Removal of Malicious petition http://www.petitiononline.com/sooty123/petition.html by Dawn and Keith Hornby sign now

We the undersigned petition petitiononline.com to remove the malicious on-line petition of Dawn & Keith Hornby. Details of this site are here :- http://www.petitiononline.com/sooty123/petition.html.

The offending petition is without any credible foundation and is a front for its author Dawn Hornby to conduct an on going campaign of harassment and bullying against the website owner of the petition target, and users of the message board contained within the site. The following are a series of extracts taken from the above petition and underneath each one the actual FACTS are presented. Mrs Hornby conveniently fails to mention the material facts either on her blogspot site or in her petition, however, I will, for your benefit here, advise you as to the reasons why she is conducting this vindictive campaign.

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to take action against the Dollar - Shooting Stars website that incite hatred towards some of the popular music artist David Van Day's friends and family.

The Facts.
The site does, not and has ever, incited 'hatred' towards 'the friends and family' of Mr Day. Mrs Horby has failed on every request to supply her evidence. Mrs Hornby IS NOT a friend of Mr Day, nor is she a family member.


This website is a hate website and it does not deserve the protection under the freedom of speech act when they seek to prevent others from exercising their democratic rights.'

The Facts.
The word 'hate' is used without any substantiation or evidence. Mrs Horby was removed as a contributor to the message board of the 'Shooting Stars' site after her behaviour became unacceptable to the majority of other contributors. Most of her 'comments' had to deleted by the site moderator as they were banal, abusive and finally became offensive.

We do not accept that nothing can be done against this website even though it is hosted outside the United Kingdom; the people who run this website and some other people on there are in the United Kingdom. Their details have been passed on to the authorities on several occasions but no action has been taken. This website is about intimidation towards individuals.

The Facts.
It is completely irrespective to Mrs Hornby's petition as to where any website is hosted. Mrs Horby is completely aware of who runs the Shooting Stars website. Mrs Horby fails to clarify which 'authorities' she has passed the details of this website to and the reasons for doing do. She then concludes the above excerpt with a libellous statement.

These website moderators and some other people on this website are really (another 1980's popular music group) Bucks Fizz (The Original and The Official) fans and didn't like it when David Van Day used the Bucks Fizz name his own self.

The Facts.
The website has one moderator, its owner. The owner of the site had to take action to stop Mrs Hornby from rejoining the message board under an assumed name and the board now only accepts bona fide fans only. Fans of both groups regularly contribute to the Shooting Stars message board and message board of an unofficial site run for the fans of Bucks Fizz. (Early Years). Once again Mrs Hornby was removed as a contributor to the message board of a site maintained for the fans Bucks Fizz for the very same reasons as she was removed from the Shooting Stars message board. Whatever the fans decided about the use of the name 'Bucks Fizz' is irrespective to Mrs Hornby's petition. In a widely documented court case, it was agreed that Mr Day could not call his group 'Bucks Fizz'


This website contains information to harm some of David Van Day's family and friends both mentally and maybe physically, why is this website allowed to carry on existing?

The Facts
The website has never in its history contained any information of harm to Mr Day or his family. The fact is that the Shooting Stars site is fully endorsed my Mr Day, and is 100\% Official. Mrs Hornby again libellously claims that the website causes harm both 'mentally' and 'perhaps' physically without any substantiation whatsoever.


Mrs Hornby then proceeded to amend her petition with the following statement, and is has been amended twice.

Correction: Where it says petition created by (weblog) Hornby & Edwards Family & Friends Research (weblogaddress:http://hornbyedwardsfamilyfriendsresearch.blogspot.com ) the weblog has been removed by ourselves because the name of it was too long. Also the petition is about the message board and the website on the Dollar -Shooting Stars website (but you have to join the message board and view the website or you ask us for the evidence which we have got print-outs of if you want to know what's been going on). David Van Day does NOT support the Dollar - Shooting Stars website and message board, they are both unofficial (meaning they are nothing to do with him), he told us this on the telephone on the 8th of October 2006. David Van Day is a freind and so are some of his family (first names Adrienne, Rachel, Desiree, and some others). If anyone wants to check to see if this website really is unofficial please go to website http://www.nominet.org.uk/

She now attempts to substantiate and further elaborate, very crudely that the petition is now about the message board AND the Shooting Stars site. PetitionOnLine rules state that you cannot alter your petition once posted. Mrs Horby was removed as a member of the Shooting Stars site approximately 2 years ago. She has no information to present as to the current content of the message board and the site is free for all to visit. The message board was made members only due to Mrs Hornby continual tirade of harassment against the other users. The weblog of Mrs Hornby, www.hornbyedwardsfamilyfriendsresearch.blogspot.com has since been removed partly due to the success of a previous petition to its proprietor Google, Inc. Again, and in a statement made by Mr Day, available on the front of the Shooting Stars site, Mrs Hornby is not a family friend nor has Mr Day ever had any dealings with Mrs Hornby. The Shooting Stars website is THE OFFICIAL site for the group Dollar and is fully endorsed by both David Van Day & Theresa Bazar. The term 'Unofficial' in any fan site is for legal reasons only (to do with Copyright) and does NOT mean that a site has no connections to its subject matter.
After Mrs Hornby was removed as a contributor to the Shooting Stars message board, she became a member of an unofficial fan site for Bucks Fizz under a alternative user name of 'Onby' and characteristically continued her a campaign of harassment to other users who could or did not agree with her postings. She was eventually removed and banned, however this site remains free for all to use. She continued her malicious campaign on You Tube sites, and the following are three emails from Mrs Hornby showing very clearly her campaign of harassment and threatening behaviour.

September 29, 2006, 10:52 AM
Subject: Threatening Pictures
dawnhornby wrote:
>I know you are there why are you not answering me I'll keep emailing you until you take those threatening pictures down

September 27, 2006, 8.33 AM
Subject: Threatening Pictures
dawnhornby wrote :

>You will be sorry if you dont take the threatening pictures down

September 24, 2006, 9:04 AM
Subject: Threatening Pictures
dawnhornby wrote:

> When are you going to take those threatening pictures about me off the Dollar Website because the police and Victim Support say you are breaking the law. You know the ones I mean, those smilies of me being burnt alive with a gun and me being stamped on with a foot dated March 20th 2006 at 3.03pm on the topic Top five Dollar singles on page 2 under the topic General Dollar Discussions on page 2 of that. The police and Victim Support say i'm within my right to get a solicitor.

1.Harassment = 'I'll keep emailing you'
2.Threatening behaviour 'You'll be sorry'


And an extract from a signatory of the previous petition.

Over the last 2 years I have received a tirade of harassing emails, website posts and malicious acts by Dawn Hornby, whenever i have promoted the work of pop group Dollar in which she follows me on-line. I have a disability that makes it tiring and painful for me to type and she caused me distress and exhaustion in me having to try and repair her damaging actions over the many sites in which i promoted their work. Dawn Hornby's actions became so persistent that i had to remove most of the work i had done and refrain from further promoting Dollar


And extracts from the message board of eil.com.



Posted by:
dawnhornby
UNITED KINGDOM
CreatedSun18thNov'07 13:57(GMT)

Review: The Platinum Collection by Dollar
If anyone wants to know more about this album please go to my weblog: http://hornbyedwardsfamilyfriendsresearch.blogspot.com




She then goes on to say the following after other contributors made negative comments


Posted by:
dawnhornby
UNITED KINGDOM
CreatedMon19thNov'07 14:08(GMT)

GENUINE REVIEW : DOLLAR - THE PLATINUM COLLECTION
Pease ignore both the above comments from usernames Sanity and Quavadis. Some of the people (they know who they are) did this album without David Van Day's permission (and is an uofficial release) and my husband is a personal friend of his and has been told that this album has nothing to do with him (he told him on the phone on the 10th of October last year) . If anyone wants to know more about it please go on my weblog (as mentioned in my previous review/discussion/comment). Therefore my review is genuine and not the one before by Quavadis or anyone else that says that this album is an official release when it isn't and that the people that did the album didn't get David Van Day's permission.


Firstly, the CD in question is in a series of 'Platinum Collections' released by Warner Bros and many artists who were signed to WEA have had releases in the same name. The owner of the work is Warner Bros, and they are under no obligation to inform an artist of any future releases they have planned. They do not have to gain the permission of the artist. The album is 100\% OFFICIAL.

In summary, we request that Mrs Hornby's petition to have the Shooting Stars website removed, is itself removed. It is at best a vindictive campaign aimed at the web master and the contributors to the message board and at very worst untruthful and amounts to harassment, discrimination and homophobia. It is wholely without justification or substantiation and Mrs Hornby has failed to provide any evidence to support any of her outrageous and libellous claims.

Just in case Mrs Hornby needs educating on the definition of harassment, I have for her benefit, supplied below the 'Protection of Harassment Act 1997'

An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.
[21st March 1997]
Be it enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

England and Wales
1 Prohibition of harassment
(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct
(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows
(a) that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.
2 Offence of harassment
(1) A person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted
(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment)..
3 Civil remedy
(1) An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.
(2) On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment.
(3) Where
(a) in such proceedings the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose of restraining the defendant from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment, and
(b) the plaintiff considers that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,
the plaintiff may apply for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
(4) An application under subsection (3) may be made
(a) where the injunction was granted by the High Court, to a judge of that court, and
(b) where the injunction was granted by a county court, to a judge or district judge of that or any other county court.
(5) The judge or district judge to whom an application under subsection (3) is made may only issue a warrant if
(a) the application is substantiated on oath, and
(b) the judge or district judge has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant has done anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction.
(6) Where
(a) the High Court or a county court grants an injunction for the purpose mentioned in subsection (3)(a), and
(b) without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by the injunction,
he is guilty of an offence.
(7) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct, that conduct is not punishable as a contempt of court.
(8) A person cannot be convicted of an offence under subsection (6) in respect of any conduct which has been punished as a contempt of court.
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.
4 Putting people in fear of violence
(1) A person whose course of conduct causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him is guilty of an offence if he knows or ought to know that his course of conduct will cause the other so to fear on each of those occasions.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him on any occasion if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct would cause the other so to fear on that occasion.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that
(a) his course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,
(b) his course of conduct was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or
(c) the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or anothers property.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.
(5) If on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under this section the jury find him not guilty of the offence charged, they may find him guilty of an offence under section 2.
(6) The Crown Court has the same powers and duties in relation to a person who is by virtue of subsection (5) convicted before it of an offence under section 2 as a magistrates' court would have on convicting him of the offence.
5 Restraining orders
(1) A court sentencing or otherwise dealing with a person (the defendant) convicted of an offence under section 2 or 4 may (as well as sentencing him or dealing with him in any other way) make an order under this section.
(2) The order may, for the purpose of protecting the victim of the offence, or any other person mentioned in the order, from further conduct which
(a) amounts to harassment, or
(b) will cause a fear of violence,
prohibit the defendant from doing anything described in the order.
(3) The order may have effect for a specified period or until further order.
(4) The prosecutor, the defendant or any other person mentioned in the order may apply to the court which made the order for it to be varied or discharged by a further order.
(5) If without reasonable excuse the defendant does anything which he is prohibited from doing by an order under this section, he is guilty of an offence.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine, or both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.
6 Limitation
In section 11 of the [1980 c. 58.] Limitation Act 1980 (special time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries), after subsection (1) there is inserted
(1A) This section does not apply to any action brought for damages under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
7 Interpretation of this group of sections
(1) This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5.
(2) References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.
(3) A course of conduct must involve conduct on at least two occasions.
(4) Conduct includes speech.

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook sign_with_twitter
OR

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Shoutbox

Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook sign_with_twitter
OR

If you already have an account please sign in

Comment

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

Goal
0 / 50

Latest Signatures

No one has signed this petition yet

Information

Ashlee DawsonBy:
Transport and infrastructureIn:
Petition target:
PetitionOnLine & Artifice, Inc.

Tags

No tags

Share

Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title

Widgets