PDA

View Full Version : toxoplasma gondii


Pat Gardiner
August 15th 06, 11:57 AM
Pat's Note: I have just been doing some checking. For once my use of Google
has rather let me down. Many articles dealing with toxoplasmosis, don't
actually use the word, prefering instead to talk about the actual parasite,
rather than the condition.

The explosive piece in the The Herald
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/67850.html this morning is merely
representative of many others along the same lines published all over the
place recently.

That makes it merely a matter of time before the French Food Standards
Agency allegations that Britain's Food Standards Agency has been covering up
toxoplasmosis in pigs, becomes common knowledge.

Even more explosive was the removal of the only article in the British media
from the WWW, overnight following publication. Fortunately, I caught it
during the short time frame it was available and, if you recall published it
on the newsgroup uk.business.agriculture.

For the convenience of readers, here again is the text of the supressed
article - and I follow it with the a report published in English on the
Continent dealing with the same allegations.

As you can see they differ and from the dates you can see that it was
probably the French publication that forced the UK pig industry to publish
an article, which was quickly removed almost certainly as a result of
pressure from the British Food Standards Agency.

http://www.npa-uk.net/

June 13

Toxoplasmosis endemic in British pigs, claims French expert

By Digby Scott

According to some researchers, outdoor pigs are over 20 times more likely to
be infected with toxoplasma gondii than indoor pigs.

And now a respected French food safety expert, Dr Pascal Boireau, is
claiming toxoplasmosis is endemic in the British national herd, where about
a third of sows are kept outdoors.

This claim could have important implications for the way British pork is
marketed.

As trichinella has not been detected in British pigmeat for 26 years
consumers are gradually being weaned off the idea that pork has to be
overcooked to be safe.

All the evidence suggests that slightly pink pork is perfectly safe, and
certainly more succulent and tender.

But if toxoplasma gondii really is becoming a problem in outdoor pigs - and
the evidence has yet to be produced - pork may once again be seen as a meat
that must be handled with special care.

Outdoor producers might therefore consider intensifying rodent control. They
should also do what they can to discourage cats, which shelter toxoplasma
gondii in their faeces. It will also be helpful if Defra decides to kill-out
the pockets of feral wild boar in Britain.
Pigs can be infected with toxoplasma gondii through ingesting contaminated
feed, water, and soil, and by eating infected rodents.

Toxoplasma gondii infection in food-producing animals is acknowledged as a
potential public health problem by the Food Standards Agency. Infection can
be transmitted to humans through the handling and consumption of raw or
undercooked meat containing the organism.

Although it does not present a hazard to normally healthy adults it can
pose a threat to unborn children and to immunocompromised individuals such
as the ill and elderly.

It has been shown by researchers that pigs kept indoors are far less likely
to be infected with the organism. Conversely, the problem of infection with
outdoor pigs may be greater than was hitherto supposed.

Researchers in Brazil found over 86 percent of outdoor pigs tested had
antibodies to toxoplasma gondii.

There is also evidence that the prevalence of toxoplasma gondii increases
with age.

Dr Pascal Boireau, a director of the French equivalent of the United
Kingdom's
Food Standards Agency, has suggested Britain is underplaying the risk of
contracting toxoplasmosis from British pigmeat.

He claims the toxoplasmosis threat is real and probably growing, and says
more studies are needed, especially into animal-to-animal transmission.

He acknowledges the truth in Britain's claim that the national pig herd is
free of the parasite trichinella but says no such claim can be made for
toxoplasmosis.

He is also concerned about the situation in France where there are greater
opportunities for outdoor pigs to be cross-contaminated from wild boar,
where infection rates are running at 10-20 percent.

http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/3364/French_scientist_warns_of_dangerous_parasite_in_UK _pigs.html


French scientist warns of dangerous parasite in UK pigs

By Rick Pendrous

Published: 12 June, 2006

The UK is underplaying the risk of contracting toxoplasmosis from
home-reared pig meat, according to a French food safety expert who claims
the parasite that causes the disease is endemic in the national herd.

Dr Pascal Boireau, a director at AFSSA, the French equivalent of the UK's
Food Standards Agency (FSA), and a specialist in parasitic contamination of
the food chain is carrying out research into the extent of the infection in
his own country. He said the threat was real and probably growing, but more
studies were needed, especially into animal to animal transmission.

Although there are no figures to show the extent of infection in the UK, the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) denies that
toxoplasmosis is endemic. Meanwhile, the Food Standards Agency, which is
more candid about its existence, warns pregnant women - who are at higher
risk - against handling and eating raw and undercooked pork cuts, mince, and
ready-meals.

Since the 1960s, when the UK herd was declared free of the potentially
dangerous parasitic zoonoses trichinella, consumer advice from the Meat and
Livestock Commission (MLC) has implied that rare pork was no longer a
source of danger. Boireau disagrees. "The UK is OK for trichinella, but for
toxoplasmosis, no," he said.

Elsewhere advice is confused. In the Irish Republic rare pork is declared
safe to eat, while Northern Ireland follows the FSA's line, creating
problems for organisations giving dietary advice across the island of
Ireland.

Although toxoplasmosis can also be found in the soil and is known to be
present in cat faeces, Boireau claims "80% of contamination is from meat".

He is particularly concerned about outdoor reared pork and the potential for
cross contamination from wild boar, among whom infection rates in France are
running at 10 to 20%.

At a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food
held at the FSA headquarters last week, the potential dangers of consumers
contracting Heptitis E from undercooked pork joints were also highlighted.

In France, where there is still a problem with trichinella infected horse
meat, Boireau's team is working on an automated microscopic technique for
measuring trichinella larvae in muscle using artificial digestion. The
technique will be presented at a scientific conference later this year.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com

August 15th 06, 01:36 PM
Jill wrote:

> x posted to Cat groups!
>
> bless

Hello "Carry on Stalking" Jill

Thank you for raising the matter.

Of course, I cross posted to the Cat groups, but for pressure of time I
would have cross posted to pregnancy,radio therapy, compromised immune
system and aids groups.

Others will redistribute on my behalf, I expect

All these groups of people are at special risk from toxoplasmosis.

It is very important that the source and spread of the disease is
understood.

Senior scientists of the French government have made very serious
allegations of a cover-up in Britain - the kind of cover-up that
carries serious human health risks.

That and the removal of British media reports reporting the allegation
from the internet is a matter of public interest throughout the world.

Some of the more outspoken "nationalist" groups are drawing all kinds
of far-reaching conclusions from some of the associated research. I
understand toxoplasmosis is rare in Israel!

If Britain's pigs do have high levels of toxoplasma gondii, I can
imagine what non-pork eaters will make of it.

Toxoplasmosis might make commond ground between the Jews and Arabs.

On the other hand, those living in temperate regions will draw the
opposite deducations.

It is a real hot potato.

Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com


> --
>
> regards
> Jill Bowis
>
> Pure bred utility chickens and ducks
> Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts
> Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery
> Working Holidays in Scotland
> http://www.kintaline.co.uk

Pat Gardiner
August 15th 06, 09:05 PM
"Pat Gardiner" > wrote in message
...

> Pat's Note: I have just been doing some checking. For once my use of
> Google has rather let me down. Many articles dealing with toxoplasmosis,
> don't actually use the word, prefering instead to talk about the actual
> parasite, rather than the condition.
>
Do you really think that Britain's corrupt veterinarians are going to keep
this under wraps for ever?

French government scientists have recently accused Britain's Food Standards
Agency of hiding up toxoplasmosis in pigs. It is one "nasty bug" as the
Germans would have it.

Not the kind of bug that Britain's bent veterinarians should be caught
hiding up

Now, tonight, the Germans are on the move:

http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/biowissenschaften_chemie/bericht-69107.html

Discovery of metabolic pathway for parasite could lead to new controls for
diseases

15.08.2006

Discovery may benefit pregnant mothers and those with compromised immune
systems

Toxoplasma gondii is one nasty bug. A microscopic parasite, it lives in the
intestinal tract of cats but can be carried by most warm-blooded animals. In
humans, it can harm or even kill a developing fetus, and it can as well
sicken those with compromised immune systems, such as AIDS patients.

Now, for the first time, cellular biologists at the University of Georgia
and the University of Pennsylvania have shown that fatty acid synthesis in
T. gondii is essential for the parasite's survival. The discovery could lead
to the development of new drugs to make the parasite's effects much less
troublesome in both humans and animals.

"New drugs with novel mechanisms of action are urgently needed," said Boris
Striepen, a cellular biologist in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences
and the Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases at the University
of Georgia. "This new study presents us with a viable target for such new
drugs."

The research was published this week in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. Other authors on the paper are Jolly Mazumdar, formerly
a doctoral student at UGA and now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of
Pennsylvania, and Emma Wilson, Kate Masek and Christopher Hunter of the
School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Toxoplasma belongs to a group of parasites that harbor a chloroplast-like
organelle, the apicoplast. Chloroplasts are the home of photosynthesis in
plants and algae and are responsible for the green color of leaves.
Apicoplasts have long puzzled scientists. What does a parasite living in the
brain or blood of humans have to do with a structure associated with
harvesting sunlight? It turns out that the chloroplasts have additional
functions, and it is these functions that the parasites require.

Striepen and his team discovered that a special chloroplast fatty acid
synthesis (FAS) pathway in T. gondii is essential for the parasite's ability
to cause disease and to survive. Finding a way to turn off the functions of
this pathway could make T. gondii a toothless tiger.

"This is the first robust genetic evidence that a specific chloroplast
pathway is essential to the organism," said Striepen. Humans also have a
fatty acid synthesis pathway, but because it is entirely different from the
one uncovered in T. gondii, drug developers could turn off the pathway in
the parasite without harming the one in humans. This makes the parasite's
vital FAS pathway a perfect target.

This isn't the first time that the apicoplast has been seen as a target for
drug intervention. The closely related malaria parasite also harbors an
apicoplast. As early as 1998, researchers at the University of Melbourne in
Australia published a paper suggesting the apicoplast as a target for new
antimalarial drugs. The new paper, however, is the first to explain that the
fatty acid synthesis pathway in T. gondii is necessary for the parasite's
survival and why.

Toxoplasmosis often remains undiagnosed, and in healthy people, T. gondii
causes few noticeable health problems. Its relatively benign status as a
disease-carrying parasite, in fact, makes it ideal to study in the
laboratory. It is also very amenable to genetic experiments and can serve as
a model for such Apicomplexans as Plasmodium, the cause of malaria, one of
the deadliest diseases on Earth. According to the World Health Organization
there are 300 to 500 million clinical cases of malaria each year resulting
in 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths.

For pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems, the problems
are much more dangerous. For instance, Toxoplasma encephalitis is one of the
leading causes of death among AIDS patients. Fetuses that contract the
disease from infected mothers may be born with learning disabilities, vision
problems or mental retardation.

Infections in those who are symptomatic are treatable; however, this
treatment is not always effective and is often associated with toxicity,
which is especially problematic in treating pregnant women.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com

Pat Gardiner
August 16th 06, 01:01 PM
"Oh No" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Thus spake Jane Gillett >

>snip<
>
> I think the point is that cats infect all other mammals, including
> humans. This is why the incidence of the toxo runs at ever higher
> levels
> (something in excess of 1/3 of us are exposed without knowing it). Most
>
> people develop immunity, but there is a threat to unborn children.

The threat is much more widespread than that. Anyone with a compromised
immune system is at risk.

There are a number of conditions that give immunity problems, not least, but
also not confined to, aids.

My understanding is that most cancer sufferers will be at risk during chemo
and radio therapy.

When you set this against the French allegations that the British FSA have
been covering it up in pigs, the BBQ season and attempts to encourage the
undercooking of pork, the matter is extremely serious.

Bear in mind this was the advice the British pig industry were giving

"All the evidence suggests that slightly pink pork is perfectly safe, and
certainly more succulent and tender."

Domestic cats, although they obviously implicated in the life cycle of
toxoplasmosis gondi, may not be the direct risk to humans they seem.

Factory farmed pork may be the reason some nations have a big toxoplasmosis
problem and others, the non pork eaters, have much less problems.

Cats may well be off the toxoplasmosis hook.

The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely
because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through
civil sevice corruption.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com



>
>
>
> Regards
>
> --
> Charles Francis
> substitute charles for NotI to email
>

Oh No
August 16th 06, 02:32 PM
Pat Gardiner wrote:
>
> The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely
> because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through
> civil sevice corruption.
>

I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You
might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make
charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented
evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up
in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless
you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should
reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously,
otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get
round here.

Pat Gardiner
August 16th 06, 03:45 PM
"Oh No" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely
>> because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through
>> civil sevice corruption.
>>
>
> I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You
> might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make
> charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented
> evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up
> in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless
> you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should
> reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously,
> otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get
> round here.

No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the small
slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations to ensure
the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets were all that was
needed.

I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised would
dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go suing people
when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity.

With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe of
libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could not be
guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I called the SVS
a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got invited back as a result,
are always in writing - hence potentially libellous - not slanderous.

I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous in the
legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of the usual
defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are? Check.

Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the letter of
the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules of commonsense
will always come into play and mitigate against casual defamation actions.

Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on
uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang attack.
You know perfectly well, I was constantly abused and accused of not having
given evidence to a Select Committee. I had - and Malcolm, in fairness, was
the man to confirm it. How he got hold of a copy of the document is of no
consequence.

I took gratuitous abuse for a long time, before defending myself by
retaliating. As you can see, the retaliation was effective.

Now, let's turn to a more interesting point. I have always told all of you
quite bluntly that the Americans were watching. If was no bluff, I knew that
the American security services were fully appraised of what was going on
here in Norfolk from September 2000. People who knew me well from my
previous career, and that I knew were from the US security services, were
reading and reported. You will appreciate that it is a federal offence to
identify them.

Surely by now, the more intelligent readers must know that I have enough
commonsense to be unusually truthful in a sometimes frightening situation.

Why would I lie? The attack on my former business career was ridiculous, and
easily disprovable by reference to Companies House. I ran 17 companies, many
in sensitive fields, had no busters, no bad debts and an impeccable record.
I sold out twice, partly due to ill health, and in both cases solvent
groups.

I actually don't give a bugger whether anyone here believes me or not. The
fact that they organise attacks using deliberate lies rather than simply
ignoring me raises questions about their motives

What I mostly care about is the human health risks caused by covering up
animal epidemics in the UK. It has to stop and I regard it as an absolute
moral imperative to do my best to improve matters. Fate put me at the centre
of events and with the relevant experience to handle the situation. You
don't walk away from something like that.

As you probably realise I was given four months to live back in September
2004 and even after a successful rare operation, the five year survival rate
was only 20 percent. I'm doing rather well, but do you seriously think that
I would bother with all this, if I was not convinced of the truth, justice
and importance of the case.

I partially housebound for much of the time - and that together with the
long term prognosis made litigation ridiculous in both directions. So I have
to take the libels on the chin, but that won't stop me kicking the
perpetrators all over the Usenet.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com



>

August 16th 06, 04:10 PM
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:45:56 +0100, "Pat Gardiner"
> wrote:

>
>"Oh No" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>
>>> The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely
>>> because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through
>>> civil sevice corruption.
>>>
>>
>> I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You
>> might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make
>> charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented
>> evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up
>> in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless
>> you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should
>> reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously,
>> otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get
>> round here.
>
>No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the small
>slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations to ensure
>the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets were all that was
>needed.
>
>I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised would
>dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go suing people
>when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity.
>
>With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe of
>libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could not be
>guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I called the SVS
>a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got invited back as a result,
>are always in writing - hence potentially libellous - not slanderous.
>
>I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous in the
>legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of the usual
>defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are? Check.
>
>Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the letter of
>the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules of commonsense
>will always come into play and mitigate against casual defamation actions.
>
>Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on
>uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang attack.
>You know perfectly well, I was constantly abused and accused of not having
>given evidence to a Select Committee. I had - and Malcolm, in fairness, was
>the man to confirm it. How he got hold of a copy of the document is of no
>consequence.
>
>I took gratuitous abuse for a long time, before defending myself by
>retaliating. As you can see, the retaliation was effective.
>
>Now, let's turn to a more interesting point. I have always told all of you
>quite bluntly that the Americans were watching. If was no bluff, I knew that
>the American security services were fully appraised of what was going on
>here in Norfolk from September 2000. People who knew me well from my
>previous career, and that I knew were from the US security services, were
>reading and reported. You will appreciate that it is a federal offence to
>identify them.
>
>Surely by now, the more intelligent readers must know that I have enough
>commonsense to be unusually truthful in a sometimes frightening situation.
>
>Why would I lie? The attack on my former business career was ridiculous, and
>easily disprovable by reference to Companies House. I ran 17 companies, many
>in sensitive fields, had no busters, no bad debts and an impeccable record.
>I sold out twice, partly due to ill health, and in both cases solvent
>groups.
>
>I actually don't give a bugger whether anyone here believes me or not. The
>fact that they organise attacks using deliberate lies rather than simply
>ignoring me raises questions about their motives
>
>What I mostly care about is the human health risks caused by covering up
>animal epidemics in the UK. It has to stop and I regard it as an absolute
>moral imperative to do my best to improve matters. Fate put me at the centre
>of events and with the relevant experience to handle the situation. You
>don't walk away from something like that.
>
>As you probably realise I was given four months to live back in September
>2004 and even after a successful rare operation, the five year survival rate
>was only 20 percent. I'm doing rather well, but do you seriously think that
>I would bother with all this, if I was not convinced of the truth, justice
>and importance of the case.
>
>I partially housebound for much of the time - and that together with the
>long term prognosis made litigation ridiculous in both directions. So I have
>to take the libels on the chin, but that won't stop me kicking the
>perpetrators all over the Usenet.

Jolly good show.

If the very small, insignificant little bullies had a 1/10th of your
courage and stamina, they wouldn't be bullies. Petty minded trolls
like the contemptible and vile, Ogilvie, Oz, Webster and Stubbs etc
will ensure there are always people like us to stand up to them. I
have no doubt these bullies live that life 24/7, unable to fit into
society, it's destroying them from within, and they're too dumb to see
it. The rest of us just get on and enjoy life, when we're not poking
them

Who can blame one for giving better than they get in these
circumstances? lol

You just got to have principles, and the urge to stand by them.

So take that bully boys, right where it hurts.

In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
what's going on, you'll never change that

Pat Gardiner
August 16th 06, 04:30 PM
"" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:45:56 +0100, "Pat Gardiner"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>snip<
>
> Jolly good show.
>
> If the very small, insignificant little bullies had a 1/10th of your
> courage and stamina, they wouldn't be bullies. Petty minded trolls
> like the contemptible and vile, Ogilvie, Oz, Webster and Stubbs etc
> will ensure there are always people like us to stand up to them. I
> have no doubt these bullies live that life 24/7, unable to fit into
> society, it's destroying them from within, and they're too dumb to see
> it. The rest of us just get on and enjoy life, when we're not poking
> them
>
> Who can blame one for giving better than they get in these
> circumstances? lol
>
> You just got to have principles, and the urge to stand by them.
>
> So take that bully boys, right where it hurts.
>
> In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
> what's going on, you'll never change that
>

Thank you, whoever you are ;o))

I must to rather liking cats and don't like them getting all the blame.


--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com

Old Codger
August 16th 06, 08:41 PM
Pat Gardiner wrote:
> "Oh No" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>
>>> The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up,
>>> merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health
>>> problem through civil sevice corruption.
>>>
>>
>> I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You
>> might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you
>> make charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce
>> documented evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that
>> would stand up in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges
>> of slander. Unless you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence
>> is solid, you should reduce your accusations to a level that people
>> can take seriously, otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of
>> treatment you often get round here.
>
> No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the
> small slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations
> to ensure the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets
> were all that was needed.

Evidence for that accusation? Without credible evidence you could be found
guilty of libel.

> I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised
> would dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go
> suing people when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity.

I suspect they realise you are just another crackpot who is best ignored.

> With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe
> of libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could
> not be guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I
> called the SVS a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got
> invited back as a result, are always in writing - hence potentially
> libellous - not slanderous.

You got that right, even if "potentially" is rather understating it.

In practice, of course, it doesn't matter if the wrong term is used, *until*
legal action is contemplated. Both terms refer to defamation.

However, when it comes to legal action it is important to get the term
right. Not only does it prevent the action being summarily thrown out there
are also differences in the assumptions made by the court and, to a limited
extent, the defences that can be used.

> I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous
> in the legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of
> the usual defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are?
> Check.

Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use any of
them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars here for
statements they have made about you. Of the statements that I can readily
recall, they are either obviously true or they are fair comment resulting
from your posts to this group. Conversely, a number of the regulars could
sue you, almost certainly successfully, for statements made by you about
them. They are obviously defamatory, there is unlikely to be the slightest
truth in them and they are obviously not "fair comment". However, the fact
that you have zero credibility here is likely to severely limit the actual
damage caused by your posts so it is not really very sensible for anyone to
sue you, so far.

> Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the
> letter of the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules
> of commonsense will always come into play and mitigate against casual
> defamation actions.

Indeed, example above.

> Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on
> uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang
> attack.

There is no "politburo" and there was no "gang attack", "all out" or
otherwise.

You do not have to be popular, just credible. You lost all credibility when
you produced a pack of lies to claim that you could not provide any evidence
for your quite remarkable claims. UBA was initially supportive and tried to
get more detail from you so that you could be helped and advised. You
refused to provide any additional information, lying as described above, and
became abusive as the more sceptical posters began to post doubts about your
claims. Eventually all the regulars came to the conclusion that your claims
were at best very exaggerated or at worst pure fiction.

> You know perfectly well, I was constantly abused and accused
> of not having given evidence to a Select Committee.

Not true! You were asked to provide evidence to support your claim. Your
response was that the evidence was held by the House and could only be
accessed in person at the House and that it would be contempt to publish
that evidence here.

> I had - and Malcolm, in fairness, was the man to confirm it. How he got
> hold of a copy of the document is of no consequence.

And demonstrated that your justification for not giving us the evidence was
a pack of lies.

> I took gratuitous abuse for a long time, before defending myself by
> retaliating.

Really? It appeared to me that it was us who suffered gratuitous abuse from
you. The general response is to try to point out your errors.

> As you can see, the retaliation was effective.

In ensuring that you lost the last vestiges of credibility.

> Now, let's turn to a more interesting point. I have always told all
> of you quite bluntly that the Americans were watching. If was no
> bluff, I knew that the American security services were fully
> appraised of what was going on here in Norfolk from September 2000.
> People who knew me well from my previous career, and that I knew were
> from the US security services, were reading and reported. You will
> appreciate that it is a federal offence to identify them.

Oh dear, once again you cannot provide any evidence, and it is a quite
remarkable claim.

> Surely by now, the more intelligent readers must know that I have
> enough commonsense to be unusually truthful in a sometimes
> frightening situation.

I doubt anyone with any intelligence believes that.

> Why would I lie?

My only thought, in response to that question, is that you are probably a
troll.

> The attack on my former business career was
> ridiculous, and easily disprovable by reference to Companies House. I
> ran 17 companies, many in sensitive fields, had no busters, no bad
> debts and an impeccable record. I sold out twice, partly due to ill
> health, and in both cases solvent groups.

As has been pointed out to you before, your posts here belie that claim.
Since your posts here suggest you probably have difficulty running a bath no
one is going to exert themselves to try to prove that you ran a single
company, let alone a number and successfully. It is just not credible.

> I actually don't give a bugger whether anyone here believes me or
> not. The fact that they organise attacks using deliberate lies rather
> than simply ignoring me raises questions about their motives

A review of the posts soon reveals that it is you who posts deliberate lies
about other regulars.

> What I mostly care about is the human health risks caused by covering
> up animal epidemics in the UK. It has to stop and I regard it as an
> absolute moral imperative to do my best to improve matters. Fate put
> me at the centre of events and with the relevant experience to handle
> the situation. You don't walk away from something like that.

*If* you truly believe that then you should be providing information
supporting your case so that others here could support you. However,
continuously repeating your initial ridiculous claims. pasting large chunks
from newspapers and other sites and then making claims that are either not
supported or barely evident from the paste does tend to destroy credibility.

> As you probably realise I was given four months to live back in
> September 2004 and even after a successful rare operation, the five
> year survival rate was only 20 percent. I'm doing rather well, but do
> you seriously think that I would bother with all this, if I was not
> convinced of the truth, justice and importance of the case.

If that is true you have my sympathy.

However, even if it is true it does not necessarily mean that your
statements are true, or that you are convinced of their truth. It may be
that you get a lot of pleasure out of being a troll.

> I partially housebound for much of the time - and that together with
> the long term prognosis made litigation ridiculous in both
> directions. So I have to take the libels on the chin, but that won't
> stop me kicking the perpetrators all over the Usenet.

You wish.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

August 16th 06, 08:54 PM
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:28:55 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:

>
>In article >, Pat Gardiner
> writes
>>
>>"" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
>>> what's going on, you'll never change that
>>>
>>
>>Thank you, whoever you are ;o))
>>
>He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.
>
>No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.

Why! Because I posted this truth about you lying, stealing others
works?


Guilty as charged...lol





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%





Malcolm Ogilvie of on the suggestion he
copied Konters book.


" You are making yourself look foolish. The book on Grebes by Andre
Konter that was published in 2001 was entitled 'Grebes of OUR World'.
My book, published only this month, is entitled 'Grebes of THE World',
and as such is entirely different. The similarity of the front covers
is quite coincidental. My book IS the first ever devoted to Grebes.

Malcolm Ogilivie."

...............................................

KONTER (Andre) - Grebes of our World. Visiting all Species on Five
Continents - 2001, 8vo. 187pp. Colour photographs, line drawings. A
description of the 22 species of grebes, their natural history,
ecology
and behaviour.
>>

Grebes of the World
Malcolm Ogilvie
The book starts with an authoritative introduction on the origin,
evolution, distribution, physiology and behaviour of grebes, followed
by
accounts of each of the 22 species


>Malcolm it looks as though Konter might dispute that statement!

>Rob

"Yes, indeed, what I said was wrong and I apologise to Andre Konter,


Malcolm Ogilvie"

................................................

>>>The error I made was in a chatty piece about the actual writing of the
>>>book which I posted to a non-birdwatching newsgroup

>>> M Ogilvie
>>
>>
>>You clearly and explicitly stated that yours was the first book on the
>>subject, in the full knowledge that the topic had recently been
>>covered very thoroughly in Konter's book.
>>The facts speak for themselves. You are a liar who only had the grace
>>to own up when you had been found out - you even persisted in giving
>>the impression that you were the first to write it *after* I had drawn
>>attention to your untruth. Your apology comes a little late.
>>You do yourself no credit in introducing other, wholly irrelevant
>>matters in order to deflect criticism from your behaviour. Shame on
>>you.
>>
>>Paul

August 16th 06, 08:59 PM
Malcolm wrote:

> In article >, Pat Gardiner
> > writes
> >
> >"" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
> >> what's going on, you'll never change that
> >>
> >
> >Thank you, whoever you are ;o))
> >
> He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.
>
> No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.

Just ignore us all Malcolm.

I've given you your rightful credit for telling the world that I was
telling the truth when I said that I had given evidence to a Select
Committee of the House of Commons about blood test faking by SVS vets
during the Swine Fever epidemic. You were really helpful

I don't suppose it will impact on your relationship with Maff-Defra,
the SVS or the RSPB in the long term.

If they are a bit sniffy with you, you can always take some time off to
look at that new highland bird.

By the time you have found one, DNA'd it and got home. They will all
have forgotten all about your intervention and be knee deep in the next
crisis.

Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com


>
> --
> Malcolm

August 16th 06, 09:01 PM
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
> wrote:

>Pat Gardiner wrote:
>> "Oh No" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Pat Gardiner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up,
>>>> merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health
>>>> problem through civil sevice corruption.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You
>>> might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you
>>> make charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce
>>> documented evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that
>>> would stand up in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges
>>> of slander. Unless you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence
>>> is solid, you should reduce your accusations to a level that people
>>> can take seriously, otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of
>>> treatment you often get round here.
>>
>> No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the
>> small slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations
>> to ensure the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets
>> were all that was needed.
>
>Evidence for that accusation? Without credible evidence you could be found
>guilty of libel.



>
>> I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised
>> would dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go
>> suing people when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity.
>
>I suspect they realise you are just another crackpot who is best ignored.
>
>> With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe
>> of libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could
>> not be guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I
>> called the SVS a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got
>> invited back as a result, are always in writing - hence potentially
>> libellous - not slanderous.
>
>You got that right, even if "potentially" is rather understating it.
>
>In practice, of course, it doesn't matter if the wrong term is used, *until*
>legal action is contemplated. Both terms refer to defamation.
>
>However, when it comes to legal action it is important to get the term
>right. Not only does it prevent the action being summarily thrown out there
>are also differences in the assumptions made by the court and, to a limited
>extent, the defences that can be used.
>
>> I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous
>> in the legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of
>> the usual defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are?
>> Check.
>
>Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use any of
>them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars here for
>statements they have made about you. Of the statements that I can readily
>recall, they are either obviously true or they are fair comment resulting
>from your posts to this group. Conversely, a number of the regulars could
>sue you, almost certainly successfully,

LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
To all of us who call a spade, a spade.

>> Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the
>> letter of the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules
>> of commonsense will always come into play and mitigate against casual
>> defamation actions.
>
>Indeed, example above.
>
>> Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on
>> uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang
>> attack.
>
>There is no "politburo" and there was no "gang attack", "all out" or
>otherwise.

Yes there was. I am another victim of the spineless bullies. As
they/you found out to your cost, my bite is bigger than my bark.

I'd like to think that you, an old fart, were just being taken
advantage of by the bullies. Who, in case you hadn't noticed are quite
content, to let you fight their battles for them, whilst failing to
support you in any way, shape or form.

You owe the dicks nothing. Condemn them while you can.


<snip groveling for the benefit of the bullies>

August 16th 06, 10:08 PM
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:35:31 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:

>
>In article . com>,
writes
>>
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Pat Gardiner
>>> > writes
>>> >
>>> >"" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>
>>> >> In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
>>> >> what's going on, you'll never change that
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Thank you, whoever you are ;o))
>>> >
>>> He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.
>>>
>>> No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.
>>
>>Just ignore us all Malcolm.
>>
>> I've given you your rightful credit for telling the world that I was
>>telling the truth when I said that I had given evidence to a Select
>>Committee of the House of Commons about blood test faking by SVS vets
>>during the Swine Fever epidemic. You were really helpful
>>
>Why thank you, Pat, you patronising twerp. By the way, you keep saying
>that the alleged blood test faking was by "SVS vets", in the plural. Yet
>in your letter to the Select Committee you state that it was a single
>vet. Would the Select Committee be pleased to know that you have changed
>your evidence?
>
>>I don't suppose it will impact on your relationship with Maff-Defra,
>>the SVS or the RSPB in the long term.
>>
>No, it won't, you silly little man. I have no relationship with Defra,
>though I do with Seerad. The only vets I know, or have ever known, are
>hard-working, decent and honest. My relationship with the RSPB is in
>exactly the same excellent state that it has been for a great many
>years.

You're a bum. No longer employed by the RSPB as you are untouchable,
because you're a fat twerp, who's obsessive stalking has cost you
dearly, very dearly. Still, now you're on state benefits, you may lose
some weight.

>
>>If they are a bit sniffy with you, you can always take some time off to
>>look at that new highland bird.
>>
>They are much more likely to thank me for exposing you for the lying
>defamer that you are. I've already seen the Scottish Crossbill, thank
>you.
>
>>By the time you have found one, DNA'd it and got home. They will all
>>have forgotten all about your intervention and be knee deep in the next
>>crisis.
>>
>Now you call it my "intervention". A few hours ago you were claiming
>that the only way I could have seen your letter was to have gone to
>London, or sent someone else, to look at it at the House of Lords
>library. Do you finally accept that your claim was wrong? Even though I
>told you months ago that I received a copy of your letter in the post,
>you still had to repeat your lying claim again yesterday, didn't you?

You sound like a very angry old man. LOL

>By the way, take note that your lying, trolling, defaming "friend" has
>just proved how right I was about him by repeating lies and defamation
>about me. You and he are two of a kind.


Why! Because I posted this truth about you lying, stealing others
works? So much for the old kill filter huh!


Guilty as charged...lol





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%





Malcolm Ogilvie of on the suggestion he
copied Konters book.


" You are making yourself look foolish. The book on Grebes by Andre
Konter that was published in 2001 was entitled 'Grebes of OUR World'.
My book, published only this month, is entitled 'Grebes of THE World',
and as such is entirely different. The similarity of the front covers
is quite coincidental. My book IS the first ever devoted to Grebes.

Malcolm Ogilivie."

...............................................

KONTER (Andre) - Grebes of our World. Visiting all Species on Five
Continents - 2001, 8vo. 187pp. Colour photographs, line drawings. A
description of the 22 species of grebes, their natural history,
ecology
and behaviour.
>>

Grebes of the World
Malcolm Ogilvie
The book starts with an authoritative introduction on the origin,
evolution, distribution, physiology and behaviour of grebes, followed
by
accounts of each of the 22 species


>Malcolm it looks as though Konter might dispute that statement!

>Rob

"Yes, indeed, what I said was wrong and I apologise to Andre Konter,


Malcolm Ogilvie"

................................................

>>>The error I made was in a chatty piece about the actual writing of the
>>>book which I posted to a non-birdwatching newsgroup

>>> M Ogilvie
>>
>>
>>You clearly and explicitly stated that yours was the first book on the
>>subject, in the full knowledge that the topic had recently been
>>covered very thoroughly in Konter's book.
>>The facts speak for themselves. You are a liar who only had the grace
>>to own up when you had been found out - you even persisted in giving
>>the impression that you were the first to write it *after* I had drawn
>>attention to your untruth. Your apology comes a little late.
>>You do yourself no credit in introducing other, wholly irrelevant
>>matters in order to deflect criticism from your behaviour. Shame on
>>you.
>>
>>Paul

Old Codger
August 16th 06, 10:34 PM
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
> > wrote:
>
>> Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use
>> any of them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars
>> here for statements they have made about you. Of the statements
>> that I can readily recall, they are either obviously true or they
>> are fair comment resulting from your posts to this group.
>> Conversely, a number of the regulars could sue you, almost certainly
>> successfully,
>
> LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
> To all of us who call a spade, a spade.

You snipped the bit that gave the reason why it would be pointless suing,
either Pat or you. Just like him you are a troll and have no credibility.

With apologies to the good folks in the cats groups who have had to put up
with all this rubbish.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

August 16th 06, 10:40 PM
Malcolm wrote:

> In article . com>,
> writes
> >
> >Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >> In article >, Pat Gardiner
> >> > writes
> >> >
> >> >"" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
> >> >> what's going on, you'll never change that
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Thank you, whoever you are ;o))
> >> >
> >> He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.
> >>
> >> No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.
> >
> >Just ignore us all Malcolm.
> >
> > I've given you your rightful credit for telling the world that I was
> >telling the truth when I said that I had given evidence to a Select
> >Committee of the House of Commons about blood test faking by SVS vets
> >during the Swine Fever epidemic. You were really helpful
> >
> Why thank you, Pat, you patronising twerp. By the way, you keep saying
> that the alleged blood test faking was by "SVS vets", in the plural. Yet
> in your letter to the Select Committee you state that it was a single
> vet. Would the Select Committee be pleased to know that you have changed
> your evidence?

Don't get so upset. I hope your bird books have a higher standard of
accuracy that your comments here.

Anyway, you give me the chance to explain again. At the time when I
gave evidence to the Select Committee, there had been only one blood
test faking.

After I complained I was visited by a senior official from the SVS, who
threatened us and faked up a record of the meeting. I complained to Mr
Speaker and he was sent home.

An investigation team arrived from Scotland. There was a third faking
of the records.You can find the details of this horrendous and worrying
series of incidents on my site. Read "Stop the World"
http://pages.britishlibrary.net/patgardiner/stopworld.htm
>
> >I don't suppose it will impact on your relationship with Maff-Defra,
> >the SVS or the RSPB in the long term.
> >
> No, it won't, you silly little man. I have no relationship with Defra,
> though I do with Seerad. The only vets I know, or have ever known, are
> hard-working, decent and honest. My relationship with the RSPB is in
> exactly the same excellent state that it has been for a great many
> years.

Don't be so gratuitouslly abusive. People might get the impression you
are worried. You are right, it is Seerad and indeed I was getting
Scottish Executive letterheads dealing with complaints of criminal
offences that were committed by Scottish vets in England. They seem to
have trouble understanding their role in Britain stops at the border.
>
> >If they are a bit sniffy with you, you can always take some time off to
> >look at that new highland bird.
> >
> They are much more likely to thank me for exposing you for the lying
> defamer that you are. I've already seen the Scottish Crossbill, thank
> you.

Good for you. That must be a big moment for any twitcher. I wonder they
did not name it after you? Wouldn't that have been fun?
>
> >By the time you have found one, DNA'd it and got home. They will all
> >have forgotten all about your intervention and be knee deep in the next
> >crisis.
> >
> Now you call it my "intervention". A few hours ago you were claiming
> that the only way I could have seen your letter was to have gone to
> London, or sent someone else, to look at it at the House of Lords
> library. Do you finally accept that your claim was wrong?

I have no idea. That was most certainly the position when the incident
occured. Maybe the rules of the House were changed in the meantime.
Anyway, by whatever means, you got a copy and were able to confirm that
part of the story. Thank You!

>Even though I
> told you months ago that I received a copy of your letter in the post,
> you still had to repeat your lying claim again yesterday, didn't you?

Yes, well, I don't actually know how you received it and was being a
bit discrete in case accidentally any of the rules of the House were
broken in its aquisition. I got two separate stories as to why it was
not published with the other evidence, so things can go wrong. There
probably was a change in the rules and to be honest how you got it,
with or without actually visiting the House of Lords, is not material
to anything.
>
> By the way, take note that your lying, trolling, defaming "friend" has
> just proved how right I was about him by repeating lies and defamation
> about me. You and he are two of a kind.

I don't even know who he is Malcolm, but perhaps you should be more
careful about needlessly upsetting people.

Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com
>
> --
> Malcolm

August 16th 06, 11:05 PM
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:34:12 +0100, "Old Codger"
> wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use
>>> any of them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars
>>> here for statements they have made about you. Of the statements
>>> that I can readily recall, they are either obviously true or they
>>> are fair comment resulting from your posts to this group.
>>> Conversely, a number of the regulars could sue you, almost certainly
>>> successfully,
>>
>> LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
>> To all of us who call a spade, a spade.
>
>You snipped the bit that gave the reason why it would be pointless suing,
>either Pat or you.

You seem to have forgotten who the victims are, bullies usually do. If
there is to be any suing, it should be us doing it. You and your bully
boy friends don't have a leg to stand on.

>Just like him you are a troll and have no credibility.

Don't hurt me please. You can be so cruel.

>With apologies to the good folks in the cats groups who have had to put up
>with all this rubbish.

So snip the cross posts you troll.

August 16th 06, 11:11 PM
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:08:40 GMT, "Matthew"
> wrote:

>
>"" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:34:12 +0100, "Old Codger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:41:18 +0100, "Old Codger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use
>>>>> any of them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars
>>>>> here for statements they have made about you. Of the statements
>>>>> that I can readily recall, they are either obviously true or they
>>>>> are fair comment resulting from your posts to this group.
>>>>> Conversely, a number of the regulars could sue you, almost certainly
>>>>> successfully,
>>>>
>>>> LOL wouldn't stand a chance in hell, or the idiots would have done it.
>>>> To all of us who call a spade, a spade.
>>>
>>>You snipped the bit that gave the reason why it would be pointless suing,
>>>either Pat or you.
>>
>> You seem to have forgotten who the victims are, bullies usually do. If
>> there is to be any suing, it should be us doing it. You and your bully
>> boy friends don't have a leg to stand on.
>>
>>>Just like him you are a troll and have no credibility.
>>
>> Don't hurt me please. You can be so cruel.
>>
>>>With apologies to the good folks in the cats groups who have had to put up
>>>with all this rubbish.
>>
>> So snip the cross posts you troll.
>
>
>why don't you so the cat people won't have to put up with this
>

I don't know how. Ask the old codger, he seems to have all the
answers.

Old Codger
August 17th 06, 12:01 AM
wrote:
> Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Even though I
>> told you months ago that I received a copy of your letter in the
>> post, you still had to repeat your lying claim again yesterday,
>> didn't you?
>
> Yes, well, I don't actually know how you received it and was being a
> bit discrete in case accidentally any of the rules of the House were
> broken in its aquisition. I got two separate stories as to why it was
> not published with the other evidence, so things can go wrong.

It was not published with the other evidence because they did not consider
it of any importance, perhaps they did not believe you.

> There probably was a change in the rules

Of course that *must* be the reason you said it could only be viewed in
person and Malcolm received a copy, sent by the authorities, through the
post. Couldn't be that you weren't telling the truth.

> and to be honest how you got it, with or without actually visiting
> the House of Lords, is not material to anything.


Except to the fact that you said it was impossible.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger
August 17th 06, 12:06 AM
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:08:40 GMT, "Matthew"
> > wrote:
>> "" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> So snip the cross posts you troll.
>>
>>
>> why don't you so the cat people won't have to put up with this
>>
>
> I don't know how. Ask the old codger, he seems to have all the
> answers.

You really are a liar and a Troll Pete.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Professor
August 17th 06, 04:30 AM
You're a ****** for dragging this crap onto the cat newsgroups.
*plonk*

"Pat Gardiner" > wrote in message
...
<garbage snipped>

August 17th 06, 07:59 AM
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:06:29 +0100, "Old Codger"
> wrote:

> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:08:40 GMT, "Matthew"
>> > wrote:
>>> "" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> So snip the cross posts you troll.
>>>
>>>
>>> why don't you so the cat people won't have to put up with this
>>>
>>
>> I don't know how. Ask the old codger, he seems to have all the
>> answers.
>
>You really are a liar and a Troll Pete.

Ouch. That is so cruel.

August 17th 06, 08:40 AM
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:26:12 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:

>
>In article . com>,
writes
>>
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> In article . com>,
>>> writes
>>> >
>>> >Malcolm wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article >, Pat Gardiner
>>> >> > writes
>>> >> >
>>> >> >"" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
>>> >> >> what's going on, you'll never change that
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Thank you, whoever you are ;o))
>>> >> >
>>> >> He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.
>>> >>
>>> >> No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.
>>> >
>>> >Just ignore us all Malcolm.
>>> >
>>> > I've given you your rightful credit for telling the world that I was
>>> >telling the truth when I said that I had given evidence to a Select
>>> >Committee of the House of Commons about blood test faking by SVS vets
>>> >during the Swine Fever epidemic. You were really helpful
>>> >
>>> Why thank you, Pat, you patronising twerp. By the way, you keep saying
>>> that the alleged blood test faking was by "SVS vets", in the plural. Yet
>>> in your letter to the Select Committee you state that it was a single
>>> vet. Would the Select Committee be pleased to know that you have changed
>>> your evidence?
>>
>>Don't get so upset. I hope your bird books have a higher standard of
>>accuracy that your comments here.
>>
>Which of my comments above is inaccurate?
>
>>Anyway, you give me the chance to explain again. At the time when I
>>gave evidence to the Select Committee, there had been only one blood
>>test faking.
>>
>>After I complained I was visited by a senior official from the SVS, who
>>threatened us and faked up a record of the meeting. I complained to Mr
>>Speaker and he was sent home.
>>
>>An investigation team arrived from Scotland. There was a third faking
>>of the records.You can find the details of this horrendous and worrying
>>series of incidents on my site. Read "Stop the World"
>>http://pages.britishlibrary.net/patgardiner/stopworld.htm
>
>All of which is just a silly wriggle. You have stated above that you
>gave evidence to the Select Committee about SVS "vets", plural. You
>didn't, your evidence was about one vet. I hope that all your evidence
>had a higher standard of accuracy than your claims here.
>
>>>
>>> >I don't suppose it will impact on your relationship with Maff-Defra,
>>> >the SVS or the RSPB in the long term.
>>> >
>>> No, it won't, you silly little man. I have no relationship with Defra,
>>> though I do with Seerad. The only vets I know, or have ever known, are
>>> hard-working, decent and honest. My relationship with the RSPB is in
>>> exactly the same excellent state that it has been for a great many
>>> years.
>>
>>Don't be so gratuitouslly abusive. People might get the impression you
>>are worried.
>
>Then they would be wrong. You are one of the most abusive posters here.
>It seems fitting to inform you in no uncertain terms that what you are
>claiming about me is stupid rubbish and people who spout stupid rubbish
>are often (always) stupid themselves.
>
>>You are right, it is Seerad and indeed I was getting
>>Scottish Executive letterheads dealing with complaints of criminal
>>offences that were committed by Scottish vets in England. They seem to
>>have trouble understanding their role in Britain stops at the border.
>
>I suppose there is no point asking you for evidence that anything
>"criminal" was committed. You don't *do* evidence, do you? Nor can you
>apparently understand why Scottish vets might legitimately do some work
>in England.
>
>>>
>>> >If they are a bit sniffy with you, you can always take some time off to
>>> >look at that new highland bird.
>>> >
>>> They are much more likely to thank me for exposing you for the lying
>>> defamer that you are. I've already seen the Scottish Crossbill, thank
>>> you.
>>
>>Good for you. That must be a big moment for any twitcher. I wonder they
>>did not name it after you? Wouldn't that have been fun?
>
>Silly little man.
>
>>>
>>> >By the time you have found one, DNA'd it and got home. They will all
>>> >have forgotten all about your intervention and be knee deep in the next
>>> >crisis.
>>> >
>>> Now you call it my "intervention". A few hours ago you were claiming
>>> that the only way I could have seen your letter was to have gone to
>>> London, or sent someone else, to look at it at the House of Lords
>>> library. Do you finally accept that your claim was wrong?
>>
>>I have no idea. That was most certainly the position when the incident
>>occured. Maybe the rules of the House were changed in the meantime.
>>Anyway, by whatever means, you got a copy and were able to confirm that
>>part of the story. Thank You!
>>
>Another silly wriggle. There has been no change in the rules, just a
>total reluctance by you to face up to the fact that what you were saying
>about access to the evidence was completely wrong.
>
>>>Even though I
>>> told you months ago that I received a copy of your letter in the post,
>>> you still had to repeat your lying claim again yesterday, didn't you?
>>
>>Yes, well, I don't actually know how you received it and was being a
>>bit discrete in case accidentally any of the rules of the House were
>>broken in its aquisition.
>
>Yes, well, you do know, because I spelt it out in detail soon after
>receiving it in order to inform you that your continued claims about how
>I got hold of it were completely wrong.
>
>>I got two separate stories as to why it was
>>not published with the other evidence, so things can go wrong. There
>>probably was a change in the rules and to be honest how you got it,
>>with or without actually visiting the House of Lords, is not material
>>to anything.
>
>No, it isn't material, but the truth is, something you seem to have
>great difficulty with. Your attempt to claim that there was a change in
>the rules is a perfect example of this. Open your mind, Pat, stir your
>two brain cells together and accept some facts, for a change, instead of
>entering your usual state of denial.
>>>
>>> By the way, take note that your lying, trolling, defaming "friend" has
>>> just proved how right I was about him by repeating lies and defamation
>>> about me. You and he are two of a kind.
>>
>>I don't even know who he is Malcolm, but perhaps you should be more
>>careful about needlessly upsetting people.
>>
>I shall do as I please, Pat, including correcting you when you spout
>lying nonsense about matters on which I know more than you, which is
>undoubtedly more than you think. I also take great exception to you
>libelling me, which you have done on a number of occasions, whereas your
>claim that I have libelled you was a complete fiction. I note that I
>still haven't heard from your solicitor.

Oh dear. Looks like someone has upset Malcolm, quite badly. Now who
would want to do such a mean thing?

The fact he is a fat, lying, cheating, obnoxious, file, deviant troll,
is neither here nor there.

Have pity, now he is unemployed.

August 17th 06, 09:01 AM
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:26:12 +0100, Malcolm
> wrote:

>
>In article . com>,
writes
>>
>>Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> In article . com>,
>>> writes
>>> >
>>> >Malcolm wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article >, Pat Gardiner
>>> >> > writes
>>> >> >
>>> >> >"" > wrote in message
>>> >> ...
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world
>>> >> >> what's going on, you'll never change that
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Thank you, whoever you are ;o))
>>> >> >
>>> >> He's a troll, a serial liar and regularly defames people.
>>> >>
>>> >> No wonder you agree with him, as you are all of those, too.
>>> >
>>> >Just ignore us all Malcolm.
>>> >
>>> > I've given you your rightful credit for telling the world that I was
>>> >telling the truth when I said that I had given evidence to a Select
>>> >Committee of the House of Commons about blood test faking by SVS vets
>>> >during the Swine Fever epidemic. You were really helpful
>>> >
>>> Why thank you, Pat, you patronising twerp. By the way, you keep saying
>>> that the alleged blood test faking was by "SVS vets", in the plural. Yet
>>> in your letter to the Select Committee you state that it was a single
>>> vet. Would the Select Committee be pleased to know that you have changed
>>> your evidence?
>>
>>Don't get so upset. I hope your bird books have a higher standard of
>>accuracy that your comments here.
>>
>Which of my comments above is inaccurate?
>
>>Anyway, you give me the chance to explain again. At the time when I
>>gave evidence to the Select Committee, there had been only one blood
>>test faking.
>>
>>After I complained I was visited by a senior official from the SVS, who
>>threatened us and faked up a record of the meeting. I complained to Mr
>>Speaker and he was sent home.
>>
>>An investigation team arrived from Scotland. There was a third faking
>>of the records.You can find the details of this horrendous and worrying
>>series of incidents on my site. Read "Stop the World"
>>http://pages.britishlibrary.net/patgardiner/stopworld.htm
>
>All of which is just a silly wriggle. You have stated above that you
>gave evidence to the Select Committee about SVS "vets", plural. You
>didn't, your evidence was about one vet. I hope that all your evidence
>had a higher standard of accuracy than your claims here.
>
>>>
>>> >I don't suppose it will impact on your relationship with Maff-Defra,
>>> >the SVS or the RSPB in the long term.
>>> >
>>> No, it won't, you silly little man. I have no relationship with Defra,
>>> though I do with Seerad. The only vets I know, or have ever known, are
>>> hard-working, decent and honest. My relationship with the RSPB is in
>>> exactly the same excellent state that it has been for a great many
>>> years.
>>
>>Don't be so gratuitouslly abusive. People might get the impression you
>>are worried.
>
>Then they would be wrong. You are one of the most abusive posters here.
>It seems fitting to inform you in no uncertain terms that what you are
>claiming about me is stupid rubbish and people who spout stupid rubbish
>are often (always) stupid themselves.
>
>>You are right, it is Seerad and indeed I was getting
>>Scottish Executive letterheads dealing with complaints of criminal
>>offences that were committed by Scottish vets in England. They seem to
>>have trouble understanding their role in Britain stops at the border.
>
>I suppose there is no point asking you for evidence that anything
>"criminal" was committed. You don't *do* evidence, do you? Nor can you
>apparently understand why Scottish vets might legitimately do some work
>in England.
>
>>>
>>> >If they are a bit sniffy with you, you can always take some time off to
>>> >look at that new highland bird.
>>> >
>>> They are much more likely to thank me for exposing you for the lying
>>> defamer that you are. I've already seen the Scottish Crossbill, thank
>>> you.
>>
>>Good for you. That must be a big moment for any twitcher. I wonder they
>>did not name it after you? Wouldn't that have been fun?
>
>Silly little man.
>
>>>
>>> >By the time you have found one, DNA'd it and got home. They will all
>>> >have forgotten all about your intervention and be knee deep in the next
>>> >crisis.
>>> >
>>> Now you call it my "intervention". A few hours ago you were claiming
>>> that the only way I could have seen your letter was to have gone to
>>> London, or sent someone else, to look at it at the House of Lords
>>> library. Do you finally accept that your claim was wrong?
>>
>>I have no idea. That was most certainly the position when the incident
>>occured. Maybe the rules of the House were changed in the meantime.
>>Anyway, by whatever means, you got a copy and were able to confirm that
>>part of the story. Thank You!
>>
>Another silly wriggle. There has been no change in the rules, just a
>total reluctance by you to face up to the fact that what you were saying
>about access to the evidence was completely wrong.
>
>>>Even though I
>>> told you months ago that I received a copy of your letter in the post,
>>> you still had to repeat your lying claim again yesterday, didn't you?
>>
>>Yes, well, I don't actually know how you received it and was being a
>>bit discrete in case accidentally any of the rules of the House were
>>broken in its aquisition.
>
>Yes, well, you do know, because I spelt it out in detail soon after
>receiving it in order to inform you that your continued claims about how
>I got hold of it were completely wrong.
>
>>I got two separate stories as to why it was
>>not published with the other evidence, so things can go wrong. There
>>probably was a change in the rules and to be honest how you got it,
>>with or without actually visiting the House of Lords, is not material
>>to anything.
>
>No, it isn't material, but the truth is, something you seem to have
>great difficulty with. Your attempt to claim that there was a change in
>the rules is a perfect example of this. Open your mind, Pat, stir your
>two brain cells together and accept some facts, for a change, instead of
>entering your usual state of denial.
>>>
>>> By the way, take note that your lying, trolling, defaming "friend" has
>>> just proved how right I was about him by repeating lies and defamation
>>> about me. You and he are two of a kind.
>>
>>I don't even know who he is Malcolm, but perhaps you should be more
>>careful about needlessly upsetting people.
>>
>I shall do as I please, Pat, including correcting you when you spout
>lying nonsense about matters on which I know more than you, which is
>undoubtedly more than you think. I also take great exception to you
>libelling me, which you have done on a number of occasions, whereas your
>claim that I have libelled you was a complete fiction. I note that I
>still haven't heard from your solicitor.

How times have changed. You used to bully, intimidate and threaten
people with libel prosecution. We laughed, oh how we laughed at you.

You're a real arse Ogilvie, and if you could just stir two brain cells
together, you would see the pleasure we get mocking your kind!

Don't get so upset, it's bad for the heart, and your pocket.

If you do wish to refute any claims that you are, a liar, cheat,
fraud, fat crook, womanizer, poof and troll. You can do it, in no
particular order, by writing to my legal representatives at

Bodgit, scratchit, leggit and scarper.
HMP Wormwood Scrubs
P.O. Box 2757
Du Cane Road
London
W12 OAE

Attn: Mr Archer Esq.

In the meantime I hope you don't mind if we keep yanking your chain?