QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Thu 4th August 2011, 12:00am)
QUOTE(Anna @ Wed 3rd August 2011, 12:15pm)
In my completely non-professional opinion -- that is, as a concerned citizen, not a lawyer -- I think it is dangerous to go too close suggesting someone, particularly someone with an actual name linked to their internet name, may the same person as someone who once had a collection of CP, particularly without solid evidence. Not to say that it would be bad to seek further evidence in order to confirm or deny any suspicions that one may or may not have, but it's wise to avoid publicly voicing an opinion, particularly a "guilty" opinion, before all cards are on the table. Sometimes newspapers delay naming the guilty party until the courts have actually given a guilty verdict. Not that Encyclopedist sounds like someone particularly likely to sue, but that reserving judgment, at least publicly, would seem to be wise generally speaking.
I merely mention
Hulton v Jones [1910] AC 20; it's a standard case in defamation law and is authority for the proposition that in defamation, UK law applies strict liability to a publisher apart from an innocent printer.
I merely mention that you are a fruitbat.
A loon.
A maroon.
A dingbat.
A fruitloop.
A whack-a-mole.
You make the madhatter look sane by comparison.
You make Ottava look sane by comparison.
You make Jimbo look principled by comparison.
You make David Gerard look like an ideal person to watch young children by comparison.
You. Are. Crazy.
Craaaayyyyyy Zeeeeeeeeeee
Ta-ta and a frontal lobotomy for you.
Please inform me when your lawyers have reached my lawyers.