User talk:Edchilvers

License tagging for Image:Dunwichasruins.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dunwichasruins.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Report me if you like. For myself my friend I suggest you are in the wrong place. The last thing we want is for this site to become another 'myspace.com.' The bulk of this article is of absolutely no interest to anyone, it was clearly written mr Smith himself and I am sure that Wikipedia will back me 100%. I shall continue to correct it as I see fit.

Unpleasant comments

I have moved your comment on the Gregory Lauder-Frost Talk Page to it's proper position. Please do not place notices above the archive heading, and keep your postings in chronological order.

As someone who has made minor contributions to the article I think you are out of order. We need more articles like this of those on or previously on the British political scene. You state that it is a flattering article but I would answer it was simply factual and no more flattering than a whole host of biographical articles on Wikipedia. Maybe you are new? 86.137.204.101 09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a trawl of Google I have found who you are. I see you have some great argument ongoing with Michael Keith Smith but this should not be permitted to spill over here. We do not have guilt by association in Britain. Please keep your private and personal arguments off Wikipedia. I am reporting you for vandalism. 86.137.204.101 09:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too will complain about this twerp. 195.194.75.209 16:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so, I am confident that my objections will be upheld.

Somehow I don't think so. Your bias is so blatant. 195.194.75.209 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is yours. But at least I have justified my comments, you have made no attempts to justify yours.

Wrong. User:195.194 is right - we are supporting the article as it stands. Your deletions were a scandal and politically motivated. It was the subject of much controversy when it was first put up - mostly by a by a journalist, Robert Isherwood, and all the arguments you now raise were dealt with and the article greatly changed. You may not like people like Lauder-Frost, but so what? As for Churchill, there is plenty on him all over the place, all over the world, all, I should add, contentious. 86.129.77.169 17:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who, may I ask, is 'we?' Funny how your IP address shows that you have only been around since yesterday, pray tell me, how did you rise so quickly though the ranks? You are clearly an imposter. User:Edchilvers

You are becoming petty. It betrays your obvious youth (and immaturity?). I have been posting on Wikipedia for at least a year, but I invariable don't do it very often. It is not a Wiki requirement to be on-line every day. 86.129.77.169 17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Edchilvers was refering to the fact that your user contributions show you having your first edit on June 1st (contributions). Beyond that, I don't think calling someone's age and maturity into question is really an intelligent way to go here. IrishGuy 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given his silly accusation against me I thought it was fair comment. 86.129.77.169 04:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so. I took the use of the words 'we are supporting the article' to mean that you intended I assume that you were a Wikipedia moderator, which you clearly aren't. I dont think this was an unreasonable conclusion. User:Edchilvers

Vandalism

I have examined both your article complaints and your activities on the article pages of Gregory Lauder-Frost and Michael Keith Smith. I am happy that you fall well within the Wikipedia definition of a vandal. Sussexman 13:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size limit

The size limit of 32k has to to with a feature of Internet Explorer. It is not a limit on the size of articles, just a suggestion that, if convenient, it might be helpful to spit the article. Many many articles are much longer and that is Ok. There is no basis for whittling down the size of an article to get it under this artificial limit. Fred Bauder 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred The main problem with the Gregory Lauder Frost article is that, if you look at it, it contains details which in my opinion could only have been written by Mr Lauder Frost or his supporters. Indeed the conversation on the talk page after I had edited it down seems to confirm this. I was attacked as being a 'vandal,' a 'hateful far-left agitator,' a 'clown' and a 'moron' simply because I had tried to scale it down and make it more relevant to an outside audience. Indeed many of my attackers have admitted to knowing Mr Lauder Frost personally. There is no significance IMO, in knowing where Mr Lauder Frost went to dinner and with whom some 20 odd years ago, nor do we really need to know about every single letter he had published in a national newspaper. The article strikes me as being flattering and self serving and also contains glaring omissions concerning the more contraversial activities of Mr Lauder Frost. I have nothing against Mr Lauder Frost personally, nor do I deny him his right to be featured in an article on Wikipedia, I merely question the content of the piece and the activities of those on the talk forum who are clearly acting in his interests. User:Edchilvers

You have a clear obsession with Lauder-Frost and his article, no two ways about it. You cannot stop yourself from repeating yourself over and over again like a broken record. You seem incapable of understanding anything that has been said to you in response, even by a barrister and Fred Bauder, a lawyer. You need help. 81.131.114.186 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a rude responce if I may say so. I have no 'obsession' with Mr Lauder Frost. I dont deny him his right to a Wikipedia article and I wish him well. I merely consider it a little biased. The obsession with the article seems to be from people close to Mr Lauder Frost who have bombarded me with abuse simply because I edited down parts of the article which I considered irrelevant and difficult for an outside reader to understand. I have already said that I do not accept 'Sussexman's' credentials as a neutral source and, as Mr Bauder has only advised me on a general point concerning article size I await his responce to my other points with interest. User:Edchilvers

Every single one of your comments has been accordingly noted from these public forums. 81.131.13.57 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points answered

All your points have been examined and answered. It is disappointing that you are unable to accept them. Please indicate where you were called a 'clown' and a 'moron'. I cannot find these comments anywhere. You were not "attacked" as a vandal - you were called that because you vandalised articles. Thinking you have a good reason to do that is not really a good enough excuse to destroy the work of others. Sussexman 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My points have been examined and answered by a personal friend of Mr Lauder Frost who rather unsurprisingly found in his favour. You have not directly answered a single one of my posts. If you dont mind I shall wait for Fred's response. User:Edchilvers.

I knew GLF many many years ago. I am not a personal friend. I assessed your activities without bias having been asked to do so. Sussexman 13:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, as a man of legal training then surely you must see the conflict of interest here? A judge is not allowed to rule in a case in which he knows one of the main parties. If you really assessed the activities 'without bias' then perhaps you can explain why both neutral parties to have commented on the sitation (Irishguy and William) have both found in my favour that the article is too long and irrelevent? User:Edchilvers

May I comment here? No-one has found in your favour. They just commented. The important point is that one of Wikipedia's leading advocates and adjudicators, Fred Bauder, has not supported you regarding the length, your principle original complaint, and he has put a block on Mike Smith's page, which you and your friend Williams were busy vandalising. 81.131.108.75 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to continue to come up with these spurious and irrelevant threats, lies, accusations and insults then I think it would be better if you didn't speak to me at all sir. Certainly until you learn to undertake a degree of civility it is not my intention to respond to you again User:Edchilvers

You may not realise the extent to which GLF's and Sussexman's interests converge - for example, not only do they share an interest in right-wing fringe politics, but Sussexman has initiated or worked on articles including Henry of Scotland, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon, Horseheath, William Calthorpe, Robert Drury, William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey, Michael 2nd Baron Poynings, Miles Stapleton, William 4th Lord Bardolf and Pampisford. Nine of these articles have also been the subject of research by GLF, and all nine are namechecked in his genealogical article Some English descendants of Malcolm III ‘Canmore’, King of the Scots [1]. The tenth, Robert Drury, is mentioned in Gregory Lauder-Frost as one of GLF's ancestors. -- Humansdorpie 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I confess I sourced some of the information from that article. So what. Are you not opposed to unsourced articles? Seems no-one can win here. Sussexman 20:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is your assosiation with GLF clearly shows you to be far from the objective voice of reason you originally claimed to be User:Edchilvers

The clincher is Sussexman's interest in a specific area of New South Wales in Australia - I was intrigued to see that he has started and contributed to articles about funny little places like Cessnock, New South Wales, Maitland, New South Wales, Gloucester, New South Wales - and a particular interest in the area's coal industry (South Maitland coalfields; John Scholey; Charles Upfold). Sussexman mentioned to another editor that he had a family connection with the region. Guess who else has a family connection to this insignificant little corner of south-eastern Australia? Guess who has a family connection to coal-mining? Guess whose coal-mine manager great-uncle emigrated to Kurri Kurri (a suburb of Cessnock, New South Wales)? Here's the great-uncle from New South Wales. Click on the Details link at the bottom right hand, and guess who pops up?

GLF is descended from John Upfold and also related to Charles Upfold and John Scholey.

In a curious circularity, a contributor to the John Scholey piece and creator of the Charles Upfold article is Christchurch - yet another contributor whose primary areas of interest appear focused on (a) coal-mining in the same bit of New South Wales, and (b) right-wing fringe politics.

Psalm 7:15 refers. -- Humansdorpie 15:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Another conspiracy theorist. Millions of people in Britain have relations and family in Australia, justy as they have in the USA, Canada, etc. My family had two large properties out there, (not coal mines), which I visited several times in my youth. The districts are not "funny little places" but rich with local history. I have no idea who Christchurch is but can he not be have an interest in similar areas/subjects? I am younger than and not GLF. Sussexman 07:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Every single one of your comments has been accordingly noted. 81.131.13.57 16:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, 81.131. Let's hope that our British compatriot will be held to account for his activities. 86.129.79.148 17:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More malicious threats? Carry on like this and I think it'll be you who incur the wrath of the all powerful Wiki moderators User:Edchilvers

I don't see any diffs in which you added any reference to GLF's court case to the article. Your defence seems quite straightforward 1) you have no control over the wikipedia article 2) you added no references to his legal case to the article 3) thus the premise of GLF's legal threat is baseless. Homey 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His point is that I was the instigator of the deletion discussion and that I supported the inclusion of references to the court case on the talk pages. His solicitors point out that the talk pages are still part of Wikipedia and are therefore available to anybody with internet access. User:Edchilvers

It seems like rank intimidation with no basis in law (but I'm not a lawyer). Homey 18:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem?

You seem to have an obsession with Gregory Lauder-Frost. How do you know him? Chelsea Tory 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no obsession with the man I simply altered his Wiki article to make it more concise and his supporters started getting hysterical. It is true that I knew of him through the Conservative Democratic Alliance but then again if I knew nothing about the man I would hardly be editing an article about him on Wiki. If he wants to sue me then fine. I am a 24 year old graduate with no money or political influence whatsoever and am confident of success in court. User:Edchilvers

I'd say you're on very shaky ground. 195.194.75.209 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really how so? Care to cite precedent? Or perhaps you can explain how GLF can avoid drawing attention to his past life by beginning a landmark legal action?--Edchilvers 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support 195's view. You clearly think you're a clever dick. You're not, and lets hope that your big mouth is taught a big lesson. 86.129.80.87 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ed's view seems we have some bully boys on here who because they have a bit of money think they can make threats. Bring it on. The last person took me to court found himself 17,500 out of pocket, and it was made public that I have nothing but contempt for UK law, especially since it seems to be riddled with bullies and racists who think just because they have had legal training they rule the world. You will never get the better of us, because we know where you're head is coming from and just how far it has been shoved up. 82.3.160.30 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Tracy Williams[reply]

Dunwich

To include footnotes, there needs to be a notes or references section that includes the word references/ between angle brackets. Then when you wnat to add a reference or note, you write it at the appropriate point in the text, beginning with ref between angle brackets and ending with /ref between angle brackets. A reference number appears at this point in the article, and the actual reference magically appears in the reference section. I have added a reference section to Dunwich and put in a single reference so if you edit the page, you can see how it's done. Bluewave 08:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution

I am a lawyer in London who for over 20 years was an active member of the Conservative Monday Club, which actually had a Legal Policy Group, as there were so many lawyers in the Club. You know, the sort of lawyers you sneer at so competantly. I want you to know that I have finally written to Gregory Lauder-Frost, and his Edinburgh solicitors, offering my services gratis. I have included several pages of your comments which we have managed to catalogue which demonstrate very clear malice and an absolute contempt of UK law, which any judge would find, hands down. You clearly think you know better than the legal profession and that when people approach us for our advice, or instruct us, that we give them worthless service. I suggest you think again. Scum like you do abound as is evidenced here, and on at least three other sites to which you contribute your venom. You've certainly learned nothing from the internet libel judegment against your friend Williams. I suggest that you will have an attachment of earnings order to your salary until your are in middle age after this is over. 82.133.83.209 16:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely pathetic, your threats expose you for the charltan you are. Nobody is going to learn anything about Smith's vindictive libel case with the exception of Smith himself, and it is a harsh and expensive lesson for him to learn. As the Tracy Williams in question, I know more about the case than you. And as I haven't been negatively affected by it in the slightest I suggest you stop using that particular impotent threat to censor people because it won't work. Now run along little man, you're really out of your depth your legal acumen is about as effective as your worthless playground bully threats. 82.3.160.30 10:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Tracy Williams[reply]

And I want you to know my friend that this and every other scrap of information concerning the case (including posts made by GLF in which he calls black people monkeys and demands that they be stripped of their right to vote in the UK) are being forwarded straight to the offices of Private Eye Magazine. I have a feeling that this is all going to be a very public affair and that I too shall have many people very well versed in the law offering to serve my cause gratis. If he wants to take this all the way then I say bring it on. I also note that your numeric IP has been a frequent contributer to the GLF hagiography argument since the discussion started. Funny how you have repeatedly made statements concerning British law for the past month without ever pointing out that you are a qualified lawyer isn't it?--Edchilvers 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I've had a good look for the IP 82.133 and can't find it anywhere. Where are these contributions you speak of? Do you honestly believe that you are behaving in a responsible manner given that are already in receipt of a solicitor's letter? Are you really that contemptuous of the law? 213.122.88.90 12:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions a solicitors letter is quite different from judgement in a court of law. I have recieved a solicitors letter and have chosen to ignore it, this is my right as I am completely confident of success in the event of any civil action. And yes, if the law chooses to find in favour of Gregory Lauder Frost, a man who believes that all non-white people are monkeys, should be segregated from the rest of society and denied the right to vote then I have nothing but contempt for it.--Edchilvers 12:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The court will not be interested in Lauder-Frost's opinions at all. That is not the issue here. In any case you'd be hard-pressed to produce accurate acceptable evidence that he ever made the comments you attribute to him here. 81.131.109.89 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I can prove that GLF made those comments, he made them on the Conservative Democratic Alliance Quicktopic discussion forum and I have screenshots and everything to prove it. He made the comments under his own name and seems to be quite proud of them to boot. Here is a selection:

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/8rGVyWHLdN3FY (1642-1657) The old Western Goals Institute, and to a lesser extent the Monday Club, consistantly pointed out the nature of all the various characters in the ANC, of which 85% were card-carrying members of the South African Communist Party. It is inconceivable that the USA and Britain did not have the same evidence before them, as most of our evidence was leaked to us from the CIA and British government agencies.

We consistantly said that South Africa will go the way of all the other countries in Africa if they get 'majority rule' (that means giving votes and a role in a Western-style government to people who had never voted or had any form of government in their entire history), and especially under the Communist ANC.

Because there were originally 5.1 million Europeans in South Africa, it would just take a bit longer because of their stake in the country. But we saw in Rhodesia, where there were 280,000 Europeans, how they were ultimately treated by these savages (who had been well-treated by the Europeans there) and how they mostly all fled. It will happen in South Africa too.

You cannot give western-style government on a plate to people who for 50,000 years have sat around a campfire and shown no initiative whatseoever to help themselves in any way. A few decades of European education for a minute handful of them will not change a people's psyche. It must all ultimately end in disaster.

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/8rGVyWHLdN3FY 1594-1609 Not sure I agree with that analysis. According to anthropologists Negroes were on the earth long before Caucasians. So who is responsible for "holding them back"? My other suggestion is that all these "talents" they now acquire are ours. Our language, our education, our knowledge. What, exactly, is THEIR original contribution to ANYTHING?

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/8rGVyWHLdN3FY 1530-1545 Are you touched? What about the simple fact that negroes were in Africa for 80,000 years and didn't even invent the wheel? In fact overwhelmingly they stood entirely still and no development took place there at all which was not .00000000000000000000 of a percent on a development scale compared to, say, ancient China, the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and the mighty Europeans. Yes, possibly you have very little knowledge of history and the more than obvious conclusions that even a half-wit could grasp.

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/8rGVyWHLdN3FY 1194-1209 I refer back to the comment by Hadrian Wise regarding "clever negroes". I cannot agree at all. Until negroes came into touch with Western Europeans they had stood utterly still for at least 30,000 years in their own filth. This may be frank speaking for some but its a simple fact. By their own industry they produced absolutely nothing whatsoever. They did not even invent the wheel. Its really quite pathetic. I for one am not prepared to accept them as our equals because history has proved otherwise. For us to educate them into our languages, sciences, and everything else that has advanced our race, and then to say "yes, you are our equals" because a handful (yes, and barely that) have made use of us and our brilliance and technologies, is truly a retrograde stance to adopt.

Hadrian has some good points, but he is right in saying that we were already 'in' the Common Market when the 1975 referrendum was held.

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/8rGVyWHLdN3FY 838-853 The 'anons' below make some fair points. Presumably if this latest load of garbage is implemented there should be no reason in law for white-only schools. It will give the go-ahead to many schools who were forced to accept pupils from the lowest IQ group on earth to please the CRE and the Race Relations industry, to reverse this rule. I am all in favour of segregated schools, as proposed by one of HM Inspector of Schools, who, I should add, said on BBC Radio 4 this morning that it was not a question of skin colour. I could not agree with him more. Its not. Its a question of OUR children being disadvantaged in schools established for the education of OUR people by a RACE, as such, which has no history of ever being educated, or of contributing to it, and who are disproportionately disruptive in our schools. Yes, its time to move them out.

http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/8rGVyWHLdN3FY 742-757 Answer to 743: absolutely not. He is a homosexual negro whose ancestors were obviously adept at swinging through the trees, or running away faster than jungle animals, in Africa. My ancestors, for at least the past 1000 years, have been British, from Britain. Laud [sic] knows where he acquired the famous archibishop's surname.

742-757 Whats all this crap about "colour of skin" Adrian? Have you become an out and out Red? That's their language. Its about *race*, not colour, the latter is just part of the make-up. I sometimes long for the supreme common sence of virtually all our pre-1950s ancestors who understood clearly that the races were unequal, fundamentally different, and should not be mixed. Personally I think it an absolute outrage that our people should be represented in parliament, or anywhere else for that matter, by someone not of our race.

The national newspapers will most certainly be interested in these views, especially from somebody such as Frauder Lost --Edchilvers 14:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It should be pointed out that the above posts by Mr Gregory Lauder-Frost were made on the CDA forum owned by his close friend and associate Mr Michael Keith-Smith. It is also a fact that because of vandalism that forum has been under almost constant surveillance and moderation by Mr Keith-Smith for a considerable period. It would be very difficult, perhaps impossible, for an imposter to pose as Mr Lauder-Frost and post under his name without detection. Endomorph

Very interesting. Are you suggesting that he is not entitled to hold an opinion(s) or express them? Are you suggesting that anything you have lifted, above, is actually completely untrue? But more to the point, what has any of this got to do with you continually urging Wikipedians to post details of a "spent" conviction all over the WWW? Your "evidence" I suggest, would be thrown out as inadmissable as regards the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, but listing it all as you have could possibly be retained as evidence of your malice in a convicium case. I think you are confused. 213.122.27.106 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is very relevent my friend. By using his own name to express these views GLF is naturally drawing attention to himself. He is inviting scrutiny of himself as the person who made these views and therefore I would argue that details of his life, warts and all are naturally in the public interest. I would also point out that GLF's colleague, Mike Keith Smith, discovered to his considerable cost and embarrassment during the police investigation which saw him branded a racist, that it is in no way malicious to oppose views such as these. I would also contend that the media would have a field day with these views, and would most certainly be very interested in them indeed--Edchilvers 13:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numerical number: 82.133.83.209 you sound very much like Smith, before too long you are going to have your sock puppets removed surgically. Nobody would learn anything from the Smith vs Williams libel case with the exception of Smith who won't do it again unless he wants to lose more thousands. So take note 82.133.83.209 , if you do fund the case you might as well throw your money my way, all donations excepted. 82.3.160.30 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Tracy Williams[reply]

"I suggest you think again. Scum like you do abound as is evidenced here, and on at least three other sites to which you contribute your venom. "

I find it amusing that a so called lawyer should be having a stroppy hissy fit and resorting to abuse and threats on a public net place like Wikipedia, you have said nothing at all that can be taken seriously. Please do not call people scum it is not very polite and certainly not the way to behave whilst threatening legal proceedings. You owe Ed and apology 82.3.160.30 20:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC) If numerical number 82.133.83.209 is a qualified lawyer he ought to be struck off coming out with the sort of rubbish he spouts on here. Where did you train for the bar, at the king george public House! 82.3.160.30 20:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Tracy Williams[reply]

Of course, Ed can file a counterclaim for vexatious litigation and win quite handily. Homey 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This is not North America. You can't stand up in courts here and blab away nor can you bring anything in which is not relevent to the charge. It is simple answers: yes or no, and deviation is not permitted. I note that while encouraging "Ed" to get deeper into the mire you keep yourself entirely anonymous. How convenient. 213.122.27.106 11:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Nazi Germany either although ANONYMOUS coward 213.122.27.106, seems to think it is. "How convenient." I bet you don't even see the absurdity and hypocrisy of that comment do you ANONYMOUS 213.122.27.106! Ed is not getting deeper into the mire as you slyly put it. Who the hell do you think you are! Frost doesn't stand a chance of securing a libel case against Ed, do you think we are all as stupid as you! Frost and his idiotic defenders should take note of Mike Smith's recent Libel failure, or is it you morons enjoy losing large amounts of money on petty vindictive libel cases - get a life 82.3.160.30 10:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC) Tracy Williams[reply]

Interesting argument.

I am not a lawyer, but I do hold a law degree from way back.

What I would like to know is this. If this gentleman sues because his convictions have been disclosed in contravention of the ROO Act - and I would think he could well have a prima facie case - under the English Law of Defamation or Scots Convicium, how do you feel his extremist opinions - deplorable as they may be - are relevant to your defence?

Is it not possible that your public references to these (legally) irrelevant matters may be used to establish evidence of malice, which may prove fatal to your case?

I hope you are taking appropriate advice. Paul Marchment 11:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another newly created IP? Another supposed 'lawyer!' And yet another ludicrous understanding of UK law! Face it my friend, once the media get hold of this they'll crucify Lauder Frost for his racist opinions even if they aren't relevant to my defence (which they most certainly are). I dont need to take any legal advice, there is no precedent for this in UK law, my case is solid.--Edchilvers 12:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Think they would of learned by now, from the Smith Vs williams case, thats a lot of money to throw at a case and get absolutely no where, but go on make these lawyers happy, they are sneering at you behind your back, rubbing their fingers and thumbs, money, money, kowing you don't have a cat in hells chance, for gods sakes, get a life, spend it on something worthwhile, get a dishwasher or something. Donna Rigby

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn @ yet ANOTHER lawyer throwing in his/her tuppeny worth of utter drivel. Are they expecting a terrified response or something (rolls eyes). before you start offering more useless advice, do try and take into considertaion that glf has about as much chance of getting a settlement as he has of becoming the next UK Prime Minister.

It seems Donna, that they haven't learned, guess they will have to learn the hard way like Mike Keith-Smith. Tracy Williams 82.3.160.30 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I stated quite specifically that I am not a lawyer (I am an HR director as a matter of fact) but I do have the benefit of legal training.

Very possibly your own legal background is more comprehensive than my law degree so please do tell me on what experience you base your opinion that I have a "ludicrous understanding" of UK law and why you think that a claimant's racism or other extremism would defeat a claim based on an apparent breach of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Personally I believe that such a claim could theoretically succeed. I put its chances no higher than that. As for the question of racism, that would only be relevant to your defence if you were being sued for describing the claimant as a racist, fascist or whatever. I cannot see that it has any relevance to your defence, but it might well be used by the claimant as evidence of an ulterior motive.

You may find this web page of interest: [2]

It might be possible for a person with spent convictions to sue for libel anyone making allegations about spent convictions, if he or she can prove that the allegation was made with malice

However, none of this is my main concern at the moment.

I have used and admired Wikipedia for years but I have never created an account before. I have done so now because I feel that what is going on here threatens, in a very small way and through no fault of Wikipedia itself, to damage Wikipedia's reputation for objectivity and impartiality.

As for Mr Frost, Lauder Frost or whatever he calls himself, he certainly does not sound like the sort of person with whom I would wish to mix, nor (in my opinion) did his limited achievements ever warrant a Wikipedia entry. However, as far as I am concerned he is no longer the issue at stake.

What is at stake is that a number of people, for reasons that are not altogether clear to me, are using what should be the purely academic forum of Wikipedia to conduct what appears to me to be a personal vendetta, and I do not see why those who care about Wikipedia should be prepared to tolerate that state of affairs.

Furthermore I think it is extremely sad that certain people seem unprepared to conduct themselves in a civil, tolerant and respectful manner, as may be seen in the intemperate responses to my earlier post. Personally, I strongly believe that all contributors should respect the high ethical and civil standards with which Wikipedia has traditionally been associated. --Paul Marchment 22:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reponse to your one-sided comments are appropriate Paul Marchment. I am sure that wikipedia know what they are doing and don't need your advice. It is obvious that your concern has nothing whatsoever to do with Wiki's objectivity and reputation. The fact remains that the GLF article was an over the top flattery piece, and it should (in the interest of objectivity) include all aspects of his career, including the negative. You really need to understand the definition of 'objectivity' Paul Marchent. I know more about libel cases conducted by CDA thugs than anybody, as I was sued by Mike Keith-Smith. Has his pathetic libel case shut me up? Am I quivering in my shoes? Has he got a penny from me? the answer is a resounding NO. By all means have your opinion but thst is all it is, and I hope you bear that in mind when commenting further on something you know nothing about. Tracy Williams 82.3.160.30 13:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible for a person with spent convictions to sue for libel anyone making allegations about spent convictions, if he or she can prove that the allegation was made with malice

No malice whatsoever, malice is a matter of interpretation, and of course any changes in GLF's article is going to be interpreted as malice by GLF and his supporters, as GLF believes those that seek objectivity from the GLF article are communists. I can assure all we bear GLF no malice, indeed he is a laughable figure, one only has to read his comments on Quicktopic to figure that out. If anything one could argue that we have done his article a favour by making it at least credible. Tracy Williams 82.3.160.30 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tracy I would agree that the original article was OTT, indeed if you read my earlier comments I have clearly stated that I do not think that Mr Frost was worthy of any Wiki entry in the first place. I couldn't be plainer than that, surely?

Since you tell me that this matter is something I know nothing about maybe you'd enlighten me by explaining your particular interest and involvement, why you have been threatened with a libel action, and how your own personal problems are relevant to making Wikipedia a reliable, unbiased, scholastic knowledge base.

Malice is indeed a matter of interpretation by the court. If you were the potential defendant in this putative action I venture to suggest that you might have already cooked your goose with your oddly bitter contributions above.

So what exactly is your problem, Tracy? --Paul Marchment 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]