Thread: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
View Single Post
Old 18-07-2008, 17:39   #12146
AlexanderHanff
Permanently Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,028
AlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful oneAlexanderHanff is the helpful one
Re: Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]
Quote:
Originally Posted by phormwatch View Post
That's all true, but you're still liable to get sued if they decide to prosecute. Whether the libel charge would hold up in court is another issue. Some people/corporations do, in fact, sue people in order to silence them on the basis that they think the person being sued will back down.

Hence, unless you positively wish to go to court, it is wise to use the phrases 'I believe' or 'I alleged', IMO.
I am not afraid of going to court and I have nothing to lose if a judgement went against me as I have no assets and no earning (so an attachment to earnings would be fruitless). Also I should remind people that in the UK penalties in civil court judgements are means assessed and are not permitted to impact your normal quality of life (in other words they must only take into account "disposable income") including leisure, clothing, bills, food etc.

I certainly have no intention of backing down; I have been advised by members of the House of Lords that BT's trials were illegal, there is no higher authority so therefore my statements are suitably qualified. I even have an audio recording to support this (as you all know) and the statements by Baroness Miller in the zdnet article and of course the letter from the ICO admitting that the trials breached PECR as well as statements from HO and ICO stating that such technology would require consent (clearly lacking in the trials). Oh and lets not forget the European Commission whilst we are at it.

So in fairness, I can't be accused of not carrying out due dilligence.

Alexander Hanff

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:37 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Advocate View Post
Exactly - because unsubstantiated accusations are libellous. If Alex or anyone else has proof, then there would be no case for libel action. If there was proof, I wouldn't argue the point.
D_A
I do have proof, I made that proof publicly available and I have submitted it to the police as evidence which they are currently officially investigating.

Using your logic, you are guilty of libel yourself by claiming I am making libelous comments without there being any "proof" as no court has ruled I am being libelous.

Alexander Hanff
AlexanderHanff is offline