From: A.Lee on
The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> 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.

It was from what I recalled at the time, so details may be mixed up,
but, in effect, he fucked up, and lost a lot. Whether he was actually
forced to pay back the costs is another matter.
There is a full report of the proceedings here:
<http://www.5rb.com/docs/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf>
alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
From: TOG on
On 11 Aug, 22:44, a...(a)darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
> The Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A.Lee <a...(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.
>
> It was from what I recalled at the time, so details may be mixed up,
> but, in effect, he fucked up, and lost a lot. Whether he was actually
> forced to pay back the costs is another matter.
> There is a full report of the proceedings here:
> <http://www.5rb.com/docs/Bunt-v-Tilley%20QBD%2010%20Mar%202006.pdf>

Very interesting. He did, indeed, screw up. Nothing much to do with
anonymous nyms, though: he tried suing ISPs for carrying libellous
messages, and the parallel was drawn with the Post Office delivering
libellous letters.

Had he gone straight for the perps, rather than ISPs, it might have
been different.
From: kraftee on


"Niel Humphreys" <admin(a)sznzozwdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote in
message news:i3oh45$ti$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> 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.....


I know I'm a bit late in posting this but since when has the US had any
control over UK law (legally that is)?