🚀 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 the quotes you dug up were or were not "relevant, interesting
and even sometimes amusing", 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.  After settling the action, Laurence continued
to contribute to uk.legal and only ceased to do so from the same email
address when he emigrated.

It is believed he still contributes from time to time, but posting via
a newsserver in Germany.

> > > 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?

How very strange.  Do you really believe that, if you post such
deluded ramblings, I might retort in like manner?

> > As it is abundantly obvious that the description of "gentleman" hardly
> > applies to you,

> Why is it obvious?

It is obvious that the description of "gentleman" could never be
accurately applied to a colonial clod such as you appear to be.

> > 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?

It would be hurtful as those things were told me in confidence.

> > 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 of some £250,000.

Demon's costs were said to have been over twice as much.

Had they deleted the postings from their news servers when requested,
they would not have been responsible for the continued publication of
those defamatory statements and would not have been sued.

Suffice it to say that I know very much more about this case than you
do and rather more than is contained in either the judgement or the
analysis of that judgement.

--
 x
/|\