The BBC just published this article....

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

I am TrueBrit/Peter.

And you are a very well articulated and eloquent writer. Now that the lawsuit is settled, you should write something in the comment section of the BBC article to defend your reputation.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I've only just seen this TrueBrit.

I've just lodged a complaint with the BBC under defamation of character.

I am not a great writer, but this is what I have wrote:

"Although I do not know Peter Edwards in person, I have spoken to him for the past 7 years or so on an online debate forum (abovetopsecret.com).

To say he is homophobic in any way is ludicrous, I can't think of many other members on ATS who have so keenly supported gay rights and defended them where possible.

The gentleman in question protects the rights of many different groups in varying discussions, and what the journalist has posted on your website can only be seen as damaging to his character when it certainly isn't warranted.

I hope you do a little bit of research and correct your injustice towards him."

Hope it helps mate.

a reply to: Ridhya

complaint made!

disgusting they can write articles like this without showing your side, or even asking for your comment!

I too have just come across this awful state of affairs and my heart goes out to you. Words fail me to fully vocalise my dismay at such a miscarriage of justice.

Ever since I first started to read of court cases using the 'very' broad equality act I have had a notion that something like this would soon happen. For it to happen to you Sir is both shocking and disquieting. Even though I do not post much on the boards I log in on a regular basis and always enjoy your posts. Especially as a fellow Brit who values articulate language. As a small business owner what you are experiencing now would be my worst nightmare - and I am truly, truly sorry it is happening to you and yours.

If at all possible my friend - fight this - fight it with what you know best - gentlemanly conduct and language and words befitting a gentleman of standing.

I am also awfully touched and heartened by the support that many fellow ATSers have shown. You are not alone in this TB - we have your back.

a reply to: TrueBrit

TrueBrit, I got a response from the BBC to my complaint, I like the "We are impartial" bit, considering they plastered your name and picture all over the story......rotten sods.

If you would like me to forward you a copy of the email for any legal action or whatever, feel free to PM me an email address.

Dear Mr Hooper

Reference CAS-3553517-6MB5X2

Thanks for contacting us about the BBC News website.

I understand you believe it is inappropriate to refer to Peter Edwards as being homophobic.

The BBC hasn’t referred to Mr Edwards as being homophobic. We’re reporting on claims made by the complainant that homophobic gestures were made. The BBC itself is impartial and doesn’t take any position on such matters. The journalist who wrote the article isn’t trying to denigrate Mr Edwards and has not added a personal opinion on Mr Edwards.

That said, we do value your feedback about this issue. All complaints are sent to senior management and news teams every morning and I included your points in this overnight report.

These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.

Once again, thank you for contacting us.

Kind regards

Philip Young

BBC Complaints

Oh what a sorry, pathetic sack of feces Tim is. I have a very strong feeling this is going to do a full 180 & bite him hard in the ass & wallet, though, you have an established long-term pro-LGBT rights footprint online that with the right lawyer is complete vindication for you.

And if I may pass along The Bird alongside a virtual sarcastic floppy-wristed kiss if the sorry sack happens to be lurking. I'm sure my lesbian mothers-in-law would like theirs passed along, too, ya weak-minded opportunistic twit.

a reply to: woogleuk

That is roughly what I assumed the response would look like.

I am of the opinion, that the only way to report on a case in which the defendants were so utterly disadvantaged, as to amount to them having no chance at a fair hearing of that case, is either to refuse to report on the matter at all, or to hold off on doing so until both parties are free to comment without legal ramifications.

Either way, they dropped the ball, but this seems to be another area where a technicality can allow an injustice. These loopholes have been stacking up since day one of this whole stupid business. I appreciate your efforts however, woogleuk. Thank you!

originally posted by: Nyiah
Oh what a sorry, pathetic sack of feces Tim is. I have a very strong feeling this is going to do a full 180 & bite him hard in the ass & wallet, though, you have an established long-term pro-LGBT rights footprint online that with the right lawyer is complete vindication for you.

I'd like to add, This Tim has won his case and yet he is very reluctant

to show his face?


I wonder WHY?

Does he go by any other name?


Methinks he's played this *discrimination card* before!!

a reply to: eletheia

Yes, I noticed that too. If you're going to make the story public - and I assume he would have contacted the press (?) - then why hide your identity? Particularly if you then claim things like, 'I did this so no one else should suffer abuse.'

It doesn't really make sense at all. The only way it does make sense, is if he made the whole thing up out of spite or whatever, and knows full well that he's talking mince. If it's any consolation to TrueBrit, no one here seems to believe Tim (for what it's worth).
Anyway, I found that weird, glad you did too.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Here is my response from BBC:

"[email protected]
Case number CAS-3546909-NST8BZ
Nov 6 (1 day ago)

to me
Dear Ms Lupejkis,

Many thanks for getting in touch.

I was sorry to learn you felt our article on Peter Edwards wasn’t thorough enough.

The object of the interview and copy, was to understand what lead up to the court case and how unusual it was, in that the abuse suffered was non verbal.

I appreciate you feel it would have been helpful to include the background of Mr Edwards but that was not the purpose of the piece.

We of course appreciate your feedback and I’ve already made sure your comments have gone to the right people here at the BBC, including the news editors and senior management.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Carson

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints"

It seems thoughtful, but I have the idea that they are just required to be more polite than I am used to when getting a response from a US company.

a reply to: reldra

I appreciate your efforts reldra.

I am sure that the BBC will assert that they did what they had to do, in order to avoid a successful complaint against their organisation, since they are very well practiced in so doing. Also, it does not help that because I have been made unsure of my legal position with regard to matters of libel and slander, I am not sure what I can say to the press, without causing myself and my family more anguish than we have already suffered. This has meant that I have had no choice but to refuse to comment on the matter.

It is probable that my refusal, which I feel I have no choice about, absolves the BBC of any responsibility for the way the piece turned out, or at least, that is what any significant enquiry into their handling of the matter would probably find, as unjust as it is.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: reldra

I appreciate your efforts reldra.

I am sure that the BBC will assert that they did what they had to do, in order to avoid a successful complaint against their organisation, since they are very well practiced in so doing. Also, it does not help that because I have been made unsure of my legal position with regard to matters of libel and slander, I am not sure what I can say to the press, without causing myself and my family more anguish than we have already suffered. This has meant that I have had no choice but to refuse to comment on the matter.

It is probable that my refusal, which I feel I have no choice about, absolves the BBC of any responsibility for the way the piece turned out, or at least, that is what any significant enquiry into their handling of the matter would probably find, as unjust as it is.

Vanessa, standing in for Jeremy, to be fair, tried to stand up for you, against one of her "so called" friends (mainly racialism commentator, nothing to do with this situation), in saying that, if i was not a member of ATS and didn't know who you are, I, sadly, would have probably jumped on the "nail" TrueBrit bandwaggon, been there done that at a cost. Pint my friend if we ever get to meet in the SW

Take Care

a reply to: TrueBrit

If it makes any difference Vanessa Feltz received a lot of complaints about the way she interviewed Tim - the complaints they read out on radio 4 said she was hostile. She's not exactly a champion of justice but she clearly saw straight through him. (Sorry to bring it back up you must be sick of talking/thinking about it).

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: TrueBrit

If it makes any difference Vanessa Feltz received a lot of complaints about the way she interviewed Tim - the complaints they read out on radio 4 said she was hostile. She's not exactly a champion of justice but she clearly saw straight through him. (Sorry to bring it back up you must be sick of talking/thinking about it).

She had to be objective rather than subjective, Jeremy has to sit on the wall too. To be fair, Tim did himself no favours that afternoon, i was, to be quite honest, furious, listening to the commentary against a fellow member, although I ain't met TB i feel i know him and wanted to SHOUT my support, wasn't allowed! try getting past the researchers

Reply to TrueBrit

Just a thought for you .....

Obviously you have more knowledge of your case, and its not my

place to intervene, and I'm sure you have looked into all angles.

However I wonder if you have considered counter suing for

deformation of character. You have many who would speak

out for you.


I have been going to sites on google, and think you may stand a

chance,but I must confess .... legal jargon befuddles my brain


I appreciate the case you have been through in your own words

has cost you an 'arm and a leg.' But if you changed your soliciter

for one of the *no win no fee* ones it is in their interest to work

harder to win for you ? Surely you have nothing to loose giving it a

try?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Did you read this one as well?

“We can’t help the fact that the court has dealt with this matter in the way that it has but it is still not true. The judge decided on the basis of probability and he has that permission in law in a civil court.

“I am not responsible for what happens here on in, but he is responsible for destroying a company that has struggled to keep afloat against floods, fires, errant landlords and recession,” she said.

www.echo-news.co.uk...



Heads up, mate!

I really hope you can mobilize some helping hands to fight for your right now! Probability only, that's a bummer. The way I see it, Tim has a high probability of being a prick as well. Gees... *sigh*

Equality doesn't mean you have to ruin lifes on the base of probability only, this is Idiocracy! And it could be a big opportunity for your business in the long run, given the attention and your presence in the media as a first with regards to 'probable gesture-crime' (a new branch of the thoughtcrime trademark). Orwell would've bought into your business by now...

This is big and your family did obviously a great job to handle things wisely despite the lost case, take some pride in that at least. On a sidenote I like the way your picture alone completely contradicts those allegations. Typical right-winger nut with homophobic tendencies... right! Not, how stupid can it get?

Cheer up, me thinks this is far from over. We are Legion and some will actually be able to offer some help. I'm just thinking about painting my first portrait for a very long time, but you will get your share when I'm on the green.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

“We can’t help the fact that the court has dealt with this matter in the way that it has but it is still not true. The judge decided on the basis of probability and he has that permission in law in a civil court.

“I am not responsible for what happens here on in, but he is responsible for destroying a company that has struggled to keep afloat against floods, fires, errant landlords and recession,” she said.

That ^^^^^ the under scored and underlined ... *the basis of probability*

How can that even be considered JUSTICE? one person coming to a

decision which at best is not 100% by virtue of the use of the word probability

At least in a magistrates court there are three people making the judgement,

which prevents a single biased verdict.

Obviously the British Judgical system is not as fair as it is cracked up to be.

a reply to: eletheia

First of all, I should respond to the points you made in your second to last post.

There are some options available to me at present, which might be viable as a response to this situation. However, at this time, I have to concentrate on securing my livelihood for the near term, and that has to be my focus as a matter of practicality. We are receiving lots of support from our customer base, and I have started a new business to cover the loss of the old one, which will need my full attention for the foreseeable future. It has to be my priority, because I refuse to be sent to the breadline over this. Too much has been lost thus far, to make that an option for me.

Also, psychologically speaking, I am not ready to take this forward right now. I am tired, my level of concentration is such that I cannot even read books, or partake of discussion opportunities here on ATS to the degree to which I was previously accustomed. Until I build myself back up, I do not believe that entering into further action would be advisable. I have to remain intact for myself, for my family, for my son, and for my people more broadly. Until I can stabilise my mental state, I will not be making any moves in the direction of court action.

As for your comments regarding our justice system here in the UK, I have to say, that in fairness, my treatment at the hands of the justice system has coloured my attitude toward it massively, although I did not have a particularly high opinion of it before. That being said, I currently lack the ability to hold an objective view point on the matter, such is my frustration and anger at what the justice system allowed to come to pass, that my family and I have been used as scapegoats to allow a landmark ruling to go forward.

All of this in mind, I have never been more sure than I am now, that there is a big difference between justice and law, and that the law is not now, nor has ever truly been exclusively created to serve the ends of justice. Justice is pure, the law is corrupt. One is clearly a more important concept than the other. Too little attention is paid to the more important of these two, when rulings are decided, and that is something I was certain of before all this crap started happening.

I really did not need to be vindicated in that belief, to quite this degree however.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: TrueBrit

If it makes any difference Vanessa Feltz received a lot of complaints about the way she interviewed Tim - the complaints they read out on radio 4 said she was hostile. She's not exactly a champion of justice but she clearly saw straight through him. (Sorry to bring it back up you must be sick of talking/thinking about it).

Anyone got a clip of the interview/piece?