Re: Any contributions?


Guy Fawkes wrote:
JonDown wrote:
"Guy Fawkes" <davenull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142018172.502632.157280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

JonDown wrote:

The crazy part is he is playing to the attentions of perhaps twenty
interested people & maintaining that his business & personal life was
ruined
by obvious troll like activity by a handful of posters on this newsgroup,
why then when you look further afield at other newsgroups going back
about
ten years you find him in the same position threatening legal action &
shallow threats willy nilly while waiting for people to visit him
personally, verbally abusing those that come across as uncertain or new
to
the 'terrors' of the internet, overlooked by those who know better he has
boiled himself into stewpot of vengeful spite & if not using it to
defraud
people out of money he is at the very least trying to ruin peoples lives
from behind a guise of self indulgent arrogance. The rules of his game
are
side with him or look out.

Jon~

congratulations mr down, in your eagerness to warm yourself by fanning
the flames you have yet again managed to publish defematory and
libellous material.

the rules of my game are simple, libel me and I will sue.

All truth.....so where is the libel?

Jon~


so you repeat your defamatory remarks.

as to where the libel lies, it doesn't work that way, the defendant
must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that one of the three acceptable
defences is true...

since you reiterate your claims that your defamatory statement is true,
it will fall to you to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that I am either
trying to defraud persons out of monies out of spite, or that I am
trying to ruin persons lives out of arrogance.

to do either of these you will have to show inconrovertible proofs, eg
documents authored by myself, stating that I am trying to commit fraud
and that I am trying to ruin peoples lives out of pure malice.

since such documents do not exist, as there is no truth in your
scurrilous and defamatory allegations, you will have a poor time of it.


If you dont proceed with actions against the 3 individuals, who
according to you have caused you damages worth £1m+, then its obvious
to anyone but a total halfwit that fraud was your primary intent in
this matter!

As to defamatory comments, I wonder whether a judge would feel that
anyone who feels it is quite natural for a five year old child to have
sexual intercourse with its father, would be seen by many as a paedo?

k

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Any contributions?
    ... JonDown wrote: ... interested people & maintaining that his business & personal life was ... the rules of my game are simple, libel me and I will sue. ... so you repeat your defamatory remarks. ...
    (uk.local.southwest)
  • Basic Libel for Idiots
    ... Libel is the written word. ... In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. ... And it's not just the person making the allegations who can fall foul of the libel laws. ... If your offending article about Mr Dyke was published in Magazine X, ...
    (soc.culture.greek)
  • Re: de Silva: Apology requested
    ... > unconditional apology for this libel was not forthcoming. ... > is for your isp to decide whether you have, or are capable of, defaming ... > offensive, abusive, menacing, threatening, harrassing or solicited". ... Nothing about defamatory, offensive, abusive, menacing, threatening, ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: OT - Required Reading for those 75 Senators
    ... The first amendment does not allow libel or slander. ... > a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: STINK-BEETLE ALAN HOPE STILL ON LIBEL RAMPAGE!
    ... Yes, Alan. ... For it to be truly libel, it has to be adjudged so. ... publication of false and defamatory ... Wales -- you would need to prove you had a reputation that could be ...
    (misc.writing)