Some months ago, I was informed that someone, previously unknown to
me, had been caught apparently planting inaccurate defamatory material
about me on a major government high security computer system.

I was given the opportunity to make a formal complaint. 

It was a very serious incident, bizarre and breathtaking.
"Gob-smacked" by the identity of the alleged culprit and the nature of
the material, I declined, deciding to leave it to the authorities to
investigate and progress,  merely confirming my availability as a
witness if required.

The media has now picked up the story, something I knew was
inevitable, published part and all hell has broken loose. 

So far the publication is in a specific sector of society, some papers
publishing more detail, including names and events, than others. They
do not seem to know yet that I'm a victim  or the nature of the actual
alleged offences. 

Although the press obviously know there is a scandal brewing and quite
highly placed prosecutions likely, they won't easily make a
connection, although the detail of the alleged offences may reveal
that.  

They may, however, have whistleblowers. Some apparently correct
information published would hardly have been released officially for
fear of prejudicing prosecutions. For the avoidance of doubt, I have
not contacted the press on this matter and some of the material
published was previously unknown to me.

For obvious personal reasons, I'm content with an anonymity that may
last for quite some time, personal publicity is an overrated
objective, although obviously my involvement could blow without much
warning.  It is out of my hands.

As a victim, thankfully with nothing to hide, I don't give a beggar
either way, so long as the culprit(s) is (are) prosecuted and my
reputation is protected.

One can imagine that my reputation for honesty and integrity, so
systematically disparaged here over so many long years,  is likely to
be restored in the full light of a national scandal and criminal
prosecution(s).

That will inevitably involve the newsgroup uk.business.agriculture and
its long-standing conspiracy to spread defamation. The natural of the
material planted echoes untrue allegations also published here.

I did tell you not to do it.

I will not be providing any additional information for the moment and
attempts to harass me into providing more will carry the obvious
risks.

Regards
Pat Gardiner

Pat Gardiner wrote:
> Some months ago, I was informed that someone, previously unknown to
> me, had been caught apparently planting inaccurate defamatory material
> about me on a major government high security computer system.
> 
> I was given the opportunity to make a formal complaint. 
> 
> It was a very serious incident, bizarre and breathtaking.
> "Gob-smacked" by the identity of the alleged culprit and the nature of
> the material, I declined, deciding to leave it to the authorities to
> investigate and progress,  merely confirming my availability as a
> witness if required.
> 
> The media has now picked up the story, something I knew was
> inevitable, published part and all hell has broken loose. 

Which media?  Give us a link Pat.

> So far the publication is in a specific sector of society, some papers
> publishing more detail, including names and events, than others. They
> do not seem to know yet that I'm a victim  or the nature of the actual
> alleged offences. 
> 
> Although the press obviously know there is a scandal brewing and quite
> highly placed prosecutions likely, they won't easily make a
> connection, although the detail of the alleged offences may reveal
> that.  

Indeed, I await with bated breath.

> They may, however, have whistleblowers. Some apparently correct
> information published would hardly have been released officially for
> fear of prejudicing prosecutions. For the avoidance of doubt, I have
> not contacted the press on this matter and some of the material
> published was previously unknown to me.

Let's hope the whistle blower is more effective than you then.

> For obvious personal reasons, I'm content with an anonymity that may
> last for quite some time, personal publicity is an overrated
> objective, although obviously my involvement could blow without much
> warning.  It is out of my hands.

How convenient.

> As a victim, thankfully with nothing to hide, I don't give a beggar
> either way, so long as the culprit(s) is (are) prosecuted and my
> reputation is protected.

If a prosecution is going to establish the reputation you claim you will 
have to be identified.  If you are not identified no one will know it 
was you and your reputation will remain as is.

> One can imagine that my reputation for honesty and integrity, so
> systematically disparaged here over so many long years,  is likely to
> be restored in the full light of a national scandal and criminal
> prosecution(s).

Then you will be identified and, if the reputation you claim is 
established, we will have to apologise.

> That will inevitably involve the newsgroup uk.business.agriculture and
> its long-standing conspiracy to spread defamation. The natural of the
> material planted echoes untrue allegations also published here.

So we were not the only ones to put two and two together and come to a 
logical conclusion.

> I did tell you not to do it.

You tell us all sorts of things, most are unbelievable or irrelevant.

> I will not be providing any additional information for the moment

Ah!

> and attempts to harass me into providing more will carry the obvious
> risks.

They may be obvious to you Pat but they are not obvious to us and that 
implied threat can be expected to follow the course of all your previous 
threats.


-- 
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]