Vheadline Roy Carson's stalking activities

Subject: Re: Mr Carson stalking activities
From: Roy S Carson, [email protected]
Date: May 03 2005, 14.05
To: [email protected]
Cc: Aleksander Boyd, [email protected]

Dear Octavio,

Let Internet terrorist Alexander Boyd continue with his pathetic bleating and demands for censorship of public domain information since all that Carlos has done during his brief visit to London was to seek Boyd's whereabouts to effect a meeting to discuss mutual topics re: Venezuela. Carlos' interest was indeed spiced by the fact that Boyd was not known to anyone at the Sanderson Hotel at 50 Berners Street -- which Boyd had patently and possiblt fraudulently given as one of his public domain addresses available on the Internet.

The fact that Boyd had neglected to give his London business address correctly on his business website and elsewhere is his own affair (that it may be his home address is none of out concern since it is the business address given on various registrations with local government authorities in the UK and as such is in the public domain)!

In actual fact, we have performed a public service to Boyd (entirely without financial reward) by clarifying his business address as Flat 9, Cleveland Court, 80-96 Cleveland Street in London rather than the supposedly grandoise-sounding 'Cleveland Court' which, alone, does not appear in the London A-Z street directory or other public records. Boyd should therefore welcome this gratis advertising which would most probably bring more customers to his over-priced South American jam & booze boutique.

Besides that -- as has already been pointed out to him by others -- there is no offense under British law to identify a person's name or address, much less an offense to properly identify the address of a business claimed to be registered with the proper licensing and taxation authorities in Great Britain.

It is furthermore quaintly quixotic that Boyd should claim that I am trying to intimidate him since his own track record of public intimidation of others as well as his blatant abuse of privacy is a hallmark of his terrorist activities in London and elsewhere.

While Carlos Herrera (who Boyd repeatedly, incorrectly and maliciously seeks to identify as being myself!) chose to write what I believe to be an thoroughly entertaining and illustrated article about Boyd's patent avoidance at exposure, I must say that neither VHeadline.com or I -- or indeed yourself -- may be held responsible for anything untoward that may or may not happen to Boyd inasmuch as it is by his own actions that he may have exposed himself to the distain of others.

If Boyd had more respect for other people's privacy, he could claim some degree of sympathy but -- considering his blatant black propagandistic activities -- any court in any land would consider that he is the author of his own problems and would be best advised to make his own arrangements for whatever security-related problems he may have.

I can earnestly recommend that he should speak with officers at his local police station or the anti-terrorist branch at Scotland Yard who will doubtlessly offer him 24/7 armed protection if they feel his fantasy fears warrant such exceptional efforts. It is, however, my belief that they will write him off as just another "nutter" who is obsessed with his own fragile personality imbued with his essentially general lack of importance.

The final determination is that Boyd has no claim against anyone since it is perfectly justifiable for a reporter (anyone in fact!) to investigate and record the mysterious circumstances of an individual who makes him or herself such a public nuisance in pursuit of an anti-constitutional and anti-democratic agenda which really should place them under intel surveillance as a possible danger to public order and security.

However, rather than give Boyd the spotlight of personal publicity which he so obviously seeks and enjoys, I will await his application of any legal injunction he cares to make clear in the knowledge that as VHeadline.com's internet service provider you are not held in any way legally responsible for what after all is the wholly legal content of VHeadline.com as protected by all and any interpretations of freedom of expression and overwhelming public interest.

best regards
Roy S. Carson