Company given £15,000 fine for asbestos work

Company given £15,000 fine for asbestos work

Company given £15,000 fine for asbestos work

First published in News by

A COMPANY has been fined £15,000 after flouting asbestos regulations.

Asbestos Damage Limitations Ltd, trading as ADL, removed some of the dangerous material from premises in Hove just weeks after being refused a licence to carry out such work.

The company, based in Coleridge Street, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for safety breaches at a hearing held at Brighton Magistrates’ Court on August 28.

The work had been carried out at premises in Dyke Road between October 22 and 25 last year.

The case was brought by the HSE after it investigated a complaint that an unlicensed contractor was carrying out asbestos removal work.

The court was told that ADL had possessed a licence to remove asbestos – a known carcinogen – but that this had expired in September 2013.

The firm had applied for a renewal of the licence and had been for a renewal interview with HSE on October 1.

However this had resulted in a refusal based on “inadequate performance”.

The company was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £4,000 in costs after admitting breaching Regulation 8 (1) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Denis Bodger described non-compliance of asbestos licensing as “not acceptable” and the HSE would continue to enforce the law to protect the public.

He said: “When ADL’s licence expired, the firm should have ceased to carry out any work with asbestos-containing materials that is required by licence.

“ADL was fully aware of what types of activities are covered and knew perfectly well that it was illegal to undertake the work they did.

“Work with asbestos requires a high degree of regulatory control.

“Non-compliance with asbestos-licensing requirements is not acceptable and HSE will continue to enforce the law to protect both workers and members of the public.”

Asbestos was once used regularly by the construction industry because of its fire-resistant qualities but has since been discovered to be a cause of cancer.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:46am Sat 30 Aug 14

Valentinian says...

Asbestos Damage Limitations Ltd, hmmmm perhaps they should consider re applying or changing their name....
We had to do the same at our Massage Parlour after new staff joined....
We were Swallows Massage Parlour and now we are Spits Health and Beauty.
Asbestos Damage Limitations Ltd, hmmmm perhaps they should consider re applying or changing their name.... We had to do the same at our Massage Parlour after new staff joined.... We were Swallows Massage Parlour and now we are Spits Health and Beauty. Valentinian
  • Score: -27

9:35am Sat 30 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

Dennis 'Bodger' - Comedy gold!!
But on a serious note should we not be told the names of the directors of this company as they will now pop up in a different guise under a new company name?!
Dennis 'Bodger' - Comedy gold!! But on a serious note should we not be told the names of the directors of this company as they will now pop up in a different guise under a new company name?! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 15

11:30am Sat 30 Aug 14

qm says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
Dennis 'Bodger' - Comedy gold!!
But on a serious note should we not be told the names of the directors of this company as they will now pop up in a different guise under a new company name?!
http://www.adl-uk.co
m/about.html
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: Dennis 'Bodger' - Comedy gold!! But on a serious note should we not be told the names of the directors of this company as they will now pop up in a different guise under a new company name?![/p][/quote]http://www.adl-uk.co m/about.html qm
  • Score: 4

11:44am Sat 30 Aug 14

ourcoalition says...

Any of their staff, or the public, who might have been exposed to the asbestos, must register this with their GP as soon as possible - it is unlikely they will develop asbestosis or linked diseases, but I see a number of (mostly older) workers, who were employed on building sites with it, sometimes 30/40 years later - proving liability is very hard. If it is a registered exposure, that is a real help.

Better still, if they are Union members, register it with them, as well.
Any of their staff, or the public, who might have been exposed to the asbestos, must register this with their GP as soon as possible - it is unlikely they will develop asbestosis or linked diseases, but I see a number of (mostly older) workers, who were employed on building sites with it, sometimes 30/40 years later - proving liability is very hard. If it is a registered exposure, that is a real help. Better still, if they are Union members, register it with them, as well. ourcoalition
  • Score: 12

1:41pm Sat 30 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present. ok,jared
  • Score: -32

1:51pm Sat 30 Aug 14

sussexram40 says...

Not really the point what type of asbestos - it's reckless. What if it had been blue asbestos.
Not really the point what type of asbestos - it's reckless. What if it had been blue asbestos. sussexram40
  • Score: 14

2:11pm Sat 30 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

sussexram40 wrote:
Not really the point what type of asbestos - it's reckless. What if it had been blue asbestos.
I agree that they shouldn't have been the ones doing the removal.

I actually stated that.

The point I was making is that not all asbestos is dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]sussexram40[/bold] wrote: Not really the point what type of asbestos - it's reckless. What if it had been blue asbestos.[/p][/quote]I agree that they shouldn't have been the ones doing the removal. I actually stated that. The point I was making is that not all asbestos is dangerous. ok,jared
  • Score: -28

4:45pm Sat 30 Aug 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

What hasn't been reported is whether the job was done properly or not?

If done correctly - no harm done. If it wasn't done correctly and any one has suffered from being contaminated then the owner of this company should be arrested not just fined.

So what is the correct and true story Argus?
What hasn't been reported is whether the job was done properly or not? If done correctly - no harm done. If it wasn't done correctly and any one has suffered from being contaminated then the owner of this company should be arrested not just fined. So what is the correct and true story Argus? getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 5

10:27pm Sat 30 Aug 14

derekhunt says...

ok,jared wrote:
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Just not true I'm afraid

White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.[/p][/quote]Just not true I'm afraid White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous. derekhunt
  • Score: 30

2:40am Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Just not true I'm afraid

White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous.
No, it's not hazardous.

My pleasure.
[quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.[/p][/quote]Just not true I'm afraid White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous.[/p][/quote]No, it's not hazardous. My pleasure. ok,jared
  • Score: -24

9:41am Sun 31 Aug 14

derekhunt says...

ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Just not true I'm afraid

White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous.
No, it's not hazardous.

My pleasure.
I really don't want to get into a back and forth 'yes it is - no it isn't' situation with you on this one. Suffice to say that you're really really wrong.

Perhaps you should have done your research somewhere more scientific than Private Eye?

HTH
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.[/p][/quote]Just not true I'm afraid White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous.[/p][/quote]No, it's not hazardous. My pleasure.[/p][/quote]I really don't want to get into a back and forth 'yes it is - no it isn't' situation with you on this one. Suffice to say that you're really really wrong. Perhaps you should have done your research somewhere more scientific than Private Eye? HTH derekhunt
  • Score: 22

9:58am Sun 31 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Just not true I'm afraid

White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous.
No, it's not hazardous.

My pleasure.
This tedious troll will argue until he's blue in the face about something he clearly knows nothing about! A simple internet search tells us white asbestos is dangerous so there can be no debate about it!!
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.[/p][/quote]Just not true I'm afraid White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous.[/p][/quote]No, it's not hazardous. My pleasure.[/p][/quote]This tedious troll will argue until he's blue in the face about something he clearly knows nothing about! A simple internet search tells us white asbestos is dangerous so there can be no debate about it!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 13

11:16am Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"I really don't want to get into a back and forth 'yes it is - no it isn't' situation with you on this one. Suffice to say that you're really really wrong."

My statement:

"I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present."

is perfectly correct and accurate.

White asbestos ( chrysotile) is generally sealed either by something else or within something else. Artex is an example of the latter.

The only time there is a chance of being exposed to it within the home/office etc is when it is being removed, because there is always the chance that some may be released into the atmosphere. This is why the removers have to be qualified.

However a few exposures pose little to no risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/23346
982

"These studies have been reviewed in light of the frequent use of amphibole asbestos. As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer. The importance of the present and other similar reviews is that the studies they report show that low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health."

So, whilst the chrysotile remains in place and not in the atmosphere, it doesn't pose a health risk, and even a small amount of inhalation does not increase that.
"I really don't want to get into a back and forth 'yes it is - no it isn't' situation with you on this one. Suffice to say that you're really really wrong." My statement: "I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present." is perfectly correct and accurate. White asbestos ( chrysotile) is generally sealed either by something else or within something else. Artex is an example of the latter. The only time there is a chance of being exposed to it within the home/office etc is when it is being removed, because there is always the chance that some may be released into the atmosphere. This is why the removers have to be qualified. However a few exposures pose little to no risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/23346 982 "These studies have been reviewed in light of the frequent use of amphibole asbestos. As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer. The importance of the present and other similar reviews is that the studies they report show that low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health." So, whilst the chrysotile remains in place and not in the atmosphere, it doesn't pose a health risk, and even a small amount of inhalation does not increase that. ok,jared
  • Score: -5

12:01pm Sun 31 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

As this link demonstrates Dr Ben stein has received funding from the asbestos industry so it's no wonder that he downplays the dangers of white asbestos!


http://mesothelioma-
law-firm1.blogspot.c
o.uk/2013/02/study-r
evisits-health-risk-
of.html?m=1
As this link demonstrates Dr Ben stein has received funding from the asbestos industry so it's no wonder that he downplays the dangers of white asbestos! http://mesothelioma- law-firm1.blogspot.c o.uk/2013/02/study-r evisits-health-risk- of.html?m=1 brighton bluenose
  • Score: 8

12:58pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

brighton bluenose wrote:
As this link demonstrates Dr Ben stein has received funding from the asbestos industry so it's no wonder that he downplays the dangers of white asbestos!


http://mesothelioma-

law-firm1.blogspot.c

o.uk/2013/02/study-r

evisits-health-risk-

of.html?m=1
Your link does work, and this is no record of a Dr Ben stein working with asbestos.

There is a Dr Bernstein who I quoted earlier who acknowledges:

" As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer."

So my source does not deny that chrysotile can be dangerous over time and in sufficient quantities. He merely pointed out that it is harmless otherwise.

You're welcome.
[quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: As this link demonstrates Dr Ben stein has received funding from the asbestos industry so it's no wonder that he downplays the dangers of white asbestos! http://mesothelioma- law-firm1.blogspot.c o.uk/2013/02/study-r evisits-health-risk- of.html?m=1[/p][/quote]Your link does work, and this is no record of a Dr Ben stein working with asbestos. There is a Dr Bernstein who I quoted earlier who acknowledges: " As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer." So my source does not deny that chrysotile can be dangerous over time and in sufficient quantities. He merely pointed out that it is harmless otherwise. You're welcome. ok,jared
  • Score: -1

1:07pm Sun 31 Aug 14

brighton bluenose says...

ok,jared wrote:
brighton bluenose wrote:
As this link demonstrates Dr Ben stein has received funding from the asbestos industry so it's no wonder that he downplays the dangers of white asbestos!


http://mesothelioma-


law-firm1.blogspot.c


o.uk/2013/02/study-r


evisits-health-risk-


of.html?m=1
Your link does work, and this is no record of a Dr Ben stein working with asbestos.

There is a Dr Bernstein who I quoted earlier who acknowledges:

" As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer."

So my source does not deny that chrysotile can be dangerous over time and in sufficient quantities. He merely pointed out that it is harmless otherwise.

You're welcome.
Predictive text! Nonetheless white asbestos is generally recognised as being dangerous but Dr Bernstein who takes money from asbestos companies is the only dissenting voice - strange that!!
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brighton bluenose[/bold] wrote: As this link demonstrates Dr Ben stein has received funding from the asbestos industry so it's no wonder that he downplays the dangers of white asbestos! http://mesothelioma- law-firm1.blogspot.c o.uk/2013/02/study-r evisits-health-risk- of.html?m=1[/p][/quote]Your link does work, and this is no record of a Dr Ben stein working with asbestos. There is a Dr Bernstein who I quoted earlier who acknowledges: " As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer." So my source does not deny that chrysotile can be dangerous over time and in sufficient quantities. He merely pointed out that it is harmless otherwise. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Predictive text! Nonetheless white asbestos is generally recognised as being dangerous but Dr Bernstein who takes money from asbestos companies is the only dissenting voice - strange that!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: 2

2:22pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"Nonetheless white asbestos is generally recognised as being dangerous but Dr Bernstein who takes money from asbestos companies is the only dissenting voice - strange that!!"

If he compromises his integrity by being a consultant for an asbestos company, how come he accepts that white asbestos does pose a health risk if prolonged exposure to it occurs?

I hate to point out that not everyone who does research for an organisation will arrive at conclusions which aren't favourable to that company.
"Nonetheless white asbestos is generally recognised as being dangerous but Dr Bernstein who takes money from asbestos companies is the only dissenting voice - strange that!!" If he compromises his integrity by being a consultant for an asbestos company, how come he accepts that white asbestos does pose a health risk if prolonged exposure to it occurs? I hate to point out that not everyone who does research for an organisation will arrive at conclusions which aren't favourable to that company. ok,jared
  • Score: -3

3:37pm Sun 31 Aug 14

derekhunt says...

ok,jared wrote:
"I really don't want to get into a back and forth 'yes it is - no it isn't' situation with you on this one. Suffice to say that you're really really wrong."

My statement:

"I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present."

is perfectly correct and accurate.

White asbestos ( chrysotile) is generally sealed either by something else or within something else. Artex is an example of the latter.

The only time there is a chance of being exposed to it within the home/office etc is when it is being removed, because there is always the chance that some may be released into the atmosphere. This is why the removers have to be qualified.

However a few exposures pose little to no risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pubmed/23346

982

"These studies have been reviewed in light of the frequent use of amphibole asbestos. As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer. The importance of the present and other similar reviews is that the studies they report show that low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health."

So, whilst the chrysotile remains in place and not in the atmosphere, it doesn't pose a health risk, and even a small amount of inhalation does not increase that.
You appear to be tying yourself up in knots here. Having originally said that white asbestos is totally harmless - you now post a quote saying ''there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer'' - not exactly harmless then?

You're correct in saying that fibres are tightly bound in Artex and that when left in-situ (provided it's in good condition) that it can be harmless but you're wrong again by saying that the only way fibres can be released is during it's removal. General wear and tear and also during renovations (e.g. drilling) also release fibres.

Also, one last thing. There are actually six types of Asbestos - not three.

As ever, you're very welcome
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "I really don't want to get into a back and forth 'yes it is - no it isn't' situation with you on this one. Suffice to say that you're really really wrong." My statement: "I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present." is perfectly correct and accurate. White asbestos ( chrysotile) is generally sealed either by something else or within something else. Artex is an example of the latter. The only time there is a chance of being exposed to it within the home/office etc is when it is being removed, because there is always the chance that some may be released into the atmosphere. This is why the removers have to be qualified. However a few exposures pose little to no risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/23346 982 "These studies have been reviewed in light of the frequent use of amphibole asbestos. As with other respirable particulates, there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer. The importance of the present and other similar reviews is that the studies they report show that low exposures to chrysotile do not present a detectable risk to health." So, whilst the chrysotile remains in place and not in the atmosphere, it doesn't pose a health risk, and even a small amount of inhalation does not increase that.[/p][/quote]You appear to be tying yourself up in knots here. Having originally said that white asbestos is totally harmless - you now post a quote saying ''there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer'' - not exactly harmless then? You're correct in saying that fibres are tightly bound in Artex and that when left in-situ (provided it's in good condition) that it can be harmless but you're wrong again by saying that the only way fibres can be released is during it's removal. General wear and tear and also during renovations (e.g. drilling) also release fibres. Also, one last thing. There are actually six types of Asbestos - not three. As ever, you're very welcome derekhunt
  • Score: 2

3:44pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"You appear to be tying yourself up in knots here. Having originally said that white asbestos is totally harmless - you now post a quote saying ''there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer'' - not exactly harmless then?"

Over-exposure to anything will result in harm, so nothing on the planet is 'totally harmless'.

I was simply pointing out that exposure to reasonable levels of white asbestos will not cause anyone harm.

"You're correct in saying that fibres are tightly bound in Artex and that when left in-situ (provided it's in good condition) that it can be harmless but you're wrong again by saying that the only way fibres can be released is during it's removal. General wear and tear and also during renovations (e.g. drilling) also release fibres."

In other words, when small particles of Artex are being removed.

That is exactly what I said.....try not to argue against points with which you agree.

"Also, one last thing. There are actually six types of Asbestos - not three."

I didn't claim there were only three.
"You appear to be tying yourself up in knots here. Having originally said that white asbestos is totally harmless - you now post a quote saying ''there is evidence that heavy and prolonged exposure to chrysotile can produce lung cancer'' - not exactly harmless then?" Over-exposure to anything will result in harm, so nothing on the planet is 'totally harmless'. I was simply pointing out that exposure to reasonable levels of white asbestos will not cause anyone harm. "You're correct in saying that fibres are tightly bound in Artex and that when left in-situ (provided it's in good condition) that it can be harmless but you're wrong again by saying that the only way fibres can be released is during it's removal. General wear and tear and also during renovations (e.g. drilling) also release fibres." In other words, when small particles of Artex are being removed. That is exactly what I said.....try not to argue against points with which you agree. "Also, one last thing. There are actually six types of Asbestos - not three." I didn't claim there were only three. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

5:10pm Sun 31 Aug 14

derekhunt says...

ok,jared wrote:
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Yes you did claim there were only 3 types of asbestos - see above quote where you state ''there are three types of asbestos..........''


Don't think I could make that any clearer for you
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.[/p][/quote]Yes you did claim there were only 3 types of asbestos - see above quote where you state ''there are three types of asbestos..........'' Don't think I could make that any clearer for you derekhunt
  • Score: 2

5:21pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Yes you did claim there were only 3 types of asbestos - see above quote where you state ''there are three types of asbestos..........''



Don't think I could make that any clearer for you
The full statement reads:

"there are three types of asbestos in construction"

Your intention to misrepresent was indeed clear to me.
[quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.[/p][/quote]Yes you did claim there were only 3 types of asbestos - see above quote where you state ''there are three types of asbestos..........'' Don't think I could make that any clearer for you[/p][/quote]The full statement reads: "there are three types of asbestos in construction" Your intention to misrepresent was indeed clear to me. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

5:37pm Sun 31 Aug 14

derekhunt says...

ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder.

It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance

Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present.

BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.
Yes you did claim there were only 3 types of asbestos - see above quote where you state ''there are three types of asbestos..........''




Don't think I could make that any clearer for you
The full statement reads:

"there are three types of asbestos in construction"

Your intention to misrepresent was indeed clear to me.
OK then. If you're hell-bent on putting pedantry in front of decency and just admitting you're wrong............you
r comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: Actually, there are three types of asbestos in construction, one of which (white) is totally harmless. it has the same chemical structure as talcum powder. It was used widely in the manufacture of Artex, for instance Private Eye has exposed the hysteria over when the word 'asbestos' is used without defining which version is present. BTW I'm not defending these idiots who broke the law by carrying out the removal......I'm simply suggesting that no-one will be at risk should white asbestos be present.[/p][/quote]Yes you did claim there were only 3 types of asbestos - see above quote where you state ''there are three types of asbestos..........'' Don't think I could make that any clearer for you[/p][/quote]The full statement reads: "there are three types of asbestos in construction" Your intention to misrepresent was indeed clear to me.[/p][/quote]OK then. If you're hell-bent on putting pedantry in front of decency and just admitting you're wrong............you r comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used. derekhunt
  • Score: 1

5:59pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"OK then. If you're hell-bent on putting pedantry in front of decency and just admitting you're wrong............you

r comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used."

Try not to confuse 'pedantry' and 'accuracy'.

You were caught trying to misrepresent what I said.

Chrysotile, Amosite and Crocidolite were used in cement product for the construction industry.

Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actinolite were not used commercially for that purpose.
"OK then. If you're hell-bent on putting pedantry in front of decency and just admitting you're wrong............you r comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used." Try not to confuse 'pedantry' and 'accuracy'. You were caught trying to misrepresent what I said. Chrysotile, Amosite and Crocidolite were used in cement product for the construction industry. Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actinolite were not used commercially for that purpose. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

6:21pm Sun 31 Aug 14

derekhunt says...

ok,jared wrote:
"OK then. If you're hell-bent on putting pedantry in front of decency and just admitting you're wrong............you


r comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used."

Try not to confuse 'pedantry' and 'accuracy'.

You were caught trying to misrepresent what I said.

Chrysotile, Amosite and Crocidolite were used in cement product for the construction industry.

Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actinolite were not used commercially for that purpose.
I'm not confusing your pedantry with accuracy because you're not accurate.

Just because you've done a quick Google search on the subject it doesn't mean you now know what you're talking about (bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this)

Firstly, there's more to construction than just cement - asbestos is found in nearly anything, and it can't be said for certain what types are in what product - often asbestos was just used as a filler as it was cheap and abundant - and all types were used - and still are in certain parts of the world
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "OK then. If you're hell-bent on putting pedantry in front of decency and just admitting you're wrong............you r comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used." Try not to confuse 'pedantry' and 'accuracy'. You were caught trying to misrepresent what I said. Chrysotile, Amosite and Crocidolite were used in cement product for the construction industry. Tremolite, Anthophyllite and Actinolite were not used commercially for that purpose.[/p][/quote]I'm not confusing your pedantry with accuracy because you're not accurate. Just because you've done a quick Google search on the subject it doesn't mean you now know what you're talking about (bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this) Firstly, there's more to construction than just cement - asbestos is found in nearly anything, and it can't be said for certain what types are in what product - often asbestos was just used as a filler as it was cheap and abundant - and all types were used - and still are in certain parts of the world derekhunt
  • Score: 3

6:25pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

7:16pm Sun 31 Aug 14

derekhunt says...

ok,jared wrote:
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
OK - think we'll end it there

Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy)

Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person.

And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this.

Nighty Night
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.[/p][/quote]OK - think we'll end it there Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy) Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person. And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this. Nighty Night derekhunt
  • Score: 2

7:21pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
OK - think we'll end it there

Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy)

Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person.

And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this.

Nighty Night
So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted.

Run along, sonny.
[quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.[/p][/quote]OK - think we'll end it there Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy) Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person. And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this. Nighty Night[/p][/quote]So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted. Run along, sonny. ok,jared
  • Score: -3

11:54pm Sun 31 Aug 14

Motorcyclist says...

ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
OK - think we'll end it there

Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy)

Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person.

And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this.

Nighty Night
So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted.

Run along, sonny.
Stevo Stevo Stevo....

Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again.

I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be.

I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.[/p][/quote]OK - think we'll end it there Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy) Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person. And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this. Nighty Night[/p][/quote]So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted. Run along, sonny.[/p][/quote]Stevo Stevo Stevo.... Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again. I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be. I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 2

11:58pm Sun 31 Aug 14

ok,jared says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
OK - think we'll end it there

Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy)

Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person.

And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this.

Nighty Night
So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted.

Run along, sonny.
Stevo Stevo Stevo....

Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again.

I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be.

I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.
Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said.

He was reduced to lying at one stage.

The same thing happened to Lisa.

Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site.

You're welcome.
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.[/p][/quote]OK - think we'll end it there Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy) Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person. And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this. Nighty Night[/p][/quote]So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted. Run along, sonny.[/p][/quote]Stevo Stevo Stevo.... Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again. I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be. I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.[/p][/quote]Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said. He was reduced to lying at one stage. The same thing happened to Lisa. Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site. You're welcome. ok,jared
  • Score: 0

12:06am Mon 1 Sep 14

Motorcyclist says...

ok,jared wrote:
Motorcyclist wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
OK - think we'll end it there

Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy)

Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person.

And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this.

Nighty Night
So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted.

Run along, sonny.
Stevo Stevo Stevo....

Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again.

I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be.

I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.
Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said.

He was reduced to lying at one stage.

The same thing happened to Lisa.

Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site.

You're welcome.
Ha ha!

When you expose yourself for the pathetic little impotent troll you are, people become bored with your judgements and your stupidity. They are not interested in what you have to say.

Your comments on the missing 15 year old girl were so disgusting, the Argus removed the comments thread.

Please see your GP in the morning and tell him/her that you want a psychiatric assessment.

You irritate everyone on this site and I am sorry that this is the only way for you to stimulate yourself.

Please take your meds little man.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.[/p][/quote]OK - think we'll end it there Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy) Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person. And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this. Nighty Night[/p][/quote]So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted. Run along, sonny.[/p][/quote]Stevo Stevo Stevo.... Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again. I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be. I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.[/p][/quote]Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said. He was reduced to lying at one stage. The same thing happened to Lisa. Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Ha ha! When you expose yourself for the pathetic little impotent troll you are, people become bored with your judgements and your stupidity. They are not interested in what you have to say. Your comments on the missing 15 year old girl were so disgusting, the Argus removed the comments thread. Please see your GP in the morning and tell him/her that you want a psychiatric assessment. You irritate everyone on this site and I am sorry that this is the only way for you to stimulate yourself. Please take your meds little man. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 2

12:12am Mon 1 Sep 14

ok,jared says...

Motorcyclist wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Motorcyclist wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
OK - think we'll end it there

Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy)

Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person.

And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this.

Nighty Night
So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted.

Run along, sonny.
Stevo Stevo Stevo....

Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again.

I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be.

I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.
Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said.

He was reduced to lying at one stage.

The same thing happened to Lisa.

Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site.

You're welcome.
Ha ha!

When you expose yourself for the pathetic little impotent troll you are, people become bored with your judgements and your stupidity. They are not interested in what you have to say.

Your comments on the missing 15 year old girl were so disgusting, the Argus removed the comments thread.

Please see your GP in the morning and tell him/her that you want a psychiatric assessment.

You irritate everyone on this site and I am sorry that this is the only way for you to stimulate yourself.

Please take your meds little man.
Upset that you cannot argue with my comments?

Aw, poor you - Mwah!
[quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.[/p][/quote]OK - think we'll end it there Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy) Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person. And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this. Nighty Night[/p][/quote]So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted. Run along, sonny.[/p][/quote]Stevo Stevo Stevo.... Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again. I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be. I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.[/p][/quote]Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said. He was reduced to lying at one stage. The same thing happened to Lisa. Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Ha ha! When you expose yourself for the pathetic little impotent troll you are, people become bored with your judgements and your stupidity. They are not interested in what you have to say. Your comments on the missing 15 year old girl were so disgusting, the Argus removed the comments thread. Please see your GP in the morning and tell him/her that you want a psychiatric assessment. You irritate everyone on this site and I am sorry that this is the only way for you to stimulate yourself. Please take your meds little man.[/p][/quote]Upset that you cannot argue with my comments? Aw, poor you - Mwah! ok,jared
  • Score: -3

12:20am Mon 1 Sep 14

Motorcyclist says...

ok,jared wrote:
Motorcyclist wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
Motorcyclist wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
derekhunt wrote:
ok,jared wrote:
"bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this"

No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure.

Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.
OK - think we'll end it there

Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy)

Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person.

And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this.

Nighty Night
So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted.

Run along, sonny.
Stevo Stevo Stevo....

Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again.

I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be.

I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.
Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said.

He was reduced to lying at one stage.

The same thing happened to Lisa.

Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site.

You're welcome.
Ha ha!

When you expose yourself for the pathetic little impotent troll you are, people become bored with your judgements and your stupidity. They are not interested in what you have to say.

Your comments on the missing 15 year old girl were so disgusting, the Argus removed the comments thread.

Please see your GP in the morning and tell him/her that you want a psychiatric assessment.

You irritate everyone on this site and I am sorry that this is the only way for you to stimulate yourself.

Please take your meds little man.
Upset that you cannot argue with my comments?

Aw, poor you - Mwah!
Derek won the argument so I won't waste my time.

I have no interest in asbestos, although I have seen the effects on unprotected workers. A long slow and painful death.

Please find another hobby Stevo. You are incredibly boring. Get a life.
[quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Motorcyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derekhunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ok,jared[/bold] wrote: "bear in mind you thought there was just the standard 3 types at the beginning of all this" No, I didn't, and I've shown how your desire to 'show' that I did resulted in a failure. Basically, you've been caught lying about what another said.[/p][/quote]OK - think we'll end it there Firstly, I'd suggest getting some sleep (I notice one of your posts was 2:40 in the morning - that can't be healthy) Also, and I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting here, I'd suggest getting some help. To read your posts it really looks like you're suffering delusions brought on by some sort of psychosis. I don't think you're a well person. And if you have had something like this diagnosed I'd suggest steering clear of the internet and especially comments boards like this. Nighty Night[/p][/quote]So you have nothing left to argue with after failing to disprove anything I've posted. Run along, sonny.[/p][/quote]Stevo Stevo Stevo.... Derek, like Lisa, exposed you as the idiot troll yet again. I hope the Argus will block your endless bile. I hope the police will trace you. You will already be known by the mental health team. If not, you soon will be. I hope you will take your medication soon. All of it. At once.[/p][/quote]Derek ran off after I had countered everything he said. He was reduced to lying at one stage. The same thing happened to Lisa. Oh,and the fact that you weren't able to counter any of my posts anywhere show that YOU are the one trolling this site. You're welcome.[/p][/quote]Ha ha! When you expose yourself for the pathetic little impotent troll you are, people become bored with your judgements and your stupidity. They are not interested in what you have to say. Your comments on the missing 15 year old girl were so disgusting, the Argus removed the comments thread. Please see your GP in the morning and tell him/her that you want a psychiatric assessment. You irritate everyone on this site and I am sorry that this is the only way for you to stimulate yourself. Please take your meds little man.[/p][/quote]Upset that you cannot argue with my comments? Aw, poor you - Mwah![/p][/quote]Derek won the argument so I won't waste my time. I have no interest in asbestos, although I have seen the effects on unprotected workers. A long slow and painful death. Please find another hobby Stevo. You are incredibly boring. Get a life. Motorcyclist
  • Score: 2

12:42am Mon 1 Sep 14

ok,jared says...

"Derek won the argument so I won't waste my time."

You mean you won't waste your time looking for something that you know doesn't exist.

Derek claimed:

"White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous."

He argued with himself, there.

The fact is that constant exposure to it can kill.

Derek:

"You're correct in saying that fibres are tightly bound in Artex and that when left in-situ (provided it's in good condition) that it can be harmless but you're wrong again by saying that the only way fibres can be released is during it's removal. General wear and tear and also during renovations (e.g. drilling) also release fibres."

I had to point out that I had also stated that before he did, so he didn't 'win' that exchange.

Derek:

" There are actually six types of Asbestos - not three."

Suggesting that I had claimed there were only three. I hadn't.

When challenged, he partially quoted me:

"''there are three types of asbestos..........''


which wasn't what I had claimed.

I had actually claimed:

"there are three types of asbestos in construction"

Which isn't the same thing as he had claimed.....so he had lied.

Derek then wriggled:

".your comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used."

So I presented the six types and showed that only three were used in construction on a commercial basis, proving me right and him wrong.

Derek continued to wriggle:

"often asbestos was just used as a filler as it was cheap and abundant - and all types were used - and still are in certain parts of the world"

Note the complete absence of any attempt to state which types were being used or proof that they were.

He then performed the " I've lost so I'm going to insult you" act and ran away.

My pleasure.
"Derek won the argument so I won't waste my time." You mean you won't waste your time looking for something that you know doesn't exist. Derek claimed: "White Asbestos is most definitely not totally harmless. It's the least dangerous type of Asbestos, It may not kill you and it is less likely to present health issues but it is still very hazardous." He argued with himself, there. The fact is that constant exposure to it can kill. Derek: "You're correct in saying that fibres are tightly bound in Artex and that when left in-situ (provided it's in good condition) that it can be harmless but you're wrong again by saying that the only way fibres can be released is during it's removal. General wear and tear and also during renovations (e.g. drilling) also release fibres." I had to point out that I had also stated that before he did, so he didn't 'win' that exchange. Derek: " There are actually six types of Asbestos - not three." Suggesting that I had claimed there were only three. I hadn't. When challenged, he partially quoted me: "''there are three types of asbestos..........'' which wasn't what I had claimed. I had actually claimed: "there are three types of asbestos in construction" Which isn't the same thing as he had claimed.....so he had lied. Derek then wriggled: ".your comment that there are three types of asbestos in construction is wrong. There were six types used." So I presented the six types and showed that only three were used in construction on a commercial basis, proving me right and him wrong. Derek continued to wriggle: "often asbestos was just used as a filler as it was cheap and abundant - and all types were used - and still are in certain parts of the world" Note the complete absence of any attempt to state which types were being used or proof that they were. He then performed the " I've lost so I'm going to insult you" act and ran away. My pleasure. ok,jared
  • Score: -1

1:32am Mon 1 Sep 14

ok,jared says...

So even after being spoonfed the facts, Motorcyclist admits that he doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend them.
So even after being spoonfed the facts, Motorcyclist admits that he doesn't have the intelligence to comprehend them. ok,jared
  • Score: -2

8:18pm Mon 1 Sep 14

Fred'smate says...

I think some people need to have a look at how a proper discussion takes place:

http://forums.plenty
offish.com/datingFor
um97.aspx
I think some people need to have a look at how a proper discussion takes place: http://forums.plenty offish.com/datingFor um97.aspx Fred'smate
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree