Tent thread

ariarnia

ariarnia wrote: »

Hi ****,

I think you need to contact the newsdesk – I have no control over the content of news stories which appear on the site. The address is [EMAIL="news@theargus.co.uk"]news@theargus.co.uk[/EMAIL].

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth

replied with

I’m aware of the allegations being made by various people who seem to have formed a campaign group, and that they’re essentially groundless – something which is in effect admitted by your “associate” who has been unable to offer any proof herself of the claims.

However, having not written, desked or subbed the story itself, I don’t know exactly what proof we have, and so you should contact [EMAIL="news@theargus.co.uk"]news@theargus.co.uk[/EMAIL].

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth
web editor
www.theargus.co.uk

replied with

Hi Jo,

Thank you for that information, and if it was proof that you wanted, then why didn't you ask?

I can provide you with plenty of proof of all the claims made on the comments section. Would you like me to send it to you? or would you rather I sent it directly to the news desk?

I understand this is not your direct responsibility, but I don't know if you wouldn't be interested for personal reasons to know that my self and my associates became interested in this matter because of a concern regarding the lack of factual information presented in this matter when Suzy herself set up this "campaign".

I am simply concerned that you are censoring information that contradicts your papers article but there is direct proof that the article itself is based on false information and ignorance on the part of Suzy.

I am happy to discuss this matter with the newsdesk rather than yourself and will continue to do so tomorrow, but I am also more than happy to send you all the 'proof'/information that you may desire.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Kind Regards,

ariarnia

ariarnia wrote: »

I’m aware of the allegations being made by various people who seem to have formed a campaign group, and that they’re essentially groundless – something which is in effect admitted by your “associate” who has been unable to offer any proof herself of the claims.

However, having not written, desked or subbed the story itself, I don’t know exactly what proof we have, and so you should contact [EMAIL="news@theargus.co.uk"]news@theargus.co.uk[/EMAIL].

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth
web editor
www.theargus.co.uk

replied with

Dear ***,

The claims which I’ve requested proof of are not only vindictive and personal, but ultimately irrelevant (e.g. her father is wealthy), and so no, I wouldn’t be interested in inviting you to contribute more to the conversation I’ve already had with your associate, and nor would the newsdesk.

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth
web editor

replied with

You aren't interested in the fact that Suzy has publicly stated she included an illegal penalty of a £15 a day late fee in her tenants contract meaning that by her own admission of the £4000 she states her tenant owes, the removal of that illegal fee brings the arrears to c.£1000 (less than a months rent)?

I'd like to say that surprises me,

What I will say is that I hope you're a homeowner rather than a tenant or landlord.

As you have said that you are not interested in the proof I can provide (dispite saying you wanted it) I'm just going to wish you a good day and thank you for your time.

Kind Regards,

I'll email the newsdesk tomorrow but for now, on with work.

pinksleepybear

I'm the 'associate'!!! And Jo was keen to discuss the story with me and call me spiteful. Lots of replies, so read from the bottom up. Jo goes from saying there's no proof, to denying the relevance of my proof to calling me a big meanie.

____________________________

Dear XXX,

I stand by everything I said in my previous email. I would add that it astonishes me that you expect The Argus to risk publishing your libellous statements when you’ve conceded yourself that you have no concrete proof of your claims, or the innuendo they contain (not to mention sheer spite).

Lastly, the original article was checked by our company lawyer, who as you would expect has considerable experience and expertise when deciding if articles open us to defamation action, and so I’m happy to take his word over yours.

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth

_______________________________

Hi Jo,

You'll be glad to know this will be my last email on this subject as I really must get on with some work. My responses below,

The article says he helped Suzy to buy the flat, and paid some money towards it – it doesn’t say anywhere that he bought it for her outright.
"I gave him a power of attorney, witnessed by a notary, to make the purchase on my behalf."At no point does the article state that Suzy contributed towards the flat.

I think that if you were to pursue this, the clear innuendo would be that she is dishonest, and we would be liable for libel if I allowed it to stand. Therefore, if you repost without any reference to the flat in Peru (which is in any case irrelevant to the issue Suzy is raising, i.e. that landlords should be able to evict tenants who don’t pay rent)

Landlords can already do this via the courts and I would argue that her luxury 3 bedroom flat with maid service is as relevant to the story as her job as a 'charity worker'. Baby massage sadly lacking in Peru, I understand.

, any mention of her father (ditto)

What effort went into verifying that Suzy was living out of a tent when her family live in a house 5 streets away? The story reads, "A mother who was forced to sleep in a tent because a tenant refused to move out of her house has launched a campaign to fight for landlords’ rights." If no checks were taken, shouldn't this read "A mother who claims she was forced to live in a tent..."

or any reference to the usury fees which I take it you can’t back up,

I have screenshots of Suzy explaining her usury, but this is insufficient for you. When people mentioned that this is illegal the posts were deleted, so I cannot send you a link to this.

then I *may* allow the comment to stand, but only if there is nothing else in it which would open us to defamation action.

The Argus was already open to defamation action when you described Carmen Nobre as a squatter in your story of 13th August. A great pity you chose not to check facts in your rush to defend the amateur landlord.

Regards,
XXXX

_____________________________
Hi xxxx,

The article says he helped Suzy to buy the flat, and paid some money towards it – it doesn’t say anywhere that he bought it for her outright. I think that if you were to pursue this, the clear innuendo would be that she is dishonest, and we would be liable for libel if I allowed it to stand. Therefore, if you repost without any reference to the flat in Peru (which is in any case irrelevant to the issue Suzy is raising, i.e. that landlords should be able to evict tenants who don’t pay rent), any mention of her father (ditto) or any reference to the usury fees which I take it you can’t back up, then I *may* allow the comment to stand, but only if there is nothing else in it which would open us to defamation action.

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth
_____________________

The fact that Suzy Butler is a mother is wholly irrelevant to the issues in the case. Will you be changing the headline?

Although non-payment of rent would make Suzy want to terminate the tenancy, by law only a judge may do this. Harassment of a tenant (for example on national television or in the local press) is illegal.

Here is the link to Frank Butler's description of the apartment he bought for Suzy in Peru,
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/the-angel-of-the-incas-buys-a-flat/79081.article


If I repost without the word 'millionaire', and without reference to the usury fees, will you allow the comment to stand?

______________________

Hi XXX,

In terms of our coverage, the fact Suzy’s father is a millionaire is completely irrelevant to the issues in the case. The reason Suzy Butler told us she wanted the tenant out was that she hadn’t paid any rent – this would seem a reasonable reason to want to terminate a tenancy, and it was on that basis that we ran the original story, and this follow-up.

In terms of your comments, if you have links (I’m afraid screenshots are not acceptable, as they can be doctored) I will be happy to review my decision.

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth

_________________________

Hi Jo,

I can provide links for all my comments. Suzy's father was interviewed for a property magazine wherein he described the apartment he bought for his daughter in Peru, the price he paid for his house is available from the landregistry and Suzy herself explained the £15 a day late payment fee when she was attempting to justify the amount of money outstanding. I have screenshots of this.


I'm very surprised that you are so strict at verifying the comments when the article itself (and previous articles about Suzy Butler) is so obviously full of holes. When a landlord lets a house, it is no longer their home. Earlier articles referred to the tenant as a squatter. This is patently untrue.



Why is the Argos so intent on maintaining a bias on this story?

Regards,
XXXX

________________________
Hi XXXX,

I’ve been asked to remove a comment you made on the landlord rights story, as we have no proof that Suzy’s father is a millionaire, that he bought a house for her in Peru, or that she imposed a £15-a-day late fee on her tenant. If you leave any more comments with unsubstantiated allegations, I will have to ban you from commenting on the site.

Many thanks,

Jo Wadsworth
Web Editor

tiny_tear

this is brilliant!
I know someone in a different site who has had about 10 profiles banned from the Argus by Jo... I wonder if she is a friend of Jezza with a great banning and deleting button

mynameisdave

Edit.

(ten)

pinksleepybear

mynameisdave wrote: »

Resubmit the comment with the link where she admits it.

Admits which bit? The £15 a day? We only have a screenshot as Suzy Amateur deleted her comments, or Jezza did it for her.

Actually I was wondering...someone pulled up Jezza's friendsreunited profile which listed his last employment as Argos, and after I put a typo in my first reply to Jo, I was wondering if he doesn't in fact work for the Argus. It's just that Jo's emails above seem so deliberately biased and not what I suppose I would expect from someone in the news media. There are so many fallacies and strawmen in her replies. I don't understand why anyone would deliberately do that unless they had a personal interest, or personal friendship at stake.

pinksleepybear

I did like the fact that Jo seemed to accept the (alleged) daily charges would amount to usury. Many people would be insulted to be accused of usury.

mynameisdave

Jeremy has hidden his FB profile from public view as well now.

pinksleepybear

I've lost track of Jezza's full name. Could someone check if [EMAIL="Jezza.Jezza'sname@theargus.co.uk"]Jezza.Jezza'sname@theargus.co.uk[/EMAIL] is a valid address?

I'm probably being a bit paranoid.

BitterAndTwisted

Jezza (P) Dunmore