
for the original waste of bandwidth.

Nope, you'll find that you started that stupidity, do a search, I can't be
arsed to.

Shouldn't the "k" in "kiddo" be upper case.
Not a criticism BTW, only trying to assist.

Does anyone care?

Sorry Horace, you're over-trolling at each post now.
Shame.

H. Neary wrote:


I don't want to arge

Nowt wrong with a good arge.


but I think it is youself that was responsible

Who is Yousef?

for the original waste of bandwidth.

No that's you.

Shouldn't the "k" in "kiddo" be upper case.

If the P in prick us something that should be taken.

Not a criticism BTW, only trying to assist.

Gosh but you're full of ****.

H. Neary wrote:
[snip]

On this instance my desktop computer kill file seems to have realised
that you're a brainless **** and has automatically added you to a list.
That means either (a) you're some morphing troll or (b) you are clueless
and your posts have been detected by some heuristic that decides to
killfile by trollish behaviour.

Whatever.

I'll bet it hasn't!

You would lose your bet.

You are still off topic BTW.

So what? You were off topic from your first post. It doesn't seem to bother
you.

If I can make a small suggestion,

No, you may not.

chill out, use English

You appear to need English lessons.

In questo momento, vaffanculo, piccolo cazzo.

and bear in
mind that excrement has little to do with the original post's.

The original post's what?

[ It was apprentices, testicles 110V transformers and college
lecturers]

None of that subject matter concerns diy.

It may not be too late to enter a sensible dicussion if you get your
act in order.

yawn

H. Neary wrote:
[snip]

Off topic! You obviously did not follow the thread.

I followed it. You have been off topic ever since your first post. Of
course you're one of those knobheads who can never, ever admit fault.

I really do think you do a diservice to the newsgroup when you have to
stoop to the gutter to find the words to communicate.

Do you? Who died and made you censor?

If you must waste bandwith, I would consider it a personal favour if
you discontinued your use of profanity.

You can **** right off.

I do hope your demons leave you.

I have none. You OTOH appear to have a shed load of problems.

Forgiveness & best wishes

Shove it, I didn't ask for and have no need of your forgiveness you tedious
****.

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:17:26 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:

Now I haven't been insulting, used bad language or been critical of
others personalities.

Do you expect to get a badge for that?

No! It's my normal approach. You are still wasting bandwidth BTW!

I see, when I reply to a post it is wasting bandwidth. When you reply with
an off topic rant reposting reams of previous posts it is acceptable.
Perhaps you should remove your head from the orifice through which you
speak and smell the coffee ?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

It'd be interesting to know if that is actually true or not.

Sounds like those choosing them don't know what they're doing.

Or it’s a lot harder to work out which of the applicants for
the apprenticeships arent as bad as that than you might think.

There is a real sense in which apprenticeships are a way of sorting
out the hopeless from the not so bad and its far from clear that
there is actually a better way of doing that even when you do
have a high level of unemployment amongst those applying.

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



"H. Neary" wrote in message
news:gnpms75gaku8bqm35mlri4kc2oi0j6kbm2@4ax. com...
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.

Only to fools who don't even realise that it aint physical assault.

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

Leaves yours for dead.

H. Neary wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:32:10 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
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.

You have not shown or taught me anything other than that fact you
are a wet who thinks poking a student in the ribs for ****ing about
on a mobile phone instead of studying is assault.


I trust you will not molest your colleagues again?

They are not my colleagues. They are apprentices. And a punch in the
******** is not the same thing as molesting.

A punch in the ******** is probably assault. But guess what? I
already knew that and I do not care.

I can drag lads from the gutter and turn them into qualified
electricians. You cannot do that by being nice to them.

You can live in your nice fairy tale world of polite teens that
want to learn and never do anythng wrong and I will live in the
real world where I have sometimes have to pick them up from the
police station on a Sunday morning to take them home.

Screws you for the nuclear and MOD sites then.

Sure about that? I have worked on MOD sites.

Why not pay a bit more for some quality staff?


You are a thick daft ****. The reason I made the original post was because
it was about apprentices and not about quality staff.

Did you miss that bit? The clue is in the header.

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote
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.

True, good points.

But its not clear if he was talking about work vans or his own personal car.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:17:26 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

H. Neary wrote:

Now I haven't been insulting, used bad language or been critical of
others personalities.

Do you expect to get a badge for that?

He can have one for being a po-faced moraliser!

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:37:59 +0100, H. Neary wrote:

You are still off topic BTW.

If I can make a small suggestion, chill out, use English and bear in
mind that excrement has little to do with the original post's.

If you're going to go on about spelling, get it right yourself.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:37:59 +0100, H. Neary wrote:

It may not be too late to enter a sensible dicussion if you get your act
in order.

If you're going to go on about spelling, get it right yourself.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:29:32 +0100, H. Neary wrote:

I really do think you do a diservice to the newsgroup when you have to
stoop to the gutter to find the words to communicate.

Spelling.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:57:18 +0100, H. Neary wrote:

I don't want to arge but I think it is youself that was responsible for
the original waste of bandwidth.

Spelling * 2. Perhaps you're losing your cool.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:32:10 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
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.

You have not shown or taught me anything other than that fact you are a
wet
who thinks poking a student in the ribs for ****ing about on a mobile
phone
instead of studying is assault.


I trust you will not molest your colleagues again?

They are not my colleagues. They are apprentices. And a punch in the
******** is not the same thing as molesting.

A punch in the ******** is probably assault. But guess what? I already
knew
that and I do not care.

I can drag lads from the gutter and turn them into qualified electricians.
You cannot do that by being nice to them.

You can live in your nice fairy tale world of polite teens that want to
learn and never do anythng wrong and I will live in the real world where I
have sometimes have to pick them up from the police station on a Sunday
morning to take them home.

Screws you for the nuclear and MOD sites then.

Bet that will see him hang himself for sure.

He might just have a criminal record himself.

Why not pay a bit more for some quality staff?

Because paying a bit more is unlikely to get that.

God help your clients if you fob them
off with people that can't be trusted.

You sure he can be trusted himself ?

Does it worry you when you remove a JB lid and see whats inside?

Little surprises inside JB's and panels are the
reason why I work with good reliable staff.

Your hangups are problem.

My apprentices were definitely colleagues BTW.
We all worked for the same goals.

Unlikely that's true of the worst of his.

I don't even think pay was the motivating
factor, they were paid a pittance.

So your previous cant fly.

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:57:18 +0100, H. Neary wrote:

I don't want to arge but I think it is youself that was responsible for
the original waste of bandwidth.

Spelling * 2. Perhaps you're losing your cool.

Or just ****ed.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:10:39 +0100, H. Neary
wrote:

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

Perhaps you pair of inconsiderate arseholes might like to snip, eh?

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 18:32:10 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

You can live in your nice fairy tale world of polite teens that want to
learn

Assuming it's real that is, and not just some made-up fantasy world.

On 03/06/2012 17:21, ARWadsworth wrote:


I set the apprentices tasks and challenges that mean they have to think for
themselves instead of me just wiping their arses.

We had a lecturer like that his favourite saying was "I am not a
teacher, I facilitate your learning" His idea of lectures (when he did
lecture) was to give out "you must know sheets" then tell us to learn
things[1], from Google and other computer sources ( we were studying
computer networking), whilst he "played" on his computer whilst
listening to Classic FM. That approach does not engender feelings of I
have PROPERLY learned how to do that It just produces I hate that *&^%
feelings. There must be a middle road between them doing it all
themselves and "wiping their arses".


I could understand (not accept, understand) this type of attitude
from say 'someone who was teaching to eat whilst writing a novel or
some-such', but this was an older chap who was near retiring.
Definately any teaching fire had gone out of him and he was just
'marking time' until retirement

I was an older student and was paying for this course myself. I often
thought 'why the F' am I paying for this course, I could sit in the
house and use Google to teach myself this stuff.


[1] Equivalent to someone telling an apprentice "by next week you must
be able too wire up a hankle box" then no one actually telling them how
to do it them having to watch a how to vid on youtube and/or reading an
article on how to do it.

On 02/06/2012 17:54, ARWadsworth wrote:


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


Good job my son isn't your apprentice (he is an apprentice mechanic)
he would punch your lights out. He is a black belt in Tae Kwon-Do and
is 6'2" and although quite slim he is muscled. That bit would be put
down to self defence, then he would sue (and win, physically assualting
apprentices for not learning quick enough went out with workhouses).

On 03/06/2012 13:24, ARWadsworth wrote:

Poking someone who is messing on their phone instead of learning is not
assault.

Is smashing them over the head with a baseball bat assault?
Is throwing a duster (board wiper)at them assualt?
Is smacking their knuckles with a ruler assualt?
It seems, to me, to be a question of line drawing and in this case that
line appears to have been drawn at physical contact. In this particular
case there seems to be a "grow up" element to it but the student WAS
assaulted, if indedd the line had been drawn at physical contact.

soup wrote:
On 03/06/2012 13:24, ARWadsworth wrote:

Poking someone who is messing on their phone instead of learning is not
assault.

Is smashing them over the head with a baseball bat assault?
Is throwing a duster (board wiper)at them assualt?
Is smacking their knuckles with a ruler assualt?
It seems, to me, to be a question of line drawing and in this case that
line appears to have been drawn at physical contact. In this particular
case there seems to be a "grow up" element to it but the student WAS
assaulted, if indedd the line had been drawn at physical contact.

The normal test applied by the court is "Would this contact be expected
to cause physical harm?". That's for what is correctly termed battery.
Assault does not necessarily imply physical contact. Unfortunately,
there is a modern tendency to call both things assault.

One relevant case involves the statement "If this were not assize time,
I would punch you". The prosecution for assault failed, because it was,
in fact, assize time. Had those words been said the previous or
following weeks, then the prosecution would have succeeded, as they were
not "assize time".

So, for the baseball bat case, yes that is battery, as the intention
would be to cause physical harm, for the blackboard duster, possibly, if
it was aimed directly at the victim and hit them, and not just nearby in
order to scare them while hitting them accidentally, the ruler case
would depend on whether there was a bruise or other physical damage by
the contact.

The place where this happened may have other rules, which could override
the legal definition, for instance, punching someone in the face at a
nightclub would be battery, but exactly the same punch thrown in a
boxing ring would not.

The college where the incident mentioned in the original post is said to
have taken place may have a policy on place forbidding all physical
contact between staff and students, in which case the college rules
apply, even though, legally, there was no assault or battery.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
soup wrote:
On 03/06/2012 13:24, ARWadsworth wrote:

Poking someone who is messing on their phone instead of learning is not
assault.

Is smashing them over the head with a baseball bat assault?
Is throwing a duster (board wiper)at them assualt?
Is smacking their knuckles with a ruler assualt?
It seems, to me, to be a question of line drawing and in this case
that line appears to have been drawn at physical contact. In this
particular case there seems to be a "grow up" element to it but the
student WAS assaulted, if indedd the line had been drawn at physical
contact.

The normal test applied by the court is "Would this contact be expected
to cause physical harm?". That's for what is correctly termed battery.
Assault does not necessarily imply physical contact. Unfortunately,
there is a modern tendency to call both things assault.

One relevant case involves the statement "If this were not assize time,
I would punch you". The prosecution for assault failed, because it was,
in fact, assize time. Had those words been said the previous or
following weeks, then the prosecution would have succeeded, as they were
not "assize time".

So, for the baseball bat case, yes that is battery, as the intention
would be to cause physical harm, for the blackboard duster, possibly, if
it was aimed directly at the victim and hit them, and not just nearby in
order to scare them while hitting them accidentally, the ruler case
would depend on whether there was a bruise or other physical damage by
the contact.

The place where this happened may have other rules, which could override
the legal definition, for instance, punching someone in the face at a
nightclub would be battery, but exactly the same punch thrown in a
boxing ring would not.

The college where the incident mentioned in the original post is said to
have taken place may have a policy on place forbidding all physical
contact between staff and students, in which case the college rules
apply, even though, legally, there was no assault or battery.

Wonderful quote in the DT blogs today, 'when teaching children to tell
the time the correct answer to 'what time is it, when the big hand is
over the little hand?' is 'time to call in the police to arrest the
maths teacher'


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

In message , soup writes
On 03/06/2012 13:24, ARWadsworth wrote:

Poking someone who is messing on their phone instead of learning is not
assault.

Is smashing them over the head with a baseball bat assault?
No, of course not.
Is throwing a duster (board wiper)at them assualt?
Not if you miss
Is smacking their knuckles with a ruler assualt?
May be but that's not the same as assault.
It seems, to me, to be a question of line drawing and in this case that
line appears to have been drawn at physical contact. In this
particular case there seems to be a "grow up" element to it but the
student WAS assaulted, if indedd the line had been drawn at physical
contact.




Don't know what an indedd line is or how to draw one.
--
hugh

soup wrote:
On 02/06/2012 17:54, ARWadsworth wrote:


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


Good job my son isn't your apprentice (he is an apprentice mechanic)
he would punch your lights out. He is a black belt in Tae Kwon-Do
and is 6'2" and although quite slim he is muscled. That bit would be
put down to self defence, then he would sue (and win, physically
assualting apprentices for not learning quick enough went out with
workhouses).

Is your son a thick **** who cannot plug an extension lead in?

--
Adam

soup wrote:
On 03/06/2012 17:21, ARWadsworth wrote:


I set the apprentices tasks and challenges that mean they have to
think for themselves instead of me just wiping their arses.

We had a lecturer like that his favourite saying was "I am not a
teacher, I facilitate your learning" His idea of lectures (when he did
lecture) was to give out "you must know sheets" then tell us to learn
things[1], from Google and other computer sources ( we were studying
computer networking), whilst he "played" on his computer whilst
listening to Classic FM. That approach does not engender feelings of
I have PROPERLY learned how to do that It just produces I hate that
*&^% feelings. There must be a middle road between them doing it all
themselves and "wiping their arses".

That is what I hope I provide. I ask them to work out their own solution to
a problem and then tell me what it is. If it is a workable solution I might
let them do it before showing them a better way (depending on how wrong or
destructive their solution is). And sometimes they come up with a better
solution than mine. I will listen to them.

--
Adam

John Williamson wrote:
soup wrote:
On 03/06/2012 13:24, ARWadsworth wrote:

Poking someone who is messing on their phone instead of learning
is not assault.

Is smashing them over the head with a baseball bat assault?
Is throwing a duster (board wiper)at them assualt?
Is smacking their knuckles with a ruler assualt?
It seems, to me, to be a question of line drawing and in this case
that line appears to have been drawn at physical contact. In this
particular case there seems to be a "grow up" element to it but the
student WAS assaulted, if indedd the line had been drawn at
physical contact.
The normal test applied by the court is "Would this contact be
expected to cause physical harm?". That's for what is correctly
termed battery. Assault does not necessarily imply physical contact.
Unfortunately, there is a modern tendency to call both things assault.

One relevant case involves the statement "If this were not assize
time, I would punch you". The prosecution for assault failed, because
it was, in fact, assize time. Had those words been said the previous
or following weeks, then the prosecution would have succeeded, as
they were not "assize time".

So, for the baseball bat case, yes that is battery, as the intention
would be to cause physical harm, for the blackboard duster, possibly,
if it was aimed directly at the victim and hit them, and not just
nearby in order to scare them while hitting them accidentally, the
ruler case would depend on whether there was a bruise or other
physical damage by the contact.

The place where this happened may have other rules, which could
override the legal definition, for instance, punching someone in the
face at a nightclub would be battery, but exactly the same punch
thrown in a boxing ring would not.

The college where the incident mentioned in the original post is said
to have taken place may have a policy on place forbidding all physical
contact between staff and students, in which case the college rules
apply, even though, legally, there was no assault or battery.

How would you shake hands with the teacher as you finish your course and he
wishes you "all the best for the fututre"?

And yes, I know the rules are there to stop male teachers knobbing the 17
year old blonde with the short skirt:-)

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
The college where the incident mentioned in the original post is said
to have taken place may have a policy on place forbidding all physical
contact between staff and students, in which case the college rules
apply, even though, legally, there was no assault or battery.

How would you shake hands with the teacher as you finish your course and he
wishes you "all the best for the fututre"?

You could both believe that as the course had finished, you were no
longer a student?

And yes, I know the rules are there to stop male teachers knobbing the 17
year old blonde with the short skirt:-)

Or, in some cases, the 14 year old blonde with the big b***s and low
slung jeans.

Unfortunately, common sense as used to be applied to many things isn't
so common lately.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 06/06/2012 12:39, soup wrote:
Good job my son isn't your apprentice (he is an apprentice mechanic)
he would punch your lights out. He is a black belt in Tae Kwon-Do and
is 6'2" and although quite slim he is muscled. That bit would be put
down to self defence, then he would sue (and win, physically assualting
apprentices for not learning quick enough went out with workhouses).

Ask him about this.

He'll probably tell you he can't use his skills, because as a trained
person his hands count as a deadly weapon. And also because if he did
in anything but a real emergency no martial arts group of any sort would
ever have anything to do with him.

Andy
--
Glad I proof read that. I got the t and the i in martial the wrong way
around!