The article was published on bristol.indymedia.org, but has currently been removed at the insistence of PIPEX INTERNET, following complaints and legal threats from OSBOURNE CLARKE SOLICITORS.
By December 2002 I had removed "the Articles" from my website, www.cotham.info, but not from my hosting server. Unknown to me, the articles remained well-ranked on most search engines.
Is it not curious that Teddy chose not to complain of defamation when the articles were first published; when the "Death Trap" provided concrete evidence of his reckless and grossly negligent disregard for public health & safety, and law ?
But what daft folly prompted Teddy to accuse me of lying against him in May of this year ? Is Teddy seriously stupid and very badly advised ? Could it be that Teddy is acutely sensitive about his public image, his public relations ? Teddy certainly cultivates his standing with "the establishment". visit one of his PR pages
Perhaps Teddy's conceit has grown so bloated that he really believes that a glossy image need only be forged; that his real, tarnished record can be falsified by arrogant bullying and craven, shameless bluff.
Here is the outcome of Teddy's hubris: ? A handful of forgotten files resurrected. ? His rudeness and deceit revealed. ? His egotism and stupidity exposed. ? The falsity and moral immaturity of the public person uncovered. ? A virtual monument to the vain folly of a benighted and obnoxious imposter.
Jonathan W Grigg of Osborne Clarke : libel & deception.
The five articles that I published between May and December of 2002, at www·cotham·info, were wholly and very obviously and demonstrably true in both substance and fact. The articles were published without malice and with a very clear and obvious public interest purpose; public health and safety and the exposure of gross and reckless negligence.
When Jonathan Grigg Osborne Clarke published in his letter to Schlund + Partner AG 18 May 2004 the assertions that my articles were defamatory, he knew full well that "the Articles" were fair comment and completely justified.
Setting aside the possibility, for the moment, that Jonathan GriggOsborne Clarke is incompetent in his professed specialism in defamation law, you could be forgiven for forming the opinion that Jonathan GriggOsborne Clarke acted dishonestly and in bad faith.
Most right-thinking people would expect a competent defamation lawyer to understand that it is libellous to deliberately publish the false accusation that somebody is publishing defamatory articles.
Considering the total mess that Jonathan Grigg Osborne Clarke has created for his client, having expertly persuaded me to re-publish "the Articles" rather than redact them, would it be unreasonable to conclude that Jonni is actually incompetent ?
And, on the face of the evidence suggesting that Jonni deliberately or recklessly published false statements, concerning his professional opinion and his intentions, in the course of conducting his client's business...
Perhaps Jonni has forgotten the criminal law that he once studied. Maybe it just slipped his mind that it is an offence under the Theft Act 1978 (Criminal Attempts Act 1981) to attempt to obtain the services of another, or a pecuniary advantage for yourself or another, by deception.
?Thus hath the candle singed the moth. O, these deliberate fools!?
1). Criminal Attempts Act 1981. s.1(1) If, with intent to commit an offence to which this section applies, a person does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, he is guilty of attempting to commit the offence
2). Theft Act 1978 s.5(1) For the purpose of sections 1 and 2 above ?deception? has the same meaning as in section 15 of the Theft Act 1968, that is to say, it means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the persons using the deception or any other person;...
Teddy Ware's Death Trap
The former UWE Faculty of Education.
Redland Hill, Redland.
The former Faculty of Education has been acquired by Edward Ware Homes for redevelopment into luxury apartments. No competent attempt has been made to secure the site or the buildings against intruders, it is wide open. There is not even a 'Keep Out' sign.
The buildings are a death trap.
The interiors have been stripped out by contractors (Cowlin formerly had a sign outside) and huge piles of rubbish and debris fill the lower floors. In the course of the stripping-out work the contractors have removed some of the staircase banisters and some of the exterior walls. No attempt has been made to install protective barriers across a considerable number of fatal drops, including lift and utility shafts, that have been created. The floors are littered with trip and sharp hazards.
Worse, the buildings have been comprehensively vandalised.
Most of the glass in the buildings has been smashed, very obviously from the inside. The floors inside and out are covered with broken glass. Fittings and furniture have been thrown out of the broken windows and litter the ground and roofs beneath. Interior electrical, plumbing and other fixtures and fittings have been thoroughly destroyed and left in a very dangerous condition. The few remaining interior doors, including the roof accesses, have all been forced open.
In an open boiler-room, there is an amount of light fuel oil puddling the floor. Next door is an 18,000 litre fuel tank, still with content. The buildings are a fire hazard.
There is, in short, ample evidence that people (undoubtedly children) have been accessing the site (a 'special attraction') without any hinderance whatsoever. It is difficult to believe that the developer and the contractors are unaware of the situation. They are, in fact, being both grossly negligent and appallingly reckless in allowing the site and the buildings to remain for one minute in their present state. They have actually had possession of the site and buildings for almost a year.
The developer should not need to be reminded that both statutory and common law imposes an absolute duty of care: to ensure that members of the public (particularly children) and workers are wholly protected from any reasonably foreseeable danger arising from their activities or holdings.
Should a child, or anybody else, be injured whilst visiting or playing on the site (with or without authority), the business proprietors, managers and directors could find themselves personally liable for massive, possibly punitive, damages - and to criminal indictment.
Should a child, or anybody else, meet their death, they could find themselves indicted and convicted of manslaughter.
Is edwardwarehomes' new slogan going to be...
Because boxes are for corpses ? Visit their website @ www.edwardware.co.uk
Follow the story...Returns to the Death Trap.
Updates 24 - 30 May...
Valerie Supports Teddy!
Speach without spin. What did Teddy do Today?
Old News. 2 June... Closure soon.
Closure. 27 June.
Bristol City Council - Dangerous Buildings and Structures - 922 3052/4314.
Bristol City Council - Environmental Health - 922 3838.
Bristol City Council - Health and Safety at Work - 922 3388.
Health and Safety Executive - area office - 988 6000.
Avon Fire Brigade - 926 2061.
Edward Ware Homes - 2 Beaufort Road, Clifton BS8 2JR - 915 0050.
Valerie Davey MP - Bristol West Labour Party constituency office - 907 7464.
Valerie Direct - House of Commons - 0207 219 3576.
Returns to the
Returning to the former Faculty of Education, five days after my previous visit, I found that the front gate had been forced open. The industrial strength suitcase padlock (left) which formerly 'secured' the gate had been levered apart and the gate was open wide.
There was ample evidence that the site has recently been visited by young people. A lot of graffiti was apparent that had not been there five days before. There was also evidence that contractors have been working on the site.
The boiler-room is soaked in gas oil. Next door is a set of fuel tanks which, according to the gauges, still contain a substantial amount of oil. How long before some 'bright-spark' decides to put a match to a piece of saturated cardboard?
Friday 24 May, at 4.00pm:-
I telephoned the Dangerous Buildings and Structures office at Bristol City Council (922 3052/4314) to report the facts about the former Faculty of Education. The person I spoke to seemed to know about the building; "...the one with all the broken windows."... and the name of the developer.
At 4.45pm I was phoned by Martin Ashmead of that office who told me that he had been in contact with Edward Ware Homes.
He had been told that Edward Ware was 'away'. Martin Ashmead told me, however, that he had been assured that a security guard would be assigned to the site immediately.
Saturday 25 May 2002, 12.20am.
When I left the site on Friday, I closed and bolted the front gate.
You know, I searched the buildings from top to bottom - I looked in all the toilets in case the security guard was having a fag.
I couldn't find him anywhere.
Sunday 26 May 2002, 5.44pm.
I still couldn't find the security guard... perhaps it was his tea break.
I did find substantial evidence that the site has been visited since my visit yesterday. There has been further vandalism, objects have been moved and what could have been a serious accident occured in the former gymnasium (broken climbing ropes).
I also discovered a further horror...
A live 410 volt sub-station.
Flammable oil and combustibles - live electrical equipment - fatal unguarded falls and drop hazards - trip, sharp and puncture hazards - dangerous equipment - no warning signs - no locks or barriers - asbestos?
A wide-open playground for innocent and unwise children.
Perhaps, to property developers and contractors, just a game - played for big profits... Or callous disregard for basic human decencies?
And... what have all the 'responsible' agencies been doing to properly protect the people and communities that they are charged, and paid, to serve... Our MP, Bristol City Council (councillors), the Police, Fire Officers, the Health and Safety Executive? There is an answer, but it is very ugly.
Monday 27 May 2002
12.17am. · 8.33pm.No lock
Tuesday 28 May 9.30am.
A local resident contacted the Health and Safety Executive (area office - 988 6000) to complain about the condition of the buildings.
Tuesday 28 May 6.55pm. No lock, No Guard, Nothing! Wednesday 29 May 8.17pm.
No lock, No Guard, No Signs, Nothing!
Thursday 30 May 12.01am.A Lock! No Guard, No Signs.
Not Good Enough!
Teddy Ware's Death Trap
remains wide open to children.
Because boxes are for corpses.
Wednesday 29 May, 12.55am.
Valerie supports Teddy.
Bristol West MP, Valerie Davey (Neue Arbeit), gave a comment on the state of the former UWE buildings and the dangers that they pose to children. Speaking without Spin...
"It's private property...
It's up to the parents to stop
their children going there."
How refreshing it is to hear our elected representatives speak honestly for once! And reassuring that our Member of Parliament is such a staunch defender of the rights of property. Mind you, it is a little bit disappointing to discover that our law maker seems to be ignorant of elementary English law and piffling little Statutes such as the Occupiers Liability Acts 1957 & 1984 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974... and the Regulations... Her attitude seems a tad callous concerning the wellbeing of our children, and the common duty of care. Is this what Labour mean by "Citizenship"?
Why are some developers so careless, criminal even? Think about it...
turn up on
Saturday 1 June, 8.17pm.
Meet Steve Reeves. Steve is employed by 'Chalky' who pays him £2.00 an hour, cash in hand, to stay on the site overnight. Steve is a friendly fellow aged 42 who is partially disabled, a former drug addict, a former prisoner and an admitted alcoholic. He has got six children, by four women. He's good mates with the Dibbles.
For the past three weeks, Steve has been providing overnight security at 20 Grove Road in order to protect very valuable architectural antiques. Last week, he fell into an uncovered trench on that site and badly skinned his leg. He said, "If I was on the books, I'd do them for compensation." 20 Grove Road is/was owned by Edward Ware.
20 Grove Road
Steve hasn't got very much to do (He doesn't actually patrol the site) so he watches television (powered by a very noisy site generator) and gets through a large bottle of strong cider.
He would miss Armageddon.
The informal 'contractors' have made a start installing shuttering to close the buildings; they've been working over the holiday weekend. (not Monday)
Their 'contract' doesn't seem to include making the site secure and safe - removing debris and covering pitfalls. When they finally get around to closing the rear of the buildings, they are going to find their work impeded by huge mounds of dangerous rubbish.
It is inevitable:- To speculate as to whether the 'sailors' are competent contractors, in the forensic sense.
They are not wearing head protection, despite the risks from falling glass. Do they have proper employee and public liability insurance? Have they got a written health and safety policy? A trained first-aider and supplies? Accident book? Has a 'competent' person been appointed to oversee health and safety? Have they been briefed on the particular dangers present on the site?
Remember; Edward Ware is mandated to employ only competent contractors and to ensure that they carry out their work in the approved manner (MHSW Act).
Perhaps the Health and Safety Executive should find out; it is time for a site inspection. And; the Fire Officer should examine the fire and explosion hazards in the buildings - is Edward Ware licensed to store gas oil?
Should a child's broken body be found at the bottom of this terrifying, unguarded, dark shaft it will not only be Edward Ware who is culpable. Our purported leaders, both local and national, and all of the agencies that are supposed to be protecting the public from dangers like Teddy Ware's Death Trap will also be morally, if not legally, responsible.
Act Now! not after the event. Start speaking. More news soon,
Question: Why would a developer leave a fire-hazard building - due for demolition - stalled by a planning glitch - wide open to children?
Well, it's taken more than a month but Teddy has been a good Ware. The buildings of the former Redland Campus have been boarded up, razor wire has been installed, warning signs have been erected and a 'guard' stays on the site overnight. Well done Me.
The site remains accessible and dangerous, for example, this manhole that has been lying open since my first visit. And, I still find it very curious why a developer should leave piles of inflammable materials boarded inside inflammable buildings (that are only quite difficult to get into).
Note: The developer is in breach of some of the planning agreement mandates. He is operating site equipment (a site generator) outside the stipulated hours of work (08.00-18.00) and work has commenced on the site prior to the required tree protection measures being put into place (para.10. SC92) "No work of any kind...".
And now... The UWE annex, Elm Lane, is attracting vandals and can be easily entered.
4 May 2004
Our ref: JWG/0792813/B1247346/JWG
By post and email: spoim (at) blueyonder.co.uk
Dear Mr McAllister
Articles published at http://www.spoim.org/info/clarion.htm ("the Website") under the headline "Teddy Ware's Death Trap" at http://www.spoim.org/uwe/uwe01.htm and all related material under the heading 'Follow the story ?' ("the Articles")
We act for Edward Ware Homes Limited ("EWH").
We have identified above the particular article and related articles and means of publication within which the words our client complains of are contained.
It is apparent that you are both the author of the Articles and their publisher by virtue of being the Internet Service Provider for the Website known as 'The Cotham Clarion'.
As the author and publisher of the Articles we hereby notify you that by reason of the Articles remaining on the Website operated by you, defamatory statements are continuing to be published and that you are therefore engaged in the continued publication of defamatory material.
The Articles are self-evidently defamatory of, and damaging to, our client. The Articles are untrue and disparages our client's reputation and character. In the circumstances, the Articles amount to a very serious libel.
In particular the Articles contain the following statements ("the Statements"):
'The buildings are a death trap'
'They (EWH) are, in fact, being both grossly negligent and appallingly reckless'
'Perhaps, to property developers ? just a game - played for big profits ? or callous disregard for basic human decencies?'
In the context of the headline and the general tenor of the Articles, the very clear impression created by the statements above, is that our client conducts its business in a manner that is not simply oblivious to public safety, but is 'criminal' and 'grossly negligent', a very serious and unsupportable allegation.
Factual inaccuracies and unsupportable comment
We are also mindful that the Articles are over 2 years old and therefore hopelessly outdated and clearly factually inaccurate. The site has now been completely re-developed and does not even bear a passing resemblance to either the photographs or the graphic descriptions in the Articles. This does not however avoid the fact that you are continued to commit on a daily basis a very serious and damaging libel, and besmirching the good and valuable name of our client.
Remedies sought by the claimant
You should appreciate that our client's very strong desire is to simply obtain the removal of the Articles without reference to its further rights to legal redress such as obtaining compensation.
In the circumstances we require from you, by no later than 12:00 noon on Thursday 6 May 2004 the following:
1 confirmation that the Articles published at the Website and any other Website controlled by you, have been removed from the Website;
2 your undertaking not to repeat such libel, or any words to the same, or similar effect.
If we have not received a satisfactory reply by 12:00 noon on Thursday 6 May 2004 we will advise our client to commence legal proceedings against you without further notice, seeking an appropriate injunction, damages and costs. Whilst our client's rights in this regard are fully reserved, we would reiterate our client's overwhelming desire is simply to obtain the quick removal of the Articles by the deadline, which will result in no further action being taken.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Direct tel +44 (0) 117 917 4058 Direct fax +44 (0) 117 917 4059 e-mail jonathan.grigg (at) osborneclarke.com
Head of Legal Department Schlund + Partner AG Brauerstrasse 48 D-76135 Karlsruhe Germany
18 May 2004
Our ref: JWG/0886597/B1256528/TMB
Also sent by email: abuse (at) schlund.de and fax
Abuse of Schlund + Partner AG ("Schlund") Acceptable Use Policy("AUP") Mr J McAllister
We act for Edward Ware Homes Limited.
We attach correspondence * to a client of yours, Mr John McAllister, to whom you provide internet services. We trust the contents of our letter are self-explanatory in that they request the removal of defamatory material the publication of which is facilitated by Schlund.
In response to our letter Mr McAllister has refused to remove the offending material.
By virtue of your position as the ISP, which assists the publication of the said defamatory material, we request that you ensure the removal of this material forthwith.
Now that you are aware of the breach by Mr McAllister of your own AUP you of course have the contractual ability and duty to comply with our request. Further, under the Defamation Act 1996, now that you are on notice of your actions in contributing to the publication of the defamatory statements, Schlund is legally responsible to our client.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and confirm removal of the defamatory material complained of by return.
Direct tel +44 (0) 117 917 4058 Direct fax +44 (0) 117 917 4059 e-mail jonathan.grigg (at) osborneclarke.com
* Note: the correspondence referred to is the first letter/email attachment from jonni 'wubyu' grigg. Your undaunted webitor
Some more desperate emails to 1&1 Internet Ltd.
David (Ainscough of 1&1 Internet)
Thank you for your assistance yesterday. I have been trying to call you without success. Please could you give me a call on 0117 917 3084 when you have a moment.
Melissa -----Original Message----- *From:* Jonathan Grigg *Sent:* 28 May 2004 09:01 *To:* Melissa Mape *Subject:* FW: Teddy Ware's Death Trap; The intelligence of a cabbage.
Further to our conversation this morning, please could you freeze John McAllister's account.
Melissa -----Original Message----- *From:* Melissa Mape *Sent:* 28 May 2004 09:55 *To:* 'David Ainscough' *Subject:* FW: Teddy Ware's Death Trap; The intelligence of a cabbage.
I note that John McAllister is still publishing defamatory material. Please could you advise me when John McAllister's account will be frozen.
Melissa -----Original Message----- *From:* Melissa Mape *Sent:* 28 May 2004 17:46 *To:* 'David Ainscough' *Subject:* FW: Teddy Ware's Death Trap; The intelligence of a cabbage.
I am pissed that 1:- nobody chose to talk to me first; 2:- you breached copyright; 3:- you failed to develop the story properly; 4:- you caved in to empty threats (and should have spoken to me, the author, at the time); 5:- you did not provide sufficient pointers to the original story on the source website; 6:- you co-opted my listing in Google; 7:- and your website style is ugly.