'Reinstate Mad Frankie?'

Just what have I started here?
I originally thought this was about a spat, remote from me and in which I had little interest, having no equestrian ambitions. However last night I had a look at the SBPA forum and found that the vitriol of MFs contributions, were as nothing compared with those of ST who seems driven by an anti-yachtie obsession that has little, if any basis in fact and could even be motivated by self-interest - now what have I said!
It seems to my non-legal mind, that the pseudonymn of MF, who I now learn has a 'lifetime ban', may not have helped him with "them 's 'as the rule over us" and they also seem to have forgotten whose interests they were representing.
I was always a sucker for standing up for the rights of the oppressed - even as a 'strict but fair' teacher!
 
reginaldon said:
Just what have I started here?
I originally thought this was about a spat, remote from me and in which I had little interest, having no equestrian ambitions. However last night I had a look at the SBPA forum and found that the vitriol of MFs contributions, were as nothing compared with those of ST who seems driven by an anti-yachtie obsession that has little, if any basis in fact and could even be motivated by self-interest - now what have I said!
It seems to my non-legal mind, that the pseudonymn of MF, who I now learn has a 'lifetime ban', may not have helped him with "them 's 'as the rule over us" and they also seem to have forgotten whose interests they were representing.
I was always a sucker for standing up for the rights of the oppressed - even as a 'strict but fair' teacher!
Click to expand...

It's a great pity that a lot here did'nt follow the posts closely before making comments ...or taking action.It is only when you see the whole picture that you realize just how insidious certain peoples action & behaviour is & will no doubt continue to be until they are exposed.Madfranky posted some very good facts & other peoples research seemed brilliant to me.It is a great pity that this argument has now descended into introspection because of the lawyers among us........Madfraky & others said put up or shut up & they shut up.We have been let down it seems to me by a lot of people that are afraid of their own shadow.
Now ban me if you want.I have always believed in Justice & free speech & what has gone on here I feel is pitiful.
 
Frank had to walk the plank

Was going through the old Studland Bay Group thread earlier and reading some of the stuff being thrown at maid franky , he's a good batsman.
Reckon they did him a favour though by banning him .
 
webcraft said:
Dog, I have taken your advice and have carefully collated the rantings of the Vicar et al and put them in a folder marked 'Retirement Fund' :cool:- W
Click to expand...
Care to expand on that?
I do like a good court battle.
I suggest that if you are worried about your retirement prospects you don't rely on a fantasy of sueing some mythical character for whatever but consult with a Financial Adviser and start saving into one of those pension thingeys which people have.
What does the state give people nowadays ? $90 a week ? Wouldn't even keep me in cubans and bolly ! Get saving !
:cool::D
 
TheCrimsonVicar said:
Care to expand on that?
I do like a good court battle.
I suggest that if you are worried about your retirement prospects you don't rely on a fantasy of sueing some mythical character for whatever but consult with a Financial Adviser and start saving into one of those pension thingeys which people have.
What does the state give people nowadays ? $90 a week ? Wouldn't even keep me in cubans and bolly ! Get saving !
:cool::D
Click to expand...

I took you off ignore for a minute to see if you were making a valid contribution to this thread, but I see that as usual you have only posted to have a go at me in response to a bit of light hearted humour miles back up the thread. What a waste of space you and your pathetic personal vendetta are on this forum - why don't you trot off to a caravanning site and bother someone who gives a ****.

You are now back on ignore, so I will sadly be unable to read your reply.

- W
 
Last edited:
webcraft said:
have only posted to have a go at me ....you and your pathetic personal vendetta - W
Click to expand...

Apologies Webby; I see no evidence of the above in my light-hearted response to your lighthearted post.
However, I shall, in future, for the sake of peace, endeavour not to respond to your posts which mention me. Fair nuff?
Quid pro quo?
:)
 
Major Catastrophe said:
I'm the who is confused now. MadFrankie is not being accused of anything except posting personal details, not of iffy data, as far as I know. He has repeated it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Whatever his transgression, I am sure he has reinstated/reincarnated himself.

Come on Frankie, give us a sign that you are still here.
 
Yakker

Yakker ??? Isn't that a type of Russian training aircraft ?

If he's got any legal knowledge Maid Frankly would never even attempt to get back on these threads.
He'll probably be consulting a lawyer about actioning an UNFAIR DISMISSAL court action and if he is "MAD" then thats a separate DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION case .:p
I am not saying he is Mad or suggesting that he is either just for the record .
 
Last edited:
To show solidarity to comrade MadFranky I went on the SBPS blog and put some thoughts and veiws on there.
I also mentioned the YBW site as an aside on the off chance ST44 would surface and moan , no luck yet but heres to hoping.

Now all we gotta do is get organised and get as many unfounded, unproven facts in the Dorset papers as possible, Or we could use an unfare advantage and use real facts and quantifiable statistics and surveys to back up the fact(as stated by SHT) that things are in fact improving and dont need a thing doing to them for things to continue to improve.

Mark
 
All quiet on the Studland Front?

Its all gone quiet hasn't it ?
Even looking on the Studland Bay Preservation Association Blogspot the conservation conversation has come to an abrupt stop .
Whats happened to the Seahorse Guys ? Have they been blocked/banned from these websites or has someones lawyer caught up with them ?
I think on the Studland blog someone has seen divers there over the last couple of days so perhaps they are busy with another survey.
 
jhr said:
I'll be interested to see what Dan says in reply but I don't think it's possible for you to sign away IPC's responsibility for what you post on here, in the same way that you can't avoid your H&S responsibilities as skipper of a yacht by getting your sailing mates to sign a disclaimer when they crew for you...

British libel laws are the envy of litigious individuals everywhere, to the extent that there is the concept of "libel tourism", whereby a rich American or other foreign national can sue a US author in the British courts, even if the book wasn't published in the UK and they don't live here, on the grounds that it nevertheless might be available over here. The damages awarded can be much bigger than those in the US - which is why they do it of course ;)
Click to expand...

Dans gone to ground or possibly he could be in consultation with the firms lawyers to see if he can get turkeys to vote for Christmas?;)
Or he could have been called away to set up another one of those crucial fender sock product tests,anyway.I can't see why we could'nt just sign a disclaimer.Microsoft & other software Companies make you do that before you can use their products don't they & there is age disclaimers before you can get into certain dodgy sites.(Not that I am suggesting for one minute that anyone here would do such a thing) & I also know of other sites where the forums are much more lively than here & anything seems to go......
Maybe Dans been called away to be nominated seahorse man of the year:D
 
The internet is wacked out in a lot of places....

As all here know, the US is a mad house for lawyers... and justifiably so has the terrible reputation for lawsuits that do not plague many places. A lot of things have worked to the "good" in the US situation - but a lot more have worked out bad.... Innovation has been substantially baffled here....

At the end of the day, if there are X number of US lawyers, then they will have to bill Y number of hours - in order to pay for the rent, utilities, and a "meager" salary (as most make). Expenses are high - and have to be paid... so a LOT of lawsuits or legal actions occur....

But.. that said.... the word from a lot of "knowing" folks is that if you have an "Internet Defamation" issue, then it is off to London you go.... If the two parties are BOTH in the US, then London is still the attractive place to fight it out.....

So caution in Board operations here - well.... the forum here does not make the rules and must be overtly cautious.

In Texas, there is a simple rule on this... "the TRUTH is a defense against any defamation case"... sometimes hard to quantify, but that is not the case in a lot of places. It is quite possible that ca ase with both parties in Texas will be going to London to "duke it out".

We here, I "think" don't make these rules....

---jerry
 
Like you said the truth is a defense against any defamation case & that is why I think the seahorse trust should be confronted head on......I think they are committing fraud & people in this forum have proved it.
It is a sad day for British Justice.
 
kristifercolumnbus said:
Like you said the truth is a defense against any defamation case
Click to expand...

Actually that is simply NOT true...

If you publish something which lowers the reputation of a individual in the eyes of a reasonable man (Ie; defames that individual..) and you do this with malice then even if the information that you published is the truth... in the UK it is still a defamation and actionable.

So motivation is crucial... material, truthfull or not, that is published with malice, that defames a individual, is actionable.
 
Just so....

It's malice part...

Some part of the "Green Movement" has been perfectly happy to lie and deceive - over the past 30" years - if it advances the "cause".

A good many of those who are progressive in green issues are having to deal with this problem. When you throw in the "Malice" piece of the "litigation" element - then it is a problem in confronting purposeful deception.

Good science - with careful and reasonable research - is significantly cheapened and damaged by shoddy and often "made up" public stances by perhaps well meaning people who knowingly or intentionally lie.

We have this problem in the US. For sure it's in the UK and elsewhere. With potentially hundreds of billions of Euros involved in the financial aspect, it's no wonder that such outright charlatanry is occurring.

Raising your head up and being forthright about this stuff... well MF sure found out what can happen... and it is happening on a much larger scale.

So it appears that the "truth" is a defense against libel - but not against litigation...

--jr
 
Studland Bay Users Sue ?

If certain personages are claiming on TV and in the media that people on boats are anchoring in the bay and causing damage to the seagrass etc and it is found not to be the case then could these boaters sue these personages for degrading their reputation ?
As for Mad Frankie , well he could well be Italian with a name like that so if someone wakes up one morning with a Seahorse's head in their bed then you'll know what Island he's from ! lol :D
Just for the record I'm not saying he is Italian or connected with the Mafia or would ever do such a terrible thing .I love Pasta, Pizza and Italy !
 
photodog said:
Actually that is simply NOT true...

If you publish something which lowers the reputation of a individual in the eyes of a reasonable man (Ie; defames that individual..) and you do this with malice then even if the information that you published is the truth... in the UK it is still a defamation and actionable.
Click to expand...

Can you produce a citation for that? I've been looking, and every source I can find says that justification is a defence to defamation except in one very precise case: a true statement about a candidate in an election which was not known to be true at the time it was made can still be defamatory.

I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see a proper reference.
 
I think you have to differentiate...

Conviction is one thing... That means a lot of court expense to fight it out....

Grounds for filing an action - that is the problem...

Say "hypothetically" that you say "something" bad about me... Say if my mom did, in fact dress me funny - and I am not the most handsome in the world... say you put that on an the internet posting. SO this might be perfectly true..........

But I still might have grounds to file an " action" based on you defaming my good character.... even though, keep in mind, it is still true.

That means that there is a long, protracted Court Action - and a LOT OF EXPENSE involved - even though it was absolutely true... If I am an attorney, then my costs are low... if you had to hire a group of attorneys - then your cost are very, very high.

It is the cost of action that is the problem. Even if you are well within bounds of reality - the threat of an action is a very intimidating thing. If you are in a company, then you DO NOT want your name associated with possibly getting the company into an expensive lawsuit.

So it's a problem.. It results in a lot of Bad Quackery NOT GETTING CHALLENGED like it should.

We don't make these rules - they are wacky... so you might wonder who does and more interestingly who makes money off of it.

** just my opinion, mind you..... **

--jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Y
VHF aerial pushpit mounted
Replies
15
Views
489
RunAgroundHard
RunAgroundHard
R
My boat trip hopefully in May Around Scotland
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
2K
RobBradley
R
lustyd
VHF course help
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
2K
billskip
billskip

Share this page

Top