In the letter received from Persimmons earlier this month, they stated:
"Given that the site was fully secured by our site manager prior to the weekend" This was not true and is therefore a lie.
It is true now but up to that time you could open the gate and walk in as did several people who were curious as to what was happening in there.
Later on in the letter they state "We will have no hesitation in involving both the Police and the Health & Safety executive"
This a strange thing to say in that the Health and Safety Executive would take a dim view of the fact that this site, unlike now, had easy access.
So why did this letter refer to them? Was it not to try and intimidate me?
On reflection I cannot state that "Persimmons intimidate me" : I suspect that in law it's difficult to prove that one person intimidates someone else. It's got to be the other way round, hasn't it? An opponent may do something innocuous, but I may feel intimidated. "Can I help you across the road?" could be felt to be intimidating when in fact it was meant to be helpful.
It's usually that a person feels intimidated when there may be no reason to feel intimidated.
Even the statement . " Lie down or I'll shoot you "could be defended. - "Only joking " : What? Then why are you waving that gun around? "Just pretending". But it's a real gun . . .
When he shoots the person next to you - then you will feel intimidated - with just cause.
3 comments:
I take it by now that you have trawled the internet, read your, no doubt, comprehensive law library and discovered that in libel/slander issues the burden of proof lies with you. i.e. you, Sir, must prove that what you allege is true. It is not for Persimmons to prove that it is wrong. Have fun.
Wow a comment before I've even got going. Not sure where you get your take on my adventures.
Isn't it time that we stood up to people who try to push us around with empty threats?
Well done Geoff stick with it
Post a Comment