Re: Use of Batons (was Re: Police Brutality)

From: James (j.dickerson_at_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:23:04 GMT

So, you hassle everbody then?

What a sad and lonely life you must lead Jim. Can you go to sadlosers.uk
and leave us all alone please?

Thanks, tosspot

"Jim Webster" <Jim@zerospam.oik.pet> wrote in message
news:vsg5n0dt3de8tpqn47r3n06l06q00f8d66@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:16:51 +0100, "Leslie"
> <science.fiction@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Hello Jim
> >Perhaps it would be good if you old townies kept out of the counyryside
and
> >buttoned your lips.
> >
> >have a n ice day .........................Leslie
>
> And let you bunch of faggots have free rein! *** off.
>
>
> >
> >"Jim Webster" <Jim@zerospam.oik.pet> wrote in message
> >news:mnqcl097jvln34uoh3i0lmvd517g5d6433@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:43:24 +0100, "Greenslader" <nospam@thank.yu>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Shroomer" <Shroomer@SPAMNOTJointIntelligenceCommittee.com> wrote in
> >message
> >> >news:0gijk01ae8tkpb6rlgecid67epmtl2l3vn@4ax.com...
> >> >> Steve Freestone <steve@tv-lincsDIESPAMMERS.org.ukDIESPAMMERS> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Seriously, I thought that Police when using Batons could only aim
them
> >> >> >to the body, but the TV pictures coming in are clearly showing the
> >> >> >Police aiming the Batons to head height.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it's because they heard how much hunters enjoy an uneven
> >> >> contest...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps the police should have used tactics more in keeping with the
> >spirit
> >> >of the event.
> >> >The protestors would have been far more understanding if they'd had
set
> >dogs
> >> >on them before being hit them over the heads with sticks.
> >> >
> >>
> >> One things for sure the state benefit poncing, subsidy driven
> >> upbringing, pro hunt perverts will think twice before coming to London
> >> and try to bully us again.
> >>
> >> Well done the metropolitan police, a lesson to be learned there. How
> >> real policing is done.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *******************
> >> *You can't win 'em all.*
> >> Lord Haw Haw.
> >>
> >>
> >> Newsgroup ettiquette
> >> 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
> >> 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
> >> 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
> >> 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
> >> they're having no effect.
> >> 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
> >> how to avoid them.
> >> 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
> >> manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
> >> 7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
> >> 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
> >> 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
> >> secretly reading it.
> >> 10) Pretend you're a hard *** when in fact you're
> >> as bent as a roundabout.
> >> 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
> >> 12) Die of old age
> >> 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
> >> will have a penis the girls can see.
> >>
> >> We have received an allegation that you have posted an article/s to
> >> newsgroups
> >demon.local,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,
> >>
>
>uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,scot.birds,uk.rec.gardening
,
> >> uk.business.agriculture,uk.rec.fishing.coarse,sci.agriculture.poultry
> >> [<kmfdljArhNO5EwYq@4AX.com and others>] which our external solicitors
> >> believe to bear a defamatory meaning and as such we have had to remove
> >> the article from our servers.
> >>
> >> The part in question is the comment "Pete is a fraud, a liar and
> >> a cheat." as well as some other comments in your article.
> >>
> >> We cannot and do not make any judgement as to whether such material is
> >> defensible. However, the state of the law at the moment means that if
> >> we are put on notice that defamatory material is being published
through
> >> our systems, Thus plc may be liable for damages, along with you, if it
> >> does not take action to prevent that material being published. Those
> >> damages could be substantial and we could both incur heavy legal
> >> expenses.
> >>
> >> In addition, the current state of the law could leave Thus plc
> >> liable if it failed to take action and you disseminated any further
> >> material through our systems which was later found to be defamatory.
> >>
> >> While we do not necessarily agree with the current legal position we
> >> must accept it, and have therefore removed the posting in question.
> >>
> >> Please reply to this email acknowledging that you understand the
problem
> >> and that you will not, in future, publish further material which
> >> could be considered defamatory of Pete through Demon's systems.
> >>
> >> We attach below a suggested form of acknowledgement for your
> >> convenience.
> >>
> >> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
> >>
> >> I acknowledge receipt of your email and confirm that I understand your
> >> explanation of the legal situation regarding material which is
> >> considered defamatory.
> >>
> >> I confirm that I will not publish such material in future using my
Demon
> >> service, and will not publish further material which could be
considered
> >> defamatory of Pete.
> >>
> >> I look forward to hearing from you.
> >> Demon Legal Team.
> >>
> >> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use
of
> >> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> >> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> >> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> >> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is
believed
> >> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> >> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
> >Title
> >> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> >> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
> >included
> >> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes
by
> >> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
> >information
> >> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.
> >
>
> --
> *******************
> *You can't win 'em all.*
> Lord Haw Haw.
>
>
> Newsgroup ettiquette
> 1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
> 2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
> 3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
> 4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
> they're having no effect.
> 5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
> how to avoid them.
> 6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
> manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
> 7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
> 8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
> 9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
> secretly reading it.
> 10) Pretend you're a hard *** when in fact you're
> as bent as a roundabout.
> 11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
> 12) Die of old age
> 13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
> will have a penis the girls can see.
>
> We have received an allegation that you have posted an article/s to
> newsgroups
demon.local,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,
>
uk.environment.conservation,uk.rec.birdwatching,scot.birds,uk.rec.gardening,
> uk.business.agriculture,uk.rec.fishing.coarse,sci.agriculture.poultry
> [<kmfdljArhNO5EwYq@4AX.com and others>] which our external solicitors
> believe to bear a defamatory meaning and as such we have had to remove
> the article from our servers.
>
> The part in question is the comment "Pete is a fraud, a liar and
> a cheat." as well as some other comments in your article.
>
> We cannot and do not make any judgement as to whether such material is
> defensible. However, the state of the law at the moment means that if
> we are put on notice that defamatory material is being published through
> our systems, Thus plc may be liable for damages, along with you, if it
> does not take action to prevent that material being published. Those
> damages could be substantial and we could both incur heavy legal
> expenses.
>
> In addition, the current state of the law could leave Thus plc
> liable if it failed to take action and you disseminated any further
> material through our systems which was later found to be defamatory.
>
> While we do not necessarily agree with the current legal position we
> must accept it, and have therefore removed the posting in question.
>
> Please reply to this email acknowledging that you understand the problem
> and that you will not, in future, publish further material which
> could be considered defamatory of Pete through Demon's systems.
>
> We attach below a suggested form of acknowledgement for your
> convenience.
>
> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
>
> I acknowledge receipt of your email and confirm that I understand your
> explanation of the legal situation regarding material which is
> considered defamatory.
>
> I confirm that I will not publish such material in future using my Demon
> service, and will not publish further material which could be considered
> defamatory of Pete.
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
> Demon Legal Team.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more
information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.