ffs page stretching cunt
[editline]01:38PM[/editline]
[quote=slag]Dear Mr. Mcbroom,
It has recently come to our attention in accordance with s.1 of the Defamation Act 1998 that your website [url]http://jimbomcb.co.uk/compwhizii/[/url] contains defamatory information in respect to a file directory relating to John DuHart.
This is not only against our terms and conditions (see below) but is also in breach of UK Defamation Laws and various sections of the associated statute(s);
6.2
The Customer shall NOT:-
6.2.2
send, transmit, make available, copy, retransmit, broadcast or publish
(whether directly or indirectly) in whatever form any data, information
or contractual rights, material or statement which infringes the
Intellectual Property Rights or contractual or statutory rights of any
person or legal entity or the laws or statutory regulations relating to
defamation, contempt, blasphemy, infringement of privacy or personal
data rights and any equivalent or related laws in any territory in which
they are or may be accessed or made available;
11. LIMITATION OF SERVICE
11.1
The Company shall be entitled to suspend such access to the Services as
it deems necessary by the Customer or any third party to all or any party
of the Services if the Customer is in breach of any of Clauses: 5,
6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.7, 6.1.9, 6.2.2, 6.2.3, 6.2.4, 6.2.5, 6.2.6 and 12.
This Clause shall not be construed in any way as limiting the
termination rights of the Company as provided by Clause 8.
We hereby put you on notice to take action and to immediately remove the contents
by Monday 13th September 2010 at 12 noon.
Should you fail to make contact with us and take the above said action to
rectify this matter we shall have no alternative other than to take
action against you without any further notice which will include to shut down your website.[/quote]
Omg jimbo thats ur namme
[editline]11:41PM[/editline]
is that what the Mc B stands for
yes of course it is
Mcbroom - you schmuck.
Someone needs a sense of humour.
Seriously.
i wonder if he realizes that if he would of left all this alone it would have eventually gone away
this thread was already dying as it is, now it's just going to start again what a FUCKING RETARDED GREASY FUCKING NERD
jimothy
You have a cool name just saying
cOMPWHIZII IS RETARDED DEMOD COMPWHIZII ACT 2010
Jim McBroom
[QUOTE=Rusty100;24707790]cOMPWHIZII IS RETARDED DEMOD COMPWHIZII ACT 2010[/QUOTE]
I am a member of the big cheese party and i support this legislature
[quote]10:57 - jimbomcb: lol compwhizii is a joke
10:58 - jimbomcb: he went crying to my dedicated server hosts about the images i was hosting on jimbomcb.co.uk
10:58 - jimbomcb: It has recently come to our attention in accordance with s.1 of the Defamation Act 1998 that your website [url]http://jimbomcb.co.uk/compwhizii/[/url] contains defamatory information in respect to a file directory relating to John DuHart.
10:58 - jimbomcb: This is not only against our terms and conditions (see below) but is also in breach of UK Defamation Laws and various sections of the associated statute(s);
12:44 - Hezzy: hahahha what
12:45 - Hezzy: he's literally gone through UK legislation to try and find something???[/quote]
Let's see here.
Only false statements are actionable in court, so if the statement made about the claimant is true, there can be no action for defamation. All of the images used are in the public domain, and all of the quotes used in the images have been uttered by him at one point. There is nothing false.
Thorley v Kerry (1812) 4 Taunt 355 at 365, and also Pollock CB and Wilde B in Parkins v Scott (1862) 1 H&C 153 at 158, 159 holds that Vulgar Abuse is not actionable.
Lord Esher, in Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QBD 275 put forward a defence that applies to comments made on matters such as things in the public interest, in this case it would be the activities of a public figure.
Your argument has been smashed by my super UK law powers™. Try not to cry yourself to sleep.
The problem is with all the time slaving over PHP he forget what real language is - I don't think he has any idea what the phrase "Defamation of character" is in law and he should sit down.
The furry stuff was a false profile right?
That stuff, if so, is probably the only thing that is questionable.
[QUOTE=Mr. Gestapo;24707802]Let's see here.
Only false statements are actionable in court, so if the statement made about the claimant is true, there can be no action for defamation. All of the images used are in the public domain, and all of the quotes used in the images have been uttered by him at one point. There is nothing false.
Thorley v Kerry (1812) 4 Taunt 355 at 365, and also Pollock CB and Wilde B in Parkins v Scott (1862) 1 H&C 153 at 158, 159 holds that Vulgar Abuse is not actionable.
Lord Esher, in Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QBD 275 put forward a defence that applies to comments made on matters such as things in the public interest, in this case it would be the activities of a public figure.
Your argument has been smashed by my super UK law powers™. Try not to cry yourself to sleep.[/QUOTE]
Boom.
[QUOTE=Aurain;24707828]The furry stuff was a false profile right?
That stuff, if so, is probably the only thing that is questionable.[/QUOTE]
Nope, that profile was completely legitimate
[QUOTE=Mr. Gestapo;24707871]Nope, that profile was completely legitimate[/QUOTE]
hahahahaha
I thought it was Jim doing that. :downs:
Amazing.
Internet Superhero Hezzy defeats Compwhizii again.
Ban his alt too :P
[QUOTE=Mr. Gestapo;24707871]Nope, that profile was completely legitimate[/QUOTE]
No, you have to be joshing me with this.
I can't believe that he actually did that
[editline]12:01AM[/editline]
I wonder if he realises he'll probably be permabanned from the site he coded after his "Contract" is done.
Jesus Christ compwhizzii is being milked so fucking hard right now, have you mods considered giving him something like a "I AM A BIG BABY" title with jimbos link? Or is he too much of Garry's bitch to be able do something like that?
ouch * 30
[QUOTE=Mr. Gestapo;24707802]Let's see here.
Only false statements are actionable in court, so if the statement made about the claimant is true, there can be no action for defamation. All of the images used are in the public domain, and all of the quotes used in the images have been uttered by him at one point. There is nothing false.
Thorley v Kerry (1812) 4 Taunt 355 at 365, and also Pollock CB and Wilde B in Parkins v Scott (1862) 1 H&C 153 at 158, 159 holds that Vulgar Abuse is not actionable.
Lord Esher, in Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QBD 275 put forward a defence that applies to comments made on matters such as things in the public interest, in this case it would be the activities of a public figure.
Your argument has been smashed by my super UK law powers™. Try not to cry yourself to sleep.[/QUOTE]
Boom
i'll be able to sit down and sort this out when i'm done at work, not giving up without a fight.
hezzy says you did nothing wrong and he's a Cop.
Pretty sure he knows the law better than Compwhizii
I think it is time the general public of Facepunch hears about these shenanigans, they're too funny to contain in the GMF
[editline]02:19PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aurain;24708088]hezzy says you did nothing wrong and he's a Cop.
Pretty sure he knows the law better than Compwhizii[/QUOTE]
Actually defamation of character is civilian law and I only really know criminal law. However, I can read legislation properly and find case law relevant to defence against defamation
[QUOTE=Mr. Gestapo;24708089]I think it is time the general public of Facepunch hears about these shenanigans, they're too funny to contain in the GMF[/QUOTE]
Oh dear god I am going to wet myself with laughter.
And I have a very strong bladder.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
