> Well Caroline, I suppose I could start with your split infinitives.
And others could start with your typos if that proved anything.
Picking on peoples spelling or grammer is the sign of a very poor argument.
> You've very obviously misunderstood me - I relish free speech, but,
> if it's unlawful and uncivil (i.e. outside the boundaries of that
> permitted legally) then it's clearly wrong.
What if the law is wrong? What if the law is considered by many to
be biased towards those with money? What if there are calls for that law to be reformed? Is it really all so clear?
> If I suggested for instance that you had been slepping around, had a
> low intellect and did disgraceful and vulgar acts then I'd expect to
> be sued for Defamation. If it were true then fait accompli. (that's
You would EXPECT to be sued for defamation - I don't believe you are a lawyer at all. If you were then you would know that the libel laws are almost exclusively a rich mans toy - and a law to be abused by the likes of Maxwell and McDonald's.
> Caroline dear, GET REAL!!
You are no lawyer.