So where is that injunction Quindell bitchez? Here is its bully boy lawyers letter to me in full

Comments

1. ---

   Rob Terry Is Going Down

   14 November 2014, 02:31

   I wonder if Rob Terry has committed a criminal offence under the Malicious Communications Act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1 ) in instructing his Lawyers to send a letter designed to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient?

   He clearly had no intention to follow through with the threat to “commence proceedings immediately” as demonstrated by the fact that you have not received such proceedings 3 months later especially given the gravity of the allegations you published!

   I suppose the Lawyers have to take at face value their instructions from their own client so I don’t think that they could be criminally culpable for sending the letter however, clearly the person who instructed them in the knowledge that the threat would not be followed through could be……..

   Something to think about?

2. ---

   Rob Terry Is Going Down

   14 November 2014, 02:49

   Another thing which goes to show the malicious intent of the letter and shows that Rob Terry has not acted in the interests of shareholders is that the letter states as a matter of fact

   “As against Quindell, the allegations are likely to cause it serious financial harm”

   As a company director, Rob Terry is duty bound to take whatever measures are legally available to him to protect the company which is owned by the shareholders from such harm, therefore, if he believed that his position in instructing the lawyers to send you that letter had a scintilla of merit, having expressly acknowledged that financial harm would be likely if he did not take the preventative measure, by not having the balls to follow through with his expressed intention to sue, it shows that he has either failed in his duty as a Director to protect the company (and its shareholders) or proves that he knew that he was instructing lawyers under false pretences which kind of makes the case for a potential prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act.

   Potentially 6 months in prison if guilty under the MCA!.

3. ---

   J P Spaghetti

   14 November 2014, 02:49

   Unless they receive an undertaking to publish a full retraction and apology in terms TO BE DRAFTED BY THEM?!! Cheeky mothereffs! Another lot who seem so up their own backsides they could be fellated and French-kissed by the same person simultaneously! If I were a QPP shareholder I’d 1) want to distance myself in light years from that and 2) be livid if my hard-earned was used to ‘fund’ it! Keep up the good work Tom – there’s a film script in there somewhere and nobody (of merit) like a bully. Personally I detest even more those who delegate their bullying to others. As a final comment, perhaps it’s just me but the whole tone comes across as – frankly – deeply unprofessional.

4. ---

   J P Spaghetti

   14 November 2014, 02:55

   After I re-read I was struck by this “The words make factual statements which are untrue”!! That beats 2 + 2 = 5 in my book, and it’s not often I use double exclamation marks (I’d advise RT to request a refund, unless he penned it)!

5. ---

   Larboulois

   14 November 2014, 05:41

   Nice to see the letter. I suspect as the saga continues to unfold this (the solicitor’s letter) will just be consigned to the waste bin.

6. ---

   winsome147

   14 November 2014, 08:26

   Robbin’ Terry should have sued immediately in shareholders’ best interests. He should also be sueing now as TW’s rhetoric is even stronger and leaves no room for doubt. The fact that he isn’t sueing speaks far louder than silence.

7. ---

   Sweet Karolina

   14 November 2014, 08:48

   Tom,

   I don’t know if you have seen the BS being put about by BBM “Loverat” saying they are going to proceed against you for harassment not libel because for harassment it does not matter if what you are saying is true or not. You are reported to be “shitting yourself” about this (laughing your socks off more like if you have seen it.)

   The pseudo lawyer “Loverat” has done lots of research and points out that fact that it is true is not a defence and he pulls up a case where the Law Society proceeded against someone unhappy with his lawyer, who may have gone a bit OTT. He did say that defences against harassment included “in order to detect or prevent a crime”. Clearly pseudo lawyer does not think fraud and market abuse are crimes – given the lack of action taken by the regulators so far maybe they agree with him!

8. ---

   Tom Winnifrith

   14 November 2014, 08:54

   SK

   Feel free to quote me

   “Loverat is talking out of his arse. I am not flinching and have never flinched. As a journalist my job is to expose lies and fraud and that is what I have done, rather brilliantly if I say so myself.

   I am happy to see any of the Quindell bitchez in court but suspect that they will be heading to such a venue anyway with or without me being present.”

   t

9. ---

   Sweet Karolina

   14 November 2014, 09:29

   I have let him know. As I anticipate you having zero interest in his response, I won’t bother to post it here.

10. ---

    Big T

    14 November 2014, 14:03

    Tom, the signature on that solicitor’s letter looks like someone has “signed” the company name. Never seen that before, is that a solicitor thing?