Hi guys,
>
>Just thought you might be interested in the fact that Tubman contacted
>Mongoose Hall today by email in a not too subtle attempt to get me in
>trouble, based on a response I made to his pet Mike Hunt yesterday. >
>For reasons that will rapidly become apparent I am unable to disclose the
>contents of this email. However, I have been advised that what I have
>chosen to say in this post is not prejudicial.
>
>Apart from the fact that once Matthew showed me the mail we all had a damned
>good laugh at how pathetically sad Jimi Tubman is, the major thing I have
>been told to point out is the following.
>
>At some points in the past I have alluded to the fact that as a policeman I
>may have belted one yob or other without being aware of their ages, nor
>indeed caring. I should point out that this was of course all hot air by me
>and without substance. Think of it as showing off. There is, needless to
>say, no physical evidence of any such incident taking place, and I can only
>humbly apologise for trying to make myself seem much more than I really am. >
>It also ought to be pointed out that at no time have charges of child sex
>abuse ever been levelled at me, not even to the slightest degree. >
>What does all this actually mean? Obviously at this stage I cannot say, but
>allegations made to my employer are being looked into.
>
>I should further point out that in this instance I am acting purely as an
>individual and that Mongoose Publishing is in no way involved, despite the
>best attempts of Tubman.
>
>No doubt he will repeat his assertion that he only contacted Mongoose
>because he does not have an email address for me and as such could not
>contact me in any other way. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions
>as to the spurious, if not ridiculous, nature of this assertion, being as it
>is fairly common knowledge that a mail to this very NG would accomplish any
>message sending required.
>
>I am allowed to say that I now have the utmost contempt for Tubman, who, in
>my opinion, has behaved in an incredibly contemptible way. To think I once
>regarded this man as a friend now appals me.
>
>The fact that he provided his name and address in the email having
>interestingly jumped to the conclusion that when telling 'Mike Hunt' that I
>would 'go for his throat' if he 'screwed me once more' reveals a great deal,
>being as he was not mentioned by name in the offending post. Anybody who
>immediately assumed from that post that I was offering threats of physical
>violence against Tubman should contact him and offer their services as
>potential witnesses.
>
>That said, the provision of a postal address has been of benefit for future
>correspondence.
>
>As of this moment I am not in a position to respond to either Jimi Tubman
>nor his creature, 'Mike Hunt'. I have to tell you all that this is by no
>means a tragedy for me.
>
>Finally, I am obliged to point out that any libellous or defamatory
>allegations made against me will be met with serious repercussions.
finally