🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Aug, 12:54, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 11:10, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > > The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
> > > > you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
> > > > stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
> > > > against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
> > > > the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet
>
> > > What a load of crapola.
>
> > All anyone has to do is to visit the history page of that article to
> > see that my comments were both true and accurate.
>
> Nope. You are still full of crap.
> Why do *you* get to say what's "vandalism" and what's "irrelevant"?
> I say all those quotes full of insults are relevant, interesting and
> even sometimes amusing.

Whether they were or were not, the lies you wrote were and remain
libellous vandalism.

For example, you wrote that he had been "chased off the Internet",
which is quite untrue;


>
> > > I bet you use an apple-mac.
>
> > Wrong again.  Care to quit now, while you're only a little behind?
>
> I bet you wish you had an apple-mac then. Did that Thai bar-girl dose
> you up with Rohypnol and steal your Apple-mac?
>
> > I thsnk you for having admitted your guilt in this matter.  It should
> > make it so much easier for Laurence to "sue your sorry ass" (as some
> > colonials are given to say).
>
> Are they? What a horrid turn of phrase. What kind of people did you
> have to rub shoulders with to pick that one up? Is this something to
> do with those pox-ridden Thai bargirls again?
>
> > As it is abundantly obvious that the description of "gentleman" hardly
> > applies to you,
>
> Why is it obvious?  Why would we believe you even know the difference,
> considering your rubbing of shoulders with foul-mouthed illiterate
> colonials?
>
> > you may perhaps be forgiven for not understanding that
> > one does not wish to harm or hurt one's friends.
>
> Why would it hurt anybody? Are you saying comments denigratory of Thai
> bargirls are something to be ashamed of?
>
> I suppose even admitting that one hangs around with sluts might be
> considered somewhat shameful...however most people would make
> allowances for those who are exceptionally ugly.
> Is that a defence you would consider?
>
> > > Insults against Canadians, Germans, Thais, and unidentified
> > > individuals - "drooling retards" was a good one.
> > > Doesn't like "retards" much, does he?
>
> > He may or he may not.
>
> Sitting on the fence, huh?
> A bit like that retard Neville Chamberlain who tried to help you lose
> to the Nazis - shame you were left with such a depleted gene-pool
> after having shipped off so much of your good human stock to the
> colonies, eh?
> Maybe you could ask Jade Goody for her opinion?
>
> > Readers of your nonsense may soon begin to
> > dislike you and/or wonder if you might be a "retard".
>
> Readers of your nonsense on the other hand can avoid any such
> uncertainty.
>
> > No, you did not, as none of the words you falsely claimed as being in
> > that judgement actually appears in that judgement which is at
> >http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html
>
> The link you posted concludes with:
>
> "With regard to the Defendants' application to amend the Defence I
> make no definitive ruling but indicate that it is likely to succeed."
>
> "It may also be helpful to suggest that on the basis of the proposed
> Amended Defence any award of damages to the Plaintiff is likely to be
> very small."
>
> And subsequently I gather Demon's defence was amended - unless these
> guys are lyinghttp://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
>  and you just haven't got around to "suing their arses"(sorry, unlike
> you I just can't bring myself to perpetrate atrocious misspellings,
> even in quoting) yet to make them take their site off the internet.

Yes, Demon did say that they would appeal the judgement and also that
they would vigourously contest the action, but they did neither.  They
did not appeal in time and, although they did amend their pleadings to
include allegations of provocation, that could only have been used in
reference to the forged article which they failed to remove in a
timely manner when notified of it.  The amended pleadings could not
have been applied to the second posting from a customer of Demon
Internet, which is reflected in the level of damages agreed in the
settlement: £5,000 for the first posting and £10,000 for the second,
plus the claimant's assessed costs.