From: Adrian on 3 Aug 2010 08:09 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > It quite definitely did. I am on a discussion forum with an ex-copper > who worked with the bloke who stopped SM ....somebody online who used to work with... Yep, that definitely comes under "Beyond reasonable doubt", and no mistake...
From: Brimstone on 3 Aug 2010 08:55 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8bqf74FlclU12(a)mid.individual.net... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >> It quite definitely did. I am on a discussion forum with an ex-copper >> who worked with the bloke who stopped SM > > ...somebody online who used to work with... > > Yep, that definitely comes under "Beyond reasonable doubt", and no > mistake... Sorry, I should have phrased it better. I used to work with the guy who related the story, before he became a copper. Happy now?
From: The Peeler on 3 Aug 2010 11:56 On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:55:59 +0100, "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:8bqf74FlclU12(a)mid.individual.net... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >> they were saying: >> >>> It quite definitely did. I am on a discussion forum with an ex-copper >>> who worked with the bloke who stopped SM >> >> ...somebody online who used to work with... >> >> Yep, that definitely comes under "Beyond reasonable doubt", and no >> mistake... > >Sorry, I should have phrased it better. I used to work with the guy who >related the story, before he became a copper. > >Happy now? Adrienne is never happy until she thinks she's scored a point.
From: Nick Finnigan on 3 Aug 2010 12:32 GT wrote: > "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message > news:i36t5e$kvo$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Which law do you think covers that? > > You mean there isn't one? So its legal? Er, yes. That's the way the law works.
From: Nick Finnigan on 3 Aug 2010 12:33
GT wrote: > > So the policeman who stops Nick for undertaking will have an answer when I do not undertake. |