🚀 go-pugleaf

On 20 Aug, 16:11, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> "Arthur Brain" <arthur_br...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187621299.514324.177860@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Todal wrote:
> > "ò¿ó" <ò¿ó@itsasecret.com> wrote in message
> >news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Sounds like a real twat
>
> >> But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who
> >> has
> >> offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.
> > Rubbish. He was a heavy-handed bully.
>
> Give reasons for your answer. Did he threaten you with legal action? If so,
> was it because you libelled him?

http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile9.htm#godfrey may shed some
light on this:

[quote]
In unrelated litigation Godfrey settled with Melbourne PC Users Group
for a reported US$6,190 in 1998 and settled suits with New Zealand
Telecom and the Toronto Star for undisclosed sums. He had meanwhile
sued major UK ISP Demon regarding statements posted to the
soc.culture.thai newsgroup by an unknown person using his name. Demon
had received that item from another ISP and as part of a standard
usenet service had stored it on their news server.

The UK High Court's decision in Godfrey v Demon Internet was that in
principle an ISP could avail itself of a statutory defence under
section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. In practice Demon had crucially
failed to remove the offending item from its server within an
appropriate time after being alerted by Godfrey's lawyers, who had
served notice by fax to Demon's managing director.

[unquote]

Of course, the report makes the usual mistake of believing there was
only one claim made against Demon, whereas there were actually two
claims made; the first was indeed made by a forger to soc.culture.thai
but the second posting was, I believe, made to the uk.legal newsgroup
by a Demon customer.  Neither posting was removed by Demon in a timely
manner, though other ISPs did act more promptly.

--
 x
/|\