?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous | Next

Arkell vs. Pressdram

You couldn't make it up... GiggleGawper Jimbo 'Shitlord' Desborough, a particularly hateful waste of a genome, is threatening to sue people for libel. Their "crime"? Blocking him on twitter using a bot that auto-blocks GiggleGawpers.

For context, Jimmy is indeed a GiggleGawper of high order. He's also an MRA, a misogynist, a homophobe, a transphobe, and the kind of arsehole who blames his being an arsehole on having depression ("it's a bum rap, my penismental illness made me do it!"), rather than on him being an arsehole. He has tried to exploit a terrorist movement to sell what should probably be called "roleplaying games" because nobody's actually wasted money on them to find out if his description's accurate.

In short, he is exactly the kind of person that the autoblocker was invented to block. CLOSED-WONTFIX, working as intended, good fucking riddance.

Oh, he's also blocked plenty of the people he's threatening to sue, even though their "crime" is blocking him. He's even worse at irony than Alanis Morissette.

I dearly hope that everyone who received one of his threats refers to the response given in Arkell vs. Pressdram (1971). For those of you who haven't come across this seminal piece of British legal correspondence:

Letter to Private Eye
From Goodman Derrick & Co., solicitors:
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.


Response from Private Eye
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.


Originally posted at Dreamwidth, where comment count unavailable people have commented. Please join them. You can log in there with your Livejournal account.

Links

Tagcloud

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner