Posts
Admin: Blog Comments and Corrections Policy
Just a reiteration of blog policy. I rarely take anything I've posted down. I do try to do clear, often timed updates and corrections, and even apologies. But tell me this. Why is it always the supposed libertarians that make empty and vague threats about going to law?
Specify exactly what's wrong and I will likely give your view equal prominence, will update, correct and apologise, might even in extremis take something down.
8 comments:
Mr Paul,
My legal team will be touch and any further correspondance will be via my solicitors.
Dave Hennigan
Thanks so much Dave,
I shall look forward to hearing what your legal team have to say.
In the meantime I do hope you will not forget to advise your team that I have asked for clarification on what exactly you regard as "defamatory" about this post and what correction, clarification, alternative you actually require to be posted.
Without a proper response to this I can do nothing to help you.
Chris P
Chris,
Thanks for publishing my private email to you. I will make no further comments and my solicitors will be in touch making the relevant points which will clarify your question.
Dave
Was that private? You didn't say. So sorry.
But why don't you just say what is "defamatory" and we can sort it out straight away?
Why on earth do you think it is reasonable to demand a blog post be taken down in its entirety when most of it has nothing whatsoever to do with you?
All the while sneering about Tories making legal threats.
Because Chris,
the bit about Cyril and me is clearly libellous. The clock is ticking and I'll give you 8 hours to apologise and remove the post or I'll meet you head on in court.
Have you got deeper pockets than me Chris?... don't gamble on it because you'll regret it!
I can't see there is anything defamatory in being a choir boy - many of us were one once!
I was a choir boy once myself Dave. In fact repeatedly, a couple of times every sunday, plus weddings, funerals but not enough barmitzvahs. Cos they pay well i've heard.
But I never sucked up to Saint Cyril Smith. Perhaps that's the difference here?
What am I supposedly implying about you Dave?
That you are a drunk and a bully? Given. You are. I will line up dozens upon dozens to witness this. It is not disputed.
If you want to go to court on whether you're a lying scumbag I might take that on too. But I am NOT repeat NOT suggesting you have felt the flabby might of Sir Cyril's hands on chastisement.
I am absolutely NOT suggesting that Sir Cyril Smith etc ever had you over his knee, naked as the day you were born, for chastisement over your choirly errors, having previously held your testicles and made you cough.
He mostly did that to kids in Rochdale kids' homes on which he had some trusted oversight. As an alternative for them to going official and they were led to believe getting worse. And you weren't in those kids homes were you? And you did not get twatted by Cyril's chubby palms did you?
There are NO reports that Cyril caused catholic choirboys like yourelf to strip off and be weighed and chastised; and I'm certainly not suggesting you were the exception to that rule.
But it would have been a great shame for Stephan Kisko had he been hanged as Cyril wanted. And a great relief for the actual criminal involved.
Cyril was 1000% better than Rowen as a parliamentarian. But having said that Cyril was and for all I know is also an ultra right wing person and a bit of a deviant to boot. The detail about Rowen's stuff hasn't even begun to emerge.
I'm guessing. But did M Shafiq perhaps delve into Rowen's claims to be deeply religious and highly spiritual? Perhaps wondering about any impure thoughts or Ugandan discussions Rowen might have had, despite his monkish piety?
Post a Comment