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.
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)"
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.
Dogs 4 Us just can't keep away from this site. Twenty one page views from two visits today alone. Looking for more spurious opportunities to complain Ray?
ReplyDeleteWhat ridiculous complaints! Their desperation is showing, business must be bad.
ReplyDelete