Legal threats deplored, sort of
Victorian barrister Jeremy Sear deplores legal actions that stifle free speech:
And Jeremy also, via his Victorian Bar email account, demanded that I provide my personal details for the service of unspecified legal documents. These documents never arrived but the threat was obvious meant to intimidate. But Jeremy had succeeded in his primary goal: obtaining my home address.
Jeremy deplores legal threats only when he's not the one doing the threatening. Hypocrite.
Anyone who’s been watching the media landscape for the last decade or so will have seen some extraordinary things. People with entire national broadsheets at their disposal threatening to sue people who’ve tweeted remarks made by others. We’ve seen media companies themselves issuing proceedings on completely the opposite side from which you’d expect to find guardians of free speech. We’ve seen journalists whose entire business is using their pulpit to attack others, often in the most personal and misleading ways possible, having their lawyers demand salve for their own wounded feelings.Yet Jeremy once threatened legal action against a blogger who republished a photo of his cat. The threat obviously meant to bamboozle a person lacking legal expertise.
It’s all a bit silly, isn’t it? The powerful with all these outlets at their command demanding money and compensation from critics via the courts for their hurt feelings? Is robust speech to be, in practice, all one way – the privilege of the powerful at the expense of the ordinary person?
And Jeremy also, via his Victorian Bar email account, demanded that I provide my personal details for the service of unspecified legal documents. These documents never arrived but the threat was obvious meant to intimidate. But Jeremy had succeeded in his primary goal: obtaining my home address.
Jeremy deplores legal threats only when he's not the one doing the threatening. Hypocrite.
posted by Anonymous at 5:24 PM |
30 Comments:
This is the same Jeremy Sear who took a dog into a national park a couple of easters ago and then claimed it wasn't a National park once it was pointed out to him that the dog was illegal there. He also, on the same weekend, abused shops in a rural community for not being open to service the needs of Fitzroy lefties who had the weekend off to take dogs to a National Park.
But Jeremy had succeeded in his primary goal: obtaining my home address.
Just what is your point here, Beck? He has never published your home address, at least to my knowledge. He is entitled to seek your home address in order to serve legal documents. Perhaps he genuinely intended to do so, but changed his mind. Perhaps it was just intended to shut you up (a lot of legal action is initiated for that reason).
Either way, it hasn't worked - you're still blogging about what Sear did back in 2006. Mind you, you'll probably still be blogging in 2016 about what Sear did back in 2006 - only by that stage everyone will have stopped paying any attention.
"Just what is your point here, Beck? He has never published your home address, at least to my knowledge. He is entitled to seek your home address in order to serve legal documents. Perhaps he genuinely intended to do so, but changed his mind. Perhaps it was just intended to shut you up (a lot of legal action is initiated for that reason)."
You think that any of this is justified? My God, you have issues - you're "IamnotJeremy" from yesterday, I assume. You seem to have great insight into his thought processes, for someone who is not him.
The police force have a rule - Don't draw your gun unless you are prepared to shoot, otherwise you just risk arming your attacker.
Jeremy drew his gun, holding it with an outstretched arm between the tip of his forefinger and thumb as if it had some foul odour, then dropped it and ran away, Mr Bean style.
'Perhaps it was just intended to shut you up (a lot of legal action is initiated for that reason).'
Do you think it is reasonable for Jeremy Sear, Barrister, to use his privileged access to the law in order to try to get his critics to shut up?
This is the same Barrister who published the personal details (along with a veiled threat that karma will 'get' him) of an airport security guard who tried to get Jeremy to respect the safety of pedestrians by not parking on a crossing.
Jeremy knows he did not need Beck's address. It was always a ruse.
You seem to have great insight into his thought processes, for someone who is not him.
No, I have some insight into legal action and why someone might initiate it.
I know that ranting and raving about me being Jeremy is a much easier tactic for you, "Lattecat", since it allows you to dodge the point. But as yet you've produced no evidence to that effect, other than "Oooh but he SOUNDS like Jeremy!" Which is, at the end of the day, utterly pathetic - and wouldn't stand up in court, even with a "top barrister" arguing the case.
Jeremy made the last post.
No he didn't. I did - and I am not Jeremy.
One of the enduring advantages of conspiracy theories is that you can't argue against them, so I expect you nitwits will cling to this you-are-Jeremy routine, rather than answering the point.
"This is the same Jeremy Sear who took a dog into a national park a couple of easters ago and then claimed it wasn't a National park once it was pointed out to him that the dog was illegal there."
Except it wasn't a National Park (his stupid partner got it wrong - it was a State Park, and Dogs are allowed in State parks), he didn't take the dog there (They've got cats, not real pets) and Jeremy never said a word about it - his partner did. Oh, and he doesn't live in Fitzroy. Ten out of ten for getting every single fact wrong, though. That takes some effort.
"I know that ranting and raving about me being Jeremy is a much easier tactic for you, "Lattecat", "
Who's ranting and raving anono-not-jeremy? I've just pointed out that you claim to have great insight into what he was thinking. Which means, either (a) you are him or close to him; or (b) you are full of it.
Given that you are not Keri - (she has posted nymously (a word I may have just made up), I would go with (b).
"you-are-Jeremy routine, rather than answering the point"
You have a point, other than to midly insult Jeremy?
Why would Jeremy need an address for service? Surely he knows the rules better than that.
http://www.restorerestartquit.com/?p=750&cpage=1#comment-1293
How you can play at being a school girl like Jeremy.
And I saw the picture of his "partner". He took a dog alright.
And who said he livs in Fitzroy BTW?
The comment was that the shops were not open to Fitzroy lefties. At least we now know that Jezza was the leftie inconvenienced by the closed shops. And yes it's Ringwood not Fitzroy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
There is no need to insult Keri's appearance like this. It detracts from the serious points being made about Jeremy's dodgy arguments.
By the way the person who is claiming not to be Jeremy is quite obviously Jeremy.
He is the only person lame enough to both post anonymously in defense of Jeremy and put scare quotes around Lattecat's username as if posting under an assumed name is some how immoral. Of course this is rich for someone who is defending the person who used to post as anonymous lefty using a picture of Rowan Atkinson as his avatar.
"There is no need to insult Keri's appearance like this."
Agreed
By the way the person who is claiming not to be Jeremy is quite obviously Jeremy.
By the way, you are talking out your backside. I am not Jeremy and any supposition along those lines is just guesswork on your part, because (as I have said) it allows you and Beck to avoid responding to the points I have made earlier.
The fact that the comment threads at this blog so quickly deteriorate into personal commentary about Jeremy Sear, his cat, his girlfriend and his girlfriend's weight and appearance tell us all we need to know about this blog. It is little more than a 'hate clubb' targeting Sear, Loewenstein, Bridges and anyone connected with them. The fact that Beck incites this rubbish - then sits back and does nothing while his comment threads fill up with vitriol - says much about where his own moral compass is pointing.
Since I challenged Beck to produce some ideas and coherent writing of his own a couple of days ago, what have we seen? More Sear and Loewenstein posts, a huge clip from New Scientist with a one-sentence underlay, and some cutting-edge commentary on liberated circus animals. No wonder Beck's brief stint at Asian Correspondent was so brief; he has got to be the least meaningful and most vacuous blogger ever to strike a key.
Not all state parks allow dogs.
"Many State and National Parks do not allow you to bring your dog when you visit, so it's important to check the Dog Walking Code for a full list of parks where dogs are permitted."
http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1process_details.cfm?activity=24
It pays to Google before trying to walk the dog.
And further to that, when they are allowed in a state park:
"Dogs are permitted in the following parks provided they are on a leash and under control of their owners at all times".
http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1process_details.cfm?note=23
That bit is in bold on the Parks Victoria website, so I expect they mean it. Was the dog in question on a leash and under control?
No more derogatory comments about Kedgie, please; let's leave the female-slagging to an expert.
Anonymous 'I'm not Jeremy' is telling the truth. He, sorry, she is not Jeremy. She is me. Bridgit Gread of course. Who the f*ck else would think she needs to spring to Jezza's defence even though she dislikes him? You see, she just dislikes Beck more.
This is all quite absurd. I am the one and only Jeremy and with a warm place to park my magnificent manhood I have now need to barge into Amanda Beard's vagina even if she has one.
This thread is a riot.
After a few apéritifs with my true love I, Jeremy, am having trouble typing. My comment above should read "I have no need" rather than "I have now need". Having made that correction I will now retire to make sweet, sweet love to my amply racked honey.
Jo Chandler aka Ray Dixon aka Sockpuppet, you should be cleaning room 2 at your motel matey. I stayed there last month and it was full of pubes and bed bugs (tripadvisor.com here I come....) You must be as good at cleaning motel rooms as Saint Kilda is at winning finals.
Why doesn't Jeremy supply any links to support these allegations he's making? How do we know any of these things even happened?
"By the way, you are talking out your backside."
You are being very childish Jeremy.
"I am not Jeremy and any supposition along those lines is just guesswork on your part, because (as I have said) it allows you and Beck to avoid responding to the points I have made earlier."
That makes no sense. I don't the word 'because' means what you think it means.
The bit that follows the word 'because' doesn't actually explain Whether or not someone wants to respond to your points doesn't have any bearing on whether or not our supposition that you are in fact Jeremy is 'guesswork'.
We have guessed that you are Jeremy, your writing style is very similar and the quickness with which you are leaping to Jeremy's defence all point to you being Jeremy. Although I could be wrong, see below.
We have actually responded to your nonsense. It is silly for you to defend Jeremy by suggesting that he used his privileged access to the law to try to get his critics to 'shut up'. That actually makes him look worse not better.
"The fact that the comment threads at this blog so quickly deteriorate into personal commentary about Jeremy Sear, his cat, his girlfriend and his girlfriend's weight and appearance tell us all we need to know about this blog."
No. Just no. That is entirely wrong. You are attempting to tar Beck by the deleted comments of people who may or may not agree with him or may or may not have ulterior motives for posting such comments (motives such as giving Jeremy excuses for bad mouthing Beck).
" It is little more than a 'hate clubb' targeting Sear, Loewenstein, Bridges and anyone connected with them."
What is a clubb and why does it need apostrophes around the word?
Given that Jeremy, Bridges and Loewenstein spend much of their time writing blogs attacking conservatives this is a case of pot calling the kettle black.
Given that you include a non-entity like Bridges in this list suggests that maybe you are actually Bridges rather than Jeremy Sear.
"The fact that Beck incites this rubbish"
That is offensive.
" - then sits back and does nothing while his comment threads fill up with vitriol -"
Except delete the comments you are whining about.
"says much about where his own moral compass is pointing."
Does it now. Maybe Bridges would like to comment about that or is he too busy writing more posts about the innuendo that comes to his mind when he sees bottles and school text books?
"Since I challenged Beck to produce some ideas and coherent writing of his own a couple of days ago, what have we seen?"
Since you provide no definition of what would pass your test and you would be the sole arbiter, I suggest that it would be impossible for Beck to meet your challenge.
"More Sear and Loewenstein posts, a huge clip from New Scientist with a one-sentence underlay, and some cutting-edge commentary on liberated circus animals. No wonder Beck's brief stint at Asian Correspondent was so brief; he has got to be the least meaningful and most vacuous blogger ever to strike a key."
Your hyperbowl (to quote our dear PM) undercuts your argument.
Stalky Wally strikes again?
http://twitter.com/GavAtkins/status/55479976262254592
Post a Comment
<< Home