COLIN EADE - Who was he shagging?
Edna Jean Poole
regards to his work on the PETER ELLIS investigation would not tell us
what he was up to regarding intimacy with complainant kid's parents.
Between episodes of work and depression he WAS SHAGGING, among others,
the SISTER of a prominent LABOUR MP.
That silly woman, a mother of infant twin daughter complainants, with
absolutely no good judgment, taste or morals was ALISON DALZIEL,
sister of a current Labour Minister LIANNE DALZIEL..
Did you really need to know this?
Edna Jean
Tilly
No but you obviously had a reason fior telling us.
Are you suggesting that Goff is influenced by a Labour Party connection?
(that is if it is true.)
Tilly
Uncle StoatWarbler
>
> Despite posting through Google, your identity can be easily tracked as the
> originating IP address points to the NZ ISP you posted from.
>
IOW, next time use www.anonymiser.com to connect to Google.
Roger Dewhurst
"Tilly" <climb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3yH4b.134120$JA5.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
What on earth else influences him? He has enough brains to see that the
case against Ellis is shonky, he merely lacks the balls to do anything about
it.
R
Brian
> I fully support there
>being a Royal Commission into the Ellis case, but deplore any
>deliberate naming of the children involved.
With regard to Nathan and his mother who are making public accusations
after not getting satisfaction from the police - I consider their
identities _should_ be public knowledge. It'll be interesting to see
where the defamation case leads.
Note that Nathan was NOT a complainant in the creche case where Peter
Ellis was wrongfully convicted.
Brian
Felicity
>On 1 Sep 2003 06:03:12 -0700, edna_je...@yahoo.com (Edna Jean
>Poole) wrote:
>
>>Former Detective COLIN EADE on 20/20 Sunday 31 August, 2003, with
>>regards to his work on the PETER ELLIS investigation would not tell us
>>what he was up to regarding intimacy with complainant kid's parents.
>>
>>Between episodes of work and depression he WAS SHAGGING, among others,
>>the SISTER of a prominent LABOUR MP.
>>
>>That silly woman, a mother of infant twin daughter complainants, with
>>absolutely no good judgment, taste or morals was xxxxxxx,
>>sister of a current Labour Minister yyyyyyyyyyyyy..
>>
>>Did you really need to know this?
>
Might surprise some but it has been floating around since about 1997.
>More to the point you have allowed the complainants to be explicitly
>identified which is a major contempt of court. I fully support there
>being a Royal Commission into the Ellis case, but deplore any
>deliberate naming of the children involved.
>
Didn't see the kid's names mentioned. Chances are they carry a
different surname. Sure I've seen it mentioned over the years that it
was very hard to keep track of surnames because it usually depended on
the name of the mothers' current husbands/boyfriends.
That particular minister though is a pretty straight up and down sort
of character and I doubt her family relationships would influence her
one way or the other in the Cabinet Room whenever Mr Goff brings up
the Ellis topic.
>Despite posting through Google, your identity can be easily tracked as
>the originating IP address points to the NZ ISP you posted from.
>
>DPF
Felicitations 2 u all.
Felicity
Roger Dewhurst
"Felicity" <fel...@ions.2.u> wrote in message
news:tdj7lv0r36dpvf8uf...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 05:37:47 +1200, DPF <da...@farrar.com> wrote:
> >
> Didn't see the kid's names mentioned. Chances are they carry a
> different surname. Sure I've seen it mentioned over the years that it
> was very hard to keep track of surnames because it usually depended on
> the name of the mothers' current husbands/boyfriends.
>
> That particular minister though is a pretty straight up and down sort
> of character and I doubt her family relationships would influence her
> one way or the other in the Cabinet Room whenever Mr Goff brings up
> the Ellis topic.
If pressure is being applied to Goofy the Gutless surely she would be the
prime suspect?
" ........ pretty straight up and down ........" Now pull the other one.
It has bells on!
R
Brian Harmer
>That particular minister though is a pretty straight up and down sort
>of character and I doubt her family relationships would influence her
>one way or the other in the Cabinet Room whenever Mr Goff brings up
>the Ellis topic.
I would like to believe that. I remain uncertain.
Warwick
"DPF" <da...@farrar.com> wrote in message
news:gj07lvsdl29hlohs3...@4ax.com...
> >regards to his work on the PETER ELLIS investigation would not tell us
> >what he was up to regarding intimacy with complainant kid's parents.
> >
> >Between episodes of work and depression he WAS SHAGGING, among others,
> >the SISTER of a prominent LABOUR MP.
> >
> >That silly woman, a mother of infant twin daughter complainants, with
> >sister of a current Labour Minister yyyyyyyyyyyyy..
> >
> >Did you really need to know this?
>
> identified which is a major contempt of court. I fully support there
> being a Royal Commission into the Ellis case, but deplore any
> deliberate naming of the children involved.
>
> the originating IP address points to the NZ ISP you posted from.
>
> DPF
> Blog: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz
> E-mail: da...@farrar.com
> ICQ: 29964527
> MSN: dpf...@hotmail.com
That will tell who owns the ISP account, but it not indicate who was using
it at the time of the post.
Has anyone ever been convicted of slander/defamation for something said in a
newsgroup or chat room?
Peter Metcalfe
Half_...@xtra.co.nz says...
> Has anyone ever been convicted of slander/defamation for something said in a
> newsgroup or chat room?
Nobody can be convicted of defamation as that is a civil wrong.
However people have lost defamation suits because of something
they had said on Usenet.
--Peter Metcalfe
Felicity
Well in love she she seems capable of fine judgment.
She married a self-confessed suspect in the case.
Shows she is capable of putting aside any smell of the Ellis thing in
her personal life.
Why shouldn't she be able to do the same in her political life?
Felicitiations 2 u all.
Felicity
04=596734-5
Yes, I think we all need to know it.
We live in a corrupt society, and we need to know just how corrupt.
The interesting thing is that all of the people in this particular
case seem to be psychologically fucked up in one way or another. That
woman's promiscuity and bad taste probably derive from the same
psychological source that made her vulnerable to the sex abuse
hysteria. What is going on in our society that does this to people?
04=596734-5
Peter Metcalfe <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
When? Which cases do you have in mind?
Brian Harmer
wrote:
Try
http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol28/vol28n23/f2.html
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2003/08.05.2003/PacificIslands4.htm
Brian Harmer
wrote:
>In article <MPG.19beaa043...@news.qsi.net.nz>,
In my earlier post, I forgot the obvious
http://www.idg.net.nz/webhome.nsf/0/97C5033F4EE2E8BFCC256A40006BCA1E?opendocument
Peter Metcalfe
ooaa...@yahoo.co.nz says...
> > Nobody can be convicted of defamation as that is a civil wrong.
> > However people have lost defamation suits because of something
> > they had said on Usenet.
> When? Which cases do you have in mind?
The first example is David Rindos against Gil Hardwick in Western
Australia after the latter accused David Rindos of molesting a
local boy. Hardwick didn't defend the suit and so ended up with
a judgement against him for $40,000 in 1993.
A more famous example is Dr Lawrence Godfrey who won a defamation
suit against Demon in the UK for a 1997 forged posting in his name.
Demon didn't post the article but it had a duty to remove the
forged posting once it became aware of it. Demon settled out of
court for £15,000 in damages plus £250,000 for legal costs.
Finally there's the recent and local example of O'Brien versus
Brown. This case caused a huge stink because the actual comments
made were reasonably true, including the statement that O'Brien
was a "buffoon". However O'Brien managed to persuade his company
to fund his suit while Brown had to represent himself. The upshot
was that O'Brien's lawyers were able to explain away the evidence
for Brown's statement and Brown had a judgement entered against
him for $42,000.
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter Metcalfe
brian....@paradise.net.nz says...
> http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol28/vol28n23/f2.html
No actual defamation case there merely a vapid suggestion by
the UWA that anybody that referred to an URL was guilty of
defamation.
> http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/Weekly2003/08.05.2003/PacificIslands4.htm
Which does involve actual defamation involving a western australian
academic but is not the original precedent namely Rindos versus
Hardwick.
--Peter Metcalfe
Roger Dewhurst
"Peter Metcalfe" <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19bebf0e...@news.qsi.net.nz...
The expression "buffoon" was sufficiently defamatory to be worth $42,000?
Was there anything else?
R
Mainlander
bri...@wave.co.nz says...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 05:37:47 +1200, DPF <da...@farrar.com> wrote:
>
> > I fully support there
> >being a Royal Commission into the Ellis case, but deplore any
> >deliberate naming of the children involved.
>
>
> With regard to Nathan and his mother who are making public accusations
> after not getting satisfaction from the police - I consider their
> identities _should_ be public knowledge. It'll be interesting to see
> where the defamation case leads.
Are you advocating the breach of court orders and name suppression Brian?
Mike in Cairns
news:bj0vh1$dlr$1...@news.wave.co.nz...
Interesting discussion about defaming and libel... on www.pinkboard.com.au
the following appears:-
"...All postings on Pinkboard must be assumed to be personal opinion, except
where they are direct quotes from official documents. Pinkboard takes no
responsibility for the accuracy of any postings. Pinkboard must also comply
with the laws of NSW and Australia. In particularly libelous material is not
permitted on Pinkboard. Material may be libelous if it can affect the
reputation or standing of another person. Truth is not a defence against
libel. There will be cases where an incivility is not recognised, or where
something is misconstrued as uncivil."
Brian Harmer
<spe...@clothesbigpond.com> wrote:
>Interesting discussion about defaming and libel... on www.pinkboard.com.au
>the following appears:-
>"...All postings on Pinkboard must be assumed to be personal opinion, except
>where they are direct quotes from official documents. Pinkboard takes no
>responsibility for the accuracy of any postings. Pinkboard must also comply
>with the laws of NSW and Australia. In particularly libelous material is not
>permitted on Pinkboard. Material may be libelous if it can affect the
>reputation or standing of another person. Truth is not a defence against
>libel. There will be cases where an incivility is not recognised, or where
>something is misconstrued as uncivil."
Have any of you looked at the terms and conditions of your contract
with your ISP? Paradise and Xtra at least have a clause whereby you
indemnify them against any legal costs incurred by them arising from
your actions. So if someone sues you and names your ISP as a second
defendant, you may end up paying two lots of legal fees, and in the
event of the case coming to court and you losing, you get to pay not
only any damages awarded against you, but also you reimburse the ISP
for any damages awarded against them.
Even if you win, you will be out of pocket in the event of a lawsuit.
I am told courts rarely award costs in such cases beyond about two
thirds of actual costs.
Peter Metcalfe
> > Finally there's the recent and local example of O'Brien versus
> > Brown. This case caused a huge stink because the actual comments
> > made were reasonably true, including the statement that O'Brien
> > was a "buffoon". However O'Brien managed to persuade his company
> > to fund his suit while Brown had to represent himself. The upshot
> > was that O'Brien's lawyers were able to explain away the evidence
> > for Brown's statement and Brown had a judgement entered against
> > him for $42,000.
> The expression "buffoon" was sufficiently defamatory to be worth $42,000?
No, he couldn't sue on that so he sued on the allegation that he
made baseless legal threats.
--Peter Metcalfe
qu...@queer.as
So when Davey Baby Herkt says "Hundreds of lesbians in Auckland would
appreciate your move." Talking about a desire for me to leave
Auckland as a ng post - he would therefore be required to produce the
"Hundreds of lesbians in Auckland" and prove this is true? Or else it
is defamatory?
That could be interesting - and apart from the Lesbian Ball - the
court case would probably be the biggest lesbian gathering - with
"hundreds" of them *smile* Might even be a bit of an earn for him -
selling tickets to the hundreds of lesbians to participate. How many
is hundreds? Has to be over two hundred or else it would not be
plural eh? *smile*
Would gilted X lovers offer any credibility? Hundreds might be a bit
of a stretch *smile* my partner is already having a little chuckle
over that one!
Brian
>I agree than Nathan is not in the same category of those who were part
>o the trial. If there is no Royal Commission a defamation case
>against Nathan could well be easy to win considering Ellis didn't work
>there for 18 months after the alleged date.
The claim was that Nathan was at the creche in late 1985.
Peter began working at the Creche in August 1986.
(Minimum of 8 months)
Brian
Joe
>She married a ?self-confessed? suspect in the case.
????????????????????????????????????????
or married the husband of one of the suspects,
or have I failed and missed something?
Roger Dewhurst
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:20:00 -0700, "Warwick" <Half_...@xtra.co.nz>
> wrote:
> >"DPF" <da...@farrar.com> wrote in message
> >news:gj07lvsdl29hlohs3...@4ax.com...
> >> On 1 Sep 2003 06:03:12 -0700, edna_je...@yahoo.com (Edna Jean
> >> Poole) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Former Detective COLIN EADE on 20/20 Sunday 31 August, 2003, with
> >> >regards to his work on the PETER ELLIS investigation would not tell us
> >> >what he was up to regarding intimacy with complainant kid's parents.
> >> >
> >> >Between episodes of work and depression he WAS SHAGGING, among others,
> >> >the SISTER of a prominent LABOUR MP.
> >> >
> >> >That silly woman, a mother of infant twin daughter complainants, with
> >> >absolutely no good judgment, taste or morals was xxxxxxx,
> >> >sister of a current Labour Minister yyyyyyyyyyyyy..
> >> >
> >> >Did you really need to know this?
> >>
> >> More to the point you have allowed the complainants to be explicitly
> >> identified which is a major contempt of court. I fully support there
> >> being a Royal Commission into the Ellis case, but deplore any
> >> deliberate naming of the children involved.
> >>
> >> Despite posting through Google, your identity can be easily tracked as
> >> the originating IP address points to the NZ ISP you posted from.
> >>
using
> >it at the time of the post.
>
> necessary could trace the phone line also.
>
> >Has anyone ever been convicted of slander/defamation for something said
in a
> >newsgroup or chat room?
>
Oscar Wilde sued someone who publicly branded him a sodomite or some such.
I think that he won 6 pence damages!
R
Alan Brennan
Roger Dewhurst ( dewh...@wave.co.nz )
Wrote
I think you are referring to the painter James McNeil Whistler suing
John Ruskin over a piece of criticism and being awarded one farthing
damages.
Oscar Wilde sued the Marquis of Quensbury, father of Wilde's lover,
Alfred Douglas, who called him a "ponce and a sodomite". Wilde lost the
case and was immediately prosecuted for homosexual behaviour and was
jailed.
Morrissey Breen
This thread would be more accurately entitled: Eade - who was he NOT shagging?
geopelia
"Uncle StoatWarbler" <alanb+...@digistar.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.01....@digistar.com...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 05:37:47 +1200, DPF wrote:
>
> >
> > Despite posting through Google, your identity can be easily tracked as
the
> > originating IP address points to the NZ ISP you posted from.
> >
>
>
>
>
That website comes up "The page cannot be displayed' etc. My computer or
the website?
Sue Bilstein
news:LqO5b.137572$JA5.3...@news.xtra.co.nz...
It works if you spell it with a "z". Uncle SW must have typed the link from
memory & corrected the spelling to Queen's English while doing so.
Uncle StoatWarbler
> It works if you spell it with a "z". Uncle SW must have typed the link from
> memory & corrected the spelling to Queen's English while doing so.
I did, however both used to work.