I have refrained from commenting on my blog about this person for a number of reasons but mostly because I do not hold her opinion in very high regard. However, in recent weeks Cockcroft has attempted to interfere with the impending appeal in Duffy v Google. Wendy Cockcroft is a help desk administrator at Interserve.com who makes money on the side with various activities including web design and even asking for donations on her blog.
Cockcroft is one of the devotees of the ‘freedom of speech Nazis’ led by Mike Masnick of Techdirt.com. Their soapbox is that any attempt to save one’s reputation from the scourge of false accusations is one step closer on the slippery slope to online authoritarianism. Or at least they believe in free speech as long as nothing negative is written about them, that censorship only applies to content they dislike, and intellectual property rights to everyone else’s property. One of Cockcroft’s clients posted about his experience on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer .
Cockcroft launched a tirade wrongly blaming me and even tweeted the Defendant in the hope of influencing the impending appeal:
Yet Cockcroft had bizarrely admitted that she had paid the author of the complaints two days before deciding to use it to influence the outcome of an appeal in a precedent setting case in common law:
The author of the complaints contacted me through the blog and informed me of Cockcroft’s attempt to blame me. To say that I was not impressed is an understatement. This is called attempting to pervert the course of justice. I notified my lawyers and and will ensure that it is brought up in front of the appellate court. Today I received another email from this author with some attachments:
I checked, and while the snippets and cached copies remain online until after the next crawl, the content has been removed:
It appears that Cockcroft gave Pissed Consumer a glowing reference in exchange for removal. Thus Cockcroft dismisses the author’s right to freedom of speech, the same freedom that she defends so vigourously. I have to say that I am not surprised.
Ripoff Report doesn’t fare so well on her blog. They wanted her to pay them! It appears that Cockcroft has seen the light about its extortionist tactics:
Words fail me! I have been engaged in activism for people and businesses wrongly vilified on Ripoff Report for several years. Yet Cockcroft saw fit to defame and ridicule me on her blog because I won my court case.
Cockcroft accuses a Supreme Court Justice of making a decision based upon bias and stupidity. Most egregariously Cockcroft imputes that I use depression as some sort of tool. I was defamed because I stuck up for people who were ripped off by charlatans and that evidence was put before the Honourable Justice and ratified by the Defendant’s own medical evidence. Well, I guess that sarcasm is the last refuge of the weak! Moreover, Cockcroft has attempted to interfere with a Supreme Court appeal (and cross appeal). These are not the actions of a smart person.
I represented myself in a trial described in the Defendant’s OWN medical report as a horrendous experience. During my evidence I was exhausted, terrified and distressed. The Defendant held back evidence, attempted to manipulate the facts, and even tried to twist the circumstances of my resignation from my government research job. I went home every day of the trial after facing the battery of Google’s high priced lawyers and their ‘scorched earth’ defence exhausted and distressed and curled up and just sobbed. The next day I got up at 4 am to prepare for the day. I won the case on the evidence and the law and yet Cockcroft sees fit to define herself as my Judge and Jury.
I actually did my case a disservice by representing myself but I had no choice. In the latter part of the trial, after the liability judgment was delivered, I luckily was able to instruct a QC and lawyers. They were faced with trying to repair some of this damage. But the bottom line is that I won! And unlike Cockcroft, irrespective of the trauma caused by the defamation and the legal process, at least I stood up for what I believe and against powerfull vested interests.
So the question is does Cockcroft, a person who admitted that she did a ‘dodgy’ thing on the internet, have the right to be forgotten? Cockcroft is now screaming about ‘regulation’ and ‘critical mass’. It is likely that she just got bitten by karma. I have no idea of the identity of Mr Diaz but RipoffReport is hated by many and is battling for survival. The recent ruling in the Vision Security case may well be the death knell for its section 230 protection.
As for Cockcroft, I had chosen to ignore her initial post because it reeked of bitchiness and hubris, but the opportunity to write about her hypocrisy was just too tempting to resist. Juxtaposed to her posts on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer, Cockcroft’s post about me now sits on her blog as testimony to her lack of insight and malevolence. Besides, it is great material for my book due to be published later this year. The hypocritical ‘free speech Nazis’ who wimp out when someone says anything negative about them will make extremely interesting content for a chapter. I shall be as kind to them as they have been to me!