How to sue in respect of abusive comments on the Internet

UK Human Rights Blog

Internet-TrollThe Bussey Law Firm PC & Anor v Page [2015] EWHC 563 (QB) – read judgment

The facts of this case are simple. A defamatory comment was posted on the claimant’s Google maps directional page, implying that he was a “loser” as a lawyer and that his firm lost “80%” of cases brought to them. The defendant claimed that someone must have hacked in to his own Google account to put up the post.

There were jurisdictional complications in that the firm is situated in Colarado but these need not concern us here as Sir David Eady, sitting as a High Court judge, allowed the trial to go ahead in England. The real question was  why any third party would have gone to the trouble of hacking into the defendant’s Google account in order to post the offending review; if the objective were merely to hide the hacker’s identity from the…

View original post 590 more words

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to How to sue in respect of abusive comments on the Internet

  1. Anonymous says:

    In that case. Im worth millions

  2. Ismail Abdulhai Bhamjee says:

    PLEASE SEE THE STATUTORY INSTRUMENT 2015 NO 596,
    THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015 WHICH DOES COME INTO FORCE FROM THE 15TH APRIL 2015, WHILST THE DEVELOPMENT WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT BEFORE CERTAIN DATE IN MARCH 1999 is not affected.

    SO FOR WHAT GROUNDS AND REASONS DOES OTHER LAWYERS-BARRISTERS AND PERSONS IN OFFICIAL CAPACITY ACCUSES ME AS BEING A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT- IT IS NOT ME WHO IS THE VEXATIOUS LITIGANT BUT IT IS THE TREASURY SOLICITORS, AND THE BAR COUNCIL, BAR STANDARDS BOARD WHO ARE MORE VEXATIOUS, AS THEY ARE ALSO BENEFITING FROM THE PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL CONDUCT BY NON-DISCLOSURE AND SILENT FRAUD.

    I NEED TO SEEK FUNDING FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO BRING PERMISSION OF THE HIGH COURT TO BRING CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE BAR STANDARDS BOARD AND THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER’S OFFICERS.

    YOURS FAITHFULLY

    ISMAIL ABDULHAI BHAMJEE

  3. Drifloud says:

    Strength to you Sabine for your courage & determination. We stand with you.
    RE: JUDGE PAUFFLEY JUDGEMENT

    107. It is a curious fact that prior to the launch of these proceedings, no police officer had listened to the audio recording made by Jean Clement Yaohirou or watched the film clips of the children. DI Cannon made inquiries at my request to discover that DC Rogers, the member of his team who received the film clips and the audio recording from Mr Yaohirou, had sent them to a property store in Chingford. The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews.
    108. I say no more at this stage than that the police and social services inquiry could have taken an entirely different course if attention had been given to those recordings. At the very least, the questions asked of P and Q at interview would have been directed towards other areas of interest.

    In para.107, Judge Pauffley is unequivocally stating that the home videos in which the children give detailed descriptions of their attackers’ private parts (with the warts, tattoos spots, etc.) i.e. evidence enabling the police to positively identify the perpetrators, were NOT seen by the police. The information in these recordings(the “Distinguishing Marks” videos and the one with the detailed drawings) DID NOT form part of the police interviews, or the overall investigation. DC Rogers was either staggeringly ignorant of how important this video evidence was to the investigation, or he/she was COMPLETELY AWARE of its significance. Either way, he/she effectively concealed evidence crucial to a very serious crime investigation. Concealing evidence is a very serious crime – and ignorance of the law is no defence, especially in the case of a police officer. Was DC Rogers acting on his/her own, or was he/she ordered to conceal this evidence? And why was DI Cannon happy to leave these recordings in storage? Was he unaware that a member of his team was concealing evidence? I think Judge Pauffley points to the answers in the final sentence of para 107: The focus would appear to have been upon arranging almost immediate ABE interviews. The intention then, it appears, was to achieve BEST evidence, not just simple straightforward evidence. BEST evidence? What does that mean? It’s like saying the BEST fact, or the BEST truth. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence! It’s obvious that such damning evidence, offering the opportunity to establish irrefutable proof of the identification of the attackers, is not the BEST evidence for some, namely the perpetrators or anyone involved in these crimes.
    Judge Pauffley is saying in para. 108, that if the “Distinguishing Marks” and “Drawings” videos had been available and not concealed, the police interviews of the children would have had to include questions regarding these distinguishing marks and the names of the individuals the children identified. Also, the investigating officers would have been compelled by law, to require those people named and physically identified by the children, to submit themselves for medical examination in order to be eliminated from the inquiry. As the very serious crime of concealing evidence in a rape and murder investigation has been committed by DC Rogers – be it alone, under the instruction of, or in collusion with others – this investigation CANNOT lawfully be closed. Judge Pauffley has put it down in black and white, so the police are no longer unaware of the existence of the “Distinguishing Marks”and “Drawings” videos. Therefore, the police investigation can continue and those people named and physically identified by the children can come forward to undergo a medical examination to clear themselves.
    In short, Judge Pauffley has clearly stated in para.107 and 108 that the investigation would have taken a very different course if the concealed recordings had been made available to police. Judge Pauffley appears to imply that now it’s too late to consider the most damning evidence(apart from the medical evidence)of this case. NOT SO! DC Rogers’ crime of concealing crucial evidence is the crux of this ATTEMPTED cover-up – it is NOT a fait accompli cover-up because it is exposed, and the attempt has not been successful. To believe we’re looking at an ABCO(Achieving Best Cover Up)here is wishful thinking on their part, and merely what they want us to believe. All good people, and the law, reject this.
    Any attempt at closing this investigation might well be considered legal, but it most certainly is not lawful.
    Separating a loving mother from her children can also be considered legal, but it most certainly is not lawful.
    There is overlap with what is legal and what is lawful in some instances(just to confuse us!), but mostly what is legal has nothing whatsoever to do with what is lawful.
    “Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Martin Luther King

    Stay strong Ella and Abe, Gabriel and Alisa. All the millions of good people who know of your plight, and all the billions of good people who are coming to know of it, support you with all their hearts.

    Drifloud & friends

    • Would you be willing to turn your observations into a ‘witness statement’, Drifoud, or should I just copy and paste on behalf of use ‘evil and foolish’ people?

      • Drifloud says:

        If turning it into a witness statement might help in anyway, yes – all for it. How does one go about it?
        Drifloud

    • Sue says:

      Pauffley is referring to the videos made by the brother in law, videos which HAVE NOT been seen by anyone other than the investigating team and the judge. She is saying that had these videos been seen by the interviewing officer instead of being put into storage the case would have been dismissed immediately as nonsense as there is obvious coaching and coercion from draper and christie in these videos which neither you, nor ms mcneill have even seen. The rest of your comment is consequently irrelevant as is sabine’s reply.

  4. Drifloud says:

    But can I also be counted among “the evil and foolish” please? I feel more comfortable with that crowd.
    Drifloud

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s