|
Harassment
In Mr Sheahan's letter to Bluehost he stated that I had committed the criminal offence of Harassment. Mr Sheahan's allegation is quite obviously completely untrue.
He stated that my invitiation giving Mr Coyle the right to reply to facts that I intended to publish (and have now done so) and the amendments that were made to my website constituted harassment under the harassment act 1977. If this were the case then almost every investigative journalist would be criminalised. It would also mean that no individual or corporation would ever have anything detrimental published about them even if that information were true and in the public interest. If Mr Coyle felt distressed at being given the right to reply then I can only suggest he finds alternative employment more suited to his sensitive disposition.
More false allegations of harassment
Sadly,
this isn't the first time that false allegations of harassment have been made by CWD (or their clients) whilst other civil actions have been active. (See Mr Coyle's denial of any involvement in almost identical previous circumstances). When i discovered that CWD were planning this action I contacted PC Dunning of Thames Valley Police. PC Dunning advised me to keep hard copies of all correspondence from CWD. He stated that if they did make a complaint of harassment against me I should produce that correspondence and the police would then take appropriate action.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Luckily, British citizens still have certain basic human rights under the ECHR such as the right to criticise and impart information. There are obviously safeguards in place such as defamation laws which prevent people from publishing untrue statements (or statements that may be true but cannot be proved to be true).
Mr Coyle and Mr Sheahan have both stated that the statements made on my website are untrue. Sadly (for them) they are unable to point to any fact or statement that actually is untrue. They appear to have examined the facts on my website and come to some very serious conclusions about CWD, it's directors (especially Mr Coyle), associates and employees. My website merely contains facts. The fact that CWD have read those facts and come to conclusions they say are untrue does not make my website defamatory. One might think that a company purporting to specialise in defamation would know this.
Thankfully, there are many solicitors who practice defamation and I should imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to find one that has a working understanding of the defamation law and its procedure.
|
|
|
