Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Mar -> Re: 'Libel'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Bob Rickard <rickard@forteantimes.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 13:38:38 -0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:45:49 -0500
Subject: Re: 'Libel'

Bob Rickard responding to ...

>Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 18:59:44 -0400
>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys@brunnet.net>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: 'Libel'


Boy, Stan, you don't take criticism very well but you love to dish it.

>I can understand that writers Peter Brookesmith and Andy Roberts and
>Fortean Times editor Rickard are angry at Harry and me. The notion that
>because not all read the MEN means it doesn't matter if someone is
>libelled there, surely is ridiculous.

* I am not angry with Stan, never have been, as I don't take any of this
personally. (the others can speak for themselves).

          Nor did I say that libelling someone or defaming them "didn't
matter". Of course it does. And I certainly never implied that the
'offense' "didn't matter" simply because the MEN is a parocial newspaper.
I was asking what I thought was a reasonable question, which was, how a
defamatory statement in a local paper could affect Stan's ability to
earn, as this is what the claim (and damages?) would be assessed on in
English law.

         No, I wasn't angry, but disappointed, maybe, at using a
sledgehammer to crack a nut. Like many people in the UK, I was taken
aback by the suddenness and intensity of Stan's suit against Jenny, which
might well be familiar in the US but which seemed rather excessive, over
here. One has to ask whether a calm discussion before hand might have
obviated the need for a legal mugging.

Stan then referred to the Oxford Union debate as supplying hints at why I
might be actively 'against' him.

>A key event which may explain the false claims currently being made was
>the debate at the Oxford University Debating Society in October l995.
>The Topic " This house believes that intelligent alien Life has visited
>the planet Earth".

 ..... >8 snip 8< .....

>Rickard for whom Peter had written much, had commissioned an article for
>Fortean Times about the debate, but then refused to run it. I suppose
>he expected that Peter would be triumphant over this nasty lawyer and
>this upstart Canadian American physicist who comes on so strongly pro ET
>and had the gall to sue the UK's "only professional ufologist" (Jenny)
>and research director for Bufora at that.

* the descriptors "nasty" and "upstart" are Stan's, not mine. I don't
know Harris or his motives and wouldn't presume to call anyone nasty,
unless it was from personal experience. I *know* Stan is no upstart,
having been around a long time. Being "pro-ET" is not an issue, anyway
Stan is quite entitled to his view, as are others theirs. "Gall"?  See
above.

        It not true that I commissioned a report on the debate. One was
offered to me by someone who was attending and I accepted. When the
report was turned in, it was, to my disappointment, long-winded and
ultimately not very interesting. It even omitted some of the important
points discussed, that I had learned about in subsequent conversations
with both Stan and Peter. There were three other factors I had to
consider: we were then on a bimonthly schedule and the report would be
past its sell-by date (this would not be a problem if the report was
interesting); the accompanying photos were poor; and I learned that the
author and photographs were also submitted to the Birdsall's magazine. At
Fortean Times, not only is space always at a premium, we have a policy of
not accepting multiple submissions. I rejected the report on these
grounds only ... although psychic Stan appears to know differently.

        Stan concludes it was rejected as part of a campaign against him
but he is quite wrong. He is also ridiculously presumptious is saying I
gambled on the outcome of the debate. I simply don't work that way. To
me, the fact that the subject was being debated was the story, not the
personalities on either side. And if Stan thinks Peter is a favoured
writer, he should ask Peter directly about how he has suffered at my
hands.


                           Bob Rickard - editor
                         rickard@forteantimes.com
                  FORTEAN TIMES - www.forteantimes.com
       *Where the extraordinary is just another day at the office*
      "Metaphysical speculations are attempts to think unthinkably,
        and it is quite hard enough to think thinkably."  C.Fort