[WikiEN-l] Non-office OFFICE actions

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Non-office OFFICE actions
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Non-office OFFICE actions
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:17:55 +0100, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:

>No UK law against mention spent convictions. Otherwise tabloids would
>never be out of court. Foundation doesn't have any UK assets and there
>is not reason for any of the board memeber to enter the UK.

That is the crucial question, isn't it?  Without the text of the
complaint to OTRS we can't know whether the article was stated to be
biased or whether it was the apparently (but without legal advice not
definitely) baseless claim of protection under ROA.

If it was accuracy there is no reason not to start rebuilding from the
known verifiable facts.  Which, it has to be said, are mainly about
the criminal conviction.

Guy (JzG)
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

• Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Non-office OFFICE actions
• Next message: [WikiEN-l] Non-office OFFICE actions
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]