Reported Post by Bellatrix

Bellatrix · 11-03-2008, 01:41 PM

Bellatrix has reported a post.

Reason:

Quote:

This is libel and the forum itself would be liable for damages under the 1996 defamation act.

Post: At Last UKIP Fighting Reform Treaty - Bristol 5 April 08
Forum: UKIP General Issues
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: T K Hipperdoodly
Original Content:

Quote:

I like the sound of this, but, one has to ask, why didn't Nigel do something on these lines six months ago?

It was a UKIP member who started the Parish Polls, and our guys idown n the Wet Country have been getting on with calling for a referendum in their own patch. Wherever there has been a cross-party referendum campaign or rally, UKIP has been there in force, but why have we not been in the forefront from day one?

I guess NF has had other things on his mind - like paying his wife, trying to find a way for his son to be paid by someone, and now, of course, there is the question of OLAF to give him food or thought. Maybe he has forgotten that he was elected as an MEP to lead the fight against the EU, rather than working out ways of milking the system for his own & his family's benefit.

We did much better under RK. Good that he is putting this event on. At least here is one senior figure in the party who has got his priorities right.

chikrodah · 11-03-2008, 01:56 PM

I presume you're complaining about the statement about NF's son? The other items are already in the public domain; IMHO, the fact that there appears to have been no apology, retraction or offer to make amends from the ST relating to their article about NF allegedly paying his son might be deemed to weaken your case.

Can NF really afford to go to court on an issue where the defendant would be able to ask for disclosure of evidence related to the employment of his son, his expenses, his employment of his wife or other family members?

Or is it possible that the poster, knowing the likely reaction, chose their words deliberately to provoke this response?

Alex McKee · 13-03-2008, 12:43 PM

The poster is simply repeating something which has been published in a national newspaper.

13-03-2008, 12:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,539	The poster is simply repeating something which has been published in a national newspaper. __________________ Anything I post on this website is my personal opinion and not necessarily my professional opinion (unless stated as such) nor is an opinion necessarily shared by any committee or group I am affiliated with. Users on Ignore list: None. Please click one of these once a day: http://gloucesterr.myminicity.com/tra

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-03-2008, 01:56 PM	#2 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,125	I presume you're complaining about the statement about NF's son? The other items are already in the public domain; IMHO, the fact that there appears to have been no apology, retraction or offer to make amends from the ST relating to their article about NF allegedly paying his son might be deemed to weaken your case. Can NF really afford to go to court on an issue where the defendant would be able to ask for disclosure of evidence related to the employment of his son, his expenses, his employment of his wife or other family members? Or is it possible that the poster, knowing the likely reaction, chose their words deliberately to provoke this response?