Worthington Share Discussion Threads

[sweet karolina] 24/10/2018 22:11

Dimwit,

Is Ayub still one of "the team[']s lawyers". I hope so, because after the law lesson I gave him 20 months ago he might remember enough to give proper legal advice to his clients rather than just act as their pathetic paid puppet.

From: Ayub Sadiq
Sent: 20 February 2017 16:33
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Publisher known as "Sweet Karolina"

Dear Sir/Madam

We act on behalf of Aidan Earley in connection with a claim in libel against an individual using the pseudonym 'Sweet Karolina' to publish false statements about our client.

The publisher "Sweet Karolina" has made the attached series of comments on the "Worthington Group - Charts and News" discussion thread of the ADVFN financial website. Our client has invited the publisher (through an entry dated 18th February 2017 in the News section of his website: hxxps://www.aidanearley.org/news/) to identify him or herself. The individual has failed to identify himself/herself but has now provided, through a posting on the ADVFN discussion thread, the email address "[e-mail]" as his or her address for correspondence.

In the circumstances, we would be grateful if you could let us have the full name of the real person using the pseudonym "Sweet Karolina" as described above and an address for service of legal proceedings.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,


Ayub Sadiq
Solicitor | McCarthy Denning
A: 49 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4N 4SA
T: [phone] | [phone]
E: [e-mail] | W: www.mccarthydenning.com

My response was:

From: [e-mail]
Sent: 21 February 2017 09:23
To: Ayub Sadiq
Subject: Re: The Publisher known as "Sweet Karolina"

Ayub,

Please ask your client to stop harassing people who post their honestly held opinions as is their right under the Defamation Act 2013. It is totally clear from the text of my posts that they are opinion and discussion pieces - all of which are based on theories developed from other situations as is explained. What damage are you trying to claim has been done and against what - an unspecified company, which may or may not actually exist!?

If you are so sure that there is no way that a potential future company set up by those involved with Worthington could ever possibly commit fraud, is your firm prepared to guarantee that they would compensate anyone who did subsequently lose money because that company did subsequently commit fraud? If you are not sufficiently confident to do this, then how can you in good conscience act to silence warnings about the potential for fraud to be committed, which could lead to the further losses for those who are not made aware of the potential for those losses thanks to the actions of your client in harassing those who have honestly held opinions based on similar relevant past experiences? You most certainly can never claim that an honestly held opinion on something that may or may not happen in the future is a false statement.

Your client has already shown that he is unable to secure sensitive information, thus I will not be providing further personal detail other than to confirm this e-mail address.

Adrian

PS As BB posts are generally non-permanent publications any claim would be treated as slander not libel, there is precedent for this if you bother to check.

[dynamitedazza] 24/10/2018 21:57

Andy your opinion matters not The teams Lawyers opinion apparently does

We will see

[dynamitedazza] 24/10/2018 21:56

Woy Wong again

Will that old man her anything right - ever

What ever Woy says the opposite happens so sum fink good must be around the corner

[andy] 24/10/2018 21:13

Darren,


I'm not sure those couple of posts were damaging in any way, even if what he claimed is completely untrue, which you said it was.


There was a famous case here years ago, and I remember the hearing, and what the judges said was and wasn't slander/libel.

[roydyor] 24/10/2018 20:57

There must be some bad news on the way that Darren is trying to hide.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 24/10/2018 10:19

An adults only jigsaw? I bet if I bought one it would have one very important piece missing.

[skinnybasoo] 24/10/2018 09:23

Cliffpeat,

Now THAT I agree with. It IS like a jigsaw, but unfortunately some are aged 3 and below and trying to do one that is adults only.

[cliffpeat] 24/10/2018 09:14

Roy

Business Edge Network Ltd CVA concluded on 5 May 2017.

Creditors were £506k including "us" HMRC £259k. Total payments to creditors about 30 pence in the pound. About £152k in total

Costs of CVA £75k

I guess the 31 October 2017 accounts reflect (inter alia) the write back of the "forgiven" creditors that will not have to be paid £354k (£506k - £152k)along with adjustments relating to "inter-company loans".

The "fixed assets" include intangibles of £42k and "plant and machinery etc."
of £70k. It would appear that these had no realisable value during he CVA.

If it means that AB now has a "solvent" company to trade through it may be of some considerable relief to him and his family. And, who knows, the creditors may have done much better than if BEN had simply been liquidated.

I doubt there is any connection with an Australian site here:


But this suggests an ongoing connection with Fresh Business Thinking


Like a never ending jigsaw.

[ratherlargelobster] 24/10/2018 03:06

If the £500k is err 'proceeds of crime' the HMRC have the uncanny
and unerring knack of being able to 'follow the money' ....

and the more grubby fingers it passes through - the more squeaky
bums there will be :)

It could of course be clean, snowy white, fully tax disclosed money that is
quite innocently and industriously 'making the world go round'

# HMRC' Happy Massively Relaxed & Chilled here ..... ;)

[roydyor] 23/10/2018 22:01

That approx. £500k is on the move again, Business Edge Network has gone from £465k in debt to £113k credit in one year. :)



Although it is not the same £500k, it is strange the way that sum of money keeps cropping up.

[sweet karolina] 23/10/2018 19:24

When is WHET due to fork out for the next tranche of RAP shares? The six month option on the second tranche must be due very soon. Does WHET have the £116,667 required? If so will they waste it on the busted flush that is RAP, which has failed to achieve the long promised London listing? What happens to RAP if they do not get WHET's last few coppers from down the back of the sofa? How much has RAP wasted failing to get a London listing? Which company will go bust first RAP or WHET?

Lots to look forward to, news or lack there of very soon I feel.