Raymond McCadden threatens anti puppy farm campaigners

Anyone who has read the phoney 'blog' created by Raymond McCadden, owner of the puppy warehouses trading as Dogs4Us, will know it was created with the express purpose of attempting to intimidate those who oppose the use of puppies as a retail commodity in support of the puppy farm trade.

In this short series, we'll be giving you more details of the type of tactics Ray McCadden and Dogs 4 Us are using.

Our first story begins on 5 April 2012 when Ray McCadden's 'blog', Love Your Puppy, published a derogatory post about Ronnie Lambert, the principal of Puppy Love Campaigns, which has been a primary target for Dogs4Us since their site first appeared in January 2012.


The post was accompanied by this photo of Ronnie's house. 

Ray McCadden justified the use of this tactic by claiming that an earlier campaigner, Danial Webb, had published photo's of the interior of his home. 

However those photos were in the public domain from an estate agent's website, and used to illustrate the contrast between his luxurious lifestyle and that of puppy farm dogs.

Ronnie's house had never been on such a site, or anywhere else in the public domain.

Of course, having sought out her address from other records, it would have been easy to obtain a shot from Google Earth. But that wouldn't have been intimidatory enough for Raymond McCadden.


Here's a screenshot of the property taken from that application.

Note that the Dogs4Us photo shows the front door has been changed, an outside mailbox has been added and the car is facing the other way.

The only way their photo could have been obtained was if someone from Dogs4Us had physically taken it.

The message it is intended to convey is crystal clear. Not only do we know where you live, but we have already been to your house.

In total, Dogs4Us have published photos of the homes of six individuals who have campaigned against the puppy farm trade. However two of them have taken no part in direct protests against Dogs4Us, so it seems they were targeted on behalf of the supply chain.

Is this the behaviour of the respectable owner of a legitimate licensed business, as Raymond McCadden likes to portray himself? You be the judge.







Libel claims by Dogs 4 Us dismissed


Raymond McCadden, the owner of Dogs 4 Us, who left at least £1.96 million owing in unpaid taxes and other debts when seven of his previous companies were put into liquidation, doesn’t seem to understand what constitutes defamation under UK law.

Since July 2012 members of the McCadden family have submitted no fewer than eight claims to Google (which hosts this blog) that our posts contain defamatory statements and requested their removal.

Defamation is a complex subject but these simple examples may help to guide him in the future.

EXAMPLE ONE

EXAMPLE TWO

Making FALSE statements or claims about someone which could harm their reputation.


Making TRUE statements or claims about someone based on verifiable facts.

May be defamatory

Cannot be defamatory



As an example of their complaints, here's the content of the most recent, submitted in December 2016.

Blog owner [REDACTED] (dogs4usfacts.com) has set up his blog to try and discredit me Raymond McCadden by persistent use of my name as an individual in the public domain.
 He has used the name Raymond McCadden  to make personal attacks. (Raymond McCadden is not a Company in the public domain)

He is illegally publishing information obtained from Companies House in the UK to harass & cyberbully me via social media and the blog he owns. It is illegal to obtain information from Companies House UK to harass and bully an individual over the internet.

I request an immediate take down of his unauthorised use of my personal photograph and of my home identifying its location and consistent use of my name.

I request that the blog is taken down from public view, as its whole intention is to harass, cyberbully, intimidate and defame me as an individual Raymond McCadden.

All the content on his site  is based on  illegally shared public information.

How many of the eight complaints to Google were rejected after their investigations concluded that the statements made about Dogs 4 Us or Raymond McCadden were factual, the claims of illegality nonsense and the complaints vexatious? All of them!

On the other hand we have served legal complaints about defamatory content in five posts and two complete ‘blogs’ attacking those of us who protest about the support Dogs 4 Us gives to the puppy farm trade.

And how many of those complaints to Google and Tumblr about false statements or claims about individuals were upheld and the content removed? All of them!

No matter how unpalatable Raymond McCadden finds the truth about him and his puppy warehouses being published, trying once again to twist the facts in yet more attempts to silence his critics will not succeed.


Dogs 4 Us attempt to silence critics once again

Here's the latest attempt from Raymond McCadden to stop anyone from telling the truth about him and his puppy warehouses, trading as Dogs 4 Us.

This is copied directly from the content of a notice he sent to Google claiming that items in this site are defamatory or malicious falsehoods. Since he's published pictures of both my previous and present homes, you might wonder why he doesn't get his lawyers to contact me instead. I'll leave you to answer that one dear reader.


Claim 1

"Exerpts from the WELCOME message:

Although the sale of puppies by pet shops remains legal at present, many organisations, groups and individuals believe this is a completely inappropriate way for anyone to buy a pet. Reputable dog breeders do not sell puppies to third party retailers, so most puppies on sale in pet shops are supplied by large scale commercial breeders, or puppy farms, which have little concern for the health or welfare of their breeding stock or its offspring.

For many years protests have been organised at the premises of Dogs 4 Us to try to raise public awareness of the puppy farm trade and the part that shops like theirs play in perpetuating that trade. A number of groups have taken part in these protests and undertaken other activities to raise the profile of the issue.

The response of Dogs 4 Us has been to create a counter campaign based around a so called 'blog' with content posted by a couple of disaffected individuals with their own grudges against a particular protest group, using multiple identities. Collectively, anyone critical of the ethics and practices of the business and its owner Raymond McCadden, who left £1.63 million owing to HMRC and other creditors when he put five of his previous companies into liquidation, are labelled "The Crazy Gang".

Their aim has been to pick on specific individuals and groups and attempt to discredit them with ridicule, distortions of the truth or just plain lies. In some cases pictures of individuals and peoples' homes have been published in a further attempt to intimidate them.
We ask for it to be removed under  Libel and other malicious falsehoods under the Defamation Act 1952 Chapter 66."

Which bit of that's false then Ray?

Claim 2


Unfortunately, poor old Ray McCadden wouldn't recognise the truth if it crept up behind him and bit him on the backside.

Images on the above link show intended malice against Mr R McCadden and we ask the content and image be removed."

Knickers are a tool of malice???

Claim 3


This is defamation under the 1952 Defamation Act Chapter 66 Section (1)

We object on the grounds that this is not Factual information about Dogs 4 Us or the owner Ray McCadden and his statements are made with malicious intent."



Announcing a new website is defamatory?

Claim 4


It seems that in his ever more desperate efforts to blacken the names of anyone protesting against his support for puppy farms, Raymond McCadden, owner of Dogs 4 Us, Britain's biggest puppy warehouse, has allowed 'comments' from someone with serious mental health issues to appear on his latest 'blog'. 

We regard this as defamation on the owner and Company of Dogs 4 Us under the 1952 Defamation Act Chapter 66 Section (1)"

Linking serial killers with dog lovers is normal then?

Claim 5


In ever more desperate attempts to support Raymond McCadden, the following comment has appeared on the Puppy Love Exposed 'blog' regarding the Channel Five News report on the puppy farms supplying the Dogs 4 Us puppy warehouses.

This is defamation as Dogs 4 Us have never had any connection with Puppyloveexposed blog under the 1952 Defamation Act Chapter 66 Section (1)"

Really?

"Turning to the dogs' behaviour, if the supporters of Raymond McCadden who write this rubbish, seriously believe it is normal for a healthy, well socialised dog to cower in fear of humans and try to escape from their presence, they must have more experience of puppy farms than the real world.

This is more defamation by referring that Mr Ray McCadden is involved with the content of the loveyourpuppyexposedblog."

Written by a total stranger was it?

I pointed out to Google that this complaint is wholly vexatious once again and after their investigation, they agreed.




Ray McCadden gets his knickers in a twist


On 21 January 2013, shortly after the first 'Puppy Love Exposed' blog was taken down by Google, Dogs 4 Us owner Ray McCadden, who put seven of his previous companies in liquidation leaving debts of at least £1.96 million, filed a notice with Google complaining about posts on this site.

His claim was based on the following statement:

"Contains false and malicious claims in contravention of the defamation act 1996.
Evidence as follows the blog owner (Peter Gane) is intimationg that a blog called 'puppyloveexposed' (now removed by google) was the responsibility of my company Dogs 4 Us.
This is malicious and untrue as I or anybody associated with my company
have had nothing to do with the blog above.
It is defamatory to me and my business and potentially libellous."  


He continued: "Also under the 'Communications Act 2003 Section 127' 
Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message
or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or
menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b) causes such a message to be sent; or
(c) persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on
summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or
to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of
providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act
1990 (c. 42))."


Silly billy Raymond. A violation of the Communications Act 2003 Section 127 is a criminal offence. If you really believed you had a case, all you had to do was make a complaint to the police and get me banged up. For some reason you didn't choose to do that!

Needless to say, Google hasn't taken any posts down. Unfortunately, poor old Ray McCadden still seems to have difficulty distinguishing between fact and fiction.



Dogs4Us Smoke & Mirrors


Have you noticed how Dogs4Us spin their version of facts by distorting the truth rather than ever giving a straight answer?

“We have no links to these so called “puppy farms” that mainly exist in Ireland where breeders DO NOT have to be licensed.”

That is an extract from a letter written to a protester by Mrs Maureen McCadden, ex wife of owner Raymond McCadden, in 2011. Curiously enough, almost exactly the same wording appears in the introduction to the Love Your Puppy ‘blog’.

Everyone would agree that the Republic of Ireland does have more unlicensed puppy farms than any other country in Europe. Hopefully that situation will begin to improve now that the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 is on the Irish statute book.

Equally, we are not aware of any evidence that Dogs4Us have purchased puppies bred in the Republic of Ireland.

Puppy farms mainly exist in Ireland


Bred in Wales
However, we would question the use of the word “mainly” in their statement. Whilst numerically Ireland is Europe’s largest producer, puppy farms most certainly do exist in large numbers much closer to home.

Wales is without doubt the puppy farming capital of the UK and as covered in previous articles, the fact that breeding licenses have been issued means absolutely nothing.

The camera never lies


When challenged to identify the “licensed and regulated” breeders who supply their stock, Dogs 4 Us respond that this is commercially sensitive confidential information. Instead they publish a few photos of happy puppies in a home environment.

There do seem to be a lot of Beagles among them and one of the photos of a litter sleeping peacefully together has also been used by the breeder, advertising them for sale privately. Of course we accept that this breeder in County Armagh, Northern Ireland may well have chosen to sell surplus puppies to a pet shop at some time.

But here's a coincidence. There's another breeder in County Armagh with the same surname as the one providing the cute photo, who also advertises puppies raised in a home environment. That might be a little tricky as he's licensed to keep 108 bitches and 12 dogs!


And the coincidences just keep coming. This commercial scale puppy farmer is also a prolific producer of...guess what...Beagles. He also has a line in Bearded Collies and Bassett Hounds and we know he has supplied puppies to Dogs4Us. A Beardie puppy sold by them last year with his name on the pedigree chart as breeder, was re-homed after displaying severe behavioural problems.

How about some piccys of Eric's 120 dogs in their happy home environment Maureen? Somehow we doubt they snuggle on the sofa with him of an evening and cozy down in the kitchen for some family pampering.

A challenge


We do not believe that relatively small scale breeders could possibly provide sufficient stock to meet the needs of a large retailer, so here’s a question for Dogs4Us which does not require the disclosure of any commercially sensitive or confidential information.

“What percentage of the total number of puppies sold by you in the past 12 months show the breeder’s location as being in Wales on the pedigree chart?”

The answer will not affect our view that treating puppies as a retail commodity is morally and ethically wrong, but it may help you defend your claim not to be supporting the puppy farm trade – or then again, maybe not.