Wednesday, 19 June 2013


News just in that Simon Sherrard has been acquitted of charges of fraud related to the ALPHA 6.

The title of this post says it all.

So, go ahead and sue me me Mr Sherrard, you lying, cheating fraud seller!

Go on, tell us what steps you took to ensure that you were selling a genuine 'miracle' device from which you made millions?

I shall return to this subject when my blood pressure has returned to normal. In the meantime, don't think this is the last you have heard from us Mr Sherrard. Just because you are a smooth talking bastard doesn't mean you fool us.


Anonymous said...

Quick and very simple question for you Peter.

Just in case of course,one never knows these days. Under the new regulations proposed would you know if legal aid is available to a plaintiff in a civil actions for damages?

Anonymous said...

O dear, and you were so sure. What now one wonders.

Peter said...

Dear Mr Anonymous, or should we be calling you Mr Sherrard.

In answer to your first question, i.e. "What now one wonders?" Well, keep wondering, because we have a few tricks up our sleeves.

In answer to your second question related to whether legal aid is available to a plaintiff in civil actions for damages, the answer is almost certainly no. But, did you mean defendant? As in, are you suggesting you may be seeking to try to get me for libel? Oh, I do hope so. So very much! But, just a small warning. It won't be quite as easy as you may think!

Anonymous said...

good use of words

"My Arse'

Looks to us its now your arse hanging out.

Peter said...

Hello Mr Sherrard,

Well get on and sue me, then we will see which butt gets kicked, won't we!

Anonymous said...

Peter, Peter, tut tut tut now sweetie pie.
We are actually more concerned about your "boyfriends" having easier access to your arse hanging out.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the magic wand devices in question dont work and all the
people selling these devices know it.
Previous court case came to the same conclusion,so if your interested in suing someone for libel,best of luck.
We all await your liable action,if its anything like the proof that these devices work,we could wait a long time.
Your fraudsters and have been found out.

Anonymous said...

I've definitely lost faith in the jury system. was Mr. Sherrard's jury nuts, or what? He sure must have been some smooth talker to get away with this - bet he tried to convince them that the Trees (Sam & Joan) persuaded him that the devices worked! BTW, the Trees got a hung jury and face retrial.

Peter said...

Hi Anonymous. Thank you for your comments. Well, we could blame the jury for being gullible, but there are other possible reasons as to why they were fooled into the not guilty verdict on Sherrard. You have identified two of these. First that Sherrard and the Trees each presented a separate defence, and Sherrard did indeed claim that he was persuaded by Tree that the Alpha 6 worked. Second, reports do suggest that Sherrard is a smooth talking liar. For now I am unable to comment on the other possible factors.

We can only hope that new evidence of Sherrard knowing that he was committing a fraud may come to light. Other than that we can only try to ensure that his name is mud across the internet, and that he finds it very difficult to do any future business, legitimate or not.

As you rightly point out, the jury was split in the cases against Mr and Mrs Tree, and we await news on the retrial/s.

Techowiz and I have discussed at length the absurdity of the law in requiring proof of knowledge that a defendant is committing a fraud. It seems to us absurd that the onus is not on the defendant to show that they took substantial steps to satisfy themselves that the claims they were making were correct e.g. in these cases independent, properly controlled double blind testing. All the defendants in these cases have been well aware of challenges by us and others to do so for some considerable time, and the fact that they did not accept such challenges, or refused to publish claimed testing protocols and results, seems to us clear evidence that they all knew full well what they were doing.

as for Mr Sherrard, who has commented here as Anonymous, gloating at his fortunate acquittal. Well, I await his issuing of libel charges against me with relish. I regret to say that we have received legal threats from many during our campaign, and sadly must report that none have ever materialised. We can but live in hope!

Anonymous said...

How fucking stupid must that prick Sherrard be (so he claims) to believe some garden shed technician who told him that a swivelling stick could detect explosives?
Interesting question that Sherrard posed in these comments about legal aid being available in civil actions, I believe someone (!) has been in contact with some of his unfortunate customers and been telling them, as well as the bribe money they got for purchasing the devices of him, they also have a good claim in getting the (official) money spent back in a claim against him, quick Sherrard get your house, money etc in the wifes name asap.

outraged said...

Dear Anonymous,

He probably is in the process of doing that right now (putting assets in the wife's name, that is.)

How this guy can sleep at night beats me!

Anonymous said...

Sadly I don't think that your proposed onus on a defendant to show he had obtained proof that his goods (sic) work is practicable. What about all of those people out there selling homeopathic remedies (sic)? Or astrologists selling horoscopes? Or 'fortune tellers' or purveyors of all sorts of other woo-woo? While these later examples can be dismissed as obvious bullshit, the problem with homeopathy is that people (a) believe in it, bless them and (b) take that garbage instead of medicine or surgery that might actually work for them. Who should be first on trial at the Old Bailey - Mr Holland or Mr Barratt? The reason Sherrard got off was because the prosecution could not prove that he was a villain and not merely a gullible nincompoop. I gather that he is a conspiracy theorist who, amongst other nutty things, thinks that Armstrong and Aldrin were on a film set, not on the moon. Of course he won't sue.

Peter said...

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your interesting comment, and I can tell from your tone that you are on the side of reason. However, I must take issue with your question as to whether it is practicable to introduce a legal onus to ensure what is sold works.

Indeed, why not both Mr Holland and Mr Barrett as joint defendants, along with anyone else who wishes to persist in flogging homeopathy, following fair warning. I would also be more than happy to see the same legal proscribing of the other woo you mention i.e astrology, 'psychics', 'fortune tellers', 'psychic surgeons' etc. After all, there are laws against selling cars that do not work safely and properly. Why not woo?

I understand that the jury were not persuaded that Sherrard knew he was committing fraud. Sadly. Reports from the court suggest that he was pretty good at spinning the yarn that he believed. I am quite prepared to accept that he did initially fall for the scam himself. Particularly if, as you suggest, he is a believer in other nonsense e.g. the moon landing hoax garbage. However, we believe that there was evidence that was not presented, for some unknown reason, which may have shown that he did wise up at some stage. He certainly had every opportunity to do so. He was repeatedly challenged to submit the Alpha 6 to proper testing, yet failed to do so. The question is why? I suggest because at some point he became fully aware it was a crock of shit, but by then the lure of the ill gotten gains became the compelling reason to continue. Hence why I maintain he is as guilty as sin. You are probably correct that he won't sue, but, if you truly believed in something, and felt you had adequate proof, why would you not do so? It brings to mind the old Jeffrey Archer line that he didn't give the money to Monica because he was guilty. OH YEAH!

Again, thanks for your comment.


Anonymous said...

I find it impossible to believe anyone could accept that the magic wand works.Forget all the woo nonsense,I,ve just explained the magic wand to my 9 year old grandson and his comment was thats a load of rubbish.It cant work and of course it doesnt.Detect explosives it does not or indeed any other object unless of course the object is in full view and then it works,of course it does,the operative moves the wand.Get real people.
Dumpy Nuts

Anonymous said...

Is there any news regarding retrial of the Tree duo.I understand its this year 2014.
dumpy nuts

Peter said...

Hello Dumpy Nuts,

We understand the retrial of Sam and Joan Tree will take place in March, but we cannot say much more because of reporting restrictions that remain in place. We will say what we can when we can.

All best, Peter