ATTN People

Question

If you don't already know about Derek Hornby you can read about some of his activities from the links below.

There is nothing libellous in this post as it is all true, as you can see for yourself from the links
which show Derek Hornby at work. In fact Derek
Hornby has been questioned about his activities in the teens group alt.uk.teens.london many times
over the past three years by many people and not
once has Derek Hornby taken anyone to court for
libel, why?, because he know it is all true thats
why.
Derek Hornby currently uses the email address
derek.hornby (Email Removed)
and is currently infesting uk.people.disability where he is hated and loathed by many for his activities.
Over the comming months this post will be posted to many newgroups and internet sites, eventualy millions are going to read all about Derek Hornby and his disgusting activities. Aplologies if you have read this befor in another group, but it is important for all abused people to know about this man.
He claims to be totaly blind yet by his own words in his own posts it is clear that he can see although his vision may be affected. He boasts of a twenty five year plus flying history, and travels two or three times a year by air on his own, where he goes to he will not say. How he pays for all this travel plus the costs of his prostitute activities while his only known income is state benefits again he will not say.
Report of Grooming activities by Derek Hornby
From www.bt.co.uk/directory-enquiries/
D.J Hornby
Textphone, prefix 18001 text or 18002 voice (01695) 422596

5, The Grove
Aughton
Ormskirk
L39 6RA
The 13 year old, Maria, went to a teen newsgroup looking for friends aged 13-20. She did not ask for a 46 year old man who misrepresented himself as a youth worker.
Derek Hornby took advantage of the fact that Maria was attacked by others in the group, so she was vulnerable. He defended her to win her favour. He proceeded to gain Maria's trust, and he e- mailed her privately.
Derek Hornby lied to Maria when his extensive use of prostitutes was revealed, and tried to say someone else must have used his computer. He is the only one who used deafblind equipment for communicating, and there are ample records of him using prostitute newsgroups since 1998. The type of services he used show a liking for kinky sex, as he replied to adverts for bi- sexuals and multiple partners.
Maria was frightened when Derek Hornby told her he was coming to see her in Moscow.
Derek Hornby has attempted to remove the evidence of his posts from various newsgroups.
Maria's 1st post aged 13 (in 2000), requesting a teenage friend:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8b0mi6%24196q%241%40gavrilomtu.ru&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Hi my name is Maria, i was born in 1986. I speak French, English, Russian, a little bit Spanish. I like sports, listening to music, chatting and
travelling. I live in Moscow but i'm going to England this summer. I'd like to find a friend from England between ages 13-
20.

Proof he contacted teenager, Maria, privately by e-mail:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bvt6m%24rfi%241%40uranium.btinternet.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
[nq:1]Maria, sorry, but I did answer your email.[/nq]
Misrepresenting himself to gain the trust of a young girl:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8btuno%24a2%241%40newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
[nq:1]Well, Jon, whether mail was, or wasn't hacked, only the person concerned would know, plus the hacker. So that issue ... reason. I still fell same, and still feel that some of you could have been more frienly to Maria. Derek[/nq]
yes.. you are a youth worker?
maybe we should tell your boss that his 'youth worker' has been looking at naughty things (we've been doing our research into your prostitition games). Sure, look in, see if we care, just leave us alone.. we want to talk amongst ourselves, the uk.teens.london - ok, maybe you are UK.LONDON, but no TEENS, see?

how old are you? 30, 40, 50?
sure, you've been expressing your view too much, and nobody wants to read it no more...
now, let's get back on with what we normally do, without the Russians, or the Old Folks.
This is Maria after being warned Derek Hornby used prostitute newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bv9eh%24402%241%40gavrilo.mtu.ru&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

wow he posted a lot! are you sure it was him? - Derek didn't answer when i asked him if it was all true. i never thought he would do that.
Trying to lie about posting to prostitute newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8c2ns8%24cp3%241%40neptunium.btinternet.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Maria,
I, agree with you, 100% that you did see my name, and account number, at top of the posts, and I've not said different. All I've said, and still say, is that I did not personally post. I accept, that I can't porove it, but then neither can anyone here, prove I did, personally post.
Maria is worried about Derek Hornby coming to see her:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8c4607%241uhl%241%40gavrilomtu.ru&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
4. He asked me to be his tour guide in Moscow! And i won'tbecause i'm not sure!
Repeated messages to get rid of him from teen newsgroup:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8c30a6%243ri%241%40news8.svr.pol.co.uk&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
[nq:1]Derek has come along and started making threats, taking thingsseriously. This is not the place for law-suits, or a place where people take things seriously.[/nq]
Look: We're teenagers.
This is NOT your place Derek, we're all friends here, and we all seem to be sticking up for each other. You come in, start telling us what to do, and act as if you own the place.
[nq:1]YEAH! DEREK OUT!! DEREK OUT!!! OUT DEREK!!! OUT!!! OUT!!NOW!!! OUT NOW!!! OUT!!! OUT!!! YEAH!!![/nq]
10 - 15 years experience of prostitutes would make himunsuitable company for a 13 year old girl:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3794feff.1119039%40news.mindspring.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Hi Sue,
You're right, and to be honsest, I have been with other escorts in past with no problems. The reason I can't see my usual girl, is because she is
away on holiday at moment.
you know, all the girls I have seen in past mm 10 15 years, have had no experience of the blind, deaf, or deafblind, but, have been willing to gain such experience, by acceptting such people.
Proof that he does more than hold hands, and is used to travelling to find multiple partners:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=njp6sso0sloh9g9en2va5rkhev90sdlffs%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
On 15 Sep 2000 20:46:02 GMT, Derek Hornby
wrote:
She charges £700 for overnight
For that you could get a cheap flight to bangkok a cheap Hotel and have well over 7 girls, most of whom would probably be far more attractive and give you a better ***
Proof that he likes teenagers:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=au%24zsIAYCos3EwEF%40bozzief9.co.uk&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
[nq:1]I sent the young lady an email and got no reply. so is she awindup?[/nq]
Perhaps she'd read some of your other whinging postings? p-)
This is the ad from the prostitute, who he falsely accused of discrimination:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=f%25%25k3.4634%24ts3.129532%40nnrp4.clara.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
[nq:1]I'm Anna, a stunning 25 year old blonde. I am very slim (uksize 6), 5ft 5, busty 32d-23-32 and bi-sexual. ... uk size 6, which isabout the size of your average eight year old, sporting a pair of 32... D..! boobs.[/nq]
Derek Hornby has used the fact that he is categorised as deaf and blind to excuse all his behaviour. He is able to fly abroad on his own, so he has no limitations.
The act of enticing a child by means of false information to gain their trust is known as "grooming":
http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/task force press release.htm

"The second reading of the draft legislation relating to electronic sexual content received overall support in the UK House of Commons this week. A draft Bill is on the books and is set to make "Internet grooming" a crime. "Internet grooming" is the practice of adults who solicit under-age children on the Internet with the express intention of sexually abusing them. The legislation will seek to make this type of activity an offence under The Sexual Offences Bill. It will create a "Risk of Sexual Harm Order" which will prohibit adults from sending sexually explicit content to children online. MPs are in favour of this new Bill, in light of recent events and its magnifying of the dangers of chat rooms to children. (17 July 2003)"

Reform of Computer Misuse Act (pdf):
http://www.internetcrimeforum.org.uk/cma-icf.pdf
Governing Child Pornography (pdf):
http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/us article.pdf

Governance of Pornography:
http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/governan.htm
Legal interception of communications:
http://www.cyber-rights.org/interception/

Usenet · Accepted Answer

...
[nq:1]Over the comming months this post will be posted to many newgroups and internet sites, eventualy millions are going to read all about...[/nq]
You there, spammer! I'm all for free speech, but this is really too much. You don't even sell anything.
A pox on you and your interfering ilk.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]If you don't already know about Derek Hornby you can read about some of his activities from the links below. ... as it is all true, as you can see for yourself from the links which show Derek Hornby at work.[/nq]
Any of our UK legal folk want to take a stab at that? My impression from reading Geoff Pullum's discussion of UK libel law was that truth was not an absolute defense against a libel suit there.

It would be reasonable for someone who had heard of libel informally, and had read a few newspaper reports of cases, to have formed something like the following view of what is involved in libel:
1. The act of libeling involves writing down words in a naturallangauge.

2. The words are apprehended and understood by some other person,the libeled person, who has grounds for objecting to their content.

3. The utterance contains some expression that refers to thelibeled person.

4. The libeler intended the words to refer to the libeled person.
5. The utterance was issued in some nonconfidential form,published or addressed to people other than the libeled person.
6. Some claim the uterance makes about the libeled person isfalse.

7. The utterance has some intended interpretation in the contextunder which its claim reflects discredit on the libeled person.
8. The facts in the context that make the utterance defamatory ofthe libeled person are known to the libeler.

9. The facts in the context that make the utterance defamatory ofthe libeled person are known to the libeled person.
10. The libelous utterance has the form of a declarative sentencethat makes some claim about the libeled person.

11. The libeler believes that the utterance asserts somethingunfavorable about the libeled person.

12. The libeled person believes that the utterance assertssomething unfavorable about him/her.

13. The publication of the libelous utterance caused some sort ofdamage to the libeled person.
The legally sophistaicated might spot that some of these conditions do not have to hold in a libel case. What relatively few people realize, however, is that under the English law (which at root provides the case-law basis used by the American courts too) not a single one of this baker's dozen of claims need hold.

The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax , p. 94

Usenet · Answer

On 22 Oct 2003 10:47:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
[nq:2]If you don't already know about Derek Hornby you can ... yourself from the links which show Derek Hornby at work.[/nq]
[nq:1]It would be reasonable for someone who had heard of libel informally, and had read a few newspaper reports of cases, to have formed something like the following view of what is involved in libel:[/nq]
(snip)
[nq:1]10. The libelous utterance has the form of a declarative sentence that makes some claim about the libeled person.[/nq]
Not sure about that one. If you said "X is not a baby-eating, dog-kicking cross-dressing embezzler as some may believe", and that's the first time anyone had made such a suggestion in print, wouldn't it be just as libellous in its effect as if it had been a "declarative sentence"?
[nq:1]11. The libeler believes that the utterance asserts something unfavorable about the libeled person.[/nq]
Nor that: "Some of my best friends are baby-eating, dog-kicking, cross-dressing embezzlers, M'Lud."
[nq:1]13. The publication of the libelous utterance caused some sort of damage to the libeled person.[/nq]
That can't be a condition. How could, say, Elton John prove that he was selling less records after The Sun accused him of frequenting parties attended by underage rent boys (I think that's what it was; if it wasn't, don't sue, Elt, 'kay some of my best friends are underage rent boys)?
Whatever, I'm going to read the OP now. You've piqued my interest in something I assumed was spam.

Ross Howard

Usenet · Answer

On 22 Oct 2003 10:47:13 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
[nq:2]If you don't already know about Derek Hornby you can ... yourself from the links which show Derek Hornby at work.[/nq]
[nq:1]It would be reasonable for someone who had heard of libel informally, and had read a few newspaper reports of ... single one of this baker's dozen of claims need hold. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax , p. 94[/nq]
The two doubtful ones are 5 and 6. It is a defence to libel that insofar as the item complained of consists of statements of fact, those facts are true, and insofar as in consists of comment, that comment is fair. Comment based on alleged facts which are not true cannot be defended as fair. But, although statements of fact which are true cannot be libelous, comment on those facts can be. And there is no libel unless the item is communicated to some person other than the person defamed. It does not matter whether this is intentional or inadvertent; it is libelous to send a defamatory letter to someone at their business address, since it is likely that someone other than the addressee will open the mail.
It should be noted that the defence of "fair comment" is given a much wider scope in the USA than in the UK - so much so, I balieve, that libel cases based on comment almost never succeed.

All of this relates to civil libel, not criminal libel, which is (probably) obsolete.

Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Usenet · Answer

(snip)
[nq:2]5. The utterance was issued in some nonconfidential form, published ... claim the uterance makes about the libeled person is false.[/nq]
(snip)
[nq:1]The two doubtful ones are 5 and 6. It is a defence to libel that insofar as the item complained ... defended as fair. But, although statements of fact which are true cannot be libelous, comment on those facts can be.[/nq]
Pullum claims (but doesn't cite a reference) that certain things you can say about somebody the example given being that they are a homosexual are considered "inherently defamatory", even if they happen to be true. (Presumably if this is not public knowledge.) The article was written in 1985, though, so things may have changed.
[nq:1]And there is no libel unless the item is communicated to some person other than the person defamed. It does ... to someone at their business address, since it is likely that someone other than the addressee will open the mail.[/nq]
In the case he cites, Theaker v. Richardson 1962
it was successfully held that when a letter to the plaintiff was opened in error by the plaintiff's wife, that was enough to publish it. ... In the case of criminal libel, "an action will lie if the libel has been published to the person defamed and to no one else" (Carter-Ruck 1972, p. 76)
[nq:1]All of this relates to civil libel, not criminal libel, which is (probably) obsolete.[/nq]
From the above excerpt, this must not have been the case in 1985.

Evan Kirshenbaum + HP Laboratories >Politicians are like compost they
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 >should be turned often or they startPalo Alto, CA 94304 >to smell bad.
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Usenet · Answer

On 22 Oct 2003 19:51:04 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
[nq:1](snip) (snip)[/nq]
[nq:2]The two doubtful ones are 5 and 6. It is ... true cannot be libelous, comment on those facts can be.[/nq]
[nq:1]Pullum claims (but doesn't cite a reference) that certain things you can say about somebody the example given being that they ... true. (Presumably if this is not public knowledge.) The article was written in 1985, though, so things may have changed.[/nq]
I'm sure this is wrong, and was wrong even in 1985.
[nq:2]And there is no libel unless the item is communicated ... that someone other than the addressee will open the mail.[/nq]
[nq:1]In the case he cites, Theaker v. Richardson 1962 it was successfully held that when a letter to the plaintiff was opened in error by the plaintiff's wife, that was enough to publish it. ...[/nq]
But this is right.
[nq:1]In the case of criminal libel, "an action will lie if the libel has been published to the person defamed and to no one else" (Carter-Ruck 1972, p. 76)[/nq]
[nq:2]All of this relates to civil libel, not criminal libel, which is (probably) obsolete.[/nq]
[nq:1]From the above excerpt, this must not have been the case in 1985.[/nq]
That was shortly after the last criminal libel case (Goldsmith v. Pressdram, or "Goldenballs"). That was the first for about twenty years, and there have been none since.

Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Over the comming months this post will be posted to many newgroups and internet sites, eventualy millions are going to read all about...[/nq]
[nq:1]You there, spammer! I'm all for free speech, but this is really too much. You don't even sell anything. A pox on you and your interfering ilk.[/nq]
Furthermore, the premise is flawed. Millions are not going to read all about this guy. I stopped reading the previous post after the first couple of lines made it obvious what was going on. I had forgotten this guy's name before I moved on to the next post. I don't know and I don't care what this guy has done or is alleged to have done. I only got this far because I read mb's post. As I prepare to send this the whole dreary episode is already fading from memory...

ATTN People

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions