On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 20:18:38 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , Pat Gardiner 
> writes
>>
>>Just a reply to make sure the detail of your stalking is stored and
>>not deleted under your 6 day rule.
>>
>Your false and lying accusation of stalking is noted and filed.
>
>Get real, Pat, and, if you don't want responses, don't post to a public 
>newsgroup disseminated worldwide which is, incidentally, incapable of 
>being closed down "in ten minutes" as you have repeatedly claimed - 
>another of your lies, of course.

Well that will now be for the judgement of others. It is surprising
the number of people who have deserted the Olympics to watch - and you
are not that entertaining.

They want the facts about the links between superbugs and the human
epidemics that are ravaging Great Britain, Ireland, Canada and
increasingly the US.

The failure of both the British and Scottish Governments to release
information on the stains found in humans and those found in the pigs
here is pretty obvious.

They are hiding something. Something dishonourable and you are
attempting to assist them.

And will you tell your Essex mate to tone it down. He is looking more
and more unbalanced.

BTW. You will find Warmwell of interest. The site is  also exploring
some of the issues raised here.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> 
> And will you tell your Essex mate to tone it down.

I am not Malcolm's mate.  Whilst I do respect both him and his knowledge 
I do not know him well enough to class him as a mate

> He is looking more and more unbalanced.

For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
behave remarkably stupidly.


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 21:47:02 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , Pat Gardiner 
> writes
>>
>>The failure of both the British and Scottish Governments to release
>>information on the stains found in humans and those found in the pigs
>>here is pretty obvious.
>>
>>They are hiding something.
>
>  More conspiracy theories :-(

No, not really. They keep hiding the strains, only to have them
leaking out. They are not good enough to run a conspiracy properly

They are getting themselves into very serious trouble over zoonotic
disease. 
>
>> Something dishonourable and you are
>>attempting to assist them.
>>
>A lie and a libel.

Malcolm. If ever you finish up in Court, do not defend yourself. For
some reason, that I find amazing in a Phd, you simply can't grasp the
laws of libel and defamation, let alone their practical application in
the real world.

If you hope to make money from persuing any of these"cases" you will
lose your shirt. True a less than reputable lawyer might write the odd
letter for a hundred or so and maybe go a little further as long as he
thinks he will get paid.

But in the end, they will drop the case.
>
>>And will you tell your Essex mate to tone it down. He is looking more
>>and more unbalanced.
>>
>And yet more libel.

You could use him as your legal advisor. He has lots of experience in
collecting and misunderstanding bad advice on uk.idiot.legal.

He also in insulting me uses the wrong term for Felixstowe. There are
no "dockers" in Felixstowe. There never have been.

But he seems to know little about the place unlike others in the
Polituro who clearly do. You would have thought they would have tipped
the poor deluded old lad that I stacked up to being exactly who I said
I was.

I would have thought that you would by now have realised that the man
who has unravelled one of the world's greatest crimes must have some
ability, aside from bad spelling.
>
>>BTW. You will find Warmwell of interest.
>
>I doubt that very much.
>
That's a pity. I imagine Jill does and you were showing interest in
last years Avian Flu outbreak and suggesting that the farmer involved
should sue me.

You are a funny fellow.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:

>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> 
>> And will you tell your Essex mate to tone it down.
>
>I am not Malcolm's mate.  Whilst I do respect both him and his knowledge 
>I do not know him well enough to class him as a mate

Yes, I'm sorry. I understand your concern if not your judgement.
>
>> He is looking more and more unbalanced.
>
>For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>behave remarkably stupidly.

I don't think so. Fate put me into this and, as I say, knowing little
about livestock farming, I have done a pretty good job of unravelling
one of the world's greatest crimes.

It was a fluke. I just happened to have exactly the right combination
of experience, knowledge and circumstance.

If I had been still running businesses or been more or less ill, I
would not have done it.

As it was, one step led to another - and I simply followed the trail.
I had nothing to lose and was immune to threats.

Salmond will not be able to hold out for long. He is a real leader, he
will have to move decisively one way or the other. 

Shame he is a nationalist, he would have made a spectacular although
dangerous PM for Britain.

Now, I'm off to bed. You will have to think up a fresh line of abuse
for tomorrow.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
>  wrote:
> 
>> For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>> behave remarkably stupidly.
> 
> I don't think so.

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided.  Do talk 
to a real lawyer before trying to take any defamation actions though. 
It *might* save you making a bigger fool of your self than you already have.

<remaining irrelevant rubbish snipped>


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:43:29 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:

>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>>> behave remarkably stupidly.
>> 
>> I don't think so.
>
>I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided.  Do talk 
>to a real lawyer before trying to take any defamation actions though. 
>It *might* save you making a bigger fool of your self than you already have.
>
><remaining irrelevant rubbish snipped>

I always find it a bit strange that a man with no knowledge of the law
and no qualifications, who has never started and run a business let
alone started and run 17 successfully, should lecture a man who has.

I appreciate that he is trying the catch up, but uk.idiot.legal is not
the place. Judge Judy might be better.

Poor Old Codger, he  was thoroughly duped by a man with a history and
who has now done a runner, into standing fighting a rear guard action
he is ill-equipped to manage.

Some sectors of the farming industry seem to rely on duping suckers.

I'll give them that, the Politburo recruited a real lu-lu. All it
needed was a quote in Farmers Guardian and an invitation to Oz's
Oxfordshire estate and he is ready to take on the world, spreading
defamation manufactured by others.

It didn't even take cash, just a bit of flattery and a space for a
caravan for the week-end.

Don't ever go to Teneriffe,  Brian, you come home owning the
island.....on paper.

Now, I must get on- a busy day ahead slaying dragons.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:43:29 +0100, Old Codger
>  wrote:
> 
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>>>> behave remarkably stupidly.
>>> I don't think so.
>> I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided.  Do talk 
>> to a real lawyer before trying to take any defamation actions though. 
>> It *might* save you making a bigger fool of your self than you already have.
>>
>> <remaining irrelevant rubbish snipped>
> 
> I always find it a bit strange that a man with no knowledge of the law
> and no qualifications, who has never started and run a business let
> alone started and run 17 successfully, should lecture a man who has.

That claim yet again.  I have pointed out many times that, on the basis 
of your posts to this group, it is difficult to believe you are, or ever 
have been, capable of running a bath, let alone a company.

If you really did have even limited legal knowledge you would know that 
the points I make are broadly correct.

> I appreciate that he is trying the catch up, but uk.idiot.legal is not
> the place. Judge Judy might be better.

I have asked you before for a link to uk.idiot.legal, I can find no 
traceof that group.  You have failed to provide that link.  I therefore 
confidently predict that the group does not exist.

> Poor Old Codger, he  was thoroughly duped by a man with a history and
> who has now done a runner, into standing fighting a rear guard action
> he is ill-equipped to manage.

More complete b*ll*cks from a man (I assume you are) who appears 
incapable of writing anything else.

<remaining b*ll*cks snipped>

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:12:41 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:

>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:43:29 +0100, Old Codger
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>>>>> behave remarkably stupidly.
>>>> I don't think so.
>>> I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided.  Do talk 
>>> to a real lawyer before trying to take any defamation actions though. 
>>> It *might* save you making a bigger fool of your self than you already have.
>>>
>>> <remaining irrelevant rubbish snipped>
>> 
>> I always find it a bit strange that a man with no knowledge of the law
>> and no qualifications, who has never started and run a business let
>> alone started and run 17 successfully, should lecture a man who has.
>
>That claim yet again.  I have pointed out many times that, on the basis 
>of your posts to this group, it is difficult to believe you are, or ever 
>have been, capable of running a bath, let alone a company.

>If you really did have even limited legal knowledge you would know that 
>the points I make are broadly correct.
>
>> I appreciate that he is trying the catch up, but uk.idiot.legal is not
>> the place. Judge Judy might be better.
>
>I have asked you before for a link to uk.idiot.legal, I can find no 
>traceof that group.  You have failed to provide that link.  I therefore 
>confidently predict that the group does not exist.
>
>> Poor Old Codger, he  was thoroughly duped by a man with a history and
>> who has now done a runner, into standing fighting a rear guard action
>> he is ill-equipped to manage.
>
>More complete b*ll*cks from a man (I assume you are) who appears 
>incapable of writing anything else.
>
><remaining b*ll*cks snipped>

Yes, it is quite amazing, just how much I have succeeded in achieving
quite so much under a barrage of ignorant abuse, once organised,  now
just venom from second raters left behind in the stampede to avoid the
gathering storm.

I can see why you are a discontented failure.

You should take Oz's advice and killfile me. He is terrified you will
shop him. Give the guy a break. You did enjoy his hospitality.

Anyway, to go back to the original topic. The report did not mention
pigs.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:12:41 +0100, Old Codger
>  wrote:
> 
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:43:29 +0100, Old Codger
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>>>>>> behave remarkably stupidly.
>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>> I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided.  Do talk 
>>>> to a real lawyer before trying to take any defamation actions though. 
>>>> It *might* save you making a bigger fool of your self than you already have.
>>>>
>>>> <remaining irrelevant rubbish snipped>
>>> I always find it a bit strange that a man with no knowledge of the law
>>> and no qualifications, who has never started and run a business let
>>> alone started and run 17 successfully, should lecture a man who has.
>> That claim yet again.  I have pointed out many times that, on the basis 
>> of your posts to this group, it is difficult to believe you are, or ever 
>> have been, capable of running a bath, let alone a company.
> 
>> If you really did have even limited legal knowledge you would know that 
>> the points I make are broadly correct.
>>
>>> I appreciate that he is trying the catch up, but uk.idiot.legal is not
>>> the place. Judge Judy might be better.
>> I have asked you before for a link to uk.idiot.legal, I can find no 
>> traceof that group.  You have failed to provide that link.  I therefore 
>> confidently predict that the group does not exist.
>>
>>> Poor Old Codger, he  was thoroughly duped by a man with a history and
>>> who has now done a runner, into standing fighting a rear guard action
>>> he is ill-equipped to manage.
>> More complete b*ll*cks from a man (I assume you are) who appears 
>> incapable of writing anything else.
>>
>> <remaining b*ll*cks snipped>
> 
<more complete b*ll*cks snipped>

Conclusions:

Pat *knows* he has been making misleading posts regarding defamation and 
that I (and others) are broadly correct.

uk.idiot.legal does not exist.


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:17:22 +0100, Old Codger
 wrote:

>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:12:41 +0100, Old Codger
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:43:29 +0100, Old Codger
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>>>>>>> behave remarkably stupidly.
>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>> I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided.  Do talk 
>>>>> to a real lawyer before trying to take any defamation actions though. 
>>>>> It *might* save you making a bigger fool of your self than you already have.
>>>>>
>>>>> <remaining irrelevant rubbish snipped>
>>>> I always find it a bit strange that a man with no knowledge of the law
>>>> and no qualifications, who has never started and run a business let
>>>> alone started and run 17 successfully, should lecture a man who has.
>>> That claim yet again.  I have pointed out many times that, on the basis 
>>> of your posts to this group, it is difficult to believe you are, or ever 
>>> have been, capable of running a bath, let alone a company.
>> 
>>> If you really did have even limited legal knowledge you would know that 
>>> the points I make are broadly correct.
>>>
>>>> I appreciate that he is trying the catch up, but uk.idiot.legal is not
>>>> the place. Judge Judy might be better.
>>> I have asked you before for a link to uk.idiot.legal, I can find no 
>>> traceof that group.  You have failed to provide that link.  I therefore 
>>> confidently predict that the group does not exist.
>>>
>>>> Poor Old Codger, he  was thoroughly duped by a man with a history and
>>>> who has now done a runner, into standing fighting a rear guard action
>>>> he is ill-equipped to manage.
>>> More complete b*ll*cks from a man (I assume you are) who appears 
>>> incapable of writing anything else.
>>>
>>> <remaining b*ll*cks snipped>
>> 
><more complete b*ll*cks snipped>
>
>Conclusions:
>
>Pat *knows* he has been making misleading posts regarding defamation and 
>that I (and others) are broadly correct.
>
>uk.idiot.legal does not exist.

You could create it. You have the right experience. You could make it
moderated and ensure that all the posts were full of naivete,
inexperience and ignorance.

You could probably claim a subsidy from the Law Society for increasing
their business scraping your contributors out of the mire.

It would be more productive than stalking me.

You might even make Panorama. on something other than deliberately
impeding a campaigner against corruption in Britain's State Veterinary
Service and for truth in respect of the "superbug" epidemics.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:17:22 +0100, Old Codger
>  wrote:
> 
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:12:41 +0100, Old Codger
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:43:29 +0100, Old Codger
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 22:38:20 +0100, Old Codger
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For a man who *claims* superior knowledge of the law and defamation you 
>>>>>>>> behave remarkably stupidly.
>>>>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>>> I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, however misguided.  Do talk 
>>>>>> to a real lawyer before trying to take any defamation actions though. 
>>>>>> It *might* save you making a bigger fool of your self than you already have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <remaining irrelevant rubbish snipped>
>>>>> I always find it a bit strange that a man with no knowledge of the law
>>>>> and no qualifications, who has never started and run a business let
>>>>> alone started and run 17 successfully, should lecture a man who has.
>>>> That claim yet again.  I have pointed out many times that, on the basis 
>>>> of your posts to this group, it is difficult to believe you are, or ever 
>>>> have been, capable of running a bath, let alone a company.
>>>> If you really did have even limited legal knowledge you would know that 
>>>> the points I make are broadly correct.
>>>>
>>>>> I appreciate that he is trying the catch up, but uk.idiot.legal is not
>>>>> the place. Judge Judy might be better.
>>>> I have asked you before for a link to uk.idiot.legal, I can find no 
>>>> traceof that group.  You have failed to provide that link.  I therefore 
>>>> confidently predict that the group does not exist.
>>>>
>>>>> Poor Old Codger, he  was thoroughly duped by a man with a history and
>>>>> who has now done a runner, into standing fighting a rear guard action
>>>>> he is ill-equipped to manage.
>>>> More complete b*ll*cks from a man (I assume you are) who appears 
>>>> incapable of writing anything else.
>>>>
>>>> <remaining b*ll*cks snipped>
>> <more complete b*ll*cks snipped>
>>
>> Conclusions:
>>
>> Pat *knows* he has been making misleading posts regarding defamation and 
>> that I (and others) are broadly correct.
>>
>> uk.idiot.legal does not exist.
> 
> You could create it.

So you have been posting falsehoods by implying that my legal knowledge 
stems from uk.idiot.legal.

Why would I wish to create any new legal group, and particularly that 
group.  Legal newsgroups already exist and some of the posters are very 
knowledgeable, indeed some are legal professionals.

> You have the right experience. You could make it moderated and ensure that all the posts were full of naivete,
> inexperience and ignorance.

Contradicting yourself Pat?

> You could probably claim a subsidy from the Law Society for increasing
> their business scraping your contributors out of the mire.

Pure b*ll*cks.

> It would be more productive than stalking me.

Showing your ignorance again Pat?

> You might even make Panorama. on something other than deliberately
> impeding a campaigner against corruption in Britain's State Veterinary
> Service and for truth in respect of the "superbug" epidemics.

Pure b*ll*cks yet again Pat.  As I have already pointed out, *if* you 
really were campaigning on those matters you would be doing much more 
than just posting interminable rubbish and cut and paste to a newsgroup. 
  Your *claimed* disabilities would not stop you.  The fact that you 
continue to post interminably on these matters to a newsgroup clearly 
identifies you as a troll that cannot be trusted.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]