General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Swizz Army Knife story

Started by Mike Brockhurst · · Last activity · 28 posts · 907 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 November 2004
Last activity
3 December 2004
Original author
Mike Brockhurst
Posts
28
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
907
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 28
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote it -
    Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!

  2. Mike Brockhurst said:

    What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote it -
    Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!

    Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    --

    R
    o
    o
    n
    e
    y

  3. Well, The Spectator has attracted many criticisms of late, but I dont think
    running fictitious articles is one I've seen before - did you not read the
    original article?

    "Mike Brockhurst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote
    it - Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!

  4. "Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Mike Brockhurst said:

    What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote
    it -
    Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!

    Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    What was the Thornbury one Paul

    Quoted message said:


    --

    R
    o
    o
    n
    e
    y

  5. Mike Brockhurst said:


    "Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Mike Brockhurst said:

    What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote
    it -
    Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!

    Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    What was the Thornbury one Paul

    He was a master troll. No-one knows who he really was, but I think it
    started with him making a post about religion and swearing. There's
    still a number of regular posters who will remember him.

    --

    R
    o
    o
    n
    e
    y

  6. "Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:

    He was a master troll. No-one knows who he really was, but I think it
    started with him making a post about religion and swearing.

    "No one knows who he really was" sounds mysterious. Could have been God
    himself, in which case he's probably entitled to say things like "Religion's
    all a load of bollocks".

  7. AndyP said:

    "Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote

    Quoted message said:

    He was a master troll. No-one knows who he really was, but I think it
    started with him making a post about religion and swearing.

    "No one knows who he really was" sounds mysterious. Could have been God
    himself, in which case he's probably entitled to say things like "Religion's
    all a load of bollocks".

    Ha ha! Maybe so!

    --

    R
    o
    o
    n
    e
    y

  8. Rooney said:
    Mike Brockhurst said:


    "Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:05:28 GMT, "Mike Brockhurst"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    >replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote
    >it -
    >Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!
    >

    Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    What was the Thornbury one Paul

    He was a master troll. No-one knows who he really was, but I think it
    started with him making a post about religion and swearing. There's
    still a number of regular posters who will remember him.

    It's all there in Google.

    This http://makeashorterlink.com/?M5F2128E9 is the post that started
    the thread which ran to more than 300 posts.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

  9. David said:

    Well, The Spectator has attracted many criticisms of late, but I dont think
    running fictitious articles is one I've seen before - did you not read the
    original article?

    But it was misleading.

    Swiss Army knives are only illegal if there is an intent to use them
    to wound or injure someone - even if in self defense.

    The man was arrested after a batton was found in his briefcase which
    he admitted was kept with the intent to use it against a person under
    certain circumstances.

    Had the hapless motorist said that the baton was kept to ward off
    dangerous dogs, and the thought of using it against a person had not
    crossed his mind, he would not have been arrested.

    The report was misleading.

  10. If it was misleading, why didn't it mislead you?

    It wasn't in the least misleading.

    "C L Imber" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    David said:

    Well, The Spectator has attracted many criticisms of late, but I dont
    think
    running fictitious articles is one I've seen before - did you not read the
    original article?

    But it was misleading.

    Swiss Army knives are only illegal if there is an intent to use them
    to wound or injure someone - even if in self defense.

    The man was arrested after a batton was found in his briefcase which
    he admitted was kept with the intent to use it against a person under
    certain circumstances.

    Had the hapless motorist said that the baton was kept to ward off
    dangerous dogs, and the thought of using it against a person had not
    crossed his mind, he would not have been arrested.

    The report was misleading.

  11. Rooney said:


    Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    You mean Thornbush surely ;-)

    --
    York Alpine Club - http://www.yorkalpineclub.org.uk
    Recent Photos - http://climbing.me.uk
    Old Photos - http://www.simon-caldwell.co.uk
    My Brother's Photos - http://www.caldwellcreations.co.uk

  12. "C L Imber" wrote >

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Well, The Spectator has attracted many criticisms of late, but I dont
    think
    running fictitious articles is one I've seen before - did you not read the
    original article?

    But it was misleading.

    Swiss Army knives are only illegal if there is an intent to use them
    to wound or injure someone - even if in self defense.

    The man was arrested after a batton was found in his briefcase which
    he admitted was kept with the intent to use it against a person under
    certain circumstances.

    Had the hapless motorist said that the baton was kept to ward off
    dangerous dogs, and the thought of using it against a person had not
    crossed his mind, he would not have been arrested.

    The report was misleading.

    If you read the story the baton wasn't the problem, it was the fact that the
    blades in the Multitool locked, it was effectively a lock knife and they are
    specifically illegal to carry I understand.
    There is no proof of intent needed, they are classed as illegal weapons.
    Personally as an allotment gardener I carry a large and sharp fixed blade
    knife in my 90, together with all my other gardening tools. It is needed and
    is used to cut veg on the allotments ( try cutting a cabbage with anything
    else) so it would appear I am liable to arrest if an officious copper
    stopped and searched me whilst driving the 90.
    Another case of a law being passed for one problem but being used across the
    board.

    Bob.

  13. Simon Caldwell said:
    Rooney said:


    Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    You mean Thornbush surely ;-)

    Ha ha - come to think of it, we haven't had a good argumentative
    thread for a while....

    --

    R
    o
    o
    n
    e
    y

  14. Chris Street said:
    Rooney said:
    Mike Brockhurst said:

    What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote it -
    Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!

    Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    I think he hit about 340 replies from Google. Mr Saunders with no trolling
    intended kicked off G3 Contrast Range with about 640 posts, which
    degenerated into a frentic game where me Paul and the third guy passed the
    thread and hoped to God we were not holding it when it went bang.

    So leaving aside non-trolls (Paul would never be guilty of trolling!)
    - I'd guess Thornbury or the West Highland Way would top the list.

    --

    R
    o
    o
    n
    e
    y

  15. Chris Street said:

    No. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 s139(1) makes them illegal to possess in
    a public place inless you can show reasonable grounds for carrying them.
    Right of the police to search for them is contained in the Knives Act 1997.
    It's another exmaple of reversal of proof where you are assumed to be a
    homocidal maniac unless you can prove otherwise. Any folding knife with a
    blade more than three inches, or any knife with a fixed or locking blade is
    covered by the Act.

    I stand corrected.

    I suppose hill walking would be considered reasonable grounds?

  16. "Phil Cook" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Rooney said:
    Mike Brockhurst said:


    "Rooney" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...
    > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:05:28 GMT, "Mike Brockhurst"
    > <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    >>What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    >>replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote
    >>it -
    >>Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!
    >>
    >
    > Thornbury provoked more replies than that!

    What was the Thornbury one Paul

    He was a master troll. No-one knows who he really was, but I think it
    started with him making a post about religion and swearing. There's
    still a number of regular posters who will remember him.

    Phil Cook wrote ..It's all there in Google.

    This http://makeashorterlink.com/?M5F2128E9 is the post that started
    the thread which ran to more than 300 posts.

    I've found it thanks.......extract reads "It is very annoying to see words
    such as W-----"

    What [censored] wash why wrangle words with w!

  17. "David" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Well, The Spectator has attracted many criticisms of late, but I dont
    think running fictitious articles is one I've seen before - did you not
    read the original article?

    No, sorry...just like the Spectator though.....went on and on and on and
    on...and zzzzzzzzzzz

    Quoted message said:

    "Mike Brockhurst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    What a load of bollocks that was - he now holds the record for single
    replies to a (probably fictitious) post! - Did nobody notice who wrote
    it - Hodges the APR Warden from Dad's Army!!

  18. C L Imber said:
    Chris Street said:

    No. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 s139(1) makes them illegal to possess in
    a public place inless you can show reasonable grounds for carrying them.
    Right of the police to search for them is contained in the Knives Act 1997.
    It's another exmaple of reversal of proof where you are assumed to be a
    homocidal maniac unless you can prove otherwise. Any folding knife with a
    blade more than three inches, or any knife with a fixed or locking blade is
    covered by the Act.

    I stand corrected.

    I suppose hill walking would be considered reasonable grounds?

    Not in itself. Backpacking might. What you need to prove is that you
    need a good knife for something and having it in combination with food
    and cooking gear would IMO be reasonable, however its not my opinion
    that needs to be satisfied. But you'd better not have it in your
    pocket staggering back to the campsite from the pub. :-(
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

  19. Quoted message said:

    Yes. I should have said that the G3 thread was just for comparison as the
    longest thread we came up with.

    Now there's a challenge for the Xmas hols ;-)


  20. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What was the Thornbury one Paul

    He was a master troll. No-one knows who he really was, but I think it
    started with him making a post about religion and swearing. There's
    still a number of regular posters who will remember him.

    Shhhh.. He is still around.....

    Seems to have quietened down. Never had him as a troll though...

    Richard Webb

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.