An apology to Dr Laurence Godfrey
Paul Black
> I haven't defamed his wife. I don't recall even mentioning her.
You've forgotten your Usenet exchange with Phil Payne then?
Paul
Paul C. Dickie
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:00:34 +0100, Phil_...@goons.cx (Kurt Adkins) wrote:
>}Starting last night, I have had several emails from Dr Godfrey demanding
>}that I apologise for postings I have made to demon.service. He insists
>}that I have 12 hours in which to do this or he will issue legal
>}proceedings.
>
>Oh good, I hope you enjoy the humiliation.
Perhaps Kurt believes that he may be elevated to martyrdom?
>}On 3 occasions I have requested that he list the statements he considers
>}to be defamatory. So far he has been unable to last *any*. I have
>}offered to consider apologising for any statements he lists whether they
>}be defamatory or even those he finds offensive without actually being
>}defamatory. As of 09:55 this morning he has been unable to list *any*.
>
>Well there are rather a lot aren't there, and he doesn't have to name them,
Which is probably as well, as it might have taken a week or two to list
them all...
>you just have to start groveling, hard.
In re v Demon, it was a contest between an irresistible force and an
immovable object; in re Godfrey v. Adkins, I'd expect the contest to be
one between an irresistible force and a pea.
>}So for all the statements I have made that Dr Godfrey has listed and
>}considers to be defamatory (ie *none) I apologise both humbly and
>}profusely.
>
>Not good enough, I suspect. The word disingenuous comes to mind.
I don't exactly believe him, either.
>}I would like to further add that I do not (and never will) apologise for
>}the beliefs and opinions I hold of Dr Godfrey both as a man and as a
>}Usenet user.
>You don't have to, you just must not defame him [CLUE: or his wife ]
I thought you didn't supply free clues to fw's?
>}The deal under which I have posted this apology will most probably be
>}reneagued on by Dr Godfrey (regardless of the fact I have done as he
>}wished) so I will expect he will carry out the threat in his last email
>}which was to commence legal proceedings forthwith.
>
>Seems reasonable to me, you have been begging for it for months,
I'd say that he has been quite determined to volunteer.
>are you going to defend your libels ?
I expect he might think he can try...
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<Phil_...@goons.cx> writes
>In spite of being unable to list any statements he considers to be
>defamatory has still insisted that I apologise.
You appear to have misinterpreted an understandable unwillingness to
play your silly little games with an inability to discern which of your
various comments is, at least, potentially defamatory. I believe you
should consider the possibility that Laurence may have detected several
of your statements which may be actionable.
>He has also stated that I do *not* have to apologise for my stated
>opinion that I consider his suing Demon was wrong.
Quite. You are perfectly entitled to hold whatever opinions you fancy,
from your notions about the appropriate course of action in the recent
case to whether or not the Moon is made of Gouda cheese or the Earth is
flat, but everyone else is equally entitled to tell you that you're
wrong. What you can't do is to post inaccurate statements that seek to
harm another's reputation merely because you do not like what they (or
their partner) have done, said or written.
>wished) so I will expect he will carry out the threat in his last email
>which was to commence legal proceedings forthwith.
I wonder if he will apply for summary relief?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:04:55 +0100, {R} Richard Ashton
><{R}@soggy.semolina.org> borrowed
><m786fs8epmlrkkejq...@pink.semolina.org> to say...
>>On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:00:34 +0100, Phil_...@goons.cx (Kurt Adkins) wrote:
>>}Starting last night, I have had several emails from Dr Godfrey demanding
>>}that I apologise for postings I have made to demon.service. He insists
>>}that I have 12 hours in which to do this or he will issue legal
>>}proceedings.
>>Oh good, I hope you enjoy the humiliation.
Perhaps that might be because you stand not a snowball's chance in hell
of winning such a case?
>>Well there are rather a lot aren't there, and he doesn't have to name them,
>>you just have to start groveling, hard.
>He does if he wishes to accuse me of defamation.
What makes you think he won't?
His understandable disdain for your games should not be taken as meaning
that he does not have a box-file or three full of your postings.
>>}So for all the statements I have made that Dr Godfrey has listed and
>>}considers to be defamatory (ie *none) I apologise both humbly and
>>}profusely.
>>Not good enough, I suspect. The word disingenuous comes to mind.
>He should give me more information to go on then.
I am sure that you will find all the information you crave in the writ.
>>}I would like to further add that I do not (and never will) apologise for
>>}the beliefs and opinions I hold of Dr Godfrey both as a man and as a
>>}Usenet user.
>>You don't have to, you just must not defame him [CLUE: or his wife ]
>I haven't defamed his wife. I don't recall even mentioning her.
You did. {R} saw the posting, I saw the posting and, more importantly
for you, sunshine, Laurence saw it as well -- as may others who know
Laurence and/or his wife through work or simply socially. Remember --
what matters is not the fine meaning that you might like to argue your
posting should have, but the meaning that the reasonable person would
put upon your words. (Artemus Jones v. Hulton Press; KB 1923)
Whether you named her explicitly or implicitly, the result is the same.
>>}The deal under which I have posted this apology will most probably be
>>}reneagued on by Dr Godfrey (regardless of the fact I have done as he
>>}wished) so I will expect he will carry out the threat in his last email
>>}which was to commence legal proceedings forthwith.
>>Seems reasonable to me, you have been begging for it for months, are you
>>going to defend your libels ?
>Of course. It will cost me nothing to do so, whereas it will cost
>Godfrey an arm and a leg with absolutely no way of recouping the costs.
Clue 1: you have now admitted libel by declaring that you intend to
"defend your libels".
Clue 2: you cannot obtain legal aid to defend a libel action
Clue 3: you do not appear to have any valid defence at all.
--
< Paul >
Thomas Lee
>the beliefs and opinions I hold of Dr Godfrey both as a man and as a
>Usenet user.
You can think what you like - you just can't go around saying it.
>The deal under which I have posted this apology will most probably be
>reneagued on by Dr Godfrey (regardless of the fact I have done as he
>wished) so I will expect he will carry out the threat in his last email
>which was to commence legal proceedings forthwith.
In my dealings with him, he has steadfastly stuck to his word. If you
continue to defame him, you can expect further action.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Thomas Lee
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>What makes you think he isn't doing that already?
>
>Godfrey's most recent complaint to me states that "My attention has been
>drawn to a number of recent postings from you, which contain statements
>defamatory of me"
>
>Now what does that say to you? :)
I don;t know what it says to Avril, but what it says to me is that Dr
Godfrey has, yet again, a set of posts that both are defamatory and are
actionable.
Like I've advised you before - you really should just apologise,
unreservedly, then move your attention to fuckwits who deseserve it.
Thomas Lee
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>
>Yet again he has some posts that *he considers* to be defamatory, but
>aren't necessarily so.
Actually, I think a couple of your posts really do stray over the line.
I think if you could be honest with yourself, you'd know too.
>Why is everybody so willing to take his word for
>it?
If I had to choose between his track record, with respect to libel and
yours, there is no contest!
> Nothing I have ever said comes remotely close to the libel that
>started this whole ball rolling. Nothing I have ever said would ever
>affect any part of Godfrey's life.
In your view, but there are others who are less sure.
>Is his reputation so fragile that it can't take a few side swipes from
>someone like me?
It's far more than a few swipes.
>Humility and modesty aside, in the scheme of things I am a no-one, how
>in the hell could I affect in any way this so called upright
>professional academic? Who the hell ever takes me seriously anyway?
>
>>Like I've advised you before - you really should just apologise,
>>unreservedly, then move your attention to fuckwits who deseserve it.
>
>I keep offering to apologise unreservedly for specific transgressions,
>but Godfrey wants more than his allowed pound of flesh.
Why not do what every one else who has had a Gofrey-mail has done:
apologies for any and all remarks, and leave it at that.
Do you really want to get sued? Or you just deliberately being stupid?
Neil D. Jackson
"Shhhhh!" <Singhiz...@goons.cx> wrote in message
news:xS1J4.134425$Pa1.3...@news6.giganews.com...
>
> The reason I cannot make a blanket apology is that I wouldn't mean it.
> If I make an apology then it has to mean something to me.
<snip>
> I will make a totally genuine apology or I won't make one at all, it's
> as simple as that.
>
Understood, and in a way, I applaud you for it, but you're walking a dodgy
line, IMHO.
Why not look at it this way:
Give him the apology he desires, blanket. Get him off your back.
Then, once that's acknowledged and the dogs of war are gone, state your
case. The one you're maintaining you still have a right to believe: ie, that
you don't think it was "a good thingTM" that Dr G sued Demon in the way he
did. That's a perfectly acceptable opinion to have, and not one that is
libellous. You can shout it (and many other, non-libellous opinions that
don't defame Dr G, but get still the truth, or the point, across) from the
mountain-tops and all will hear, and many (myself included) will
wholeheartedly agree with you. I personally think it was a "Very Bad
ThingTM" that the case got as far as it did. I think the original judgements
were entirely indefensible in today's culture. The law is patently an ass.
But alas, until you've got Dr G off your back, you're going to be unable to
move that issue forward, and you may even be embroiled in your own private
world of shit, should he 'follow through', so to speak (I hate mixed
metaphors, but sometimes, I love 'em).
It ain't worth it. Tomorrow, you can STILL have your say, as long as it's
not an indefensible libel.
--
Neil D. Jackson
obscurity
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:53:51 +0100, Shhhhh! <Singhiz...@goons.cx> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:48:31 +0100, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> borrowed
> <WVhrhgK$yI94...@psp.co.uk> to say...
>
> >Do you really want to get sued? Or you just deliberately being stupid?
> My own principles will not allow me to make an empty gesture by
> apologising for everything. I am not sorry for everything I have said. I
> am sorry for saying a few things, but it is not my place to pick and
> choose.
Here's a suggestion: Look through what you have posted in the past, decide
where you feel you may have overstepped the mark, and apologise for those.
It would then seem reasonable (to me, at least) to ask Godfrey if he is
satisfied with that, or if there is anything further that he considers in
need of an apology.
> I will make a totally genuine apology or I won't make one at all, it's
> as simple as that.
I admire your principles. I hope they don't cost you too much.
--
obscurity.
"Only the great masters of style ever succeed in being obscure." - Oscar Wilde
David G. Bell
<a729fsg4raitldvmu...@pink.semolina.org>
{R}@soggy.semolina.org "{R} Richard Ashton" wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:57:01 +0100, Singhiz...@goons.cx (Shhhhh!) wrote:
>
> }On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 02:11:37 +0100, Avril <av...@at.ome> borrowed
> }<8d0ig...@enews4.newsguy.com> to say...
> }
> }>In article <pRPPjkAa...@bozzie.force9.co.uk>, "Paul C. Dickie"
> }><p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> wrote:
> }>
> }>>
> }>> I wonder if he will apply for summary relief?
> }>
> }>
> }>{R}swipe seems to be acting as his right hand man and mouth piece at the
> }>moment, perhaps he could lighten the load for him...and take some of the
> }>strain of reading usenet for potential libels.
> }
> }What makes you think he isn't doing that already?
>
> I am.
>
> I have not been paid yet.
>
> }Godfrey's most recent complaint to me states that "My attention has been
> }drawn to a number of recent postings from you, which contain statements
> }defamatory of me"
> }
> }Now what does that say to you? :)
>
> It says you are a fuckwit that has a poor grasp of english usage.
>
> {R} Trap set, laid, and baited. Required one fool. Yes I do have £300 to
> spare
Well, the claimed lack of information does worry me.
A complete list would be pretty long, in this case. But there is
something uncomfortable about the idea of not even giving examples.
Might that be a consequence of lawyer's professional advice? Is there
no form of words which allows examples to be given, without setting a
specific limit?
If somebody can get away with non-specific claims of defamation, it
doesn't matter how reputable they are -- the same approach could be used
by others, with thoroughly disreputable motives.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
James Coupe
Cousin <cousin@jimi{dot}.net> writes
>Help uncle Lorry in his bid to become
>litigant of the century and get into the Guinness Book of Records!
Bizarrely, I actually know someone who actual does have the Laurence
Godfrey as his uncle. Bloody nice guy, too.
--
James Coupe
Simon
"Sir Frank Snipcock" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:200004122004...@nym.alias.net...
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:00:33 GMT, obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity)
> wrote:
>
snip
> I'm astounded at some of the things I've been hearing around here
recently.
> People seem to be beginning to suggest we are living in a totalitarian or
> police state where justice has gone out of the window and you can be
> arbitrarily arrested or sued just at someone's whim.
And your supprised by this!!!
Simon
obscurity
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:02:11 +0100, Sir Frank Snipcock <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:00:33 GMT, obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity)
> wrote:
> decide
> >where you feel you may have overstepped the mark, and apologise for
> those.
> >It would then seem reasonable (to me, at least) to ask Godfrey if he is
> >satisfied with that, or if there is anything further that he considers in
> >need of an apology.
>
> important point of English Law. An accused person is entitled to know
> what he is being accused of. The accusation must be specific and cannot
> be vague and general.
[snip]
I think you have misunderstood me. I was suggesting that he apologise for
those things he has said that *he* thinks he shouldn't have, as his post
implied that there were indeed things he's said that he now regrets. I was
not suggesting that anyone had the right to demand such an apology, merely
that if he thinks he has overstepped the mark then perhaps he ought to
apologise for *those* posts. It may be that the posts he regrets are indeed
the same ones that Godfrey objects to, in which case Godfrey ought to be
placated, and if not, then having apologised for those that *he* thinks are
a bit too far, he can reasonably ask Godfrey to tell him which others
Godfrey believes deserve an apology. Basically, apologising for the posts he
now regrets would be a good thing to do, and should not compromise his
principles. I'm not supporting Godfrey's unspecified demands for apology
here, I'm just pointing out what, to me, seems like a good approach to take
in the face of the current situation.
JK.
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>{R} Trap set, laid, and baited. Required one fool. Yes I do have £300 to
>spare
I'm sure we'll all be quaking in our shoes at the thought
of that.
--
JK.
use John...@iname.com for email.
Craig Oldfield
writes:
> Why not do what every one else who has had a Gofrey-mail has done:
> apologies for any and all remarks, and leave it at that.
Maybe because it's a little like admitting to something you haven't
actually done.
--
Craig Oldfield
Craig Oldfield
<jo...@johnkaye.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I'm sure we'll all be quaking in our shoes at the thought
> of that.
Hello John.
--
Craig Oldfield
JK.
bunny.co.uk> writes
>Hello John.
Wotcha Craig.
Just in case, I'll apologise in advance for anything I may
write which may be construed as defamatory.
However, if you wish to seek redress, my Lawyers, Wratchet, Wringem
and Screwem will be only too pleased to tell you to piss off
in nice easy to read legalese.
As a last resort, Big Eddie will pay you a visit, rip yer
head off and shit down yer neck.
Please note the last comment is written in jest, as normally
it takes two Heavies to accomplish said deed.
Shame about the Rat btw. Did they call it 'Roland' by any chance?
Ian Westle
>Neither is the libeled party in any way unlibeled by an apology.
Then he shouldn't even consider making an apology?
In this instance an apology would only serve as evidence in any future
libel case.
--
Ian Westle
Julie Brandon
>}You're beginning to sound like a disciple and preacher, Tom. Why can't
>}the man you're promoting come out of his corner and speak for himself?
>
>Maybe he has been advised that it would make things worse.
And maybe such advice would be correct.
Ta-ra,
Julie.
--
Disclaimer: this post is just my insignificant mumblings, so don't believe
a word of it -- relax, and take it all with a pinch of salt. Any relevance
to real life is purely co-incidental, and is statistically very unlikely.
Gluten free. Requires 4xAA batteries (not included). May contain peanuts.
Julie Brandon
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:36:23 +0100, {R} Richard Ashton
><{R}@soggy.semolina.org> borrowed
><a729fsg4raitldvmu...@pink.semolina.org> to say...
>
>>{R} Trap set, laid, and baited. Required one fool. Yes I do have £300 to
>>spare
>
Just common insult, and hence not actionable?
Ta-ra,
Julie.
PS To {R} - Reading what you have written there - is there not a risk of
being considered to have purposefully antagonised?
Thomas Lee
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>Believe it or not the reason I won't apologise to Godfrey for everything
>I have said has absolutely nothing to do with Godfrey, law suits, saving
>face or stupidity. It is all to do with personal principals.
I admire your principles. Just like I admire that chap who stood in
front of the tank in Tieneman Square. And look what happened to him.
Sometimes the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness means compromise.
In fact, life is full of compromises.
I feel strongly that Dr Godfrey was wrong in what he's done - but he
has/had the legal right to do it. I think he'd be wrong to go after you,
but he sure has the right to - and you gave this to him on a plate. I
can say these things because they are not defamatory - your cracks about
him and his family, etc stray over any sort of reasonable distinction
between informed criticism, and defamation.
My continuing advice is to take your medicine, give him the blanket
apology he demands and move on. Do it without reservation. Simply
apologise for any statement you have made that may have been defamatory.
Then move on and insult as many other people as you like.
In the meantime, you're just giving him more ammunition.
Thomas.
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Thomas Lee
writes
>In article <WVhrhgK$yI94...@psp.co.uk>,
> Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Do you really want to get sued? Or you just deliberately being stupid?
>
I sure hope not.
>Why can't
>the man you're promoting come out of his corner and speak for himself?
Why should he have to?
FWIW: if you've been around here for a while, you'd know that is not his
style.
>There have been many pertinent questions asked which haven't been
>answered, except with "I know the answer, but I'm not allowed to tell".
>You're obviously sworn to secrecy, as are some of the other supporters.
>OK, if the man himself won't answer the questions, so be it, we can't
>force him. Why do you need to act as a "bouncer"? I'll draw my own
>conclusions, which are not altogether favourable.
You can draw whatever conclusions you wish. Judging by the contents of
this paragraph, I'd observe your conclusions will probably be wrong.
Irrespective, you can think what you like - you may not be able to say
them in public.
>Phil Payne seems to have unentangled himself from being a spokesman
>and, if that's the case, I respect him the more. Maybe you might take a
>leaf out of Phil's book?
If you were someone I knew, not hiding, I might take more notice.
Thomas Lee
bunny.co.uk> writes
Ahh - but in Kurt's case - is very clearly IS something he's done.
In my experience, the people Dr Godfrey has gone after have stepped over
the line. I continue to think his actions are silly and pointless, but
he is legally entitled to them. And he has a pretty good track record.
Thomas Lee
writes
>On 13 Apr 2000 sunshine said:
>
>>Maybe he has been advised that it would make things worse.
>
>himself rather than through spokesmen, he might make things worse? Are
>you suggesting he might be in danger of libelling someone, or what?
>
>It seems that Tom Lee is a spokesman for Godfrey, now you are a
>spokesman for Tom Lee. I get the impresson everyone around needs a
>spokesman.
1. I am in no way a spokesman for Dr Godfrey. I have never been so, nor
is this likely any time in the foreseeable future.
2. My name is not Tom.
>What was Godfrey's ISP at the time of the incident which resulted in
>his action against Demon; did he ask his own ISP for help in the matter
>and, if not, why not? And many more.
You are free to ask him - if you want, I can probably provide you with
an email address and a phone number. Well, once you stop hiding behind
deja.com. If you seriously want to know these things, I'm sure he'd tell
you.
Malcolm Ogilvie
writes
> It is all to do with personal principals.
>
>I admire your principles. Just like I admire that chap who stood in
>front of the tank in Tieneman Square. And look what happened to him.
>
What did happen to him? You don't mean he got sued, do you....???
--
Malcolm
obscurity
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:01:40 +0100, Sir Frank Snipcock <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:43:15 GMT, obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity)
> wrote:
>
> >I think you have misunderstood me. I was suggesting that he apologise for
> >those things he has said that *he* thinks he shouldn't have, as his post
> >implied that there were indeed things he's said that he now regrets.
>
> demands for apologies / compensation or whatever when the accused
> doesn't know the details of the complaint.
OK, *now* I think you're either not reading what I'm writing or you are
pretending to misunderstand me. I shall waste no more time with you.
Anthony Edwards
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:48:31 +0100, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> borrowed
><WVhrhgK$yI94...@psp.co.uk> to say...
>
>>Do you really want to get sued? Or you just deliberately being stupid?
>
>Believe it or not the reason I won't apologise to Godfrey for everything
>I have said has absolutely nothing to do with Godfrey, law suits, saving
>face or stupidity. It is all to do with personal principals.
>
>Regardless of what people may think I have never set out to break the
>law or offend/insult innocent 3rd parties, such as Mrs Godfrey.
>
<snip>
So here's a form of words which should suit everyone:
"During recent discussion on Usenet news, I have made a number of
statements of opinion regarding Dr Laurence Godfrey and his family.
It has been drawn to my attention that some of those statements may in
fact be libellous and defamatory.
"Whilst reserving the right to dissent from agreement that Dr
Godfrey's recent actions regarding Usenet news have been the right
ones, it has never been my intention to either defame Dr. Godfrey or
his family. It has certainly not been my intention to publish untrue
statements which may affect his or indeed anyone else's reputation.
"I would like to apologise sincerely and unreservedly for any such
defematory statements I may have made. I would like to especially
apologise to Mrs. Godfey for any upset or distress I may have caused,
since she is clearly a non-participant in these events.
"In closing, I undertake not to re-publish any previously published
defamatory statements and undertake not to publish any new ones.
Apologies once again to Dr. Godfrey for any upset or damage to his
reputation which my recent statements may have caused".
That should cover it I would have thought.
[uk.legal added]
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
obscurity
On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 17:36:45 +0100, {R} Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:43:15 GMT, obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) wrote:
>
> }here, I'm just pointing out what, to me, seems like a good approach to take
> }in the face of the current situation.
>
Well, I must confess that I am working on the assumption that Kurt isn't
lying about this. I currently have no reason to believe he is not telling
the truth. I certainly haven't seen Godfrey denying it. Are you trying to
say that Godfrey either a) hasn't demanded an apology, or b) has detailed
what he wants an apology *for*? I'm always willing to be corrected...
Julie Brandon
>Sometimes the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness means compromise.
>In fact, life is full of compromises.
On the other hand, at the other extreme, a completely compromised life isn't
a life at all.
(Although I'm not going to make any statements as to where I feel the best
balance here is!)
Ta-ra,
Julie.
Paul Baker
>him and his family, etc stray over any sort of reasonable distinction
>between informed criticism, and defamation.
Where is this reasonable distinction drawn? How do *you* differentiate
between the type of "robust" discussion that frequently occurs on
usenet, the insults thrown about numbers of people on usenet and
defamation?
--
Paul
Craig Oldfield
<jo...@johnkaye.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Shame about the Rat btw. Did they call it 'Roland' by any chance?
Nah, Eccles and Bluebottle. Wonder if I can sue the petshop?
--
Craig Oldfield
Craig Oldfield
> }Maybe because it's a little like admitting to something you haven't
> }actually done.
>
> Do you think that makes a difference ?
Yes I do actually, just where do you draw the line on what you would admit
to? Libel? Theft? Rape?
--
Craig Oldfield
Kennedy McEwen
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:00:33 GMT, obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity)
>wrote:
>
>>Here's a suggestion: Look through what you have posted in the past,
>decide
>>where you feel you may have overstepped the mark, and apologise for
>those.
>>It would then seem reasonable (to me, at least) to ask Godfrey if he is
>>satisfied with that, or if there is anything further that he considers in
>>need of an apology.
>
>I disagree with this. It seems that you (and several others) are missing an
>important point of English Law. An accused person is entitled to know
>what he is being accused of. The accusation must be specific and cannot
>be vague and general.
And I am sure that when the writ is served that the details will be
quite specific. At present, it would appear, that no legal accusation
has actually been made, simply that a warning and request for apology
(whether as admission of guilt or as recompense is unclear) has been
issued.
>In my view it is an abuse of the process of the court and oppressive to start
>proceedings (or threaten them) without adequate particulars being provided.
>Indeed the plaintiff should have given his opponent opportunity to put right
>the specific wrong that is being alleged. I would hope that any court would
>penalise the plaintiff and maybe throw out his case altogether if this has
>not happened.
>
AIUI, there is no requirement for specifics to be detailed (or even
generics) *before* the writ is issued - indeed the first that the
accused often knows about any action is *when* the writ is served.
>I'm astounded at some of the things I've been hearing around here recently.
>People seem to be beginning to suggest we are living in a totalitarian or
>police state where justice has gone out of the window and you can be
>arbitrarily arrested or sued just at someone's whim.
>
Wherever did you get the impression that you could, or should, not be
arrested or sued at someone's whim? Whether the subsequent legal action
is successful certainly and rightly requires more than an individual's
whim, but nothing more than that (and the funds to pursue it) is
required to initiate the case. Didn't the original Bouncing Czech
demonstrate this principle regularly?
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Rachael Munns
> Down on demon.service street, the vibe from {R} Richard Ashton is:
>> The pcusergroup his email address was Laurence Godfrey <la...@ibmpcug.co.uk>
> From my memory of the period, the clunky proprietory software that had
> to be used with them wouldn't even have 'allowed' cancellation.
It wasn't proprietary stuff, it was pure UUCP that the PC
software they supplied in 97/98 used. However, I would expect
changing newsreaders to be beyond someone who couldn't figure
out cancels. It also seems that our friend used a shell account,
rather than "WinNet Mail".
--
Rachael, who would still be using ibmpcug if they had had a decent newsfeed.
Paul McCombes
<ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk> writes
>"In closing, I undertake not to re-publish any previously published
>defamatory statements
Which ones are those then?
--
Paul
Paul McCombes
>
>{R}
I prefer "The Battered Wife's Defence" myself.
--
Paul
Dave Bird
>I disagree with this. It seems that you (and several others) are missing an
>important point of English Law. An accused person is entitled to know
>what he is being accused of. The accusation must be specific and cannot
>"burglary" without telling you specifically what burglary you are being
>accused of. They need to give you things liked dates, times, places etc
>where they are alleging that you committed the offence. Likewise in civil
>proceedings, you cannot just accuse someone vaguely of some very
>general issue and hope that in the process you will be able to get them to
>give you specifics.
No, but, if you are a nasty piece of work, you can press for a blanket
withdrawal and say "you will find a list of what passages I consider
specifically defamatory when I serve the writ on you." He doesn't
have to help your construct your defence, any more than you have to
volunteer things to help the police construct a prosecution against you
In article<Thu-Apr-13-21-...@burnout.demon.co.uk>, obscurity:
>> How do you know Godfrey has made unspecified demands for apologies.
>
>Well, I must confess that I am working on the assumption that Kurt isn't
>lying about this. I currently have no reason to believe he is not telling
>the truth. I certainly haven't seen Godfrey denying it. Are you trying to
>say that Godfrey either a) hasn't demanded an apology, or b) has detailed
>what he wants an apology *for*? I'm always willing to be corrected...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In article<GnnJ4.88063$17.19...@news4.giganews.com>, Shhhhh!
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes:
(nothing in this is defamatory or identifies defamation)
>> Tell me which statements you consider to be defamatory and why and perhaps
>>I'll consider it.
>
>
>They are too numerous for me to enumerate at present. A full apology and
>retraction for all those statements you have made which damage my
>reputation will suffice, together with an undertaking not to publish any
>such statements again.
You have two choices: apologise for only those parts you consider
he has a chance of action on, or apologise for "everything".
>Should you fail to do as I ask, I will issue
>proceedings the pleadings in which will set out all your defamatory
>statements made during the past 12 months and you will ultimately and
>inevitably find yourself being ordered to pay me substantial damages and
>costs. The choice is yours, but you have gone too far in your recent
>postings for me to allow the matter to rest.
I think he means the threat. I haven't been reading your stuff with
any great attention, so I really don't know what's in it.
-- . ___ .
'-|:::|@\-[x]/__/| .-|:::|@\
||--|"" . |__|/ ||--|"" .
'-|:::|@\ (")"""-. .-|:::|@\ --+--.(")"""-'
|| |"" ||""| || |"" ' ' |""|
DEMOCRACY: two wolves & a lamb LIBERTY: a lamb with a kalashnikov
voting what's for lunch contesting the vote
Dave Bird
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>>Of course. It will cost me nothing to do so, whereas it will cost
>>>Godfrey an arm and a leg with absolutely no way of recouping the costs.
>>
>>Clue 1: you have now admitted libel by declaring that you intend to
>>"defend your libels".
>
>I find your conclusion quite astonishing. It seems that you are equating a
>declaration of intent to defend an action for libel as an admission of having
>published such a libel.
Since everyone has a great surplus of clues around, I will add a
couple of my own. First I think what you mean to say is "I will
defend the alleged libels" (obviously YOU don't think they are
libels or you would concede). Second it will not cost fuckwit Godfrey
anything. No win, no fee: the lawyers will not bill him, but seek to
recover their costs from you should you lose. If they can't, they
won't go hungry for lack of money, they aren't short of a bob or two.
Craig Oldfield
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes:
> }to? Libel? Theft? Rape?
>
> Well, If Mr Oakey Sir is doing the asking, then all of them very quickly
> I expect.
Nah, Wild Bill's a pussycat really.
--
Craig Oldfield
Russell Horn
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> was heard to say:
>
>
>{R} Trap set, laid, and baited. Required one fool. Yes I do have £300 to
>spare
Is that all it costs?
I think you called me a "clueless newbie" the other day in article
<9q6bfs0dad1qjvasj...@pink.semolina.org>, despite the fact
that I have around seven years of usenet experience.
My reputation and potential income may be irrevocably damaged.
Should I contact my brief?
--
Russell Horn
This edition of my .sig has been shortened due to industrial inaction.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
Neil D. Jackson
"{R} Richard Ashton" <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> wrote in message
news:308afs45pnalg5ngd...@pink.semolina.org...
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:33:03 +0100, "Neil D. Jackson"
> <ja...@techno.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> }Then, once that's acknowledged and the dogs of war are gone, state your
> }case. The one you're maintaining you still have a right to believe: ie,
that
> }you don't think it was "a good thingTM" that Dr G sued Demon in the way
he
> }did. That's a perfectly acceptable opinion to have, and not one that is
> }libellous. You can shout it (and many other, non-libellous opinions that
> }don't defame Dr G, but get still the truth, or the point, across) from
the
> }mountain-tops and all will hear, and many (myself included) will
> }wholeheartedly agree with you. I personally think it was a "Very Bad
> }ThingTM" that the case got as far as it did. I think the original
judgements
> }were entirely indefensible in today's culture. The law is patently an
ass.
>
> DA1996 is very clear. Reference to Hansard and the sub-committee
proceedings
> shows that the law is as Parliament intended. The Moreland judgements were
> wholly consistent with the Act. Many in these newsgroups knew this and
even
> prior to Godfreys actions the 1996 Act was grilled in uk.legal and all the
> implications understood.
>
> In this case it is not the law whose "Ass potential" should be criticised
but
> Parliaments. I didn't vote for either side.
Me neither - and I concede your distinction here. Either way, though, I do
not believe that Demon were wholly responsible, and I believe that making
them, in effect, responsible for USENET postings is both infeasible and
unfair. Whether it be the law, Parliament, or the judgement of a particular
judge that is 'ass-like', the end result is the same. Something patently
needs changing or updating to reflect the reality of USENET, and soon, or it
will be virtually impossible to use it without risking libel actions on a
daily basis.
>
> It has to be reasonable that if a mans earnings potential is damaged by a
> libel then he should be able to seek recompense, or is this bad too.
Of course someone should be able to seek redress if their reputation has
been impugned by another's lies - but I fear that using the old
'paper-libel' method is simply ineffective and unfair. Demon should not,
IMHO, be *able* to be held liable. They took no active part in the
publishing (unlike a newspaper publisher, editor, journalist), and given the
very transient and individual nature of the USENET posting, I don't think it
is fair or feasible for them to be held responsible in the same way as a
newsagent.
>
> {R} I think Demon fucked it up, all by themselves.
I think they stuck their necks out to prove a point, and to attempt to
maintain a position (ie, that they should not be held responsible for the
USENET stream). I think to have backed down earlier would've made their
position untenable - but IMHO, to back down *at all* was a terrible mistake.
I think they should've waited for a final judgement, instead of settling -
at least that way, we'd all know the *actual* position for sure, and there'd
be a real precedent. As it is, I fear that it's as open as it ever was, and
it will result in *all* the UK ISPs turning into spineless censors or
removing USENET access entirely, rather than take the risk. This is very
bad, IMHO. Especially considering that it does nothing to actually *stop*
libel from happening (it'll just go offshore, and the fact that the original
Godfrey libel is *still* available for the entire world to read, thanks to
archives, proves this).
The whole thing is a cock-up, and while I can see Demon have fallen between
the rock and the hard place, I must admit I respect them for at least
*trying* to prove their point. Shame they lost their bottle, before the
battle was done, but then I can't imagine BT or Pipex doing anything more
than rolling over at the first sign of a writ.
--
Neil D. Jackson
Paul C. Dickie
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>-- . ___ .
> '-|:::|@\-[x]/__/| .-|:::|@\
> ||--|"" . |__|/ ||--|"" .
> '-|:::|@\ (")"""-. .-|:::|@\ --+--.(")"""-'
> || |"" ||""| || |"" ' ' |""|
>
> DEMOCRACY: two wolves & a lamb LIBERTY: a lamb with a kalashnikov
> voting what's for lunch contesting the vote
>
Is that your entry for the Turner prize?
--
< Paul >
Anthony Edwards
wrote:
>on Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:47:13 +0100 {R} Richard Ashton posted:
>> }Should I contact my brief?
>>
>> Solicitor first, he contacts the barrister[brief] for an opinion.
>
>llama. What do you think a brief is? He "briefs" your Barrister. Your
>"brief" *is* your solicitor you fuckwit.
>
The 1998 edition of the New Oxford Dictionary of English gives :
brief
[..]
noun: *chiefly Brit.* a set of instructions given to a person about a
job or or task: *his brief is to turn round the country's fortunes*.
ž [Law] a summary of the facts and legal points in a case given to a
barrister to argue in court. ž a piece of work for a barrister. ž
[informal] a solicitor or barrister: *it was only his brief's
eloquence that had saved him from prison*. ž [US] a written summary of
the facts and legal points supporting one side of a case, for
presentation to a court. ž a letter from the Pope to a person or
community on a matter of discipline.
In South London slang, it is commonly used to mean solicitor and/or
barrister, with an occasional additional meaning: "he's lost his
brief" = "he's lost his driving licence".
>Oh, and someone reply to this quoting my message, cos I think the twat
>has me KillFiled.
Have you ever read EFF co-founder Mitchell Kapor's speech in 1995 at
Carnegie Mellon University?
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/Web/People/alumni/kapor.html
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
Phil Jones
>fuckwit Godfrey
Has the term fuckwit been properly defined, or is it just vulgar
abuse..? I only ask because I've started using it and I wouldn't like
to be accused of slander if it actually means something and I am using
it inappropriately...
PS I hope I am not breaching copyright or anything... If so, I
apologise...
:-)
--
Nogood Boyo
Paul Baker
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>}Should I contact my brief?
>
>Solicitor first, he contacts the barrister[brief] for an opinion.
>
>around.
*your* money ?
--
Paul
Julie Brandon
>No you consantly manage to demonstate your intelligence does not match the
>size of your "mouth".
Well I'm obviously thick, because it looked like clear hypocrisy to me.
Phil Jones
>I think the original judgements
>were entirely indefensible in today's culture.
Mightn't the judge see that as libellous..?
Hey... Mightn't he even be able to go further and claim it's
*contemptuous*...! Surely not..!
[Notice the old Private Eye technique of turning an accusation into a
question or feigned outrage at a suggestion...]
Er... Have Private Eye ever been known to sue for libel..?
--
Nogood Boyo
James Coupe
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>Slightly different from "she was asking for it Guv!" wouldn't
>you say.
Actually, as I recall, judgements from individual law lords have backed
the defence of "She was asking for it." As I recall, one lord commented
on the length of a woman's skirt being provocative in that fashion.
--
James Coupe
Dave Bird
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:36:28 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> borrowed
><gGe+aQBs...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> to say...
>
>>And I am sure that when the writ is served that the details will be
>>quite specific. At present, it would appear, that no legal accusation
>>has actually been made, simply that a warning and request for apology
>>(whether as admission of guilt or as recompense is unclear) has been
>>issued.
>
>be considerd a "legal accusation"?
Not in this sense. One shouldn't spread around rumours that X has
is guilty of a crime until he has found guilty, or that he will be
charged until he is actually sued, or that he was found against
for e.g. breaking contract until he is found against, or that he
is being sued until he is actually served with it.
Saying "I consider what you said against me may be libellous"
is not quite the same thing.
Dave Bird
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:42:12 +0100, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
>>In article<200004122004...@nym.alias.net>, Sir Frank Snipcock:
>>>
>>>I disagree with this. It seems that you (and several others) are missing an
>>>important point of English Law. An accused person is entitled to know
>>>what he is being accused of. The accusation must be specific and cannot
>>>be vague and general. So, for example, the police cannot charge you with
>>>"burglary" without telling you specifically what burglary you are being
>>>accused of. They need to give you things liked dates, times, places etc
>>>where they are alleging that you committed the offence. Likewise in civil
>>>proceedings, you cannot just accuse someone vaguely of some very
>>>general issue and hope that in the process you will be able to get them to
>>>give you specifics.
>>
>> No, but, if you are a nasty piece of work, you can press for a blanket
>> withdrawal and say "you will find a list of what passages I consider
>> specifically defamatory when I serve the writ on you." He doesn't
>> have to help your construct your defence, any more than you have to
>> volunteer things to help the police construct a prosecution against you
>
>it have ever appeared) there would have been no need for a case, so
>"constructing a defence" would have been moot.
He doesn't have to help you construct a defence in court. He doesn't
have to help you construct a negotiated settlement which is to your
best advantage and his least advantage either. He doesn't have to
assist you in any way. He has to specify the complaint fully
in the writ. He has to give you "a chance to apologise" and
he has done.
>
>>In article<Thu-Apr-13-21-...@burnout.demon.co.uk>, obscurity:
>>>> How do you know Godfrey has made unspecified demands for apologies.
>>>
>>>Well, I must confess that I am working on the assumption that Kurt isn't
>>>lying about this. I currently have no reason to believe he is not telling
>>>the truth. I certainly haven't seen Godfrey denying it. Are you trying to
>>>say that Godfrey either a) hasn't demanded an apology, or b) has detailed
>>>what he wants an apology *for*? I'm always willing to be corrected...
>>
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>In article<GnnJ4.88063$17.19...@news4.giganews.com>, Shhhhh!
>><Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes:
>>
>> (nothing in this is defamatory or identifies defamation)
>>
>>>> Tell me which statements you consider to be defamatory and why and perhaps
>>>>I'll consider it.
>>>
>>>
>>>They are too numerous for me to enumerate at present. A full apology and
>>>retraction for all those statements you have made which damage my
>>>reputation will suffice, together with an undertaking not to publish any
>>>such statements again.
>>
>> You have two choices: apologise for only those parts you consider
>> he has a chance of action on, or apologise for "everything".
>
>That really isn't my call. I don't believe any of the comments I made
>were defamatory. So for me to single out any would be tantamount to
>admitting liabilty should he not accept the partial apology. A blanket
>apology is a total non-starter.
The form goes something like this...
"At point so & so I called you an arsehole. That is merely an insult.
Sue me on it if you like, you will lose."
"At point so & so you might just construe a defamatory meaning. I do
admit defamation and did not intend it that way. However, if you
believe it has had that unintended effect, then I apologise for it."
For each point. You do not admit defamation, you only see that he
might consider it defamatory. Your apology might serve to lessen the
offense: either he would decide not to sue, or the damages wdB reduced.
>
>>>Should you fail to do as I ask, I will issue
>>>proceedings the pleadings in which will set out all your defamatory
>>>statements made during the past 12 months and you will ultimately and
>>>inevitably find yourself being ordered to pay me substantial damages and
>>>costs. The choice is yours, but you have gone too far in your recent
>>>postings for me to allow the matter to rest.
>>
>> I think he means the threat. I haven't been reading your stuff with
>> any great attention, so I really don't know what's in it.
>
>I think he means the threat too. But just because he thinks he has a
>case does not mean I have to agree with him. I certainly shan't be
>brow-beaten by someone I consider to be a "bully".
I consider he is a "bully" too; my personal view based on his actions.
I think the idea that one can shut people up by force, shut the world
up by force if need be, for personal reputation is a very foolish one.
But, while I haven't read your stuff in detail
(and I guess you have nothing much if he won), I get the impression
you might have been careless enough to say something he could win on.
>
>As I have said before, if he does sue, then he will be going *against*
>any competant legal advice. That in itself should put some doubt on his
>reputation for intelligence.
>
>After all if a solictor told me not to do something I would listen very
>carefully, but then I don't think of myself as a legal expert so I would
>rely on the sound advice of someone who knows more than I.
>
>
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Dave Bird
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes:
>In article <oTQohRGU...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird
><da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>> '-|:::|@\-[x]/__/| .-|:::|@\
>> ||--|"" . |__|/ ||--|"" .
>> '-|:::|@\ (")"""-. .-|:::|@\ --+--.(")"""-'
>> || |"" ||""| || |"" ' ' |""|
>>
>> DEMOCRACY: two wolves & a lamb LIBERTY: a lamb with a kalashnikov
>> voting what's for lunch contesting the vote
>>
>
Yes. It was to be my bed with a couple of used condoms on it,
but Tracy Emmin beat me to it on that idea so I had to find a new one.
Dave Bird
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 01:47:15 +0100, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>borrowed <Kjxg9FIT...@xemu.demon.co.uk> to say...
>
>> Since everyone has a great surplus of clues around, I will add a
>> couple of my own. First I think what you mean to say is "I will
>> defend the alleged libels" (obviously YOU don't think they are
>
>
>> libels or you would concede). Second it will not cost fuckwit Godfrey
>> anything. No win, no fee: the lawyers will not bill him, but seek to
>> recover their costs from you should you lose. If they can't, they
>> won't go hungry for lack of money, they aren't short of a bob or two.
>
>consequences of suing me for libel. His first response was that he would
>attempt to dissuade any client from taking that sort of action unless
>there was an exceptionally serious libel and/or something could come of
>it e.g. financially. He further commented (knowing my financial/personal
>status) that for someone to sue me for libel would be ludicrous in the
>extreme.
>
>So based on that advice I can only presume that for Godfrey to continue
>the suit he would be doing so *against* counsel's advice. So do you
>really think any solicitor/barrister would take that sort of case on a
>no win no fee arangement? I know my solicitor wouldn't.
Beware. Some people have a standing order for tripe at the butchers, I
suspect fuckwit Godfrey has a standing arrangement with a certain firm
of libel specialists that they will take any further cases NWNF. They
are doing it for REPUTATION and PUBLICITY, "we are the firm which is
so good at defamation work we helped a little guy fuck up the Internet
of a whole country" ( or I suppose as they'd see it "...to set new
precedents concening defamation on new media").
I think Fuckwit Godfrey, and his solicitors, might find a reaction of
total revulsion and disgust for their "winning" an action against you,
to the extent he would be out of work for life, instead. But it would
almost certainly be unlawful for you to warn his solicitors off acting.
simon gray
> > From my memory of the period, the clunky proprietory software that had
> > to be used with them wouldn't even have 'allowed' cancellation.
>
> It wasn't proprietary stuff, it was pure UUCP that the PC
> software they supplied in 97/98 used.
What were they dishing out in 94 - 96 ?
--
Free speech on the internet, 1974 - 2000 R.I.P
"What, you mean that odious spineless obnoxious fool that 'doctor' (probably
bought that title from an american university anyway) sven jarlesberg is ?"
http://www.star-one.org.uk/
Dave Bird
<p...@bwllfa.co.uk> writes:
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 in demon.service Dave Bird wrote:
>>fuckwit Godfrey
>
>Has the term fuckwit been properly defined, or is it just vulgar
>abuse..?
As far as I am concerned, it is a term of abuse equivalent to
"arsehole" or "shithead".
--
^-^-^-@@-^-;-^ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
(..)__u news:alt.smoking.mooses
Dave Bird
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:26:35 +0100, Dave Bird wrote:
>
>>-- . ___ .
>> '-|:::|@\-[x]/__/| .-|:::|@\
>> ||--|"" . |__|/ ||--|"" .
>> '-|:::|@\ (")"""-. .-|:::|@\ --+--.(")"""-'
>> || |"" ||""| || |"" ' ' |""|
>>
>>DEMOCRACY: two wolves & a lamb LIBERTY: a lamb with a kalashnikov
>> voting what's for lunch contesting the vote
>
Tough
>I wonder if a certain
>gentleman around here might even find it libellous.
Really? could you please explain e.g. by email, without repeating
the alleged libel in public, how you think the above could defame
any particular real person?? [For the hard of thinking, the
implication is that a public majority vote is the right way to
determine things that everyone contributed to, or is affected by,
but does not legitimise interfering in people's private acts].
Kennedy McEwen
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 23:36:28 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> borrowed
><gGe+aQBs...@kennedym.demon.co.uk> to say...
>
>>And I am sure that when the writ is served that the details will be
>>quite specific. At present, it would appear, that no legal accusation
>>has actually been made, simply that a warning and request for apology
>>(whether as admission of guilt or as recompense is unclear) has been
>>issued.
>
>Would an email sent to me accusing me of making defamatory remarks not
>be considerd a "legal accusation"?
>
Further, from your quoted correspondence, he hasn't even suggested that
*you* made the defamatory remarks, merely that a number of your postings
*contained* defamatory statements. You could, for example, have posted
defamatory quotes made by others, but you would still be responsible for
publishing them.
Are you defaming him by suggesting that he is defaming you by claiming
that you made defamatory remarks about him? :-)
Andy
<s...@reply.to> writes
>on Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:47:13 +0100 {R} Richard Ashton posted:
>>
>> Solicitor first, he contacts the barrister[brief] for an opinion.
>
What's a long-necked woolly beastie doing here?
>What do you think a brief is? He "briefs" your Barrister. Your
>"brief" *is* your solicitor you fuckwit.
>
>Oh, and someone reply to this quoting my message, cos I think the twat
>has me KillFiled.
>
As you wish.
--
Andy
For Austrian philately: <URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/austamps/>
For Lupus: <URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/lupus/>
For my other interests: <URL:http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk/>
Simon
"Thomas Lee" <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NVTtB4C2va94EAA$@psp.co.uk...
> In article <8d44at$slv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Lucky <lucky...@my-deja.com>
> writes
snip
> You are free to ask him - if you want, I can probably provide you with
> an email address and a phone number. Well, once you stop hiding behind
> deja.com. If you seriously want to know these things, I'm sure he'd tell
> you.
Care to put money on that????
Simon
Peter Hutchinson
> Has the term fuckwit been properly defined, or is it just vulgar
> abuse..? I only ask because I've started using it and I wouldn't like
> to be accused of slander if it actually means something and I am using
> it inappropriately...
Err... now would be an opportune moment to pop off to www.fuckwit.tm for a
dictionary definition :-)
--
Peter Hutchinson pwh....@hutch.org.uk
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.
Anthony Edwards
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Given that it is {r}'s site and he has declared to to him ...
>
>fuckwit n, an idiot, a halfwit.
>An Australianism which has caught on in
>British use since the late 1970s. It
>usually expresses exasperated contempt.
>
>...so every time he uses the word to describe someone he is in fact
>being defamatory.
>
<snip>
That's the difference Kurt, which you and others seem to find hard to
understand. Expressing contempt is not defamatory.
For example, say you worked in a bank. I could say:
"He's a nice chap really. He steals the odd few grand every once in a
while but I can understand that. I like the guy".
Highly defamatory.
I could also say:
"He's scum, the most despicable lowlife I've ever encountered. I
wouldn't p*ss on him if he were on fire. He's a f*cking idiot, a
sh*thead tosser who ought to be taken out in the street and shot."
Not defamatory.
You can express personal dislike, even extreme personal like, without
defaming anyone. As soon as you stray into the realm of putting
forward purported statements of fact (i.e. x happened or x took place)
then you run the risk of publishing defamation.
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
Craig Oldfield
writes:
> That group's almost as dormant as that little-used Press-release
> depository, demon.announce.
Dormant? Shirley it qualifies as extinct now?
--
Craig Oldfield
Rachael Munns
> Down on demon.service street, the vibe from Rachael Munns is:
>> > From my memory of the period, the clunky proprietory software that had
>> > to be used with them wouldn't even have 'allowed' cancellation.
>> It wasn't proprietary stuff, it was pure UUCP that the PC
>> software they supplied in 97/98 used.
> What were they dishing out in 94 - 96 ?
Pass. Perhaps someone else knows.
--
Rachael
Thomas Lee
<mal...@ogilvie.org> writes
>In article <Pl1ttVCt...@psp.co.uk>, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
>writes
>>In article <xS1J4.134425$Pa1.3...@news6.giganews.com>, Shhhhh!
>><Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>
>> It is all to do with personal principals.
>>
>>I admire your principles. Just like I admire that chap who stood in
>>front of the tank in Tieneman Square. And look what happened to him.
>>
>What did happen to him? You don't mean he got sued, do you....???
Er no. He was allowed to persue his personal goals in the afterlife.
Allegedly.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Paul Burridge
<pa...@mccombes.demon.co.uk> opined thusly:
>In article <6qmbfsgdrtt52rs14...@4ax.com>, Anthony Edwards
><ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk> writes
>>"In closing, I undertake not to re-publish any previously published
>>defamatory statements
>
>Which ones are those then?
The actionable ones.
:-)
--
"Kant enjoyed the company of women (provided they did not pretend to
understand the 'Critique of Pure Reason') and twice contemplated marriage.
On each occasion, however, he hesitated long enough to ensure that he
remained unwed." - German Philosophers (Oxford)
Stuart Millington
It's pine'in for the f...... I'll get me coat.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington -
- mailto:ph...@dsv1.co.uk -
- http://www.wormhole.demon.co.uk/ -
Paul McCombes
<Pa...@spoiler.osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:15:09 +0100, Paul McCombes
><pa...@mccombes.demon.co.uk> opined thusly:
>
>>In article <6qmbfsgdrtt52rs14...@4ax.com>, Anthony Edwards
>><ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk> writes
>>>"In closing, I undertake not to re-publish any previously published
>>>defamatory statements
>>
>>Which ones are those then?
>
>The actionable ones.
>:-)
So, if it is actioned, and the court says that they are not defamatory,
they are still defamatory because they were actionable. I see.
--
Paul
Ben Smithurst
> In article: <382836...@nemesis.nu> Ne...@nemesis.nu (Neil Barker)
> writes:
>
>> That group's almost as dormant as that little-used Press-release
>> depository, demon.announce.
>
> Dormant? Shirley it qualifies as extinct now?
No. Unless the fact that it's a whole *two days* since an article was
posted there makes an announcements group extinct, of course.
--
Ben Smithurst / b...@scientia.demon.co.uk / PGP: 0x99392F7D
Thomas Lee
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:47:13 +0100, {R} Richard Ashton
><{R}@soggy.semolina.org> borrowed
><olbefsoqllksb1pqj...@pink.semolina.org> to say...
>
>>This is the way Lawyers have stitched up the system to share your money
>>around.
>
>yankee way of wasting valuable court time in the settling of piddling
>arguments.
Only when you continue to defame them.
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
Thomas Lee
writes
>> You are free to ask him - if you want, I can probably provide you with
>> an email address and a phone number. Well, once you stop hiding behind
>> deja.com.
>
>Hiding behind "Deja com" - what is that supposed to mean? I'm not doing
>anything wrong, am I?
Of course not. But you can hardly expect anyone to take you seriously as
'luckylucan', now can you?
>> If you seriously want to know these things, I'm sure he'd tell
>> you.
>
>I became interested once someone drew attention to what appeared to be
>something unusual. I presume there's a straightforward answer which
>will help us.
So ask him.
>I wouldn't be surprised if some of the speculation around
>here is wrong.
This is most definitely the case. Those who actually do not understand
the law or know the facts may draw interesting conclusions.
> I wasn't anticipating requiring personal information
>like telephone numbers which most people around here (quite rightly)
>would not wish to have made public. I assumed it could be answered in a
>forum like this, but then maybe there's more to it?
If you want to know more - ask him.
Thomas Lee
<Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Thomas Lee" <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:NVTtB4C2va94EAA$@psp.co.uk...
>> In article <8d44at$slv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Lucky <lucky...@my-deja.com>
>> writes
>snip
>> an email address and a phone number. Well, once you stop hiding behind
>> you.
>
>Care to put money on that????
Yes.
He's certainly answered all my questions - in a courteous and polite
way.
--
Thomas Lee
(t...@psp.co.uk)
David G. Bell
<slrn8fh7m...@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk>
b...@scientia.demon.co.uk "Ben Smithurst" wrote:
> Craig Oldfield wrote:
>
> > In article: <382836...@nemesis.nu> Ne...@nemesis.nu (Neil Barker)
> > writes:
> >
> >> That group's almost as dormant as that little-used Press-release
> >> depository, demon.announce.
> >
> > Dormant? Shirley it qualifies as extinct now?
>
> No. Unless the fact that it's a whole *two days* since an article was
> posted there makes an announcements group extinct, of course.
I was, a few days ago, looking at the 400 or so articles in my working
copy of the newsgroup, and thinking that there had been so little posted
since last summer, other than announcements of maintenance. There's
been a definite change in the content.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
Simon
How much I could use my car insurance paid for?
Simon
Ben Smithurst
> In article: <slrn8fh7m...@strontium.scientia.demon.co.uk>
> b...@scientia.demon.co.uk (Ben Smithurst) writes:
>
>> No. Unless the fact that it's a whole *two days* since an article was
>> posted there makes an announcements group extinct, of course.
>
> *Sigh*
>
> Count up the number of articles that get posted there in a year. Then
> compare this to previous, much more informative times.
>
> Now tell me how good it is, still.
hey, I never said it was good, just that it isn't quite extinct, yet.
I'm sure the MIB are trying their best though.
Peter Hutchinson
> > Well *I* can resist the temptation to crosspost it to a.f.d-l.s-w, so
> > there...
>
> That group's almost as dormant as that little-used Press-release
> depository, demon.announce.
<g> Last time I checked there were still a couple of the life-sentence
nutters hanging around.[1]
[1] No, not Malcolm Muir, the other group ;-)
Peter Hutchinson
wrote:
> fuckwit n, an idiot, a halfwit.
> An Australianism which has caught on in
> British use since the late 1970s. It
> usually expresses exasperated contempt.
>
> ...so every time he uses the word to describe someone he is in fact
> being defamatory.
Errr... nope. It's common insult and there is nothing defamatory about
expressing a personal opinion of someone's ability.
> Sort of places him right in the middle of Hypocrisy Central doesn't it?
Bzzt. Please try again.
Alan Ford
<b...@scientia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Craig Oldfield wrote:
>
>> In article: <382836...@nemesis.nu> Ne...@nemesis.nu (Neil Barker)
>> writes:
>>
>>> depository, demon.announce.
>>
>
>posted there makes an announcements group extinct, of course.
Extinct is a bit strong, but it's generally dormant.
The figures roughly are like this:
1996: 217
1997: 195
1998: 191
1999: 68
2000 (estimation): 35[1]
I think those figures speak for themselves.
[1] Generous estimation based on the fact we have had 30% of the year 2000,
with 11 posts in total.
--
Alan Ford * al...@whirlnet.co.uk * http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/
PGP Key: 0x8F807D7D - email p...@whirlnet.co.uk or see keyservers
Demon Newsgroups Info + FAQs: http://www.whirlnet.co.uk/demon/
!! YOUR PRIVACY IS AT RISK. TELL YOUR MP *NOW*! http://www.stand.org.uk/ !!
Craig Oldfield
b...@scientia.demon.co.uk (Ben Smithurst) writes:
> > Dormant? Shirley it qualifies as extinct now?
>
> No. Unless the fact that it's a whole *two days* since an article was
> posted there makes an announcements group extinct, of course.
A whole article in just *how* long?
--
Craig Oldfield
Simon
"Peter Hutchinson" <nosp...@starsky.hutch.org.uk> wrote in message
news:38f8a0df....@news.news.demon.net...
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:06:06 +0100, Singhiz...@goons.cx (Shhhhh!)
> wrote:
>
> > fuckwit n, an idiot, a halfwit.
> > An Australianism which has caught on in
> > British use since the late 1970s. It
> > usually expresses exasperated contempt.
> >
> > ...so every time he uses the word to describe someone he is in fact
> > being defamatory.
>
> Errr... nope. It's common insult and there is nothing defamatory about
> expressing a personal opinion of someone's ability.
>
> > Sort of places him right in the middle of Hypocrisy Central doesn't it?
>
> Bzzt. Please try again.
So passing comment of someone's mental state is not defamatory or passing
such judgement in relation to there job.
Simon
Simon
"{R} Richard Ashton" <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> wrote in message
news:n6mhfs8ebq57h4675...@pink.semolina.org...
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:32:54 +0100, "Simon" <Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
> }"Thomas Lee" <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pkW0dtHseK+4EA$3...@psp.co.uk...
> }> He's certainly answered all my questions - in a courteous and polite
> }> way.
> }
> }How much I could use my car insurance paid for?
>
Sorry there should have been a comma
How much, I could use my car insurance paid for?
Easy really
Simon
Dave Bird
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes:
>fuckwit n, an idiot, a halfwit.
>An Australianism which has caught on in
>British use since the late 1970s. It
>usually expresses exasperated contempt.
>
>...so every time he uses the word to describe someone he is in fact
>being defamatory.
So if it's equivalent to "idiot" or "half-wit", it sure sounds
like common abuse to me.
I'll try to show you what the difference is and why. Suppose you
call Joe a fuckwit, idiot, arsehole, twat, etc. I look for myself
and form my own opinion that he is a complete arsehole; so I don't
employ him or buy his goods. That's fair.
Now suppose you (falsely) call Joe a drunkard, a sheep-shagger, or
a thief. So I don't employ him or buy his goods because YOU LIED TO
ME, AND I BELIEVED YOU, that he really did drink excessively, shag
sheep, or steal from people. That's unfair.
This is a good explanation too:
In article<teigfssn8l7fat6da...@4ax.com>, writes:
>That's the difference Kurt, which you and others seem to find hard to
>understand. Expressing contempt is not defamatory.
>
>For example, say you worked in a bank. I could say:
>"He's a nice chap really. He steals the odd few grand every once in a
>while but I can understand that. I like the guy".
>Highly defamatory.
>
>I could also say:
>"He's scum, the most despicable lowlife I've ever encountered. I
>wouldn't p*ss on him if he were on fire. He's a f*cking idiot, a
>sh*thead tosser who ought to be taken out in the street and shot."
>Not defamatory.
>
>You can express personal dislike, even extreme personal like, without
>defaming anyone. As soon as you stray into the realm of putting
>forward purported statements of fact (i.e. x happened or x took place)
>then you run the risk of publishing defamation.
Anthony Edwards
<Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>So passing comment of someone's mental state is not defamatory or passing
>such judgement in relation to there job.
>
Depends on how it's said.
"You're a nutter, sunshine" - not defamatory.
"You are a schizophrenic with a history of incarceration in
psychiatric institutions" - defamatory (if untrue).
--
Anthony Edwards
ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk
Paul Baker
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
> This is a good explanation too:
>
>In article<teigfssn8l7fat6da...@4ax.com>, writes:
>>
>>I could also say:
>>"He's scum, the most despicable lowlife I've ever encountered. I
>>wouldn't p*ss on him if he were on fire. He's a f*cking idiot, a
>>sh*thead tosser who ought to be taken out in the street and shot."
>>Not defamatory.
So if The Sun (for example) plastered word likes that all over it's
front page about a celebrity, that's not defamatory?
--
Paul
Paul Womar
> Depends on how it's said.
>
> "You're a nutter, sunshine" - not defamatory.
> "You are a schizophrenic with a history of incarceration in
> psychiatric institutions" - defamatory (if untrue).
Does the law take the view that people with
diseases/ilnesses/disabilities are of lesser standing?
--
-> The email address in this message *IS* Valid <-
Ben Smithurst
> A whole article in just *how* long?
ben@scientia:/var/news/spool/articles/demon/announce$ ll
total 6
-rw-rw-r-- 1 news news - 1645 Mar 31 11:34 193
-rw-rw-r-- 1 news news - 1862 Apr 4 16:15 194
-rw-rw-r-- 1 news news - 1761 Apr 13 17:01 195
Three articles in two weeks. Not *that* bad really for an announcement
group, but I'll agree that demon.announce has seen better days.
Russell Horn
>Given that it is {r}'s site and he has declared to to him ...
>
>An Australianism which has caught on in
>British use since the late 1970s. It
>usually expresses exasperated contempt.
>
>...so every time he uses the word to describe someone he is in fact
>being defamatory.
>
There used to be a FAQ on the subject. I'm sure a simple search would
find it if anyone was interested.
--
Russell Horn
This edition of my .sig has been shortened due to industrial inaction.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
Alan Ford
<ne...@alba1314.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>There used to be a FAQ on the subject. I'm sure a simple search would
>find it if anyone was interested.
ISTR there is a copy of Peter McDermott's on fuckwit.tm, if not a deja
search of demon.service on April 1st 1997 will dig up the original posting.
ISTR some of the followups were rather amusing too :)
Paul C. Dickie
Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:53:51 +0100, Singhiz...@goons.cx (Shhhhh!) wrote:
>
>}So it depends on what Dr Godfrey wants. If he wants a totally genuine
>}apology then all he has to do is let me know what remarks he finds
>}defamatory and I will make as subservient apology as he requires.
>
>I think he wants your ...
I didn't know Laurence wanted a bicycle rack... o-)
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:14:01 +0100, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> borrowed
><N7QN6gG5...@psp.co.uk> to say...
>
>>In article <3%VI4.42647$9g4.9...@news5.giganews.com>, Shhhhh!
>><Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>>>What makes you think he isn't doing that already?
>>>
>>>Godfrey's most recent complaint to me states that "My attention has been
>>>drawn to a number of recent postings from you, which contain statements
>>>defamatory of me"
>>>
>>>Now what does that say to you? :)
>>
>>I don;t know what it says to Avril, but what it says to me is that Dr
>>Godfrey has, yet again, a set of posts that both are defamatory and are
>>actionable.
>
>Yet again he has some posts that *he considers* to be defamatory, but
>aren't necessarily so.
They probably are. The only question is one of whether or not you
seriously want to spend time and *money* defending the matter in court.
In other words, do you feel lucky?
>Nothing I have ever said would ever affect any part of Godfrey's life.
Here's a free clue: The bite of a gnat is insignificant compared to the
sting of a wasp, but even gnats are swatted...
>Is his reputation so fragile that it can't take a few side swipes from
>someone like me?
What makes you suppose that Laurence should meekly accept what you are
pleased to call "side swipes"?
>I keep offering to apologise unreservedly for specific transgressions,
>but Godfrey wants ...
That's another possible libel.
Click, click, click, the meter's running...
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 00:42:12 +0100, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>borrowed <oTQohRGU...@xemu.demon.co.uk> to say...
>> You have two choices: apologise for only those parts you consider
>> he has a chance of action on, or apologise for "everything".
>
>That really isn't my call. I don't believe any of the comments I made
>were defamatory. So for me to single out any would be tantamount to
>admitting liabilty should he not accept the partial apology. A blanket
>apology is a total non-starter.
Why is a blanket apology "a total non-starter"?
>> I think he means the threat. I haven't been reading your stuff with
>> any great attention, so I really don't know what's in it.
>
>I think he means the threat too.
I'm *sure* he *does* mean it.
>But just because he thinks he has a case does not mean I have to agree
>with him. I certainly shan't be brow-beaten ...
Then you'll be "brow-beaten" by the High Court and, furthermore, you'll
end up paying pots of money even though you could have settled, now, for
the cost of a few keystrokes. Is that wise?
>As I have said before, if he does sue, then he will be going *against*
>any competant legal advice. That in itself ...
And another possible libel... Click, click, click, the meter's running.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:22:46 +0100, Malcolm Ogilvie wrote:
>>In article <Pl1ttVCt...@psp.co.uk>, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
>>writes
>>>In article <xS1J4.134425$Pa1.3...@news6.giganews.com>, Shhhhh!
>>><Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>>> It is all to do with personal principals.
>>>I admire your principles. Just like I admire that chap who stood in
>>>front of the tank in Tieneman Square. And look what happened to him.
>>What did happen to him? You don't mean he got sued, do you....???
>
>The Chinese army tanked him for his courage under fire.
o-)
Q: What's the difference between a lorry-load of Chinese dissidents and
a lorry-load of marbles?
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
A: You cannot load marbles with a pitchfork.
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
><p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes:
>><da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>-- . ___ .
>>> '-|:::|@\-[x]/__/| .-|:::|@\
>>> ||--|"" . |__|/ ||--|"" .
>>> '-|:::|@\ (")"""-. .-|:::|@\ --+--.(")"""-'
>>> || |"" ||""| || |"" ' ' |""|
>>>
>>> voting what's for lunch contesting the vote
>>
>>Is that your entry for the Turner prize?
>
> Yes. It was to be my bed with a couple of used condoms on it,
> but Tracy Emmin beat me to it on that idea so I had to find a new one.
So what was wrong with your previous plan of a clam chowder?
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
Millington <ne...@dsv1.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 14:35:58 +0000, Cr...@sig-bunny.co.uk (Craig
>Oldfield) wrote:
>>In article: <382836...@nemesis.nu> Ne...@nemesis.nu (Neil Barker)
>>writes:
>>> That group's almost as dormant as that little-used Press-release
>>> depository, demon.announce.
>>
>
Do you mean that it only ever contained "parroting"? o-)
--
< Paul >
Paul C. Dickie
<Singhiz...@goons.cx> writes
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:34:07 +0000, Cr...@sig-bunny.co.uk (Craig
>Oldfield) borrowed <173168...@sig-bunny.co.uk> to say...
>>In article: <1utbfs4a9gkkaf7oc...@pink.semolina.org> {R}
>>Richard Ashton <{R}@soggy.semolina.org> writes:
>>> }Maybe because it's a little like admitting to something you haven't
>>> }actually done.
>>>
>>> Do you think that makes a difference ?
>>
>>Yes I do actually, just where do you draw the line on what you would admit
>>to? Libel? Theft? Rape?
>
>I'll settle for innocence! :)
How about naivety?
--
< Paul >
Simon
"Anthony Edwards" <ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mlbifsods40fapkk7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:36:04 +0100, "Simon"
> <Si...@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >So passing comment of someone's mental state is not defamatory or passing
> >such judgement in relation to there job.
> >
>
>
> "You're a nutter, sunshine" - not defamatory.
> "You are a schizophrenic with a history of incarceration in
> psychiatric institutions" - defamatory (if untrue).
So if programmer A says programmer B a fuckwit is it defamatory?
If programmer A says Programmer B is a halfwit and a Idiot. is it defamatory
or Programmer A says programmer B is a nutter?
Simon
Dave Bird
<ant...@catfish.nildram.co.uk> writes:
>>So passing comment of someone's mental state is not defamatory or passing
>>such judgement in relation to there job.
>>
>
>Depends on how it's said.
>
>"You're a nutter, sunshine" - not defamatory.
>"You are a schizophrenic with a history of incarceration in
>psychiatric institutions" - defamatory (if untrue).
I all cases I meant it is not defamatory for me, a layman, to
say "I reckon you're schizophrenic" (because it is unreasonable to
take for granted I really know one when I see one) but it is to say
"I reckon your a drunkard" ( because it is quite reasonable
to expect I know a drunkard when I see one).
Of course if I said falsely that someone has been in
a mental hospital, that defames them.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Craig Oldfield
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes:
> Why is a blanket apology "a total non-starter"?
Paul, I'd like you to apologise in this group for any past and future
libels you may post about me.
--
Craig Oldfield
Alan Ford
<b...@scientia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Three articles in two weeks. Not *that* bad really for an announcement
>group, but I'll agree that demon.announce has seen better days.
It's not just the volume, however. You should also look at the content of
the announcements. Now they are almost always advance warnings of
maintenance, in PRified language. No explanation of *what* is being done,
in detail, like there used to be. There are also no appologies and
explanations after SNAFUs etc. All in all, bad customer relations.
Alan Ford
>And another possible libel... Click, click, click, the meter's running.
Hmmmm, I wonder how different the libel cases in this country would be if
the plaintiff had to *prove* the libel *had* damaged his reputation, and
didn't just have the *ability* to damage his reputation...
Stuart Millington
Just that it has been as dead as the "testers list" since the
senitive_times and the Thrush take over :-( If it wasn't for the nails
holding it on it's perch...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington -
- mailto:ph...@dsv1.co.uk -
- http://www.wormhole.demon.co.uk/ -
Dave Bird
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes:
>>But just because he thinks he has a case does not mean I have to agree
>>with him. I certainly shan't be brow-beaten ...
>
>Then you'll be "brow-beaten" by the High Court and, furthermore, you'll
>end up paying pots of money
You mean "held liable for"; he says, and I have no reason
to disbelieve him, that he's barely got a pot to piss in.
In article<6K57F9AJ...@bozzie.force9.co.uk>, Paul C. Dickie
<p...@bozzie.f9.co.uk> writes:
>>>I don;t know what it says to Avril, but what it says to me is that Dr
>>>Godfrey has, yet again, a set of posts that both are defamatory and are
>>>actionable.
>>
>>Yet again he has some posts that *he considers* to be defamatory, but
>>aren't necessarily so.
>
>They probably are. The only question is one of whether or not you
>seriously want to spend time and *money* defending the matter in court.
I refer my horrible friend to the answer I gave earlier.