Lord McAlpine

[Judith]

In the light of a recent rejection by ULM mods - should the moderators perhaps
make an announcement that posts with the words "Lord McAlpine" in will always
be rejected as they will be possibly defamatory.

[The Todal]

I don't know. Don't sit on the fence, though. What's your advice?

[Judith]

To be fair and consistent: Yes.

Someone on the white list may make an innocuous post like I did which could be
potentially defamatory.

[The Todal]

I see we have already added McAlpine to the trigger words list. Great
minds think alike, Judith.

[M Wicks]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Real funny, Toadster.

[Judith]

To be fair : I think The Todal was not being sarcastic.

[The Todal]

Indeed not.

[M Wicks]

In that case I apologise.

[A.Lee]

The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

> I see we have already added McAlpine to the trigger words list. Great
> minds think alike, Judith.

I am surprised that the original post has still been published,
unedited, on the moderation pages.
This post was about a man who allegedly paid for a Solicitor to attend a
public inquiry to see if his name was mentioned (it wasnt apparently),
and is rich enough to sue anyone who makes an attempt to tarnish his
name, which, by insinuation, the rejected post does.
Come on, the weasel wording is there, in the rejected message, to point
out that the person concerned could be involved in illegal activities.

If I were one of the moderators, I would be editing it asap, as, even
though you have rejected it, you have published it. Coming the day after
posters on Facebook were ordered to pay damages to a victim of crime, it
does not take much to link the Moderators to behaviour which could be
libellous.

Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-11-06, A.Lee <alan@darkroom.+.com> wrote:
> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> I see we have already added McAlpine to the trigger words list. Great
>> minds think alike, Judith.
>
> I am surprised that the original post has still been published,
> unedited, on the moderation pages.

Indeed; that would not have happened if I had been the person who
rejected it.

> If I were one of the moderators, I would be editing it asap

Unfortunately, we have no ability to do that.

[A.Lee]

And now a prominent persons Solicitor is on the case, it may be time to
see if {R} can delete the post before you get a letter.

[Judith]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:48:50 +0000, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:

<snip>

>And now a prominent persons Solicitor is on the case, it may be time to
>see if {R} can delete the post before you get a letter.

Don't be shy. Do you mean Lord McAlpine's solicitor?

You really are a wanker if you think that.

Now lets see. Who shall we do for slander and libel? Shall we do the BBC, ITV,
Philip Schofield, the raped boy victim, and the three major newspapers who
named my client.

No - I know. Let's do the moderators of uk.legal.moderated: they seem to have
acted most outrageously and also have the deepest pockets. And of course
there are several tens of thousands members of the public will have seen what
the moderators published

[Percy Picacity]

On Radio 4 earlier this evening an even more famous libel solicitor
criticised (he didn't 'blame' him, but 'supposed he was not very
experienced in defamation'!) said lord's solicitor for failing to
pursue nonentities on Twitter etc (and we know libel lawyers know about
usenet) precisely because early legal warnings have a chilling effect
on social media gossip. So apart from it being the moderators'
business how cautious they are, you may possibly be mistaken about the
relative risks taken by them and the newspapers. You may also notice
that the newspapers have not really mentioned his name until today,
when the Guardian at least is claiming conclusive evidence that he is
innocent, unlike his wealthy North Wales relatives.


--

Percy Picacity

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2012-11-09, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Don't be shy. Do you mean [snip]'s solicitor?

>
> You really are a wanker if you think that.
>
> Now lets see. Who shall we do for slander and libel? Shall we do the BBC, ITV,
> Philip Schofield, the raped boy victim, and the three major newspapers who
> named my client.
>
> No - I know. Let's do the moderators of uk.legal.moderated: they seem to have
> acted most outrageously and also have the deepest pockets. And of course
> there are several tens of thousands members of the public will have seen what
> the moderators published

The BBC is reporting that his solicitor is explicitly saying that he
will be going after Internet posts.

[steve robinson]

Well the outers of the victim of chad evans have been forced to pay
out £650.00

[steve robinson]

Those posting the remarks are playing right into the hands of the
officials who wish to curtail our electronic freedoms

[Judith]

Good to see that the moderators of ULM are taking no chances

===========================================================
Reject reason given -->
This is off topic for uk.legal.moderated or has insufficient law-related
material - see http://www.uklegal.fsnet.co.uk/ulm.htm

[redacted]
man-reject-248313jbril

===========================================================

The "redacted post":

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord McAlpine: abuse allegations 'wholly false and seriously defamatory'

Former Tory treasurer says he has 'never been' to children's home in Wrexham,
'nor have I ever visited any children's home'


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/09/lord-mcalpine-abuse-allegations-false

So those people who jumped to conclusions: you may have been wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Judith]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:59:14 +0000, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>Well the outers of the victim of chad evans have been forced to pay
>out £650.00

And that of course is not comparable at all - but thanks for the effort.

[Judith]

Are you getting worried now?

It must be time that The Todal skipped the country then.

(PS - don't repeat anything from the Guardian - you may also be guilty )

[steve robinson]

No its not probably by several tens of thousands

Its already been made clear (announced on tv by the solicitors) that
they have been instructed to persue those on the internet posting the
comments most of whom wll be in similar financial positions as the
moderators .

The one difference being the mods run a legal newsgroup and as such
should be far more aware of the ramifications

In the chad evans saga those prosecuted stated that they were unaware
of the legalities about naming a rape victim through social media
there was some leaway given because it was unclear at the time wether
social media (electronic gossiping) fell within the remit of the law .

[Nick]

I'm not sure I follow?

They redacted a post of yours because you repeated (without additional
information) a claim made in the Guardian? An article based upon a press
release by Lord McAlpine himself. A message he clearly wanted disseminated.

Has the spirit of the Jimmy inspired witch hunts driven the moderators mad?

[Judith]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:59:51 +0000, "steve robinson"

<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:

>Judith wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:59:14 +0000, "steve robinson"
>> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> > Well the outers of the victim of chad evans have been forced to pay
>> > out £650.00
>>
>>
>> And that of course is not comparable at all - but thanks for the
>> effort.
>
>No its not probably by several tens of thousands

I think you will find that it was a criminal case heard by magistrates.

[Judith]

There must be an underlying sound legal reason. I have asked a legal question
in ULM. No-names - no pack-drill.

[steve robinson]

It was, however the end result was the same

[Judith]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:24:34 +0000, "steve robinson"

Rubbish.

There has been a criminal case and a conviction on one side. There has been
talk on the other and no result whatsoever.

I suspect that some well known people who *did* openly twitter Lord McAlpine's
name may be pursued through the courts.

I doubt very much whether myself or the Todal will - or indeed many of the
140,000 people who wrote the other pages which mention ""lord mcalpine" child
abuse" which Google finds.

[steve robinson]

Judith wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 12:24:34 +0000, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Judith wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:59:51 +0000, "steve robinson"
> >> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Judith wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:59:14 +0000, "steve robinson"
> >> >> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Well the outers of the victim of chad evans have been forced
> to >> pay >> > out £650.00
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> And that of course is not comparable at all - but thanks for the
> >> >> effort.
> >> >
> >> > No its not probably by several tens of thousands
> >>
> >> I think you will find that it was a criminal case heard by
> >> magistrates.
> >
> > It was, however the end result was the same
>
>
> Rubbish.
>
> There has been a criminal case and a conviction on one side. There
> has been talk on the other and no result whatsoever.

However the end result will be the same if action is pursued and given
the nature of the aligation and the prominance of the accussed its a
forgone conclusion that action will be forthcomming, Hence several
grovelling apologies
>
> I suspect that some well known people who did openly twitter Lord

> McAlpine's name may be pursued through the courts.
>
> I doubt very much whether myself or the Todal will - or indeed many
> of the 140,000 people who wrote the other pages which mention ""lord
> mcalpine" child abuse" which Google finds.

The only one spouting rubbish round here is you
and you wonder why you get scrutinised by the moderators

No one has said they will persue everyone they certainly wont persue
those that have discussed the deflamatory posts only those that
instigated such or have contributed to the deflammation .

Methinks bozo bin for you again

[A.Lee]

Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
> There must be an underlying sound legal reason. I have asked a legal question
> in ULM. No-names - no pack-drill.

You didnt ask a legal question, you repeated some rumours, (that many
did not know about, and thus identifying an individual), then followed
this up with a line saying something like "lets hope the truth comes out
this time"

This insinuates that the individual named was guilty, and had got off
with it 'last time'.

Clearly Libellous to that person, by associating him with an illegal
act, that, is widely reported now, he had entirely nothing to do with.

Don't bother with your 'I'm just asking legitimate questions', as the
majority of readers know of your scheming ways , and the post was
clearly correctly rejected, and you are very lucky that the named person
will not be sueing every individual involved in his naming.

[Judith]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:02:15 +0000, "steve robinson"

You certainly have suggested that both the mods and I are on very dodgy ground
because of what we have said.

I totally disagree.

I am willing to bet any amount of money you like as to whether there is any
legal actions as a result of what has been said in URL; there won't be; get
real.

On the other hand there are some other people who *will* most likely face legal
action.

Don't you always love when people say something like "Methinks bozo bin for you
again".

Why not just do it? Why are you so proud of the fact that you have to tell
everyone. "Look, what a man I am - I am going to put this naughty person in my
kill-file; aren't I clever" - ffs.

I am sure that there are many people (possibly even me :-) in many different
kill-files. It is only the fuckwits that have to tell people; just like you
have done

So in the future, you post some shite (as is your wont); I pull it to pieces
either quite fairly and logically (or perhaps even not) - and you read it but
are too pig-headed to be able respond.

Excellent.

Can you tell me - is the period in your bozo-bin permanent or indeterminate?

If you won't see any other posts I make in response to your posts in the
future, I may as well tell you to fuck off now whilst you are still reading
them.

[Judith]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:18:48 +0000, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:

<snip>

>Don't bother with your 'I'm just asking legitimate questions', as the
>majority of readers know of your scheming ways , and the post was
>clearly correctly rejected, and you are very lucky that the named person
>will not be sueing every individual involved in his naming.

I assume you mean people like The Todal?

[Judith]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:18:48 +0000, alan@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:

>Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> There must be an underlying sound legal reason. I have asked a legal question
>> in ULM. No-names - no pack-drill.

<snip>


Oh dear.

Perhaps you can now explain how you managed to read the question I have asked -
and say that I haven't asked one when it hasn't even been moderated yet?

Unless you are confused - as usual.

You will have to wait and see, but the question starts: "Can someone's
name....."

You will be able to read it in ULM (hopefully) or if not there, then in here.

[Nomen Nescio]

In article <1tps98dcr6cdu3j21...@4ax.com>

I have over GBP100,000 to bet if JMS says who they are.