Andy Champ wrote:
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.

Then again, if he's that good, then the blow to the nuts would likely
not have landed in the first place.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
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.

Is

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3575311/A-woman-of-21-had-sex-with-FIVE-schoolboys-in-full-view-of-passing-trains.html

wrong?

--
Adam

ARWadsworth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
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.

Is

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3575311/A-woman-of-21-had-sex-with-FIVE-schoolboys-in-full-view-of-passing-trains.html

wrong?

Factually or morally? ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
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.

Is

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3575311/A-woman-of-21-had-sex-with-FIVE-schoolboys-in-full-view-of-passing-trains.html

wrong?

Factually or morally? ;-)

Factually it cannot be correct as it is in The Sun.

Morally? I have no views on such things as long as you wear a condom.
Probably better not to to do it in public view.


The quote
"A source said after the case: "To the boys it was like all their
Christmases and Easter had come at once - but their parents will probably be
furious. Apparently Armstrong went at it like an express train going through
one after another"

did make me smile.


--
Adam

On 06/06/2012 20:35, ARWadsworth wrote:
The quote "A source said after the case: "To the boys it was like all
their Christmases and Easter had come at once - but their parents will
probably be furious. Apparently Armstrong went at it like an express
train going through one after another" did make me smile.


Especially the last bit, 'like an express train' haha.

--
David

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
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.

Ah, you're just a big pussycat really, underneath it all.
--
hugh

hugh wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth
writes
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.
Ah, you're just a big pussycat really, underneath it all.

Have you seen my claws?

--
Adam

On 2012-06-06, ARWadsworth wrote:

hugh wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth

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.
Ah, you're just a big pussycat really, underneath it all.

Have you seen my claws?

The claws in the apprenticeship contracts?


[getting my coat now]

Adam Funk wrote:
On 2012-06-06, ARWadsworth wrote:

hugh wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth

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.
Ah, you're just a big pussycat really, underneath it all.

Have you seen my claws?

The claws in the apprenticeship contracts?

:-)




--
Adam

In message , Adam Funk
writes
On 2012-06-06, ARWadsworth wrote:

hugh wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth

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.
Ah, you're just a big pussycat really, underneath it all.

Have you seen my claws?

The claws in the apprenticeship contracts?


[getting my coat now]
Escaping by a whisker.
--
hugh

In message , ARWadsworth
writes
hugh wrote:
In message , ARWadsworth
writes
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.
Ah, you're just a big pussycat really, underneath it all.

Have you seen my claws?

I've read in the press this morning that the DG at the BBC has sent
round an e-mail despite the universal criticism of their jubilee
coverage - flotilla in particular - saying what a splendid job everyone
had done.
There in lies the heart of the problem. Mustn't criticise the poor
little dears, you'll upset them and dent their self confidence, and it
starts at school.

Adam for next DG, I say.
--
hugh

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.
Ah, you're just a big pussycat really, underneath it all.

Have you seen my claws?

I've read in the press this morning that the DG at the BBC has sent
round an e-mail despite the universal criticism of their jubilee
coverage - flotilla in particular - saying what a splendid job everyone
had done.

Just shows how self serving and corrupt the BBC have become nowadays(...


There in lies the heart of the problem. Mustn't criticise the poor
little dears, you'll upset them and dent their self confidence, and it
starts at school.

Adam for next DG, I say.

--
Tony Sayer

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.

With regarded to the blackboard duster then football managers do similar

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ying-boot.html

And the boot was thrown at Beckham from a very close range not kicked at
Beckham according to my sources.

--
Adam

tony sayer writes:

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

Not everyone goes to Uni .. some have differing routes in the world....

Longer ago than I care to mention, I saw someone with blood streaming
from his face being thrown bodily by two others, head first, down the
steps outside the Edinburgh University Student Union building.

Academia.......


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:18 +0000, Windmill wrote:

tony sayer writes:

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

Not everyone goes to Uni .. some have differing routes in the world....

Longer ago than I care to mention, I saw someone with blood streaming
from his face being thrown bodily by two others, head first, down the
steps outside the Edinburgh University Student Union building.

Academia.......

Nah, that was the locals getting rid of one of the bouncers...

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

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:00:18 GMT, lid
(Windmill) wrote:

Longer ago than I care to mention, I saw someone with blood streaming
from his face being thrown bodily by two others, head first, down the
steps outside the Edinburgh University Student Union building.

Academia.......

They're hard on 2nd year dossers, up there.

On Jun 2, 12:19*pm, 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.

Sometimes it's quicker to communicate in the nativi langauge of the
individual concerned.

On Jun 2, 10:17*pm, "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?


I was under teh impression that he was ****ed off at having to pay an
apprentice
for not doing the job, at the very least I'd expect an apprentice to
be able to plug something in,
although I do realise I work in a university, but still afater being
told what to do he still couldn't manage it.
We havev enough polititins beiong paid to sit around and do nothing
are we to expect apprentantaces to be the same.
Alan Sugar must be turning in his grave, well if he was dead he
would :-)

whisky-dave wrote:


I was under teh impression that he was ****ed off at having to pay an
apprentice
for not doing the job, at the very least I'd expect an apprentice to
be able to plug something in,
although I do realise I work in a university, but still afater being
told what to do he still couldn't manage it.
We havev enough polititins beiong paid to sit around and do nothing
are we to expect apprentantaces to be the same.
Alan Sugar must be turning in his grave, well if he was dead he
would :-)

"Alan Sugar takes charge of Adam's apprentices for a week".

I'd pay to watch that!
--
Tim Watts

On Jun 3, 12:40*am, "Unbeliever" wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
* ARWadsworth wrote:

[Snip]

Lights are not on the list. It's not needed in this case.

lights on a vehicle have to be in working order - even during
daylight hours.

The lights are not on the check list as we do not need the
apprentices to check them on a weekly basis because of the way the
vans are parked up at night.

Don't really want to **** you off Adam, but obligatory lights, tyres, oil,
horn, water and washer fluid should be checked on a daily basis by the
*driver* whether on a weekly 'list' or not - as your firm and drivers will
find out if the VOSA pulls the vehicles in for a roadside inspection, and if
these are involved in a serious accident and VOSA gets involved, they go
even deeper, and dig rather deeply into the history of the vehicles past
safety inspections (should be done monthly) along with their service and
maintenance records.

I ws think about this soem time agao so when you see the police
rushing about in vans and cars
do teh drivers check before speeding off, same with buses, I knew a
bus driver and he never instecte4d everything
before taking his bus out, but black cab drivers are responsible for
thier cabs.


So just out of curiosity, are the vehicles being checked daily by the
driver, with the weekly 'list' simply being used as a part of a 'training
plan' for the apprentices?

It uis interesting point that as apprentices I don;t think they can be
resonsible legally.
We had that with a builder who let his apprentice forget tpo cover the
whole in teh roof with water
then it rained and the bathroonm cieling fell in. Shoudl teh
apprentice be blamed or teh roofer for not keeping a better check
on the work.


Now from the comments you make here about those apprentices, its surprising
that the more hot-headed of them haven't decided to run a weekly 'hooter
test' and 'modify' your nose with their fist - and I wonder how many of
those comments of yours are actually factual!

yes I doubt physical vilonece would acheive much but it can certainly
be satisfying·l ;-)

On Jun 3, 10:23*am, H. Neary wrote:
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. People are in college to be taught not
poked and prodded. Where does it stop?

A good question but if at college in a lecture should they be using
their phones or not ?


If a lecturer has to resort to a phyusical assault to get a point
across then he is not fit for purpose!

For what purpose.....
few can teach someone while they are chating on the phone so obviously
few leturers, teachers
or preachers can do much when someones on the phone.
In order to teach you really need somneone listening not talking to
someone else,
that is not rocket science.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:19*pm, 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.

Sometimes it's quicker to communicate in the nativi langauge of the
individual concerned.

Methinks if you examine the post's so far,your idea of required
communications skills may be restricted to pokes, grunts and
assaulting genitalia. For the average human though, gifted with an odd
bit of linguistic ability physical contact or even shouting is not
actually neccesary.

Hope this helps

HN

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:54:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:20:54 -0700 (PDT), mike
wrote:

On Jun 2, 8:30 pm, H. Neary 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.

HN

Since you seem (rightly) offended by the notion of assault, how do you
justify insurance fraud?

It isn't insurance fraud.

Corse it is. You don't qualify for a month off work, or even a few days
either.

You are a medical practitioner?

You don't need an ambulance either.


Why?

The HSE have a duty to inspect reportable incidents

But not that sort of thing.

Three days off it's reportable!

and if some criminal assaulted me

He isnt a criminal.


He will be after the court case.

I would take quite a while to recover from the effects.

You poor delicate little flower...

How do you know? Suppose he had sexually assaulted a child or a
pensioner, /Who are you to decide that a pensioner or child is more
entitled to justice and recovery from shock than I? Or is sexual
assault against such people "fair game"?

Just because I can ridicule your points makes me no less sensitive
than any other human being.




I would certainly not want to return to a job where older
men payed unwanted interest in, and interfered with my
genitalia in a hurry.

You poor delicate little flower...

You said that already.


I have never yet seen a contract of employment requiring staff
to take abuse and physical punishment as part of the package.

Have a look at how the military operates sometime...

O/K just stick a reference to show where anyone signing up for the
military has to put up with abuse & assaults from senior staff.

HN

H. Neary wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:19 pm, 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.

Sometimes it's quicker to communicate in the nativi langauge of the
individual concerned.

Methinks if you examine the post's so far,your idea of required
communications skills may be restricted to pokes, grunts and
assaulting genitalia. For the average human though, gifted with an odd
bit of linguistic ability physical contact or even shouting is not
actually neccesary.


Hope this helps

No.



whiskey-dave has hit the nail on the head.


"Sometimes it's quicker to communicate in the native langauge of the
individual concerned"

Can I pinch that one for a sig?


--
Adam

whisky-dave wrote
Clive George wrote
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.

Sometimes it's quicker to communicate in the
nativi langauge of the individual concerned.

And I bet the punch in the balls had a much longer
lasting effect than anything Adam could have said too.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Jun 3, 12:40 am, "Unbeliever" wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:

[Snip]

Lights are not on the list. It's not needed in this case.

lights on a vehicle have to be in working order - even during
daylight hours.

The lights are not on the check list as we do not need the
apprentices to check them on a weekly basis because of the way the
vans are parked up at night.

Don't really want to **** you off Adam, but obligatory lights, tyres,
oil,
horn, water and washer fluid should be checked on a daily basis by the
*driver* whether on a weekly 'list' or not - as your firm and drivers
will
find out if the VOSA pulls the vehicles in for a roadside inspection, and
if
these are involved in a serious accident and VOSA gets involved, they go
even deeper, and dig rather deeply into the history of the vehicles past
safety inspections (should be done monthly) along with their service and
maintenance records.

I ws think about this soem time agao so when you see the police
rushing about in vans and cars
do teh drivers check before speeding off, same with buses, I knew a
bus driver and he never instecte4d everything
before taking his bus out, but black cab drivers are responsible for
thier cabs.


So just out of curiosity, are the vehicles being checked daily by the
driver, with the weekly 'list' simply being used as a part of a 'training
plan' for the apprentices?

It uis interesting point that as apprentices I don;t think they can be
resonsible legally.
We had that with a builder who let his apprentice forget tpo cover the
whole in teh roof with water
then it rained and the bathroonm cieling fell in. Shoudl teh
apprentice be blamed or teh roofer for not keeping a better check
on the work.


Now from the comments you make here about those apprentices, its
surprising
that the more hot-headed of them haven't decided to run a weekly 'hooter
test' and 'modify' your nose with their fist - and I wonder how many of
those comments of yours are actually factual!

yes I doubt physical vilonece would acheive much but it can certainly
be satisfying·l ;-)

Bet punching him in the balls will get him to check things more carefully
next time.

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:19 pm, 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.

Sometimes it's quicker to communicate in the nativi langauge of the
individual concerned.

Methinks if you examine the post's so far,your idea
of required communications skills may be restricted
to pokes, grunts and assaulting genitalia.

Only if you don't have much of a clue.

For the average human though, gifted with
an odd bit of linguistic ability physical contact
or even shouting is not actually necessary.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that physical contact
cant be useful at times.

And its still not assault if you choose to do it that way.

Hope this helps

Not a chance.

"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:54:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:20:54 -0700 (PDT), mike
wrote:

On Jun 2, 8:30 pm, H. Neary 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.

HN

Since you seem (rightly) offended by the notion of assault, how do you
justify insurance fraud?

It isn't insurance fraud.

Corse it is. You don't qualify for a month off work, or even a few days
either.

You are a medical practitioner?

Don't need to be, and you certainly arent one anyway
and proclaimed that that's what you would do if that was
done to you, without actually knowing anything about
what was actually done in the situation being discussed.

You don't need an ambulance either.

Why?

Because he clearly didn't need one.

The HSE have a duty to inspect reportable incidents

But not that sort of thing.

Three days off it's reportable!

He didn't get 3 days off.

and if some criminal assaulted me

He isnt a criminal.

He will be after the court case.

There wont be any court case except
when you are convicted of fraud.

I would take quite a while to recover from the effects.

You poor delicate little flower...

How do you know?

That stands out like dogs balls.

Suppose he had sexually assaulted a child or a pensioner,

He didn't.

Who are you to decide that a pensioner or child is
more entitled to justice and recovery from shock than I?

Anyone is.

Or is sexual assault against such people "fair game"?

Calling it sexual assault doesn't make it sexual assault.

Just because I can ridicule your points

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

makes me no less sensitive than any other human being.

You poor delicate little flower...

I would certainly not want to return to a job where older
men payed unwanted interest in, and interfered with my
genitalia in a hurry.

You poor delicate little flower...

You said that already.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket
scientist poor delicate little flowers ?

I have never yet seen a contract of employment requiring staff
to take abuse and physical punishment as part of the package.

Have a look at how the military operates sometime...

O/K just stick a reference to show where anyone signing up for
the military has to put up with abuse & assaults from senior staff.

Even you should be able to do better than than
pathetic effort, you poor delicate little flower...

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:14:39 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:54:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:20:54 -0700 (PDT), mike
wrote:

On Jun 2, 8:30 pm, H. Neary 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.

HN

Since you seem (rightly) offended by the notion of assault, how do you
justify insurance fraud?

It isn't insurance fraud.

Corse it is. You don't qualify for a month off work, or even a few days
either.

You are a medical practitioner?

Don't need to be, and you certainly arent one anyway
and proclaimed that that's what you would do if that was
done to you, without actually knowing anything about
what was actually done in the situation being discussed.


You were there?


You don't need an ambulance either.

Why?

Because he clearly didn't need one.

Why? What were his injuries?





The HSE have a duty to inspect reportable incidents

But not that sort of thing.

Three days off it's reportable!

He didn't get 3 days off.

and if some criminal assaulted me

He isnt a criminal.

He will be after the court case.

There wont be any court case except
when you are convicted of fraud.

I would take quite a while to recover from the effects.

You poor delicate little flower...

How do you know?

That stands out like dogs balls.

Suppose he had sexually assaulted a child or a pensioner,

He didn't.

Who are you to decide that a pensioner or child is
more entitled to justice and recovery from shock than I?

Anyone is.

Or is sexual assault against such people "fair game"?

Calling it sexual assault doesn't make it sexual assault.

Just because I can ridicule your points

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

makes me no less sensitive than any other human being.

You poor delicate little flower...

I would certainly not want to return to a job where older
men payed unwanted interest in, and interfered with my
genitalia in a hurry.

You poor delicate little flower...

You said that already.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket
scientist poor delicate little flowers ?

I have never yet seen a contract of employment requiring staff
to take abuse and physical punishment as part of the package.

Have a look at how the military operates sometime...

O/K just stick a reference to show where anyone signing up for
the military has to put up with abuse & assaults from senior staff.

Even you should be able to do better than than
pathetic effort, you poor delicate little flower...

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 16:03:52 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"H. Neary" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:09:51 -0700 (PDT), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Jun 2, 12:19 pm, 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.

Sometimes it's quicker to communicate in the nativi langauge of the
individual concerned.

Methinks if you examine the post's so far,your idea
of required communications skills may be restricted
to pokes, grunts and assaulting genitalia.

Only if you don't have much of a clue.

I rest my case. I'm so glad you saw the light.

For the average human though, gifted with
an odd bit of linguistic ability physical contact
or even shouting is not actually necessary.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that physical contact
cant be useful at times.

And its still not assault if you choose to do it that way.


Oh dear the light has dimmed.

HN


Hope this helps

Not a chance.

On 09/06/2012 12:20, H. Neary wrote:

Oh dear the light has dimmed.

From your attitude on this subject, I take it you've never hugged your
girlfriend, as that would, by your theory, be an assault. I would also
assume that when she initiated a hug, that you initiated proceedings
alleging assault and battery.

Also, according to the principles you expound in your postings in this
thread, I am certain you have no children.

The basic point, which you seem to miss totally, is that according to
British Law, assault and battery *do not exist* unless there is an
intention or feared intention to cause an *illegal physical harm* to the
person being touched. Poking with a finger, unless directed at the
eyeballs, would completely fail this test.

Welcome to the Bozo Bin.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

whisky-dave wrote:
On Jun 3, 12:40 am, "Unbeliever" wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
ARWadsworth wrote:

[Snip]

Lights are not on the list. It's not needed in this case.

lights on a vehicle have to be in working order - even during
daylight hours.

The lights are not on the check list as we do not need the
apprentices to check them on a weekly basis because of the way the
vans are parked up at night.

Don't really want to **** you off Adam, but obligatory lights,
tyres, oil, horn, water and washer fluid should be checked on a
daily basis by the *driver* whether on a weekly 'list' or not - as
your firm and drivers will find out if the VOSA pulls the vehicles
in for a roadside inspection, and if these are involved in a
serious accident and VOSA gets involved, they go even deeper, and
dig rather deeply into the history of the vehicles past safety
inspections (should be done monthly) along with their service and
maintenance records.

I ws think about this soem time agao so when you see the police
rushing about in vans and cars
do teh drivers check before speeding off, same with buses, I knew a
bus driver and he never instecte4d everything
before taking his bus out, but black cab drivers are responsible for
thier cabs.


So just out of curiosity, are the vehicles being checked daily by
the driver, with the weekly 'list' simply being used as a part of a
'training plan' for the apprentices?

It uis interesting point that as apprentices I don;t think they can be
resonsible legally.
We had that with a builder who let his apprentice forget tpo cover the
whole in teh roof with water
then it rained and the bathroonm cieling fell in. Shoudl teh
apprentice be blamed or teh roofer for not keeping a better check
on the work.

Tthe apprentice is not legally responsible if someone else drives a van with
bald tyres that the appentice has claimed to have checked. By law it's the
drivers job to check their own van before they use it. However the
apprentices often drive the vans. And they would quite happily drive them
with bald tyres and the low oil level light showing on the dashboard etc.

If an apprentice was to be caught with bald tyres the firm could produce the
report sheets to show who checked the vans. It stops them claiming the firm
was responsible for making them drive a faulty van.

If an electrician is caught with bald tyres then that is his problem. He
knows better.



--
Adam

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:52:10 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/06/2012 12:20, H. Neary wrote:

Oh dear the light has dimmed.

From your attitude on this subject, I take it you've never hugged your
girlfriend, as that would, by your theory, be an assault. I would also
assume that when she initiated a hug, that you initiated proceedings
alleging assault and battery.

Also, according to the principles you expound in your postings in this
thread, I am certain you have no children.

The basic point, which you seem to miss totally, is that according to
British Law, assault and battery *do not exist* unless there is an
intention or feared intention to cause an *illegal physical harm* to the
person being touched. Poking with a finger, unless directed at the
eyeballs, would completely fail this test.

Welcome to the Bozo Bin.

It causes mental harm. You do not poke someone out of respect do you.
It isn't a formal greeting either. It is a demeaning ignorant way of
getting attention.

If hugging is o/k try giving the next ten year you come across a nice
big hug, se what the response is.

Incidentally the article referenced two actions poking someone in a
college as a punishment for mobile phone use, and thumping in the
testicles as a punishment for failing to plug in a drill.

I would have considered both actions assault and reacted accordingly.

It seems at least the college took a balanced view BTW.


You stay in the "bozo bin" if you want to. I have no intention of
joining you.

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:52:10 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/06/2012 12:20, H. Neary wrote:

Oh dear the light has dimmed.

From your attitude on this subject, I take it you've never hugged
your girlfriend, as that would, by your theory, be an assault. I
would also assume that when she initiated a hug, that you initiated
proceedings alleging assault and battery.

Also, according to the principles you expound in your postings in
this thread, I am certain you have no children.

The basic point, which you seem to miss totally, is that according
to British Law, assault and battery *do not exist* unless there is
an intention or feared intention to cause an *illegal physical
harm* to the person being touched. Poking with a finger, unless
directed at the eyeballs, would completely fail this test.

Welcome to the Bozo Bin.

It causes mental harm. You do not poke someone out of respect do you.
It isn't a formal greeting either. It is a demeaning ignorant way of
getting attention.

It is a demeaning ignorant way of getting attention from a thick ignorant
**** that is doing something that they are not supposed to be doing. It is
the only way that they can learn and it is the best way to communicate with
them.

Causes mental harm my arse. If that causes them mental harm then they will
have no chance in the real world.

--
Adam

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:41:59 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:52:10 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/06/2012 12:20, H. Neary wrote:

Oh dear the light has dimmed.

From your attitude on this subject, I take it you've never hugged
your girlfriend, as that would, by your theory, be an assault. I
would also assume that when she initiated a hug, that you initiated
proceedings alleging assault and battery.

Also, according to the principles you expound in your postings in
this thread, I am certain you have no children.

The basic point, which you seem to miss totally, is that according
to British Law, assault and battery *do not exist* unless there is
an intention or feared intention to cause an *illegal physical
harm* to the person being touched. Poking with a finger, unless
directed at the eyeballs, would completely fail this test.

Welcome to the Bozo Bin.

It causes mental harm. You do not poke someone out of respect do you.
It isn't a formal greeting either. It is a demeaning ignorant way of
getting attention.

It is a demeaning ignorant way of getting attention from a thick ignorant
**** that is doing something that they are not supposed to be doing. It is
the only way that they can learn and it is the best way to communicate with
them.

Causes mental harm my arse. If that causes them mental harm then they will
have no chance in the real world.

Can you post that in English please?

The English we in the real world use BTW

HN

On 09/06/2012 16:04, H. Neary wrote:

Can you post that in English please?

The English we in the real world use BTW

HN


TXT SPK is not 'real' English is it?

--
"I'm not the messiah!"
I say you are Lord.
And I should know, I've followed a few !

H. Neary wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:52:10 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

On 09/06/2012 12:20, H. Neary wrote:

Oh dear the light has dimmed.

From your attitude on this subject, I take it you've never hugged
your girlfriend, as that would, by your theory, be an assault. I
would also assume that when she initiated a hug, that you initiated
proceedings alleging assault and battery.

Also, according to the principles you expound in your postings in
this thread, I am certain you have no children.

The basic point, which you seem to miss totally, is that according
to British Law, assault and battery *do not exist* unless there is
an intention or feared intention to cause an *illegal physical
harm* to the person being touched. Poking with a finger, unless
directed at the eyeballs, would completely fail this test.

Welcome to the Bozo Bin.

It causes mental harm. You do not poke someone out of respect do you.

You do at at a swingers party.

--
Adam

wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:41:59 +0100, "ARWadsworth"

Causes mental harm my arse. If that causes them mental harm then they will
have no chance in the real world.

Can you post that in English please?

The English we in the real world use BTW

HN

Perefctly clear, you pedant.

And yes - I personally have no problem with any of this.

My take on life is:

1) One wrong deserves a polite response;

2) 2+ wrongs means the offender is either thick or has no respect for me. So
therefore I have no patience left and he gets what's coming, which in my
case is usually a good yelling at, or total brush off or extreme sarcasm or
no further cooperation on anything he wants done - depending on context.

3) If someone has be told in advance that something is unacceptable, go
straight to 2).

But I do not work on a building site - if I was the apprentice, I would
expect to be dealt with in stringer terms. If that made me cry like a baby,
them I would not last very long in the real world. And I am referring to the
real world most of us live in, not yours...
--
Tim Watts

On 09/06/2012 15:03, H. Neary wrote:
Incidentally the article referenced two actions poking someone in a
college as a punishment for mobile phone use.

No no no, not as a punishment.


--
David

On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:32:34 +0100, gremlin_95
wrote:

On 09/06/2012 15:03, H. Neary wrote:
Incidentally the article referenced two actions poking someone in a
college as a punishment for mobile phone use.

No no no, not as a punishment.

What else?

If not so, why was the lecturer suspended?

HN