| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2007 05:49:33
From:
Subject: MI5 Persecution: Chris Tarrant - 10/March/1999 (283)
|
Chris Tarrant - 10/March/1999
Certainty level: 25%
This one might be aimed at me, or it might be tinged with a whiff of intent, although I only give one chance in four for Tarrant's thoughts being aimed
at me when he said this. During his "Who wants to be a Millionaire" TV show in March 1999, he said;
if you're watching the show jumping up and down screaming at the telly,
remember you could be here. You can either seek professional help or call us...
The background is as follows. In early March I'd sent a quantity of emails to Capital FM, the London radio station where Mr Tarrant has his breakfast
show. They were addressed to the email account which Mr Tarrant used to read emails posted on Capital's website. Capital objected to the quantity
of emails - in fact, they contacted the Metropolitan Police's Computer Crime unit, who, in turn, "felt my collar" by giving me a verbal warning
over the phone to cease this behaviour.
The emails contained the words which I had heard Mr Tarrant speak in early 1994, namely;
"You know this bloke? He says we're trying to kill him.
We should be done for attempted manslaughter".
At the time of writing (May 1999), the Police have not told me what aspect of the emails was "illegal", nor despite my repeated urging have they
questioned Mr Tarrant about his remarks from 1994.
Regarding the clip from Tarrant's show above. The Police spoke to me on the afternoon of Wednesday 10 March 1999. Tarrant's live show went out
that same evening. The Police have told me that after speaking to me they told Capital FM that they'd spoken to me regarding the emails. So Tarrant
would have known by the time of the show who'd sent the emails and why.... and it's quite possible that his remarks about "seeking professional help"
were aimed at me personally following my attempts to persuade him to own up to his 1994 remarks.
283
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2007 06:50:10
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone
|
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <46cfbb70$0$6458$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46cf7508$0$15340$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences
>>>>> before spouting off.
>>>
>>>> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to
>>>> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me
>>>> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC).
>>>
>>> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike
>>> lanes have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that?
>>> because they always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes
>>> needlessly complicate intersections. So, no matter how you construct
>>> them, every intersection is a problem.
>>
>> Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out and
>> about more and increase your experiences
>> before spouting off." HTH!)
>> Done.
>
> Guess you've never tried to turn left with asshole motorists who
> wanted to defend their view that bicyclists are restricted to bike
> lane. Or maybe you still act like a child and walk your bike across
> the road making a box turn.
>
>
What caused all this? One guy in a Cadillac make a smart ass remark about
your outfit?
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 23:11:59
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: The days of the bicycle as basically a kids recreational vehicle are long gone
|
Brent P wrote:
> In article <46cfbb70$0$6458$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <46cf7508$0$15340$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You should get out and about more and increase your experiences
>>>>> before spouting off.
>>>
>>>> Yes, moving from where bike lanes are ubiquitous and effective to
>>>> somewhere where they're spotty and lousy would really convince me
>>>> that ALL bike lanes are bad (previous claim IIRC).
>>>
>>> You have the same reading problems as gpstroll. I said all bike
>>> lanes have one or more of the problems I listed. Why is that?
>>> because they always have intersection asshattery. Bike lanes
>>> needlessly complicate intersections. So, no matter how you
>>> construct them, every intersection is a problem.
>>
>> Absurd. (But of course you know this. OR... "You should get out
>> and about more and increase your experiences
>> before spouting off." HTH!)
>> Done.
>
> Guess you've never tried to turn left with asshole motorists who
> wanted to defend their view that bicyclists are restricted to bike
> lane.
You interviewed these drivers?!? ALL of them?!? LOL
> Or maybe you still act like a child and walk your bike across
> the road making a box turn.
You're a meanie. ROTFL
Bill "OK, really done" S.
|
|
