Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Justice » Law » A lethal Twit

A lethal Twit

Imagine that you are an up and coming young(ish) chap at the Victorian Bar and you send out a series of messages into the ether via that great time waster TWITTER:

The messages note your progress on a journey from Geelong back into Melbourne.

Case adjourned. Geelong departed. Noun verbed.

Followed an hour later by

Avoid westgate bridge. Traffic ludicrous and truck-filled.

then this

Obviously pulling over to tweet isn’t making it faster, but STILL not at bridge. Bloody gridlock.

and an hour later by this

BRIDGE SIGHTED. So close I could almost walk to it. (I’d get there three hours quicker, too.)

and finally this

Westgate overcome. Traffic tweeting concluded.

Reading this little string of messages got me thinking about the laws that relate to the use of mobile phones whilst in control of a motor car, and the number of times in recent memory when texting has been cited as a major factor in a  fatal crash. and I wonder how long will it be before we read a headline like this:

“Barrister  who caused fatal crash a lethal Twit”

Hypothetical I know but not unimaginable  in an age when some people think the universe needs to know when the evacuate their bowels and how many sheets they neatly fold to wipe.

Cheers Comrades

😉

Update :

I repost here the apology that I opened my post And the Internet’s real stalker is …. with:

Firstly I want to apologise to Jeremy for mocking him in the previous “Lethal Twit” post. Attacking him over the continuing harassment from the Grods alumni was wrong and I sincerely regret it.


192 Comments

  1. […] A lethal Twit « IAIN HALL iainhall.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/a-lethal-twit – view page – cached I am interested to find out where my readers stand in the political spectrum so I have created a poll to find out. — From the page […]

  2. So let me review this Iain.

    Because Jeremy has chosen not to make his tweets publicly visible that means that you have had to sign up to the twitter service, and then specifically request access to Jeremy’s timeline to read it.

    Then, having specifically signed up to the service and requested access to see what Jeremy has to say, you bitch about the content?

    And you’re speculating about mobile phone use while driving even though you printed the tweet which says

    Obviously pulling over to tweet isn’t making it faster, but STILL not at bridge. Bloody gridlock.

    You’ve gone to a lot of effort to participate in something that you claim to dislike Iain, isn’t there anything else worth writing about?

  3. Toaf says:

    If tweeting is a great time waster, Iain, what do you call reading tweets, copying and pasting them into a blog post, and talking shit?

  4. Reading tweets, copying and pasting them into a blog post, and talking shit is killing blogging.

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Dave

    So let me review this Iain.

    Because Jeremy has chosen not to make his tweets publicly visible that means that you have had to sign up to the twitter service, and then specifically request access to Jeremy’s time line to read it.

    Really? what rot all anyone has to to do is read the stream of someone who is following Jeremy,(whom I did not name BYW) like Scott who makes it public

    Then, having specifically signed up to the service and requested access to see what Jeremy has to say, you bitch about the content?

    see my answer above Dave

    And you’re speculating about mobile phone use while driving even though you printed the tweet which says

    Obviously pulling over to tweet isn’t making it faster, but STILL not at bridge. Bloody gridlock.

    The thing that occurred to me is that despite this I can’t imagine any sensible person pulling over to post inane commentary more than once on a long journey, so even if it is both truthful and referencing all messages posted that the messages are worthy of mockery for the waste of time.

    You’ve gone to a lot of effort to participate in something that you claim to dislike Iain, isn’t there anything else worth writing about?

    What effort? All I have done is add a link to my favourites that I check it from time to time.

  6. Jason says:

    Okay Iain, since you wouldn’t publish my previous home truth, let me ask you a question. What conclusions would you have people draw from your apparently insatiable desire to pursue Jeremy
    Sear online, wherever he may be? How would a reasonable person describe that kind of activity, do you think?

  7. Jeremy says:

    LOL. Iain, I never approved you, you creepy stalker, so what’s the bullshit twitter account you’ve invented to spy on me?

    And you can remove the unfounded (and defamatory) allegation that I was breaking the law.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Jason
    Don’t you think that social phenomena like Twitter should be criticised when it is being used by some one is in control of a motor car?
    Now I specifically avoided publicly naming the author of the comments and had Dave not done so Just who would have ever known that they were from Jeremy?

  9. cosmicjester says:

    The thing that occurred to me is that despite this I can’t imagine any sensible person pulling over to post inane commentary more than once on a long journey, so even if it is both truthful and referencing all messages posted that the messages are worthy of mockery for the waste of time.

    And I can’t imagine a sensible person setting up a fake twitter account to specifically to follow people with locked tweets and then cutting and pasting some protected tweets in a rather pathetic attempt to accuse some illegal conduct. People are quite odd really.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    CJ
    as I have explained to Dave locking your twitter account does not stop people seeing your messages because they are publicly viewable in the streams of anyone who follows you.

  11. Jason says:

    Iain, if you genuinely believe any of the excuses you’re making, then your problem is worse than I imagined. Nice one for not answering my direct question, by the way.

  12. Iain Hall says:

    No Dave
    it is the absolute truth Log out of your twitter account and then click on the link to Scott’s twitter stream that I have above and if you scroll back through the tweets you will see bold as brass all of Jeremy’s tweets.
    “locking” them does not make tweets invisible to non approved followers

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Jason
    You guys just don’t understand the characteristics of the medium that you have all embraced so warmly do the same as I suggested to Dave and you will see precisely what I mean

  14. Jason says:

    Fail, Iain. I hope Jeremy’s been able to find your anonymous account and block it.

  15. Jason says:

    And furthermore, you’ve again avoided the question of why you’re scouring the Internet for Jeremy’s comings and goings.

  16. Jason says:

    By the way, Iain, this has exposed your sanctimony about anonymity online for what it is – hypocrisy.

  17. Iain Hall says:

    😆
    Jason none of the streams that I look at are private

  18. Jason says:

    Yeah good response, Iain. Looks like my first post was right on the money.

  19. Jason says:

    I think I might stick to Leon’s blog. We disagree on a lot but he wouldn’t pull something like this. Enjoy yourself, Iain, with whatever it is you think you’re doing here.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    Jason
    what I am doing is looking at a social phenomena and considering its characteristics why does that so concern you?

  21. Iain Hall says:

    I could have talked about the number of times that Andy Bulme masturbates and then reports it on twitter.

  22. Keri says:

    “and I wonder how long will it be before we read a headline like this:
    “Barrister who caused fatal crash a lethal Twit”

    Um, considering it’s there in black and white that he was pulled over, never?

    And come clean, Iain. We know your account name and we’ve all blocked you.

    If that’s not the case, care to show us a screen shot proving exactly how you got your hands on the tweets? If that’s how you got them it should be fairly easy for you to do.

  23. Iain Hall says:

    OK I understand your “stand by your man” thing but keep in mind that no one but you and your pals would have known who the author of those tweets was had he not been outed by Dave now would they?

  24. Keri says:

    Iain, how many tweeting “young Victorian Barristers” do you blog about?

    Precisely one. Anyone who has read your blog for more than five minutes would know who you were talking about.

    And I never questioned your use of subject matter (Although I think it’s as low as a snakes belly), I questioned your assertion that you don’t have a twitter account that followed Jeremy under a name other than your own.

    Care to address that? Provide a screen shot?

  25. Jason says:

    Hypocrisy, Iain, from the man who always asserts the cowardice of those who operate anonymously on the Internet.

  26. Iain Hall says:

    Morning all 😉
    I want to make a correction here because I was actually wrong in my belief about the way that Twitter operates, and yes I have created an account to follow certain Twits, What I did not realise is that when reading particular streams that my PC was logging me in to the service so I made an incorrect conclusion about the system works. I apologise for making that error.
    As for the Hyperbole from various lefties here, it is the stuff of the most wild conspiracy theorists. Applying to follow even those who ‘lock” their tweets requires just one mouse click and if they decided to allow me to read their drivel it was with no special entreaties from me at all, I did not get even the briefest “who are you” queries. No one asked and I volunteered nothing about who “Peter Sam” was.
    To Jason my position on anonymity relates to what is said and taking ownership of your, words now as the only thing said by “Peter Sam” was “Testing” I acknowledge authorship of that tweet.

    To the substance of this post, my point about using this service while driving being a potentially lethal practice still stands and while it was a little mischievous to quote Jeremy as a possible example of the practice I just thought that his travel commentary was a perfect example of the sort of distraction from good driving Twitter can be. I accept at face value his denial that he was actually in control of the motor car when those messages were created and posted. In any case I never intended for him to be named although his friends were very quick to make his name public…
    Cheers Comrades

  27. Ice MC says:

    You’re full of shit, iain. Long time reader, first time commenter.

    i think it’s obvious from the beginning that everyone KNEW it was you masquerading on Twitter as Sam Peter or whatever name you conjured.

    seriously, grow up. Twat.

  28. cosmicjester says:

    Oh Iain, this thread is the greatest self-pwning in some time, once again your interesting post reveals a lot more disturbing about you than the person you are trying (pathetically) to defame.

    As a wise “bloger” (sic) once said. “So let me conclude by saying that I still believe that posting on the net under a pseudonym is fine, until it is used as a licence to abuse and defame people in the real world, then internet anonymity loses all virtue.”

    So what is setting up a sockpuppet to copy and paste private tweets to claim that someone is breaking the law but not revealing the tweet that explained otherwise? Yes you were defaming someone through the use of an anonymous sockpuppet.

    Can you spell “Hypocrisy” Peter Sam?

  29. Iain Hall says:

    Ice MC
    simple question for you if they knew it was my account then why did they approve my requests to follow them?
    Oh and it is pleasant change to have a Sydney lefty here even if you disagree with me 😉

    CJ
    Self Pwning? Hardly. I set up the account to investigate the twitter phenomena and it was only natural that I should follow all of you lot and as I explained in my last comment the string of comments that I quoted just struck the cord of the topic that I blogged about and if you think that I failed to post the comment where it is claimed that the author was pulling over to tweet then you should read my post again because it is right there third quote from the top.

  30. Toaf says:

    Iain, that’s a lovely correction but you seem to have left out the words, “I am a liar.”

  31. Iain Hall says:

    Where precisely have I said something that is untrue Damien?

  32. Toaf says:

    Iain, in your first reply to Dave you deny having created a Twitter account because all you had to do was read the protected tweets via someone else’s feed.

  33. Iain Hall says:

    No Damien sorry to resort to pedantry but with you it is necessary. re read what I said because all I did was say was what I thought was the case that it was unnecessary to have an account to read the tweets I do not specifically deny having an account at all.

  34. Toaf says:

    Bullshit, Hall. Predictable, dishonest bullshit.

  35. Iain Hall says:

    Read the words Damien, the precise words:

    Really? what rot all anyone has to to do is read the stream of someone who is following Jeremy,(whom I did not name BYW) like Scott who makes it public

    Then, having specifically signed up to the service and requested access to see what Jeremy has to say, you bitch about the content?

    see my answer above Dave

    There is no admission that I have an account nor is there a denial.

  36. Toaf says:

    And now you’re editing comments. You’re a class act, Hall.

    (And don’t even bother replying with, “Now Damien where precisely have I edited comments?”)

  37. Toaf says:

    Hall, the words “what rot” are a direct response to Dave’s comment. But if you believe you have acted honestly then well and good. If you have any readers they will surely judge for themselves.

  38. Iain Hall says:

    Doyle

    I love it when you claim that I am editing comments when I am doing no such thing it makes you look silly

    Hall, the words “what rot” are a direct response to Dave’s comment. But if you believe you have acted honestly then well and good. If you have any readers they will surely judge for themselves.

    Well I do believe that I acted honestly here and it was only when I later received email confirmation from a third party that i realised my understanding of the set up of twitter was in error and that was AFTER I posted that response to Dave.

  39. Toaf says:

    So long as you believe it, Iain. No one else will.

  40. Iain Hall says:

    Just take off your leftist blinkers Damain, and think about it for a minute, If I was lying in that comment to Dave then why do my words so clearly demonstrate that I have misunderstood the way that twitter settings work?

  41. Toaf says:

    “Because Jeremy has chosen not to make his tweets publicly visible that means that you have had to sign up to the twitter service, and then specifically request access to Jeremy’s timeline to read it.”

    “Really? What rot.”

    Not even Leon Bertrand would take your case, Iain.

  42. Iain Hall says:

    Damain,
    let me break this down for you
    In response to Dave’s claim
    I first say
    “Really? which means that I don’t agree with what Dave is claiming is necessary for access to the tweets and the “What rot. emphasises the point.
    NEITHER suggest that I am lying, only wrong and wasn’t your point that I was being “dishonest”?
    YOU fail to make the case on the evidence right here in the words and you leaving out the next sentence where I explain what i believed to be the case proves that you are now trying to use that old favourite “selective quoting”

  43. Ray Dixon says:

    Just to break the pattern of the alternating Iain & Toaf Gravatars in your sidebar, I’ll add my bit.

    In my opinion you’ve stuck your foot in this one and you should perhaps apologise. On the other hand I think some of the commentary here has been a bit ‘high & mighty’ and sanctimonious.

    I think it’s a storm in a teacup but it’s your storm and trying to justify it only makes it bigger.

  44. Jason says:

    As usual, Iain, you’re avoiding the larger issue. You signed up for a service you scorn, with the sole apparent aim of scoring a “gotcha” on Jeremy Sear. Can’t you see how this tends to confirm what your critics say about your behaviour online? And you did lie when you said you’d only read public streams – indeed you’ve published material from a private stream here. How can you possibly justify this?

  45. Jason says:

    Oh additionally, I’d be interested to hear what Leon and Ray – who occasionally defend your actions – have to say about your behaviour in this instance? Is this okay with you, guys?

  46. Jason says:

    Beat me to it, Ray.

  47. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes Jason. As I said, I don’t think Iain can justify republishing Jeremy’s protected tweets.

    I also think Iain might have unwittingly set up the petersam account just to keep an eye on what people were saying about him, not to pry on people.

    There is ‘some’ justification in wanting to know what was being said about him on Twitter because in some instances he has indeed been defamed and unfairly derided. The classic example being the ‘White Ribbon’ case.

    But Iain could (and should) have done that without setting up an account and without somehow obtaining Jeremy’s protected tweets.

    And if Iain had just republished the tweets & twitpics relating to the ‘White Ribbon’ matter he’d have been pretty much justified in doing so and there would be no cause for anyone to object.

    Unfortunately though, he chose the wrong target and the wrong method.

  48. Abu Chowdah says:

    What bollocks. Iain explained how he got the posts. And ridicule of moronic behaviour (lame-arse Twittering) is a time-honoured activity for blogs, so accusing Iain of being trivial by mocking the trivial is IRRELEVANT and a very weak “am not, are too, am not, are too” retort.

    Indeed, a reductio ad absurdum progression emerges in which Sears is irrelevant and trivial, Ian is accused of being irrelevant and trivial, by people who spend a great deal of their time reading and commenting in an irrelevant and trivial fashion on Iain’s irrelevant and trival posts.

    Gotta love the internets!

    Prize for best post so far is Dave of Albury who believed Sear’s pulled over because Sears included a reference in his Twitter narrative, and held it up as evidence. As if someone would bother! Maybe in Albury where the streets are wide, the pace is slow and the uptake slower.

  49. Jason says:

    You’ve missed the point, too, Abu. Iain’s published material from a private Twitter stream that he gained access to under an assumed identity. Whether any of it’s trivial or not is beside the point.

  50. Jason says:

    Further, Iain’s constant complaints about people “trolling” his blog under assumed names ring fairly hollow in the light of this kind of behaviour.

  51. Keri says:

    And the fact that he’s happy to let someone sockpuppet at his blog as long as they are critical of people he dislikes.

  52. Abu Chowdah says:

    So I take it that all of those in receipt of Jeremy’s “private” Twitter stream can be relied upon to maintain the confidentiality of his “private” musings? Or is there a non-disclosure agreement one must sign? Face it: if you transmit rubbish into the Internet it’s “out there” and you only have yourself toi blame if people get to see it, repost it and laugh their arses off at your stupidity.

    Keri: people can sockpuppet here if their critical of Iain, so what’s your point? One rule for Iain-haters, another for others? Boo hoo, babe.

  53. Abu Chowdah says:

    “if they’re critical” etc. I need a coffee.

  54. Jason says:

    Well then, Abu, if all’s fair, I won’t expect to read Iain complaining in future about others’ treatment of him. Simple, really.

  55. Ray Dixon says:

    if you transmit rubbish into the Internet it’s “out there” and you only have yourself to blame if people get to see it, repost it and laugh their arses off at your stupidity.

    That’s only partially right Abu.The difference here is the tweets were only sent to those authorised to receive them. If the recipients had then re-tweeted them out into the open then ….. whatever.

    But I think people should still exercise restraint about how far they go – and that applies to Iain’s ‘enemies’ too.

  56. Iain Hall says:

    I’ve been in the workshop making a nice new alloy part for the car and I come back to a who;e swag of comments that all need soem sort of response
    Ray @ 10.20

    In my opinion you’ve stuck your foot in this one and you should perhaps apologise. On the other hand I think some of the commentary here has been a bit ‘high & mighty’ and sanctimonious.

    Yeah I’ll concede that it could have gone better but I’m human and I made a mistake about how twitter works It’s not like I’ve republished any really intimate pillow talk Its traffic reports and not something that important. But you are right on the money about the sanctimonious clap trap
    For example this comment from Jason

    As usual, Iain, you’re avoiding the larger issue. You signed up for a service you scorn, with the sole apparent aim of scoring a “gotcha” on Jeremy Sear. Can’t you see how this tends to confirm what your critics say about your behaviour online? And you did lie when you said you’d only read public streams – indeed you’ve published material from a private stream here. How can you possibly justify this?

    Jason as I have said several times I d signed up to twitter to explore the medium hay do you think that I am following people other than your mates? Like the very witty Stephen Fry, or Jewel Saite ., Joe hockey and even Bob Brown It was never about Jeremy, he was NOT the reason that I opened an account at all. As Ray suggests I wanted to follow what you lot were saying about me as well and who could blame me for that? It just seemed to make sense to save time by subscribing to your feeds rather than calling up the web page for each of you. It as simple as that. Forget the propaganda and the conspiracy theory because that is the simple truth
    Ray @ 10.44

    And if Iain had just republished the tweets & twitpics relating to the ‘White Ribbon’ matter he’d have been pretty much justified in doing so and there would be no cause for anyone to object.

    You know I thought about that but I could just not think of the right take on it that did not sound like a whining “oh I have been victimised” piece. Surname has for sometime been going all around the net and posting comments in my name and when i find such comments I ask for them to be removed, but I have had to resort to adding an avatar that says “fake Iain Hall” to my primary blogging email because He keeps posting using that email address As you suggest Surnames crap is a much more serious thing than anything that I have done as “Peter Sam”.
    Jason @ 10.58

    You’ve missed the point, too, Abu. Iain’s published material from a private Twitter stream that he gained access to under an assumed identity. Whether any of it’s trivial or not is beside the point.

    Assumed name? 😆 all I did was ask, and you do have to ask and without further adieu Jeremy said yes. so that says to me taht he was not that concerned about who saw his inanities. But please don’t get all high and might about those sailing under “flags of convenience” on the net when you have the likes of Gread and Surname on your crew.
    Keri

    And the fact that he’s happy to let someone sockpuppet at his blog as long as they are critical of people he dislikes.

    Are you referring to may mate “Sock Puppet” Here? He is a commentator like any other who uses an assumed name but as I know who he is and that his posts have a satirical/humorous intention I don’t get why it bothers you.
    finally Jason @ 11.27

    Well then, Abu, if all’s fair, I won’t expect to read Iain complaining in future about others’ treatment of him. Simple, really.

    You see that sentiment cuts both ways Your crew have been playing silly buggers on the net to attack or belittle me for years so If that is the currency of teh argument you can hardly complain when I do the same either.

  57. Ray Dixon says:

    A fake Iain Hall Twitter account has recently surfaced. What was that about restraint?

  58. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Ray another effort from Surname I have complained because it is contrary to the terms of service to impersonate people But I bet that none of the sanctimonious commenters here will denounce that.

  59. Keri says:

    And you know it’s surname, do you, iain? Based on what?

    And if this is about what other people have done, What specifically has Jeremy done to you, Iain? Weren’t you the one who was calling truces all over the place with him?

    And enough of the disingenious “I didn’t name him” crap. Anyone who’s read your blog for more than five minutes who it was. Do you deny that?

  60. bingbing says:

    LOL! So they’re Jeremy’s tweets. No wonder Toaf et. al. started acting so preciously.

    A most entertaining read. Keep ’em comiing PP Boyz.

  61. Iain Hall says:

    Keri For the umpteenth time Surname boasts about it on Twitter and he has posted screen shots of his signing me up to the WRD Pledge check his twitpics here and Scott dutifully retweeted his plug for it.

  62. […] Twitter at its best September 19, 2009, 2:26 pm — bingbing For a rolled gold Saturday chuckle, click here. […]

  63. Angus Dei says:

    Five squares, folded twice for the first wipe (So the perforations don’t line up). First wipe front-to-back, fold agin, second wipe back-to-front. Repeat as necessary.

    Is there any other way? mmmmmNo, not if you want to do the job right.

  64. bingbing says:

    The Beef of God; saving the planet one wipe at a time.

  65. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh God, the loonies have arrived.

  66. Jason says:

    Frankly, now I’m aware that that account’s a fake, I think it’s all a bit silly, really. Still Iain, I’ll thank you not to make me responsible for the actions of others, and I’ll return the favour. I think it’s foolish for you to think that you won’t be called on stuff like this, and it does tend to fit with a pattern of behaviour in my view, but whatever – good luck.

  67. Abu Chowdah says:

    “But I think people should still exercise restraint about how far they go – and that applies to Iain’s ‘enemies’ too.”

    Completely agree, Ray.

  68. Iain Hall says:

    Jason
    I try very hard to be fair to all of those from your branch of Planet Latte but if you really understood the actual history rather than just the propaganda and spin from the more extreme internet warriors on your side you would appreciate just how hard it is for me not to consider that you are all interchangeable parts of a whole rather than individuals.

  69. Jeremy says:

    Iain, I’ve ignored you. So what prompted you to start up the creepy stalking again?

    “Assumed name? 😆 all I did was ask,”

    With a fake name. If you were being honest you’d have used your own. But you know I’d never have approved you, so you resorted to subterfuge.

  70. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy
    I was following all of the Grodites so don’t think that you were singled out for any kind of special treatment as I. have said several times on this thread but for some one who was concerned to keep your inanities private you certainly did a lot of of checking when some one asked to follow you, but please don’t feign total innocence because I have seen you joining in and approving of the efforts of the likes of Surname and Gread et al.

  71. Jeremy says:

    You’ve reminded me to be more cautious of the creepy stalkers, but to be frank I did think you’d grown up and moved on from your obsession with me. Apparently not.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about in your last sentence. But let’s be clear – it’s you who’s blogging about me, not the other way around.

  72. bingbing says:

    Oh so Leeegal!

    (sorry Heath)

  73. bingbing says:

    Oh God, the loonies have arrived.

    Gimme a break. Basically, the whole thread is comments from the PP Boyz and co. squeezing their nuts.

  74. Keri says:

    Iain, I would be very, very surprised to find one single tweet where Jeremy approves of anything Surname has done.

    And again, you’ve yet to prove that Surname set up the fake account.

    As for being indignant that someone else is using your name, I’m going to laugh my arse off if some guy named Peter Sam is out there doing the same thing.

  75. Lori says:

    Oh, Jesus, you’ve got the neenish tart on you.

    Hey, Keri, you heifer you.

  76. Iain Hall says:

    Keri

    Iain, I would be very, very surprised to find one single tweet where Jeremy approves of anything Surname has done.

    Who said he approved of any thing done by Surname in a tweet? Not I.

    And again, you’ve yet to prove that Surname set up the fake account.

    🙄
    Heaven in a hand basket this is not a court of law but I’ll explain it for you anyway.

    1/ He has form for it and his WRD fraud is but the latest example
    2/His John surname twitter was the very first follower of the Fake Iain Hall and who would think that a coincedence?
    3/ he is an obsessive who can’t let go of the war

    As for being indignant that someone else is using your name, I’m going to laugh my arse off if some guy named Peter Sam is out there doing the same thing. even when everyone else has

    I don’t quite get your point here Keri. But I’ll ask you this: how would you feel if some one were to begin posting here there and everywhere as “Keri Elizabeth James” and linking to your blog and say advocating for a total ban on abortion and the death penalty for gay marriage. Now I can’t for one second imagine that you would not care. It would be distorting and undermining your oft stated positions on all of those issues now wouldn’t it?
    So I used a screen name for my twitter account? I notice that yours is in the name of “Kedgie” so by your logic isn’t that flying a flag of convenience too?

  77. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy
    I am very far from being obsessed with you but I do enjoy reading your Blog and reading what you contribute to Pee Pee# even if it is only because you so often make me laugh. But you have stepped up to the ” big time” with you Crikey venture so what you write is fair game for any kind of criticism or even mockery.
    It was my intention in this piece to just allude to your authorship of the messages in question quite simply because they so suited something that that I wanted to write about (twitter and texting while driving) for some time, while personally I hate mobile phones and devices because they seem to be overwhelming our lives, I am fascinated by the way that they have changed the communications (and blogging) landscape. I was quite struck by that string of messages. It was like finding a nugget in the stream.and my muse inspired me to use them in this post. Now had I realised the true nature of the medium I would have used other source materials, other quotes and a different less obvious preamble. Having a subtle dig at you was meant to be a little humour that balanced the serious point that I am making here about the danger of mobile communications while driving, Something that you are so obviously well aware of from your concern that the piece may suggest that you were breaking the law by using your device while driving.
    # has Andy’s holiday dampened your inspiration on that front?

  78. Abu Chowdah says:

    Eid mubarak, ya ghabi-een, and also to iain!

  79. Jeremy says:

    “But you have stepped up to the ” big time” with you Crikey venture so what you write is fair game for any kind of criticism or even mockery.”

    What’s that got to do with publishing from my private twitter feed, and how does that excuse you accessing it via a deliberately fake name?

  80. Keri says:

    “I don’t quite get your point here Keri. But I’ll ask you this: how would you feel if some one were to begin posting here there and everywhere as “Keri Elizabeth James” and linking to your blog and say advocating for a total ban on abortion and the death penalty for gay marriage. Now I can’t for one second imagine that you would not care. It would be distorting and undermining your oft stated positions on all of those issues now wouldn’t it?
    So I used a screen name for my twitter account? I notice that yours is in the name of “Kedgie” so by your logic isn’t that flying a flag of convenience too?”

    Well, considering it’s Keri ELISABETH James, I wouldn’t mind a bit.

    And yes, my twitter is under kedgie – which every man and his dog knows is my nickname – but there’s both a link to my blog, my tweeter profile has my name on it and my blog has a feed of my latest tweets. Oh, and a photo of me attached, as well. Not exactly a fake name with which I follow people who would specifically not approve me under my real name, is it?

    Face it Iain. You did something dishonest – not only in claiming that you had accessed the information legitimately for this post – but in following people in a way that circumvented the fact that people didn’t WANT you having access to that information.

    And this is exactly WHY they don’t want you having it – because you take the information and do things like this post.

  81. Iain Hall says:

    Well, considering it’s Keri ELISABETH James, I wouldn’t mind a bit.
    Now you are just trying to dodge the issue,

    Imagine then John posting comments in the name of Keri ELISABETH James,….
    Now cut the crap and tell me that you would not care about him pretending to be YOU on the net.

  82. Keri says:

    Iain, I honestly could not care less.

  83. Iain Hall says:

    No one will believe that Keri, what if the postings were to suggest that you do drugs, steal from your work place, or that you are the town bike and up for anything? Come on tell me just what amount of fraudulent hijacking of your identity would get you angry enough to complain?

  84. Ray Dixon says:

    Hmm, this going pretty much as I thought Iain. Why not take this opportunity to just apologise to Jeremy and then you can go to town on the real culprit here – the one who caused you to get a bit paranoid about Twitter. What’s his, er, surname?

  85. Keri says:

    Tell you what, Iain.

  86. Abu Chowdah says:

    Private twitter feed. What bollocks. It’s like Borges’ observation on the Falklands War: “Two bald men arguing over a comb.”

  87. Keri says:

    Whoops. Premature commentage.

    The only point at which I’d have a problem was if it impacted on my job. And given that my job isn’t one where untrue shit written on the internet is going to make an iota of difference – for example, it would be impossible for me to steal from my workplace without them knowing, so they’d know it’s untrue – I can’t say there’s anything someone could write in my name I’d give a toss about.

    Seriously, what could be said about me that hasn’t been said already? As long as my family and friends know the truth, why would I give two fucking hoots about what someone writes about me?

    It is the internet, after all.

  88. Iain Hall says:

    You really can’t be dinkum there Keri no one is that naive….
    🙄

  89. […] Surname’s fraud removed  I dutifully took  screen shots and retired to consider my options. As Ray Dixon suggested in the Lethal Twit thread  I probably should have written this post instead of that one, but you […]

  90. Iain Hall says:

    Keri I am talking about some one writing in your name . not writing about you, it could be something bad mouthing your boss or the company you work for and you would have to prove that you were not the author of those words. Just think about that, and tell me you would not care.

  91. Keri says:

    Iain, there’s nothing I can do about it, so why would I waste time worrying about it? I just don’t care anymore. It’s easy enough to just email Twitter and report it as a fake account.

  92. Iain Hall says:

    Keri I am not talking about Twitter here. Although your crew may think that it is the full extent of the net these days it could be on a blog, or in any public forum. I seem t recall that all of your crowd were up in arms when I created certain blogs to mock pseudonymous bloggers just imagine that had been done to you in your real name?

  93. Iain Hall says:

    Ray read my latest post 🙂

  94. Jeremy says:

    Actually, Iain, since this post continues to be republished every time someone accesses it, the appropriate thing to do would be to delete it – or, at least, the offending parts, particularly the references to me, and the quoting of my tweets.

    Continuing to publish it (which is what not deleting the post boils down to) is compounding the issue.

  95. Iain Hall says:

    No Jeremy I won’t do that because I have apologised to you in my subsequent post and to remove this post or to eviscerate it as you suggest would do nothing to solve the larger problem, now would it?

  96. Jeremy says:

    The continued publishing of someone’s private content? It would solve that problem. Let’s be clear: those tweets were not published to the internet at large. You do not have my permission to continue publishing them. There is no “fair comment” in doing so.

    The way to end this unfortunate little incident is to stop repeating the error.

  97. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy
    Take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, and keep in mind that I did not name you as author, Dave did

  98. Len says:

    I have left this alone, on purpose Iain, as it seems you have managed to drag out all your detractors, from the clicky little “Clearasil Latte Club”, at least in the months that I have been watching your blog.

    Hmm, Jeremy, aren’t you the supposed solicitor ? If you are, I suggest you read, http://www.privacy.gov.au/faq/individuals/sn-q3, if not, I apologise forthwith, but still invite you to read it anyway :

    Another thing to keep in mind is that the Privacy Act doesn’t cover individuals acting in a personal capacity. So it is likely that individuals posting information on social networking sites would be exempt from the coverage of the Privacy Act (though their actions may be covered by other laws).

    Even libel would be a tough ask ? I can’t think of any other laws that would qualify either, criminal or civil ?

    Even though password protected, or supposedly unavailable to the public at large, I would argue, and probably successfully, that your feeble attempt, in crying “privacy foul”, is wishful thinking at best, and a massive dry reach at worst.

    From the same article :

    The Privacy Act does not cover the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by an individual unless it is done in the course of running a business.

    http://www.privacy.gov.au/materials/types/infosheets/view/6544

    As far as I know, ianhall.wordpress et al is not a registered business ?

    Well there’s another argument shot down in flames ?

    You seem to have your nose out of joint, that your (in personal perception only) semi – private tweets have been republished somewhere else, and suffered, the inevitable (and rightful from what I have read), criticism and ultimate ridicule. A bit tough to claim privacy under those terms. Even the very strict referencing rules in Academia would find it tough for you to hide behind ?

    I could go on further, but that would give your dribble, creedence, and that’s the last thing that is needed, especially here.

    In other words, get over it !

  99. Jeremy says:

    I have no idea who Len is, but my point to Iain had nothing to do with the Privacy Act, or Len’s fairly stupid “analysis” of it.

    Iain has stated in his subsequent post that he “deeply regrets” having published this post. My point to him is that by leaving it up he is continuing to publish the post. If he genuinely regrets it – and he should – the appropriate thing to do is remove it and move on.

  100. Len says:

    The continued publishing of someone’s private content? It would solve that problem. Let’s be clear: those tweets were not published to the internet at large

    Suffering Dutch Elm disease Jeremy ?
    We have all said, and done things on these types of pages, that we have regretted somewhere down the track. To leave them up, even in our embarrassment, reminds us of our humility and over all fragility ?

  101. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy
    I do deeply regret getting it wrong but were I to delete anything now it would make the context of the rest of the story harder to explain and any deletion would be claimed as a victory by the forces of darkness in play here. I appreciate the legal/ ethical point that you are making here but just think that the greater good will be served by the post remaining precisely as it is now.

  102. Treetop says:

    People including police and journalists go undercover everyday to expose community wrongs!

    Iain has nothing to apologise for in his actual actions. If anything he shouldn’t have blown his cover and continued to document the unethical behaviour if not the illegal behaviour of a member of the Victorian bar.

  103. Iain Hall says:

    Treetop
    Firstly welcome to my blog 🙂
    I had not considered the morality of cops and journalists going undercover in relation to my petersam040 account as i said earlier I was just trying to be more time efficient whilst watching the Grods Alumni on Twitter.
    You are right about blowing my cover though.

  104. Jeremy says:

    If you were serious about your apology you would stop the behaviour that occasioned it, and the only way to do that is by removing the offending content. You don’t have my permission to continue to repost it, anyway.

    That’s assuming you’re genuine with the apology, in which case whether you backing down might be seen as a “victory” by people who don’t like you is entirely irrelevant.

    PS You might want to rein in speculation by another new anonymous pseudonym about named others behaving “illegally”.

  105. Keri says:

    Treetop – point out the illegal behaviour, if you please. Iain was also unable to do so. Iain is not a journalist nor is he a police officer and he’s admitted he did the wrong thing. Why charge in as a white knight now?

    Jeremy – what about a compromise? Iain links to and references his apology on this post, and it’s then clear that he admits he was in the wrong.

  106. Len says:

    Time to take a “powder’ Jeremy ?

    By the tone of Jeremy’s whines, it seems you really have hit a nerve Iain ?

    I am certainly no lawyer, that is for sure, but it seems, that you have more than adequately (at least on the surface ?), disposed of the issue properly, and honestly.

    As for the rants, regarding removal, I don’t think that is required. The apology more than adequately covers for that.

    If you are inferring Jeremy, that it would have been more embarrassing to Iain, in the long run, if he removed the posts, then you are mistaken. His willingness, to leave it all up there, for all to see, ridicule, and criticise, shows to me anyway, that he has more gravitas than your group ?

    Also, for naught, he doesn’t need your permission to reprint anything, as long as it is cited/sourced correctly, and even that under the rules, by internet standards, is considered pedantic and unnecessary.

    If in fact you ARE a member of the Bar, you should know better Jeremy.

    I think Kerri’s compromise idea is the best one ?

  107. Abu Chowdah says:

    “Treetop – point out the illegal behaviour, if you please.”

    Texting while driving. Only a simon-pure fool would believe Jeremy’s cunning narrative subterfuge that he had pulled over in a traffic jam to text. You didn’t believe it, did you, Keri? Surely not!

  108. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy

    That’s assuming you’re genuine with the apology, in which case whether you backing down might be seen as a “victory” by people who don’t like you is entirely irrelevant.

    Oh I am genuine in my apology, I was in error about the nature of the feed, but on the other hand you never asked me (or as far I know any other followers) to never republish your tweets so I would argue that in the absence of any specific request or instruction you can not expect that the content that you allowed anyone with out any vetting whose identity you did not know access to has in any real sense ever been private.
    As for the speculations of other posters I don’t speak for them but I think that expressing incredulity at your claim that you pulled over to make each tweet is hardly a defamation.

    Keri

    Jeremy – what about a compromise? Iain links to and references his apology on this post, and it’s then clear that he admits he was in the wrong.

    I already have a track back in the comments But I have no objection To reposting my apology as an update to the post which I will do after I put the comment to bed

  109. Keri says:

    I have no idea what a simon-pure fool is, Treetop, but unless you have actual evidence that Jeremy was lying when he said he was pulled over whilst tweeting – not texting – then you’re the only one here doing anything illegal.

    Put up or shut up.

  110. Abu Chowdah says:

    It’s Abu. Observation skills, toots.

    What am I doing that’s illegal. Unless pointing out ignorant behaviour is illegal these days.

  111. Jeremy says:

    “Attacking him over the continuing harassment from the Grods alumni was wrong and I sincerely regret it.”

    And yet, despite him asking you several times, you insist on keeping this attack up.

    Some apology. Some regret.

  112. Husky_Jim says:

    Arthur Putey is a Grodser Jeremy. You know which one.
    Continuing to protect him is being complicit.

  113. Jeremy says:

    Actually, I don’t. Nor do I care to. I’m not interested in your childish games, “Jim”.

  114. Treetop says:

    Just so we can clarify one issue that Keri has raised, please Jeremy honestly answer the following question :

    Did you pull the car over out of traffic everytime you sent the tweets about the traffic congestion on the Westgate Freeway?

  115. Keri says:

    Sorry, Abu. It’s hard to tell you all apart when you’re all anonymous and say exactly the same thing every time you pop your collective heads up.

    I believe it’s called defamation. Stating that someone has committed a crime when they haven’t done so? Look it up.

  116. Jeremy says:

    Just so we can clarify one issue that’s raised by your arrogant presumption that you get powers to demand answers that even the police don’t get, please Treetop answer the following question:

    Who the hell are you?

  117. Len says:

    Both of you ?
    Circumstantial !
    Burden of proof people, until then you are both chest beating !

  118. Treetop says:

    Who am I? Why does it matter? But because you ask, my name is Paul West and I live in East Keilor. I work as a pallet controller for Toll Holdings.

    And I am not demanding! I simply asked you to clarify.

    So did you pull the car over out of traffic everytime you sent the tweets about the traffic congestion on the Westgate Freeway?

  119. Keri says:

    Len the person makingthe accusation has the burden of proof, not the person the accusation was made against.

    As I said, put up or shut up.

  120. Abu Chowdah says:

    Honk, honk. Quack, quack.

  121. Jeremy says:

    I sure did, “Paul West”. We all have to obey the law.

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

  122. Len says:

    Take a pill Kerri, your losing it again.
    You are all wildly throwing accusations around the place, and using these pages as your private little chew toy.

    FYI Kerri ?

    but unless you have actual evidence that Jeremy was lying when he said he was pulled over whilst tweeting – not texting – then you’re the only one here doing anything illegal.

    If you supposed legal eagles knew your stuff out there, as you seem to portray, you would know that the difference, as far as legally is concerned, is semantics.

    Is so far as defamation, that is civil law, and proof burden is not required under civil law. Even Jeremy would know that. Balance of Probabilities, and damage/loss caused/suffered is all that us required.

    The rest of your rambling is just ego driven chest beating.
    .
    No wonder it has been months since we have seen you on these pages.

  123. Len says:

    So it was me who was using the incorrect term, my slip, but therefore corrected.

    Time to move on people ?

  124. huskie_jim says:

    Jeremy the “Jim” gives you away.
    You are complicit in the dealings of Surname.
    He has email addresses only you could have supplied him.
    You’re stung mate.
    And you break the law all the time mate.
    Dogs in a national park.
    Stealing content on line and now twittering while you drive.
    Just own up.

  125. Treetop says:

    Jeremy I am a single man and I haven’t ‘bashed’ anyone since I was in about grade four.

    Anyway thanks for clarifying whether you stopped driving at the time when you sent the tweets. Could you please further clarify if you exited the freeway to send the tweets or if you simply pulled over into the emergency breakdown lane (you know the piece of road built for vehicles that have broken down and is also used by emergency and recovery vehicles)?

  126. Keri says:

    “Jeremy the “Jim” gives you away.”

    So we’re supposed to assume your name is actually Husky Jim, and if we don’t we’re somehow complicit in your crazy conspiracy theories?

    “He has email addresses only you could have supplied him.”

    The fuck? This gets crazier and crazier. And Iain, I did warn you, didn’t I?

    “Dogs in a national park.”

    Wasn’t a National Park, wanker. We’ve been through this.

    Len

    Using the “It can’t be defamation if it’s fact” is a DEFENCE. You can use it if you are being sued for defamation, but the burden of proof is on the person presenting that as a defence.

    And I’m no Legal Eagle. Just not an idiot throwing accusations around like confetti.

  127. Ray Dixon says:

    ‘Huskie Jim’s’ comments are way too inflammatory in my opinion.

  128. Jeremy says:

    No, “Treetop”, I’m not playing your stupid twenty questions game any more. I don’t answer to you, and I’m not going to sit here while you and your other anonymous mates smear me.

    As for Jim – your allegations above are all outright lies. But that’s your stock-in-trade, isn’t it, weirdo?

  129. Jeremy says:

    It’s a damning indictment on Iain that he lets shit like “Husky Jim”‘s last comment stand on his comment threads.

  130. Len says:

    Learn the lesson Jeremy,
    the ore you bite, the more he will try to get you to bite ?

  131. Keri says:

    Len, regardless of what we do with crazies like Husky Jim, he’s going to bite.

    Rabid dogs are like that.

  132. Alan Jackson says:

    Iain why do you let these loonies conduct their private wars on your web site? I come here for a laugh not to read knob-heads like “Jeremy” and “Len” and “Husky Jim” scratching and hissing at each other like school girls. I bet these people are all internet losers who have nothing better to occupy themselves “in real life”. Quick tip folks, get a job, a family, a hobby, just get SOMETHING ELSE and move on you bunch of inane foreskins!!!

  133. Len says:

    I agree Keri, but what is that old aphorism…..

    if you sneak past quietly enough, they may just sniff at you, and lose interest. Wake them up, and you’re a dead man ?

    I think the original quote comes from/refers to the KGB actually ? If I can remember back that long ago ?

  134. Len says:

    Nice touch AJ.
    Been a while.

    Boy, it that the pot calling the kettle black, specially coming from you ?

    Read some of your stuff. I don’t think “interesting” or “intelligent” were words, that come to mind whilst doing so though.

  135. Ray Dixon says:

    Alan, you’ve got a point, but you’ve missed one too. Iain clearly encouraged the ‘loonies’ to come here by the nature of this post and the subsequent one.

    It’s not all bad though, because it’s sort-of (hopefully) getting a few things sorted that needed to be sorted – such as the ongoing antics of Surname.

    I think Iain would gladly comply with your wishes, and the wishes of one or two others, to fck the ‘loonies’ off, but without any denouncement of the behaviour of Surname and a few others, he’s unlikely to do that.

  136. Alan Jackson says:

    “Len” or “David Davidson” or whatever it is you are calling yourself today, read my lips, I DON’T GIVE A SH1T

  137. Len says:

    Got your nose out of joint AJ ?
    Again, the spray coming from your lips, not only portrays lack of intelligence, but knowledge as well.
    See nothing has changed.
    Perhaps another six months in hibernation might assist you.
    Not quite Spring yet mate, go back to bed

  138. Alan Jackson says:

    “Len” if I was to leave and come back in six months then four things would be certain….

    a) you’d still be here on a daily basis, prob because you’ve got f-all else to do
    b) you would have changed your name again, prob because you had had another bitch fight with “Ray Dixon”, and because youre too gutless to use your real one
    c) you would still crapping on about your military service like you actually did some, instead of sitting behind a desk filing SVCs for the air cadets in Townsville
    d) you’d still be a tool

    As the man used to say, “you know it’s true”.

  139. Len says:

    Well, nice retort, if not perhaps undeducated and medieval ?

    I am not going to reduce Iain’s pages, to your level by continuing here. If you wish to continue this little bitch fight, my email address is svastsos@gmail.com

    If you want to play, I’ll play you limp wristed lil snivvel.
    That goes for anyone else who want to challenge my credibility also.

    Have a happy day !
    😉

  140. Keri says:

    Ray, Iain should have his own standards of behaviour, and not demand that everyone he decides to attack abides by his little “Publicly denounce xxx or I’ll attack you as well” schtick.

  141. Ray Dixon says:

    Alan, I’ve no interest in continuing the “bitch fight” with D…., whatever name he uses in future. I think it needed doing but it’s now history.

    Keri, I don’t think Iain is “demanding” denouncements of Surname et al but if they’re not forthcoming, well ….

    This thread has sort-of evolved (well it’s clearly linked to the subsequent one) and there is a bigger picture to this issue of bad internet behaviour, for want of a better term.

    It’s all very well to complain about what Iain has done here to Jeremy but I reckon it needs to be balanced with at least an acknowledgement that others (like Surname) have done is far worse and that THEY are in fact keeping the ridiculous blog wars going. – via Twitter. (There are a number of ‘culprits’ in that arena).

    So if ALL such behaviour is not denounced then I guess it’ll continue.

    However, I agree that Husky Jim sounds like a real cock-head and I’d certainly rein him in .

  142. Ray Dixon says:

    Alan, why do you put my name in inverted commas? I’m not a “quote”.

  143. Keri says:

    Ray, anyone who acts like a dickhead is clearly a dickhead. Do I have to name each and every dickhead each time they act like one for you and Iain to acknowledge when you cock up?

    One should not be contingent on the other.

    As I said, if you are a principled person, you act according to those principles REGARDLESS of the actions of other people.

    And for the record, how on earth are we supposed to condemn the actions of someone when we don’t know what those actions are? First I heard of this WRD thing was Iain bringing it up.

  144. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain HAS acknowledged he cocked up. Yet you’re still complaining about the ongoing narky comments from the loonies. You’re missing the point, Keri.

  145. Keri says:

    I’m sorry, Ray, what point do you think I’ve missed?

    Please, enlighten me. I was making the point that Iain has no right to be demanding that everyone condemns people as a condition of anything – if he was a principled person, he wouldn’t be demanding such.

    And I don’t see how Iain apologising for what he’s done somehow makes what all the crazies throw around okay. Can you tell me how it does, Ray?

  146. bingbing says:

    It’s quite surprising, really, all this blew up as big as it did. What IMO started out as a bit of a Saturday chuckle certainly didn’t end as one.

  147. Abu Chowdah says:

    I’m still laughing.

  148. Ray Dixon says:

    Keri, he’s clearly not “demanding” you do anything … and some of what the “crazies” are saying is not “okay”. I’ve already said that and I’ve made my point. This is all a bit too circular.

  149. Iain Hall says:

    Keri

    And for the record, how on earth are we supposed to condemn the actions of someone when we don’t know what those actions are? First I heard of this WRD thing was Iain bringing it up.

    Considering the fact that you follow Scott on twitter I find that a bit hard to believe Keri, None the less as you Know more than I do about Surname’s activities and yet you keep trying to insist that I and others have to ‘prove” that he has acted despicably. With all of the confidences that you keep about him how can you do this?
    Oh and BTW I don’t endorse the words of anyone else who has a beef with the Alumni but I know why they are likely to be outraged at your friends.

  150. Jeremy says:

    I love* that you’re using Surname’s behaviour to you to justify your behaviour to me. I am not Surname. I have nothing to do with Surname. Surname is not my friend. His behaviour to you reflects not one bit on me.

    *By “love”, of course, I mean “am disappointed to see”.

    And if you’re worried that the Grods crew will mock you for doing the right thing and withdrawing the offending content, then two things:
    1. You’d be doing the right thing; who cares what they say? and
    2. They’re more likely to attack you for continuing to behave shabbily after you’ve “apologised”.

  151. Keri says:

    Iain, I have no idea what Surname gets up to these days. I tend not to click on every single link I see on Twitter – having a life outside of the internet – so I had no idea what the White Ribbon thing was until you posted on it. And as I still haven’t clicked on the links in YOUR post, I still don’t know what the fuss is all about.

  152. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy

    I love* that you’re using Surname’s behaviour to you to justify your behaviour to me. I am not Surname. I have nothing to do with Surname. Surname is not my friend. His behaviour to you reflects not one bit on me.

    Well then why don’t you tell me who he is so that I can make a complaint to the police about his activities? He has made a career out of being a shit stirrer in the long standing blog war and you have the ability to help shut him down, and while you are at it you can tell everyone who THR is as well as you know he hacked my email and blogs, Come on if you are a man of principle then why are you protecting scum such as these?

  153. Keri says:

    You can make a complaint anyway, Iain. Police, last time I checked, could investigate crimes.

    We’re not your personal police patrol. If you believe a crime has been committed, go to the police.

  154. Iain Hall says:

    I asked Jeremy the question Keri and I would like an answer from him, no matter how much you think that you and he are one.

  155. […] Posted on September 22, 2009 by jeremytweets Internet blogger Iain Hall recently published a a series of tweets that Jeremy Sear authored. #gallery-1 { margin: auto; } #gallery-1 […]

  156. jeremytweets says:

    I believe this thread was originally about road safety and the use of mobile communications while driving.

    I have asked Jeremy to clarify the circumstances surrounding the suggestion made by some that he may have been driving while ‘tweeting’.

    He has told us via this thread that he pulled over to send the tweets but has refused to answer the question of whether he remained on the freeway or exited it.

    This is an important question that remains unanswered.

    http://jeremytweets.wordpress.com

  157. Len says:

    Your not the only one, who would mind a response to that question Iain ?

    Watching this feeble “code ringed”, “blood othed” fraternity rally to protect each other, is touching if not inane.

    You should already know the answer to your statement Kerri.

    Police won’t get involved unless, there is property lost/damaged, or there is financial loss, or someone is hurt or in imminent danger of being hurt/maimed.

    Remember Iain, (Kerri and all her loudmouth mates as well), what goes around, comes around, and it looks like finally, thanks to you, this may be “their” time.

    Keep punching !

  158. Keri says:

    Len, they aren’t my mates, and you’ve just taken away Iain’s one reason for demanding the names – if the police won’t get involved and Iain only wants the names to press charges, what obligation do either of us have for providing them?

    Iain – you’ve asked me the question before as well, so I also responded.

  159. Jeremy says:

    Iain, I am not surprised that you will not do the right thing and remove the content in question, despite pretending to apologise for doing so.

    It just confirms that your apology was not genuine or sincere. If it was, you’d do as the person to whom it was supposedly directed asks and undo the wrong you’ve admitted committing.

    As for creepy weirdos like “Paul West” – and bullshit that’s your name, you liar – who continue to peddle the defamatory imputation your post originally made, particularly when my name was given, and on YOUR comment threads – you would be wise to edit out the defamatory content. I doubt you will, of course, because you are one of the most spiteful and least principled people I’ve ever come across.

    As for your fight with Surname – it has nothing to do with me, and I’m not interested in getting involved.

  160. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy

    Are you threatening me with all of your “you would be wise to edit out the defamatory content.” line?

    Oh and your cop out on Surname is not unexpected but it reflects very badly on you that you hide behind faux indifference because it shows that you have no real principles on the matter.

  161. Len says:

    Kerri

    They will, under the hacking violation.

    But more importantly, civil law has a less strict code of burden of proof attached, as previously explained.
    Also, if Iain’s identity was stolen, that is a crime, and by knowing the perpetrators, and by withholding that information, you become an accessory.

    Even Jeremy would know that. I’m no lawyer and I do.

  162. Len says:

    That little spray coming from Jeremy Iain, seems to qualify as a classic definition of the word “oxymoron”, and in more ways than one.

  163. Keri says:

    Alright, enough. I cannot believe I have wasted this much time on this thread already.

    Len, if you believe I am somehow an accessory to a crime, feel free to report it to the police. You know my full name, so by your own logic, by not reporting that crime, you’re becoming an accessory yourself for NOT reporting it. Off you go. I’ll expect to receive a call from the boys in blue shortly.

    Either that, or you could look into it and realise that simply KNOWING someone does not make you an accessory to any crime they commit.

    Anyway, have fun boys, I’m not going to be engaging in any more of this.

  164. Jeremy says:

    “Are you threatening me with all of your “you would be wise to edit out the defamatory content.” line?”

    Of course not. What would I take? Your noddy car?

    It was an appeal to see whether people using your comment threads to defame someone with imputations that they’ve broken the law crossed a line for you. Apparently not. What would?

    “Oh and your cop out on Surname is not unexpected but it reflects very badly on you that you hide behind faux indifference because it shows that you have no real principles on the matter.”

    I think you’re both poor examples of human beings and I’m not helping either of you in your little war.

  165. SockPuppet says:

    I got some legal advice on this big crime from Dad’s lawyer who I met on my last visit to Dad down at Barwon Prison to see what we could do about getting police charges against Carl the poof for molesting Dad (the lawyer just said, “look the fat prick is in jail for life anyway, what’s it matter to him?).

    Anyhow he said he’s been following this thread with great interest as it involves one of his “elk”, but I dunno what he means by “elk” because no one here is a moose, a goose maybe but not an “elk”.

    The lawyer said Jeremy can’t claim he has been defamed by those people here inferring he might of broken the law by texting while driving cos Jeremy has admitted they are his tweets and it’s reasonable to query him on them even though the tweets were apparently “dishonestly” obtained by Iain pretending to be a couple of gays called Peter and Sam.

    He reckons Jeremy didn’t know Peter and Sam from a bar of soap (or that they were poofs) and once he gave them that information they were free to pass it on to Iain for him to publish it here and for all the accusations and queries to be made.

    So there.

  166. Abu Chowdah says:

    “I think you’re both poor examples of human beings and I’m not helping either of you in your little war.”

    This statement might be taken seriously, but for the source.

  167. Iain Hall says:

    Jeremy

    Of course not. What would I take? Your noddy car?

    You are being rather disingenuous to suggest that the only reason that you are not going to issue me with a writ is my perceived lack of means, we both know that you would be pilloried for overreaction if you were to sue me and that you would not be able to demonstrate that there has been any damage done by my blog post which does not even say that you have broken the law, I have even specifically said in the comments that I accept at face value your denial that you were tweeting while actually driving.
    I do however wonder if video surveillance of the freeway would support you claims that you stopped for every tweet.

  168. Abu Chowdah says:

    And in terms of proving nil impact on your reputation, Jeremy, the only evidence that would need to be presented would be your entire blogging history.

  169. Treetop says:

    The commitment to tweet in that traffic gridlock last Friday arvo is amazing.

    Once you sighted the Westgate Bridge you would have to turn off the freeway at Williamstown Road and then turn and park in one of it’s sidestreets.

    After you had sent your tweet you would have to negotiate the gridlock and traffic lights of Willy Road to get back on the onramp of the bridge.

    Here’s a map if it helps
    http://jeremytweets.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/closest-legal-parking-areas-when-you-turn-off-at-williamstown-melbourne-road/

  170. Good work Iain,

    Also worth considering is that there are many excellent public transport options between Melbourne and Geelong and it appears our Greens political party friend Jeremy chose to drove his gas guzzler all the way down there. A very ecologically insensitive choice, we suspect Sear would say if judging others.

    Who will think of the children?

  171. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks for that Andrew,
    Is there a train service to Geelong?
    I had not even thought of the public transport aspect as it pertains to this piece.
    Welcome to my blog BTW

  172. Thank you, have been long time lurker, quietly enjoying your patriotic work.

    As it happens, there is a very regular, and very good, train service between Melbourne and Geelong. On weekdays, one every hour, at least.

    http://www.viclink.com.au/

    Presuming Jeremy was headed off to the Mags Court, this map shows that it’s very very close to the main train station in Geelong.

    http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm//connect/Magistrates+Court/Find/Court+Locations/MAGISTRATES+-+Geelong+-+Map

    Tsk. Tsk.

  173. Iain Hall says:

    And of course there is no problem at all in giving a minute by minute progress report from the seat of a train 😉

  174. Ray Dixon says:

    Wow, you know you’ve hit “the big time” when Andrew Landeryou arrives to give you your “15 minutes of fame”, as he puts it Iain.

    Andy & I go way back. Way back to, er … Sophie Mirabella days! Whatever happened to her? Is she still in Federal Parliament?

    (I’m angling for an Andy insult here, Iain. When Andy insults you that’s when you really know you’ve “arrived”)

  175. Jeremy says:

    And the other judgment-proof liar appears. Of course.

    Some apology, Iain. Your continued publication of this crap has now caused it to be picked up by one of the few people lower than you.

    Still bankrupt, Andrew?

  176. Len says:

    If there were any chance of any civil retribution Jeremy visioned by yourself, you would have already done it.

    Time to “get over it” and move on.

  177. Ray Dixon says:

    Actually Jeremy, being featured on Landeryou (or Vexnews as it’s now called) is a badge of honour. I treasure my appearances and with any luck I’ll get another one.

    At least Iain allows the targets of his derision the right to defend themselves – Andy just bans his.

  178. Jeremy says:

    It’s a badge of honour for the person he’s smearing – provided that the reader knows Slandy’s history.

    Still, could be worse. Could be being praised by the loathsome creature. Iain’s too thick to see what an insult his appearance on Slandy’s site is, of course.

  179. Len says:

    My wife is finishing up a brand new skirt, and bonnet for you Jeremy.
    Where do you want us to send it.

  180. No name says:

    I would love for Jeremy to take this matter to court. I’d go and watch the judge give him hell about wasting the court’s time with garbage like that.

    I’d like to know whether Jeremy claims to have pulled over when being a Twit and if so where did he pull over.

  181. Ray Dixon says:

    This is looking more like a Beck’s thread. Don’t you guys think the name calling is, er, beneath you? Well, obviously NOT, in your case Abu.

  182. Abu Chowdah says:

    What’s that, Eddie?

  183. Laurie says:

    Jeremy,

    Really, you are amazing.

    When you get busted at anything, you almost literally panic. Then go into a frenzy, can’t accept that he who judges from upon high gets caught out himself.

    It has happened so many times over the span of your blog (s) that you’ve surely inherited the title of “Glassiest” Jaw Ever.

    By the way, which 5 exits did you take while Twittering on your journey on Victoria’s fine road system?

    Really, it sounds like you’re in a spot of bother on this one, doesn’t it ?

    Don’t worry, ….. we all know the truth ; )

  184. Ray Dixon says:

    You just proved my point.

  185. Ray Dixon says:

    You just proved my point … Abu.

    (Laurie’s comment mysteriously intervened from M.C. I presume)

  186. Not necessarily family reading at the end of the link below but my mind did turn to Jeremy Smear when reading this article sent to me by a citizen concerned about folks engaged in non-core activities while in charge of a motor vehicle.

    http://www.thelocal.se/22272/20090924/

    PS Hi Ray, good to converse again, hope all is well up north. Long may Sophie reign over you.

    PPS Comrade Jeremy, please just keep your eyes on the road and start attempting to reconcile your supposedly left-wing politics with your habit of denigrating people because of their financial situation or poverty. I think Melbourne Grammar might have confused your politics, just a little.

    A Greens party official who drives to a court-house in Geelong, adjacent to a train station. A bleeding-heart lefty who is comfortable with laughing at the poor.

    Not that I want to go Dr Phil on you, Jeremy, and it’s only Iain’s fine work that leads me to engage with you at all, but is this really the person you want to be? Hope you can work it, I’m sure Iain can guide you to enlightenment eventually…

  187. Ray Dixon says:

    Why am I still up reading Iain Hall and responding to Andrew Landeryou at this hour? I blame the Footy Show Grand Final special. It was a crap show as usual but the Jersey Boys doing The Four Seasons at the end were incredible. I can’t get it out of my mind.

    Anyway Andrew, you’ll be pleased to know that Sophie is still working hard at sending out expensive glossy brochures here in Indi and that at long last she’s stopped using that photo from her Young Lib days. (Boy she’s got, er, bigger.).

    I think it was her former media adviser Scrinis who ‘enlarged’ her image. You know, the groper.

    I hear Sophie’s working on an all female challenge for the leadership. Sussan Ley as deputy – she makes Sophie look intelligent..

    Good night.

  188. Abu Chowdah says:

    “You just proved my point … Abu.”

    It was intentional, Raymond. But thanks for explaining it to the two people who might not have understood.

  189. […] one of his many fans and grants Hall access. Hall quotes some of Jeremy's tweets. This makes Jeremy very sad, prompting him to, true to form, threaten legal […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: