Re: baldrick a few facts!


paulshancox@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ken wrote:
1) At no time has any credible evidence been provided that suggests any
damage or harm has resulted from publications that are deemed to be
defamatory by the claimant, but which he seems quite unable to properly
define in any way.

2) Claims made that either of the 3 individual defendants have
published any defamatory material, are not in any way supported by
clear indications of what this material might be, or anything
whatsoever to suggest it was the work of any of the 3 named defendants.

3) SOC1 seemed to suggest that impotence and the failure of a sucessful
business occured as a drirect result of posts on an obscure usenet
group, with less than 30 subscribers. Strangely SOC2 made no mention of
claims made in SOC1, so apparently the earlier claims were entirely
spurious.

4) On 10th March cases against the ISPs were dismissed, and
considerable legal costs awarded to the ISPs. However the ISPs knowing
full well that the claimant is not a man of any substance, are unlikely
to pursue the outstanding debt as the costs in this case are clearly
not recoverable.


k
Have you had that wank yet ken?...Are your welding rods limp?
Are you a sorry *** who doesnt know when to give it a rest?
Or are you a sordid perverted imbecile who has no other life?


Hopefully if no one gives it a rest baldrick is going to do the right
thing!.............if he does, would you be comfortable with that?

k

.

Quantcast