OneVSP CEO Muhammad Butt has given a length interview to Lucinda Lidstone about a number of topics including his parting ways with Sonia Poulton. Rather than deal with it in multiple places, I have made a detailed Twitter thread here. The full original interview can be found here (very long). The thread pulls together a lot of the evidence against Sonia and the ways she wronged Muhammad.
Lucinda Lidstone interviews Muhammad Butt and he reveals the truth about Sonia Poulton.
A High Court Judge has ordered Sonia Poulton to further clarify her ludicrous claim.
The High Court has today made a judgment requiring Sonia Poulton to clarify further her ludicrous counterclaim against former MP John Hemming and I. It has irritatingly, refused most of my strike-out requests and awarded Sonia some (but not all of) her modest litigant in person costs but she is still around £3,000 down when first instance costs are included and she has still been ordered to clarify. Ms Poulton has now stated that she will not file evidence regarding Darren Laverty’s conduct in relation to the main claim nor rely on his conduct against us. Therefore, disclosure will not be needed. Although (very good and thorough) judge Mr Justice Linden ruled her case still met the low bar to not get struck out right away, there were sledgehammer subtle hints that she is in desperate trouble at trial, “On Mr Smith and Mr Hemmings’ case, the legal issue will not arise in any event because, even assuming that Ms Poulton is entitled to rely on all of her pleaded particulars, she will not satisfy the overarching test for harassment on the evidence”. All parties were strongly encouraged to mediate. Arguments my application was an, “abuse of process” failed although I was criticised for leaving the attempt late. Poulton still faces a separate appeal from John Hemming on the meaning of her words.
OneVSP is a platform with great potential.
MHN is delighted to announce that MHN editor Samuel Collingwood Smith, has been appointed as Special Technical Advisor to the Muhammad Butt, the founder of ONE VSP LTD.
In my day job, I am an IT Consultant with knowledge of development at all levels from hands on coding in PHP, SQL, C#
and C++ to governance, process and performance management. I will be advising on the implementation side of the business.
I have also acquired a further 1.5 million shares, taking my holding up to 3 million, reflecting my confidence in the company’s prospects and leadership.
OneVSP is a platform with great potential.
Your author MHN Editor Samuel Collingwood Smith is happy to announce that I have purchased 1.5 million shares in One VSP Limited (One-and-a-half-million). One VSP is an upcoming video sharing platform. This has only just gone through, and will be updated at Companies House in the coming weeks. I may also be doing some advisory work for the company.
OneVSP is a UK based video sharing platform similar to YouTube, Rumble and Bitchute, with an emphasis on free speech and monetisation through subscriptions, which limits its dependence on advertisements and advertisers with political views. MHN has been a critic of OneVSP in the past, but I have always said the company has potential.
Over the past few weeks I have had a number of discussions with shareholder and CEO Muhammad Butt. There are lots of exciting wheels in motion about improving and diversifying content so although political content will remain, there will be other draws to increase traffic. My opinion is qualified. As my day job, I am also qualified in Software Development and I am the owner of an IT Consultancy, Prosperous Software Consulting Limited Limited, which amongst other things develops software including working on high traffic websites, including for some large retail and financial businesses.
As a result, I have worked on very high profile websites. My contributions as an advisor will be around making One VSP as scalable as possible, as cost-effectively as possible, to deal with an increase in viewing. I am also concerned to maximise free speech on the platform, whilst complying with regulatory requirements.
OneVSP is a platform with great potential.
Your author and Matthew Hopkins News editor Samuel Collingwood Smith has buried the hatchet with OneVSP CEO Muhammad Butt. This is due to a positive gentlemens’ agreement, not litigation. In practical terms, this means I have removed a small number of materials from my site and YouTube, and Mr Butt has removed a small number of Sonia Poulton’s videos from her old OneVSP channel. As readers will previously have seen, Ms Poulton is no longer engaged by OneVSP nor funded by them.
If that was all that had been achieved, that would be enough. Any positive end to a disagreement is an achievement. However, even when Mr Butt and I were in dispute, I acknowledged that OneVSP has potential as a platform. The organisation has grown over the years since its founding, matured, and attracted investment. It is also attracting more and more high profile creators and content. It is early days yet, but it is quite possible I will be doing more with them in one form or another in the not too distant future.
The Twitter / x.com account @PNWNet, along with an associated WordPress blog, mordred8.wordpress.com have been removed by their owner. MHN can exclusively reveal this followed police intervention combined with MHN beginning formal civil legal processes to unmask the account operator. Police have also looked into the allegation it is Simon Just and apologised to him in writing. Provided the @PNWNet successor(s) on Bluesky and elsewhere do not draw me into their dramas again, that is the end of the matter from my perspective. Other anonymous account operators should take note.
Police apologised to Simon Just over false allegations he operates Project Nightwatch. They were then given the information to contact the real owner, which coincided with, shortly thereafter, the @PNWNet, ‘X’ account and an associated blog being removed.
The so-called, “Project Nightwatch” account(s) on X, WordPress and elsewhere have been of growing concern to MHN and police for some time. There is a court case going on in the Sussex area. Police are properly anxious it not be disrupted by imprudent posts. I was separately concerned about being drawn into dramas that have nothing to do with me. After a number of warnings online, I stopped making public comment and quietly started real-world legal process, serving Enix Limited, which hosts the project, with a pre-action letter and draft court papers.
In May this year, parts of Sonia Poulton’s case involving former Liberal MP John Hemming were struck out by a High Court Deputy Master – Irena Sabic – because they contradicted her previous witness statement – we said as dishonest lies. However, she succeeded in preserving other parts of her case, which she portrayed as a complete victory in the case as opposed to merely mitigating her losses in a procedural skirmish. The net costs payment was £3,850 against her. In particular Ms Poulton said that my appeal was refused. This was highly misleading – permission to appeal had only been refused by the original judge and Poulton knew an appeal was being pursued. In due course, as per the order shown below, that permission was granted by a higher court. The hearing was listed for 23rd October 2024 at the High Court in London, today. There has been not a whisper of this from Sonia Poulton, which in itself highly misleads her followers and donors.
In May a High Court Judge has struck out a critical part of Sonia Poulton’s Defence and ordered costs against her. Ms Poulton claimed this was a victory because part of her pleadings survived, and misleadingly claimed my appeal was refused. In fact permission was granted and it is being heard today.
Here is Ms Poulton’s X post (archive):
Poulton misleads her followers and donors by claiming complete victory and a refusal of my appeal.
Here is the truth in the form of the order of High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn DBE:
Contrary to Ms Poulton’s misleading statements permission was granted and the appeal is today. Whoever wins, Poulton’s honesty and integrity cannot be trusted.
Ms Poulton’s statements, as ever, were not to be relied upon. She knew full well that the first instance appeal refusal is not final and I could ask the higher court – the Deputy Master said I could in the remote hearing which Poulton attended.
MHN is backing Robert Jenrick MP for leader of the Conservative Party. At an event on Sunday 20th October 2024, your author had the privilege of meeting him at an official hustings. Whilst Kemi Badenoch, who was also there, is an impressive candidate, I felt that Jenrick was by far the stronger and had a much clearer policy platform.
Robert Jenrick speaks to a packed hall in the Old Palace at Hatfield House. Your author can just be seen on the left, four rows back behind Jacob Rees Mogg.
Before moving on to my support for Jenrick, let us not overlook Kemi Badenoch. I was tempted to back her for leader because she has a similar background to myself, starting as a software developer before studying law. She is an impressive candidate, and not to be disrespected. Second of six is nothing to sniff at.
Even so, Jenrick was far better. He has an extremely coherent platform – identify the core issues, number one being immigration, and identify solutions. Jenrick intends quite clearly to cut through the red tape of the European Court of Human Rights by withdrawing from it as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Convention provides a number of rights, for example the right to life, to be free from arbitrary state execution, free from arbitrary detention, free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, free from slavery, the right to a fair trial and also the right to family life. These were used, for example, to block the Rwanda plan attempted by the previous Conservative government. By withdrawing from the Convention, Jenrick will put truly radical options on the table for resolving the problem of illegal and legal migration.
I asked a question which the very efficient Hertfordshire area officers enabled me to have heard. I asked about Jenrick’s position on Ukraine. This was very near the end of Jenrick’s section and was cut off, but he answered it afterwards whilst mingling. His position was very cautious – he was in favour of Ukraine winning but not willing to escalate – I suspect he believes that the war will be resolved long before he is anywhere near number 10 Downing Street – so I was not dissatisfied with his answer.
Overall it was a very positive event.
This is just a note to say that MHN formally distances itself from the @PNWnet account and associated Project Nightwatch Blog.
On 12 October 2024, PNWnet tweeted (archive) accusing YouTuber Ann Drogyne of, “ongoing online threats, doxxing and abusive online activity” directed at myself and a number of others. They did not email me first. They did not reply when asked for evidence (they have replied to previous emails, in which I asked them not to mention me). They did post on Twitter admitting receipt. They have provided no evidence.
So, they are saying I am a (1) victim of crimes, but (2) will not say what those crimes were (where are these threats and doxxing posted) and (3) will not provide any evidence said crimes even happened, let alone as to the perpetrator. This post seems to me like it could be harassment. It is calculated to cause annoyance and distress to myself and others, with no good reason for doing so.
I have no idea who @PNWnet is, and bear them no ill-will. However, no one asked them to get involved in any matter on my behalf and I repudiate their statements as made without consulting me, and apparently without any basis in fact.
PNW has not dealt with me before. I would simply observe that I am legally qualified and have sued lot of people who thought they were being clever, for example Esther Baker. There is a copy of the final judgment in that case here. Some of the people I have sued thought they were safe because they were anonymous.
I do not intend to waste my time on an irrelevant trolling account – yet – but I want my position clear. There is nothing to stop me from applying for a disclosure order against Twitter or the UK based hosting company for projectnightwatch.net, Enix Limited.
Robert Jenrick is MHN’s pick for the leadership of the Conservative Party.
James Cleverly is out of the race for Conservative leader, despite being boosted by the support of former MP and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps who was chair of his leadership campaign (archive). Cleverly obtained 37 votes, rivals Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch obtained 41 and 42 respectively. Cleverly doubtless benefited from Tory ‘big beast’ Grant Shapps’ support – it just was not enough. The question is which candidate can now connect with the the party, reconnect with former Conservative voters and appeal to the wider public. MHN says that means a proper strategy with credible policies that appeal to to voters and to Conservative Party members – past, present and future.
Grant Shapps has always been good at picking Conservative leaders. He was one of the signatories to David Cameron’s nomination papers for leadership. My personal opinion is James Cleverly gained more from Shapps’ support than Shapps did from backing him. Of course, Shapps is a canny politician and the support was undoubtedly in part based on the calculation that Cleverly could win and then reward his supporters. He was very close to correct – two or three votes more would have seen Cleverly in the final round. It was very close and Cleverly’s loss of two votes in the final round came as a big surprise to observers.
Grant Shapps, former MP for Welwyn Hatfield and former Defence Secretary. His support has been a large, influential boost to Cleverly’s campaign.
The question is, what comes after the ballots of MPs? It is all very well to be able to predict and count support in the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but after their votes comes the Party members’ vote followed by the most important vote of all – the next general election.
Make no mistake, Labour did not win the last election. Keir Starmer obtained a large majority with fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘disaster’ of 2019. In the 2024 General Election, Starmer’s Labour received 9,708,716 votes. In 2019, Corbyn’s Labour had 10,269,051 votes. The only reason Keir Starmer got a whiff of power was that the Conservative vote split. When the New Labour-ish right regained power in Labour and ousted Corbyn, Tony Blair wrote a triumphant article in the Guardian, “Labour’s task is not to make itself feel better – it’s to win power” (archive). He summarised his message about Corbyn like this,
“The proximate cause of defeat was not complicated or hard to see, but simple and in plain sight. We put forward a leader and a manifesto that voters thought unacceptable to such a degree that many were repelled. Too extreme economically. Anti-western. Lacking in patriotism. And therefore dangerous.”
Tony finished, “These things are obvious. The frustration is that it is necessary to say them”. I haven’t seen Tony Blair for years since I was Labour Party staff in 2005 and as a local staffer I was part of the entourage on a visit he made to Enfield. I felt like responding, “touché”. The reason Corbyn was ever Labour Party leader is the same as the reason Keir Starmer got less votes. New Labour is a far, far more tainted brand than Corbyn’s hard leftism has ever been. That is an objective truth demonstrated by the cold hard numbers from the last election.
MHN editor Sam Smith and (then) newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair a very, very long time ago in 1997.
When I was 18 I was a starry eyed Labour supporter, indeed a party official. What we were promised was a, “Third Way” (archive) between left and right. What we got was something else – a government that mostly cared about image. Not just spin over substance but which presided over a culture in which whistle-blowers and critics were actively terrorised. As a few examples from many, there were the mid-Staffordshire Hospital scandal (archive), the Essex scandal (archive) and of course the Rotherham Scandal (archive). Under Labour, police and local authorities were afraid to acknowledge or tackle the rape of 1,400 children due to a fear of being accused of racism by the government. Aside from that was a great deal of race baiting and laughing with contempt at our members and supporters. There was casual corruption even over trivial issues. The contempt for the supposedly benighted masses ran to the bone. That is Tony’s legacy. That is why Keir Starmer got less votes than Jeremy Corbyn. That is why I cannot envisage ever returning to Labour. That is why all attempts to rehabilitate Blair have failed. To respond to Tony, “The frustration is that it is necessary to say.”