Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:03 pm

[Mod deletes restart of Bennison v Harding, something only the participants care about. - WS]

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6364
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby wserra » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:17 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:I think it's time to lock the topic and/or put them all on active moderation.


I don't lock the thread - yet - because I have learned about the UK registration process from it. As for moderation - the next time either side restarts this, that's what will happen. No further warnings.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby AndyPandy » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:19 pm

Ted Striker wrote:Once more you fail to understand what the problem was. It was not about the content of the site, the criticism, the sniping, the childish comments and so forth. It was the fact that this site, by having the name 'bailiffhelpforum' in its title along with the hundreds of tag words on its pages, was disrupting the google search results often coming before the genuine BHF. This could be confusing to anyone searching for help with bailiffs.


So, was it worth £26k and more importantly, will you now warn anyone you advise to use the injunction route of the financial risks involved if they get it wrong?
Last edited by AndyPandy on Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6364
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby wserra » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:20 pm

Hercule Parrot wrote:This isn't about defamation litigation concerns, Q is a US board packed with lawyers and a UK court order wouldn't override the first amendment. We ask for evidence because we prize facts above gossip.


Well put.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
Ted Striker
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Ted Striker » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:25 pm

[Mod deletes restart of Bennison v Harding, something only the participants care about. - WS]

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:29 pm

This is all as confusing as the Ring Cycle, without the great music or a programme to give some hints as to what the plot is all about. If everyone were to post in German, and in singing, it would be even more similar.

As far as I can see, some tiff elsewhere has been imported, for the sake of argument. And I mean that literally, just for the sake of argument. I have skimmed through the earlier Bennison thread which in general seemed to indicate that various people were somewhat casual with the truth, with a certain amount of supporting evidence. I wondered why it seemed familiar when it popped up again with an influx of new members going at it bish bash bosh, and now I have a better idea, but still no understanding of what anyone hopes to achieve by shifting a battle from one field to another.

It would be less confusing is everyone kept to the same usernames, as it is difficult to tell the players apart with the lack of coloured jerseys with numbers on them.

I think a Kilkenny Cats result would be the best outcome all round.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6364
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby wserra » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:34 pm

Ted Striker is now moderated.

But what are "Kilkenny Cats"?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby SteveUK » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:36 pm

wserra wrote:Ted Striker is now moderated.

But what are "Kilkenny Cats"?



someone who keeps fighting till the very end.
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

Bungle
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Bungle » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:37 pm

wserra wrote:Ted Striker is now moderated.

But what are "Kilkenny Cats"?


Your moderation skills are to be admired. Thank you.

Hopefully we can all now enjoy what is left of the weekend.
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.

rosy
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2015 1:41 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby rosy » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:39 pm

It's a bit of doggerel:

There once were two cats of Kilkenny
Each thought there was one cat too many
So they fought and they fit
And they scratched and they bit
Till excepting their nails
And the tips of their tails
Instead of two cats
There weren't any.

AndyPandy
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1164
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby AndyPandy » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:42 pm

Siegfried Shrink wrote:This is all as confusing as the Ring Cycle, without the great music or a programme to give some hints as to what the plot is all about. If everyone were to post in German, and in singing, it would be even more similar.

As far as I can see, some tiff elsewhere has been imported, for the sake of argument. And I mean that literally, just for the sake of argument. I have skimmed through the earlier Bennison thread which in general seemed to indicate that various people were somewhat casual with the truth, with a certain amount of supporting evidence. I wondered why it seemed familiar when it popped up again with an influx of new members going at it bish bash bosh, and now I have a better idea, but still no understanding of what anyone hopes to achieve by shifting a battle from one field to another.

It would be less confusing is everyone kept to the same usernames, as it is difficult to tell the players apart with the lack of coloured jerseys with numbers on them.

I think a Kilkenny Cats result would be the best outcome all round.


It appears to be an unhealthy obsession that goes beyond..... well for the want of a better word.... 'professional' rivalry.

Determinator
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:18 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Determinator » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:47 pm

Ted Striker wrote:
Determinator wrote:That is truly shocking! And they think they have the right to forcibly bring down another website just because their actions are being put under scrutiny! So they believe they can say what they want about anyone else but if someone tries to do something along the same lines, they should be silenced via an injunction!


Once more you fail to understand what the problem was. It was not about the content of the site, the criticism, the sniping, the childish comments and so forth. It was the fact that this site, by having the name 'bailiffhelpforum' in its title
You are the one who still fails to understand, merely having the name "bailiffhelpforum" as part of the domain name (I assume this is what you mean, as Nominet has nothing to do with whatever page titles the webmaster assigns to pages) does not constitute an abusive registration, which was the point in dispute. The adjudicator clearly stated that the "modifier" added to the domain name left the public in no doubt as to the purpose of the other site. He also said that Mr Bennison had not shown he had any rights to that name to start with, so case closed.
Ted Striker wrote:along with the hundreds of tag words on its pages,

How is the domain NAME used related to the tags on web pages? The same tags could have been used on a website under a totally different domain name.
Ted Striker wrote: was disrupting the google search results often coming before the genuine BHF. This could be confusing to anyone searching for help with bailiffs.

You obviously don't know much about SEO, or even what people actually search for. Google indexes website CONTENT, that is, the text posted on the site. If a site uses certain words repeatedly, this site is likely to come up at the top of search results. At least in principle, however, there are billions of websites out there, and there's likely to be at least a few thousand sites where the same words are mention, yet you only get a handful of results on the first page of Google... there are other issues that come into play when it comes to google rankings. It's not about the domain name but the actual content. That's how, when you google certain legislation, the official legislation site usually comes up at the top, despite the domain name being legislation.gov.uk and not containing any of the keywords you are searching for.

If you search for "bailiff help forum", you are likely to find any website that refers to it. As there aren't many around that talk about it, the site whose name was the subject of the dispute comes up close to the top. However, if you were to do a search for some of the terms that people are more likely to search for, that site wouldn't come up, because the content just isn't there.

Furthermore, the Bailiff Help Forum is not a business, so how can its business be disrupted?

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:03 pm

Ted Striker wrote:
Once more you fail to understand what the problem was. It was not about the content of the site, the criticism, the sniping, the childish comments and so forth. It was the fact that this site, by having the name 'bailiffhelpforum' in its title along with the hundreds of tag words on its pages, was disrupting the google search results often coming before the genuine BHF. This could be confusing to anyone searching for help with bailiffs.

So what? Why would Bennison care about that? In what way does that affect Bennison? You have confirmed the criticism is not an issue, the sniping is not an issue and the childish comments are of no importance. So, why would Bennison care if people go to another site? If people go to another site does it have a detrimental effect on Bennison? If your answer is "yes" please explain how it affects him.
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5830
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:28 pm

rumpelstilzchen wrote:
Ted Striker wrote:
Once more you fail to understand what the problem was. It was not about the content of the site, the criticism, the sniping, the childish comments and so forth. It was the fact that this site, by having the name 'bailiffhelpforum' in its title along with the hundreds of tag words on its pages, was disrupting the google search results often coming before the genuine BHF. This could be confusing to anyone searching for help with bailiffs.


So what? Why would Bennison care about that? In what way does that affect Bennison? You have confirmed the criticism is not an issue, the sniping is not an issue and the childish comments are of no importance. So, why would Bennison care if people go to another site? If people go to another site does it have a detrimental effect on Bennison? If your answer is "yes" please explain how it affects him.


It's pointless to ask Striker any questions at the moment. He's subject to a one week timeout. And, after wserra wasted way too much time this morning stomping on the sudden flame-war flareup, please avoid questions that just invite the instigators to continue it. We know he has no answer to your questions.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

beaujest
Stowaway
Stowaway
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:01 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby beaujest » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:09 pm

I'm editing out personal information until I get further info from other mods.

Just when I thought I had got to grips with things I then read this....

IN THE HIGH COURT CLAIM NUMBER: Do we have a claim number so that readers can do their own research?
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
B E T W E EN:
JASON BENNISON
Claimant
-and-
NOMINET LIMITED (A Firm) CN: 06259453
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
OF JASON BENNISON
I, Jason Bennison of HEATHLANDS, WESTON GREEN, THAMES DITTON,
SURREY KT7 0JZ will say as follows :
1. Save where otherwise appears, the matters in this witness statement are within
my personal knowledge and are true. Insofar as I give evidence in relation to matters
that are not within my personal knowledge, I state the source of that information, and
I believe such information to be true.
2. I make this statement to support my application for an injunction requiring the
defendant to suspend the domain name www .bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk
“the domain name” “the website” because it is in breach of the defendant’s own
published terms of business and forbidden from allowing the domain name to be
re-registered .
2
3. I make this application because I have suffered numerous incidents of harassment
starting on 22 December 2016 and continuing, from the administrator of the website.
4. I am the owner and author of the website www .dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk which is a
self-help information site for people looking for advice about non-compliant
enforcement action. I also offer a telephone helpline service called the ‘Dealing With
Bailiffs Helpline’ providing Ad hoc help for a nominal fee. The website has been in
operation since 2012 and has accumulated a significant customer base of over 3050
clients.
5. I am the founder of the community group www .bailiffhelpforum.co.uk now
operated by volunteers, wherein interested parties discuss enforcement related
problems between themselves and with members of the public. It is a source of
clients for my business Dealing with Bailiffs.
6. The domain name points to a website used to harass me and other members of
the user group. Two imputations of defamation against me are published on the
website. There are numerous offences committed under section 127 of the
Communications Act 2003 and section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act
1997. The website operator causes disruption to my business, my right and ability to
do lawful business, and confuse internet users.
7. The domain name www .bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk is hosted by a
company from Iceland whose laws allow defamatory content because it is free
speech.
8. The registrant “the respondent” is a company, IDENTITY PROTECT LIMITED
whose business is hiding the identities of people that operate websites. Their
address as published on the internet by the defendant is PO Box 795, Godalming,
Surrey GU7 9GA, Exhibit JB1 and the defendant states:
3
Nominet was able to match the registrant’s name and address against 3rd
party data.
9. I made a complaint to an officer of IDENTITY PROTECT LIMITED, ********
, about the website content and to give me the name and address
of his customer whose identity he is protecting. Royal Mail returned my letter
undeliverable, Exhibit JB2. The respondent himself also hides behind a false
address. Using a false address to register a domain name is a breach of Clause
3(a)(iv) of the defendant’s policy document, Exhibit JB3 which states:
It is independently verified that the Respondent has given false contact details
to us.
10. This breach prevented me identifying the person making the defamatory
statements and claiming damages regarding the loss of my business, around
£350,000 and continuing, under section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 or section 3(2)
of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
11 I located ****’s home address at ********,
******************** by searching for his title register, and I wrote to him at
home asking for the identity of his customer and suspend the domain name. He did
not reply. I understand ********** may not use a company (created, and so-named,
specifically for the purpose) to conceal a person’s identity to protect them from
liability, or to obstruct legal proceedings under the Defamation Act 2013.
12 The law is silent on who is liable for defamation when a person creates a
company to protect the defamers identity and obstruct proceedings brought against
them under the Defamation Act 2013. The court may decide whether ********** is
liable to pay damages that would otherwise be brought against the defamer.
4
13. On 22 February 2017, I contacted the defendant, the official registry of UK
domain names, with a complaint that the domain name for
www .bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk is an “Abusive Registration” as defined in
the defendant’s policy document, Exhibit JB3, and on its website, Exhibit JB4.
13. Reading from defendant’s policy document Exhibit JB3, I specify each of the
breaches as follows :
Clause 1(ii).states:
Abusive Registration means a Domain Name has been used in a manner that
has been unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s rights;
The domain name is unfairly detrimental to my rights to:
a) Carry on performing lawful business
b) a right to privacy, freedom from harassment (section 2 of the Protection
from Harassment Act 1998)
c) freedom from harassment from messages or other matter that is
grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character,
(section 127 of the Communications Act 2003)
d) bring legal proceedings under:
i) the Defamation Act 2013
ii) section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1998
iii) section 127 of the Communications Act 2003
5
Clause 2(a) states:
The Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is
identical or similar to the Domain Name; and the Domain name, is in
the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration.
I am the founder of www .bailiffhelpforum.co.uk and known publicly by that
name. The respondent’s domain name is similar to my domain name because
it is called www .bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk .
Clause 3(C) states:
for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Claimant.
The website content the domain name is used, has been submitted to search
engines exposing defamatory, derogatory and obscene information about me,
Exhibit JB12. Prospective clients use this information to decide whether to do
business with me and resulted in the closure of my will writing business.
Clause 3(iv) states:
It is independently verified the respondent has given false contact
details to us,
The contact details given to the defendant is:
PO Box 795, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 9GA United Kingdom.
Royal Mail returned my complaint letter undeliverable, proving the respondent
has given false contact details to the defendant. Exhibit JB2.
6
14. The defendant said they will contact the respondent and mediate between us.
15. The respondent made no reply. The defendant demanded that I pay them £240
to decide the outcome of my complaint and application to suspend the domain name.
The receipt is Exhibit JB5
16. The defendant dismissed my complaint on the grounds there is “no breach of
trademark”, Exhibit JB6. My complaint was nothing to do with trademarks.
17. The defendant said their policy states that if I want to appeal against their
decision, I must pay a further sum of £3600, Exhibit JB7.
18. I did not appeal because the sum demanded was so ridiculously high and
because of the prior sloppiness in how the defendant handled my complaint, I had no
confidence in them either attempting to properly consider the grounds of my
complaint, let alone understand the terms in their own policy document.
19. The defendant sought to apply a 10 day limit after which I am prevented from
bringing legal proceedings, Exhibit JB8. I understand the defendant cannot revoke
the Limitation Act 1980.
20. The defendant then put a copy of my complaint and its dismissal on the internet.
The website administrator copied it verbatim to the website bragging about my
dismissed complaint. This was how I discovered the outcome of my complaint.
Exhibit JB9.
21. The website published my common law spouse’s personal data along with the
name of my Will writing business to create derogatory and harmful search results to
them and inflict serious financial harm to my will writing business and another
company which I have an interest. Exhibit JB10.
7
22. I interpret this to be a very threatening communication because it is signifying
that the website administrator has investigated my common law spouse’s identity
and my other business interests. Even though my common law spouse has nothing
to do with the website, the administrator has gone to the effort of finding out her full
name, date of birth, where she works, along with other personal data and published
it on the website, making it discoverable in internet search results connected with
seriously harmful information. I can only interpret this as a thinly veiled warning that
someone intends threatening potential harm to happen to her.
23. A person on the website impersonated me in a manner that is obscene. I thought
this was disgraceful and threatening. I am alleged to have said:
I have a very small willy
Exhibit JB11.
24. Many potential clients have told me they see adverse information when they
search my name on Google as part of their own research. This is a drain on my
resources having to explain to everyone about the website. I have to follow long and
convoluted online procedures to make takedown requests with search engines
including Google. This causes me hundreds of hours of wasted time, inflicts serious
harm to my business and my ability to do business. The website administrator knows
the damage it causes me, because the website states:
Google his name and the first two results on google are pages to this site.
Exhibit JB12.
25. Google dismisses my takedown requests saying “contact the webmaster ” , and
“seek legal advice in your home country ” .
8
26. I gave the defendant a notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998
(The DPA 1998). I asked them to remove my personal data it put on the internet
about my dismissed complaint and re-used maliciously by the website administrator.
Exhibit JB13.
27. The defendant refused my request to take it down. I now apply to the court under
section 10(4) the DPA 1998 to require the defendant to remove my personal data it
put on the internet.
28. The criminal offences were reported to Police on 21 July 2017 and recorded
under reference: 45170070376 after it became necessary to close my business due
to damage to my online business reputation.
29. T he defendant habitually allows domain name registrants to hide behind false
addresses in breach of Clause 3(a)(iv) of the defendant’s policy document in Exhibit
JB3, with apparent impunity. The address is [sic]
Suite 240, 7 Bridge Street, Tauntom N/A, TA1 1TD United Kingdom,
Exhibit JB14.
The independent evidence the address is false is that Royal Mail returned my
correspondence undeliverable. Exhibit JB15.
30. After listing this application before Master McLeod at the Queen’s Bench Division
of the High Court, a copy of this witness statement was given to the defendant by
email drs@nominet.uk who acknowledged receipt from email address
legal@nominet.org.uk on 23 August 2017, and to ******* by email via **************** who had claimed to be his representative *********@*********** . They
were given a further opportunity to suspend the domain name by 09.15 on 25 August
2017 under their own free will.
9
31. Consequently, I apply to the court:
a) to require the defendant to suspend the domain name
www .bailiffhelpforumarewrongagain.co.uk forthwith and be forbidden from
allowing it to be re-registered .
b) to remove my personal data posted on the internet by the defendant shown in
Exhibit JB6 according to my notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection
Act 1998.
c) for my costs and expenses at the prescribed rate.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.
………………………………………………….
Jason Bennison
Dated: ___25 AUGUST 2017_____________
10
Exhibit JB1
11
Exhibit JB2
12
Exhibit JB3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Exhibit JB4
WHAT IS ABUSIVE REGISTRATION?
To successfully make a complaint using our Dispute Resolution Service (DRS)
you must be able to prove the domain name, in the hands of the current
registrant, is an abusive registration. This means you must be able to prove
the domain name either:
1. Took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to your rights at the
time of registration or acquisition; or
2. Has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of, or was
unfairly detrimental to your rights .
This means that the unfair conduct can happen at any point during the lifetime
of the domain name, from registration onward. The DRS doesn’t require that
both the registration and use of the domain name be unfair. It’s also important
to note that unfair use of a domain name covers use for any purpose, such as
for a website or email.
For example, it could be that the registration was ‘fair’ (because the parties
agreed at the time, or did not object), but the use later becomes unfair –
because there is a change of use, a falling out between the parties, or a
change of motive.
EXAMPLE OF ABUSIVE REGISTRATIONS
Not quite sure what constitutes an abusive registration? Take a look at these
examples included in our DRS Policy:
● The domain name was registered with the primary purpose of selling or
renting it specifically to the Complainant (or a competitor) for more than
the Respondent paid for it
21
● The domain name was registered with the primary purpose of stopping
the Complainant using it
● The domain name was registered with the primary purpose of disrupting
the Complainant’s business
● The domain name has been used to confuse internet users
The list above isn’t exhaustive, and you may have another reason to make a
complaint.
EVIDENCE THAT A REGISTRATION IS NOT ABUSIVE
In our DRS Policy, we also give some examples of factors that may show the
registration is not abusive, including:
● The respondent can show they have made preparations to use the
domain name for a legitimate business
● The domain name is generic or descriptive and is being used fairly
● The domain name is being used purely for tribute or criticism
Again, this list is not exhaustive and respondents may raise other arguments
to defend their registration of a domain name.
Source:
https://www.nominet.uk/domains/resolvin ... -complaint
s/

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1187
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby SteveUK » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:39 pm

Absolute class :mrgreen:

23. A person on the website impersonated me in a manner that is obscene. I thought
this was disgraceful and threatening. I am alleged to have said:
I have a very small willy
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

Siegfried Shrink
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 10:29 pm
Location: West Midlands, England

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Siegfried Shrink » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:43 pm

In Britain the category 'common law spouse' does not exist.

But is this not the witness statement/statement of claim that has already been published?
What's new?

aesmith
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:14 am

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby aesmith » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:52 pm

SteveUK wrote:Absolute class :mrgreen:
23. A person on the website impersonated me in a manner that is obscene. I thought
this was disgraceful and threatening. I am alleged to have said:
I have a very small willy

I dread to think what Exhibit JB11 is, and whether that supports or contradicts the allegation.

User avatar
Penny Wise
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:54 pm
Location: Deadlights

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Penny Wise » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:56 pm

beaujest wrote:26. I gave the defendant a notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998
(The DPA 1998). I asked them to remove my personal data it put on the internet
about my dismissed complaint and re-used maliciously by the website administrator.
Exhibit JB13.

27. The defendant refused my request to take it down. I now apply to the court under
section 10(4) the DPA 1998 to require the defendant to remove my personal data it
put on the internet.


http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2017/D00018586.html

Jason Bennison made the complaint in the name of Bailiff Help Forum. The above is a link to the dismissal of his complaint. He is not named or even referred to in the dismissal of his complaint, therefore it would be impossible to argue that the dismissal of his complaint, was his personal data as definded by the Data Protection Act 1998:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/1

1 Basic interpretative provisions.

(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—

“personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—
(a)

from those data, or
(b)

from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller,

and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual;
Wanna balloon?

User avatar
Penny Wise
First Mate
First Mate
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:54 pm
Location: Deadlights

Re: Bennison v Nominet Ltd (a firm) – IHQ17/0408

Postby Penny Wise » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:59 pm

beaujest wrote:EVIDENCE THAT A REGISTRATION IS NOT ABUSIVE
In our DRS Policy, we also give some examples of factors that may show the
registration is not abusive, including:
● The respondent can show they have made preparations to use the
domain name for a legitimate business
● The domain name is generic or descriptive and is being used fairly
The domain name is being used purely for tribute or criticism
Again, this list is not exhaustive and respondents may raise other arguments
to defend their registration of a domain name.
Source:
https://www.nominet.uk/domains/resolvin ... -complaint
s/


Why did he include the above in his witness statement ? He defeats his own claim that it is an abusive registration
Wanna balloon?


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 1 guest