Well, after deciding I was unable to post a copy of the Davenport Lyons letter – the one that was kindly scanned in and sent to me by a mysterious benefactor – owing to the threats of legal action the company is apparently taking against anyone who distributes said letter online, I was surprised – shocked, even – to find the self-same letter posted on good-old Wikileaks.

The full letter – the same one I was unable to post – is available on their secure website, and thanks to the organisation’s modus operandi is unlikely to be going anywhere soon no matter what threats Davenport Lyons makes.

What a shame someone ignored the strongly-worded threats in the letter against publication.  Oh, well – thank you, kind – and, more importantly, anonymous – Wikileaks contributor.

9 Thoughts on “The Davenport Lyons letters

  1. Well done Gareth !

    A credit and link to this page has been placed on the Slyck.com forum: “The official Davenport-Lyons lawsuit thread – discussion”
    http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=44092&p=497352#p497352

    The truth will out – Keep on fighting all !

  2. Pingback: Davenport Lyons threatening letters on Wikileaks « Amused Cynicism

  3. No problem, Ed – glad you’ve found my posts useful!

  4. This comment has been removed due to a threat of legal action from an employee of Davenport Lyons who refuses to be publicly identified. Questions or complaints should be directed to Davenport Lyons.

  5. Interesting – investigated by whom? Is there any proof of these allegations?

  6. As Harry Hill might say, “What are the chances of that happening, eh?”. Whoever that anonymous contributor was, we can only owe them thanks – and I’m pleased that you managed to find out that they’d done so in order to add to your ever-growing dossier, Mr Halfacree, sir.

  7. Having now read the document, I can only say that I now fully support Davenport Lyons in their action against the original offender.

    That anyone would to listen to Scooter in the first instance is bad enough, but to share with others should be punished with death, not a £500 “fine”.

  8. This comment has been removed due to a threat of legal action from an employee of Davenport Lyons who refuses to be publicly identified. Questions or complaints should be directed to Davenport Lyons.

  9. This comment has been removed due to a threat of legal action from an employee of Davenport Lyons who refuses to be publicly identified. Questions or complaints should be directed to Davenport Lyons.

Leave a Reply

Post Navigation