it would appear that under UK law i have a case for libel here against Vod which may also include the forum operator/s. i will look up/enquire about laws internationally as well, however, under UK law and as i am already knee deep in another court case against a major government organisation (the western health and social care trust) at present which is progressing its way up to the high court and if needs be the european court of human rights i can simply inquire about a libel case against Vod/the forum operators at my next solicitors appointment and will do so unless the defamatory accusations against me are removed. im sure a little libel case will be a walk in the park compared to challenging a governmental organisation of malpractice, incompetence, discrimination and a host of other things.
Libel and Slander
If the publication is in a permanent form (for example in a book, magazine or film), then the defamation is libel. It is slander if the publication is in a transient form (speech). Signs, gestures, photographs, pictures, statues, cartoons etc. can also give rise to a claim for defamation, but the most obvious types of defamatory statements are written or spoken words.
The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim. In libel claims, the claimant does not have to prove that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the publication. In contrast, in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander.
For example, if the spoken words accuse the claimant of committing a crime; of having a contagious disease; of being unfit for his or her office, business or profession; or if the communication is an attack of the credit of trades people; or an accusation of being unchaste or adulterous against a woman or girl. In these cases damage is presumed and need not be proved.
Meaning of Defamation
There is no single comprehensive definition of what is defamatory. Various suggestions have been made before the courts, including any material which:
*Is to a person’s discredit.
*Tends to lower him or her in the estimation of others.
*Causes him or her to be shunned or avoided.
*Causes him or her to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
all of the four meanings of defamation above apply to me here, furthermore:
Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, the protection of the reputation of others is a legitimate ground for restricting the right to freedom of expression. Libel and slander are legal claims that protect an individual’s reputation against defamation. An individual is defamed when a person publishes to a third party words or matter containing an untrue imputation against his or her reputation.
regarding my momentary acts of written abuse to Vod (which i have since removed):
A statement that amounts to an insult or is mere vulgar abuse is not defamatory. This is because the words do not convey a defamatory meaning to those who heard them (simple abuse is unlikely to cause real damage to a reputation).
furthermore by some of his accusations in the 3 threads in the original post above i may have grounds for both true and false innuendo against him:
False Innuendo: An alternative meaning which the ordinary, reasonable person who can read between the lines would infer from the words is known as the ‘false innuendo’ meaning.
True Innuendo: True innuendo arises when words that appear to be innocent to some people appear as defamatory to others because they possess special knowledge or extra information (for example, reading about someone getting married wouldn’t seem damaging to their reputation - unless you knew that they were already married!).
i also have grounds to for him for publication, also publication covers the forum operators due to connection by allowing this to happen:
Publication
The words complained of must have been published by the person sued to a third party. Publication includes any means of communication even if only to one other person. Due to the breadth of the term publication, many individuals with only a slight connection to the work can find themselves ensnared in defamation proceedings.
furthermore with regards to the forum operators not handling this:
The High Court has held for the purposes of the Defamation Act 1996 that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) which transmits a posting from its news server to subscribers who want to use it, is not the publisher of the posting, although at common law it would be considered to be. However, the court held that because the ISP had not removed the offending material as soon as it was notified of its existence, it had not acted reasonably and the defence under the Defamation Act 1996 was not available.
this thread is my notification of this defamatory comment from Vod so from here forth the forum operators are also held rpartly responsible if nothing is done now. mods/admin/vod himself need to sort this out
NOW as i am not playing around here. all i want is to be left alone and allowed use the forum without being dafamed/slandered and to be able to gain or lose trust through any transactions i partake in on the forum which is completely fair.. if i scam someone then by all means shout it from the rooftops but as i have not and as the only rep i have had thus far is positive there are no grounds for his accusations against me.
EDIT: furthermore, i have saved a copy of all of Vods comments to me in threads as well as the negative rep. i have also saved a copy of this thread should forum operators decide to magicaly make it disappear.
THE ONLY WAY OUT IS TO REMOVE VODS DEFAMATORY MISINFORMATION AND ENSURE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
