What is going on?
Freedom of speech on this forum
- Thread starter doozer
- Start date
Originally Michael Yardneys criminal history was raised in a thread that thread was then deleted (now re-instated). This thread was raised in protest of the original thread being deleted.
That's a lot of deleted re-instatements. Maybe you can use your boomstick to clean things up a little FormerLurker.
Amazing how it seems that there are people that took that post seriously. Cheer up jaycee, it's all good, my man!
Where is this thread?
http://www.somersoft.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66561
There are several deleted posts in the original but alot of content remains.
I'm quite happy Marko, I was "just saying".... that's all....
Where can I read this detail on the person in question anyway? Curiosity has finally gotten to me.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-23079599.html
that gives a pretty good indication of the nature of the criminal issue.
I must admit to not knowing the number of women and length of time.
I hope people read my earlier posts in that context.
Having said that - he did his time and it was well over ten years ago that the offences were comitted.
Has he been prosecuted since? I can't find anything on that with Google.
Vilifying people behind their back does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I hope people read my earlier posts in that context.
Having said that - he did his time and it was well over ten years ago that the offences were comitted.
Has he been prosecuted since? I can't find anything on that with Google.
Vilifying people behind their back does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
if it's factual and not defamatory then yes, you can.
however, it doesn't save you from what the forum owner deems appropriate because, as stated previously, you are a guest here and are required to abide by their rules if you want to contribute.
i'm talking from a legality POV here, being someone taking civil action over something said that is regarded as tongue-in-cheek. remember, defamation will land you in court regardless of a fifth amendment or similar.
the right to dicuss a subject is protected with the dotcom domain. if you go and call someone a crook just because you had a bad experience and didn't read the fine print that's defamation if it's proved that they aren't a crook.
now while some people may be okay to hide behind their keyboard, one subpoena is all that's needed to get your IP details and address and "here's a civil suit, mate".
so defamation is taken seriously, but the discussion of a subject is protected. if you're presenting factual information it isn't defamation, otherwise Emma171 could be sued over her DB thread.
I assume you are suggesting someone did that to someone - to whom ? who was vilified behind their back ?
but before any of that stuff takes place the case must be pretty damm strong and the person would need good dollars behind a lawyer to even remotely make something stick..
litigation in this instance is not cut and dry....
you can be in the right and lose and know your in the wrong and win.....
there are absolutely no guarantees in litigation of any kind.
bit like investing actually.............
storm in a tea cup..be nice to move onto something more interesting and end the damm thread actually...
Hi all,
Simon,
The first thing I did after reading Dazz's comments was to do a google search, to find out what he was on about.
I am also conflicted between someone doing the time for the crime, end of story, and ongoing disrespect and condemnation. We as a society punish people for 'crimes'. Yet many who have done the penance as decided by the Courts have ongoing punishment dealt to them, as judged by the latest 'community attitudes', hence the ongoing vilification of Michael Yardney on this forum.
I understand where you are coming from with your initial defense of MY, and 'not knowing'.
I have met and spoken with Michael, I have an autographed copy of his book, in which there is a lot of very good information. However his former activities as a doctor showed a lack of respect and a failure of the trust that his clients had in him. This begs the question does a leopard change it's spots??
bye
Simon,
The first thing I did after reading Dazz's comments was to do a google search, to find out what he was on about.
I am also conflicted between someone doing the time for the crime, end of story, and ongoing disrespect and condemnation. We as a society punish people for 'crimes'. Yet many who have done the penance as decided by the Courts have ongoing punishment dealt to them, as judged by the latest 'community attitudes', hence the ongoing vilification of Michael Yardney on this forum.
I understand where you are coming from with your initial defense of MY, and 'not knowing'.
I have met and spoken with Michael, I have an autographed copy of his book, in which there is a lot of very good information. However his former activities as a doctor showed a lack of respect and a failure of the trust that his clients had in him. This begs the question does a leopard change it's spots??
bye
Damn straight.
I spent a good chunk of yesterday, before posting, researching comparable major crimes in Australia's history, and I have not come across yet anyone, who comes even remotely close to this guy.
The major damage inflicted to so many over such a long period....I don't understand why this guy's name isn't cemented into the lexicon of the top 3 of Australia's all time very worst criminals.
Others have served up to 7 or 8 years for a similar individual crime.
Multiple that by over 60 individuals severely violated that are confirmed, and we should be talking about something like a 450 year sentence....
He received less than 1% of that as punishment, but seeing how judges judge and hand down pathetic sentences, I'm not surprised in the slightest.
My only concern and thoughts are for the 60 plus victims and their families who trust and lives have been shattered.
I'm not in the slightest bit interested in talk of his reform and remorse. Talk of "walking a different path" is impossible for such massive massive damage to so many over so long.
This sort of situation shatters my views towards creating Justice and Equality in societies, when the judicial system can be viewed as failing.
Other situations can be readily found in my own life with people getting away scot-free, however none to this hideous degree. It makes you wonder the judges views.
Other situations can be readily found in my own life with people getting away scot-free, however none to this hideous degree. It makes you wonder the judges views.
What documents are you basing your opinion on? Seems to me most people are just going off the blurb on highbeam.com, and nothing more.
