by "Bishop" <The Bishop@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Aug 28, 2005 at 09:24 PM
On 28-Aug-2005, "T Moore" < click.an.email.ico@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Try http://www.sarahbranson.com/
>
> > It sure reads like a big mess. Not sure I understand
> > what it is all about... threats and all that...
>
> Go to http://www.sarahbranson.com/#contents
and move forward. Not that
I
> understand it all. You may get as far as a statement by me that says as
> much.
>
> Have a look at
http://www.sarahbranson.com/harassment/sb11feb/default.htm
> and see if you believe she was told in telephone conversations by Google
>
> A "They replied that there was nothing that they could do." ("if they
> could remove it from their search engine.") [para 8]
>
> B "that web service providers cannot generally scrutinize the contents
> of material sent to or hosted by them." [para 17]
>
This is true. Unless there is a warrant, they maintain users' privacy
rights.
> Or "I confirmed with the post office that it had been delivered by
> telephone." [para 17]
>
> Do you think a qualified legal professional could make three convenient
> mistakes in a row?
>
> Do you think blocking my access to services is okay?
What's this about..........
"As I recall. the Respondent was being evicted by his housing association
for harassing other tenants and his landlord had obtained an injunction.
Enquiries were made on his behalf and it transpired that he was being
offered sup****t by social services but had failed to attend a number of
appointments offered to him."
and this.............
"I was informed by Mr Davies that when the Respondent attended the
surgery appointment, he became very angry and shouted at Mr Davies
because a social worker was present. He also snatched Mr Daves' file
containing information about the surgery."
