On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:05:53 +0100, David Boothroyd david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
The legal issues relating to Gregory Lauder-Frost have all been considered and there is nothing which would prevent a suitable, balanced, neutral, sourced and factual article being written. In order to be fully comprehensive, it would have to mention, in its proper context, the fact of his 1992 conviction.
According to his fan-club, that would violate the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. That is the entire basis of their legal threats, that the disclosure of the conviction is motivated by malice and is therefore proscribed. This is, of course, complete bollocks in as much as I would not know Lauder-Frost from a hole in the ground, and the editor who did most of the work on the conviction, including paying for a Lexis-Nexis search, is not even British.
It may be in English wikipedians best interests to not contribute to the article if there's any doubt about the legal implications. I am sure we can find non-British editors willing to deal with it.