Dear Joan ...

http://groups.google.com/

D.

 

All I am doing is compiling posts that Des has made and asking if,
given the views on under age girls expressed, it warrants an
investigation.

I am not accusing him of anything. All that will be considered are his
own words. If he is a teacher then I would have thought he would have
had the common sense to realise the inappropriate nature of some of
his posts.

 

Are there any news servers that ignore x-no-archive?

 

You show yourself to be ignorant, every time you open your mouth.

In English law, implications can be libellous, I believe.

Do whatever you think you need to do. All I'm asking is that you take
responsibility for your actions. Step out from behind the 'child
protection' people's skirts. Just be aware that making deliberate and
vindictive attempts to harm the career of an employee of the French
Ministry of Education is going to cost you. I'm cleaner than squeaky, and
I'll do everything in my power to have you working for the next fifty years
to pay my damages and costs.

D.

 

Giganews, I think.

D.

 

For a concerned adult simply to supply printouts of statements, made
by you, to the relevant authorities, and not to add any comment
whatsoever to them, is not actionable. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Well, yes - you could take action, and deny you ever made them, but
that would open an even larger can of worms. IIWY I'd simply ignore
her, and reflect on what statements you've made about others, over the
years, which could be considered actionable.

What goes around comes around.

<Whistles>

 

That's quite all right, I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject.
Would it not thus be reasonable to ask why the person concerned provided
said print-outs? After all, if I printed out fifty of your posts and sent
them to the Metropolitan Police, stating, 'no reason... just thought you'd
find 'em interesting', wouldn't eyebrows be raised?

So by printing out so-called 'dodgy' posts concerning my former sister-in-
law, for example, along with something like, 'he's a teacher', wouldn't it
be fair to assume that there is a clear _implication_ that she believes
that I'm a pædophile? And isn't implication actionable? Let's say you
worked in a bank, and I printed out posts you'd made about firearms (as an
example), sending them to your employer with newspaper clippings about bank
robberies. Wouldn't that be akin to implying that you were involved?

Nor should anyone forget that the 'age of consent' in France is fifteen,
and so the comments about my sister-in-law were in no way unlawful or even
'immoral'. Indeed, my wife used to ask in English, upon seeing her sister
on the beach, 'hasn't she got awesome tits?'

I genuinely don't believe that I've committed defamation on here. I've
called many a poster a ****, but if you can recall one instance where I
made genuinely defmatory statements along the lines of 'you're a
kiddie-fiddler', then I'd be interested in hearing it.

I always take great care not to break French law, which is far stricter
than English law (AFAIK) on matters relating to defamation. Ask yourself
why, in the face of some of the most vicious provocation that anyone on
Usenet has ever had to suffer, I never go past the 'you're a fuckwit', or
'you're a wanker' type of post.

Indeed.

D.

PS didn't you claim that you 'only s[aw me] when morph' ?

 

Yep.

D.

 

Yet you continue to inhabit UKRM of your own free will.

 

Yes. They'd think you were being a prat. And wasting police time is an
offence

Belief is not actionable as defamation. Sorry to burst your bubble -
again. And I think the postings to which she alludes refer to your
pupils as well.

No. Not unless you made a statement, verbal or otherwise. You'd just
be doing your duty as a concerned citizen.

There is a difference between what is illegal and what is
inappropriate behaviour.

Another bubble goes pop. The law may be stricter in France (I don't
know), but I can assure you that it is way, way harder to get off a
defamation hook here in Britain than just about anywhere because of
the way the legislation *works*. It is the *only* civil offence tried
before a jury, and the burden of proof thing is a bugger, too. Oh, and
no legal aid, either. Trust me on this, as I've been on the receiving
end of a few writs over the decades. Occupational hazard, I'm afraid.

ISTR you accused Nige of being a fraudster, or similar.

I use Google at work. I see everything here.

 

Why would anyone use x-no-archive unless they were worried their words
might come back to haunt them?

 

They would also have to be quite stupid to assume that using x-no-archive
would prevent their words being archived, because not all servers honor
the x-no-archive header, plus their contribution is likely to be quoted
in other posts, and lastly, once you spew your words onto any network
with thousands if not millions of recipients, the likelihood of putting
the toothpaste back in the tube is remote indeed.

 

Switters typed:

"The contents of this article may be disputed."

 

Dunno. Ask Blaney.

D.

 

He loves the attention. And it must be said, in my list of most
interesting posters he comes a close second. CWO was my 1st, he was great.

Bear will be along in a second to warn off anybody replying.

 

'Tis true, I've been made to eat toothpaste many a time

 

It looks like The Lady is leading points on the 2nd round.

10 rounds to go I think is the norm.

 

You're not bursting any bubble. I've never made any secret of my own
ignorance, _more socratico_.

Unless I'm mistaken, the only _serious_ post I've made concerning any of my
pupils, is about one who's no longer at the school and who _is_ model
material. We still communicate regularly via e-mail, and indeed I believe
I quoted one of her messages a fortnight or so ago (written in 'SMS-speak',
if you recall). As she's eighteen, 'LN' will be hard pushed to have me
accused of any improper behaviour.

I don't believe this, especially as notions of 'duty' apparently only
occurred to her when I attacked her laughable attempts to pass herself off
as a 'feminist' in the 'Random Rant' thread.

See above. Newsgroup postings do not constitute 'inappropriate behaviour'
towards pupils.

Indeed. Which was my point.

I pointed out that he had deceived an ebay buyer. Truth is a defence, I
believe.

OK. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that if the situation were reversed and I were
threatening to report a teacher here for 'kiddie fiddling', you'd be
telling me to 'grow up' or something.

But I've consulted a few mates who are lawyers, and the advice is, 'let it
happen, and then have her charged with 'dénonciation calomnieuse'.

So I'll sit back and wait.

D.

 

'The Lady' couldn't score points if I lay down and let her kick into me.
Your declarations do not change that fact.

Happy to have cleared things up for you.

D.

 

I spend my working day standing in front of (variously) nine to seventeen
attentive youngsters, their cherubic, upturned faces not wavering for a
second unless I tell them to look at their books or when they turn to their
friends to express admiration and mirth at one of my humourous rejoinders
or witty bons mots.

Believe me, I get _all_ the attention I need.

Well, yes. Salient, cogent and penetrating analyses of life's moral and
philosophical dilemmas can do that.

He's too busy making 'bike-related' posts over there -->

The big question is: do Blackberrys wheelie off the clutch or not?

D.