HGV driver suspended after threatening to knock down "spandex-wearing f******"; Patrick Lefevere accuses Sam Bennett of "playing with my balls in public" by riding European Champs; LCC protest reaction; CyclingMikey's bonnet ride + more on the live blog

espressodan wrote:

 Police force wouldn't emoloy an officer who threatened deliberate violence,.

it seems like in America it may actually move the application up the pile.

Sounds like someone drove at him rather then reverse back into the queue and drive to a legal requirement. Mikey had to jump on the bonnet or get run over.  Of course the accused is supposedly claiming that Mikey jumped across the bonnet of the stationary car for no reason and then the driver feared for his life so drove around the corner with mikey clawing at the windowscreen to break it and rip the drivers throat out. I expect a video will be up in a few months time when the court case is completed.

Probably in the the Daily Hate tomorrow as

War on HGV Drivers!.....Cyclists trying to clear roads of hard working lorry drivers during pandemic shortages

I'd say maybe 50/50.

He's been suspended because bl00dy cyclists read what he'd written and mentioned it to his employers (and it's really not a good look for them), but on the other hand he's the one who thought that it would be a good idea to write that and put it out in the public domain.

Nigel prefers to blame cyclists as a general rule.

But he also supports a Government that never actually have to own their consequences. Make an obvious "they all look the same don't they" mistake like Gavin Williamson, "oh well". Lying to parliament, "so what". Given billions to your buddies during a pandemic "they needed to rush and what has Labour done anyway to control the pandemic". 

So someone posting in public he wants to drive over cyclists in his HGV whilst promoting his company links, and then getting reported to his company... "well that is cancel culture and I will not have any part of it as it is only the snowflakes who do that...... unless someone on GBNews takes a knee of course."

brooksby wrote:

I'd say maybe 50/50.

He's been suspended because bl00dy cyclists read what he'd written and mentioned it to his employers (and it's really not a good look for them), but on the other hand he's the one who thought that it would be a good idea to write that and put it out in the public domain.

some people really need to understand that they should only post something on facebook if they would be happy to put the same thing on display on their company notice board and sign it.

wycombewheeler wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'd say maybe 50/50.

He's been suspended because bl00dy cyclists read what he'd written and mentioned it to his employers (and it's really not a good look for them), but on the other hand he's the one who thought that it would be a good idea to write that and put it out in the public domain.

some people really need to understand that they should only post something on facebook if they would be happy to put the same thing on display on their company notice board and sign it.

I tell my kids that when they are texting someone or emailing them or anything like that, they need to be aware that the content of that message - once it's been written down - could end up being seen by anyone (and to write accordingly).

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Well if he did do that, he'd be 100% correct wouldn't he? 

No he wouldn't, bloody cyclists wouldn't have lost him his job, he would have lost his job himself by making threats of violence against cyclists in a public forum in which he clearly identified his employers. 100% on him.

A threat of violence can only be pursued as a public order offence and if it causes a specific person or persons(s) to alarm or distress. The police would not be able to do anything.

Let's also recall that this individual is stating in public that he wishes to use his employer's equipment to maim or kill people, in the course of his work duties.

So yes, that is a matter of concern for the employer.

Read the thread. the comment was reported to the police several times

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I don't see anything here about it being reported to the police. If that's what happened, great - leave it to the police to take action if that's what is decided and then report on the outcome.

Why Nigel - it's almost as if you have a vested interest in people saying stupid anti-cyclist nonsense online remaining anonymous and unpunished! 

The police most likely would/will take no action or issue a mild warning at best. Why shouldn't people warn an employer that their driver is making threats to run over cyclists? Should people wait until he does it and give their evidence at the inquest?

Say stupid things in public, expect to get called out in public.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I don't see anything here about it being reported to the police. If that's what happened, great - leave it to the police to take action if that's what is decided and then report on the outcome.

As a teacher, I feel pretty certain that if I posted on Facebook last week that I couldn't wait for term to start because I have missed being able to slap kids around whenever I want to, having someone report that to my school would be a prelude to at least a suspension, probably dismissal and most likely also a tribunal at which it was decided whether I would be allowed to ever teach again. 

And you know what ... that would 100% be my fault. 

Are you sure? Wouldn't they have been "weaseling around [your] Facebook profile looking to snitch [you] to [your] employer"?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

So if someone makes threats of violence you report them to the police... you don't go weaseling around their Facebook profile looking to snitch them to their employer.

Oh Nigel, you really are 'phoning it in now. Come on love, if you must troll, put your back into it. This is just too lame even by your standards. A truck driver says he wants to run over cyclists and you're criticising cyclists for asking his employer if they're cool with that? 1.5/10 troll rating.

As someone else pointed out, he specifically was stating he would run them over in the equipment supplied by said employer with their branding all over it. So why not alert the employer. 

It is funny Boo only wants it reporting to the Police when he has called out some other NMotD as they would get spoken to for wasting Police time. 

Where's the "hit the nail on the head" emoji?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

None of what you've written here is true - for example in the latest NMOTD video I specifically mention that I hope the driver gets a good penalty for their illegal driving.

AS said "he has called out some other NMotD as they would get spoken to for wasting Police time." As indeed you have, so it's perfectly true. Maybe you don't read your own drivel? Don't blame you if so. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I'm simply asking to keep the law with the lawmakers - I dislike this populist trial by Twitter that takes place daily to try to cancel people's livelihoods.

An HGV driver said he wants to run over cyclists and some people have quite properly alerted his employer to that fact. That's not trial by Twitter, it's a perfectly legitimate action to get an aggressive and potentially murderous driver off the road. I suppose you'd like it if everyone had stayed silent and only spoken up about it once he'd killed someone?

Apparently, as none of what I had written in that post is true, Mr THurd didn't post he wanted to drive over cyclists in his company branded HGV either. Maybe he was going to go out an buy an all black one so no one would see him hitting and then "not stopping".  Or maybe the screenshots were all just a figment of our imagination. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Apparently, as none of what I had written in that post is true, Mr THurd didn't post he wanted to drive over cyclists in his company branded HGV either. Maybe he was going to go out an buy an all black one so no one would see him hitting and then "not stopping".  Or maybe the screenshots were all just a figment of our imagination. 

Was that supposed to have been aimed at Our Nige rather than Rendel?

Nope, continuing a convo with Rendel about comments made by another poster in addition to rens reply about said same comments. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Nope, continuing a convo with Rendel about comments made by another poster in addition to rens reply about said same comments. 

Yes I understood that - slight misunderstanding from Brooks but s/he's a good  'un so all good!

and change his name to Garthe?

Awavey wrote:

and change his name to Garthe?

WOW. There's a blast from the past. I'd totally forgotten that

brooksby wrote:

Quick show of hands - who thinks the HGV Driver of the Day will now go around blaming bl00dy cyclists for losing him his job?

I wonder if anyone is going to say that it was the cyclist's fault? 

Nah, that'd be like agreeing with a criminal who blames a witness for his bird. No one's that stoopid....

Captain Badger wrote:

....

I wonder if anyone is going to say that it was the cyclist's fault? 

Nah, that'd be like agreeing with a criminal who blames a witness for his bird. No one's that stoopid....

I'm going to keep away from Twatter et al though. If I see anyone talking about snitches, grasses or anything like that, I'll want to stick a fork in my eye.

Perfectly safe from that here though. None of our regular posters has the mentality of an under 12 year old.....