please don't cross post!

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Zordrac

unread,
Mar 30, 2003, 5:37:42 PM3/30/03
to
Thank you to whoever provided me with the link to the Ireland
Newspaper article: http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=580542&issue_id=5864
(requires login).

I accept that this constitutes a form of evidence.

I have also received emails from Tony Luckwill in which I challenged
his story, and he told me the following:

"To save you an enormous amount of searching and time, I don't deny
the existence of the newspaper articles and the fact that I was
involved in a couple of cases in the past, however without wishing to
discuss these cases they were all caused by Mr Bailey's doings,
luckily the later case was dropped before I came to Wales. But none of
the articles suggest me being a paedophile!"

In other words, confessing to these crimes.

Whilst I do still maintain that www.fuckwit.info is an insensitive and
immature domain name, and that I cannot agree with the existence of
the www.fuckwit.info/tony directory under any circumstances (it
certainly is *NOT* a community service!), I must accept that, whilst
there is a probable crime committed by Mike Stanton, there is a more
likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill as well. It is possible that
their crimes, in terms of defamation, are equal of merit. I cannot be
sure.

Certainly, I do not wish to be contacted by Mike Stanton, and await
further information in this case.

I consider such issues to be of great importance, in protecting our
rights as individuals.

However, I accept that in such cases, hard evidence is difficult to
acquire, and often the victim looks like the innocent and vice versa.

I apologise if people think that I was acting "stupidly" in
"defending" Tony. I do not know Tony. But I do know that it is
dangerous to spontaneously act due to emotions in such a dangerous
situation. An accusation of paedophilia is not to be taken lightly,
and has no place in a forum like this.

Bye now.

Llandrovers!

unread,
Mar 30, 2003, 5:51:08 PM3/30/03
to
On 30/3/03 11:37 pm, in article
b81179c0.03033...@posting.google.com, "Zordrac"
<lordz...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Thank you to whoever provided me with the link to the Ireland
> Newspaper article:
> http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=580542&issue_id=58
> 64
> (requires login).
>
> I accept that this constitutes a form of evidence.
>
> I have also received emails from Tony Luckwill in which I challenged
> his story, and he told me the following:
>
> "To save you an enormous amount of searching and time, I don't deny
> the existence of the newspaper articles and the fact that I was
> involved in a couple of cases in the past, however without wishing to
> discuss these cases they were all caused by Mr Bailey's doings,
> luckily the later case was dropped before I came to Wales. But none of
> the articles suggest me being a paedophile!"
>
> In other words, confessing to these crimes.

I didn't confess to anything. I was simply acknowledging the existence of
the newspaper articles. You will not find anything there that actually
states anything about me being any sort of paedophile.

> Whilst I do still maintain that www.fuckwit.info is an insensitive and
> immature domain name, and that I cannot agree with the existence of
> the www.fuckwit.info/tony directory under any circumstances (it
> certainly is *NOT* a community service!), I must accept that, whilst
> there is a probable crime committed by Mike Stanton, there is a more
> likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill as well.

Ahem?! Do elaborate? Glad you agree with me though.

Robin May

unread,
Mar 30, 2003, 5:57:47 PM3/30/03
to
lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote the following in:
news:b81179c0.03033...@posting.google.com

> Thank you to whoever provided me with the link to the Ireland
> Newspaper article:
> http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=580542&
> issue_id=5864 (requires login).

If you'd done the google search I suggested you'd have found this a
long time ago.

> Whilst I do still maintain that www.fuckwit.info is an insensitive
> and immature domain name, and that I cannot agree with the
> existence of the www.fuckwit.info/tony directory under any
> circumstances (it certainly is *NOT* a community service!), I must
> accept that, whilst there is a probable crime committed by Mike
> Stanton, there is a more likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill
> as well. It is possible that their crimes, in terms of defamation,
> are equal of merit. I cannot be sure.

This really is quite incredible. There is a paedophile posting to
usenet and yet you say that revealing him as such is not helpful to
anyone and accuse those who have done so of defamation.


> I consider such issues to be of great importance, in protecting
> our rights as individuals.

What rights would these be? Our rights to commit crimes and abuse
children without anyone drawing attention to it?

--
message by Robin May, living the life of an international loverman
"I wish to be entered and will pay" - A teacher forced me to say this!

War on Iraq: serving the interests of US shareholders since 2003

Llandrovers!

unread,
Mar 30, 2003, 6:02:58 PM3/30/03
to
On 30/3/03 11:57 pm, in article Xns934EF3A0697...@130.133.1.4,
"Robin May" <northc...@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote the following in:
> news:b81179c0.03033...@posting.google.com
>
>> Thank you to whoever provided me with the link to the Ireland
>> Newspaper article:
>> http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=580542&
>> issue_id=5864 (requires login).
>
> If you'd done the google search I suggested you'd have found this a
> long time ago.
>
>> Whilst I do still maintain that www.fuckwit.info is an insensitive
>> and immature domain name, and that I cannot agree with the
>> existence of the www.fuckwit.info/tony directory under any
>> circumstances (it certainly is *NOT* a community service!), I must
>> accept that, whilst there is a probable crime committed by Mike
>> Stanton, there is a more likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill
>> as well. It is possible that their crimes, in terms of defamation,
>> are equal of merit. I cannot be sure.
>
> This really is quite incredible. There is a paedophile posting to
> usenet and yet you say that revealing him as such is not helpful to
> anyone and accuse those who have done so of defamation.
>
>> I consider such issues to be of great importance, in protecting
>> our rights as individuals.
>
> What rights would these be? Our rights to commit crimes and abuse
> children without anyone drawing attention to it?

You've done it again, oh dear!

Robin May

unread,
Mar 30, 2003, 6:06:13 PM3/30/03
to
Llandrovers! <lland...@lloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote the
following in: news:BAAD3632.25E8%lland...@lloftsgubor.demon.co.uk

> You've done it again, oh dear!

Oh look, Robert Maxwell is back from the dead.

Mike Stanton

unread,
Mar 30, 2003, 7:17:47 PM3/30/03
to
On 30 Mar 2003 14:37:42 -0800, lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote

> I must accept that, whilst
>there is a probable crime committed by Mike Stanton,

???

>there is a more
>likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill as well. It is possible that
>their crimes, in terms of defamation, are equal of merit. I cannot be
>sure.

Luckwill is a paedophile. I have accused him of this in public many times and he
has always threatened to sue me but never carries out his threats.


>Certainly, I do not wish to be contacted by Mike Stanton, and await
>further information in this case.

I will not contact you personally Zordrac, but I will continue to post to this
news group. If you post in this forum about me and Luckwill I will reply.
--
Mike

Serving neither God nor Mammon
on the Lonely Planet

Ron Hedgcock

unread,
Mar 30, 2003, 8:10:17 PM3/30/03
to
With regard to people's reaction to our diagnosis...
I found an extraordinary attitude in one lady with whom I have been
associated. She observed that I have made a number of friends among the
Listers I've corresponded with; I've had occasional useful correspondance
with some Autism/Aspergers authorities both here in Australia and abroad,
(especially certain speakers who appeared at the recent Melbourne Autism
Congress. Then as well, I have been asked to speak on Aspergers both for the
Victorian AS network, and other groups in society. This particular lady
indicated a profound envy for my diagnosis, coming to the conclusion that to
have AS was extraordinarily beneficial to me, giving me access to all sorts
of interesting people as well as status in the community. She seems to feel
that a diagnosis of AS would lift her own deprived life into a state of
acceptance and importance.
Just because I was so helped and relieved to get the dx, she thought it was
a great thing to have!
Naturally, she has to ignore all the difficulties and distresses,
misunderstandings and losses that I have had to endure over 60 odd years to
get here, through my Aspergers. In my lectures, I've tried to offer a
light-hearted look at the way I experience life; the way I see the world,
and the many compensations I've had to make. I dont stand up in front of
the audience as if I'm at an AA meeting and confess with sheepish eyes...
'My name is Ron, - I am a chronic Aspergic, and have been reforming for
two years.' etc etc. Because I dont give a bitter diatribe against the
condition and its drawbacks, therefore I am describing it as a 'good thing'.
Heavens above, I dont consider being either NT or AS as a 'good thing'.
Attributes held by individuals in both camps can be good, bad or
indifferent. I try and make the best of it, to accept the limitations that
the gods have placed on me, and to use some of the special talents and
obsessions I have to the best of my ability. As far as I can see, I
suspect that so much of the world's woes have been caused, well and truly
by NTs. Sure we AS folk might cause some problems for others, and as in my
own case, can disturb our marriages; but I dont think that our 'evil'
influences have ever been as bad, by comparison with those of the unpleasant
NTs of history.
What do you think?


Zordrac

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 3:11:58 AM3/31/03
to
> This really is quite incredible. There is a paedophile posting to
> usenet and yet you say that revealing him as such is not helpful to
> anyone and accuse those who have done so of defamation.
>

Again, unless you can provide evidence that this person is a
paedophile, then I find it unfair to make such a suggestion. If you
can provide evidence, then please provide. I recognise that under the
child protection act 1993, a convicted paedophile can in some
circumstances be named publicly so as to warn children. However, if he
is not a convicted paedophile, then he cannot be named as such, and if
there is an order made preventing such a naming, then you cannot do
so.

My point is not to protect a convicted paedophile. It is the right to
protect someone's privacy and freedoms. Without the burden of proof,
then what freedoms can we have?

> > I consider such issues to be of great importance, in protecting
> > our rights as individuals.
>
> What rights would these be? Our rights to commit crimes and abuse
> children without anyone drawing attention to it?

No.

If he is a convicted paedophile, then please provide links. Thank you.

growi...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 3:40:03 AM3/31/03
to
> On 30 Mar 2003 14:37:42 -0800, lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote
>> I must accept that, whilst
>>there is a probable crime committed by Mike Stanton,

Mike Stanton <mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> ???

My thoughts exactly - accusing someone of a crime is not a crime itself.
Even if you don't provide evidence. (US law here, though, maybe the UK
really is different, but since we based our legal system on theirs, I
doubt it is too different) Accusing them of a crime which isn't true may
be a crime in some cases, but that is different then not providing any
evidence which could sway someone.

I would also add that the majority of posters here respect Mike S. He
has been here for some time, and earned that respect.

>>there is a more
>>likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill as well. It is possible that
>>their crimes, in terms of defamation, are equal of merit. I cannot be
>>sure.

> Luckwill is a paedophile.

Okay, you think he is defaming someone. Why? Do you have evidence that
he is, or is your evidence simply that he hasn't convinced you of his
statement? Honestly, I have evidence (through posting here for years)
that you are accusing Mike S of a crime of which he is not guilty - itself
an act of defamation! But I doubt Mike S will be suing you anytime soon,
or even threatening a lawsuit (also can be a crime - blackmail).

>>Certainly, I do not wish to be contacted by Mike Stanton, and await
>>further information in this case.

Zordac, you will be doing yourself a disservice. I think you are reading
between the lines and assuming Mike has some problem with you - he doesn't.

--
Joel

growi...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 3:45:04 AM3/31/03
to
Zordrac <lordz...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Again, unless you can provide evidence that this person is a
> paedophile, then I find it unfair to make such a suggestion. If you
> can provide evidence, then please provide. I recognise that under the
> child protection act 1993, a convicted paedophile can in some
> circumstances be named publicly so as to warn children. However, if he
> is not a convicted paedophile, then he cannot be named as such, and if
> there is an order made preventing such a naming, then you cannot do
> so.

There are lots of paedophiles who haven't yet been convicted of that
crime. It can be a difficult offense to prosecute. And innocent people
who are not paedophiles have also been convicted, but that doesn't make
them a paedophile.

Read Google (go to http://www.deja.com/, click "advanced search" and
type in the email address of the person youa re looking for - Luckwell
or whatever his name is in this case). Read about underware and boys
and you may see why people are very concerned that Luckwell is a
paedophile. I wouldn't let my kids within a mile of him if I had kids.

--
Joel


El Habanero - The Peppery Persuader

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 5:08:32 AM3/31/03
to
On alt.support.autism, Robin May <northc...@btopenworld.com>
shared with us:

>Llandrovers! <lland...@lloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote the
>following in: news:BAAD3632.25E8%lland...@lloftsgubor.demon.co.uk
>
>> You've done it again, oh dear!
>
>Oh look, Robert Maxwell is back from the dead.

This time, YOU tie the ankles and I'LL drop the weights.


Viva El Habanero!

He has peppers of mass combustion, and he ain't afraid to eat them.

<To reply to El Habanero, remove that which does not apply.>
--

El Habanero is not the Messiah, he's just an Autie boy.

Alice

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 5:25:13 AM3/31/03
to
Ron Hedgcock wrote:
> With regard to people's reaction to our diagnosis...
[snip]

> Just because I was so helped and relieved to get the dx, she thought
> it was a great thing to have! Naturally, she has to ignore all the
> difficulties and distresses, misunderstandings and losses that I have
> had to endure over 60 odd years to get here, through my Aspergers.

Yes, she obviously is only looking at one side of the coin.

As far as I can see, I
> suspect that so much of the world's woes have been caused, well and
> truly by NTs. Sure we AS folk might cause some problems for others,
> and as in my own case, can disturb our marriages; but I dont think
> that our 'evil' influences have ever been as bad, by comparison with
> those of the unpleasant NTs of history. What do you think?
>
>

I think the only reason some think the world would be a better place if
run by autistics is that we haven't seen the repercussions of it in
reality. I believe it would be no better or worse, either way.

-alice (_I_ should rule the world! :)

Zordrac

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 11:04:13 AM3/31/03
to
growi...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:<top.poster.2....@bigsky.antelope.net>...

I read the specific entry (did so some time ago) which mentioned
underwear. There are various reasons why I believe that it is an
impersonated post, one of which being that that identity is not
verified to actually be from him, and that what is said there is not
consistent with anything else that has been said by him. Not to forget
that it was done in the wrong kind of forum for soliciting sex from
minors (minors wouldn't read that one), and in a far too obvious way.
A real paedophile would do so much more discretely. It was a set up.
Fairly obvious one too.

Robin May

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 11:06:23 AM3/31/03
to
lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote the following in:
news:b81179c0.0303...@posting.google.com

> I read the specific entry (did so some time ago) which mentioned
> underwear. There are various reasons why I believe that it is an
> impersonated post, one of which being that that identity is not
> verified to actually be from him, and that what is said there is
> not consistent with anything else that has been said by him. Not
> to forget that it was done in the wrong kind of forum for
> soliciting sex from minors (minors wouldn't read that one), and in
> a far too obvious way. A real paedophile would do so much more
> discretely.

Why do you assume that paedophiles are all adept at seeking out
children? You seem to not even consider the possibility of an inept and
unsuccessful paedophile.

Llandrovers!

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 11:08:11 AM3/31/03
to
Mike Stanton <mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<m82f8vchuft5fp482...@4ax.com>...

> On 30 Mar 2003 14:37:42 -0800, lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote
>
> > I must accept that, whilst
> >there is a probable crime committed by Mike Stanton,
>
> ???
>
> >there is a more
> >likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill as well. It is possible that
> >their crimes, in terms of defamation, are equal of merit. I cannot be
> >sure.
>
> Luckwill is a paedophile. I have accused him of this in public many times and he
> has always threatened to sue me but never carries out his threats.

WATCH THIS SPACE and your letterbox!

growi...@hotmail.com

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 1:40:04 PM3/31/03
to
Llandrovers! <lland...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> WATCH THIS SPACE and your letterbox!

In the US (sorry, wish I knew more about UK law), proof of delivery is
required. I suggest you don't post it here, as you won't get that
proof and, sadly <okay, sarcasm>, may lose your lawsuit.

--
Joel

Llandrovers!

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 2:45:07 PM3/31/03
to
On 31/3/03 9:46 am, in article 6evf8vc94o8csu7v8...@4ax.com,
"Mother" <r> wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes
> On 31 Mar 2003 00:11:58 -0800, lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac)


> wrote:
>
>> If he is a convicted paedophile, then please provide links. Thank you.
>

> Unless you are intent upon being seen as a Tony-clone, or worse, a
> net-lawyer, may I respectfully suggest that you simply STFU and stop
> feeding a thread which is drifting into the domain of nausia?
>
> Evident by your choice of subject line, you have little experience or
> understanding of usenet. Your other comments confirm that you have
> little objectivity or cognitive awareness of the fora you employ to
> disseminate your dissertations regarding right-and-wrong.
>
> Luckwill is perfectly capable of defending himself - albeit somewhat
> difficult to defend the obvious, but that is not your concern, or
> mine, or that of anyone elses here. He feeds on your comments and I
> believe with the benefit of hindsight, you will agree.
>
> I now 'lurk' here as I originally came looking for postings from
> Luckwill to develop my understanding of whether he was just a PITA or
> actually, as I now believe, somewhat dangerous.
>
> I now like to remain lurking as I enjoy the group, find it refreshing
> and honest, with emotion, feeling and good advice. Continuing this
> series of threads will not help you, Luckwit, or this group. It will
> simply leave you looking a complete twit - and that would be a shame.
>
> Martyn
>

And Martyn lurking here will make Martyn look like one too. Harassment! Of
everyone here. Stick to 101's mate - they're safer and much easier to deal
with, and cheaper too(!).

Llandrovers!

unread,
Mar 31, 2003, 3:00:00 PM3/31/03
to
On 31/3/03 9:45 am, in article
top.poster.2....@bigsky.antelope.net, "growi...@hotmail.com"
<growi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You've lost the plot. You are assuming I put those messages there in the
first place. Not the case mate.

I find it almost funny, in a way, that someone like me, a film maker, writer
etc, with years of experience working with people of all ages, would want to
go and publish those messages. Of course not. It would have been a stupid
thing to do.

But, all these recent postings during the past few weeks have ruined any
chance of anybody, myself, Martyn, the Law, Mr Stanton, etc., etc., making
any sensible progress. Seemingly, justice has already been aired by these
various accusations flying around not to mention what Martyn seems to be
taking immense pleasure in doing re *that* site.

You haven't seen me accusing people of being paedophiles or publishing
websites accusing people of x, y, and z, (not in relation to *recent*
postings anyhow). Because I would fully expect to find my house burning or
car windows smashed, tyres slashed, and a gun put to my head if I personally
had done so, not to mention lawsuits!

According to an official, whom I was speaking to today, Martyn and some
others (except Zodrac) have in fact committed a crime by detailing
information which may well have supposed to have been used in any criminal
case(s). So there!

Wouldn't it have been better to use words and phrases like "I have reason to
suspect he may be a "whatever"", or "I have reason to believe he did this or
that"?

Regards;
Llandrovers!


Austin Shackles

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 4:18:48 AM4/5/03
to
On or around Mon, 31 Mar 2003 01:17:47 +0100, Mike Stanton
<mike.s...@dsl.pipex.com> enlightened us thusly:

>On 30 Mar 2003 14:37:42 -0800, lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote
>
>> I must accept that, whilst
>>there is a probable crime committed by Mike Stanton,
>
>???
>
>>there is a more
>>likely crime committed by Tony Luckwill as well. It is possible that
>>their crimes, in terms of defamation, are equal of merit. I cannot be
>>sure.
>
>Luckwill is a paedophile. I have accused him of this in public many times and he
>has always threatened to sue me but never carries out his threats.

has it occurred to you how much such a process might cost?

and I for one would be interested to know if the above is your opinion, to
which of course you're entitled (although I for one would qualify a public
statement clearly) or whether in fact you know of some evidence to this
effect. I'm aware that Mr Luckwill was charged and convicted of defamation,
which is not paedophilia. I understand that the conviction was subsequently
overturned, although I have no actual evidence to that effect.

I have no objection if you e-mail me about this. In fact, it would
doubtless be better.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10

Zordrac

unread,
Apr 5, 2003, 1:31:54 PM4/5/03
to

> My thoughts exactly - accusing someone of a crime is not a crime itself.

That is correct. Accusing someone of a crime, if stated as a theory
(not stated as if "this person is a ....") is an exception to an act
of defamation, and is henceforth not a crime. However, if such
statements take on special circumstances, in the case of a sensitive
issue such as rape, paedophilia, sexual crimes or other sensitive
issues, then it can be an act of defamation (this can be decided on by
the courts). In general, however, accusing some of a crime is not
illegal. Provided that it is stated as an accusation! Stating it as if
it were fact can be a crime.

> Even if you don't provide evidence. (US law here, though, maybe the UK
> really is different, but since we based our legal system on theirs, I
> doubt it is too different) Accusing them of a crime which isn't true may
> be a crime in some cases, but that is different then not providing any
> evidence which could sway someone.
>

Defamation laws are pretty standard worldwide.

> I would also add that the majority of posters here respect Mike S. He
> has been here for some time, and earned that respect.
>

It is the posts (and the web site) which is under question, not the
person themselves. Character references have no bearing in a case like
this.

> > Luckwill is a paedophile.
>

This statement is not a theory postulating a crime. As you can see
clearly there, it is stating as if it were a fact something which is
not proven. This, in itself, is a crime.

> Okay, you think he is defaming someone. Why? Do you have evidence that
> he is, or is your evidence simply that he hasn't convinced you of his
> statement?

I have seen that the evidence presented is fabricated and difficult to
believe. I have also seen the clear motivation of this act, and I
believe most strongly that it is quite false. Unless there is actual
evidence to prove the crime, then I would ask that it would be
removed.

And, for the record here, I'll state what I consider to be actual
evidence. You can pick one.

1) Mr. Luckwill involved in actual sexual acts with an underage
person. Photographs, newspaper articles, court rulings. Anything
official will suffice. Police reports. Yup. There's plenty of forms of
evidence that that can take.

2) An order by a court authority requiring Mr. Luckwill to not go
within 100 yards of any schoolyard. This is standard practise with
convicted paedophiles, even when released. Indeed, any local schools
would be aware of it, if he were a convicted paedophile.

3) An affidavit signed by an underage person (or one who was underage
at the time) stating that they were sexually abused by Mr. Luckwill.
Or even that he attempted to abuse them. Even if this is not proven in
a court of law, the very fact that someone has accused him of this (an
actual underage person who claims to be a victim) would count as some
form of evidence.

What *DOES NOT* count as evidence is some newsgroup posting which has
no way of authenticating the identity of the persons responsible, and
appears extremely fabricated, and to have been the work of someone
else trying to set them up.

A paedophile does not walk into a children's bookstore and ask the
adult caretaker there if there are any little kids that come by so
that they can look at how sexy they look. No. A paedophile would never
do such a thing. A paedophile who is behaving in this way is going to
get caught straight off. It is fake. Anyone who knows about
paedophilia knows that this is not standard behaviour. In fact, I have
never heard of anyone behaving like that, apart from as a joke. To do
this on a newsgroup, to a place which adults frequent, is absurd. The
newsgroup where it was posted to was for ADULTS, not for children. It
was also posted publicly. Not only that, but it was posted with his
real name. What kind of a moron do you think he is? That is thoroughly
unbelievable. Especially when you consider that most of his posts went
to some degree to protect his anonymity (llandrovers etc) yet this one
was suddenly having his real name in there, and had no other posts by
that name. Conclusion = it almost certainly was not him. That this
post is being used to "prove" that he is guilty is absurd.

What a paedophile really would do is to go to a chat room where
children frequent, and *PRIVATELY* message them. They would not want
anyone else to know that they were doing it. Oh, they might leave a
message inviting people to chat with them, but it would be open to
people of all ages. Paedophiles *DO* use the internet to stalk
children. It really does happen. But the behaviours described for Mr.
Luckwill do not match a paedophile.

Its the equivalent of him walking into a childcare and saying "Hi
there. I was wondering if you'd let me look after some of these kids
for a while. I have lots of fun things for them to do. Even dress
ups." Yeah right! As if they'd let you do that. Its absolute nonsense.

I cannot believe such unfounded accusations, and I am surprised at how
many people are believing them.

> Honestly, I have evidence (through posting here for years)
> that you are accusing Mike S of a crime of which he is not guilty - itself
> an act of defamation!

No, it is not.

What I have done is to state an interpretation of what is happening.
To accuse some of defamation is not defamation, and cannot be
defamation. If that was defamation, then the whole legal system would
fall apart. Stop being silly.

> But I doubt Mike S will be suing you anytime soon,

He wouldn't get anywhere, since no crime has been committed. I have
also not identified him as a person, nor made any attempt to do so. I
have no idea who he really is. Any statements that I have made cannot
affect the real person behind it, since he is not identified. This is
one of the requirements for defamation. Attacking an online identity
is not an act of defamation (except for special circumstances).

> or even threatening a lawsuit (also can be a crime - blackmail).

That is not true.

Threatening a lawsuit is not defamation, since it is threatening to
pursue the course of justice. It is not a crime. It is not blackmail.
It cannot be a crime. Everyone has the right to use the justice
system, and you cannot act to prevent someone from exercising this
right. Threatening to use the justice system is not criminal.



> >>Certainly, I do not wish to be contacted by Mike Stanton, and await
> >>further information in this case.
>
> Zordac, you will be doing yourself a disservice. I think you are reading
> between the lines and assuming Mike has some problem with you - he doesn't.

I will help all who need it.

I strongly advise for the statements against Mr. Luckwill to be
publicly retracted (on the webpages at least). If there is an actual
crime that has been committed by Mr. Luckwill, then I strongly suggest
for the matter to be resolved in court, or to get police bodies
involved, rather than an unfounded accusation on the internet.

I further strongly advise for Mr. Luckwill to sue Mr. Stanton. The
costs involved are not as high as you think. You have every legal
right to do so, and I believe would win the case legally. The only way
that you would not win is if you are in fact a convicted paedophile.
This is the entire basis of the accusation levelled against you. By
failing to prosecute, it is assumed that you are in fact a convicted
paedophile. I therefore suggest to you to get off your backside,
contact the police, and tell them about this horrible site that has
been made about you. It is a criminal offense for it to be produced.
Unless you are a convicted paedophile, then you will win the case.

If you fail to initiate court action within a month, I will assume
that you are a convicted paedophile.

The choice is yours.

dickinson

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 6:22:21 PM4/6/03
to

"Zordrac" <lordz...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:b81179c0.0304...@posting.google.com...

<snip>


> I further strongly advise for Mr. Luckwill to sue Mr. Stanton.

Why? Vested interest?

>The
> costs involved are not as high as you think. You have every legal
> right to do so, and I believe would win the case legally. The only way
> that you would not win is if you are in fact a convicted paedophile.
> This is the entire basis of the accusation levelled against you. By
> failing to prosecute, it is assumed that you are in fact a convicted
> paedophile. I therefore suggest to you to get off your backside,
> contact the police, and tell them about this horrible site that has
> been made about you. It is a criminal offense for it to be produced.
> Unless you are a convicted paedophile, then you will win the case.

You've done it again. "I further strongly advise for Mr. Luckwill to sue
Mr. Stanton" sounds like you are telling a 3rd party what you think Mr
Luckwill should do, then you follow up by speaking to Luckwill directly.

> If you fail to initiate court action within a month, I will assume
> that you are a convicted paedophile.

So, let me get this right. You jump to Luckwills defence spouting legalities
and taking the moral high ground, and then you give him an ultimatum that
if he doesn't do as *you* say, then all that presumption of innocence that
you gobbed off about, goes out the window?

> The choice is yours.

Methinks I'll add megalomania to *my* assumptions about *you*.


Jovial Old Ryno

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 6:25:00 PM4/6/03
to
On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:22:21 +1000, "dickinson" <bid...@iprimus.com.au>
wrote:

Didnae the "LORD" bit give ye a premonition, Laddie?


Llandrovers!

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 6:36:41 PM4/6/03
to
On 6/4/03 11:22 pm, in article b6q9bl$7upcg$1...@ID-144939.news.dfncis.de,
"dickinson" <bid...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:

As it happens, I have initiated proceedings against Mr Stanton, and the
police have also taken an interest in him as well.


dickinson

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 7:43:57 PM4/6/03
to

"Llandrovers!" <lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BAB66A89.4163%lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk...

<yawn>


dickinson

unread,
Apr 6, 2003, 7:47:10 PM4/6/03
to

"Jovial Old Ryno" <not.a.val...@eotworld.com> wrote in message
news:09a19vka7qhvqujg4...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:22:21 +1000, "dickinson" <bid...@iprimus.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Zordrac" <lordz...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >news:b81179c0.0304...@posting.google.com...
> >> growi...@hotmail.com wrote in message
> >news:<top.poster.2....@bigsky.antelope.net>...
> >
> ><snip>
> >Methinks I'll add megalomania to *my* assumptions about *you*.
> >
>
> Didnae the "LORD" bit give ye a premonition, Laddie?

Missed that one.


Not To Everybody's Taste - El Habanero

unread,
Apr 7, 2003, 6:13:53 AM4/7/03
to
On alt.support.autism, "dickinson" <bid...@iprimus.com.au> shared with
us:

>
>"Llandrovers!" <lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:BAB66A89.4163%lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk...

[snipped narcissistic twaddle]

>
><yawn>

As in Yawn Bored, the dull tennis player?


Viva El Habanero!

Feel the burn.

<To reply to El Habanero, remove those BIG letters up front.>

dickinson

unread,
Apr 7, 2003, 5:55:44 PM4/7/03
to

"Not To Everybody's Taste - El Habanero"
<CAPSAICIN!donot...@antisocial.com> wrote in message
news:9pj29vgbjki10792n...@4ax.com...

> On alt.support.autism, "dickinson" <bid...@iprimus.com.au> shared with
> us:
> >
> >"Llandrovers!" <lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:BAB66A89.4163%lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk...
>
> [snipped narcissistic twaddle]
>
> >
> ><yawn>
>
> As in Yawn Bored, the dull tennis player?

Isn't he a Bjorn again?


Zordrac

unread,
Apr 13, 2003, 3:25:13 PM4/13/03
to
This post has now been linked to http://www.luckwill.com/ without my
permission.

I consider my own posts to be my intellectual property, and do not
wish for it to be linked in this way. Since the owner of luckwill.com
refuses to remove the link, after a request, then I choose instead to
state my reasoning here.

On the luckwill.com site, is a title labelled "Is Tony Luckwill a
Paedophile???" which links directly to this.

The statement "Is Tony Luckwill a Paedophile" implies that this post
in some way proves that he is a paedophile, which it does not in any
way achieve. Instead, it is merely an accusation that he is a
paedophile.

This in turn implies that by supporting him in this post that I am
therefore supporting a paedophile, and, in turn, that I am therefore
supporting paedophilia. This is a false statement, and one which
cannot be considered to be an opinion. It is therefore something
which, in and of itself, can be considered to be defamatory. I
therefore request for the link to be removed from the luckwill.com
site, and for any references to myself, or my statements to be removed
from it. This is a request, and one which I hope a good minded person
would have reason to abide by, since this post itself does not appear
in any way relevant to the statements made on luckwill.com .

I further state that I do not wish to have any involvement with
luckwill.com and will consider legal action if such activities
persist, and the owner of the site refuses to cooperate with requests
of this nature.

I have stated my support, not for Tony Luckwill personally, but for a
person who has had their name smeared over the internet, with clearly
defamatory statements being made. I do not think that a site like
http://www.fuckwit.info/ is a responsible site, nor do I believe that
http://www.luckwill.com/ is a responsible site. I believe that a crime
has been committed by the creation of the latter site, and by the
information which it contains.

I have never stated that I think that paedophilia is okay, or
justifiable in any way. And I do not think that it is okay. If Tony
Luckwill is a paedophile, which I do not believe has been proven in
any way shape or form, then I would not support him in those actions.
I do not support manipulating children into taking clothes off under
the disguise of a modelling agency, and I consider such manipulations
to be sick. I further do not support manipulating parents such that
they give out information about their children.

If I believed that the statements made on luckwill.com had any basis
of truth, then I would not be supporting them in this way. I do not
think that the posters of several of those messages had a right to
post in that way, and I feel that a crime has been committed by making
the posts in this way. My question remains over the legitimacy of the
poster, and whether it can actually be verified to be Mr. Tony
Luckwill, or, as has been claimed, to have been made by someone who
wishes to smear his name in this way.

Accusing someone of paedophilia is a serious crime, as it can
seriously affect their reputation, particularly if they work with
children in some way.

I do not consider it reasonable for people to suggest that I am a
paedophile based on supporting someone in their fight against a smear
campaign laid against them.

I have not at any stage done anything to manipulate children, or to
try to get them to undress in front of me, or in any way done anything
which would suggest I was a paedophile, or were displaying any
behaviours relating to this.

I therefore find that such statements made about me, by a site like
luckwill.com are unneccessary.

The response to "sod off" when I made that request is not taken
lightly.

I am not trying to "Take back" my support for Mr. Tony Luckwill, as I
believe that he has a right to defend himself against claims made
against his character.

Again, I have no personal affiliation with Mr. Luckwill, nor do I
desire to have one. The entire reason for my affiliation with him has
been relating to a mutual desire to see smear campaigns made against
him and others ended.

I keep this post to defend against the defamatory post made on
luckwill.com against me.

Llandrovers!

unread,
Apr 13, 2003, 5:51:20 PM4/13/03
to
On 13/4/03 8:25 pm, in article
b81179c0.03041...@posting.google.com, "Zordrac"
<lordz...@netscape.net> wrote:

> This post has now been linked to http://www.luckwill.com/ without my
> permission.

Take legal action against the *registered* owner of www.luckwill.com, who we
all know by this stage who it is! The more people that do this the quicker
both he and the site will be dealt with.


Dilligaf

unread,
Apr 14, 2003, 7:41:36 AM4/14/03
to
<snip>

I thought you were leaving?

Dilligaf


Zordrac

unread,
Apr 14, 2003, 1:21:35 PM4/14/03
to
Llandrovers! <lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BABF9A68.4A69%lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk>...

Oh boy. Their web hosts are a laugh.

I have a copy of all of the emails sent in regards to this issue. I am
thinking of putting them up somewhere.

Just shows what kind of site this is, and what kind of people are
behind it.

Let me know if you want to see them. See mine as well. Compare what I
actually said to what these people responded to.

Zordrac

unread,
Apr 14, 2003, 1:24:10 PM4/14/03
to
"Dilligaf" <Y...@N.COM> wrote in message news:<S7xma.1713$FA6....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...

> <snip>
>
> I thought you were leaving?
>
> Dilligaf

I just signed a new lease on the house, and I am on contract at my job
until the end of the year.

Much as how I could leave, it doesn't seem like a good idea. Not while
things are going so well.

Having my name cleared of those stupid claims of paedophilia made a
big difference.

And we are well on the way to having the cyber stalker arrested.

Robin May

unread,
Apr 14, 2003, 1:29:37 PM4/14/03
to
lordz...@netscape.net (Zordrac) wrote the following in:
news:b81179c0.03041...@posting.google.com

> Llandrovers! <lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:<BABF9A68.4A69%lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk>...
>> On 13/4/03 8:25 pm, in article
>> b81179c0.03041...@posting.google.com, "Zordrac"
>> <lordz...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> > This post has now been linked to http://www.luckwill.com/
>> > without my permission.
>>
>> Take legal action against the *registered* owner of
>> www.luckwill.com, who we all know by this stage who it is! The
>> more people that do this the quicker both he and the site will be
>> dealt with.
>
> Oh boy. Their web hosts are a laugh.
>
> I have a copy of all of the emails sent in regards to this issue.
> I am thinking of putting them up somewhere.

You're incredible. You complain about your usenet posts (posts made to
a public forum) being linked to and yet you are talking about
publishing emails which are *private*!

> Just shows what kind of site this is, and what kind of people are
> behind it.
>
> Let me know if you want to see them. See mine as well. Compare
> what I actually said to what these people responded to.

Well I think this just shows what kind of hypocrit you are.

--
message by Robin May, living the life of an international loverman
"I wish to be entered and will pay" - A teacher forced me to say this!

Please feel free to call me Robin. It is my first name after all.

Llandrovers!

unread,
Apr 14, 2003, 2:22:00 PM4/14/03
to
On 14/4/03 6:21 pm, in article
b81179c0.03041...@posting.google.com, "Zordrac"
<lordz...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Llandrovers! <lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<BABF9A68.4A69%lland...@xlloftsgubor.demon.co.uk>...
>> On 13/4/03 8:25 pm, in article
>> b81179c0.03041...@posting.google.com, "Zordrac"
>> <lordz...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>> This post has now been linked to http://www.luckwill.com/ without my
>>> permission.
>>
>> Take legal action against the *registered* owner of www.luckwill.com, who we
>> all know by this stage who it is! The more people that do this the quicker
>> both he and the site will be dealt with.
>
> Oh boy. Their web hosts are a laugh.
>
> I have a copy of all of the emails sent in regards to this issue. I am
> thinking of putting them up somewhere.
>
> Just shows what kind of site this is, and what kind of people are
> behind it.
>
> Let me know if you want to see them. See mine as well. Compare what I
> actually said to what these people responded to.

Can you write in HTML? If yes, do it!

And yes, I would be keen to see your collection in relation to Solis/Redsys!


Tim Bruening

unread,
Apr 14, 2003, 6:37:11 PM4/14/03
to

Zordrac wrote:

> "Dilligaf" <Y...@N.COM> wrote in message news:<S7xma.1713$FA6....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > <snip>
> >
> > I thought you were leaving?
> >
> > Dilligaf
>
> I just signed a new lease on the house, and I am on contract at my job
> until the end of the year.

Congratulations!


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages