[[User:Sussexman]] has been indef-blocked for legal threats following
a rather complex and nasty exchange in which he alluded to another
editor, [[User:Edchilvers]], that legal process would be served, and
such process duly was, but by a person not provably identical to
Sussexman.
He is asking for unblock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sussexman
The article in question is [[Gregory Lauder-Frost]]
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Lauder-Frost).. Unfortunately
most of the talk has now been deleted; looking at the deleted history
I can't see any reason why ed Chilvers should be singled out for this
treatment, but that is by the by.
Brad states that Lauder-Frost's solicitors have contacted the
Wikimedia Foundation.
The article was originally a blatant hagiography which included for a
long time a provable falsehood regarding the subject's criminal
record, stated in loaded terms:
Politically motivated, his employers (HM Government) then claimed
financial irregularities in January 1992 and this led to a
succession of charges against Lauder-Frost which were over a period
of eight months either dropped or amended as challenged. A
conviction on a reduced number of counts for theft was obtained in
November 1992 but because of the irregularities of the case (no
audited accounts) the judge, Mr.Justice Marr-Johnson, refused an
order for restititution. A successful appeal eventually came the
following year. A Civil case was then raised against him which also
failed.
The facts as reported in contemporaneous press reports were that he
was convicted of theft from his employers, a health authority, on
eight specimen charges totalling £8,700, and asked for numerous other
counts apparently totalling over £100,000 (according to testimony in
court) to be taken into consideration; he was jailed for two years;
his appeal was dismissed and he served his term in jail.
Sussexman and an anonymous editor claim that the UK's Rehabilitiation
Of Offenders Act makes it illegal to discuss this conviction. They
also claim that "convicium" applies, that is, that the case is being
nooised about in order to defame and damage the subject. No evidence
of intent to defame has been presented in the Talk pages that I can
see, but there is undoubtedly some determination to include all the
facts, regardless of how flattering they are, and to remove trivia
along the lines of "once sat near Margaret Thatcher".
At this point I would like to see the deleted Talk restored and moved
to an archive, leaving the existing Talk as-is, but I am not going to
do that without some discussion.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG