In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances encompass
>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>
>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>
>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>
>>> That's obviously not it.
>>
>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>
>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>
>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>
>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>> was still a story.
>>
>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>
>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>
>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>> on their hands.
>>>
>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>
>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>
>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>
>One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>Google

No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
become beyond incredibly annoying now.

I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
break from your constant quibbling.
--
Roland Perry

On 16/12/2023 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22
>>>>>>> May
>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>> May  2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances
>>>>>>>>>> encompass
>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>> ordering  the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>> don't think  they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>> load  in law so he takes the rap even when following his
>>>>>>>> management's
>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>> a  pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>
>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>
>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>
>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>
>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>
>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>> was still a story.
>>>
>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>
>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>
>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>
>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>
>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>
>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>
>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how
>> to use
>> Google
>
> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>
> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
> break from your constant quibbling.

A reply after almost seven months. Nobody is interested any more!

--
Colin
=

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 17:03:47 +0000, ColinR
<rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 16/12/2023 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22
>>>>>>>> May
>>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>>> May  2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances
>>>>>>>>>>> encompass
>>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>>> ordering  the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>>> don't think  they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>>> load  in law so he takes the rap even when following his
>>>>>>>>> management's
>>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>>> a  pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>>
>>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>>> was still a story.
>>>>
>>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>>
>>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>>
>>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>>
>>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>>
>>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how
>>> to use
>>> Google
>>
>> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
>> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
>> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
>> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>>
>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
>> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
>> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
>> break from your constant quibbling.
>
>A reply after almost seven months. Nobody is interested any more!

[Carefull...] <g>

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances encompass
>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>
>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>
>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>
>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>
>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>
>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>> was still a story.
>>>
>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>
>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>
>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>
>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>
>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>
>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>
>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>> Google
>
> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>
> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
> break from your constant quibbling.

Has this really been eating away at you since May?

GH

On 17/12/2023 13:48, Marland wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances encompass
>>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>>
>>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>>> was still a story.
>>>>
>>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>>
>>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>>
>>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>>
>>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>>
>>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>>> Google
>>
>> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
>> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
>> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
>> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>>
>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
>> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
>> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
>> break from your constant quibbling.
>
> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>

Just how many jilted lovers has Roland had? Concerned journalists want
to know…

-
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 13:48, Marland wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances encompass
>>>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>>>> was still a story.
>>>>>
>>>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>>>> Google
>>>
>>> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
>>> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
>>> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
>>> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>>>
>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
>>> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
>>> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
>>> break from your constant quibbling.
>>
>> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>>
>
> Just how many jilted lovers has Roland had? Concerned journalists want
> to know…

That creates a vision of a posse of aggrieved grannies in pursuit of
heart-throb Roland, who tempted them with rides in his snug sports car in
the swinging Seventies, then threw them out. I can't decide if that's more
amusing than his suggestion that I'd have been desperate to take a big pay
cut to briefly work for him before he flitted to his next job.

On 17/12/2023 13:48, Marland wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances encompass
>>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>>
>>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>>> was still a story.
>>>>
>>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>>
>>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>>
>>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>>
>>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>>
>>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>>> Google
>>
>> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
>> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
>> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
>> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>>
>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
>> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
>> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
>> break from your constant quibbling.
>
> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>
> GH
>

Sometimes I find that Eternal September seems to resurrect old threads
even when no new posts have been added.

In message <ulq6ud$3kgvl$3@dont-email.me>, at 19:35:41 on Mon, 18 Dec
2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>On 17/12/2023 13:48, Marland wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his
>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances
>>>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>>>> was still a story.
>>>>>
>>>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>>>> Google
>>>
>>> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
>>> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
>>> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
>>> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>>>
>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
>>> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
>>> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
>>> break from your constant quibbling.

>> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>> GH

That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
time, and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
in this case is May 23rd.

I should have noticed that, and not replied.

There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <ulq6ud$3kgvl$3@dont-email.me>, at 19:35:41 on Mon, 18 Dec
> 2023, Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On 17/12/2023 13:48, Marland wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>>>>> was still a story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>>>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>>>>
>>>>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>>>>> Google
>>>>
>>>> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
>>>> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
>>>> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
>>>> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>>>>
>>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or someone
>>>> I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier to cope.
>>>> And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this newsgroup a
>>>> break from your constant quibbling.
>
>>> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>>> GH
>
> That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
> time,

That just makes you look like you're very slow.

> and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
> everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
> in this case is May 23rd.
>
> I should have noticed that, and not replied.
>
> There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
> to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.

You define replying to your posts in a news group as stalking? I know you
often use the wrong terminology about things you know little about, but
Usenet is supposed to be something where you're an expert.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:08:46 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>In message <ulq6ud$3kgvl$3@dont-email.me>, at 19:35:41 on Mon, 18 Dec
>>> GH
>
>That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
>time, and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
>everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
>in this case is May 23rd.
>
>I should have noticed that, and not replied.
>
>There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
>to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.

For you Roland it would seem the definition of stalking is someone replying
to posts of yours with awkward points you can't answer when you assumed
you'd had a drop-the-mic and walk off stage moment.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:08:46 +0000
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <ulq6ud$3kgvl$3@dont-email.me>, at 19:35:41 on Mon, 18 Dec
>>>> GH
>>
>> That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
>> time, and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
>> everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
>> in this case is May 23rd.
>>
>> I should have noticed that, and not replied.
>>
>> There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
>> to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.
>
> For you Roland it would seem the definition of stalking is someone replying
> to posts of yours with awkward points you can't answer when you assumed
> you'd had a drop-the-mic and walk off stage moment.

Exactly. To Roland, 'stalking' means the same as 'fake news' to Trump:
someone has caught him out in a lie.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>> May 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his cards
>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances encompass
>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>> ordering the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>> don't think they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for the
>>>>>>>> load in law so he takes the rap even when following his management's
>>>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>> a pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>
>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>
>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>
>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>
>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>
>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>> was still a story.
>>>
>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>
>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>
>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>
>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>
>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>
>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>
>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how to use
>> Google
>
> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist in
> this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll set a
> professional off to discover exactly what the reason is, because it's
> become beyond incredibly annoying now.
>
> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover…

Now THAT would be an interesting twist…

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <ulvgar$mh8n$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:35 on Wed, 20 Dec
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:

>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover
>
>Now THAT would be an interesting twist

Much of that arises from the obsession that I didn't do anything useful
after leaving Amstrad, and their determination never to be photographed
(which would of course give the game away).
--
Roland Perry

On 21/12/2023 09:16, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ulvgar$mh8n$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:35 on Wed, 20 Dec
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover
>>
>> Now THAT would be an interesting twist
>
> Much of that arises from the obsession that I didn't do anything useful
> after leaving Amstrad, and their determination never to be photographed
> (which would of course give the game away).

I don't like being photographed either. FTAOD, that doesn't make me one
of Roland's jilted lovers either.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/12/2023 09:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <ulvgar$mh8n$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:35 on Wed, 20 Dec
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover
>>>
>>> Now THAT would be an interesting twist
>>
>> Much of that arises from the obsession that I didn't do anything useful
>> after leaving Amstrad, and their determination never to be photographed
>> (which would of course give the game away).
>
> I don't like being photographed either. FTAOD, that doesn't make me one
> of Roland's jilted lovers either.
>

I think Roland is the only person here who posts pictures of himself.

In message <8VWgN.55234$Sl64.4234@fx09.ams1>, at 13:16:52 on Thu, 21 Dec
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/12/2023 09:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ulvgar$mh8n$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:35 on Wed, 20 Dec
>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover
>>>>
>>>> Now THAT would be an interesting twist
>>>
>>> Much of that arises from the obsession that I didn't do anything useful
>>> after leaving Amstrad, and their determination never to be photographed
>>> (which would of course give the game away).
>>
>> I don't like being photographed either. FTAOD, that doesn't make me one
>> of Roland's jilted lovers either.
>
>I think Roland is the only person here who posts pictures of himself.

I'm not sure I post "pictures of myself", other than "pictures I haven't
fervently airbrushed myself out of".

What's the most recent "picture of myself" you've seen here, surely not
those ones from the 70's?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <8VWgN.55234$Sl64.4234@fx09.ams1>, at 13:16:52 on Thu, 21 Dec
> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21/12/2023 09:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ulvgar$mh8n$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:35 on Wed, 20 Dec
>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover
>>>>>
>>>>> Now THAT would be an interesting twist
>>>>
>>>> Much of that arises from the obsession that I didn't do anything useful
>>>> after leaving Amstrad, and their determination never to be photographed
>>>> (which would of course give the game away).
>>>
>>> I don't like being photographed either. FTAOD, that doesn't make me one
>>> of Roland's jilted lovers either.
>>
>> I think Roland is the only person here who posts pictures of himself.
>
> I'm not sure I post "pictures of myself", other than "pictures I haven't
> fervently airbrushed myself out of".
>
> What's the most recent "picture of myself" you've seen here, surely not
> those ones from the 70's?

On a station platform, I think a few months ago.

In message <SEYgN.99830$c68d.30067@fx15.ams1>, at 15:16:02 on Thu, 21
Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <8VWgN.55234$Sl64.4234@fx09.ams1>, at 13:16:52 on Thu, 21 Dec
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 21/12/2023 09:16, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ulvgar$mh8n$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:46:35 on Wed, 20 Dec
>>>>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now THAT would be an interesting twist
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of that arises from the obsession that I didn't do anything useful
>>>>> after leaving Amstrad, and their determination never to be photographed
>>>>> (which would of course give the game away).
>>>>
>>>> I don't like being photographed either. FTAOD, that doesn't make me one
>>>> of Roland's jilted lovers either.
>>>
>>> I think Roland is the only person here who posts pictures of himself.
>>
>> I'm not sure I post "pictures of myself", other than "pictures I haven't
>> fervently airbrushed myself out of".
>>
>> What's the most recent "picture of myself" you've seen here, surely not
>> those ones from the 70's?
>
>On a station platform, I think a few months ago.

Oh, I remember that one. Not taken by me, of course.
--
Roland Perry

In message <6xEgN.52449$ogWb.9554@fx14.ams1>, at 16:22:26 on Wed, 20 Dec
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>> That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
>>> time, and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
>>> everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
>>> in this case is May 23rd.
>>>
>>> I should have noticed that, and not replied.
>>>
>>> There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
>>> to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.
>>
>> For you Roland it would seem the definition of stalking is someone replying
>> to posts of yours with awkward points you can't answer when you assumed
>> you'd had a drop-the-mic and walk off stage moment.
>
>Exactly. To Roland, 'stalking' means the same as 'fake news' to Trump:
>someone has caught him out in a lie.

It's much wider than that. Is mainly the persistent quibbling, very
rarely exposing a lie, because I don't do those. Very occasionally
finger trouble, that's the best you can find.
--
Roland Perry

In message <M4AgN.52446$ogWb.32522@fx14.ams1>, at 11:19:08 on Wed, 20
Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>>>> GH
>>
>> That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
>> time,
>
>That just makes you look like you're very slow.

Yes, I know you've expressed that view before, but it's actually doing
what others suggested which is to ignore you.

>> and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
>> everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
>> in this case is May 23rd.
>>
>> I should have noticed that, and not replied.
>>
>> There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
>> to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.
>
>You define replying to your posts in a news group as stalking?

No, but the uniquely persistent course of action is.

>I know you often use the wrong terminology about things you know little
>about,

Put that playbook away, there's a dear.

>but Usenet is supposed to be something where you're an expert.

And also stalking, where I helped draft the current law.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <M4AgN.52446$ogWb.32522@fx14.ams1>, at 11:19:08 on Wed, 20
> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>>>>> GH
>>>
>>> That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
>>> time,
>>
>> That just makes you look like you're very slow.
>
> Yes, I know you've expressed that view before, but it's actually doing
> what others suggested which is to ignore you.

Sure, that's a valid response. Either reply in a timely manner, or don't do
so at all.

>
>>> and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
>>> everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
>>> in this case is May 23rd.
>>>
>>> I should have noticed that, and not replied.
>>>
>>> There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
>>> to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.
>>
>> You define replying to your posts in a news group as stalking?
>
> No, but the uniquely persistent course of action is.

Just think of me as a diligent fact checker.

>
>> I know you often use the wrong terminology about things you know little
>> about,
>
> Put that playbook away, there's a dear.
>
>> but Usenet is supposed to be something where you're an expert.
>
> And also stalking, where I helped draft the current law.

I hope the law is a lot better than your complete misunderstanding of the
term! Perhaps it's best if they disregarded your input.

In message <ihZgN.21551$RCGb.19248@fx10.ams1>, at 15:59:10 on Thu, 21
Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <M4AgN.52446$ogWb.32522@fx14.ams1>, at 11:19:08 on Wed, 20
>> Dec 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Has this really been eating away at you since May?
>>>>>> GH
>>>>
>>>> That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
>>>> time,
>>>
>>> That just makes you look like you're very slow.
>>
>> Yes, I know you've expressed that view before, but it's actually doing
>> what others suggested which is to ignore you.
>
>Sure, that's a valid response. Either reply in a timely manner, or don't do
>so at all.

I rarely respond "very late", but sometimes it happens when a particular
historic posting of yours is so egregious it really does need a reply.

>>>> and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've read
>>>> everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the queue which
>>>> in this case is May 23rd.
>>>>
>>>> I should have noticed that, and not replied.
>>>>
>>>> There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not replied
>>>> to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking.
>>>
>>> You define replying to your posts in a news group as stalking?
>>
>> No, but the uniquely persistent course of action is.
>
>Just think of me as a diligent fact checker.

And very very poor one. You almost never go back to original
documentation, preferring to cite wonky paid-for journalism.

>>> I know you often use the wrong terminology about things you know little
>>> about,
>>
>> Put that playbook away, there's a dear.
>>
>>> but Usenet is supposed to be something where you're an expert.
>>
>> And also stalking, where I helped draft the current law.
>
>I hope the law is a lot better than your complete misunderstanding of the
>term!

Parliament agreed with our definitions, and I don't expect you have the
slightest notion how much effort that takes.

Random cite: <https://news.sky.com/story/new-law-to-tackle-stalkers-
comes-into-effect-10462897>

You need to scroll down to the bottom to see:

"Stalking is a growing problem, especially through social networking
sites. Cyber stalkers falsely believe they have greater anonymity -
but protection rights are tightening up.

Digital stalking expert Jennifer Perry, from safer-settings.com, told
Sky News: "The more prosecutions we hand out, the more people that
are harassing individuals will hopefully think twice about it."

With video at 1:49 into the clip.

We are still in contact with Mouldy-Old-Ann as I affectionately call
her. [Who we travelled by train all the way to Edinburgh a couple of
times to visit]

Back then I was a rare outsider invited-guest to ACPO's working
group on stalking, having previously advised their working groups
on cybercrime and communications data. But those are supertankers
which take years to turn around.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ulkl9h$2fup1$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:47 on Sat, 16 Dec
2023, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 16/12/2023 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <u4im0t$2jq6q$5@dont-email.me>, at 15:27:25 on Tue, 23 May
>>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <u4i04d$2gi90$5@dont-email.me>, at 09:13:49 on Tue, 23 May
>>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <u4fve2$26nf0$2@dont-email.me>, at 15:49:37 on Mon, 22 May
>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 15:21, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <u4fq72$2667s$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:20:33 on Mon,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2023, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 22/05/2023 07:01, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <u4duso$1od1k$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:28:08 on Sun, 21
>>>>>>>>>> May  2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was objecting to Roland wanting the driver to get his
>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of  the circumstances. And those circumstances
>>>>>>>>>>> the management of  the  worksite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Unless there was a member of management "on the footplate",
>>>>>>>>>> ordering  the  driver to ignore the height restriction signs, I
>>>>>>>>>> don't think  they are  culpable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe I'm correct in saying the driver is responsible for
>>>>>>>>> load  in law so he takes the rap even when following his
>>>>>>>>>management's instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And he should refuse to follow impossible instructions, such as "buy
>>>>>>>> a  pistol and shoot all fare evaders".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's not a given that someone has to follow their manager's or
>>>>>>>>> management's instructions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially when they tell the employee to break the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tell that La Braverman!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to, but I have read
>>>>>> some reports of pushback from Home Office staff asked to implement
>>>>>> immigration policies which appeared to be a bit close to the wire.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's obviously not it.
>>>>
>>>> OK, so "obviously" *what* is it? Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> As we are talking about driving, maybe you mean yesterday's story
>>>>>> about an incident (rather than a policy) of her failing to co-erce
>>>>>> the proprietors of a speed awareness course to deliver it in private.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read the reports in the Sunday (not yesterday's) papers properly
>>>>
>>>> I don't read Sunday papers, I listened to R4 on Monday morning. hen it
>>>> was still a story.
>>>>
>>>>> — that wasn't her potentially sackable offence.
>>>>
>>>> So what was. Don't be shy...
>>>>
>>>>>> Whether it would be illegal, or merely inconvenient, for them to
>>>>>> acquiesce to such a request, I will leave to others with more time
>>>>>> on their hands.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be perfectly legal, and isn't uncommon for celebrities.
>>>>
>>>> You have a cite for celebrities doing that? Why did they refuse her -
>>>> not enough of a celebrity, or something else.
>>>>
>>>> Do tell. Don't be shy...
>>>
>>> One of these days one of your famous old contacts will teach you how
>>>to use Google

>> No need Mr Irritating Stalker. I do know that. Why *do* you persist
>>in this campaign of abusive messaging? In the New Year I think I'll
>>set a professional off to discover exactly what the reason is,
>>because it's become beyond incredibly annoying now.

>> I really don't care if it's because you are jilted ex-lover, or
>>someone I didn't give a job to, but just knowing might make it easier
>>to cope. And maybe give the long-suffering other subscribers to this
>>newsgroup a break from your constant quibbling.
>
>A reply after almost seven months. Nobody is interested any more!

You should, be because I'm still being stalked, and you all have to
suffer that traffic. Or as I posted earlier:

"That was my fault, I put recliner on the "naughty step" from time to
time, and my newsreader has a "next unread" button which when I've
read everything posted very recently then jumps to the top of the
queue which in this case is May 23rd.

I should have noticed that, and not replied.

There's around 150 other similar messages I've successfully not
replied to, so persistent is (s)he at the stalking."
--
Roland Perry