Sep 232016
 

Aberdeen Voice can reveal that Fiona Manclark, former Facebook Page Administrator for Northfield Animal Haven made an accusation of cannabis use at the farm by the owner, and claims drink and other drug use by others took place there too. Cannabis might be a means to alleviate symptoms of serious illness – but is someone using it regularly able to safely look after 170+ animals on a working farm and animal sanctuary?

In the second article in a series concerning NAH, Suzanne Kelly explains her doubts, and looks at other claims made in Manclark’s remarkable letter to the court, written in response to Suzanne Kelly’s legal action to stop Manclark’s defamation of her. By Suzanne Kelly

cannabis-400832_1280After a drawn out court procedure, defamation action I instigated against Fiona Manclark resulted in my being awarded £10,000 plus costs.
Manclark had run out of road with regard to my lawsuit which sought damages and an apology for her defamation of me which spanned Twitter, Facebook and email. She had applied for legal aid and was denied (the process took months).

Legal aid is normally denied where the applicant either has sufficient funds to cover their costs or where the applicant does not have sound grounds for bringing or defending legal action.

Despite Fiona Manclark having numerous opportunities to issue an apology and remove the various social media slurs without having to pay any damages, she chose to contest the legal action. It took months before the offensive comments were deleted. Eventually her legal firm announced to the courts it would no longer be defending Manclark; no reason was supplied.

When a hearing was scheduled in mid August, Manclark chose not to appear or send a legal representative: she did however send the court a most remarkable letter. Two members of Aberdeen Voice attended the sheriff court to look at the letter, and a shorthand transcription was made of it. All Ms Manclark needed to do was to put forward her side of the argument to the court as the defendant in the defamation action. She went much, much farther.

“…if there is money for drugs, she should not be asking the public for handouts”

Manclark’s letter openly accuses Kelly Cable of using cannabis, and of permitting others living on the farm to drink, use cannabis and ‘to be addicted’ to prescription drugs.

Manclark talks about first meeting the owner of Northfield, Kelly Cable. Manclark visited the farm to buy a pet rabbit – as an aside, reputable animal charities do not breed or sell animals; Cable managed to bridge the gap between rescue, breeding for sale, and running a commercial farm all from the same premises; an ethical dilemma and one unique in the rescue sector in Scotland as far as I can determine.

Aberdeen Voice has asked NAH about selling pets. In response, Northfield Animal Haven owner Kelly Cable told Aberdeen Voice:

“We do not breed or sell rabbits we rehome them and accept a donation of the persons choosing. The only connection with that is that Ms Manclark rehomed a rabbit from us then sold it.

“….since Sept last year Ms Manclark has had nothing to do with Northfield Animal Haven.”

After Manclark and Cable talked, Manclark and her children visited the farm. The children ‘helped build up the farm’ and ‘put in fence posts’ (presumably they were properly supervised, given personal protective clothing, and a safety briefing).

It was then Manclark alleges Cable:

“also smoked cannabis, but that was for medical reasons.”

This would certainly be consistent with a diagnosis of Fibromyalgia – one of an astonishing number of debilitating conditions a variety of sources, including Cable herself, claim she suffers from.

Kelly Cable responded:

“You state that a letter from Ms Manclark declares all of this but I had a private message conversation with ms Manclark from a few days ago where she states I was never mentioned in any letter…”

Fibromyalgia and cannabis:

Fibromyalgia is a serious illness – one with totally unpredictable symptoms and widely ranging levels of pain. Cannabis and cannabis/hemp oil derivatives seem to alleviate pain in some cases.

Some forms of cannabis oil (which do not contain the intoxicant thc) are legal in the UK; at present cannabis is still considered illegal. This is a situation that needs addressing, but in the context of NAH, allegedly, a Fibromyalgia sufferer is running a farm and using cannabis while caring for 170 animals.

Kelly Cable had this to say:

“My personal health is of no business to anyone but what I will say is just because your disabled doesnt mean you give up and lie in bed all day. I am on prescribed medication from my doctor so I cannot give you an answer as to whether cannabis is a useful treatment for my health as its not prescribed.”

NAH also seeks donations from the public because there is not enough money to support the rescues; sometimes it says animals may have to be put to sleep if funds aren’t donated. (NB the commercial arm of the farm sells animals at market all the while).

In this resect Northfield and Cable are again in an unprecedented situation in the animal welfare sector. A report has been made to the police and other relevant authorities, and other witnesses agree with Manclark’s assertion.

A fibromyalgia sufferer would in all likelihood find properly caring for 170 animals at a sanctuary/commercial farm even a more formidable task than a healthy adult would, yet it is claimed Kelly Cable runs the farm with little or even no help at times.

One occasion when her father helped resulted – by Kelly Cable’s own admission – in 17 horses being cut while they were to be transported from one field to another. Eric Cable was also injured in this incident. Inexplicably, Kelly Cable chose to link Aberdeen Voice to this worrying event– clearly with no foundation in reason or fact. In a rambling rant concerning a variety of allegations, Kelly Cable wrote:

“… I arranged alternative grazing for the animals here some of which should not even been attempted to load and moved and what happens my Dad who is 73 gets knocked over and trampled by horses that are so scared, so now I have 17 terrified horses all with cuts etc from trying to be loaded and they are now stressed and very anxious.

“I would suggest that anyone who has shared the articles from the Aberdeen voice or anyone who has jumped on the bandwagon and spouted this crap had better remove all information as Monday morning even if I have to sell my car to do it I will be going after everyone who has done damage to this sanctuary.

“I am also going to the national press and quite a few revelations will be disclosed to the press which can be backed up by various websites….”

Precisely how the horses were scared, who else was helping, whether the horses’ legs bandaged for shipping (as would be good practice) is unknown; NAH has been asked to explain.

Kelly Cable rsponded:

” I have already explained what happened there, if one horse gets spooked it will set off others in the fields, beside them, and in stables but if we had managed to raise funds for hay we wouldnt have had to move them but as our reputation was in tatters this did not happen so we had no choice but to move them a couple of miles away to grazing.”

The NFU Scotland was asked to comment on potential issues of cannabis use on a farm; the request was something of a first for them. They commented:

“Farmers, crofters and their staff are no different from other sectors of society and existing laws around the misuse of drugs would apply. That said, farming is a hazardous occupation and as an industry our record on health and safety is poor. 

“If we are to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries in farming, then anything that impairs someone’s judgement when working with equipment or dealing with animals or potentially places themselves and others at risk must be avoided at all costs.”

Let’s say for argument’s sake there is nothing at all wrong in terms of safety and risk with having THC in the bloodstream and being seriously ill while looking after 170 animals.

Let’s assume that a person with a number of debilitating medical conditions, who allegedly smokes cannabis, and her father were perfectly capable of transporting 17 horses. How then did Eric Cable get trampled, and how did 17 animals suffer cuts in the incident?

Is it somehow Aberdeen Voice’s or my fault considering Kelly Cable leads directly from describing the injuries to AV? One last bit of food for thought:

Northfield is also offering animal assisted therapy: would you be comfortable utilising their service?

Fiona Manclark’s letter continues to say that after the revelations regarding drug use, she decided to cut ties with Northfield, not wanting her children around drugs, and saying:

“…if there is money for drugs, she should not be asking the public for handouts…”

Manclark appears not to have shared her concerns with police or animal welfare organisations that Aberdeen Voice is aware of; we will publish her response to the question when it is received. It is as if her concern was limited to her own children and not other visitors or donors.

Dismissing Manclark’s claims, Kelly Cable said:

“Claims regarding cannabis first came about in ms [Suzanne] kellys nativity story last year and now ms manclark has used them as defence in a defamation case, as ms kelly had won I think that question has already been answered but it has been discussed with the police on the 3 seperate occasions I have had these claims made against me.”

Illness:

What was the relevance of Manclark’s illness to the court? Did it prevent her making an apology, prevent her submitting evidence to back up the hacking claim?

Evidence of the illness was asked for as part of the legal process. No evidence was supplied because in Manclark’s words:

“The reason I have no legal representation any more is that I was requested to get a report from the doctor regarding my health, …..I really didn’t want this dragging on any longer than necessary as this has been a contributing factor to my state of mind.”

For someone who did not want the action dragging on, she did her best to prolong it.

The power to end the legal action always rested with Fiona Manclark. She chose to seek legal aid when a simple apology and deletion of offending posts – without having to pay any damages – was still possible.

“So sue me” were her words on the matter early on, and later repeated to my lawyer. Apparently she only phoned his office to issue that challenge because she was having medical issues. However, only towards the conclusion of the defamation action is there a reference to illness. More can be found in a previous Aberdeen Voice article. 

Manclark’s slurs against me were seen by thousands. She remained defiant that she was telling the truth about me and had evidence – it never materialised. Her slurs have quite possibly stopped people coming to me with stories that I might have otherwise been able to research this past year. The longer her remarks remained visible on the internet, the more time they had to seep in and damage my reputation.

If I am somewhat unsympathetic to the idea that her undocumented illness claim should have been considered by the court, I hope that is understandable. The court’s position is ultimately the last word on the question of illness. It sided with me.

That Mystery Hacker:

Fiona Manclark says in her letter that she agreed to be a Facebook administrator for NAH on the back of the first visit to buy the rabbit.

She wrote:

“I agreed, and she gave me all her passwords and I gave her mine. (I do understand it was a stupid thing to do)”

Kelly Cable has since posted on Facebook that she had never had Manclark’s passwords. Aberdeen Voice has asked each of them to clarify this anomaly.

Kelly Cable told Aberdeen Voice:

“Ms manclark and her family helped out with the haven and Ms Manclark was made admin on my page, I gave my passwords so that she may access anything she needed, why would I need hers. I have emails confirming that I myself was removed as admin and the page was hacked and resulted in my original page being deleted.”

Around the time the legal action against Manclark started, a dialogue appeared on the Northfield site concerning an alleged hacking attack. The conversation involves Cable and Manclark – and at one point they named me as the possible hacker.

Manclark:  “My own fb was hacked too tho, so maybe it’s someone with a grudge against me. Which again makes me think of Suzanne. She was spitting feathers over me calling her an alkie”

Cable:  “Yeah very true. I have told the police about the hacking as well maybe they can find out who hacked it and have them done xx”

Hacking is considered a serious crime. If there had been a police report or investigation, it certainly did not result in any contact with me or Aberdeen Voice.

On the other hand, as reported in the first article in this series, Manclark refused to help me get the police to investigate the hacking crime.

If the police had investigated the hack, then I would have accepted there was a bona fide attack and stopped my lawsuit. I would also have expected the victim of a hack to remove material posted by a hacker; this took ages – during which time the hacker (so we are led to believe) posted refusals to retract, claimed they had evidence to back up the slurs, and told me to sue.

We are looking for a pro-NAH hacker with the ability to hack Fiona Manclark’s twitter, facebook and email over a period of six months, who had a particular desire to attack me. Anyone with any suspicions as to the identity of such a skilled hacker should please contact the police and/or Aberdeen Voice.

Amnesia?

Manclark initially told my solicitor she had no idea who I was; and yet she had an exchange with Cable concerning hacking, which mentions me.

On 13 October 2015 as part of an exchange about ‘hacking’ with Kelly Cable Manclark posted:

“Yes because I don’t want that bitch getting off with anything. And I was getting private mails from her until I blocked her. Still waiting to hear from her solicitor too J J J “

The two women had mentioned me by name by now, but perhaps it is some other person who they accuse of hacking them who had threatened legal action Manclark is referring to? Ms Manclark is at liberty to explain who else could be under discussion if not me. Perhaps amnesia is another illness Ms Manclark has, for on 20 November, she wrote to my lawyer to say she’d never heard of me:

“Message Received: Nov 20 2015, 02:04 PM
“Subject: Suzanne Kelly

“To whom.ot may concern, 

“I have just received a letter saying that I have been slanderous towards your client. I do not know your client and I have never heard of the voice.

“My social media was hacked, and due to a disagreement with Kelly Cable, I had only been admin of the page for 2 weeks. I had never posted as admin on the page. My hacking was reported, and I closed down both Facebook and Twitter as people were getting spam mail. I have since reopened other accounts.

“I have been in touch with Kelly Cable to ask if she knows of your client, and apparently the police have been contacted due to a dispute between your client and her. I have again reiterated to Kelly Cable that I do not want her to contact me again. 

“Again, I do not know your client, and I certainly would not get into a slanging match online for everyone to see. 

“I have absolutely nothing to do with Northfield Animal Haven, and haven’t for a long time, and I do not wish to be associated with them in anyway.”

Perhaps having to clarify how she knew me in October but didn’t know me in November was one of those things that made her uncomfortable with appearing in front of the court.

Truth and Consequences

I started this investigation after Aberdeen Voice published an innocuous press release with my byline calling for standards for animal rescues. I had heard of Northfield Animal Haven and its split personality when it comes to rescuing Animal A while selling Animal B at market, and its sans souci attitude about the future of the sold animal.

Kelly Cable responded:

“I have explained quite a few times now as to how we work here. Yes we have a flock of 26 ewes in size by no means a commercial flock we also occasionally buy a couple of bull calves and raise them. This is our income and also goes towards feed for the rescue animals. No rescue animals are ever bred from or sent to slaughter.

“Yes my sign says all farm animals so therefore if we take in a farm animal then it is a rescue, not an animal that has been purchased then claimed to be rescued. The animals that are here all live together interact with each other but you also get the welfare benefits of grazing these animals together, ie worms, ticks, flys etc these counteract with the other animals.

“With having farm animals we are regulated by animal health and seerad because we have rescue animals here they also have to be included in the forms for vet medicines, feed, nitrogen deposits on the ground.”

After a bit of research I published an article, and was soon inundated with emails suggesting further areas for investigation about the farm and the Cables.

I discovered Kelly has a conviction for benefit fraud. I discovered how she eventually got out of repaying a £5,000 loan, at one point claiming her signature was a forgery (a forensic handwriting expert soon put paid to the claim).

I soon found myself the target of abuse in varying forms from the Cables and their administrator Fiona Manclark across social media. A year long battle to get Manclark to apologise and remove her damaging remarks also resulted in my being awarded £10,000 plus costs – an expense wholly within Manclark’s power to have avoided.

Manclark and Cable claim they were hacked. Their discussions also mention me as being the potential hacker – all very odd, as Manclark informed my lawyer she had only heard of me when he wrote to her, which was after I sent her one personal message asking her to remove the remarks. If you believe her, then it must have been the hacker who responded to my request across twitter, facebook and email and who said ‘so sue me’.

I take Fibromyalgia very seriously, and I am involved in a recognised SCIO which buys cannabis oil for peole with documented medical evidence of serious illness such as Fibro – as long as they are an adult in financial hardship who has done their own research and has made the decision to use legal CBD oil in conjunction with their medical practitioner.

No one of the three people in this SCIO take any money; in fact it is costing me money to run, but it is an important service and I am happy to offer it.

In the next article I will explain why it is important for everyone to be free from abusive lies, and how defending my reputation is particularly important concerning investigative journalism – Would people be coming to me with leads? Would publishers buy my work? Would readers believe me?

Fiona Manclark tried to stop me. Using legal means, I have now stopped her.

But the real concern here is for the welfare of animals – 170 animals seems a huge amount for a woman who, according to a number of posts including at least one by Manclark, is doing it on her own. Kelly Cable often says she is in dire need of funds, sometimes hinting that animals may be put to sleep if she doesn’t’ get money.

By several accounts, there are funds enough for cannabis. Assuming she has Fibro and is able to manage her large menagerie, she must be nearly super human.

I’ve worked on farms. I know how long it takes to look after – properly feeding, exercising, grooming, cleaning stalls for even a dozen horses can be. I do not see how anyone with a serious illness can safely, effectively look after such a huge number of animals. By her own words, there has been an accident with 17 horses and her father.

The welfare of the animals is paramount – but protecting the consumer from fraudulent appeals for money is important too. This is why I am researching and writing about Northfield Animal Haven, and now that my law suit – the only legal action taking place between NAH, Cable, Manclark and I is concluded, I am delighted to pick up where my legal action against Manclark made me stop.

In her defence, Kelly Cable states:

“Many children and adults have visited our place before the flooding and they could interact with all animals, learn about their welfare, learn about how to raise them free ranged instead of caged or locked in sheds. At the end of the day everything here is about the animals and educating people along the way, with animals like sheep or cows that isnt a normal everday animal to meet and interact with

“We stick to numbers on both the farm and the rescue and that way if fundraising doesnt raise the funds or preferably the goods like hay, straw, feed etc, we know with our numbers every animal will be fed and cared for. No donations will ever be used for running costs like electric, phone, wages, etc.

“Between the animals care and care of the ground, and their housing is all that donations are used for and always will be.

“there is no fraud or illegal conduct taken place at Northfield Animal Haven.”

If doubts remain about the truth of my claims, I hope my next two and final articles (unless further information comes to light) on NAH will convince readers beyond any doubt.

Footnote: Aberdeen Voice is grateful to Kelly Cable for her timely response to issues raised in this article. Fiona Manclark was also contacted and invited to comment. We still await her response.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.

[Aberdeen Voice accepts and welcomes contributions from all sides/angles pertaining to any issue. Views and opinions expressed in any article are entirely those of the writer/contributor, and inclusion in our publication does not constitute support or endorsement of these by Aberdeen Voice as an organisation or any of its team members.]

Sep 202016
 

One of my more volatile investigations published in Aberdeen Voice concerns Northfield Animal Haven. One of its former Facebook page administrators, Fiona Manclark, persistently posted defamatory comments about me across social media sites – and later claimed a hacker had got into her Twitter, Facebook and email accounts and made the remarks, not her.

Refusing to delete these comments – that I was an ‘alkie’ and a liar’ – and failing to submit any evidence to back these slanderous claims, Fiona Manclark dared me on several occasions to sue her. So eventually I did. And by default, I’ve prevailed. I won’t get the requested apology as it was a default situation. But the court has awarded damages to me.

Don’t feel too sorry for her: she was given numerous chances to delete the material and to apologise, all of which she refused to do over the months – but the upshot is she is to pay me £10,000 plus costs (currently being determined).

Here’s how things built up, what happened, and in a series of articles, I will lay bare the story behind the legal action, expose more concerns about NAH, and share my thoughts at having to stop writing about NAH or Manclark while the legal action was live. By Suzanne Kelly.

Northfield Sheep to mart fb screenshotFiona Manclark was an administrator for Northfield Animal Haven’s Facebook page. I was investigating NAH; this came about after a relatively innocuous article, ‘Reputable Animal Charities Initiative’ was published in early June 2015,

The piece stemmed from a press release; the Press & Journal ran the same story.

It was merely a call for standards in the animal rescue/welfare sector – a charity sector in which more than a few scams take place.

By this time, I had heard distant rumblings about Northfield Animal Haven and the family operating it.

The response to the article from Fiona Manclark’s email was this:

“I find it disgusting and absolutely shocking at how biased this paper is. I seen the remarks that your so called journalist made on one of the animal sanctuary sites, and it was disgusting. The woman that runs the sanctuary that is so very obviously being spoken about here, works very hard and does it all herself.

“Your (so called) journalist was invited up on more than one occasion. But she never turned up at all. So how she has the audacity to speak about sanctuaries this way, without knowing the facts is not only slander, but is very very poor journalism. I can only assume that she couldn’t find the time to leave the brewdog beer for long enough.

“I really really hope that some of the sanctuaries get together and sue this paper.”

The AV Editor, acting as Moderator wrote:

“[This comment is being published in full, in spite of obvious and valid reasons why some content contravenes publication criteria, as it has been published in full on a public facebook page. Therefore it appears futile to edit – Moderator]”

I had been asking Northfield (NAH) questions by this point – but they had NOT been mentioned in the article.

It was Fiona’s bringing NAH into the context of the article that sparked off a small flood of people making contact with me.

People with past dealings with NAH or its owner Kelly Cable and/or her father Eric shared concerns about animal welfare, how funds are managed, what goes on at the farm, Cable’s past conviction for benefit fraud, and other allegations. Almost all of the concerns came from people who were fearful of the Cables discovering the source’s identity.

Considering that Eric Cable chose to mention an AK47 on a Facebook post concerning my articles, I fully understand the fear that some of my sources have.

People chose to come to me with their evidence and anecdotes; if they had been convinced by the repetitive assertions I was a liar and an alcoholic, they well might have gone to other writers instead, or not come forward at all. Manclark/the alleged hacker – if unchallenged — would have damaged my reputation personally and professionally; this will be touched on in a future piece. I asked Manclark numerous times to take down her derogatory remarks. She – or this alleged hacker – refused.

What were some of the issues I found? Northfield Animal Haven claimed to ‘rescue all farm animals’ – it had for instance a sign showing a variety of farm animals, which declared it rescued all farm animals. In reality, while one arm of this family business purports to rescue farm animals; the other arm sells farm animals at market.

Some animal lovers were horrified when they discovered they were supporting a person who was involved in rescue but who was also involved in sending animals to market – which more often than not can mean sending them to slaughter.

Kelly Cable responded along the lines that ‘everyone’ knows that she also operates a ‘working farm’ and it is not her concern what happens to animals she sells (more on these issues in further articles in this series).

As documented in a previous Aberdeen Voice article, Kelly Cable responded:

“all of our supporters are aware of what we do with our sheep”

When questioned in detail about whether or not the sold animals are killed she replied:

“I don’t send them [sheep] for slaughter the people who buy them after me probably do but I don’t personally so what I stated was fact….”

Northfield was, shall we say, creative with fundraising. Using photos of Shetland ponies and emaciated cows, NAH claimed to need funds for urgent rescue and launched online fundraising appeals. When these images were put into Google search by Aberdeen Voice and other concerned parties, it emerged either the ponies depicted were happily homed and had no connection to Northfield – or in the case of the cows – were in… America.

Cable claimed to be rescuing them:

“They dumped them in a shed I’ve been feeding them since Friday”

“Thank you if I can raise about a £1000 at least that will get them here food for a few weeks and vet care”

The truth was just a bit different back in 2011 when Lycospca (based in Lycoming County, USA) wrote about the same animals:

“Thank goodness someone saw these poor animals and called us to check up on them. The owner had grain in the barn and they were ordered to get a round bale.”

If the casual observer had read Kelly’s messages about the cows, they’d have believed she had just seen them, and that they had little time in which to raise funds. As for the shetland ponies, owners of two of these were less than pleased to find their photos had been used for NAH fundraising without their permission.

There will be further analysis and revelations in the next articles.

Manclark’s comments – a timeline:

If Fiona Manclark had been hacked, the hack went on for six months. She would also appear not to have taken down any of the offensive comments the alleged hacker made over the months until late December when my legal action against her attempted smear on me was in progress.

The alleged hacker managed to get her Facebook, Twitter and email accounts and use them to communicate with people including her friends – none of which picked up on the claim Manclark made that she didn’t know me or AV, or that they weren’t speaking to Manclark but to a hacker.

Date Poster/Author Social Media/publication Comment
02/06/15 Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) Aberdeen Voice – comments on article ‘Reputable Animal Charities Initiative’ – nb this story came as a press release and was also published by the Press & Journal. I find it disgusting and absolutely shocking at how biased this paper is. I seen the remarks that your so called journalist made on one of the animal sanctuary sites, and it was disgusting. The woman that runs the sanctuary that is so very obviously being spoken about here, works very hard and does it all herself. Your (so called) journalist was invited up on more than one occasion. But she never turned up at all. So how she has the audacity to speak about sanctuaries this way, without knowing the facts is not only slander, but is very very poor journalism. I can only assume that she couldn’t find the time to leave the brewdog beer for long enough.
I really really hope that some of the sanctuaries get together and sue this paper.** [This comment is being published in full, in spite of obvious and valid reasons why some content contravenes publication criteria, as it has been published in full on a public facebook page. Therefore it appears futile to edit – Moderator]
18/08/15 Suzanne Kelly Twitter Mummyalfi (Manclark’s Twitter account name) Further to my earlier tweet, I consider calling me a liar and an alcoholic to be libel. Remove your posts, apologise
04/09/15 Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) Twitter SueKelly10 (Suzanne Kelly’s Twitter account name) So sue me. You are a liar and you are an alkie, so no, I will not apologise for telling people the truth.
05/09/15 (approx) Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) Facebook, Northfield Animal Haven home page (Posting as Northfield Animal Haven) Fiona here. Suzanne Kelly who “writes” for the voice. She’s Sue Kelly on Twitter and is the biggest cretin I have ever come across. She is a liar, a keyboard warrior and an alkie. Dangerous combination. And for the record, it’s me (Fiona) that is saying all of this. Not on behalf of Northfield Animal Haven, or Kelly, just on what I’ve had to witness from this thing.
08/09/15 Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) Aberdeen Voice – comments on article ‘Animal Shelter Operator Is A Smooth Operator Suzanne, please do take me to court. Your reputation means everything to you?
You haven’t even been to visit Kelly even though you have been invited many times.
And you have been seen coming out (or should I say falling out) of brewdog on many occasions. So until you remove your rubbish about Kelly, I will not be removing my truths about you.
08/09/15 Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) Aberdeen Voice – comments on article ‘Animal Shelter Operator Is A Smooth Operator I can’t wait to hear from your solicitor. You have been seen on many occasions falling out of brewdog, so that’s not libel, that’s the truth.
19/12/15 Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) Facebook, Suzanne Kelly’s home page (Fiona or the alleged hacker) sees a comment from a man she knows on my page and comments:
“… please tell me you don’t know this ahem person”
22/12/15 (approx Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) Voice message left for my solicitor Fiona Manclark (? hacker?) tells us to ‘go ahead and sue’ – Manclark later admits to making this call, but claims she was ill/stressed at the time.

 

Aberdeen Voice has also seen Facebook discussions between Ms Manclark and others in which Manclark mentions the threat of legal action from me, and complains I sent her a profusion of private messages.

The truth is that I sent one message to her, asking her to remove offensive comments; an Aberdeen Voice editor was on copy of the message. Fiona Manclark (or this mysterious hacker) replied refusing to retract the comments. None of the people in these discussions suspected that they were communicating with a hacker; none question Manclark’s assertion to the court that she’d only heard of me/Aberdeen Voice after hearing from my lawyer.

When someone is hacked, there is every chance that their email/social media provider will at the very least send a message of concern – login from an unusual site, unusual activity on the account, etc.

When items sent or posted from a hacker haven’t been deleted, then a hacking victim would see them in their outbox, on their home page, in their twitter feed, etc. – and know something was amiss, delete them and report a suspected hack. None of this seems to fit the pattern we are asked by Manclark to believe.

The hack allegedly went on from June through December – apparently without Manclark realising it was taking place. Sometimes the alleged hacker was able to respond very quickly (see Aberdeen Voice comments for instance).

Ms Manclark recently claimed to the court that she gave all of her passwords to Kelly Cable at Northfield Animal Haven: if there were a hack, and if the police had been asked to investigate by Manclark, I wonder where the trail would have led – to some mysterious hacker, or a computer closer to home?

Then again, should we take Manclark’s word there was a hacker over this period of time using three of her accounts?

Was there a mysterious hacker with a vendetta against me with regard to Northfield that took place for months – or was this all the work of Fiona Manclark?

Fiona Manclark refused my lawyer’s first request to remove the posts from social media and apologise publically for them. When she refused, we started the legal action against her. After months of waiting to see if she would get legal aid to fight the case, legal aid was denied, and a court date was set.

Manclark wrote a letter to the court rather than appearing before it in August. In her letter she sticks to the claim she had been hacked. She claims it was reported to the police, but she never supplied evidence to back this up such as a police incident number.

She refused to help me have the police investigate the hacking claim. I was a third party victim of the hack she claims to have suffered.

The police could have investigated it – only if Manclark had been willing to co-operate. My lawyer wanted her to go to the police with me to report it, and she refused on the grounds ‘she didn’t know me’. Well, the person using her accounts certainly knew me well enough – to respond by blocking me.

It would appear from the legal decision in my favour the courts might have at the very least had their doubts as to her claims.

Manclark had quite a bit to say in her written submission to the court, which Aberdeen Voice editors have now seen. This will be the subject of the next article.

It is my understanding now that the court’s decision is absolute. It is time for Ms Manclark – or the mysterious hacker – to think about making restitution to me. My thoughts on the defamation, the legal process, and Ms Manclark’s arguments (such as they are) will be one of the articles in this series.

  • Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.