Originally Posted by Kali Morrigan:
I am not supporting Nazis, I was responding to threats that you had made, I have no idea what is behind them as that is not explained in the thread. I was checking posts and your posts comsisted of threat after threat about what you were going to do to various people. You appear to want to pick a fight with another poster ID gc, and although I have looked thoroughly I can't find anything that gc has posted that would make you behave so belligerant and abusive. Is that clear enough for you.

You're out of your league Kali and, yes, you are supporting at least one Nazi.

If you don't know what we're talking about keep out of it. It's not as if you have anything to do with UKIP anyway.

Go back to the sandpit.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Mikeuk:
You're out of your league Kali and, yes, you are supporting at least one Nazi.

If you don't know what we're talking about keep out of it. It's not as if you have anything to do with UKIP anyway.

I think I'll stick with it, I like a challenge. I'll figure out who the players are for myself don't need you bad-mouthing them because you have grudge against them, I can make up my own mind about who and who is not a Nazi.

Originally Posted by :
Go back to the sandpit.

Go back to your cesspit.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Kali Morrigan:

Go back to your cesspit.

lol! I never left it!! :-)
[Rep]

There's a rather interesting article here Judge rules on internet forum comments - heise online UK relating to what takes place on internet forums and chat rooms and the like.

It seems to somewhat move the law regarding slander and libel as it was previously being interpreted.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
There's a rather interesting article here Judge rules on internet forum comments - heise online UK relating to what takes place on internet forums and chat rooms and the like.

It seems to somewhat move the law regarding slander and libel as it was previously being interpreted.

Eady is probably today's leading judicial expert on defamation.

What I thinks he means is that 'banter' - even outrageous banter - on a website should be treated like slander, in other words it would not be actionable without proof of of actual damage.

I don't think he actually addresses the question of malice here, but these are ideas he is developing - work in progress in other words.

This would not, of course, cover such instances as, shall we say, a professional man and former UKIP candidate who is falsely accused of working with terrorist organisations and promoting anti-semitism, nor a professional man and former UKIP candidate who is accused of pimping for his wife who is falsely accused of being a prostitute.

Nor would it even cover a man who is attampting to rebuild his life and protect his wife and children after paying his debt to society by serving a prison sentence years ago and who has the conviction maliciously dragged up in order to destroy his family and professional life.

...as we shall soon discover.

NB: Actually he does address the question of malice with regard to 'fair comment'
[Rep]

What I read was nothing to do with any conviction but instead a copy of an item that is in the public domain relating to the investigation of possible irregularities.

I saw no reference to any subsequent action that took place being raised on this forum.

There is also the problem that even if this were to be done since the information is already IN the public domain the most that might take place would be for the owners of the copyright of the story to require that the item that is in breach of their copyright be removed.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
What I read was nothing to do with any conviction but instead a copy of an item that is in the public domain relating to the investigation of possible irregularities.

I saw no reference to any subsequent action that took place being raised on this forum.

There is also the problem that even if this were to be done since the information is already IN the public domain the most that might take place would be for the owners of the copyright of the story to require that the item that is in breach of their copyright be removed.

That may be so, but malicious republication is likely to infringe the tradtional laws of libel, not to mention the new approach to 'privacy' following the Max Mosley case.
[Rep]

In all honesty though, a man would need to have a pretty low nature to descend to sink to actually taking any formal legal action against another with regard to something as trivial as a contra temps on an internet forum or chat room at the best of times, and especially one so infested by BNP and other ultra-right supporters and fellow travelers such as this one now is.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Bear:
In all honesty though, a man would need to have a pretty low nature to descend to sink to actually taking any formal legal action against another with regard to something as trivial as a contra temps on an internet forum or chat room at the best of times, and especially one so infested by BNP and other ultra-right supporters and fellow travelers such as this one now is.

Agreed. And if they did there would now be thousands of actions in progress in respect of this forum alone.

As you know my action (Smith v Williams) was widely reported, yet I would never sue over being called a racist, a Fascist or even a Nazi (I have also been called a Liberal and a Communist BTW)

I sued because someone had seen fit to insult my wife - a totally kind, decent, respectable and innocent lady who never even uses the internet - was publicly labelled a 'whore' and I her pimp and a paedophile. When I asked the perpetrators to stop they redoubled their efforts.

That is why I sued, and I will do so again if necessary.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Mikeuk:
Agreed. And if they did there would now be thousands of actions in progress in respect of this forum alone.

As you know my action (Smith v Williams) was widely reported, yet I would never sue over being called a racist, a Fascist or even a Nazi (I have also been called a Liberal and a Communist BTW)

I sued because someone had seen fit to insult my wife - a totally kind, decent, respectable and innocent lady who never even uses the internet - was publicly labelled a 'whore' and I her pimp and a paedophile. When I asked the perpetrators to stop they redoubled their efforts.

That is why I sued, and I will do so again if necessary.

Actually you've just told me something I did NOT know.
[Rep]