It's like reality TV, only not on TV

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I am too tired to post the exact texts and precedents, but imagine the
scene: a robed judge sitting elevated above the court, me at one end
of the bench, Zen's legal officer at the other.

We had been through the evidence, condensing the rambling story of
Nuxx Bar to its essentials. We had heard that five warnings had been
issued by Zen. The meaning of a course of conduct in the Protection
from Harassment Act was raised. The judge withdrew to consider.

An hour. Another 15 minutes. All rise.

First, the precedent for granting a Norwich Pharmacal order. Three
tests are listed: is there evidence of an actionable tort, is this the
responsibility of an individual, and is the defendant mixed up in the
matter, albeit as an innocent party.

Dramatic music (in my head anyway). I am satisfied that these tests
are met.

Now there is the matter of the judge's discretion. In this he is
guided by the precedent in Totalise v. Motley Fool. Is it five tests
or seven? I don't recall, I think five, but the gist of it is: has a
wrong been done; has the defendant afforded anonymity to the
wrongdoer; has the applicant exhausted all other avenues for getting
the information necessary to protect their legal rights or reputation.

This is a boardroom moment. The judge pauses.

Yes, he is satisfied that these tests are met. He has cited examples
from my evidence bundle. He has complimented Zen Internet's legal
representative on her professionalism. He has complimented me - to an
embarrassing degree - on the quality of presentation of my evidence,
and on my command of it.

We, Zen and I, are left with the impression that something rather
unusual has happened. We are struck by the fact that we were lucky
that we were before this judge in this court; many other judges might
have failed to understand the complexities of the case.

And now the matter at issue: will an order be made against Zen
Internet requiring them to provide their subscriber details? This is,
believe me, a moment of high tension for me. It's the culmination of
months of work dredging through the deepest recesses of the cesspit
that is Nuxx Bar's contribution to Usenet.

And the answer?

Yes.

I have the details.

I have an address, a telephone number, and other information. This
information is compelling. It is now in the hands of the police.

Let's be clear here: as Churchill said, this is not the end, it is not
even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. I
believe that with this information the police and the CPS will take
the next steps towards prosecution. An arrest has been made, I now
have information from two completely independent sources. The legal
process will take I think probably at least a year. But I can now
apply for injunctive relief and assess the likelihood of the defendant
being able to meet my costs and pay compensation.

And no, I won't say. I gave an undertaking tot he court not to do so,
and I wouldn't anyway. I can and will discuss the case, the judgment
(when I receive the full text). This is more complex than the simple
answer I first believed, but probably that complexity will evaporate
as the investigation progresses.

I am very conscious that if this case goes as those involved think it
will go - the judge spoke of sinister and I believe menacing behaviour
- then there is every chance that it will ruin the career of the
likely suspect. That is a terrible responsibility, but if I am right
then it is a just outcome as that person may, on the face of it, have
privileged access to private data. I am convinced that they are not a
fit person to have such access.

So, there's been lots of larking about but this has now got an order
of magnitude more serious. The fact of five formal warnings having
been issued, including one temporary disconnection, removes any
possible defence of ignorance.

A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

Five warnings. I can say this because it was stated in open court and
does not compromise the confidentiality of the data.

And documentary evidence of nuisance phone calls.

And documentary evidence of privacy violations.

And documentary evidence of header forgery.

The suspect denies all this, but Nuxx Bar denied posting the "All my
details" message, and some of you have seen the documentary evidence
proving that this piously stated assurance was a bald-faced lie.

Oh, did all that sound a bit tense? Sorry, it's been an emotional day.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Tattoo, spotting the seaplane approaching the island, runs up a tower
and excitedly yells, with a French accent, "Ze Plane! Ze Plane!" and
rings a bell.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[The Medicated Handyman]

On 29/11/2011 22:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>

> I have an address, a telephone number, and other information. This
> information is compelling. It is now in the hands of the police.
>

snip

>
> And no, I won't say. I gave an undertaking tot he court not to do so,
> and I wouldn't anyway. I can and will discuss the case, the judgment
> (when I receive the full text). This is more complex than the simple
> answer I first believed, but probably that complexity will evaporate
> as the investigation progresses.
>

were these hearings held in public?

is it possible for a member of the public to get access to the court
transcript in order to learn Nuxx's identity?

if so, how is this done?

[Simon Mason]

On Nov 30, 1:13 am, The Medicated Handyman <inva...@invalid.com>
wrote:

Come on the Big Night Out and find out from Guy first hand how he did
it.
The drinks are on me.

--
Simon Mason

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Not at this point, no. That will have to wait until any prosecution is
brought to court.

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:13:53 +0000, The Medicated Handyman
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

You don't need the court transcript - just like the fuckwit Porky did not need
to go to court.

All you need to do is look at the web-page on his site which is devoted to Nuxx
- including where he lives and what his real name is, what he does for work -
and which company he works for.

Oh - bummer - you can't see it - because Porky has removed it.

However, I have a copy - so if there is anything you need to know - then just
email me. Of course I would not want to share private and confidential
information in case it went up my arse - unlike Porky and Simple of course :-)

He also has the details (as he has told us here) of Nuxx's mother - goodness
knows why he is saving those.

He is well and truly barking.

[Simon Mason]

On Nov 30, 7:15 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

<usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:13:53 +0000, The Medicated Handyman
>
>
>
>
>
> <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >On 29/11/2011 22:53, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> >> I have an address, a telephone number, and other information. This
> >> information is compelling. It is now in the hands of the police.
>
> >snip
>
> >> And no, I won't say. I gave an undertaking tot he court not to do so,
> >> and I wouldn't anyway. I can and will discuss the case, the judgment
> >> (when I receive the full text). This is more complex than the simple
> >> answer I first believed, but probably that complexity will evaporate
> >> as the investigation progresses.
>
> >were these hearings held in public?
>
> >is it possible for a member of the public to get access to the court
> >transcript in order to learn Nuxx's identity?
>
> >if so, how is this done?
>
> Not at this point, no. That will have to wait until any prosecution is
> brought to court.
>
> Guy
> --

> Guy Chapman,http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

> The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed

> to be worth at least what you paid for them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

At least you have got a judge who seems to see how serious Nuxx's
behaviour was.
It is a good sign.

--
Simon Mason

[Bertie Wooster]

It sounds like you have done enough to prevent any liklihood of
further harassment by Nuxxy against anyone ever again.

Isn't that sufficient?

If it is, to do more would be revenge. Revenge, while sweet for a
while, is never really satisfying. Pity and forgiveness is far more
powerful.

However, this case could provide good sport from the sidelines.

[Judith]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:55:31 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>At least you have got a judge who seems to see how serious Nuxx's
>behaviour was.
>It is a good sign.

Oh is the Judge going to be assigned to any future cases concerning Porky?

I did not know that that was how things worked.

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:30:43 +0000, Bertie Wooster <ber...@nospam.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>Oh, did all that sound a bit tense? Sorry, it's been an emotional day.

Emotional eh?

Did you get emotionally involved with yourself once you got home - you naughty
little piglet you :-)

>It sounds like you have done enough to prevent any liklihood of
>further harassment by Nuxxy against anyone ever again.
>
>Isn't that sufficient?
>
>If it is, to do more would be revenge. Revenge, while sweet for a
>while, is never really satisfying. Pity and forgiveness is far more
>powerful.

Quite. He reckons he is a christian as well.

One would have thought that getting Nuxx arrested a few weeks ago - as Porky
has told us previously - would have been sufficient.

I think there is more to it than meets the eye.

He knew all along who Nuxx was - where he worked etc. He could have had a
cease and desist letter served on him months ago.

But no - he being Porky wanted more for himself out if it.

Perhaps he is not very well off financially and is actually looking for
"compo".

>However, this case could provide good sport from the sidelines.

Oh, it will Mr Crispin, it really will :-)

[Simon Mason]

> However, this case could provide good sport from the sidelines.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Guy does not do revenge - he does justice.
And we have not been through what he has been through.

--
Simon Mason

[Mr Benn]

"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aff93281-7e5f-4e83...@r9g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

He was completely out of order publishing Chapman's personal details
including his address, telephone number and information about his family and
deserves punishment.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:30:43 +0000, Bertie Wooster <ber...@nospam.com>
wrote:

>It sounds like you have done enough to prevent any liklihood of
>further harassment by Nuxxy against anyone ever again.
>Isn't that sufficient?

No, I afraid that I don't think this is sufficient in itself to
prevent further problems. His pattern of behaviour has been
consistently to lie low after a disconnection or warning, then start
again, and each time he has escalated further and quicker. There's no
evidence that he accepts the validity of complaints against him, or
that he understands that he's out of line.

I can't be properly objective about it, which is why I have handed the
matter to the police. It is striking that the police and the judge
have both apparently concluded that this behaviour is worse than I had
personally characterised it.

And the suspect still denies it, exactly as Nuxx denied posting my
private details. He did not admit it even after it became apparent
that I have data conclusively proving it to be the case. He still
denies the nuisance calls, even though again I have conclusive
evidence that they happened. Remember, this is someone who the
evidence suggests has been TOSd by three ISPs and who we know had five
formal warnings before disconnection by Zen.

I also have some evidence that this behaviour goes back to his teens.

I genuinely believe that nothing short of criminal prosecution will
stop this person, because I am not convinced that they understand the
unacceptability of their conduct, and I think there are people around
the person who are acting to protect them from the consequences of
their actions and assisting them in maintaining denial. There's some
evidence that this behaviour goes back over a decade, to the person's
adolescence and perhaps even further back than that.

In short, the consensus among those who have all the information is
that this individual is seriously disturbed, and that there may be
people enabling or protecting them from the consequences of their
actions.

I have a friend who has also had trouble with a stalker. Their stalker
has been sectioned several times now. I'm not suggesting that this is
the same but the behaviour displayed is socipathic and I for one am
not qualified to judge when "enough" has been done to control it. So
having agonised over it for a long time I'm afraid I don't feel I have
a choice, and yes I do feel bad about it but in the end I think it is
really the only way to permanently stop this behaviour and prevent the
person from pursuing other targets who may be less resourceful than
me.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:57:50 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
<swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Guy does not do revenge - he does justice.
>And we have not been through what he has been through.

Oh I do revenge, but not tot he point of ruining people's lives, which
this might well do. The more evidence I see the more convinced I
become that this is an illness to be treated with compassion (though
still with firmness). It's possible that the person is evil, but much
more likely that they have simply never had to properly face up tot he
consequences of their actions. It is possible that people around them
are in a similar position.

I don't think I am angry any more, but I am certainly determined to
see this through. As the judge pointed out, there are elements of this
case which are sinister and chilling, when looked at from the outside.
We're on the inside so we can't really judge objectively.

[Paul - xxx]

Bertie Wooster wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:53:21 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

> > Oh, did all that sound a bit tense? Sorry, it's been an emotional
> > day.
>
> It sounds like you have done enough to prevent any liklihood of
> further harassment by Nuxxy against anyone ever again.
>
> Isn't that sufficient?

No.

Nuxx has previously been warned and terminated by his ISP(s) a number
of times, I believe, and has simply continued after a while in the same
vein. Him and others of his ilk need to _know_ they simply can't carry
on in this manner, I say carry on Guy.

> If it is, to do more would be revenge. Revenge, while sweet for a
> while, is never really satisfying. Pity and forgiveness is far more
> powerful.

Not revenge, more like making sure justice is done.

> However, this case could provide good sport from the sidelines.

If you think it's sport then you are not a nice person. This is
potentially someone's whole life and livelihood.

--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.

[al Mossah]

On Nov 29, 10:53 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

<usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>
> I have the details.
>
> I have an address, a telephone number, and other information. This
> information is compelling. It is now in the hands of the police.
>

Awesome result, no doubt achieved by a hell of a lot of hard work and
emotion. Well done.

[Simon Mason]

As someone who has been on the receiving end of online harassment
myself culminating in the spiteful letter that was sent to my
employers, I have some inkling of what Guy went through, albeit his
was a lot of notches higher in terms of stalking than in my case.

It is not a nice experience at all and it is wonderful that we have
the means to bring these cowards to justice at last and let them get a
taste of their own medicine and see how they like it. They are not so
big and brave in a court of law as they are from the safety of their
keyboard, that is for sure.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:48:06 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>


You are a liar and a fool.

You have done this for revenge no more no less.

You had already complained to the police. You had already told the police who
you *knew* Nuxx Bar to be and they had arrested that person. You could not
wait for the law to run its course - you needed to personally benefit from
things.

There was no reason whatsoever for you to take the action you have taken -
other than to show off to the few people who do not despise you - and to cause
further grief for Nuxx Bar.

You are an arsehole.
--

Total number of posts to URC from
IP Address:80.254.146.36 over 6 years = 7

Guy Chapman : 5
Lou Knee: 2

Coincidence?
(Guy Chapman Dell Magnet)

[Mr Benn]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:egccd7tcklgasrk5f...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:48:06 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> You are a liar and a fool.
>
> You have done this for revenge no more no less.
>
> You had already complained to the police. You had already told the police
> who
> you *knew* Nuxx Bar to be and they had arrested that person. You could
> not
> wait for the law to run its course - you needed to personally benefit from
> things.
>
> There was no reason whatsoever for you to take the action you have taken -
> other than to show off to the few people who do not despise you - and to
> cause
> further grief for Nuxx Bar.

What Nuxx Bar did was very wrong. He over-stepped the mark by a large
margin by publishing Chapman and his family's personal details which
amounted to harassment. But Chapman only stands to lose even more respect
by appearing to celebrate what is presumably happening to "Nuxx Bar".

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:54:56 -0800 (PST), al Mossah <almo...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

You see he is actually lying there.

When he says "it is *now* in the hands of the police"

He knew Nuxx Bar's real name - he knew what he did for work - and he knew where
he worked. He published it all on his web pages. Not bright!!
He has already provided that information to the police.

He could have served a "cease and desist" order on Nuxx Bar if he had wanted
to. He didn't. It was all part of his cunning plan.

He has already been to the police with the information he had already - he has
got no new information.

He is an obnoxious cunt.

Bugger - will he take me to court now .....

[Bertie Wooster]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:57:50 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
<swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Guy does not do revenge - he does justice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8jUklA1nmk

[Bertie Wooster]

On 30 Nov 2011 11:01:43 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> However, this case could provide good sport from the sidelines.
>
>If you think it's sport then you are not a nice person. This is
>potentially someone's whole life and livelihood.

I may hate it, but I still find this compulsive viewing:
=====Warning - vile content=====
http://disgustingmedia.com/videos/5/one-man-one-jar
=====/Warning - vile content=====

Describing it as "good sport" was probably wrong, however.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:53:09 -0000, "Mr Benn" <inv...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>What Nuxx Bar did was very wrong. He over-stepped the mark by a large
>margin by publishing Chapman and his family's personal details which
>amounted to harassment. But Chapman only stands to lose even more respect
>by appearing to celebrate what is presumably happening to "Nuxx Bar".

I don't celebrate it at all. I celebrate only the fact that anonymous
cowards can be brought to book. At this point anything I document
about the Nuxx Bar case is for the information of others who have been
victims of harassment. Remember, there is no real-world identity tied
to the name Nuxx Bar, and if there was I very much doubt if he'd have
dared to do much of what he did. And it goes well beyond what was
published on Usenet.

[Zapp Brannigan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5kmad7tq0gsqsjqij...@4ax.com...

> Let's be clear here: as Churchill said, this is not the end, it is not
> even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. I
> believe that with this information the police and the CPS will take
> the next steps towards prosecution. An arrest has been made, I now
> have information from two completely independent sources. The legal
> process will take I think probably at least a year. But I can now
> apply for injunctive relief and assess the likelihood of the defendant
> being able to meet my costs and pay compensation.

Congratulations Guy, a well-deserved result.

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:03:39 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Fuck off - and get a life.

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:30:26 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:53:09 -0000, "Mr Benn" <inv...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>What Nuxx Bar did was very wrong. He over-stepped the mark by a large
>>margin by publishing Chapman and his family's personal details which
>>amounted to harassment. But Chapman only stands to lose even more respect
>>by appearing to celebrate what is presumably happening to "Nuxx Bar".
>
>I don't celebrate it at all. I celebrate only the fact that anonymous
>cowards can be brought to book. At this point anything I document
>about the Nuxx Bar case is for the information of others who have been
>victims of harassment. Remember, there is no real-world identity tied
>to the name Nuxx Bar, and if there was I very much doubt if he'd have
>dared to do much of what he did.

Oh but there is Porky. It was you yourself who prepared a full webpage
entitled Nuxx Bar.

And of course on that web page - you said what his real name was, what he did
for a job, and actually who he worked for; almost as if you were trying to push
him over the edge. I hope that you weren't doing that.

It was you yourself who told the police who he was, where he lived and got
him arrested.

It is very odd that you did not let the police get on with their job - or issue
a "Cease & Desist" letter from a solicitor - at a cost of £100.

It is almost as if you wanted to get something else out of your day in court.

What was it?

False self-esteem?

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:24:58 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Fuck off - and get a life.
>

>Why do you have a soft corner for the culprit, who very obviously was a
>serial offender that received multiple warnings and was TOSd from
>different ISPs?
>


Firstly : Whoever made the page of information about Porky was definitely out
of order.

It is not so much that I have a soft spot for Nuxx Bar - it is more that I find
Porky Chapman despicable.

I will expand on this in another post - a direct reply to Porky

[Judith]

Perhaps you can share with us:

Why did you publish Nuxx Bar's personal details : real name, his job, and who
he worked for on your devoted Nuxx Bar web page?

Why did you remove the web page after Nuxx Bar published *your* personal
details?

Did you think that you had perhaps gone too far?

Did you not consider that what *you* did was a privacy violation of Nuxx Bar?

Why did you not just ask your telephone company to put a track and trace on
your line? - which they will do if you report nuisance calls to the police.

Why did you not serve a Cease and Desist letter on Nuxx Bar?

Why did you not let the police follow their course of action as they had
arrested Nuxx Bar and had not completed their investigation?

If someone was making nuisance phone calls and visiting your house - I do not
believe that the police would not do anything. Why did you not insist?

What did you hope to get out of this other than self-gratification?

For how long had you known that Nuxx Bar may have had previous similar problems
with other people?

Were you ever told there may be a mental health issue?

I think your description of the case below and the tone you use speaks
volumes. When you say quite emotional - care to expand?

I suppose the music in your head is different from the usual voices.

PS - it is not reality TV - it is someone's life. If someone did do as you
have accused them - then they were obviously mentally ill.

I liked where elsewhere you said that you thought that he may have had a recent
new child - puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

I liked the bit where you said : "there is every chance that it will ruin the
career of the likely suspect". Makes you think that - doesn't it?

Did you think it was a game, where someone could lose their career - perhaps
also having just had a new child?

You could have gone about things in a totally different way.

People may have thought better of you if you had.

But of course you wanted to get some satisfaction and self-gratification rather
than resolve a serious issue.

You have lived up to your reputation - you are a nasty piece of work.

PS Do you still consider yourself a christian?


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

>I have the details.
>
>I have an address, a telephone number, and other information. This
>information is compelling. It is now in the hands of the police.
>

>Let's be clear here: as Churchill said, this is not the end, it is not
>even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. I
>believe that with this information the police and the CPS will take
>the next steps towards prosecution. An arrest has been made, I now
>have information from two completely independent sources. The legal
>process will take I think probably at least a year. But I can now
>apply for injunctive relief and assess the likelihood of the defendant
>being able to meet my costs and pay compensation.
>

>And no, I won't say. I gave an undertaking tot he court not to do so,
>and I wouldn't anyway. I can and will discuss the case, the judgment
>(when I receive the full text). This is more complex than the simple
>answer I first believed, but probably that complexity will evaporate
>as the investigation progresses.
>

>I am very conscious that if this case goes as those involved think it
>will go - the judge spoke of sinister and I believe menacing behaviour
>- then there is every chance that it will ruin the career of the
>likely suspect. That is a terrible responsibility, but if I am right
>then it is a just outcome as that person may, on the face of it, have
>privileged access to private data. I am convinced that they are not a
>fit person to have such access.
>
>So, there's been lots of larking about but this has now got an order
>of magnitude more serious. The fact of five formal warnings having
>been issued, including one temporary disconnection, removes any
>possible defence of ignorance.
>
>A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
>(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
>(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
>
>Five warnings. I can say this because it was stated in open court and
>does not compromise the confidentiality of the data.
>
>And documentary evidence of nuisance phone calls.
>
>And documentary evidence of privacy violations.
>
>And documentary evidence of header forgery.
>
>The suspect denies all this, but Nuxx Bar denied posting the "All my
>details" message, and some of you have seen the documentary evidence
>proving that this piously stated assurance was a bald-faced lie.
>

>Oh, did all that sound a bit tense? Sorry, it's been an emotional day.
>

>Guy

[Judith]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:53:09 -0000, "Mr Benn" <inv...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

I believe - but do not know - that Nuxx Bar - if it was him - published that
page of information *after* Chapman had posted on his "Nuxx Bar" web page the
personal details of Nuxx Bar : real name, what his job was, name of the company
for who he worked.

As Chapman has said : lose his job, lose his career - he has also speculated
that Nuxx Bar may have had a recent child.

And Chapman thinks it is Reality TV.

[Simon Mason]

On Nov 30, 6:30 pm, "Zapp Brannigan" <ZBr...@DOOP.com> wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <usenet...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:5kmad7tq0gsqsjqij...@4ax.com...

>
> > Let's be clear here: as Churchill said, this is not the end, it is not
> > even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning. I
> > believe that with this information the police and the CPS will take
> > the next steps towards prosecution. An arrest has been made, I now
> > have information from two completely independent sources. The legal
> > process will take I think probably at least a year. But I can now
> > apply for injunctive relief and assess the likelihood of the defendant
> > being able to meet my costs and pay compensation.
>
> Congratulations Guy, a well-deserved result.

It is not a result just yet, but we are going to have a urc get
together when it is.

--
Simon Mason

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:01:17 +0000, Judith wrote:


>
> Oh but there is Porky.

I move idle
envelopes near the wierd closed cellar. Sometimes, cards
lean behind tall skys, unless they're cold. Never sow quietly
while you're smileing through a solid shirt. We dully open
around squishy quick highways.


>
> --
>

<snip>



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 07:43:36 +0000, Judith wrote:


>
> the fuckwit Porky

While pins quietly question,
the sauces often kick on the bright envelopes. Other tall
idle stickers will restrain dully with dusts. Going below a highway
with a bush is often closed. Have a usable candle.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:52:56 +0000, Judith wrote:


>
>
>
> Fuck off - and get a life.

Fuckingly no!!
We are here to share our pleasurable experiences of bicycling.
Sorry you find bicycling so awful and do all in your power to force us to
think likewise.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:05:44 +0000, Judith wrote:

>
>>
>>
>
> Porky

> I find Porky Chapman despicable.
>

> to Porky

The plastic
printer rarely opens. Tell the weak candle it's eerily opening
against a boat. Many wierd wet jars will relay eventually
to clouds. To be idle or green will cause plastic raindrops
to float. Will you kick the white sharp games?

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:40:24 +0000, Judith wrote:



> Porky?

Let's place
near the untamed planets, but don't kill the clean cars.
The unique wet cans slowly toot as the goofy pins run. Where is the
envelope
for the tall dog? She will believably roll when the tall floors
get to the wet planet. Go kill a hat!

[Paul - xxx]

Put me down for it .. ;)

[Paul - xxx]

Judith wrote:

> Perhaps you can share with us:

I doubt Guy will see your post, but i thought I might answer some bits
as I see them .. these are not Guys answers, they are mine.

> Why did you publish Nuxx Bar's personal details : real name, his job,
> and who he worked for on your devoted Nuxx Bar web page?

Were they the 'real' details then?

> Why did you remove the web page after Nuxx Bar published your personal
> details?

Why not? Maybe Guy thought the details were incorrect or based on
circumstantial evidence so maybe not true.

> Did you think that you had perhaps gone too far?

I don't think he did in the circumstances known at the time.

> Did you not consider that what you did was a privacy violation of
> Nuxx Bar?

As NB was behaving rather nastily at the time, perhaps you ought to ask
the question of him.

> Why did you not just ask your telephone company to put a track and
> trace on your line? - which they will do if you report nuisance calls
> to the police.

Do you know he didn't?

> Why did you not serve a Cease and Desist letter on Nuxx Bar?

Do you know he didn't?

> Why did you not let the police follow their course of action as they
> had arrested Nuxx Bar and had not completed their investigation?

Their investigations, as I understand it, are still on-going.

> If someone was making nuisance phone calls and visiting your house -
> I do not believe that the police would not do anything. Why did you
> not insist?

Do you know he didn't?

> What did you hope to get out of this other than self-gratification?

To stop NB pursuing the courses of action he was undertaking against GC
and family.

> For how long had you known that Nuxx Bar may have had previous
> similar problems with other people?

Dunno.

> Were you ever told there may be a mental health issue?

Dunno.

> I think your description of the case below and the tone you use
> speaks volumes. When you say quite emotional - care to expand?

There's a possibility that this will have a completely negative impact
on NB's life and as such no-one wants to do that without some good
justification .. In this case there is such justification.

> I suppose the music in your head is different from the usual voices.

You can't help bu attack someone can you? Do you have a mental
disorder?

> PS - it is not reality TV - it is someone's life. If someone did do
> as you have accused them - then they were obviously mentally ill.

Oh, so it's down to the medical history now as being the excuse to
allow NB to get away with what he was doing?

> I liked where elsewhere you said that you thought that he may have
> had a recent new child - puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

Should someone with such a medical history and a new child be exempt
from the consequences of their actions?

> I liked the bit where you said : "there is every chance that it will
> ruin the career of the likely suspect". Makes you think that -
> doesn't it?

Maybe 'the likely suspect' deserves all he gets for trying to ruin
someone elses life, just 'cos of a few arguments on Usenet.

> Did you think it was a game, where someone could lose their career -
> perhaps also having just had a new child?

I doubt GC sees it as a game. NB might, in which case GC course of
action might actually help him come to terms with parenthood in a more
positive rather than destructive way in which he's conducted himself
recently ..

> You could have gone about things in a totally different way.

As could NB.

> People may have thought better of you if you had.

Such as? I think quite highly of GC, he's had shit, taken (and given
shit) but seems to have got this far by actually being right.

> But of course you wanted to get some satisfaction and
> self-gratification rather than resolve a serious issue.

Heh, the serious issue was stopping NB doing what he was doing, he
didn't listen to the (at least 5) warnings and will hopefully get what
he deserves, mental illness or not.

> You have lived up to your reputation - you are a nasty piece of work.

Nope, he's pursued a course of action correctly against someone who was
actually behaving like a real nasty piece of work. That hasn't come
out how you wanted it to, despite your bravado and bluster.

> PS Do you still consider yourself a christian?

I should think he does. he may well actually be helping NB see the
error of his ways and may indeed get him the help he obviously needs if
he does have a medically proven mental condition. NB was seemingly not
going toi stop no matter how many warnings he was given, so how else
could GC have proceeded differently?

I say well done Guy for getting this far, and that it may well be in
NB's own interests to take it as far as it can go, hopefully to get him
to not pester anyone else again and to get him the help he needs, but
can't see he needs.

[Simon Mason]

> Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Guy will have to hire a marquee at this rate :-)

--
Simon Mason

[Mr. Benn]

"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:162c7a21-a43a-4f7c...@s4g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

Count me in. I'll buy you a pint. Then pour it over your head!

[Simon Mason]

On Nov 30, 7:24 pm, Jude <M8R-x2v...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> Judith submitted this idea :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 04:03:39 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com>

> Why do you have a soft corner for the culprit, who very obviously was a
> serial offender that received multiple warnings and was TOSd from

> different ISPs?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Because Nuxx was Judith's partner in crime.
They acted in concert in an attempt to wreck urc by attacking its
members which will only end in tears for the pair of them. As you can
see, their attempt (and the attempts of the other trolls) has failed.
All that has happened is that they have left thousands of abusive
messages that can easily be collected by anyone for future use in a
court of law. They assumed that they could stay anonymous forever, but
sadly for them, they will all be unmasked and exposed for the cowards
that they are. Good always triumphs over evil in the end.

--
Simon Mason

[Simon Mason]

On Dec 1, 5:04 pm, Jude <M8R-x2v...@mailinator.com> wrote:

>
> So, now, I am wondering why she never made an attempt to ensure NB
> sought help if she believed he had issues.

Judith did and does not give a toss about Nuxx at all. "She" merely
wanted an ally in her attempt to destroy urc by attacking what they
felt was urc's de facto head, which they assumed was Guy. Judith
simply egged on and encouraged Nuxx to attack Guy at any and every
opportunity, while JMS itself was careful to only stick to the foul
verbal insults and personal prying it also did into posters like Wm
who she found out some of his personal details and family member
names. JMS only recently passed over into the real world with her
letter to my HR dept.

>
> > They acted in concert in an attempt to wreck urc by attacking its
> > members which will only end in tears for the pair of them. As you can
> > see, their attempt (and the attempts of the other trolls) has failed.
>

> The only reason it has failed is because someone had the courage to
> stand up against them.  I am sure in hindsight they feel they picked on
> the wrong target and wish it all was forgotten.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The trolls made the mistake of thinking that we were all shrinking
violets who scarper at the first sign of abuse.
They were badly mistaken.
Shrinking violets don't do 235 mile non stops rides or cycle to work
when it is minus 13C.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 05:59:36 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

<details of court case and criminal actions snipped>

>Because Nuxx was Judith's partner in crime.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 1 Dec 2011 09:01:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I doubt Guy will see your post, but i thought I might answer some bits
>as I see them .. these are not Guys answers, they are mine.

Thanks, Paul. I have retrieved JMS' original message and will address
it directly, rather than by reply-to your reply.

[Judith]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:04:39 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> Because Nuxx was Judith's partner in crime.
>

>If this true then shame on Judith.

It is of course not true - and I am very surprised that Mason has made such a
stupid and misguided accusation in public

> Judith has suggested that there
>could be underlying mental health issues which could explain NB's
>unacceptable behaviour.

>So, now, I am wondering why she never made an attempt to ensure NB
>sought help if she believed he had issues.

You have absolutely no idea how well I knew or didn't know Nuxx Bar - or what
information we exchanged, if any. Similarly you have no idea if I gave him
advice on how to conduct his life - or he gave such advice to me.

[Judith]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:16:47 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 1, 5:04 pm, Jude <M8R-x2v...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> So, now, I am wondering why she never made an attempt to ensure NB
>> sought help if she believed he had issues.
>
>Judith did and does not give a toss about Nuxx at all. "She" merely
>wanted an ally in her attempt to destroy urc by attacking what they
>felt was urc's de facto head, which they assumed was Guy. Judith
>simply egged on and encouraged Nuxx to attack Guy at any and every
>opportunity, while JMS itself was careful to only stick to the foul
>verbal insults and personal prying it also did into posters like Wm
>who she found out some of his personal details and family member
>names. JMS only recently passed over into the real world with her
>letter to my HR dept.

Oh dear Mr Mason. I believe that you really ought to get some advice on what
you should be saying - and what you should not be saying.

You have always been a fuckwit - but you have really trod on thin ice now.

What ever makes you think that I was trying to "destroy" URC? Chapman had
destroyed it well before I had arrived on the scene - as very many others have
testified.

Do you have any evidence that I egged on and encouraged Nuxx Bar to attack
Chapman?

Please feel free to provide it - others can then judge for themselves.

Sorry - did you say that you cannot find anything?

I am still waiting for your evidence that I posted a letter to your HR
department. Have you found any? Have the police?

Assume I did not send the letter : I wished I had.
Assume that I did send the letter : I am pleased I did.

You have clearly wasted hours and hours of BP's time - and said some very
disparaging things about them. If the letter which has been published was
indeed the letter sent - then I would have been proud of it.

It really is a pity that you have lost your only copy of it - isn't it?

>Shrinking violets don't do 235 mile non stops rides or cycle to work
>when it is minus 13C.

ffs : please feel free to look up what "non stop" actually means.
Then come back and tell us - and also tell us how many meal breaks and toilet
breaks you made in your "non stop" bike rides.


Simple

[Judith]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:50:42 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yep - that's three people now who have said they will attend.

Are you going to cycle down - the train fare is quite expensive you know. Or
would you get Mrs M to drive you down.

--
"You get a real feeling of elation just for the simple act of cycling past the local hospital
where there are people of my age who have abused their bodies and suffered all sorts of ailments"

Simon Mason

[Paul - xxx]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2011 09:01:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I doubt Guy will see your post, but i thought I might answer some
> > bits as I see them .. these are not Guys answers, they are mine.
>
> Thanks, Paul. I have retrieved JMS' original message and will address
> it directly, rather than by reply-to your reply.

No worries. I tried to look objectively at it and when I did so it was
blindingly obvious that despite what some people say, and how much they
bluster and try to obfuscate, you appear to be in the right, acting as
honestly and as openly as you can.

Unlike others (I mean Judith mostly here, just to be clear) who like to
snipe at others at every opportunity.

It has to be said you did stir it a bit sometimes, but now, knowing the
shite you and your family were getting behind usenet (which we didn't
know at the time), it's pretty damned understandable .. ;)

I wish you well with the rest of the case and hope it might help others
in a similar predicament .. even if 'only' by stopping other fuckwits
pursuing less able victims to that level.

;)

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

What a total utter twat you are. Who do you think you are? Fucking Batman?



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

True. Fuckwits do that.

[Judith]

On 1 Dec 2011 09:01:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Judith wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you can share with us:
>
>I doubt Guy will see your post, but i thought I might answer some bits
>as I see them .. these are not Guys answers, they are mine.
>
>> Why did you publish Nuxx Bar's personal details : real name, his job,
>> and who he worked for on your devoted Nuxx Bar web page?
>
>Were they the 'real' details then?

Ask Chapman - if they were the same as released by Zen; they were the details
which he gave to the police which led to the arrest of Nuxx Bar - I would
conclude that they were real.

>> Why did you remove the web page after Nuxx Bar published your personal
>> details?
>
>Why not? Maybe Guy thought the details were incorrect or based on
>circumstantial evidence so maybe not true.

Oh really - so it would have been OK if the details were true. So you condone
web pages which print the true names of people, what they do for work, and the
company for whom they work.

>> Did you think that you had perhaps gone too far?
>

>> Did you not consider that what you did was a privacy violation of
>> Nuxx Bar?
>
>As NB was behaving rather nastily at the time, perhaps you ought to ask
>the question of him.

Sorry - the question was aimed at Chapman. I think that most people would say,
irrespective of what NB may or may not have done, the production of a full web
page entitled "Nuxx Bar" by Chapman - complete with Nuxx Bar's true name, what
he did for work, and the company he worked for was an invasion of Nuxx Barr's
privacy.

Or was he just trying to wind Nuxx Bar up having already ascertained some
details of Nuxx Bar's past and hence knew how Nuxx Bar may have responded?
(Because he had)

>> Why did you not just ask your telephone company to put a track and
>> trace on your line? - which they will do if you report nuisance calls
>> to the police.
>
>Do you know he didn't?

If he had, then he would not have had to go through the process he described to
determine the calling number Unless he was just doing it for
self-gratification, so that he could share with us how smart he is.

>> Why did you not serve a Cease and Desist letter on Nuxx Bar?
>
>Do you know he didn't?

He didn't.

>> Why did you not let the police follow their course of action as they
>> had arrested Nuxx Bar and had not completed their investigation?
>
>Their investigations, as I understand it, are still on-going.

Yes - so why not wait and see what the outcome was? He is now making out that
he has helped their investigation with the information he has provided.
He provided them with no more information than they had - or they could very
easily obtain.

But of course, he would not have had his emotional and tiring day in court -
nor would he have heard the angels singing.

>> If someone was making nuisance phone calls and visiting your house -
>> I do not believe that the police would not do anything. Why did you
>> not insist?
>
>Do you know he didn't?

You may be correct - a sane and rational person would have so insisted; I have
no idea if Chapman did.

>> What did you hope to get out of this other than self-gratification?
>
>To stop NB pursuing the courses of action he was undertaking against GC
>and family.

Oh - so the police investigation was not going to do that?

>There's a possibility that this will have a completely negative impact
>on NB's life and as such no-one wants to do that without some good
>justification .. In this case there is such justification.

Ah - so you have not read and digested what I have said.

>> I suppose the music in your head is different from the usual voices.
>
>You can't help bu attack someone can you? Do you have a mental
>disorder?

No.

Have you heard any singing in your head today?

>> PS - it is not reality TV - it is someone's life. If someone did do
>> as you have accused them - then they were obviously mentally ill.
>
>Oh, so it's down to the medical history now as being the excuse to
>allow NB to get away with what he was doing?

Sorry - I did not say that.

However, if there was a hint of any issue here concerning Nuxx Bar's previous
behaviour which Chapman had gleaned from others - he should have taken it on
board.

There are different way of going about things.

>> I liked where elsewhere you said that you thought that he may have
>> had a recent new child - puts it all in perspective doesn't it?
>
>Should someone with such a medical history and a new child be exempt
>from the consequences of their actions?

Not at all - but it may influence sane and rational people in how they deal
with such a person

>> I liked the bit where you said : "there is every chance that it will
>> ruin the career of the likely suspect". Makes you think that -
>> doesn't it?
>
>Maybe 'the likely suspect' deserves all he gets for trying to ruin
>someone elses life, just 'cos of a few arguments on Usenet.

Which could have been resolved so very easily and months ago. Chapman
obviously did not want to do that.
I really do wonder what his ulterior motive was.

Now is not the time to repeat what Ian Smith has said about Chapman - but it
certainly has a ring to it.

>> Did you think it was a game, where someone could lose their career -
>> perhaps also having just had a new child?
>
>I doubt GC sees it as a game.

Well have a look at Chapman's behaviour in other spheres on the internet - and
share with us your conclusion.

It's only a game could certainly be one

> NB might, in which case GC course of
>action might actually help him come to terms with parenthood in a more
>positive rather than destructive way in which he's conducted himself
>recently

Yep - destroying someone's life really does do that doesn't it.

>> You could have gone about things in a totally different way.
>
>As could NB.

Chapman could have sent one Cease & Desist letter to Nuxx Bar - it would have
scared the shit out of him and he would have stopped doing whatever he was
formally told to stop doing.

>Heh, the serious issue was stopping NB doing what he was doing, he
>didn't listen to the (at least 5) warnings and will hopefully get what
>he deserves, mental illness or not.

Rubbish - the police were/are already investigating Nuxx Bar in the light of
information supplied by Chapman. That arrest stopped Nuxx Bar in his tracks.

That was all that was needed - unless Chapman is hard up and wanting the
"Compo"

>
>I should think he does. he may well actually be helping NB see the
>error of his ways and may indeed get him the help he obviously needs if
>he does have a medically proven mental condition. NB was seemingly not
>going toi stop no matter how many warnings he was given, so how else
>could GC have proceeded differently?

He could have sent a Cease & Desist letter to Nuxx Bar.

He could have waited for the outcome of the current on-going police
investigation and arrest of Nuxx Bar.


If he had done that, he would not have been able to become emotional, heard the
angels singing, produce a usenet post and a blog web page on his "Day in
Court", and send several rejected posts to ULM as soon as he got home from
Manchester.

It seemed really very important to him to seek publicity as soon as possible.

I will be very surprised if he is not already writing a Press Release to send
to Reuters.

[Judith]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:56:51 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:

>Paul - xxx explained on 12/1/2011 :
>> Judith wrote:
>
><snip>

>
>>> What did you hope to get out of this other than self-gratification?
>>
>> To stop NB pursuing the courses of action he was undertaking against GC
>> and family.
>>
>>> For how long had you known that Nuxx Bar may have had previous
>>> similar problems with other people?
>

>What "problems" Judith?

>
>
>> Dunno.
>>
>>> Were you ever told there may be a mental health issue?
>>
>> Dunno.
>

>Isn't pleading insanity the easiest way NB can mitigate this? I
>believe this is why Judith is making reference to "mental health
>issues".
>
>Oldest trick in the book, methinks.
>


Sorry sunshine - there is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law - unless
you know more than I do.

[Judith]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:59:37 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> You have absolutely no idea how well I knew or didn't know Nuxx Bar - or what
>> information we exchanged, if any. Similarly you have no idea if I gave him
>> advice on how to conduct his life - or he gave such advice to me.
>

>Correct, but the suggestion of MH issues appears to brought up by you
>ONLY after NB's troubles - NOT when he was actively doing what he was
>doing. Odd.

I think you will find that it was Chapman who first suggested that Nuxx Bar may
have mental health issue.

He probably recognised some of the symptoms.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:42:08 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>

wrote:

>Perhaps you can share with us:

>Why did you publish Nuxx Bar's personal details : real name, his job, and who
>he worked for on your devoted Nuxx Bar web page?

Did I? You must have some special knowledge that I don't have. Are you
saying that my entirely speculative identification based on two or
three referenced pieces of information off the internet, was, quite by
chance, accurate according to information in your possession? If you
do know Nuxx Bar's identity, do you have his permission to release it
in this way?

Or are you just speculating, as I was? And as I was when I thought his
name was guy Cuthbertson or Stuart Winter, in both of which cases I
was wrong?

>Why did you remove the web page after Nuxx Bar published *your* personal
>details?

I could hardly have removed it before he published my personal details
since the page didn't exist in October 2008, which was the first of
several times he published my address and phone number.

>Did you think that you had perhaps gone too far?

I thought better of it, no more, no less.

>Did you not consider that what *you* did was a privacy violation of Nuxx Bar?

I think you may be mixing up privacy and anonymity. Nuxx Bar was an
anonymous coward abusing the protection of anonymity to engage in
behaviour described by the judge on Tuesday in terms such as chilling
and sinister. I never went beyond the information we already have for
virtually every long time poster to uk.rec.cycling, and I acknowledged
that it was speculative.

>Why did you not just ask your telephone company to put a track and trace on
>your line? - which they will do if you report nuisance calls to the police.

Track and trace would have revealed precisely what calling number ID
did: that the calls originated with 0800 Reverse. I had already
blocked anonymous calls and the phone boxes used in the past.

I installed a telephone that screens by incoming number and has
time-based screening, so that only friends and family can call at
unsocial hours. I blocked 0800 Reverse and 0800 MumDad and logged
those calls for a period of some weeks. I then obtained a court order,
granted on 1 August, compelling 0800 Reverse to release the numbers,
which they did on 8 August. You will note that these dates were after
I removed the speculation from my website.

>Why did you not serve a Cease and Desist letter on Nuxx Bar?

I'd be delighted. Please give me an admitted, valid name and postal
address so that I can serve the order.

>Why did you not let the police follow their course of action as they had
>arrested Nuxx Bar and had not completed their investigation?

Speculation added to web page 10/7/11
Speculation removed from web page 31/7/11
Order granted against 0800 Reverse 1/8/11
Information received from 0800 Reverse 8/8/11
Crime reported to police 9/8/11
Arrest made 16/10/11
Court order granted against Zen 29/11/11

The case reference for the Zen case was 1RG50305, the case reference
for 0800 Reverse was 1RG50751 (you will note that this is a later
application than the Zen one, which took three trips to court to
finally sort out).

Two previous reports to police were not actioned by them as I had said
I wanted him warned off, I now understand that the police won't fund
RIPA requests and CPS won't authorise anything unless the complainant
makes a firm statement that they are prepared to press charges and
give evidence in court. In 2009 and 2010 I wasn't. By August 2011 I
was prepared to do this, even knowing that it may have a long-term
detrimental effect on the individual's life, because I did not (and
still do not) feel I had any other choice.

>If someone was making nuisance phone calls and visiting your house - I do not
>believe that the police would not do anything. Why did you not insist?

See above.

>What did you hope to get out of this other than self-gratification?

Justice and some peace.

>For how long had you known that Nuxx Bar may have had previous similar problems
>with other people?

Since early July 2011.

>Were you ever told there may be a mental health issue?

No, and that is purely my own speculation based on facts I now have in
my possession.

>I think your description of the case below and the tone you use speaks
>volumes. When you say quite emotional - care to expand?

Let me see. I feel, in roughly descending order: relief that probably
the single most stressful experience of my life is now over; pride in
what the judge indicated was an exceptional piece of work for a
litigant in person; anxiety over the next steps in the police case;
and regret that the multiple warnings and disconnections were not
enough to get this person to understand that they were in the wrong,
and stop.

>I suppose the music in your head is different from the usual voices.

Almost certainly. In my case it's Fischer-Dieskau and Quasthoff,
scarcely on most people's top ten list.

>PS - it is not reality TV - it is someone's life. If someone did do as you
>have accused them - then they were obviously mentally ill.

You think? Do you know who it is then? Have they told you this? I'm
not qualified to judge, myself, but I do certainly suspect some form
of unaddressed personality disorder. Perhaps if you know the person
concerned you could advise them to seek specialist help, I am sure
that as a plea in mitigation it would be quite persuasive.

>I liked where elsewhere you said that you thought that he may have had a recent
>new child - puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

Yes, to think that a grown man would behave in such an adolescent way
is indeed quite disturbing. I have not thought for some while that he
is married or a father, but he is certainly beyond the age at which
anybody normal should have grown out of such behaviour.

>I liked the bit where you said : "there is every chance that it will ruin the
>career of the likely suspect". Makes you think that - doesn't it?

Certainly did me. That's why I did not press the case firmly in 2009
and 2010.

>Did you think it was a game, where someone could lose their career - perhaps
>also having just had a new child?

If it was a game then I can assure you I wasn't enjoying it, and the
rules were exceedingly biased in favour of the other player. It has
cost me, I think, around a thousand pounds, perhaps slightly more, to
get this far. It has also taken several hundred hours of my time
collecting and categorising evidence, presenting it, reading through
law texts to find out how to obtain disclosure and so on.

>You could have gone about things in a totally different way.

>People may have thought better of you if you had.

Who knows. The judge appeared impressed, Zen's legal officer certainly
was, and I have had a large number of supportive and congratulatory
emails.

>But of course you wanted to get some satisfaction and self-gratification rather
>than resolve a serious issue.

Bullshit.

After two previous disconnections and five formal warnings including a
temporary disconnection, followed by termination of his account, he
posted an egregious privacy violation, flat out denied it, then
registered a new account with PlusNet and picked right up again. Every
single setback has been followed by a brief period of inactivity,
followed by a resumption and increasingly rapid escalation.

I strongly believe that the only reason Nuxx has not posted since 20
September is because it was around then that Thames Valley Police
first contacted him.

If I wanted gratification I could get it at much lower personal and
emotional cost. I am pursuing this legally because I firmly believe
that it is the only way to make it stop, and perhaps to stop it
happening to someone else who may be less resourceful than me.

>You have lived up to your reputation - you are a nasty piece of work.

You say. On the other hand one could believe His Honour Judge Bird,
who seemed to think that I am doing something wholly admirable and
doing it in some style, or Zen Internet's legal officer, who could
hardly believe what I had managed to achieve and what I had to go
through to get there.

So, should I trust the opinion of an anonymous coward or trained legal
professionals? Tough call.

To quote one person when I discussed my uneasiness at the fact that
this might the person's career: what on earth has he done to merit
such consideration? He had the option to stop numerous times, each
time he chose to resume and escalate.

>PS Do you still consider yourself a christian?

Yes. Do you still consider yourself a human?

[Tony Dragon]

On 01/12/2011 22:17, Jude wrote:
> Judith explained :

>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:56:51 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>

> <snip>

>
>> Sorry sunshine - there is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law
>> - unless you know more than I do.
>

> FACT: A Judge ordered Zen to give details of one of their subscribers
> (NB) to Guy Chapman.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that the Judge would have made such an
> order if he felt there was NO EVIDENCE warranting such disclosure?
>
> Perhaps you couuld explain why the Judge made such an order, sunshine....
>
>

Perhaps to see if any law had been broken, you know it's called evidence.

[Judith]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:30:38 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

>On 1 Dec 2011 09:01:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I doubt Guy will see your post, but i thought I might answer some bits
>>as I see them .. these are not Guys answers, they are mine.
>
>Thanks, Paul. I have retrieved JMS' original message and will address
>it directly, rather than by reply-to your reply.
>
>Guy

Looking forward to it.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:39:58 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com>
wrote:

>Tony Dragon formulated the question :

>.......and the judge spoke of 'sinister and I believe menacing
>behaviour'.
>
>Now why on earth would he say something like that?

Well, let's be clear. The police have made an arrest, the judge is
satisfied that there is credible evidence of offences under the
protection from harassment act, but nobody has yet been charged.

The judge was also solidly convinced that there was credible cause for
civil action, but I think his preference was for criminal prosecution.
I don't think he was expecting to see material of this nature in a
purely civil case.

[Simon Weaseltemper]

On 01/12/2011 22:21, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

[snip]

>
> Yes. Do you still consider yourself a human?
>
> Guy

Keep up the good work Guy, I had seen some of the stuff NB had posted
regarding your family and quite frankly, I was totally disgusted by it.
The people who engage in this sort of thing need to be restricted and if
necessary, locked up.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.

[Bertie Wooster]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:13:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
<swld...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Congratulations Guy, a well-deserved result.
>
>It is not a result just yet, but we are going to have a urc get
>together when it is.

Guy, Simon,

I still have four places left for my Paris to London cycle tour over
the easter weekend: Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Saturday,
Easter Sunday, and Easter Monday.
http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/rides/tour/paris.htm

Guy's two boys, Guy and Simon would fill the places nicely.

Also riding are my 17 year old nephew, a friend of his, a mother and
her 12 year old daughter, Clare and me.

Travel to Paris is by Eurostar; channel crossing is Dieppe to
Newhaven; accommodation is in not-quite-budget hotels; and breakfast
and evening meals are all included in the £200 - £250 per person
price.

Approximate distances are: 15 miles; 60 miles; 50 miles; 60 hilly
miles; 50 hilly miles.

And, of course, Clare and I would be very happy to put you up on
Wednesday and Monday night, before and after the ride.

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:00:29 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:


>
>
> What a total utter twat you are.

It is a fuckingly great honour to be totally utterly twatted by the
vorephilic dave.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:00:30 +0000, Judith wrote:

>
> You have always been a fuckwit -

It really is a totally fucking honour to be fuckingly fuckwitted by the
anthropophagee judith.

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:01:54 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

>
> Fuckwits do that.

It is really a fucckingly great honour to be fuckingly fuckwitted by tthe
vorephilic dave.

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:42:03 +0000, Judith wrote:


>
> Sorry sunshine -

It is a fuckingly great honour to be fuckingly sunshone by the
anthropophagee judith.

[Simon Mason]

On Dec 2, 7:49 am, Bertie Wooster <ber...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:13:57 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
>

> <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Congratulations Guy, a well-deserved result.
>
> >It is not a result just yet, but we are going to have a urc get
> >together when it is.
>
> Guy, Simon,
>
> I still have four places left for my Paris to London cycle tour over
> the easter weekend: Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter Saturday,

> Easter Sunday, and Easter Monday.http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/rides/tour/paris.htm

>
> Guy's two boys, Guy and Simon would fill the places nicely.
>
> Also riding are my 17 year old nephew, a friend of his, a mother and
> her 12 year old daughter, Clare and me.
>
> Travel to Paris is by Eurostar; channel crossing is Dieppe to
> Newhaven; accommodation is in not-quite-budget hotels; and breakfast
> and evening meals are all included in the 200 - 250 per person
> price.
>
> Approximate distances are: 15 miles; 60 miles; 50 miles; 60 hilly
> miles; 50 hilly miles.
>
> And, of course, Clare and I would be very happy to put you up on
> Wednesday and Monday night, before and after the ride.

That is very a very kind offer, but due to the nature of my job,
covering people over Xmas and Easter means I never get those dates off
myself. Everyone else wants them.

However, when Guy announces the urc meet up - I will go sick if need
be :-)

--
Simon Mason

[Mr Benn]

"Simon Weaseltemper" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
news:jb9uge$j3v$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 01/12/2011 22:21, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>
>> Yes. Do you still consider yourself a human?
>>
>> Guy
>
> Keep up the good work Guy, I had seen some of the stuff NB had posted
> regarding your family and quite frankly, I was totally disgusted by it.
> The people who engage in this sort of thing need to be restricted and if
> necessary, locked up.

I agree.

[Paul - xxx]

Judith wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2011 09:01:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Judith wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps you can share with us:
> >
> > I doubt Guy will see your post, but i thought I might answer some
> > bits as I see them .. these are not Guys answers, they are mine.
> >
> >> Why did you publish Nuxx Bar's personal details : real name, his
> job, >> and who he worked for on your devoted Nuxx Bar web page?
> >
> > Were they the 'real' details then?
>
> Ask Chapman - if they were the same as released by Zen; they were the
> details which he gave to the police which led to the arrest of Nuxx
> Bar - I would conclude that they were real.

How does anyone know they're real when they were based on
circumstantial evidence? GC was after truth, not possibilities.

> >> Why did you remove the web page after Nuxx Bar published your
> personal >> details?
> >
> > Why not? Maybe Guy thought the details were incorrect or based on
> > circumstantial evidence so maybe not true.
>
> Oh really - so it would have been OK if the details were true. So
> you condone web pages which print the true names of people, what they
> do for work, and the company for whom they work.

Heh, you like to ascribe meanings to things people say .. Maybe GC
realised that it's not worth dropping to your/Nuxx's levels.

> >> Did you think that you had perhaps gone too far?
> >
>
> >> Did you not consider that what you did was a privacy violation of
> >> Nuxx Bar?
> >
> > As NB was behaving rather nastily at the time, perhaps you ought to
> > ask the question of him.
>
> Sorry - the question was aimed at Chapman. I think that most people
> would say, irrespective of what NB may or may not have done, the
> production of a full web page entitled "Nuxx Bar" by Chapman -
> complete with Nuxx Bar's true name, what he did for work, and the
> company he worked for was an invasion of Nuxx Barr's privacy.

Maybe GC realised that and so took it down, that's something only GC
can answer. Based on what NB was doing to him I think GC has nothing
to answer for.

> Or was he just trying to wind Nuxx Bar up having already ascertained
> some details of Nuxx Bar's past and hence knew how Nuxx Bar may have
> responded? (Because he had)

What if he was? It's what NB and you do all the time, try to wind
people up.

> >> Why did you not just ask your telephone company to put a track and
> >> trace on your line? - which they will do if you report nuisance
> calls >> to the police.
> >
> > Do you know he didn't?
>
> If he had, then he would not have had to go through the process he
> described to determine the calling number Unless he was just doing
> it for self-gratification, so that he could share with us how smart
> he is.

He needed proof, not conjecture and circumstantial evidence.

> >> Why did you not serve a Cease and Desist letter on Nuxx Bar?
> >
> > Do you know he didn't?
>
> He didn't.

I don't know, how do you know?

> >> Why did you not let the police follow their course of action as
> they >> had arrested Nuxx Bar and had not completed their
> investigation?
> >
> > Their investigations, as I understand it, are still on-going.
>
> Yes - so why not wait and see what the outcome was? He is now making
> out that he has helped their investigation with the information he
> has provided. He provided them with no more information than they
> had - or they could very easily obtain.

Maybe the police needed more from GC, or better proof of identity than
the circumstantial evidence, even if the circumstantial evidence were
true, I don't believe the police will act upon it without 'proper'
proof.

> But of course, he would not have had his emotional and tiring day in
> court - nor would he have heard the angels singing.

yet again you try to belittle people.

> >> If someone was making nuisance phone calls and visiting your house
> - >> I do not believe that the police would not do anything. Why did
> you >> not insist?
> >
> > Do you know he didn't?
>
> You may be correct - a sane and rational person would have so
> insisted; I have no idea if Chapman did.

I believe he would have, I also believe that he needed to get 'real'
evidence of NB's identity before the police would act in any meaningful
way. NB had had a number of warnings and I think a disconnection and
every time just continued the harassment after a short 'cooling off'
period. Do you think someone should have to insist the police do
something every time someone behaves irrationally?

> >> What did you hope to get out of this other than self-gratification?
> >
> > To stop NB pursuing the courses of action he was undertaking
> > against GC and family.
>
> Oh - so the police investigation was not going to do that?

I don't think they would have without proper proof of identity, not
circumstantial evidence.

> > There's a possibility that this will have a completely negative
> > impact on NB's life and as such no-one wants to do that without
> > some good justification .. In this case there is such justification.
>
> Ah - so you have not read and digested what I have said.

Which bit? I believe GC is justified in getting NB's details properly
through due process rather than simply 'sorting it out' ... If this has
negative impact then that's NB's look out and a consequence of his own
despicable actions.

> >> I suppose the music in your head is different from the usual
> voices.
> >
> > You can't help bu attack someone can you? Do you have a mental
> > disorder?
>
> No.

I know you can't help attacking, thanks for admitting it, but do you
have a mental disorder?

> Have you heard any singing in your head today?

Right now no, but when i get back to work my blackberry is playing
MP3's over the sound system, so yes ..

> >> PS - it is not reality TV - it is someone's life. If someone did
> do >> as you have accused them - then they were obviously mentally
> ill.
> >
> > Oh, so it's down to the medical history now as being the excuse to
> > allow NB to get away with what he was doing?
>
> Sorry - I did not say that.

You are very strongly implying (inferring?) it.

> However, if there was a hint of any issue here concerning Nuxx Bar's
> previous behaviour which Chapman had gleaned from others - he should
> have taken it on board.

Why? He was being persecuted, why should he consider NB's feelings?
GC, I believe has behaved honourably through most of this, NB hasn't,
there's no excuse for NB's behaviour, ill or not, he needs stopping
before or in case it escalates in actual violence.

> There are different way of going about things.

GC has been suffering for two or so years, what other legal ways do you
suggest?

> >> I liked where elsewhere you said that you thought that he may have
> >> had a recent new child - puts it all in perspective doesn't it?
> >
> > Should someone with such a medical history and a new child be exempt
> > from the consequences of their actions?
>
> Not at all - but it may influence sane and rational people in how
> they deal with such a person

If you're not dealing with a sane and rational person, then maybe they
do need treating differently. Does NB have a mental disorder? Does NB
have a newborn child? If he has to either or both, how else, legally,
could GC have proceeded? Bearing in mind NB's refusal to stop despite
a disconnection and many previous warnings ...

> >> I liked the bit where you said : "there is every chance that it
> will >> ruin the career of the likely suspect". Makes you think that
> - >> doesn't it?
> >
> > Maybe 'the likely suspect' deserves all he gets for trying to ruin
> > someone elses life, just 'cos of a few arguments on Usenet.
>
> Which could have been resolved so very easily and months ago. Chapman
> obviously did not want to do that.

How?

> I really do wonder what his ulterior motive was.
>
> Now is not the time to repeat what Ian Smith has said about Chapman -
> but it certainly has a ring to it.
>
> >> Did you think it was a game, where someone could lose their career
> - >> perhaps also having just had a new child?
> >
> > I doubt GC sees it as a game.
>
> Well have a look at Chapman's behaviour in other spheres on the
> internet - and share with us your conclusion.

Why? I interact with GC only on a cycling group, why should I do
anything else?

> It's only a game could certainly be one
>
>
> > NB might, in which case GC course of
> > action might actually help him come to terms with parenthood in a
> > more positive rather than destructive way in which he's conducted
> > himself recently
>
> Yep - destroying someone's life really does do that doesn't it.

What was NB doing? Enriching GC's life and that of his family?

> >> You could have gone about things in a totally different way.
> >
> > As could NB.
>
> Chapman could have sent one Cease & Desist letter to Nuxx Bar - it
> would have scared the shit out of him and he would have stopped doing
> whatever he was formally told to stop doing.

But NB didn't and hadn't stopped despite a disconnection and many
warnings, what makes you think another bit of paper would do anything,
do you know him personally? Maybe you are NB ...

> > Heh, the serious issue was stopping NB doing what he was doing, he
> > didn't listen to the (at least 5) warnings and will hopefully get
> > what he deserves, mental illness or not.
>
> Rubbish - the police were/are already investigating Nuxx Bar in the
> light of information supplied by Chapman. That arrest stopped Nuxx
> Bar in his tracks.

I read it differently, that the police couldn't or wouldn't act with
just the circumstantial evidence and that for 'real' action to be taken
they needed verifiable proof of identity which they weren't going to
spend on and it took GC using his own resources to get that proof.

> That was all that was needed - unless Chapman is hard up and wanting
> the "Compo"

Frankly I wouldn't blame him getting some compensation, even if it's
only a token gesture. NB had a few years of trying to make GC's
familys lives a misery, it's to GC's credit that he persevered to bring
him to justice.

> > I should think he does. he may well actually be helping NB see the
> > error of his ways and may indeed get him the help he obviously
> > needs if he does have a medically proven mental condition. NB was
> > seemingly not going toi stop no matter how many warnings he was
> > given, so how else could GC have proceeded differently?
>
> He could have sent a Cease & Desist letter to Nuxx Bar.

How do you know he didn't? Would that _really_ have stopped NB,
especially if NB is suffering from a mental condition?

> He could have waited for the outcome of the current on-going police
> investigation and arrest of Nuxx Bar.

He had been, the police weren't acting on circumstantial evidence and
weren't going to RIPA for proof, it took GC's efforts top get real
proof to take it further, is how I read it.

> If he had done that, he would not have been able to become emotional,
> heard the angels singing, produce a usenet post and a blog web page
> on his "Day in Court", and send several rejected posts to ULM as soon
> as he got home from Manchester.

After years of torment I think he's been damned restrained ..

> It seemed really very important to him to seek publicity as soon as
> possible.
>
> I will be very surprised if he is not already writing a Press Release
> to send to Reuters.

See, you can't stop trying to belittle or attack someone.

Have you ever written anything about anything that shows them in a good
or positive light?

[Judith]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:39:58 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:

>Tony Dragon formulated the question :

>.......and the judge spoke of 'sinister and I believe menacing
>behaviour'.

Oh really from where did you get that?

Has the transcript of the case been made public?

Was it someone in court who has put it in the public domain. I thought that
Chapman had said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agreed as a condition of release that this data was to be used only in
obtaining and pursuing legal redress, including through the Police. This is the
purpose for which the Data Protection Act allows it to be used.

If I tell you what I found out then I could be fined or imprisoned for
contempt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if the details that Zen had already terminated his account five times
already were exempt from that order?

I wonder who you write to if you suspect contempt of court.

[Man at B&Q]

On Dec 2, 9:32 am, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Judith wrote:

>
> See, you can't stop trying to belittle or attack someone.
>
> Have you ever written anything about anything that shows them in a good
> or positive light?

It can't even do that about itself.

MBQ

[Simon Mason]

On Dec 2, 9:32 am, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> See, you can't stop trying to belittle or attack someone.
>
> Have you ever written anything about anything that shows them in a good
> or positive light?
>
> --

I believe JMS has praised Medjob a number of times, which tells you
all you need to know really.

--
Simon Mason

[Man at B&Q]

On Dec 2, 9:55 am, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:39:58 GMT, Jude <M8R-x2v...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >Tony Dragon formulated the question :
> >> On 01/12/2011 22:17, Jude wrote:
> >>> Judith explained :

The court. Go ahead, make our day, punk.

You'll first need to gain an understanding of the difference between
what was said in open court and the data that was released as a result
of the court's ruling.

MBQ

[Judith]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:21:21 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:


>Speculation added to web page 10/7/11
>Speculation removed from web page 31/7/11
>Order granted against 0800 Reverse 1/8/11

Crikey - that was coincidence that you took down the web page just by chance
and just the day before the order was granted.


Are you sure - you haven't got those dates turned round - I thought that the
webpage suddenly disappeared in August sometime - but admit I could be wrong?

It would be quite different if you went to court - got confirmation of who Nuxx
Bar was - and then thought oh shit - what have I got on my "Nuxx Bar" web pages
- I had better remove it.

[Judith]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:17:26 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:

>Judith explained :

>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:56:51 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>

><snip>

>
>> Sorry sunshine - there is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law -
>> unless you know more than I do.
>

>FACT: A Judge ordered Zen to give details of one of their subscribers
>(NB) to Guy Chapman.
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that the Judge would have made such an
>order if he felt there was NO EVIDENCE warranting such disclosure?
>
>Perhaps you couuld explain why the Judge made such an order,
>sunshine....
>

I repeat what I said : as far as I know there is no evidence in the public
domain that Nuxx Bar has broken any law.

I also do not think that there needs to be *evidence* of breaking the law
before you apply for a NP - you have to be wanting to continue a court action -
and you need the released facts to enable you to pursue your case

(I could be wrong with both of those - I am sure someone who does know will
correct if need be)

[Man at B&Q]

On Dec 2, 12:39 pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:17:26 GMT, Jude <M8R-x2v...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >Judith explained :

> >> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:56:51 GMT, Jude <M8R-x2v...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> Sorry sunshine - there is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law -
> >> unless you know more than I do.
>
> >FACT: A Judge  ordered Zen to give details of one of their subscribers
> >(NB) to Guy Chapman.
>
> >Are you seriously suggesting that the Judge would have made such an
> >order if he felt there was NO EVIDENCE warranting such disclosure?
>
> >Perhaps you couuld explain why the Judge made such an order,
> >sunshine....
>
> I repeat what I said : as far as I know there is no evidence in the public
> domain that Nuxx Bar has broken any law.

How much wriggle room did you need to insert the words "as fas as I
know" and "in the public domain" into what you *actually* said: "there

is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law"

MBQ

[Simon Mason]

On Dec 2, 1:18 pm, "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >Are you seriously suggesting that the Judge would have made such an
> > >order if he felt there was NO EVIDENCE warranting such disclosure?
>
> > >Perhaps you couuld explain why the Judge made such an order,
> > >sunshine....
>
> > I repeat what I said : as far as I know there is no evidence in the public
> > domain that Nuxx Bar has broken any law.
>
> How much wriggle room did you need to insert the words "as fas as I
> know" and "in the public domain" into what you *actually* said: "there
> is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law"
>

> MBQ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And why the hell does JMS want to defend Nuxx anyway? - he was a nasty
piece of work.

Is she in denial about her own eventual fate and fantasises that the
Nuxx case is not really happening and that he (and by extension, she)
has not done anything wrong ?

Shock alert - he has.

--
Simon Mason

[Judith]

On 2 Dec 2011 09:32:22 GMT, "Paul - xxx" <notchec...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> >> Why did you not serve a Cease and Desist letter on Nuxx Bar?
>> >
>> > Do you know he didn't?
>>
>> He didn't.
>
>I don't know, how do you know?

He has told us absolutely every thing else about the case - I have never seen
him claim that he has issued one - you can guarantee that he would have told us
if he had.

(I was not sure - but Chapman has confirmed)

>Maybe the police needed more from GC, or better proof of identity than
>the circumstantial evidence, even if the circumstantial evidence were
>true, I don't believe the police will act upon it without 'proper'
>proof.

A BT "tap" on the line and recorded conversations would have been sufficient -
plus the "evidence" that he has presented to the Judge.

>> But of course, he would not have had his emotional and tiring day in
>> court - nor would he have heard the angels singing.
>
>yet again you try to belittle people.

What saying the truth. Do really think that his actions in arriving home late
at night and immediately posting the details of the day here - and then posting
a blog as soon as possible was a wise thing to do - the actions of a sane and
sensible person?

>I believe he would have, I also believe that he needed to get 'real'
>evidence of NB's identity before the police would act in any meaningful
>way. NB had had a number of warnings and I think a disconnection and
>every time just continued the harassment after a short 'cooling off'
>period. Do you think someone should have to insist the police do
>something every time someone behaves irrationally?

If someone actually breaks the law, and if you want them prosecuting - present
them with all the evidence you have.

If you want a Compo claim - then go the Civil route.

The quickest way to get someone to stop - if they were guilty or not - would be
to get them arrested - if a Cease & Desist letter had failed.

It really does depend upon what is the object of the exercise- which is exactly
the point I am trying to make.

>I don't think they would have without proper proof of identity, not
>circumstantial evidence.

Repeat - they could have "tapped" and recorded Chapman's phone.

How come they had arrested the person known as Nuxx Bar before Chapman's day in
court - as Chapman has told us?

They obviously had sufficient evidence to believe that an offence may have been
committed - they were investigating it.

But Chapman could not wait.

>> > Oh, so it's down to the medical history now as being the excuse to
>> > allow NB to get away with what he was doing?
>>
>> Sorry - I did not say that.
>
>You are very strongly implying (inferring?) it.

Chapman was the person who told us that there were/are suspicions that Nuxx
Bar may have mental issues.

>GC has been suffering for two or so years, what other legal ways do you
>suggest?

See what I have said above.

A complaint to an ISP is not going to stop that sort of thing - as Chapman well
knows: he is a dab hand at trying to get accounts closed down. He has got mine
closed down more than once just for using a nym. (One of the ISPs once fucked
up and I could see that it was him)

He knows full well it is only a temporary measure.

>If you're not dealing with a sane and rational person, then maybe they
>do need treating differently. Does NB have a mental disorder? Does NB
>have a newborn child?

I have no idea - Chapman has suggested both things.

>If he has to either or both, how else, legally,
>could GC have proceeded? Bearing in mind NB's refusal to stop despite
>a disconnection and many previous warnings ...

See above again

>> Which could have been resolved so very easily and months ago. Chapman
>> obviously did not want to do that.
>
>How?

See above.

>> Well have a look at Chapman's behaviour in other spheres on the
>> internet - and share with us your conclusion.
>
>Why? I interact with GC only on a cycling group, why should I do
>anything else?

Sorry - I thought that you were interested to the full background to the case.

I originally had no reason to do so either.

When I first came across Chapman and witnessed his actions - and based on what
other people said about him (nothing to do with Nuxx Bar) - I had a look round
on the net - and indeed, my conclusion that the accusations that he was a
self-centred, lying fuckwit appeared to be very well founded.

I have actually disliked him for some time - after some of the things (lies) he
said about me - and he just refused to retract.

Most people sometimes make a mistake - apologise and correct.

Not Chapman.

He will never admit that he is wrong - even when he is. He will always try and
cloud an image and provide obfuscation.

>But NB didn't and hadn't stopped despite a disconnection and many
>warnings, what makes you think another bit of paper would do anything,
>do you know him personally? Maybe you are NB ...

I don't know him personally - despite what Chapman has insinuated - never met
him, never spoken to him - I do not know his real name (assuming that what
Chapman said on his web page is incorrect - which is what he would now like us
to think :-)

>Frankly I wouldn't blame him getting some compensation, even if it's
>only a token gesture. NB had a few years of trying to make GC's
>familys lives a misery, it's to GC's credit that he persevered to bring
>him to justice.

Oh so you think that Chapman really suffered - and yet only some token Compo
would be appropriate; most odd.

>> He could have sent a Cease & Desist letter to Nuxx Bar.
>
>How do you know he didn't? Would that _really_ have stopped NB,
>especially if NB is suffering from a mental condition?

See above.

>> He could have waited for the outcome of the current on-going police
>> investigation and arrest of Nuxx Bar.
>
>He had been, the police weren't acting on circumstantial evidence and
>weren't going to RIPA for proof, it took GC's efforts top get real
>proof to take it further, is how I read it.

Rubbish - he says that he presented further evidence to the police earlier this
year - which resulted in Nuxx Bar being arrested. Nuxx Bar was under arrest
before Chapman's day in court.

>> I will be very surprised if he is not already writing a Press Release
>> to send to Reuters.
>
>See, you can't stop trying to belittle or attack someone.

I am sorry - but I bet he has considered - if not even done - something like
that. Do you think his rant once he was home from court - and then his blog
are the writings of a sane and sensible person.

I can see that he has made a real achievement with his NP order. I have no
problem with that at all.

Do you know of anyone else who had gone through the same process who would have
produced the same self back-slapping reports that he wrote.

Here are some odd extracts:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot adequately describe the mix of emotions as he completed his summary.

I am still digesting its significance.

My head is reeling

I have boarded the train but have no control over its destination.

And yes, there is a terrible responsibility. If this is who I think it is, and
if the outcome is as I suspect it will be, then I will have ruined his career.

I am too tired to post the exact texts and precedents, but imagine the
scene: a robed judge sitting elevated above the court, me at one end
of the bench, Zen's legal officer at the other.

An hour. Another 15 minutes. All rise.

Dramatic music (in my head anyway).

This is a boardroom moment. The judge pauses.

He has complimented me - to an embarrassing degree - on the quality of
presentation of my evidence, and on my command of it.

We, Zen and I, are left with the impression that something rather
unusual has happened.

Let's be clear here: as Churchill said, this is not the end, it is not
even the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning.

Oh, did all that sound a bit tense? Sorry, it's been an emotional day.

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

If Nuxx Bar was doing the things which Chapman has accused him of - then yes I
agree - he needed stopping.

Chapman appears to have been professional and thorough in his NP order.

However, I am still unsure of Chapman's motives other than self gratification.

It will be interesting to see how Chapman's civil action against the person
known as Nuxx Bar will now proceed (if it does).

[Man at B&Q]

On Dec 2, 3:08 pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
> A complaint to an ISP is not going to stop that sort of thing - as Chapman well
> knows: he is a dab hand at trying to get accounts closed down.  He has got mine
> closed down more than once just for using a nym.  (One of the ISPs once fucked
> up and I could see that it was him)

Ah, so that's what this is all about. Thanks for clearing that up.

MBQ

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 07:49:07 +0000, Bertie Wooster <ber...@nospam.com>
wrote:

You're a toff, sir. I will run this by SWMBO when I get home.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 09:55:49 +0000, Judith <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

Judith, you are very obviously completely out of your depth here.

Everything said in open court is a matter of public record, even
though there is unlikely ever to be a transcript published. The
judge's summing up is also a matter of public record, there is no
restriction on reporting it in whole or in part

This much is obvious from the many court reports in newspapers, which
are invariably published before any official publication of any
transcripts or judgments. The judgment is a public record as soon as
it is given.

If you believe that I have published any of the information given to
me by Zen Internet under the court order then you should contact His
Honour Judge Bird at Manchester County Court. Bear in mind that you
will have to give the exact date and place of publication, show that
this is after the date and time of judgment, and demonstrate that the
information was not evidence given in open court or known to me
beforehand but was part of the information given to me by Zen.

In order to do this you will need to know two things: the entirety of
evidence given in court; and the actual contents of the information
handed to me by Zen Internet.

I am pretty confident that you know neither.

There are exactly four people in the world who know everything that
was said in court on Tuesday: me, the judge, the clerk and Zen's legal
officer. And actually the clerk wasn't paying much attention.

There are exactly three people who know the contents of the
information given to me by Zen Internet: me, Zen's legal officer and
the investigating police officer.

I am pretty sure you are not me, and Zen's legal officer was so
charming that I cannot believe that is you either.

In short, I am confident to a very high degree of probability,
approaching 100%, that you do not know everything that was said in
court and you do not know what information Zen gave me afterwards. In
fact, I would be prepared to bet money on it.

I can't stop you writing to the judge, nor would I want to. Don't
forget to mention your years-long vendetta and the fact that you've
been publicly accusing me of perjury, I know how offended you are by
the omission of any salient facts.

You appear to be trying to cause me stress and anxiety by threatening
to make trouble, just as you did with Simon Mason. I am not convinced
that is an entirely well judged course of conduct.

[Paul - xxx]

Judith wrote:

> If Nuxx Bar was doing the things which Chapman has accused him of -
> then yes I agree - he needed stopping.

Agreed.

> Chapman appears to have been professional and thorough in his NP
> order.

Agreed.

> However, I am still unsure of Chapman's motives other than self
> gratification.

So what? WTF has that to do with you anyway?

> It will be interesting to see how Chapman's civil action against the
> person known as Nuxx Bar will now proceed (if it does).

Agreed.

You interpret GC's actions differently to me, I doubt we'll come to an
accord other than as above, and I now CBA to waste more time on you.

[Paul - xxx]

Heheheh, I didn't read that bit! (I didn't read most of his answer as
I doubt we'll ever agree)

So JMS/Judith/whoever he is has actually had an account closed. Not by
GC, but by his ISP agreeing that whatever he was posting/doing using
that account was against the TOS ... Heheheh, nice one, now that's made
me chuckle somewhat.

[Judith]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 05:18:03 -0800 (PST), "Man at B&Q" <manat...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Oh - feel free to post your evidence - as I have not seen any - and you
obviously have,

There does not have to be any evidence of an offence having been committed for
the NP order to be made. Is that too difficult for you to understand.

[Judith]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 05:23:54 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 2, 1:18 pm, "Man at B&Q" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >Are you seriously suggesting that the Judge would have made such an
>> > >order if he felt there was NO EVIDENCE warranting such disclosure?
>>
>> > >Perhaps you couuld explain why the Judge made such an order,
>> > >sunshine....
>>
>> > I repeat what I said : as far as I know there is no evidence in the public
>> > domain that Nuxx Bar has broken any law.
>>
>> How much wriggle room did you need to insert the words "as fas as I
>> know" and "in the public domain" into what you *actually* said: "there
>> is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law"
>>
>> MBQ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>And why the hell does JMS want to defend Nuxx anyway? - he was a nasty
>piece of work.
>
>Is she in denial about her own eventual fate

Have you paid Porky his fees yet?

[Judith]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 01:58:16 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Indeed I have.

I have also said that you are a fuckwit: many times - which does indeed tell
you all you need to know.

I believe that Simple Simon has accused Dave of being a bodger. Is that true
as well?

[Judith]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 07:25:05 +0000, Simon Weaseltemper
<si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote:

>On 01/12/2011 22:21, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Yes. Do you still consider yourself a human?
>>
>> Guy
>
>Keep up the good work Guy, I had seen some of the stuff NB had posted
>regarding your family and quite frankly, I was totally disgusted by it.
>The people who engage in this sort of thing need to be restricted and if
>necessary, locked up.

What do you think about people who publicise where other posters live?

Perhaps a map, perhaps a Google street view?

Any comment?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 02/12/2011 13:23, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Dec 2, 1:18 pm, "Man at B&Q"<manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that the Judge would have made such an
>>>> order if he felt there was NO EVIDENCE warranting such disclosure?
>>
>>>> Perhaps you couuld explain why the Judge made such an order,
>>>> sunshine....
>>
>>> I repeat what I said : as far as I know there is no evidence in the public
>>> domain that Nuxx Bar has broken any law.
>>
>> How much wriggle room did you need to insert the words "as fas as I
>> know" and "in the public domain" into what you *actually* said: "there
>> is no evidence that Nuxx Bar has broken any law"
>>
>> MBQ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> And why the hell does JMS want to defend Nuxx anyway? - he was a nasty
> piece of work.
>
> Is she in denial about her own eventual fate

And what would that be halfwit?

> and fantasises that the
> Nuxx case is not really happening and that he (and by extension, she)
> has not done anything wrong ?

Fantasies? You are the expert on those.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:28:27 GMT, Jude <M8R-x...@mailinator.com>
wrote:

>> You appear to be trying to cause me stress and anxiety by threatening
>> to make trouble, just as you did with Simon Mason. I am not convinced
>> that is an entirely well judged course of conduct.
>

>There definitely appears to be a pattern emerging here...

You might very well think that, but I couldn't possibly comment.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

How very interesting. One of the things the judge felt was
particularly significant about Nuxx's harassment was that it continued
after service disconnections and warnings.

1. Prohibition of harassment
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of
conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of
another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information
would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents

It's the stipulation in 1(1)(b) that is significant here. A person may
be able to argue that they did not believe that what they were doing
was wrong, but that excuse is unlikely to fly if there have been
warnings or disconnections.

And let's remember here that providers do not terminate a connection
for "using a nym". Use of pseudonyms is not a violation of any ISP
acceptable use policy I've ever seen (and I have had cause to look at
a few thanks to the likes of JMS and Nuxx).

I must have a skim through JMS' messages some time. I have around
13,500 messages identified as being from JMS in urc alone, using
something over 200 identities, so it might take a while.

[Judith]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:01:44 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<usen...@chapmancentral.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>Judith, you are very obviously completely out of your depth here.

A bit like you then .......

>Everything said in open court is a matter of public record, even
>though there is unlikely ever to be a transcript published.

......... when you said : "I will put the transcript up when it arrives."

<snip the shit>

>You appear to be trying to cause me stress and anxiety by threatening

>to make trouble.

Certainly not - I had just forgotten how tired and emotional you can get.

Oh - regarding the very unwise email you sent me this morning - please do not
send me any more harassing communications.

My reply to you on the content of what you said : "Fuck off".