Reply to: The Osbourne scandal

[ace00]

Classic Labour:

But his comments appeared to back-fire as Downing Street officials, taken by surprise, could not say to which authorities Mr Brown was referring. A spokesman said simply: “Whichever authorities are appropriate.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4996464.ece

Perhaps they are going to have him investigated for illegal compostage?

[Churchill]

As long the person is identifiable you can sue for deformation of character and/or liable. You don’t need a solicitor. Download form N16a from the Court Services website and fill it in. (Quite simple) you will need to swear an affidavit. (No charge if you do that at the Court Office) The application fee is about £120 and the Judge should grant you an interim injunction and a Hearing date normally in 28 days time. Any prob,s or questions PM Paddy.

And AtW , it’s strange that the Government will hand British Passports out like sweets to Russian terrorisits but not to business men.

Defamation and libel you illiterate twat! Also, your use of punctuation and capitalisation are most certainly questionable. You'll make a good solicitor.

[Paddy]

You can also sue God. There are pretty well defined conditions for libel cases to succeed, this practice is very well established in the UK, so in this situation the case would be thrown out with costs awarded to the other party.

No you can't.


Are you referring to that guy not being able to get US Visa? That's USA, not UK.

No!

Strange as it may seem, but in the USA justice system in view is stronger when it comes to those types - that's why in the USA execs will be going to jail in a few years for causing credit crunch, and in the UK they will get away with it. That's why that guy meets with UK future Chancellor in waiting rather than with US counterpart.

You don't know AtW

---------------

Now, that's really the last post in this thread that I will make after having refreshed my head in the park:

In that post of mine that caused legal furore here for supposedly doubting sasguru's honest and legal reprecautions of that, here is what I've got to say: people who knowingly make baseless legal threats without intention to carry these threats out are acting, in my view, dishonestly.

The only people worse in this respect are people who do make baseless legal threats and then try to carry them out (succeeding too often in this process of intimidation).

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, ZZZZZZZZ

[Alf W]

What is it about MPs from the Tatton constituency?

He's not from the Tatton constituency. He's a London based sponger living off Daddy's money playing at politics who was gifted the Tatton constituency as one of the safest Tory seats in the country.

[DiscoStu]

You gone yet?

You can also sue God. There are pretty well defined conditions for libel cases to succeed, this practice is very well established in the UK, so in this situation the case would be thrown out with costs awarded to the other party.



Are you referring to that guy not being able to get US Visa? That's USA, not UK.

Strange as it may seem, but in the USA justice system in view is stronger when it comes to those types - that's why in the USA execs will be going to jail in a few years for causing credit crunch, and in the UK they will get away with it. That's why that guy meets with UK future Chancellor in waiting rather than with US counterpart.

---------------

Now, that's really the last post in this thread that I will make after having refreshed my head in the park:

In that post of mine that caused legal furore here for supposedly doubting sasguru's honest and legal reprecautions of that, here is what I've got to say: people who knowingly make baseless legal threats without intention to carry these threats out are acting, in my view, dishonestly.

The only people worse in this respect are people who do make baseless legal threats and then try to carry them out (succeeding too often in this process of intimidation).

Promise?

[AtW]

As long the person is identifiable you can sue for deformation of character and/or liable.

You can also sue God. There are pretty well defined conditions for libel cases to succeed, this practice is very well established in the UK, so in this situation the case would be thrown out with costs awarded to the other party.

And AtW , it’s strange that the Government will hand British Passports out like sweets to Russian terrorisits but not to business men.

Are you referring to that guy not being able to get US Visa? That's USA, not UK.

Strange as it may seem, but in the USA justice system in view is stronger when it comes to those types - that's why in the USA execs will be going to jail in a few years for causing credit crunch, and in the UK they will get away with it. That's why that guy meets with UK future Chancellor in waiting rather than with US counterpart.

---------------

Now, that's really the last post in this thread that I will make after having refreshed my head in the park:

In that post of mine that caused legal furore here for supposedly doubting sasguru's honest and legal reprecautions of that, here is what I've got to say: people who knowingly make baseless legal threats without intention to carry these threats out are acting, in my view, dishonestly.

The only people worse in this respect are people who do make baseless legal threats and then try to carry them out (succeeding too often in this process of intimidation).

[The Lone Gunman]

Look snaw, your words as you say them don't bother me, that's your personal opinion, however how would you feel like if someone on this forum posted your real name, link to place where you work and accused you falsely of being dishonest, basically defrauding your clients/employers? That really crossed the line and I argued patiently at first to clear up the issue, it was not something I wanted to happen or deal with, just like now I am forced into this stupid conversation when it is obvious there is no libel case whatsoever yet some members of this esteemed board seem intent to continue.

I supported you on that thread though the poster did make a few valid points.




















Duck and cover.

[Paddy]

As long the person is identifiable you can sue for deformation of character and/or liable. You don’t need a solicitor. Download form N16a from the Court Services website and fill it in. (Quite simple) you will need to swear an affidavit. (No charge if you do that at the Court Office) The application fee is about £120 and the Judge should grant you an interim injunction and a Hearing date normally in 28 days time. Any prob,s or questions PM Paddy.

And AtW , it’s strange that the Government will hand British Passports out like sweets to Russian terrorisits but not to business men.

[DiscoStu]

Good point, see you next month or whenever Big SKA news are ready...

Just the last point - assuming here sasguru has got good reputation that he relies on (in real life), I think if half of the stuff he posts on this forum (and this includes the stuff his sockpuppets post) came out in court (as it would in any court case), then his real life reputation will suffer. Or maybe it won't. Or maybe it can't.

I am not a master of English language and I don't know all the nuances. It was however pretty reasonable statement made by me that had no intentions that you claimed - perhaps I could have phrased it better to avoid any ambiguity that may have been created, that's true however insofar as any possible court case is concerned I don't think it would add weight to your arguement at all.

Anyway, I am off now, I'll let the readers come to their own conclusions.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to come to their conclusions about that, it's certainly not something I would use legal threats about - maybe you should stop trying that too: baseless legal threats in my view are dishonest and highly unethical.

There sure plenty of people out there who are dishonest and unethical, yet they do not have billions or millions.

Off to do something useful now.

You gone yet?

[sasguru]

That was class entertainment.

[DiscoStu]

That may well all be true. But you still need to get yourself a blowjob.

[AtW]

Most will come to the only conclusion possible: you've lost your marbles.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to come to their conclusions about that, it's certainly not something I would use legal threats about - maybe you should stop trying that too: baseless legal threats in my view are dishonest and highly unethical.

There sure plenty of people out there who are dishonest and unethical, yet they do not have billions or millions.

Off to do something useful now.

[snaw]

Look snaw, your words as you say them don't bother me, that's your personal opinion, however how would you feel like if someone on this forum posted your real name, link to place where you work and accused you falsely of being dishonest, basically defrauding your clients/employers? That really crossed the line and I argued patiently at first to clear up the issue, it was not something I wanted to happen or deal with, just like now I am forced into this stupid conversation when it is obvious there is no libel case whatsoever yet some members of this esteemed board seem intent to continue.

That may well all be true. But you still need to get yourself a blowjob.

[AtW]

Dude, you need to go out and get yourself a blowjob.

Look snaw, your words as you say them don't bother me, that's your personal opinion, however how would you feel like if someone on this forum posted your real name, link to place where you work and accused you falsely of being dishonest, basically defrauding your clients/employers? That really crossed the line and I argued patiently at first to clear up the issue, it was not something I wanted to happen or deal with, just like now I am forced into this stupid conversation when it is obvious there is no libel case whatsoever yet some members of this esteemed board seem intent to continue.

[sasguru]

Anyway, I am off now, I'll let the readers come to their own conclusions.

Most will come to the only conclusion possible: you've lost your marbles. Everyone knows it but you.