Re: Libellous Tweets

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:18 pm

You was expressing an "opinion" based on you not reading properly what I said. But I am not surprised by that. I welcome you having an opinion, just wish you would not mis- represent what others say! I await your acknowledgement that you did indeed get it wrong what I actually said, but will not be surprised if you don't acknowledge it. Please base your views on what people say, NOT what you THINK or hope they say.

teamplayer2 Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:38 pm

I have taken in what you have said but agree just to disagree mate. If I see you in the pub buy me a pint. lol!

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:09 pm

Are you going accept that you were wrong, in that I DID NOT suggest that Lord Mc should donate to charity?

teamplayer2 Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:44 pm

For your information I did not see DL post and I do have a mind of my own thank you and sorry for misunderstanding you by the way.

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:00 pm

I will happily accept your apology TP-thanks. I will also apologise if in anyway I suggested you don't have a mind of your own. Not sure I know what you mean about DL's post.

On a general point if people are to say things about someone else's posts, than please have the decency to read what they actually say, or at the very least admit when you have made a mistake, like what TP has just done. It's very easy to make such mistakes, but when corrected at least acknowledge you have made a mistake. I myself have made such mistakes, but have acknowledged when I have done so.

Dalelad Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:02 pm

You do like to deal in semantics don't you, UTD?! You'd make a good politician. You did suggest that 'a' decent thing would be to give the money to charity, but you didn't actually say he should! Nice one!

Prudence Tempered Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:09 pm

UTD also said about McAlpine, "It would give him the upper moral ground even more- an innocent (of that particular crime)". Not that there was any suggestion at all of being guilty of other crimes. Oh no. Not at all. No way, Jose. As if.

Charly Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:15 pm

Bit like throwing stones with elastic attached just in case others dont agree with what you said

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:16 pm

Dalelad wrote:You do like to deal in semantics don't you, UTD?! You'd make a good politician. You did suggest that 'a' decent thing would be to give the money to charity, but you didn't actually say he should! Nice one!

YES because that's what I believed, and still do. Not my fault you mistakenly thought I said something else, to what I actually said.

Again this Mc A/;BBC stuff is just a side line. My real concern are the victims of the paedophiles both now and historically.

Charly Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:19 pm

We must all read UTD's posts more carefully and read between the lines as it seems all of us have got the wrong idea about what he really meant Question

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:31 pm

Prudence Tempered wrote:UTD also said about McAlpine, "It would give him the upper moral ground even more- an innocent (of that particular crime)". Not that there was any suggestion at all of being guilty of other crimes. Oh no. Not at all. No way, Jose. As if.

IF you are going to quote me HT, at least quote all the sentence. I actually said, "That is fair enough. It would give him the upper moral ground even more- an innocent (of that particular crime) man who gets justice but then does a very honourable thing and gives the money to charity. It would make many think what a jolly nice man he is." I was not suggesting that he was guilty of any crime, as far as I know he is not, I was merely pointing out he WAS innocent of the crime that he had been linked to, and for what the BBC had offered compensation for, and that he would look very good and kind IF he was to donate to charity, and it would be a very honourable thing if he did.

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:34 pm

Charly wrote:We must all read UTD's posts more carefully and read between the lines as it seems all of us have got the wrong idea about what he really meant

Simple really. If I say something, then I mean it, don't try to infer I mean something else because I don't. If people want to twist my words then fair enough, I will have to correct them. It's possible some people are incapable of reading properly-that's hardly my fault. There is no need to read between the lines, just read the lines I write.

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:36 pm

Charly wrote:Bit like throwing stones with elastic attached just in case others dont agree with what you said

Who is that aimed at?

Prudence Tempered Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:41 pm

I didn't say that you had accused him. You really need to read people's posts carefully before you misrepresent what they say. So I've followed your advice and carefully read what you have written. What exactly did you mean by adding the phrase that he was innocent of that particular crime?

UP THE DALE Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:49 pm

Prudence Tempered wrote:I didn't say that you had accused him. You really need to read people's posts carefully before you misrepresent what they say. So I've followed your advice and carefully read what you have written. What exactly did you mean by adding the phrase that he was innocent of that particular crime?

I did not say you had accused me of accusing him. Have already answered that, won't be any-more.

Prudence Tempered Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:58 pm

I didn't say that you had accused me of accusing you of accusing him.

I still don't understand that addition of the phrase "of that particular crime".

Charly Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:06 am

UP THE DALE wrote:
Charly wrote:Bit like throwing stones with elastic attached just in case others dont agree with what you said

Who is that aimed at?

Whoever wants to take it, you know..if the cap fits blah blah

UP THE DALE Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:11 am

If I say something that's what I mean. If later on I realise it was wrong what I said, I will apologise for it. In this case everything I have said on this post, I mean, and see no reason to take back-up to now that is. So no need for elastic on my stones. Besides if they came back they might hurt. Smile

Atlas Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:40 am

I don't think UDT was saying that the man in question had committed 'other' crimes for that would be libelous would it not? He was possibly hinting that all of us have committed an 'offence' or a 'crime' at some time or another - even driving faster than the permitted speed limit and such like and that in this instance the man in question was innocent of the particular offence/crime alleged against him. As for giving the 'compensation' monies to charity, perhaps after deducting all his substantial costs for the actions through the courts and a little for his hurt pride he might consider it. Whether he needs the money or not is irrelevant. Those that threw the stones without just cause (or not) will now have to stop their reckless rantings and act like responsible citizens for a change.

UP THE DALE Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:06 am

Yes that is what I meant, thanks, just did not explain it very well, for which I apologise.

As for the rest, well said, and I agree. Recently there have been a lot of high profile celebrity type libel cases, in which they donated their compensation to charity, and I wondered if he would end up doing so, but at no time did I say or mean that I thought he should or not.

johnb Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:59 am

Prudence Tempered wrote:I didn't say that you had accused him. You really need to read people's posts carefully before you misrepresent what they say. So I've followed your advice and carefully read what you have written. What exactly did you mean by adding the phrase that he was innocent of that particular crime?

That one is easy, UTD is a member of the hard left. This means, because of class war rules, that as Tory, Lord AcAlpine must by default be guilty of something.

A bit like 80s policing - remember the Guildford 4!

UP THE DALE Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:24 pm

Is that what you think or know, John B? Like you I could attempt to throw a political label at you, but I won't. Atlas got it right, as to what I meant by my remark regarding Lord Mc. Guildford 4 were innocent, so what's your point mentioning them? The police were in the 80's were no different to what they are now, tools of the state used in certain circumstances to keep the working classes controlled.

As it happens I am proud to be a "left-winger" , though a member of no political organisation other than my Trade Unions. You will have to explain what "hard left" is. If it means I don't flip flop on my beliefs, then that's correct, though my politics are evolving all the time. I have moved from being right wing Labour at 16, to becoming socialist, and I am probably moving more to the left as I get older.

And yes I am also proud to be a working class person. It is a fact that class matters still in this so called equal society. It's the working classes that are getting screwed, while the upper classes do the screwing, and yes many of them bend or break the rules/laws when attacking the rights of the workers. But saying that, to my knowledge Lord Mc is not or has not broke any laws.

If I was you I would not take up mind reading as an entertainer.

UP THE DALE Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:25 pm

Thinking about it, thanks for the compliment of calling me hard left, John B. I know it was not meant as a compliment, but I will take it as one. Smile

Admin Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:34 pm

I thought this thread was about libellous tweets?

johnb Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:37 pm

At least some of the police justification for the Guildford 4 Fit Up was, "They are Irish - they must therefore be guilty of something"

Totally unjustified, but there we go.

Your comment '... on this occasion...' makes exactly the same presumption of guilt as was made of the Guildford 4. This time justified on the basis of class (and political allegiance) rather than race.

Just as sordid.

Sponsored content