LOL, so what about Jack O giving JOIIS my address from correspondence related to another matter...must be contagious. It is withion the same realm I wonder
Sue I telephoned Jack O and Jack M in reference to the point you make here.
Neither of them got your address from the roll. They had it in reference to an email you had sent to Jack O. Stop trying to tarnish peoples names Sue.
"Hey, why not a TV debate between the two men?"
Priceless.
Never said they did and if you are so in the know, JOIIS would be wise to tell that he ADMITTED to me at uninvited visit to my house where he got it from....e.mail to Jack O was in regards to other matter viz a viz should not have been passed onto JOIIS so he could drop by and tell fairy tales. So you DON't KNOW!!!!!
Well just to inform you Intheknow. Did you know that emails are treated the same way in respects to privacy laws? Therefore Jack O had broken the law abstracting Sue's address from the email he received and revealing it to Jack M. Jack M broke the law by using something he received from Jack O that was suppose to remain private.
Breach of the privacy laws attracts heavier penalties than those in relation to the alleged breaches with the electoral roll.
This is what happens when you act before you think.
Thankyou Sunburyman, thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys...game , set and match.........
Commenting by HaloScan
