[WikiEN-l] Saucy Sources, reliable and re : libel.

[Sam Blacketer]

On 11/15/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
> The fundamental problem, as has been detailed previously on the talk
> page, is that these papers are repeating a rumour which is not
> objectively provable.  Di Stefano considers the rumour defamatory
> (which it is) and points out that if it were true he would not be
> allowed to practice law in England.
>

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. I don't have access to OTRS but can make
an educated guess as to what might have been written there. This is a public
forum and so we should be as guarded here as on the article talk page, but
there are two issues of dispute which are not represented in the article at
present.One of them is more than a rumour. The other is more speculative.

The first is the conviction of a John di Stefano in March 1986 for fraud,
for which there are multiple impeccable sources; there are also many
reliable sources who say this person is Giovanni di Stefano. Giovanni di
Stefano says that the conviction was overturned on appeal. The existence of
a successful appeal has been disputed.

Then there is the more vexed question of whether Giovanni di Stefano is an
'avvocato'. There is a 2002 court judgment which found in his favour on the
basis that he was. Subsequently there is a 2004 newspaper article which has
cast doubt on it.

The problem with the point Giovanni di Stefano makes, as relayed by Guy, is
that it is possible to work out a way in which someone might have been able
to practice law in England with a degree of privileged access given to those
presumed to be qualified to practise, and yet have an outstanding
conviction. It requires a combination of failing to check credentials and
incompetence by the authorities, but it is not impossible.

The problem so far as editors of the article are concerned is that it is not
protected, not under office examination, and yet no guidelines have been
given to editors about the limits. Is any mention of a 1986 conviction
prohibited? If so, then it would be better to say so given that indefinite
blocks are being threatened. There seem to be invisible lines beyond which
one cannot step. It would be helpful if they became visible.

-- 
Sam Blacketer
London E15