I am more than a little concerned with recent posts which skate very close
to an edge in respect of copyright infringement and personal defamation. I
do request that posters will not attempt to misrepresent other's opinions or
make knowingly false statements concerning others.

This morning I discovered the following statement:-

"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
nk.net...

Phil has now advanced to the point that he can promise legal action by
third
parties.

This is untrue. I have pointed out to the poster who refers to the subject
as 'Trollgar" that the chess player Susan Polgar has appointed a lawyer to
examine defamations against her and another party, which is quite different
than Phil Innes 'promising legal action by third parties.' It might not even
seem to be an unfriendly announcement!

Since I also write for a chess publisher or two I am asking for legal
respect to be shown to copyrighted material and its author.

I know that my US publisher would take a dim view of individuals who did not
respect his copyright, and since this is the means of income for both
publisher and writer, rightly so. However, I have not provoked this issue
with any publisher - I have instead asked publicly that copyright be
observed by newsgroup posters.

I am also disturbed by counter claims about a statement I made concerning
recent business with Dr. Hyatt on chess matters, as well as about other
individuals, which could not be considered in any other way than as
provocations.

It is my understanding that continuous provocation, malicious stalking,
defamatory statements, and copyright infringements do not constitute
supported speech. I am not particularly litigious, and simply request a
sobriety in this matter is becoming of civil conversation. It is, however,
my understanding that a request to honour 'supported speech' be first
offered, and if ignored, then it is legally proper to offer to challenge it
elsewhere.

I hope this matter may end by suggesting these remedies, and we can return
to discussing the merits of any idea or validity of information pertinent to
the topic of the newsgroup sponsoring such subjects.

Let our actions be our witnesses!

Phil Innes

I suggest that our Anglo brethren re-acquaint themselves with American libel
law, for I think they will find that there is considerably more latitude,
here in the old Colonies, in matters of free speech. That's kind of why we
left your little paradise in the first place, guys.

Britain, last I looked, was still banning books that their government didn't
like, and filing slander suits against each other with the same frequency
that Americans eat hamburgers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think
fair Britannia even now has a Bill of Rights.

TMB

LEGAL SENSE

Is this an oxymoron?

LEGAL SENSE AND NONSENSE

Or just redundant?

Kevin L. Bachler

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:25:03 GMT, "The Masked Bishop"
wrote:

I suggest that our Anglo brethren re-acquaint themselves with American libel
law, for I think they will find that there is considerably more latitude,
here in the old Colonies, in matters of free speech.

AFAIK, to win a libel suit in the U.S., the plaintiff must demonstrate
both a story to be false *and* that it was published with the
knowledge it was false, while in the UK, the defendant must prove the
story to be true without re-using any of the disputed evidence.

Um, be careful...I don't think the current British constitution has an
official bill of rights. If so, please send a link..

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message m...
I suggest that our Anglo brethren re-acquaint themselves with American libel
law, for I think they will find that there is considerably more latitude,
here in the old Colonies, in matters of free speech. That's kind of why we
left your little paradise in the first place, guys.

Britain, last I looked, was still banning books that their government didn't
like, and filing slander suits against each other with the same frequency
that Americans eat hamburgers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think
fair Britannia even now has a Bill of Rights.

TMB

Yes, they have a Bill of Rights.

"This bill was a precursor to the American Bill of Rights, and set out
strict limits on the Royal Family's legal prerogatives such as a
prohibition against arbitrary suspension of Parliament's laws. More
importantly, it limited the right to raise money through taxation to
Parliament.

The English elite had just succeeded in ousting the Catholic King
James, who had offended the protestant Church of England by
aggressively promoting the Roman Catholic religion, in spite of laws
that Parliament had passed." -- English Bill of Rights - England -
1689

I wonder if you know that Shakespeare was Catholic?

Lance Smith

The Masked Bishop wrote:
Um, be careful...I don't think the current British constitution has an
official bill of rights. If so, please send a link..

Inasmuch as the British Constitution has no definitive written text, it
is not _capable_ of embedding a bill of rights. Nevertheless, most of
the rights guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights are also guaranteed in
similar form under present UK law, the Official Secrets Act
notwithstanding. (Anyone who watches old movies knows that British
police were "Mirandizing" suspects generations before police in the US
were. The biggest danger inherent in the Official Secrets Act -- that,
as it stands, it can be a bar to whistle-blowing -- is currently being
challenged in court under the Doctrine of Necessity.)

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

"John W. Kennedy" wrote in message
. net...
The Masked Bishop wrote:
Um, be careful...I don't think the current British constitution has an
official bill of rights. If so, please send a link..

Inasmuch as the British Constitution has no definitive written text, it
is not _capable_ of embedding a bill of rights. Nevertheless, most of
the rights guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights are also guaranteed in
similar form under present UK law, the Official Secrets Act
notwithstanding.

I signed one of those once.

The British constitution is more a Bill of Wrongs. If it doesn't say you
can't, you can do it. The US is the other way around.

(Anyone who watches old movies knows that British
police were "Mirandizing" suspects generations before police in the US
were.

z-cars! with Brian.. (?) big bloke, did a lot of beeb Shakespeare...

The biggest danger inherent in the Official Secrets Act -- that,
as it stands, it can be a bar to whistle-blowing -- is currently being
challenged in court under the Doctrine of Necessity.)

Its also a more serious document than in the US. Is it still 50 years before
you can blow the whistle on NAAFI tea?

Phil

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

"Phil Innes" wrote in message
...
I am more than a little concerned with recent posts which skate very close
to an edge in respect of copyright infringement and personal defamation. I
do request that posters will not attempt to misrepresent other's opinions
or
make knowingly false statements concerning others.

When do you start honoring your proposals?

This morning I discovered the following statement:-

"Neil Brennen" wrote in message
nk.net...

Phil has now advanced to the point that he can promise legal action by
third
parties.

This is untrue.

Not at all. You claimed three people were considering suing me THIS WEEK.
You ARE making claims for third parties, unless you are three people.

I have pointed out to the poster who refers to the subject
as 'Trollgar" that the chess player Susan Polgar has appointed a lawyer to
examine defamations against her and another party,

She appointed a lawyer to contact two individuals with a letter.

which is quite different
than Phil Innes 'promising legal action by third parties.' It might not
even
seem to be an unfriendly announcement!

Phil, you foppish twit.

Since I also write for a chess publisher or two I am asking for legal
respect to be shown to copyrighted material and its author.

Fair use, you foppish moron.

I know that my US publisher would take a dim view of individuals who did
not
respect his copyright, and since this is the means of income for both
publisher and writer, rightly so. However, I have not provoked this issue
with any publisher

Despite a threat to do so, you foppish moron.

- I have instead asked publicly that copyright be
observed by newsgroup posters.

I am also disturbed by counter claims about a statement I made concerning
recent business with Dr. Hyatt on chess matters, as well as about other
individuals, which could not be considered in any other way than as
provocations.

What rubbish. I QUOTED you and Hyatt, you moron.

It is my understanding that continuous provocation, malicious stalking,
defamatory statements, and copyright infringements do not constitute
supported speech. I am not particularly litigious,

LOL! Bruceski for Phil.

and simply request a
sobriety in this matter is becoming of civil conversation. It is, however,
my understanding that a request to honour 'supported speech' be first
offered, and if ignored, then it is legally proper to offer to challenge
it
elsewhere.
I hope this matter may end by suggesting these remedies, and we can return
to discussing the merits of any idea or validity of information pertinent
to
the topic of the newsgroup sponsoring such subjects.
Let our actions be our witnesses!
Phil Innes

Guess what Phil. Your 24 hours are up. Watch me take action.

"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message om...
Um, be careful...I don't think the current British constitution has an
official bill of rights. If so, please send a link..

Here's the link:

http://www.duhaime.org/Law_museum/uk-billr.htm

Lance Smith