Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[Hyrion]

... that are illegal and unlawfull or do i need to obtain a court order. I will only say this, the court of appeal affirmed its illegal in 2001. Now delete my account and posts ...

... what basis you are claiming they are illegal ...

My best guess is s/he's referring to the EU Law covering "the right to be forgotten".

Highly ironic given s/he's continuing to post even after making such a request to be forgotten. One would think that if s/he truly does not want anyone reading his/her posts, s/he would stop posting.

For example, the individual made the request in a post on page 68 of this thread at 2016 01 05, Tue 2:20 pm and yet made another post about something else on same page at 2016 01 05, Tue 2:26 pm.

Even more ironically, now that the individual has mentioned there are pictures of him/her in the posts, I'm curious as to who the individual is whereas prior to mentioning that I didn't have the slightest interest. If I remember correctly, that's referred to as the Streisand effect.

[#six]

... that are illegal and unlawfull or do i need to obtain a court order. I will only say this, the court of appeal affirmed its illegal in 2001. Now delete my account and posts ...

... what basis you are claiming they are illegal ...

My best guess is s/he's referring to the EU Law covering "the right to be forgotten".

Highly ironic given s/he's continuing to post even after making such a request to be forgotten. One would think that if s/he truly does not want anyone reading his/her posts, s/he would stop posting.

For example, the individual made the request in a post on page 68 of this thread at 2016 01 05, Tue 2:20 pm and yet made another post about something else on same page at 2016 01 05, Tue 2:26 pm.

Even more ironically, now that the individual has mentioned there are pictures of him/her in the posts, I'm curious as to who the individual is whereas prior to mentioning that I didn't have the slightest interest. If I remember correctly, that's referred to as the Streisand effect.

The right to be forgotten law only covers the removal of links from search engines. Websites are free to continue to publish information that is removed from Google for example

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/ent ... 2fbf7fd379

[Hyrion]

The right to be forgotten law only covers the removal of links from search engines. Websites are free to continue to publish information that is removed from Google

Heh - I never speculated s/he was utilizing the Law correctly.

[#six]

The right to be forgotten law only covers the removal of links from search engines. Websites are free to continue to publish information that is removed from Google

Heh - I never speculated s/he was utilizing the Law correctly.

Indeed

[vampireLOREN]

l

I think Crawfraud has been hitting the Old Brown & Suds .
He edited this twice .

[vampireLOREN]

... that are illegal and unlawfull or do i need to obtain a court order. I will only say this, the court of appeal affirmed its illegal in 2001. Now delete my account and posts ...

... what basis you are claiming they are illegal ...

My best guess is s/he's referring to the EU Law covering "the right to be forgotten".

Highly ironic given s/he's continuing to post even after making such a request to be forgotten. One would think that if s/he truly does not want anyone reading his/her posts, s/he would stop posting.

For example, the individual made the request in a post on page 68 of this thread at 2016 01 05, Tue 2:20 pm and yet made another post about something else on same page at 2016 01 05, Tue 2:26 pm.

Even more ironically, now that the individual has mentioned there are pictures of him/her in the posts, I'm curious as to who the individual is whereas prior to mentioning that I didn't have the slightest interest. If I remember correctly, that's referred to as the Streisand effect.

I am amazed that anybody has taken the trouble to analyse any of this .

[vampireLOREN]

wankspittle, seeing as though you like moderating so much, could you take down all posts with pictures/videos of me on quatloos, that are illegal and unlawfull or do i need to obtain a court order. I will only say this, the court of appeal affirmed its illegal in 2001. Now delete my account and posts or tell me how to and the afforemention

Oh dear. I get this on another site I am a regular on, they even have their own memes for it. So, please point out which posts contain videos or pictures of you, what basis you are claiming they are illegal and why you will be getting a court order. Then be aware that this site is owned, and I think hosted, in the US. I understand you will be waiting several days in order to reply to this post, but I will remind you about it in due time.

Alternatively, due to the possibly misinterpretation of you post, I offer the following:

.... take down all posts with pictures/videos of me on quatloos, that are illegal and unlawfull ....

Done.

Criminal Justice Act 1925

section 41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c, in court

(1)No person shall—
(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or
(b)publish any photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section or any reproduction thereof;and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall, on summary conviction, he liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(2)For the purposes of this section—
(a)the expression " court" means any court of justice, including the court of a coroner :
(b)the expression "judge" includes recorder, registrar, magistrate, justice and coroner :
(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court-room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court-room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.

Further reading
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/lov ... CHTML.html

LEGAL NOTICE

Quatloos/members/moderators will remove all photos/videos and links of the person known as Mr. C*u*n* Crawford, Crawfruads, Yiam Cosser and craig crawfords stalker IMMEDIATELY. start here viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10829&start=860

Members of Quatloos/moderators/owners have committed contempt of law.
Moderators are also liable for allowing republication, you moderate, As are the publishers and owners of Quatloos.
But if you do live in the usa I doubt you will be extradited.
Ignorance of the law is no defence
I'm sure your master(a lawyer) will understand this
Is censorship allowed on Quatloos?
The law is the law.
You will cease and desist
You have been served(warned)

lets not forget the alarm and distress caused by these posts. Jurisdiction, irrelevant.

Respondents(republication of photo). Yiamcross x2(nothing personal), Bones x4, Hercule Parrot, Pox x2, getoutofdebtfools, vampireLOREN x2, Burnaby49, Colin123(video link),

Other respondent 1)ArthurWankspittle, Burnaby49 , wserra acting as moderators

Other respondents 2) Quatloos/owner(s) of, publisher(s) of Quatloos and server providers

Other respondents, Candice hayes, james bradley, craig crawford and other unknown republishes, facebook

Please let me know if I'am right or wrong, it would be much appreciated.

Good luck with that, remember if at first you don't succeed ......try, try ...again

[Bones]

Respondents(republication of photo). Yiamcross x2(nothing personal), Bones x4, Hercule Parrot, Pox x2, getoutofdebtfools, vampireLOREN x2, Burnaby49, Colin123(video link),

See someone appreciates all my hard work - recognition at last.

section 41 Prohibition on taking photographs, &c, in court

(1)No person shall—
(a)take or attempt to take in any court any photograph, or with a view to publication make or attempt to make in any court any portrait or sketch, of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal; or

Ok Yiam Crosser - so at the hearing in which your picture was taken, which of the above were you ?

Was you the judge ?
Was you a juror, or
Was you a witness in or party to those proceedings.



Sorry no 4x £50 from me

[Burnaby49]

l

I think Crawfraud has been hitting the Old Brown & Suds .
He edited this twice .

I think he was trying to delete it. Keep in mind since Crawfraud cannot post for a week that he should not be mocked or attacked in his absence. His postings speak for themselves in any case.

[mac]

Is Mr Taylor there offering his advice or has he gone to ground?

[wserra]

"Yiam Cosser" - he meant "Crosser", but didn't have another "r" - was Crawfrauds. He's gone.

Still, in case he wants to try to convince anyone that I'm in "contempt of law", that's Wesley M. Serra, New York bar 1018886.

[vampireLOREN]

l

I think Crawfraud has been hitting the Old Brown & Suds .
He edited this twice .

I think he was trying to delete it. Keep in mind since Crawfraud cannot post for a week that he should not be mocked or attacked in his absence. His postings speak for themselves in any case.

This may shock and amaze ya!!! but he is back already.
I enjoy his contribution actually.

[vampireLOREN]

Respondents(republication of photo). Yiamcross x2(nothing personal), Bones x4, Hercule Parrot, Pox x2, getoutofdebtfools, vampireLOREN x2, Burnaby49, Colin123(video link),

See someone appreciates all my hard work - recognition at last.



Well done Bones and you got x4 too!!!.
I do so enjoy his efforts....so much input
none of it worth a stale meat pie.

[Hercule Parrot]

Respondents(republication of photo). Yiamcross x2(nothing personal), Bones x4, Hercule Parrot, Pox x2, getoutofdebtfools, vampireLOREN x2, Burnaby49, Colin123(video link),....

I would respectfully refer you to the principles established in Arkell v. Pressdram 1971
(https://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm)

[YiamCross]

Blimey, turn your back for 5 minutes and all hell breaks loose. I'm guessing Crafraud is not a happy bunny?

As far as his demands go, I'm with Pressdram.

[notorial dissent]

Blimey, turn your back for 5 minutes and all hell breaks loose. I'm guessing Crafraud is not a happy bunny?

As far as his demands go, I'm with Pressdram.

He's actually an ex-bunny at this point.

[Hyrion]

I am amazed that anybody has taken the trouble to analyse any of this .

Wasn't any trouble - the "forget me" Law popped into my mind the moment I saw his "legal" claim and I certainly didn't spend any time considering the potential implications or value.

I spent more effort writing all that up

Doh - just spent more effort then the original < 1 sec I spent in thinking of the "forget me" law by responding to your statement....

[vampireLOREN]

I am amazed that anybody has taken the trouble to analyse any of this .

Wasn't any trouble - the "forget me" Law popped into my mind the moment I saw his "legal" claim and I certainly didn't spend any time considering the potential implications or value.

I spent more effort writing all that up

Doh - just spent more effort then the original < 1 sec I spent in thinking of the "forget me" law by responding to your statement....

Hey, spend your time in any fashion that suits .

[getoutofdebtfools]

Wow. What a complete dick

Quite why I got 'served' is beyond me. Funny how somebody that appeared to be anti FoTL acts like one when he throws his toys out of the pram.

Crawfrauds was clearly not the full ticket. Glad he's gone...

Hopefully somebody else can report on the comedy of the rooftop six and Craig.

[longdog]

LEGAL NOTICE

Quatloos/members/moderators will remove all photos/videos and links of the person known as Mr. C*u*n* Crawford, Crawfruads, Yiam Cosser and craig crawfords stalker IMMEDIATELY. start here viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10829&start=860

What? This one?