On Sep 19, 7:56*pm, "Col" wrote:
"Roger Smith" wrote in message

...

Is neither Scott nor Graham aware that this topic is hardly a proper subject
for this NG? *Moreover it does neither of them credit to perpetuate the crap
regurgitated by the kill-filed Dawlish.

It concerns the possible involvement of someone from the weather
community in criminal activities, so yes, I think that counts as 'on-topic'.
And if you have killfiled Dawlish (for whatever reason) that's fine but
not everybody takes that view, I certainly don't and posters will continue
to respond to him as they see fit.
And if you see other peoples' replies to Dawlish in quoted text, well
that's just tough.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.

I've emailed him Col. If this is not referring to Andrew, this would
be slander of a very high order. Unless anyone can confirm, or deny
this, I suggest we leave this topic alone.

Scott W wrote:

I'm afraid that you are mistaken - anyone under the age of consent is
still a minor - whether they are teenagers or not...

In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe
those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including
both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the
local age of consent).[14]

OK, I'd understood that the term was limited to prepubescent children and
that a different term - which I forget - was used for adolescents under the
age of consent. I think I was assuming the legal definition would be the
same as the medical but should have known it wouldn't be so simple.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

On Sep 19, 7:32*pm, "Roger Smith" wrote:
Is neither Scott nor Graham aware that this topic is hardly a proper subject
for this NG? *Moreover it does neither of them credit to perpetuate the crap
regurgitated by the kill-filed Dawlish.

Roger

As Col says, it is relevant. People who visit here may subscribe to
Metcheck and have a right to know who their money is going to and
towards.

I actually found the link I posted yesterday on Metchecks own weather
reports forums on Wednesday evening. Obviously there was a lot of
shock and anger from the regular posters when they saw it with many
saying they wont send in reports anymore. There was no denial from
Metcheck.

I have done a little research, and the name, age, address and
profession in the news report matches that of the Metcheck owner so I
am confident enough to send this without feeling there's a risk of
slander.

Here's where the link was posted and the initial reaction, replace
179191 in the address with 179181, 179171 etc for later posts.

a href="http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/INTERACTIVE/reports.asp?
linkStart=179191"http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/INTERACTIVE/
reports.asp?linkStart=179191/a

I must be the only one who views the Metcheck forum and usw as nobody
else is aware of this, not that surprising as I know many of you are
already not big fans of the site.

Sorry about the link, here it is, copy and paste.

http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/INTER...nkStart=179191

replace 179191 with 179181, 179171 etc for later posts.

replace 179191 with....

I have a better idea.

Replace redwether with **** off.

On Sep 20, 8:44*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
replace 179191 with....

I have a better idea.

Replace redwether with **** off.

Hello, weirdest person most have ever come across. What should I
replace redweather with an a with?

I've made my point you muck raker. You have more than made yours. Now
go back where you came from.

On Sep 20, 10:07*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
I've made my point you muck raker. You have more than made yours. Now
go back where you came from.

Could you change the title back please because I don't know how to.