o

07 Ju1 2009 1:35PM eHasting Limited +44 (0) 844 412 1061 p.l
..
HUGH JAMES
eHosting Limited
5 Union Street
Ardwich
Manchester
M124JD
Dear Sirs
Our client: Johnathan Bell
Your hosted website: http://back,jonathanblshop.org.uk
Your
GcmL TSW/BEL 153/1
Please .sk for: Tracey Singlehurst-Ward
Oat" 24 June 2009
Diceet lice (029) 20 224871
Email Tracey.singlehurst-
ward@hughjames.com
We are instructed by Mr 8ell in relation to material published on the above website which we
understand is hosted by you.
There is material posted on this website which we beleive may give rise to a cause of action by our
client in deFamation. As yo are no doubt aware, once eHosting Limited are on notice of defamatory
material, if the company fails to remove this it may become liable to our client for damages arising
from defamation.
Our client has provided us with several examples of potentially defamatory material posted about
him on the website as follows:
Policy forum:
Local Government section: An article entitled 'How much do you agree John Bell
was wrong to turn his back on Treforest for purely commercial reasons?';
This section states that Mr Bell 'shut-up shop and put his Treforest properties on the
market'. This statement is factually incorrect as Mr Bell instructs us that his properties were
nof,TflTactpar6h the -marKEiT;iilbeitlf1afhenaslel out some 'property ownea6{him in tlls-
area. Those circumstances are different. Mr Bell owns several properties in the area and
owns several businesses. The insinuation that he 'lurned his back' on the town is therefore
incorrect, and may be read by some to imply that he was in financial difficulties. Given Mr
8ell's standing as a local businessman, such statements have caused him some difficulty
as he has been approached by individuals who have read these statements who have
enquired as to whether that was the case. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not the case
and such statements clearly have the potential to damage our client's reputation.
Housing section: An article entitled 'How much do you believe the number of HMOs
in Treforest need to be reduced?' and an article entitled 'How much do you agree
that John Bell was wrong to put another house of multiple occupation in Treforest
that take away more car parking?';
2769733v1
Regulated by the S;)iicitors Regulatian Authority
(5R.A Number: 3(13202). Authorised and regulated by
the Financial
A lull list of partners is lI\'.8Ha ble on request,
2769733v1
Hodge House
114,116 St Mary Street
(\lrdift CF1() lDY
T. 0292022 4871 cardiff@hughjarnes,com
F. 029 203B 82:22 OX 33000 Cardiff 1
www,hugl1james.r.:om
08 Jul 2009 8:53AM eHosting Limited
+44 (0) 844 412 1061
These articles suggest that Mr Bell supported and was responsible for the approval of an
HMO in the Treforest area. Mr Bell assures us that this is not the case and has explained
that such a decision is not his to make. The slatement is false, and could be taken to imply
that Mr Bell has not been truthful, therefore damaging his reputation not only in the political
arena but personally.
Treforest section: the articles above repeated, plus an article entitled 'How much do
you believe John Bell when he says that Post Office closures are "necessary"?';
Mr Bell instructs us that he has never believed that such closures are necessary, and has
provided us with a copy of the leaflet which we believe you may have allegedly quoted from
which takes this word out of context. In fact, he stated that 'closures were made necessary
by ... [the) Labour Party', and does not support this. The statement is therefore false, and
has the potential to cause damage to our client's reputation in the eyes of local supporters.
Whilst we appreciate political banter must be allowed, false statements in this extreme
cannot be tolerated. Again, this has the potential to imply to the objective reader that Mr
Bell has been dishonest in his representations, which has the potential to cause damage to
him personally and in his business affairs.
Weblog:
An article entitled 'Treforest's loss is Pontypridd's gain' and related commentary:
This article suggests that Mr Bell has changed his political views to attract popularity. It
goes on to refer to the 'opportunism' of Mr Bell. Our client does not object to fair recital of
his political stance, but once again has instructed us that this is untrue. The reference to
being 'opportunistic' carries negative connotations suggesting that he may be so in his
business affairs also.
Whilst we appreciate that much of the material contained on the website is political banter to which
our client has no objection, it '15 our firm view that the material we have drawn particular attention to
herein amounts to personal attack and has been published widely. Our client alleges that much of
the material is false. It is also quite clear that this material would have a detrimental effee! on our
client's reputation, both as an individual in his personal capacity and as a local businessman (i.e.
outside the scope of the political arena).
We therefore ask that the malerial we refer to above, together with any other related or Similar
material, is removed immediately from the website within the next 14 days. Should the material not
be removed within this timescale, we will be advising our client further regarding more formal
action against you and/or Mr Bishop.
We look 'forward to hearing from you with confirmation thaI you have removed the material from
the areas listed above and any other parts of the site where such content may be repeated.
2769733v1