Friday, 16 August 2013

Intimidation by Solicitors

Once upon a time I asked some questions on this blog. Sadly no one answered them so I am no wiser.
However Howard Whitaker has taken action.

It's meant to scare the living daylights out of you and make you cough up £1,000.

Read closely and it's as harmful as a scam bit of advertising, but it may fool the uninitiated. Fortunately I've been educated by the professionals - solicitors for Persimmons. Now they certainly know how to tighten the screws and frighten you.

Now let's look carefully at the wording. - The secret is in the detail.

It says: "Our client considers this and our client considers that. Our client believes this and believes that. And "In addition our client requires that you pay £1,000.00 in damages . . ."

Well your client can believe all he likes but his beliefs are groundless and you will notice that there isn't any hint of action by the solicitors themselves.

They try to intimidate by using legal jargon "this letter is written in accordance with pre-action protocol in respect of defamation claims and we look forward to you response within 14 days in accordance with the protocol."

So what. Look forward all you want. I'm not sure that they will be looking forward to my response as it may not be free of the choicest of swear words. Furthermore can you detect which one of them sent this missive?

On reflection: is the involvement of Hart Jackson's a sign that the old guard are stepping in to control disturbing misfits that ruffle their cosy society?

When I arrived in Ulverston there were some powerful people throwing their weight about, to me it seemed to be a sort of mafia club ruling the peasants. It consisted of Colonel Whitaker, (Howard's father of Three Bridges), Hart Jackson himself (of the remote Heaning Wood),  Canon Rimmer (of St Mary's rectory -now demolished) and Mr Walls (at the Vic who invited me to become a conservative at his house at the top of Gill Banks). As an energetic young man, I had dealings with them all!

It's clear that the influence of this group and their ilk lingers on in our delightful 'behind the times' Ulverston.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Geoff Dellow said...

Foretunately we live in a society where asking questions is permitted.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Geoff Dellow said...

Right Ulverston stop sniping. First identify yourself. Next, where's your evidence. Your statements are vague what 'previous SLDC entry'. You comments come off if you don't.

Neil said...

If the quoted questions are the best grounds for alleged defamation they can come up with, I suggest you reply as follows:

Dear sirs,
I note your letter of 12th August 2013.
In the circumstance, and in accordance with the pre-action protocol in respect of defamation claims, I require that your client be referred to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).

Yours etc etc.

You won't hear any more.

Geoff Dellow said...

Thanks Neil.

James J said...

Well GD you may question all you like and you may hold whatever opinions you wish but you have clearly made defamatory statements without any evidence to back them up. Of course if you have such evidence then you are home and dry, however, your opinion is not evidence, your interpretation of how somebody acts is not evidence. I'd say that you're up to your neck in it, best get down the bank and pay em off, rapid.

Geoff Dellow said...

There are some very different views expressed here with varying degrees of indentification. For my part I settle for asking questions. In a tight knit community, if we have been around for twenty years or more, we all know the dodgy characters in the town. The new ones won't. By posing questions here on my blog, they too ask around and get the local view from people that they themselves have come to trust.
I remember when I worked at Glaxo, it was easy to get good advice as to who to trust and who not to. A blog like this serves a use purpose though people are more careful to express opinions.
So to summarise. If you are new to the area and wise, you will repeat the questions that I pose to those whose opinion you can trust. Listen carefully to their replies.
Don't be swayed by my opinions or any inferences - find out for yourself.

Thanks for everyone's advice, rest assured, I have no intention of admitting any wrong doing as I genuinely believe I have done none. Nor, because of this, will I be paying £1,000 in this case.

Furthermore if you have had what appear to be threatening and to you frightening letters from solicitors or debt collectors please contact me for reassurance. In these days without a Citizens Advice Bureau to help us out then I feel it's time for indivuals like me to step in and help. What is encouraging: I am finding that some of my friends are also ready to step in and support others that are perhaps less aware of how to stand up for themselves in the face of 'legal' action.

Isn't it great that there are these kind of people that are around?

Anonymous said...

I see that the Conservation Officer is not backing your stance about the wall on Union Lane,it is not even in the conservation area.
I hope Persimmon take you to the cleaners after all that bile you have spouted about them recently.

Geoff Dellow said...

And who are you? Isn't it amazing how some people love jumping and having a dig while others think my blog is the best thing since sliced bread. This differs considerably from my contacts with 'real' people in the town particularly those that have experienced the down side of Persimmons - and there are many particularly on the Lund Farm estate that aren't too complimentary about Persimmons.

Geoff Dellow said...

It turns out 'Ulverston' is one of the tiresome born and bread Ulverstonians. If your not one as well even though you may have lived here longer than they have, then you are absolutely worthless. From my viewpoint the comments of this group of people is of little value so sphat gone! The power of the administrator !