Lon

Just Taylor proclaimed:

> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
> wrote:
>
>
>>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant
>>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
>>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to
>>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused damage.
>>I didn't realise this.
>
>
> One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
> for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
> there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
> lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
> better.
>

Yeah, except that Britain is the first country where some jackass
filed, and won, the world's first newsgroup posting sourced libel
suit. The filer isn't particularly welcome in the country that was
the original subject matter in the postings.

Lon

I do hope that term translates into something involving wet rawhide
and long pig sourced rocky mountain oysters.


Dave Milne proclaimed:

> Indeed. Also, frivolous lawsuits result in the prosecution lawyer getting
> bollocked.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Just Taylor" <taylor@wilhelp.com> wrote in message
> news:4356ed57.355497093@wilhelp.com...
>
>>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the
>
> defendant
>
>>>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
>>>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff
>
> to
>
>>>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused
>
> damage.
>
>>>I didn't realise this.
>>
>>One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
>>for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
>>there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
>>lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
>>better.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Taylor
>>
>>'03 Audi S6 Avant
>>'05 Mazda6 Wagon GT
>>'98 Jeep Cherokee Sport
>
>
>

Lon

I do hope that term translates into something involving wet rawhide
and long pig sourced rocky mountain oysters.


Dave Milne proclaimed:

> Indeed. Also, frivolous lawsuits result in the prosecution lawyer getting
> bollocked.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Just Taylor" <taylor@wilhelp.com> wrote in message
> news:4356ed57.355497093@wilhelp.com...
>
>>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the
>
> defendant
>
>>>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
>>>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff
>
> to
>
>>>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused
>
> damage.
>
>>>I didn't realise this.
>>
>>One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
>>for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
>>there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
>>lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
>>better.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Taylor
>>
>>'03 Audi S6 Avant
>>'05 Mazda6 Wagon GT
>>'98 Jeep Cherokee Sport
>
>
>

Lon

I do hope that term translates into something involving wet rawhide
and long pig sourced rocky mountain oysters.


Dave Milne proclaimed:

> Indeed. Also, frivolous lawsuits result in the prosecution lawyer getting
> bollocked.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
>
> "Just Taylor" <taylor@wilhelp.com> wrote in message
> news:4356ed57.355497093@wilhelp.com...
>
>>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the
>
> defendant
>
>>>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
>>>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff
>
> to
>
>>>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused
>
> damage.
>
>>>I didn't realise this.
>>
>>One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
>>for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
>>there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
>>lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
>>better.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Taylor
>>
>>'03 Audi S6 Avant
>>'05 Mazda6 Wagon GT
>>'98 Jeep Cherokee Sport
>
>
>

Dave Milne

I believe we are moving to treat the Internet as more akin to a telephone
line than a published document, while you are moving in that direction. In
any case, libel is often accounted for by a public apology and a small fine.

On the topic of your legal system, I liked the story of some teenage girls
in Pheonix about 6 months ago who baked some cookies for her neighbours and
left them on their doorstep. Whereas most were pleasantly surprised, one
neighbour claimed she was so shocked she thought she was having a heart
attack and successfully sued the girl for $1000. Unbelievable. You are the
most litigious nation in the world.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:We6dnUd0yN2RV9DeRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Just Taylor proclaimed:
>
> > On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the
defendant
> >>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
> >>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff
to
> >>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused
damage.
> >>I didn't realise this.
> >
> >
> > One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
> > for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
> > there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
> > lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
> > better.
> >
>
> Yeah, except that Britain is the first country where some jackass
> filed, and won, the world's first newsgroup posting sourced libel
> suit. The filer isn't particularly welcome in the country that was
> the original subject matter in the postings.

Dave Milne

I believe we are moving to treat the Internet as more akin to a telephone
line than a published document, while you are moving in that direction. In
any case, libel is often accounted for by a public apology and a small fine.

On the topic of your legal system, I liked the story of some teenage girls
in Pheonix about 6 months ago who baked some cookies for her neighbours and
left them on their doorstep. Whereas most were pleasantly surprised, one
neighbour claimed she was so shocked she thought she was having a heart
attack and successfully sued the girl for $1000. Unbelievable. You are the
most litigious nation in the world.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:We6dnUd0yN2RV9DeRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Just Taylor proclaimed:
>
> > On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the
defendant
> >>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
> >>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff
to
> >>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused
damage.
> >>I didn't realise this.
> >
> >
> > One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
> > for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
> > there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
> > lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
> > better.
> >
>
> Yeah, except that Britain is the first country where some jackass
> filed, and won, the world's first newsgroup posting sourced libel
> suit. The filer isn't particularly welcome in the country that was
> the original subject matter in the postings.

Dave Milne

I believe we are moving to treat the Internet as more akin to a telephone
line than a published document, while you are moving in that direction. In
any case, libel is often accounted for by a public apology and a small fine.

On the topic of your legal system, I liked the story of some teenage girls
in Pheonix about 6 months ago who baked some cookies for her neighbours and
left them on their doorstep. Whereas most were pleasantly surprised, one
neighbour claimed she was so shocked she thought she was having a heart
attack and successfully sued the girl for $1000. Unbelievable. You are the
most litigious nation in the world.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:We6dnUd0yN2RV9DeRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> Just Taylor proclaimed:
>
> > On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the
defendant
> >>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
> >>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff
to
> >>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused
damage.
> >>I didn't realise this.
> >
> >
> > One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
> > for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
> > there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
> > lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
> > better.
> >
>
> Yeah, except that Britain is the first country where some jackass
> filed, and won, the world's first newsgroup posting sourced libel
> suit. The filer isn't particularly welcome in the country that was
> the original subject matter in the postings.

Just Taylor

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:44:28 -0700, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote:

>Just Taylor proclaimed:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant
>>>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
>>>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to
>>>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused damage.
>>>I didn't realise this.
>>
>>
>> One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
>> for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
>> there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
>> lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
>> better.
>>
>
> Yeah, except that Britain is the first country where some jackass
> filed, and won, the world's first newsgroup posting sourced libel
> suit. The filer isn't particularly welcome in the country that was
> the original subject matter in the postings.

Not to mention how the British also allowed Roman Polanski, who is
wanted by the US to sue an American company while hiding behind a
videophone in France.... :)

--
Taylor

'03 Audi S6 Avant
'05 Mazda6 Wagon GT
'98 Jeep Cherokee Sport

Just Taylor

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:44:28 -0700, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote:

>Just Taylor proclaimed:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant
>>>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
>>>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to
>>>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused damage.
>>>I didn't realise this.
>>
>>
>> One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
>> for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
>> there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
>> lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
>> better.
>>
>
> Yeah, except that Britain is the first country where some jackass
> filed, and won, the world's first newsgroup posting sourced libel
> suit. The filer isn't particularly welcome in the country that was
> the original subject matter in the postings.

Not to mention how the British also allowed Roman Polanski, who is
wanted by the US to sue an American company while hiding behind a
videophone in France.... :)

--
Taylor

'03 Audi S6 Avant
'05 Mazda6 Wagon GT
'98 Jeep Cherokee Sport

Just Taylor

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:44:28 -0700, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote:

>Just Taylor proclaimed:
>
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 08:12:36 GMT, "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant
>>>must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of
>>>American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to
>>>show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused damage.
>>>I didn't realise this.
>>
>>
>> One thing that works well for the British though is the loser must pay
>> for all the costs... so there is not as much frivolous lawsuits over
>> there as there are here. If we could adopt that system many scumbag
>> lawyers would be out of business and perhaps our court system would work
>> better.
>>
>
> Yeah, except that Britain is the first country where some jackass
> filed, and won, the world's first newsgroup posting sourced libel
> suit. The filer isn't particularly welcome in the country that was
> the original subject matter in the postings.

Not to mention how the British also allowed Roman Polanski, who is
wanted by the US to sue an American company while hiding behind a
videophone in France.... :)

--
Taylor

'03 Audi S6 Avant
'05 Mazda6 Wagon GT
'98 Jeep Cherokee Sport