Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
uk.legal
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Squirm squirm squirm
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
tim.....  
View profile  
 More options Nov 12 2012, 7:34 pm
Newsgroups: uk.legal
From: "tim....." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:34:04 -0000
Local: Mon, Nov 12 2012 7:34 pm
Subject: Re: Squirm squirm squirm
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:ins2a8lnns43lsbvalkkfv26eh3jebc675@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:15:33 -0000, "tim....."
> <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:ovkt98ldp6qqc5qjti85g62n5acem2vsca@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:17:33 -0000, "tim....."
>>> <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>>>"GB" <NOTsome...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:509d502e$0$1147$5b6aafb4@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>>> On 09/11/2012 17:55, Jacob Von Hogflume wrote:
>>>>>> McAlpine to take legal action. Bet he loses.

>>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20274111

>>>>> I certainly hope he wins.

>>>>I don't see how he possibly can.

>>> Very easily.

>>>>No-one at the BBC claimed that he was the person they were referring to,

>>> There was sufficient information to make it clear.

>>Really,

>>I had absolutely no idea from the information reported afterwards (I
>>didn't
>>see the actual report so maybe there was some extra stuff)

> And?

> Whether any specific individual knew ort not is irrelevant.

> If there was sufficient information to enable a number of people to
> identify him,

This is the point I am disputing. All that seems to have been said is is
that it was someone from the Thatcher era.

How is that enough to identify any individual?

Just because someone might guess right doesn't make it enough.

> and at least some of those people would be likely to
> think less of him as a result, that is enough for libel purposes.

That part is not in dispute

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google