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

"Ray McCadden gets his knickers in a twist

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

"New website

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

"Dogs4Us go mad on the net

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

"The stupidest Dogs4Us post ever?

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.