Bob FM

Another condescending post from another know it all, I am fully aware of what it means, as it is used in criminal law as much as civil, 'the facts speak for themselves'. You are quite right they do, you follow a pattern as outlined to me. It's called predictability. Gentleman, now there's a thing, I have been told with evidence that he could not possible rate that title. But I digress. The fact remains he lost the vote in a democratic election.

chikrodah

Bob, may I respectfully suggest that you either provide this forum and/or Aardvark with your "evidence" regarding Aardvark or withdraw that remark.

Aardvark has proof he is, in fact, entitled to the term "gentleman" on a number of grounds. You have, in fact, no proof that he is not; your continued attacks on a moderator who has chosen not to respond to your inanities proves you definitely are not.

Aardvark has lost "the vote" in a number of democratic elections. Which one are you referring to?

Bob FM

As a moderator he should not have indulged with his insulting posts in the first place. Evidence, from his own 'mouth' (post). Is this the act of a gentleman, 'I remember being so upset that I had taken the safety catch off my SLP to waste a work colleague who so deserved it, and does to this day' Is it the act of a gentleman to publicly decry the work and workers of his party, 'At the last General Election,with little preparation, a poor leaflet and few workers in my team,' I could go on but I believe that I have justified the comment.

chikrodah

Bob, you really are intent on encouraging others to dislike you, aren't you?

You've taken both Aardvark's comments out of context.

The first, from a completely different thread (not good forum etiquette, as you should know) was taken from the following, unobjectionable quote:

Unless you were with Aardvark on that day, in those circumstances, you cannot know what the colleague had done to prompt Aardvark's initial reaction. You cannot know whether Aardvark's initial reaction would have been the correct one in the circumstances. You are so determined to destroy the reputation of another that you will stoop to any extreme to manipulate opinion in your favour.

Your second attack, isn't even taken from one of Aardvark's posts on this forum. It's taken from his old website (Vote Paul Wesson). The full quote is:

What you appear to be unaware of is that the part you just quoted was also part of Aardvark's speech at last year's PPC hustings. How did you get hold of that information, Bob? It was only available to a few people.

It is obvious that, contrary to your previous claims, you do know who Aardvark's "stalkers" are and you have chosen to side with at least one of them.

Please be very careful in what you post next regarding Aardvark. I have made a formal complaint re your determination to pursue this line of reasoning with someone who has chosen not to respond.

Bob FM

It was only available to a few, good grief try about how many trillions (exaggeration) of people who use the WWW. Vote Paul Wesson, it is not a dormant site.
One also assumes that the release of the safety catch was on his official RAF weapon. Had that been known at the time he would have been court marshalled and probably thrown out of the service, whatever his motivation. Please therefore provide evidence of your conclusion as to me knowing who these stalkers, or stalker is/are or apologise immediately. The fact that he has chosen not respond is again irrelevant, I am responding to your posts, involving him. Perhaps you should desist and there would ergo be nothing to respond to. I also welcome the attention of the moderators in this regard then just perhaps the constant insults directed at me will also desist. But as I have previously commented fairness sadly is not a trait of this site, I am of course prepared to live with that.

chikrodah

Bob, may I refer you to Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) with regards to your request for an apology.

I remind you that you have mentioned receiving an email re Aardvark and myself several times now. You have been asked to provide details of said email. You chose not to. I make that request again. If you choose to withhold the contents of that email, I am at liberty to choose to withhold information in like vein.

You are continuing your attacks on an individual who has already stated he will not respond to you any more. Please grow up, get a life and pick on another target for once.

mrabody

ROTFLMAO!!

I would note though, that when citing cases, you should place a full stop after the v.

chikrodah

Well done, Bob, for managing to add the above lines, not to mention the bold phrase below to your original post within the 15 minutes allowed. The post I originally responded to was (minus the bit in bold):

My response still stands.

I have certainly not changed my opinion of you. I choose not to describe my opinion of you as insulting. You, of course, may choose to think otherwise. That's why we both live in a country that allows freedom of speech.

I'm amused by your view that you should be allowed to attack others, manipulate quotes to suit yourself and generally hijack threads with impunity and without others being allowed to respond.

As I've said to others, I will support my friends and I will not stand by whilst their characters are damaged by petty-minded obsessives. To allow you to have the final, condemnatory word on a man who has done more for this country than you could ever hope to would be the act of a coward. For as long as you choose to mount a campaign against Aardvark or any of my other friends, I will be there to repudiate your attacks.

(mrabody, my apologies. I'm a researcher, not a lawyer )

Bob FM

I can live without your apology. As for the email, given that I did not state that my 'facts' came from it then it's contents is irrelevant. As I pointed out, my responses have been to you based on your defence of him, therefore I am not continuing any attack, merely answering the points you raise. You asked to proof that the term gentleman was not a valid adjective, I responded, you countered and because you have been found wanting you again divert. I thought Arkell was a race horse, and a family brewer.

Bob FM

Letter to Private Eye
From Goodman Derrick & Co., solicitors:

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.


Letter from Private Eye

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: **** off.
May I respectfully request that the moderators sanction chikrodah for his implied use of in appropriate language on this thread.