| |
Main
Date: 27 Dec 2006 04:25:51
From:
Subject: MI5 Persecution: why won't the British police do their job and put a stop to it?
|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= why won't the British police do their job and put a stop to it? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The British police obviously do know what is taking place. Besides my
interpretations of what individual officers have said which forces that
conclusion, it would be inconceivable for them to be unaware of something
on this scale.
If they know, then they will know that the abusers have broken laws in the
UK and abroad. Recently the UK introduced laws against electronic spying
which carry a penalty of several years jail if caught. If the police know
illegal harassment is taking place, and do nothing about it, then they are
failing in their responsibilities.
Last Easter (1995) I went into the local police station in London and spoke
to an officer about the harassment against me. But I couldn't provide
tangible evidence; what people said, in many cases years ago, is beyond
proof, and without something to support my statements I cannot expect a
police officer to take the complaint seriously.
The current situation with regard to the police is not one which allows a
breakthrough in dealing with the problem. On the one hand, most individual
officers at a local police station may not know about the ongoing assaults,
so a complaint at that level will not yield results. Yet the police as an
organisation do know of the harassment, and they must be aware that a
complaint has been made at a police station. So it is clearly their duty to
take preventative action against the continuing molestation, but because
the criminals are operating on behalf of a state agency, the police are not
carrying out their duty.
796
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 09:24:43
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: I'm not kidding you
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> No it doesn't because you have failed to convince me that any of these
>> athletes have been wrongfully convicted. They all get "due process"
>> at their arbitration hearings. Plus, they can even appeal that
>> decision to the CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland.
>>
>> Give me an example of a case where there has been this violation of
>> due process besides the non-existent ones in your head that you and
>> Mike of course failed to mention other than through some kind of
>> frivolous statistical innuendo.
>
>
> Dumbass,
>
> I hear some chick that got a lifetime ban is planning on racing
> next year. Wtf, eh?
>
> Bob Schwartz
Hey dumbass,
There's only one chick cyclist who got a lifetime ban - Tammy Thomas.
And she has no plans to race next year.
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 01:44:35
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: I'm not kidding you
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> No it doesn't because you have failed to convince me that any of
>>> these athletes have been wrongfully convicted. They all get "due
>>> process" at their arbitration hearings. Plus, they can even appeal
>>> that decision to the CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland.
>>>
>>> Give me an example of a case where there has been this violation of
>>> due process besides the non-existent ones in your head that you and
>>> Mike of course failed to mention other than through some kind of
>>> frivolous statistical innuendo.
>>
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> I hear some chick that got a lifetime ban is planning on racing
>> next year. Wtf, eh?
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> Hey dumbass,
>
> There's only one chick cyclist who got a lifetime ban - Tammy Thomas.
> And she has no plans to race next year.
Hey Retard,
Now that we know you know who I'm talking about I suppose
we can talk about how she's clear to race because those
people that never, ever get it wrong didn't want to take
it in the can yet again over their POS EPO test. Eh?
For someone with a PhD you sure are pretty damn stupid.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 20:57:41
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: I'm not kidding you
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> No it doesn't because you have failed to convince me that any of
>>>> these athletes have been wrongfully convicted. They all get "due
>>>> process" at their arbitration hearings. Plus, they can even appeal
>>>> that decision to the CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland.
>>>>
>>>> Give me an example of a case where there has been this violation of
>>>> due process besides the non-existent ones in your head that you and
>>>> Mike of course failed to mention other than through some kind of
>>>> frivolous statistical innuendo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dumbass,
>>>
>>> I hear some chick that got a lifetime ban is planning on racing
>>> next year. Wtf, eh?
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey dumbass,
>>
>> There's only one chick cyclist who got a lifetime ban - Tammy Thomas.
>> And she has no plans to race next year.
>
>
> Hey Retard,
>
> Now that we know you know who I'm talking about I suppose
> we can talk about how she's clear to race because those
> people that never, ever get it wrong didn't want to take
> it in the can yet again over their POS EPO test. Eh?
>
> For someone with a PhD you sure are pretty damn stupid.
>
> Bob Schwartz
Tammy Thomas was given a lifetime ban. If you're referring to Jeanson
(who was never given a lifetime ban) she got a 2-year maximum ban for a
positive EPO - same as any other cyclist. And she's not cleared to race
until July 2007.
USADA and WADA has never lost an EPO case. It is unlikely Jeanson would
have "won" her case. Why don't you read the facts of what that plea
bargain entailed instead of acting like a retard:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11259.0.html
Thanks,
Magilla
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 04:52:57
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: I'm not kidding you
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Tammy Thomas was given a lifetime ban. If you're referring to Jeanson
> (who was never given a lifetime ban) she got a 2-year maximum ban for a
> positive EPO - same as any other cyclist. And she's not cleared to race
> until July 2007.
>
> USADA and WADA has never lost an EPO case. It is unlikely Jeanson would
> have "won" her case. Why don't you read the facts of what that plea
> bargain entailed instead of acting like a retard:
>
> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11259.0.html
You and Travis Tygart make good cabana boys.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 09:34:00
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: I'm not kidding you
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Tammy Thomas was given a lifetime ban. If you're referring to Jeanson
>> (who was never given a lifetime ban) she got a 2-year maximum ban for
>> a positive EPO - same as any other cyclist. And she's not cleared to
>> race until July 2007.
>>
>> USADA and WADA has never lost an EPO case. It is unlikely Jeanson
>> would have "won" her case. Why don't you read the facts of what that
>> plea bargain entailed instead of acting like a retard:
>>
>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11259.0.html
>
>
> You and Travis Tygart make good cabana boys.
>
> Bob Schwartz
So you think Jeanson would have been the first athlete in the history of
WADA to overturn an EPO positive? If you do, you're an idiot.
The idea that USADA cut this deal to avoid having their EPO test
scrutinized is ludicrous. They go to arbitration all the time on the
EPO test - and they've never lost a case.
Magilla
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 18:49:21
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: I'm not kidding you
|
MagillaGorilla wrote:
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>
>>> Tammy Thomas was given a lifetime ban. If you're referring to
>>> Jeanson (who was never given a lifetime ban) she got a 2-year maximum
>>> ban for a positive EPO - same as any other cyclist. And she's not
>>> cleared to race until July 2007.
>>>
>>> USADA and WADA has never lost an EPO case. It is unlikely Jeanson
>>> would have "won" her case. Why don't you read the facts of what that
>>> plea bargain entailed instead of acting like a retard:
>>>
>>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11259.0.html
>>
>>
>> You and Travis Tygart make good cabana boys.
>>
>> Bob Schwartz
>
>
> So you think Jeanson would have been the first athlete in the history of
> WADA to overturn an EPO positive? If you do, you're an idiot.
>
> The idea that USADA cut this deal to avoid having their EPO test
> scrutinized is ludicrous. They go to arbitration all the time on the
> EPO test - and they've never lost a case.
Cabana Banana Boy,
Hamburger was the first to accomplish what you say has
never been done. So did Rutger Beke, Virginia Berasategui
and Ibán Rodríguez. But you already knew that. You're
just trolling.
I'm done with you.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 21:15:32
From: MagillaGorilla
Subject: Re: I'm not kidding you
|
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tammy Thomas was given a lifetime ban. If you're referring to
>>>> Jeanson (who was never given a lifetime ban) she got a 2-year
>>>> maximum ban for a positive EPO - same as any other cyclist. And
>>>> she's not cleared to race until July 2007.
>>>>
>>>> USADA and WADA has never lost an EPO case. It is unlikely Jeanson
>>>> would have "won" her case. Why don't you read the facts of what
>>>> that plea bargain entailed instead of acting like a retard:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11259.0.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You and Travis Tygart make good cabana boys.
>>>
>>> Bob Schwartz
>>
>>
>>
>> So you think Jeanson would have been the first athlete in the history
>> of WADA to overturn an EPO positive? If you do, you're an idiot.
>>
>> The idea that USADA cut this deal to avoid having their EPO test
>> scrutinized is ludicrous. They go to arbitration all the time on the
>> EPO test - and they've never lost a case.
>
>
> Cabana Banana Boy,
>
> Hamburger was the first to accomplish what you say has
> never been done. So did Rutger Beke, Virginia Berasategui
> and Ibán Rodríguez. But you already knew that. You're
> just trolling.
>
> I'm done with you.
>
> Bob Schwartz
Try again,
NONE OF THOSE CASES were CAS cases (and likewise not considered CAS
precedents of any kind)....they were all bullshit "old system" national
federation cases that would never fly before CAS. In fact, CAS and
WADA were created precisely because of those types of cases where
literally any excuse worked.
Had Tyler Hamilton's case been adjudicated by Jim "iShares" Ochowicz and
the rest of the USAC cabal, I'm sure Hamilton would have been found
innocent too.
Take care,
Magilla
|
|
