wp07df9c8a.png
Law Society Protecting Crooked Solicitors . . . But not from me.. . . Colin Blasts IWG (Ingram Winter Green off the WEB in 2006) Their own site was bottom of page three the last time felt like going that far down the list to look for them.  . . In 2008 they are on their way out again . . Say bye bye to the Web IWG

       Mr Colin Cole
     Friday, 23 June 2006
David Rutter
Senior Ptnr
Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifer


Dear David
 I’m not sure if you are aware of my last letter printed below to “whoever” it is in your Company, who thinks they can expect me to believe the most outlandish premise. That your client’s, WI Properties, purchase properties without making enquiries or that your Firm does not do so on their behalf.

I have not received a reply to that letter and on that basis I am going to start making reasonable assumptions because of that lack.

Those assumptions will be. That the reason “whoever” does not wish to answer these simple questions, in a proper and frank manner, is that they know them to be totally false. In exactly the same manner as the letter from Daniel Ginsbury at IWG sent to me last year published on the “Lying Solicitor Page” http://www.croydoncouncil.info/page18.html
If I do not receive a reply with a reasonable explanation in the next 10 days I will be entitled to assume the above to be true and will publish accordingly.

I have decided that since “whoever” from your firm has failed to identify themselves, despite my request to do so.  I will write to you in future until you appoint a named person capable of dealing with the very tricky time your Company will find ahead unless ‘you’ start dealing with me properly reasonably and HONESTLY from then on.

Colin Clifford Cole

CC www.mcp-law.org


      Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifer

Re freehold 243 Portland Road London SE25 . . . LR/SP/WIP001/29

Dear whoever . . . ??????????

Once again thank you for your even briefer letter. It seems I am beginning to confirm that getting reasonable information out of you lot will be like pulling elephants teeth, painful and slow. . . never mind I’m a very persistent man and I don’t care how much it’s going to hurt . . . .
I won’t feel a thing . . . I assure you

I asked you a number of very reasonable and proper questions about your client’s purchase of the above property. And so far I’ve had practically zilch in reply.

“Our client purchased the property at public auction.”?  

. . . . and your point is? . . what difference does that make? I suspect that, that answer is designed to be disingenuous in the extreme. . . you know as well as I do that buying at auction makes no difference whatsoever.

Are you saying that your client did not either visit the property or have an agent of some sort visit it on their behalf? . . . how did they know it wasn’t falling down?. . they made no enquiries about the property at all? . . they did not inquire about the lease? . . or the terms of the tenant in the shop? . . the rent they were paying? . . . .

ARE YOU KIDDING?

I’m going to ask you once again nicely. . . . and before you answer have another visit to www.ingramwintergreen.org or www.dennissmatthews.org or www.lawyerbaiting.co.uk or www.ingramwintergreen.co.uk or www.dennissmatthews.co.uk to see what I intend to do to ANY solicitor that does not deal with me properly fairly and honestly over this matter.

DID YOUR’ CLIENTS MAKE ENQUIRES BEFORE CONTRACT OR NOT? . . if they did . . . WHAT WERE THE REPLIES?

Colin Clifford “ignoring me is not an option” Cole

PS . . . saying you no longer represent WI Properties won’t cut it either.
MCP Law, Solicitors King’s Lynne turn out to be just as big a bunch of wankers, liars and conspirators as IWG, Solicitors Islington
. . I have yet to receive a proper reply to my many reasonable questions. I have received replies to one’s I didn’t ask and the briefest acknowledgements to a few that I did.

But not the big questions . .they claim  their’ clients WI Properties had no knowledge of the dispute that can be clearly found on (one of several hundred pages published on the NET)  Dopey Daniel Ginsbury’s Stupid Tosser Solicitor Page  . . for instance.

But then Ingram Winter Green made exactly the same claim on behalf of Fineland Properties Ltd the previous freeholders. . . . . . And what a deliberate LIE that turned out to be. . . . apparently there are a whole host of Property Cos going around buying up properties without making any enquiries about those properties before hand. . . . . and more amazingly there are as many Solicitors out there who don’t bother to enquire on their behalf. . . is this a trend?
No doubt because of all the fuss I have made regarding the dispute at 243 Portland rd SE25 Fineland Properties Ltd decided to dispose of it.
But how do you do that when the dispute is so clearly identified and published as widely as it is?
Apparently,according to the meagre letters I have received so far, you find an Irish Co with a lot of stupid English Solicitors to represent them who won’t bother to make enquiries before contract to buy it off them. Who wont mind their clients paying the proper going rate for a property with so much of a dispute hanging over it yet to be resolved. . . . REALLY? . . . Here are the letters so far on this matter. The Letters are published in reverse date order.  In the same manner as email.
What you  actually do is . . If anyone asks a question about the sale  . . You make up a story about an auction . . . And if anyone questions that . . . .  YOU CLAM UP.

Mr Colin Cole
       
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar


Re freehold 243 Portland Road London SE25 . . . LR/SP/WIP001/29

TALK ABOUT DEJA VUE

Dear whoever . . . thank you for your briefest of letters dated the 12th May.
I suspect deliberately so since it contains barely more lines than the No of pages I sent you. Please excuse my scepticism but when you’ve had to deal with as many bent and threatening Lawyers as I have in the last three years it’s hardly surprising is it? Besides I’m never very happy writing to someone who hides behind the name of their Company , and does not identify themselves.

You say you are sure I “will find your client reasonable and respectable”. Which is a very nice idea, and lets hope so. However I think IWG wrote something very similar about Fineland Properties Ltd who on investigation turned out to be liars, conspirators and even “Granny Robbers” in conspiracy with that other lot of lying Solicitors Denniss Matthews. . . . don’t worry about libel . . there is prove of all the above on my many web sites. . . . and they have all failed to deny it.

You see already there is a problem. . . . you write , . . our “client was not aware of the problem concerning the flue prior to purchase.”  . . . . .

But I didn’t ask you that . . or . . .what was the price of fish in Peru? . . . . my question was . . . . “were your clients made aware of the dispute that has raged at the property for the last three years?”

The flue is a very minor part of the problem, albeit the most tangible and obvious manifestation of it. There are far greater problems to solve all of which are on my web-sites for all to see . . but I will go over them in minute detail if they are not plainly clear to you. . . though the five previous pages you so easily skipped over give a good clue.

The problem now is this . . .  if as you say your clients were not aware . . .. . . did you make enquiries before contract on their behalf or did you not?

There are only three scenarios here . . . yes just three.

1 Your clients are completely stupid and employ completely stupid Solicitors ie you who know nothing about the purchase of property and never make any enquiries before contract . . . in addition, Fineland properties in conjunction with their pals at IWG got lucky and managed to find you. . . . . . hhhhmmmm you see my problem?

NOT LIKELY IS IT?  . . but if in the slim chance it is true please inform me so.

2
Your clients and you were lied to by IWG and Fineland Properties Ltd about there being any smidgen of a dispute. . . . but if that were the case you make no mention of that in your letter . . . so you see that is getting less likely by the minute too? . . . but do please inform me so if it were the case.

2
Your clients knew exactly (or thought they did) what they were getting themselves into. They and you knew all about the floors. Knew about the flue (how could it have been kept quiet and was one of the reasons for my sites). In other words thought they could carry on where Fineland Properties left off but without the responsibilities.

Unfortunately the latter case is by far the most likely isn’t it? (but by all means convince me otherwise . . although I notice you were careful not to attempt to do so in your letter)
So if you don’t mind I’m going to assume (in the absence of a rebuttal) that your clients bought this freehold knowing full well all the problems with it.
(I haven’t yet convinced myself that WI Properties Ltd are not Fineland Properties by another name moved offshore. . . who knows with these conniving people?)

So why I ask myself???? .  . .buy a property with so many problems . . . I’ll tell you why . . . because they got it cheap . . . or thought they did. . . . . nothing has come cheap so far in the purchase of this freehold and it never will until somebody decides to deal openly and honestly with me and not hide behind clever little letters designed to say something but nothing in reality. . . . . as indeed I find your letter.
If they bought it cheap it means they have bought the dispute and I hold them responsible for everything that went before. . .

I am pleased however that you took heed of my request to furnish details of the Insurance. . . . your clients may not be so pleased I think you will find when they see the letters I intend to write to AXA about the state of the property and the jeopardy it has been placed in by both the previous freeholders and the present tenant . . . all of which again can be found on my web sites . . . (which are up at the time of writing despite the constant attack by person or persons (as if ) unknown.

ALL OF WHICH I NOW HOLD YOUR CLIENT RESPONSIBLE FOR. . . . including the hurt, damage, insult, loss, blight and injury the freeholders have caused us over the last three years.

I look forward to your reply with much interest. . . please be aware that a failure to reply will certainly mean that my suspicions are found to be correct and that both you and your clients are no better than Daniel “stupid tosser “ Ginsbury IWG, Denniss ”conspirators” Matthews, Nathan “granny robber” Teitelbaum and Suryakant “obnoxious liar” Patel (do searches on them for a laugh.) . . . I’ll give you a week.

OR  YOU WILL BOTH BE LABLED SIMILARLY ON MY WEBSITES. . . .
(or convince me otherwise . . . . “you know it makes sense Rodney”)

Quite frankly your clients would be better advised to sell the freehold to me,  . . . . or  . . . . .if they have been deceived and paid over the odds, back to Fineland Properties Ltd. . .otherwise there will be more trouble over this than they can possibly dream of . . . . I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve written that in the last three years . . . and EVERY TIME it’s turned out correct . . . trust me.

Yours Colin Clifford “ignoring me is not an option” Cole

Ps . . just because they moved the flue off of our property . . .don’t mean I accept it . . or that I should have to. . . . you wouldn’t have one under your window would you?. . . AND NEITHER WILL I . . . . TRUST ME

Mr Colin Cole
       
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Metcalfe Copeman & Pettifer
Kings Lynn

Re freehold 243 Portland Road London SE25 . . . LR/SP/WIP001/29

So you are the new Solicitors involved. . . . let’s hope you fair a little better than all the other firms that have been involved with the freehold of the above property.

Let me ASSURE you that if your intentions are not entirely honourable and above board and fail to ANSWER the questions I require to know . . . YOU WILL MOST CERTAINLY JOIN THEM. (do searches on IWG Solicitors, Denniss Matthews Solicitors and last but very least Lister & Wood Norwood.) . . . (and by the way, don’t mention client confidentiality . . . . it’s not a phrase I accept)

The first question I require to know is . . . were you on behalf of your clients WIP made aware of the dispute that has raged at this property, for the last few years or not, when you purchased the title ? . . . . . you see? a simple question to start with.

If you were made aware of it (and go to any of my eight No1 websites to realise the scale of it . . . www.ingramwintergreen.org is a good starting point . . . but not if you have a nervous disposition, the sight of a Solicitor being torn to shreds can be very upsetting for some people. . . but not generally . . . most love the spectacle) . . . yes if you were aware . . . what exactly were your clients thinking of when they bought it?

NOBODY buys a dispute . . . unless they have a motive. Usually that motive is greed. . . . kindly inform your clients WIP that they can consider themselves in dispute with me and all the conditions that were acceded to by the previous owners now apply to them . . . . unless of course they can show they had no knowledge of the dispute . . . in which case they can sue you for not making enquiries before contract.

Rest assured . .  and assure your clients that if they thought buying that freehold would be an easy buck . . . they can think again. . . . it hasn’t changed hands three times in as many years for no reason. . . at great cost to both the freeholders AND their legal representatives.

I’m sure you will have received the following letter (widely published) copied to yourselves a few weeks ago. . . I’ve not been able to follow it up as I’ve had an election to fight and some conspiring Solicitors to sort out.

No 1 priority is . . . . is the property insured. . . has the policy got our name on it . . . and who is the insurer . . . all requirement of the lease you mention. . . and all ignored by the previous Solicitors and their clients.

That’ll do for starters. Also inform your clients I require and DEMAND no direct contact with them WHATSOEVER unless it is through yourselves or another reputable solicitor. (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being.)

Yours Colin Clifford Cole

Mr Colin Cole
       
Monday, 24 April 2006
“Dopey Dan” Ginsbury
“Tossers” Ingram Winter Green Solicitors
Bedford House, 21a John Street
London WC1N 2BL

Heh Dan . . re The dispute you didn’t know about at 243 Portland Rd, SE25.

Well well well well well. . . it seems your conniving conspirators at Fineland Properties did NOT want to continue to own the above premises after all . . . .
I bet when I predicted that a year ago they would have scoffed eh? . . they never listen do they?

So we have a new Freeholder  . . WI Properties Ltd in the frame (another Company that no ones ever heard of . . . . YET)

I HOPE YOU INFORMED THEM about the dispute between myself and ANY freeholder of the premises (whilst the problems that are well documented and published exist) . . or are they going to come back to me and say . . . .

“we knew nuffin about it guv?” . . .

at least they can’t say they didn’t have any way of knowing . . one search on your . . IWG . .  name or Teitelbaum’s could have told them. . . . you’re about the most famous “tosser Solicitors” in the World I should think. I hope you warned their’ new Solicitors, Metcalfe, Copeman & Pettefar, ref LR/SP/WIP001/29  what to expect if they deal with me in anything less than a totally honest and straightforward fashion . . . I will make them just as famous on the web as I’ve made you lot . . . . . . which you are going to have to live with for ever-more until you find a way of sorting this disagreement out . . (the one between ourselves that is.)

I do hope that you have passed my request on to the new owners that we be provided with PROPER Insurance details that relate ONLY to ourselves as is called for in the contract that your negligent conniving clients Fineland Properties failed to provide? Despite being asked MANY MANY times.
I do hope you passed on letters such as the last one I wrote to you (below) which you so characteristically ignored? . . I do hope you passed on the conditions, that apply to ANY freeholder of the Property that I have imposed because of the treatment we received early on in the matter? CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE NEW FREEHOLDER . . . AND STILL APPLY . . .  ALL of which can be found on the web.

I hope you also informed them about your agreement with ourselves 23RD June 2005 (by default) to forgo any payments by ourselves of rent or insurance until the monies owed to us by the freeholder for outstanding legal fees are met. . . . . see http://www.ingramwintergreen.co.uk/page3.html

I do hope you informed them that you ignored EVERY LETTER WRITTEN TO YOU REGARDING THE PROPERTY SINCE JUNE 2005.

Ie


“To “Dopey Dan Ginsbury @ IWG”    Thursday, 08 December 2005

Tell your mate Nathan Teitelbaum, Fineland Properties (or whatever it’s called this week) that his tenant in the shop has sent me a letter. . . well when I say sent . .  I mean pushed under the door at the above property. At first I was inclined to do exactly what she has done to every letter I and my solicitor have written to her . . . . . . IGNORE IT.
It is dated 28 11 05 and refers to matters of two weeks previous to that.
Quite apart from the uselessness of hand delivery, since I don’t live there, and go there as little as possible, I refer you to my letter of Thursday 23 June (is it really six months since you last managed a reply to one of my letters? Now why could that be? . . . as if we didn’t know).
I particularly refer you to paragraph four, which amongst other things states.  . . . . . .  “neither he (the Freeholder) nor his tenant/s is/are to contact me, my wife, or my tenants, either in person, by phone or letter, or by another on his/her behalf, over any matter WHATSOEVER”

I don’t know what your interpretation is of WHATSOEVER but my understanding  of the word is . . . . WHATSOEVER.
You are well aware of why that condition is imposed. Quite apart from her previous behavior we now have this new problem. It is now obvious from your and your client’s Fineland Properties’ behaviour, from general common sense and from documents received due to the prominence of my web sites. (and you still have a chance to deny it yet again since you have failed to do so up to now).
That (from http://www.ingramwintergreen.org ) “ I am going to presume that Denniss Matthews Solicitors Anerley along with Ingram Winter Green Solicitors Bedford House and their clients Suryakant J Patel 2 Wickham Avenue Shirley and Fineland Properties Ltd, 43 Vincent Court (also known as Fine Land Properties Ltd. 2 Hillcrest Av. NW11 or Fineland Properties Ltd C/O Messrs Elliot Woolfe & Ros, Equity Hse, Edgeware ) . . . Reg owners Ruth Teitelbaum, 28 Overlea Road London, E5 9BG and Nathan Teitlebaum, Crest House, 34 Hillcrest Avenue, London NW11 0EN, CONSPIRED to lie, deceive and defraud me of my considerable claims in the matter of this dispute.”

In other words A BUNCH OF CROOKS, do you not agree? . . I assure you that my next headline will be . . . Ingram Winter Green, Denniss Matthews, Nathan Teitelbaum, (Fineland Properties), S J Patel are a BUNCH OF CROOKS  . . if I do not get a denial by return of post. . . . and as you know my HEADLINES do have a habit of finding their way to the top of the web page don’t they?

Right now the only thing that appears in doubt is whether Mrs P Dyer was part of that conspiracy? If I do not hear to the contrary from either yourselves or her own Solicitors I will presume that to be a fact also. She probably thought that getting rid of Patel was good riddance without realising what a lot of tossers you lot are.

Mrs Dyer’s letter refers to some water leaking into her shop from our premises. My first question is. Why is she surprised? I have been warning her of that likelihood from day one. If you are not aware . . . (seeing as you did not make enquiries before contract apparently . . . or ARE YOU A BLOODY LIAR?) she built her shop entirely against “The Party Wall Act 1996 (structures)”. AGAINST my advice,  WITHOUT my permission, and WITHOUT the due and proper consultation ALL . . . . required by that act.

She built her shop in the full knowledge of the likelihood of water leaks. If she was not aware, then previous freeholder certainly was and probably did not pass that on to her. Which is more than likely since he told her he owned the premises upstairs. A deliberately lie to encourage her not to make enquiries of her own.

Your client’s tenant Mrs Dyer is wholly responsible for installing her kitchen where it is and in the full knowledge (or if she did not have, it is her own fault) that sooner or later there would be an ingress of water into her shop, as has happened many times in the past, and long before I bought the property, AND SHE WAS SO INFORMED AT THE TIME BY ME.

Therefore any claim she thinks she may have against the property above her will be fervently denied and repudiated by me. If she has any sense she would contact a Solicitor straight away who will explain her position . . but so far, since the day I came across her, she has failed to show one ounce of sense . . so I am not hopeful. NORMALLY she could rely on her landlord to intervene couldn’t she? . . . but that isn’t going to happen is it? HE CAN’T EVEN PROVIDE DETAILS OF ANY INSURANCE that he may or may not have been provided, can he?
Why am I not surprised?That she “has contacted Fineland Properties and spoke to Mark and Brian to which I (she) has had no response. It should be have been Fineland Properties addressing this issue but it seems I (she) am doing their job for them.”

If she knew half of what Nathan Teitelbaum, Ingram Winter Green, and Denniss Matthews get up to as I do now, she would not have been so surprised herself . . . . . why don’t you inform her she’s on her own when it comes to sorting out disputes. It was why you conspired to lied to me about knowing there was one wasn’t it? If she had any sense she would consult a Solicitor and get an injunction to force Fineland to address her difficulties but even so she might not be lucky bearing in mind her own culpability for the problems. She should . . . as I am now aware others are doing . . . repudiate any agreement she has with your clients and refuse to pay any more rent until they act properly and reasonably according to whatever contract she may have made with them.  . . . we both know they won’t go to Court over the matter and we both know why.

I hope she realises the hopelessness of her situation brought about by her own actions time and time again. You had better advise her that if water is indeed leaking into her shop?  She has THREE DAYS to remove her ceiling before my floors start to rot. And she can expect to have to do that EVERYTIME that happens. As it is she has left it for two weeks before deciding to write to me, and it has taken a further two for me to receive that letter.

And if my floors do rot you can be sure I will be suing those responsible.
And while you are at it you could remind your pal Teitelbaum how hopeless his situation is too. . .  unless he comes up with a sensible solution.

I shall be instructing my Solicitor to seek an injunction against your client Fineland Properties to provide us with an insurance policy. AND an injunction against Fineland Properties / Mrs Dyer to provide adequate surveyors report on the structure she built as laid out in his (solicitor) previous letters to The Freeholder and P Dyer, again IGNORED. The cost of which I intend to lay firmly on your clients, and P DYER.

And even then I will be repudiating ANY claim she may or may not think she has against the owners of the flat upstairs.
From my FIRST letter to those other Tosser Solicitors . . Lister and Wood of Croydon:-

Friday, 24 October 2003
There are three scenarios. And maybe four?

1.
Your client, Patel foolishly did not have any sensible survey or legal advice, and is unaware of the problem. In which case it is a good job I have alerted him to it. For now at least he can, AND SHOULD advise his tenant accordingly.

2.
Your client does have such knowledge, and has chosen to keep his tenant in the dark, to the possibility. Not as far fetched an idea, as you might like to believe. In the conversation I did have with the tenant she SCREAMED at me. “I don’t know anything about any soundproofing. What’s it to do with me? I’m not going to make a noise.” Etc etc, etc. which means that, the inescapable fact is, that either she was lying (unlikely since she also told that to Croydon Planning) or your client deliberately, (since he must have known, for it is he who applied for the permission), withheld that information from her. For the obvious reason, that he didn’t want her to know just how extensive (and costly) the work was in fact going to be.
And if he did withhold one lot of information, why not the other, for exactly the same reason?
Further weight is added to this theory, (and it only a theory, but a compelling one, {don’t want to be defamatory}), since, as I told you, the tenant was quite happily just ‘toshing’ out the place with a bucket of emulsion and a few bits of tongue and groove, thinking that would be enough. Why bother with that. . . . . . unless?
To show you just how extensive the work has proved to be. Most of that rubbish you saw was ripped out of the shop, AFTER the tenant thought the job had been practically finished. There is also the possibility that if he has deceived his tenant in this way, then he may well by liable in law, to be sued by her?

3.
Your client HAS informed the tenant, and she is still recklessly going ahead with the project anyway, in the full knowledge.
Though somehow I doubt this.

If you build a house on a flood plane you should not be surprised if it gets flooded one day, and becomes uninsurable . . and you have no one to blame but yourself.
YOU BETTER MAKE DAMN SURE MY PROPERTY IS INSURED TEITELBAUM.”

Colin Clifford Cole.

PS your client would have been far better off selling the Freehold to me and leaving me to sort the mess out . . . . at least that way he could have got himself removed from the web . .
of course if it’s not a problem for him or yourselves . . . . ce la vie. . . . (at least Google are paying me for keeping you all so well ‘advertised’)
If you want to know what these sites are all about, Don’t miss
DAN J GINSBURY’S STUPID  TOSSER SOLICITOR Page @ IWG.org Click Here
Shock NEWS Horror . .  Croydon ‘Cowboy Builders’ courtesy of MCP Law client’s W I Properties Ltd. . . Click here.
 The plot thickens. . . . .

2006

These sites were created because Solicitors Ingram Winter Green and Denniss Matthews  will not respond to my many letters, and because The Law Society will not investigate all this:-
 The reason these sites are still here presumably, is because they are ALL not willing to answer the simple question . . “Did you or did you not conspire with your clients, S J Patel, Nathan & Ruth Teitelbaum of Fineland Properties Ltd,  to deliberately LIE, CHEAT and DECEIVE in order to DEFRAUD me of my  considerable claims against them?” . . well not in Court anyway. . . lying is one thing . . perjury another.  All the content of these sites is based on that premise, and NONE of it has ever been denied or even contested.
 For the removal of doubt, I have never called Daniel J Ginsbury “a lying, conniving, scheming piece of pig shit, low life life gutter scum”.
I merely ask the question? If all of the above is true would that make him one? Daniel Ginsbury declines to ans either the former or the latter. It is true that I accuse IWG of being a bunch of total Wankers for allowing these sites to be here and are not able to fathom a way out of this dilemma. Not worthy to call themselves Solicitors in fact.

 

DISCLAIMER . .  Click here

My claims made on this  and other web sites are based on the fact that Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar ( MCP Law ) refuse to answer even the most basic of questions. They should have no reason, unless to do so would embarrass them or their clients in disclosure of lies, connivance, and conspiracy. In exactly the same fashion as the IWG, Denniss Matthews conspiracy. I have asked them over and over again to tell the truth but they have declined. It is reasonable and correct therefore to make the assumptions that I have and that are printed through out these sites. MCP Law still have the opportunity to refute these claims if they wish . . . Provided they can prove it that is.

 

In fact the reason they  didn’t refute them . . . is they were true. Lisa Richardson DID Conspire to Defraud.
Their clients DID NOT buy the property at AUCTION and they DID know about the dispute when they AGREED to buy the property. In fact they bought the property BECAUSE of the dispute. . . . All this has been sworn to under OATH by Jonathan Burton Solicitor at MCP. . . . But he calls it . . . . “Was not meant to deceive.”

2006

2008

wpb9c11c67.jpg

NOTICE TO ALL search engine, ISP’s, Nominet, Hosting Co’s, domain name providers and the like. ANY adverse legal content on my sites Is AT LEAST ONE YEAR OLD but more likely 2 years, and therefore is EXEMPT from prosecution in ANY form under UK Law by virtue of being OUT of STATUTE. Please ignore any threats of legal action. .They will just be ‘trying it on’..Besides it’s ALL true otherwise they would have sued me. Google search  defamation limitation.Pre-action Protocol for Defamation In particular, time is always ‘of the essence’ in defamation claims; the limitation period is (uniquely) only 1 year,  .www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/protocols/prot_def.htm

“ The CROOKS at MCP Law, Solicitors King’s Lynne turn out to be just as big a bunch of wankers, liars and conspirators as IWG,”