Author Archives: Samuel Collingwood Smith

About Samuel Collingwood Smith

Samuel Collingwood Smith was born in the north of England, but his family moved south early in his life and spent most of his early years in Hertfordshire before attending Queen Mary, University of London, where he studied Economics. Sam currently lives in the southeast of England. Smith was employed as a Labour Party fundraiser in the 2001 General Election, and as a Labour Party Organiser in the 2005 General Election. In 2005 Smith was elected as a Borough Councillor and served for 3 years until 2008. In 2009 Smith changed sides to the Conservative party citing division within Labour ranks, Labour broken promises and Conservative improvements to local services. In 2012 Smith started to study a Graduate Diploma in Law, passing in 2014. Smith then moved on to studying a Master's Degree in Law combined with an LPC, receiving an LL.M LPC (with Commendation) in January 2017. During his study, Smith assisted several individuals in high profile court cases as a McKenzie Friend - in one case being praised by Parliamentary petition for his charitable work and legal skills. Smith is also the author of this blog, Matthew Hopkins News, that deals with case law around Family and Mental Capacity issues. The blog also opposes online drama and abuse and criticises extreme-left politicians.

Labour’s Secret Deal with Twitter and Facebook to Surveil its own members

Posted on by
3
Vijaya Gadde at a Fortune Event

Vijaya Gadde, Legal, Policy, Trust and Safety Lead at Twitter, at a Fortune Brainstorm Tech event. Would she be such a popular speaker if Twitter’s approach to real time monitoring of political speech was widely known? Picture by Photograph by Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm TECH. (NC License here).

A leaked internal Labour Party report has hit the headlines (archive) because of lurid statements allegedly made by staff. What has been missed however, receiving barely any coverage, is an apparent admission that, using a secret deal with Facebook and Twitter, the Labour Party has been running automated surveillance on its own members. If true, this is manifestly unlawful – each member affected would almost certainly have a valid claim in damages under Data Protection legislation.

[UPDATE 21 April 2020, 18:10 BST – Have received a response from Twitter, below]

In the furore about the leaked Labour report, many commentators have focused on the supposedly racist, sexist, and / or ableist remarks. There is also the apparent dishonest treacherous plotting. It is important to remember of course that this report was produced by a bitterly infighting party and its contents are disputed. Former staff who were criticised claim that accusations about their conduct were never put to them.

MHN has a copy of the report and leaving all that aside however, this passage leaps out –

Labour Twitter Trot Hunt Software Admission

Labour had automated software that reconciled its privileged access to Twitter and Facebook data with their membership database to identify and monitor member accounts.

It is worth turning to the Data Protection Principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, which was in force at the time (replaced by the EU General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018 in May 2018). The principles were set out in section 4 (archive) and Schedule 1 (archive).

Of especial relevance, these principles included processing data, “fairly”, holding data that was “not excessive”. Fairness usually means notifying members of the way their data will be used. A quick glance at Labour’s current terms on its, ‘Join’ page does say that email addresses will be used to contact members. It says nothing about consenting to Orwellian real time monitoring for wrongthink.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijaya Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist

Posted on by
6

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Vijaya Gadde at a Fortune Event

Vijaya Gadde, Legal, Policy, Trust and Safety Lead at Twitter, at a Fortune Brainstorm Tech event. Would she be such a popular speaker if she was properly no-platformed due to her allowing vile stalking and racism against a child rape victim and anti-Semitism by the perpetrator’s friends? Picture by Photograph by Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm TECH. (NC License here).

Imagine you were raped as a child by a paedophile Priest. Then imagine that years later, as the trial of the priest took place you were subject to a campaign of racist stalking by a, “particularly malevolent”, vile and mentally ill harasser. The stalking puts your health and life at risk. Eventually, the Priest is convicted and the stalker is bankrupted and made subject to a lifelong restraining Order. Both verdicts are upheld on appeal. Now imagine, that an international social media company Twitter helps and empowers your stalker, who has been associated with prominent Labour MPs like Jess Phillips, and refuses to remove their stalking material, apparently contrary to its own rules.

[UPDATE From Twitter Below – 14 April 2020]

This of course is a real story. Esther Baker was recently bankrupted and made subject to a lifelong restraining Order for the racist stalking of a child abuse victim. Baker is of course publicly known because she was one of the VIP paedophile accusers associated with Exaro News, like Carl Beech. She received support from Labour MPs and was even invited to the House of Commons by Jess Phillips MP. Ironically Phillips is now the Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding.

The judge really did call Baker, “particularly malevolent”. The restraining Order is one of two such Orders she has received because of course she has also been restrained from repeating her, “untrue” allegations about former MP John Hemming. Of course County Court judges see lots of stalkers, family cases and domestics so a finding that stalking is particularly malevolent is saying a lot. Baker was so depraved she even tried to contact the paedophile priest – to try to undermine his conviction! It borders on the immortal line, “So, we got a once in a lifetime, top of the line looney tuney”, from the movie Basic Instinct. Except of course that Baker, who admits to hearing voices, is no Sharon Stone.

Esther Baker is a Malevolent Racist

The express findings of the County Court judge agreeing Baker behaved in a “vindictive, “obsessive” and “malevolent” way. MHN has erased the barrister’s name to protect the anonymity of the victim of Baker’s years of racist stalking. If only Vijaya Gadde, Del Harvey (Alison Shea), Karen White and Sinéad McSweeney over at Twitter would protect them too!

Whilst Baker has occasionally, grudgingly, removed some tweets she has not removed most of the stalking tweets including some that may put her in breach of the various court Orders against her. So, needless to say, Twitter were contacted by some of her victims. John Hemming had also been in contact with Twitter and can produce email receipts from their report form going as far back as 2017. As a result of a number of controversies, Twitter has enacted a number of supposed rules. Targeted harassment is supposedly prohibited (archive). Racist harassment is supposedly prohibited (archive). In the context of hate of protected groups, the Twitter rules state that, “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs […]”.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Merseycare Pay Damages Over Esther Baker, Baker Loses Racism Appeal

Posted on by
3

The Witchfinder has received £3,500 in damages, an admission of liability and an apology from Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust on the basis that they revealed to Esther Baker that he had raised confidential safeguarding concerns about her. There is no confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement – I am free to tell all. Meanwhile, Esther Baker has lost her appeal against a finding she harassed a proven victim of child abuse, making racist tweets and apparently contacting the victim’s paedophile abuser – with a view to helping the abuser overturn their conviction.

RemittanceSlipMerseycare

Sam Smith, the editor of MHN, has received £3,500 damages for the disclosure of confidential information by Merseycare NHS Foundation Trust. Click for full size.

In late 2018, I raised serious concerns about the well-being of Esther Baker. I wrote to her psychiatrist, Dr Kate Wood and to executives at her local NHS Trust.

All of my concerns have been realised – I warned Esther Baker was at risk of large costs Orders in court proceedings she has unwisely brought and defended. The Orders were made. I warned Baker was at risk of bankruptcy. She has been bankrupted. I warned Baker was at risk of her job. She has lost her job. I warned of further civil and criminal legal troubles – they are in process. I warned Baker was a danger to others – the County Court has found her liable for stalking, the High Court for defamation. In both cases lifelong restraining Orders have been made.

Nearly every risk has materialised.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Staffordshire Police, DCS Javid Oomer, DC Garry Bainbridge Must be Investigated Over Esther Baker Bias

Posted on by
5

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

DCSJavidOomer

Detective Chief Superintendent Javid Oomer is currently acting up as Temporary Assistant Chief Constable. However, is he showing bias?

Just past 2:23am on 3rd February 2020, Esther Baker emailed Staffordshire Police and John Hemming to complain I had violated her anonymity as a rape victim under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is of course ridiculous. Baker’s anonymity is the most waived there ever was – she has commented on Sky News, the Guardian, the Daily Mail and many other publications. Why does she keep putting in these absurd complaints? If her public court filings are correct, it is because Staffordshire Police are encouraging her.

On 17th December 2019 Esther Baker filed her Re-Amended Reply to Defence in the claim Baker V Hemming. By way of brief explanation, Esther Baker was an abuse accuser who alleged that a group of VIPs and others ritually abused her. No charges have been brought. She has attempted to sue one of the VIPs, former MP John Hemming for libel for calling her a liar. He counter-sued for libel over her rape allegations. Much of Baker’s claim was struck out last year and she lost the counter-claim entirely, with Mrs Justice Steyn ruling her allegations of VIP ritual abuse, “untrue”. Baker is now supposedly under police investigation.

A few small parts of Baker’s claim continue as to whether she lied or there was some other explanation for the untruth such as honest mistake or mental illness, although some more of Baker’s claim was struck out at a hearing on 30 January 2020. The pleadings are available to the public without permission under CPR 5.4C. Under CPR 5.4C (1) (a) any non-party may obtain a copy of the pleadings (but not attachments) in the case as of right without the court’s permission so the pleadings are not confidential. They may be reported upon.

One passage I find particularly chilling is this one –

“[…] The Claimant’s liaison officer at Staffordshire police who has recently become involved in the case again due to the Defendant’s behaviour and admissions, has repeatedly stated to me that as far as Staffordshire Police are concerned the Claimant is regarded as a victim of crimes and not a suspect […]“

Esther Baker’s liaison officer is Detective Constable 4163 Garry Bainbridge. The officer running the purported investigation is, DCS Javid Oomer. If Bainbridge has told Baker that Staffordshire Police regard her as a “victim of crimes and not a suspect”, acting as liaison for Oomer, then that completely prejudges the investigation that the police are supposedly conducting. More importantly, it ignores the multiple recent court rulings against her.

I therefore believe there is grounds for an investigation into police bias and / or failure of duty. I put it no higher than the lowest ‘Chase Level’ meaning. Baker has made a formal statement in court. However, she has in the past been incorrect or mistaken – including of course in her serious allegations that John Hemming raped her. It is possible that Baker is mistaken, or that police have some reasonable excuse. DC Bainbridge might not have been fully briefed on the court rulings, for example. Ms Baker, who hears voices, might have misunderstood his position due to her mental health difficulties. Because of that, I do not say there is anything more than grounds for investigation.

In November 2019, the County Court found that Baker had engaged in racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim and awarded said victim £12,500 in damages – details are in my full article here. The stalking included specific, imminent, violent threats as this extract from the judgement shows –

Baker Violent Threats

The County Court found that Esther Baker threatened to commit battery against a vulnerable child abuse survivor. MHN underlining.

Continue reading →

Share Button

County Court Restrains Esther Baker for Racist Stalking, High Court Makes Further Strike Out Order

Posted on by
26

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

BakerRestrained

Esther Baker has been handed another life-long restraining Order, this time by the County Court, for racist harassment of a proven child abuse victim. She was also ordered to pay £12,500 damages.

Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was a hearing in Baker v Hemming. Three more passages of Esther Baker’s defamation claim were struck out, after she tried to include further allegations that Hemming raped her. The judge removed these sentences because Baker’s allegations of rape have already been ruled untrue. Meanwhile, MHN is finally able to report on a County Court judgement made late last year in which Baker was made subject to a lifelong restraining Order and damages for multiple counts of stalking, including racist stalking, of a proven child abuse victim who cannot be named for legal reasons.

Readers will be familiar with disturbing news personality Esther Baker. Like Carl Beech, Baker made untrue allegations. Specifically, she alleged that she was raped by (then MP) John Hemming. By Order and Reasons of 19th November 2019 (sealed 20th), High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that they were untrue, there was no public interest in repeating them and restrained Baker for life from doing so. The only outstanding legal question is whether Baker lied and whether she Perverted the Course of Justice, as opposed to (for example) making an innocent mistake.

BakerAllegationsNotTrue

The Judge Mrs Justice Steyn has made very clear that Esther Baker’s allegations are untrue and defamatory. MHN underlining.

Last year, much of Baker’s libel claim against former MP John Hemming was struck out and she lost the counterclaim, as set out in my article of the time and my follow-up article when the Order was made. Last week on Thursday 30th January 2020, there was another application. Baker had put in a revised version of her Reply to Defence in what remains of her claim. She had also put in a Part 18 Response. Shortly afterwards Baker faced an application to strike out the claim.

The same week MHN also obtained the complete transcript of judgement in a harassment case against Baker that took place last year. Your author has wanted to write about this for a long time but has been waiting for the official transcript of the judgement. Esther Baker was sued in the County Court by a child abuse victim. They have anonymity, so I will be blocking out their name, sex, location and the names of any lawyers from the judgement extracts.

However, MHN can reveal that Baker has been successfully sued under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 – anti-stalking legislation – for a years long campaign of racist stalking against a proven child abuse victim. The judge ruled on 20 allegations and found 16 to be true. Multiple counts were expressly found to be racist. Baker had caused the child abuse victim psychiatric injury.

The judge expressly accepted counsel for the victim’s argument that, “the Defendant’s conduct is vindictive, obsessive and unpredictable and that it has been particularly malevolent”.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Lifelong Injunction for Esther Baker and her False Rape Allegations

Posted on by
5
BakerRestrained

Esther Baker has been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn. She has had her day in court and the ‘Truth’ has indeed been proven.

Recently, Esther Baker has been making misleading comments about the judgement in her libel case against John Hemming. She claimed on Twitter (archive) that the judgement did not find Hemming innocent. Now High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn has made a lifelong restraining Order against Baker as well as another Order giving further directions for what remains of the case.

Key points in the Orders –

  • John Hemming has won against Baker on the main points. Hemming did not rape Baker, or anyone else nor did he stalk Baker nor defame her to cover it up. Baker is restrained for life from saying so (however obliquely), getting anyone else to say so or encouraging anyone from saying so. There is a penal notice on the front flat out stating that if she does so, she can go to jail. It is last warning time. It is a part of the general law of the land that it can also be a contempt for anyone to independently try to frustrate the Order by repeating the allegations. There are no exceptions to the Order – (Baker has asked for some and was not granted them).
EstherBakerPenalNotice

If Esther Baker breaks the lifelong restraining Order against her she could be sent to prison and so could anyone who helps her or otherwise tries to frustrate the purpose of the Order.

  • Supporters of Esther Baker such as Jayne Senior @Jes123Tia456, Jacqui Dillon @JacquiDillon and Alan Goodwin @Ciabaudo have been warned previously  they may be sued for libel. In fact with this Order, they need not even be sued – if they expressly or by implication suggest Baker’s allegations are true then they could be at risk of immediate Committal proceedings. Now is a time for reflection. The legal threats to Goodwin, Dillon and Senior are not bluffs but bringing the claims would be an aggravation we could all avoid. A decision on Baker’s allegations has been made.
BakerAllegationsNotTrue

The Judge has made very clear that Esther Baker’s allegations are untrue and defamatory. MHN underlining.

  • It is noticed that Senior has gone quiet on this. Hopefully if the others take the hint we can all save some money and inconvenience. There are plenty of other alleged victims they could be supporting where their accusations have not been ruled against.
  • Whilst Baker’s allegations have been shown false, it is not yet established whether she lied or perverted the course of justice. The libel claim by her against Hemming on those words is ongoing, but will be struck out automatically unless she complies with the terms of an ‘unless’ Order made previously.
  • Hemming has dropped an ancilliary claim that Baker’s words also referred to ‘cult’ or ‘ritual’ abuse. As he has won on the main points, it does not matter if the group he was not part of was a rape ‘cult’ or ‘group’.
  • Baker has been ordered to pay 90% of the entire costs of Hemming’s counterclaim, 100% of his application to strike out and 100% of his responding to her failed application. Damages are to be assessed at the end of the case.

The judge has included a short set of reasons and as they are not on BAILII and the Orders are public documents I have uploaded them both here. I have redacted both cover sheets with the parties’ addresses.

UPDATE 22 NOVEMBER 2019 – HAVE ADDED SCREENSHOT WITH FINDING BAKER’S ALLEGATIONS ARE UNTRUE WITH UNDERLINING.

Share Button

Rekt – Esther Baker in Humiliating Libel Loss – John Hemming Innocent of Raping Her

Posted on by
1

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

John Hemming former MP

It is now a court finding that former MP John Hemming did not rape Esther Baker and when she publicly accused him of doing so on Twitter, she libelled him. She must pay damages and Hemming is completely exonerated.

Esther Baker suffered a humiliating defeat yesterday when John Hemming won the central point of the libel claim between them. In a judgement handed down in the High Court, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that Baker libeled Hemming by accusing him of rape on Twitter. Some aspects of the claim remain live, the court has yet to rule on Baker’s claims Hemming libeled her by calling her a liar and criminal but Baker has been prohibited from saying John Hemming raped her even within the proceedings. Baker also applied to strike out Hemming’s claim, relying on 168 pages of exhibits (mostly articles from this website). Her application, including her many many many complaints about me, were found to have, “no merit”.

This article will be brief because the judgement is on BAILII. The whole judgement is lengthy, and worth reading in full. A few key points –

  • Baker is suing Hemming for libel and he is counter-claiming. In 2015 Baker, like Carl Beech from Exaro (who she supported on Twitter) made allegations of rape against an alleged faith related abuse group including in later versions at least two politicians including Hemming and a Labour Cabinet Minister. Baker is suing Hemming for calling her a liar and accusing her of Perverting the Course of Justice. Hemming counter-sues Baker for accusing him on Twitter of raping her and also allegedly accusing him of being involved in cult / ritual abuse.
  • At the hearing on 17th October 2019 for which judgement was handed down today, Hemming and Baker applying to strike out each other’s claims and defences. Hemming also applied for summary judgement and an interim injunction. Today the judge ruled on those applications. She found in favour of part of Hemming’s application and rejected Baker’s as having, “no merit”.
  • The judge held that Baker’s tweet did at least bear the meaning that Hemming raped her and the judge ruled this was libel. She granted Hemming summary judgement to this extent. Baker must pay damages – there is also an application for an injunction. It remains undecided whether the words in the tweet, “also bear an innuendo meaning that the Defendant abused the Claimant as part of a ritual cult involving Cabinet Ministers, MPs, Lords and Judges”. That is for trial.
  • The judge held that Baker had deliberately dropped her defence of Truth
The judge found that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

The judge found that Baker deliberately dropped her defence of Truth

Continue reading →

Share Button

Leftist: Throne of Bone Reviews Real, Reliable

Posted on by
3

Earlier today, a leftist left a negative comment on a review I did in 2016 of Vox Day’s “A Throne of Bones”. They ended by linking to a hatepost claiming the positive Amazon reviews were deceptive based on an analysis by a site called Fakepost.com from 2017. Because, of course, the accuracy of a self-appointed analysis site using an unpublished algorithm is beyond question. However, when I requested a re-analysis, the book listing now gets an ‘A’. I took an archive as one suspects the algorithm may now change. However for posterity …

ThroneOfBonesFakespotA

According to Fakespot the reviews on ‘A Throne of Bones’ are 90% high quality and it deserves its average 4.5/5 stars.

For a supposedly unimportant author I have seen a surprising number of multi-part, serialised, chapter-by-chapter reviews from left wingers, like the one that inspired this post. You do not have to agree with Vox Day’s politics to like his work, or find the vilification of dissident authors distasteful. Day has produced a number of popular products meeting the promises he set out to his market. The only real criticism is that release has sometimes been slightly slower than hoped for (for example, of the expanded edition of the sequel to ‘A Throne of Bones’). Day however is not in bad company – Robert Jordan died before finishing his epic and PC Hodgell’s Kencyrath series was begun in 1982 and still is not finished.

ThroneOfBonesFakespotB

According to Fakespot the reviews on ‘A Throne of Bones’ are 90% high quality and it deserves its average 4.5/5 stars.

Share Button

Esther Baker Made Bankrupt Over “Rape” Libel Case – are Jacqui Dillon and Jayne Senior Next?

Posted on by
9

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous unproven allegations of sexual abuse. Now she is literally paying the price.

Today, at 12:55 in the afternoon at the Liverpool Civil and Family Courts, Esther Baker was made bankrupt as a result of her crumbling libel claim against John Hemming and her failure to pay the costs order. At this point, most mentally healthy people would think again about supporting her. Two notable exceptions to common sense however are “Dr” Jacqui Dillon and Rotherham Councillor Jayne Senior. Despite Hemming now having won two libel claims against significant opposition – a former Guardian journalist and a charity CEO – these two women continue to refer to Baker’s allegations on Twitter.

I do not intend to deal in much detail with them now, as that is for later articles. However a brief introduction. Jayne Senior is a councillor in Rotherham and manager of a charity called Swinton Lock. She received an MBE for supposed whistleblowing. However, the shine has been knocked off her by recent revelations in an independent safeguarding report commissioned by her local council. The findings were that she mistreated real abuse victims who used her charity. This was bravely exposed by Sammy Woodhouse (@SammyWoodhouse1). The findings are set out in detail in the Yorkshire Post in these articles [1] (archive), [2] (archive). A third article [3] (archive) sets out her failed attempts to silence media critics by complaining to police. Most recently, Jayne Senior has been complaining on Twitter that her local police are contemplating restricting her right to complain (archive). She has also been complaining about me – to no effect.

“Dr” Jacqui Dillon is a mentally ill woman who by her own admission sees things and hears voices as set out in my previous article here. Dillon, like Baker relates an unproven history of alleged child abuse. She admits her first psychiatrist thought they were delusions. However she eventually found a psychiatrist who believed her and launched a successful career as a mental health ‘advocate’ and ‘survivor’ despite there being no convictions. This is dealt with in more detail in this excellent blog here. Dillon has a nasty history of calling people “paedophiles”, their “supporters” and “enablers” on Twitter but now complains of criticism. Again, this has been of no effect. I am entitled to scrutinise and criticise public statements by a public figure.

Both of these women have seen the unravelling of Baker’s life, and her court losses. They are aware of the bankruptcy proceedings. Yet they have this strange belief that it could not possibly happen to them. If they persist in supporting her, they are likely to find out just how wrong they are.

For Baker, it is a tragedy. John Hemming bears her, surprisingly, no ill-will. He recognises she was offered inappropriate encouragement by others. There is sufficient evidence even in public statements for me to name Jess Phillips MP in this article. Even now if Baker would cooperate, admit her mistake and produce evidence as to those who encouraged her, it may be another resolution could be found. In some circumstances those others may even be liable for all the costs.

Share Button

Dr Jacqui Dillon and Her Appalling Remarks on Esther Baker and Historic Abuse

Posted on by
4

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

“Doctor” Jacqui Dillon is psychotic. Not in the hyperbolous sense but in the proper medical sense that she hears voices (archive) and sometimes sees things that are not there, including (according to the Daily Mirror) hallucinating her own daughter covered in blood. Even so, Dillon has many achievements to her name – an honorary doctorate she received from the University of East London for her undoubted work in mental health. However, her achievements give her no right to hound others on Twitter or jump into complex debates about historic abuse without respect for guilt or innocence, nor to the families and children of those involved.

JacquiDillonTweet

Jacqui Dillon calls Baker a survivor, but none of Baker’s alleged abusers have been charged. Baker was then placed under police investigation and Staffordshire Police have stated that a file is to be sent to the CPS for advice, including on potential charges.

Historic abuse is a complex issue. There are undoubtedly many persons who have been genuinely abused and even today authority figures want to turn a blind eye. I have written many articles, for example, about Reddit. Reddit is large social media website of sorts that was openly advertising two groups called, “/r/PedoCity” and “/r/PedoWorld”. The groups were openly advertised in a full text index, though no images were visible except to those warped individuals who joined. One was there for three years quite openly. They were banned the day after my article exposing it based on a tip-off from a whistle-blower.

EvidenceRWorld

Reddit, proudly hosting a forum for ‘Watching pedos rape the young’. Screenshot from their text index above. They hosted the ‘community’ for three years – until I wrote an article exposing it. Words cannot adequately express my contempt for Reddit CEO Steve Huffman.

So, when Dillon complains of paedophile apologists and modern fellow travellers to PIE on Twitter I have no doubt she is raising legitimate issues.

The problem is not everyone is guilty. Dillon believes she was abused by a paedophile. Perhaps that is true.

However, when dealing with abuse, there is a world of possibility for mistake and outright falsehood. In 2015, Esther Baker accused then MP John Hemming as well as a former Labour cabinet minister and a large group of other people of rape. She said she recognised Hemming as her assailant beyond doubt, that she had seen his whole body and he had various physical features including a birthmark on his back. The police investigation checked that and he does not have those features. The case inevitably ended with no prosecution.

Hemming is clearly not the man who raped Esther Baker – if she was raped at all. According to the BBC, Baker is now under police investigation for inventing all her allegations (archive). In fact matters have moved on. An advice file has now been sent to the CPS and police have stated that, “The CPS will consider the papers pertaining to the Perverting the Course of Justice allegation alongside any alternative offences they feel might be appropriate”.

Continue reading →

Share Button