John Bunt struggles to pay off his debts

Nice drill press. If I was in the UK I would buy it and I know three people in my knife makers club who would buy it.

How do you know John Bunt hasn't paid his bills, or that the ISPs haven't paid him for establishing a precedent in their favour?

Hoi Taylor. Get your tongue out. Licking bunts arse is hancoxs job!

Which precedent is that?

On or around Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:18:30 +0000, Yet Another Fred enlightened us thusly:

spamming git, sod off.

That an ISP can not be held responsible as a 'publisher' for its paying members who print libellous remarks even if false.

Hope all's well for you and yours in canuckia, Gordy has pretty much screwed the pooch here so the only way for pubs with accomodation to turn a profit is to convert to bail hostels.

Yes Canada is a better place to live. I just wish the pound had a better exchange rate against the Canadian dollar! I still have some money in the UK.

so YOU'RE the one......

mandy and gordy would like to borrow it.

Wow....selling for £2.20 now....he's gonna make a killing :-)

Jon~

Just make sure that bunt doesn't get his hands on it. You'll never see it again.

I'm sorry but john bunt can't answer the telephone right now. He's far too busy spanking little girls bums and going 'Phwooooar!' depending on how fast 12 year olds mature.

A libellous remark is always false, it cannot be libel if it is true.

As far as ISP's being held responsible for publishing material, anybody with good knowledge of the law knows that they still can be held liable.

"I am also prepared to hold as a matter of law that an ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the internet cannot be deemed to be a publisher at common law." [Most people with some knowledgeof law already knew this]

"In determining responsibility for publication in the context of the law of defamation, it seems to me to be important to focus on what the person did, or failed to do, in the chain of communication. It is clear that the state of a defendant's knowledge can be an important factor. If a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue."

Note the sentence, "If a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue."

A I stated at the time;

If Bunt had put the ISP's 'on notice', he probably would have won his case, the fact is he failed to follow official procedure.

It seems the PPA agree with me;

"However, if the ISP is put on notice, then they will have the requisite actual knowledge and thus be liable. In the words of the court: "if a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue."

£45.00. It seems to be paying slightly better than bunts attempts to defraud people.

Just another £36955.00 to go now and he can pay his legal debts off. Don't bank on it though. Bunt has a history of welching and knocking people just like his thieving father.