Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 18 2009, 11:43 AM GMTIf they don't, but have a certain suspect, Lee could take civil action and sue for libel.
Can you libel somebody in a private letter? I thought it had to be in the public domain, ie., damage somebody's reputation. Although I know bugger all about the subject, so feel free to ignore this post.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ November 18 2009, 11:02 AM GMTOnly because you're scared of me.
Jolalanta was the only BCGer to ever scare me. 
Quote: chipolata @ November 18 2009, 11:46 AM GMTCan you libel somebody in a private letter? I thought it had to be in the public domain, ie., damage somebody's reputation. Although I know bugger all about the subject, so feel free to ignore this post.
Jolalanta was the only BCGer to ever scare me.
Slander/Libel? Could this be classed as public, as it was sent to a company?
*Looks up Jolalanta.*
Lee does have an action in libel against the sender of the letter but damages would be relatively small given that relatively few people saw the libellous material.
The libellous material was affixed to the outside of the envelope thus increasing the number of people likely to read it but, even so, that number would be relatively small and the damage to Lee's reputation relatively slight.
All in all, it wouldn't be worth his while to sue.
Quote: chipolata @ November 18 2009, 10:44 AM GMTI'm guessing that it was mention of the police before that has lead to the "It was just a joke" reaction. And it does seem a clear cut case of harrassment.
That.
Quote: Roodeye @ November 18 2009, 12:13 PM GMTLee does have an action in libel against the sender of the letter but damages would be relatively small given that relatively few people saw the libellous material.
The libellous material was affixed to the outside of the envelope thus increasing the number of people likely to read it but, even so, that number would be relatively small and the damage to Lee's reputation relatively slight.
All in all, it wouldn't be worth his while to sue.
It might be worth his while to find out who it was though. If it were me, I'd be interested in knowing that more than trying to get money out of them.
Quote: Lee Henman @ November 18 2009, 10:29 AM GMTSo it would seem the author is almost definitely a member of the BSG forums, (or a regular reader perhaps) as I didn't publish the original letter anywhere else.
I guess its inevitable they're going to have found this thread... but I think it worth you trying to work out how they knew of your connection with that production company, as I doubt you posted that information on here?
Quote: Lee Henman @ November 18 2009, 10:29 AM GMTObviously while I hope that's the end of all this, I'll still be reducing my online presence and so won't be posting here (or anywhere else) for the forseeable future.
That's a shame - as it sort of means they've "won" a small victory over you. Hopefully after some cooling off time you can come back on the internet! Please do!
Quote: Roodeye @ November 18 2009, 12:13 PM GMTLee does have an action in libel against the sender of the letter but damages would be relatively small given that relatively few people saw the libellous material.
The libellous material was affixed to the outside of the envelope thus increasing the number of people likely to read it but, even so, that number would be relatively small and the damage to Lee's reputation relatively slight.
All in all, it wouldn't be worth his while to sue.
Would the sender understand the implications of it? He or she is obviously a deranged shit-for-brains.
Quote: Aaron @ November 18 2009, 4:25 PM GMTHe or she is obviously a deranged shit-for-brains.
So you reckon it is someone who posts on here then.
Quote: Aaron @ November 18 2009, 4:25 PM GMTHe or she is obviously a deranged shit-for-brains.
Is that a professional opinion? If not they could sue... for libel... 
Quote: KJSmyling @ November 18 2009, 4:30 PM GMTIs that a professional opinion? If not they could sue... for libel...
I've not identified anyone as being the culprit, so I doubt it.
Quote: Aaron @ November 18 2009, 4:25 PM GMTWould the sender understand the implications of it? He or she is obviously a deranged shit-for-brains.
A noble defence of GordyBs hand written notes.
Quote: Aaron @ November 18 2009, 4:31 PM GMTI've not identified anyone as being the culprit, so I doubt it.
But they're clearly a whack job and may figure it's worth revealing their indentity to prove they're not a mental.... or a PHD holding researcher...
Topical. Nice.
Quote: Aaron @ November 18 2009, 4:52 PM GMTTopical. Nice.
Like a teacher marking the pupil's homework...
Quote: Mark @ November 18 2009, 2:47 PM GMTThat's a shame - as it sort of means they've "won" a small victory over you. Hopefully after some cooling off time you can come back on the internet! Please do!
I suppose you can look at it like that. But really I just want to get back to work without all this crap niggling at me. I'm skint, my car's just died, my Mum is desperately-ill and I'm pretty bloody miserable to be honest. So I'm just taking one source of ire out of the equation.
Obviously I'll be keeping in touch with mates via email etc, but I think I've had it with forums now. But who knows? Thanks for the sentiment though.
