From: Fran on

"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:ne236619udd1t9nalml1rovmsq8hmfpqkp(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 10:52:02 +0100, "Fran"
> <autumnacorn(a)vendredi.fr.com> wrote:
>
>>The only reason this one has worked - if indeed it has - is that it may
>>be
>>shown to have caused serious and material commercial harm by talking down
>>the share price. It's called market abuse and only applies to share price
>>impacts.
>>
>>I very much doubt it would have any credence or be counted as reasonable
>>in
>>English/Welsh law where someone has admitted to an action and then gets
>>called out for it, for example.
>
> The "Norwich Pharmacal Order" (named after the case which established
> it - Norwich Pharmacal Co. v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974])
> <http://whereismydata.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/civil-law-norwich-pharmacal-order/>
>
> An NPO allows someone pursuing a case against another to gain access
> to relevant records held by an innocent third party (an ISP for
> example). It is not limited to any particular type of case.
>

You've missed my point, Peter.


From: TOG on
On 11 Aug, 11:05, Jon <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> Niel Humphreys wrote...
>
> > Just saw this posted in another forum, might make people think twice about
> > doing a 'Spacker' now that a precedent has been set and it may not be so
> > safe to hide behind anonymous log ins.....
>
> Been tried before - look up John Bunt - aka Guy Fawkes.

Oh, that plonker! He used to pop up here, and on ukrm.

>
> Basically the court decided that you can say what you like about someone who
> uses a Nym, not their real name on Usenet.

If they're completely hiding their identity, and only being slagged
off through their nym, then I can understand that. Bear in mind,
though, that if a person's identity can reasonably be applied to the
statement concerned, then defamation courts will still take action.

>
> Bunt took numerous people to court and it cost him £22k (IIRC) and the ISP's
> concern had him for their costs too.

Heh.
From: TOG on
On 11 Aug, 11:05, Jon <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> Niel Humphreys wrote...
>
> > Just saw this posted in another forum, might make people think twice about
> > doing a 'Spacker' now that a precedent has been set and it may not be so
> > safe to hide behind anonymous log ins.....
>
> Been tried before - look up John Bunt - aka Guy Fawkes.
>
> Basically the court decided that you can say what you like about someone who
> uses a Nym, not their real name on Usenet.
>
> Bunt took numerous people to court and it cost him £22k (IIRC) and the ISP's
> concern had him for their costs too.

Actually, re-reading this, Neil is talking about someone who defames
another while hiding behind a nym, and you're talking about defaming
someone who only uses an anonymous nym, so not quite the same thing at
all.
From: A.Lee on
TOG(a)Toil <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 11 Aug, 11:05, Jon <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> > Niel Humphreys wrote...
> >
> > > Just saw this posted in another forum, might make people think twice about
> > > doing a 'Spacker' now that a precedent has been set and it may not be so
> > > safe to hide behind anonymous log ins.....
> >
> > Been tried before - look up John Bunt - aka Guy Fawkes.
>
> Oh, that plonker! He used to pop up here, and on ukrm.

> > Basically the court decided that you can say what you like about someone who
> > uses a Nym, not their real name on Usenet.
>
> If they're completely hiding their identity, and only being slagged
> off through their nym, then I can understand that. Bear in mind,
> though, that if a person's identity can reasonably be applied to the
> statement concerned, then defamation courts will still take action.

IIRC, Bunts case involved possibly defamatory comments made on his
Company(sole trader?) website - the site had a 'User Comments' page
which was, ostensibly, to show what a good dealer/seller he was.
2 or 3 people took it upon themselves to criticise his products, saying
they were no good, not worth the money etc.
Along with the abuse he got on usenet, he then tried to blame the 3 for
ruining his business.
It woudl never have stuck from the start, but he carried on regardless,
and attended Court a few times. Eventually, it was thrown out as he had
not followed the set-down procedure, and had no case at all against the
ISP of the abusers.

It was never ruled on, as the procedure followed by Bunt did not meet
the criteria, so was thrown out.
There is plenty of reading about if you google.
Basically, the abuse on usenet was not actionable, as he used a
pseudonym.

> > Bunt took numerous people to court and it cost him �22k (IIRC) and the ISP's
> > concern had him for their costs too.

But I recall one of the Defendants paid up out of Court,before any
hearings, as he was worried he would lose.
The ISP's lawyers laughed at the case

Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
From: The Older Gentleman on
A.Lee <alan(a)darkroom.+.com> wrote:

> It woudl never have stuck from the start, but he carried on regardless,
> and attended Court a few times.

This:

>Eventually, it was thrown out as he had
> not followed the set-down procedure, and had no case at all against the
> ISP of the abusers.
>
> It was never ruled on, as the procedure followed by Bunt did not meet
> the criteria, so was thrown out.

Is not consistent with this:

> Basically, the abuse on usenet was not actionable, as he used a
> pseudonym.

Sounds like he cocked up and/or ignored the court procedure, not that
the case was not actionable per se.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com