On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:57:18 +0100, "ken" www.surfbuad.co.uk wrote:

snip


Knowing myself and having gotten what I wanted to off my chest, I am now at
liberty to proceed. We have established IN LAW that no ISP or Service
Provider is ever going to be responsible for what their customers do,

You have established no such thing.

What has been re-affirmed (it had already *been* established, although
you wouldn't listen when told so) is that ISPs are only responsible
for material they carry after they have been notified of it, and will
only be held liable for libel if they do not take reasonably prompt
action in removing anything they are notified of.


ergo
no customer can now hide behind their ISP as an avenue of defence.

What on earth you mean by this, I just don't know.

Whether a customer can "hide behind" their ISP has nothing whatsoever
to do with whether the ISP is likely to be found liable for libel.



From here, having established that the customer cannot hide behind the ISP,
having gotten everything off my chest, having been done a huge favour by the
Courts in both being given leave to re-file while at the same time wiping
the table clean of the horribly convoluted and complex mess that 5EX90059
had evolved into, we are free to proceed anew, and handle things exactly the
same as in the earlier and simpler days of 5EX00597...

Simple, clear, concise, the bare bones only, and most importantly proceeding
in the correct order, e.g. denying your opponents the thing that they crave
the most, the public forum, before addressing the issue at hand.


All that makes sense, so why announce it here?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not dead. I'm electroencephelographically challenged.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom