ok I'm going to address this and put the record straight, as I happen to know the facts, and also because Jane isn't here to do it for herself.
FYI — angelchemuel threatened another member with legal action due to that member simply criticizing her on this forum.
That’s what we are dealing with here so of course we’re not going to go into details. We can do without those kinds of stupid threats.
__________________
Sean Adl
Webmaster & Producer
Davidicke.com /David Icke Books
First of all, Jane didn't 'threaten another member with legal action'. Her 'talking to her barrister' comment was actually directed at sean & co, via a PM to another member, about the way she was being treated at the time generally, but in particular relating to one issue, ie *that thread*, the twilight zone thread. Sean, as part of his ongoing underhanded campaign against Jane (& it was exactly that), split a thread with posts of Jane's in it & created a completely new thread with a new title created by himself under Jane's name, with one of her posts from the other thread as the OP.
Basically he created a thread in Jane's name, appearing to be started by her when it wasn't. Fact.
Bel, is that fair enough? I know exactly what Jane said to you in that PM. How? Because she ran it past me before she sent it to you. Was she right to send the PM? Probably not, but hey you have to remember, she had been subjected to weeks of crap off those lot and was seriously pissed off and upset. Its sort of understandable under the circumstances.
This was the climax of PMgate 2 after all. And in all fairness Bel, I now totally accept that at the time you weren't aware of what was really going on. Most weren't, because yet again sean & co did a very good propaganda job of painting their victim/s in a very bad light. Your only fault imo was posting the contents of a PM on the open forum, a clear breach of the DIF guidelines, and as you know I complained in the thread about you doing that at the time and consequently the offending post was removed sharpish.
You weren't bollocked for it though, but Jane was banned for it. An argument between two members via PM with tempers frayed on both sides, hardly a banning offence eh. But hey, they were just waiting for an excuse.
From where I'm sitting, Jane's only crime was to organise proactive meetups outside the forum. ''Being the change you want to see'' as David says. Just why the DIF team had a problem with her doing that I really don't know, but they sure did have one.
So they banned her with no reason given (until now)
And then just two days later, on april 1st, Sean decided it'd be a really amusing april fools joke to make his status appear as 'banned' and to display an avatar of a cartoon horse with a big rainbow coming out of its backside. An obvious reference to 'rainbows jane'.
Sean, you say you take the whole issue of banning folk very seriously? Not a thing to be taken lightly right?
Yes, of course you do...
A couple of days after banning a member, you mock and ridicule them in such a snidey way, when they are no longer there with a voice to defend themself with because you just took that voice away from them.
What a thoroughly unpleasant individual you really are.
I could've sworn I heard something.... ah, well, probably just a blocked drain, huh. 
