[[User:Sussexman]] has been indef-blocked for legal threats following a rather complex and nasty exchange in which he alluded to another editor, [[User:Edchilvers]], that legal process would be served, and such process duly was, but by a person not provably identical to Sussexman.

He is asking for unblock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sussexman

The article in question is [[Gregory Lauder-Frost]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Lauder-Frost).. Unfortunately most of the talk has now been deleted; looking at the deleted history I can't see any reason why ed Chilvers should be singled out for this treatment, but that is by the by.

Brad states that Lauder-Frost's solicitors have contacted the Wikimedia Foundation.

The article was originally a blatant hagiography which included for a long time a provable falsehood regarding the subject's criminal record, stated in loaded terms:

Politically motivated, his employers (HM Government) then claimed financial irregularities in January 1992 and this led to a succession of charges against Lauder-Frost which were over a period of eight months either dropped or amended as challenged. A conviction on a reduced number of counts for theft was obtained in November 1992 but because of the irregularities of the case (no audited accounts) the judge, Mr.Justice Marr-Johnson, refused an order for restititution. A successful appeal eventually came the following year. A Civil case was then raised against him which also failed.

The facts as reported in contemporaneous press reports were that he was convicted of theft from his employers, a health authority, on eight specimen charges totalling £8,700, and asked for numerous other counts apparently totalling over £100,000 (according to testimony in court) to be taken into consideration; he was jailed for two years; his appeal was dismissed and he served his term in jail.

Sussexman and an anonymous editor claim that the UK's Rehabilitiation Of Offenders Act makes it illegal to discuss this conviction. They also claim that "convicium" applies, that is, that the case is being nooised about in order to defame and damage the subject. No evidence of intent to defame has been presented in the Talk pages that I can see, but there is undoubtedly some determination to include all the facts, regardless of how flattering they are, and to remove trivia along the lines of "once sat near Margaret Thatcher".

At this point I would like to see the deleted Talk restored and moved to an archive, leaving the existing Talk as-is, but I am not going to do that without some discussion.

Guy (JzG)