Re: Pat Brown

by Guest 26.07.11 15:13

candyfloss wrote: ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
@ @mgtw01027 If you can get that in an email, this would be very helpful to me! I need the evidence in absolute form. TY for your support!!!
4 minutes ago

It doesn't look as though Pat is going take this lying down!

by aiyoyo 26.07.11 16:00

I still don't see how they could sue a bookseller for selling something
that has not been proven libelous. Amazon actually wrote me that they
have no idea if it is yet they pulled it anyone. Kind of the cart before
the horse, isn't it? But, clearly, they are just scared shitless of
Carter-Ruck and I am not worth it. I can sort of understand them having
no balls.

Pat made a good valid point there. It's actually what they did to Amaral's book only for the court to have it unbanned, and the libel is untried yet. If lifting of the injunction is a good indication then the mccanns are set to lose their libel.

Who did Carter Ruck write to I wonder? Amazon or Pat?
I would imagine it would be to Pat because amazon is just a vehicle. The intellectual property belongs to Pat.

So if Pat were to publish the contents of her book on an American hosted website, what is the mccanns going to do? Sue the website owner? Didn't they threaten Pamalan and she ignored them because her site in usa based.

Well, Pat expected their reaction (though she said she was surprised it took them 5 months), so I assume she's prepared for them to bring it on. They waited a year before they tackled Amaral. So same tactic more or less. I wonder whether they are going to file libel in America against Pat Brown - now to me that would be mind blowingly interesting.

Given Pat's fame and she was prepared to stick her neck out she's not going to take it without a fight.

Yes I agree with the poster who said Pat and Spudgun should join force.

by Guest 26.07.11 16:05

I think it's Amazon who has pulled the book, why else would Kate's book come up when searching for Pat's now. Amazon's legal department have probably backed down out of inexperience with the likes of Carter Ruck.

by Guest 26.07.11 16:07

aiyoyo wrote:
I still don't see how they could sue a bookseller for selling something
that has not been proven libelous. Amazon actually wrote me that they
have no idea if it is yet they pulled it anyone. Kind of the cart before
the horse, isn't it? But, clearly, they are just scared shitless of
Carter-Ruck and I am not worth it. I can sort of understand them having
no balls.

Pat made a good valid point there. It's actually what they did to Amaral's book only for the court to have it unbanned, and the libel is untried yet. If lifting of the injunction is a good indication then the mccanns are set to lose their libel.

Who did Carter Ruck write to I wonder? Amazon or Pat?
I would imagine it would be to Pat because amazon is just a vehicle. The intellectual property belongs to Pat.

So if Pat were to publish the contents of her book on an American hosted website, what is the mccanns going to do? Sue the website owner? Didn't they threaten Pamalan and she ignored them because her site in usa based.

Well, Pat expected their reaction (though she said she was surprised it took them 5 months), so I assume she's prepared for them to bring it on. They waited a year before they tackled Amaral. So same tactic more or less. I wonder whether they are going to file libel in America against Pat Brown - now to me that would be mind blowingly interesting.

Given Pat's fame and she was prepared to stick her neck out she's not going to take it without a fight.

Yes I agree with the poster who said Pat and Spudgun should join force.

I think Pat knew nothing about it aiyoyo, it was amazon who pulled the books. I think it took her by surprise.

by jd 26.07.11 17:50

Pat Brown's radio interview yesterday....can't seem to post links on here anymore, but after www type in the rest below

youtu.be/fkB3r8HjjLA

by Zelina 27.07.11 9:44

Remember the paedophile book scandal on Amazon last year?
Interestingly, before Amazon pulled the offending title they made a statement:

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable."
Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/846987-amazon-bans-paedophile-guide-book#ixzz1TICaMff9

Well hello there double standards!

by aiyoyo 27.07.11 10:30

Stella wrote:I think it's Amazon who has pulled the book, why else would Kate's book come up when searching for Pat's now. Amazon's legal department have probably backed down out of inexperience with the likes of Carter Ruck.

I would really want to know why Amazon cave in because Amazon knows mccanns stand no hell of a chance if they were to instigate a libel in USA. CR know that too.
In fact if anything it will backfire if they were stupid enough to attempt that.
Libel in USA is a tough one to crack and libel in UK is not enforceable in the USA.
So it would be really interesting to know why Amazon compiled, after all they are not in the business to arbitrate on libel. Their business is selling books. Arbitration is court's business.

The mccanns didn't have the balls to file civil against Pat Brown for obvious reasons.

by Gillyspot 27.07.11 11:26

I have just rung Amazon kindle customer advice line and spoken to someone called Chris A (for apple - all she would give me).

I mentioned the amazon quote "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable.
‘Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts. However, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions.’

And my concern that Amazon is not the company I thought it to be in standing out for free speech unless in cases of proven defamation and criminality.

Also whether my Pat Brown book will stay in my library on their website and why when you search for "Pat Brown" Kate McCann's book comes up in search and obviously not Pats.

As she said that she knew nothing about it I have asked her to get someone who does know to call me (she promised) regarding this as there are 1000's of potential customers that they could lose if they keep up with this stance.

What odds on getting a call back from them?

by Gillyspot 27.07.11 12:06

Amazingly Chris A (for apple) has just rung me back. She has no answer herself but is passing my query on to the Executive Department of the Customer Relations and assures me they will get back to me.

by Guest 27.07.11 12:15

Well done! clapping

by Guest 27.07.11 12:39

by Me 27.07.11 13:00

Just an idea from me.

Why not get all the anti forums where this is being discussed and Tony Bennett's foundation to have a whip round from forum members to have a "carter ruck" style letter sent to Amazon objecting to Kate's book on the basis that it's defamtory to Goncalo Amaral and indeed TB.

Let's get that alice in wonderland book booted off in the same way Pat's has been.

I'd happily donate £20 towards.

by lj 27.07.11 13:59

Great work honeybunch.

Me: i doubt it will work but I'll happily contribute just to hear the conning couple say again "it's ludicrous" and "they are furious".

by jd 27.07.11 15:14

honeybunch wrote:Amazingly Chris A (for apple) has just rung me back. She has no answer herself but is passing my query on to the Executive Department of the Customer Relations and assures me they will get back to me.

Well done honeybunch...Keep the pressure on for an answer and let us know what they are

by jd 27.07.11 15:22

@ProfilerPatB
PAT BROWN
I did as told by Amazon and put up a new book,BANNED, with one page of nothing questionable. It was BANNED again.

by lj 27.07.11 15:32

jd wrote:@ProfilerPatB
PAT BROWN
I did as told by Amazon and put up a new book,BANNED, with one page of nothing questionable. It was BANNED again.

This is going to cost Amazon dearly.

by jd 27.07.11 15:39

Qaudrille Rocki Stone
@
@missypuddleduck @ProfilerPatB Look at the MURDOCH Amazon connections..Impressive .
16 minutes ago
in reply to ↑

@ProfilerPatB
PAT BROWN
@Qaudrille Really? Oh, now this gets interestinger and interestinger...::laughs:

Note: need to find out the links between Murdoch and Amazon

by HotlipsHealy 27.07.11 15:52

jd wrote:Note: need to find out the links between Murdoch and Amazon

It sounds like Murdoch has Amazon under control

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/03/us-newscorp-amazon-idUSTRE61204C20100203

by jd 27.07.11 16:04

HotlipsHealy wrote:
jd wrote:Note: need to find out the links between Murdoch and Amazon

It sounds like Murdoch has Amazon under control

wwwreuters.com/article/2010/02/03/us-newscorp-amazon-idUSTRE61204C20100203

mmmm certainly does and seems Amazon are running scared of him. Interesting though Murdoch also seems to have a big interest with Apple too

by Guest 27.07.11 17:36

From Pat's facebook wall - she been banned again with the updated book...........................

Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
The ENTIRE content of my second BANNED Amazon book!

7/27/2011

Dear Pat,
...
We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors that says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat McCann.

Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.

Carter-Ruck can be reached at:
6 St Andrew Street
London EC4A 3AE

T 020 7353 5005

Best regards,

Robert F.

by Guest 27.07.11 17:40

Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.

So although Amazon don't know whether or not it is defamatory they have taken it down on CR's say so. angry2

by Guest 27.07.11 19:01

Pat's book is now being sold at online Barnes and Noble http://tinyurl.com/3f649n9

by puzzled 27.07.11 19:19

Me wrote:Just an idea from me.

Why not get all the anti forums where this is being discussed and Tony Bennett's foundation to have a whip round from forum members to have a "carter ruck" style letter sent to Amazon objecting to Kate's book on the basis that it's defamtory to Goncalo Amaral and indeed TB.

Let's get that alice in wonderland book booted off in the same way Pat's has been.

I'd happily donate £20 towards.

In principle, is there any reason why this shouldn't be possible? If Amazon can remove a book merely because of the possibility that it might be libellous, why shouldn't Amaral apply this reasoning to Kate McCann's book too? I assume he has lawyers, and if it's necessary to set up a fund to pay them, why not?

by Guest 27.07.11 19:29

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
"Why are you digging that hole, little boy?" "My goldfish died." "Why such a big hole?" "Your cat ate him."
1 hour ago

by Guest 27.07.11 20:50

ProfilerPatB PAT BROWN
My Amazon BANNED book,The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann now on sale on SmashWords! http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/76820 #McCann
5 minutes ago

Log in for more topics