Category Archives: Esther Baker

NewProject2 – It was MHN not Leopirate

Posted on by
3

The closure of 9chan / Kiwi Farms / Joshua Moon funding site Newproject2 was not caused by Leopirate (although his channel is great and so is his recent video). It is not a free-speech issue. It was me. I had their account closed and it is going to stay closed whilst Josh is a member. Newproject2 is owned and run by low-rent internet shock-jock Dick Masterson. Dick Masterson appears to have ignored the complex regulatory requirements that apply to would-be financial institutions like Newproject2 LLC.

Master Card Closes New Project 2 2020-05-29

MasterCard required that NewProject2 be investigated by its acquiring bank due to its provision of services to Joshua Conner Moon and various regulatory breaches. The investigation led to termination of the account.

I have been quiet for a while on the dreg-o-sphere (my pet name for the embarrassing fringe of the fringe of the Right who actually associate with Joshua Conner Moon and Ethan Ralph). That is because I have been doing productive things. I passed my law exams and whilst I have not sought to practice law as solicitor I have been helping celebrities and politicians pro-bono in high profile lawsuits in the Queen’s Bench as a McKenzie Friend.

Aside from the Coronavirus lockdown I have been earning very much in the higher income tax bracket from the IT business I own. I have been writing articles on major issues. In this recent judgement (archive), a woman called Esther Baker made 200 pages of complaints about me to a High Court judge. The complaints were all rejected, as having, “no merit”. Baker had to pay the costs of making us read her complaints about my articles.

I was praised in a newspaper recently for defeating two of Britain’s biggest and most prestigious libel law firms in a case –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Service with a Smile! – Esther Baker and Jacqui Dillon Libel and Harassment Case Issued

Posted on by
9

Esther Baker has been found to have defamed former MP John Hemming by Mrs Justice Steyn in the High Court. Her allegations were found to be “untrue”. She has been found to have engaged in a sustained campaign of racist harassment against a child abuse victim, by the County Court. In both cases lifelong restraining Orders were made. In both cases I offered some legal support to Ms Baker’s opponents. Now, I feel Esther Baker and her friend Dr Jacqui Dillon have behaved inappropriately towards me and I have commenced a claim for defamation and harassment. The Claim has now been reviewed by a High Court Master and issued. Service was effected today.

Image of the top of a letter from the court enclosing the issued claim forms

Image of the top of a letter from the court enclosing the issued claim forms.

As the Defendants are litigants in person it is important to give them as much time as possible to consider the matter. Therefore, I ensured that the Claim Form and other documents were hand delivered to Dr Jacqui Dillon’s home today so she could contemplate her defence over the Bank Holiday weekend. I also sent Esther Baker’s copy of the proceedings by registered post. Courtesy copies of the claim and response pack have been delivered by email also. To prove delivery and that there was no impropriety, the delivery to Dr Dillon was videoed.

Extract from the video of delivery to Dr Dillon's Home. House number blurred out.

Extract from the video of delivery to Dr Dillon’s Home. House number blurred out.

Readers are reminded that my claim is yet unproven and no court has made any decision. The Defendants have time to enter their defences. The fact that both Defendants are seriously mentally ill, the fact that I am the third person to sue Ms Baker and the fact that she has lost all her other cases to date does not mean they will lose this one – although it does not in any way bode well for them.

Share Button

Twitter Threatens to Sue! Del Harvey and Vijaya Gadde Double Down

Posted on by
Reply

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg once famously described Twitter as being like a clown car that crashed in a gold-mine. Their latest antics, involving their lawyers at Bristows, include writing me one of the worst ‘libel’ letters I have ever seen. The specific lawyers on the case are Alex Keenlyside and Robert Graham. I reproduce the relevant parts below. Then I school them on procedure and more importantly the substantive facts of their case.

Bristows Libel 2020-05-03

Bristows’ letter to my mind is deficient in law. I understand that Robert Graham and Alex Keenlyside are responsible. Image adjusted to show logo above the relevant paragraph.

I received a letter just past 8pm on Friday night. It is a trashy tactic solicitors use that works with many people. However, although I do not practice as a solicitor I have passed the exams (LL.M LPC Commendation) and have nearly 9 years experience as a McKenzie Friend. I have written the pleadings of multiple libel cases so late night letters are less impressive to me, especially given the obvious, negligent and improper failure in this one to comply with the relevant UK law, the Civil Procedure Rules.

Much of the letter is a request for information. Twitter asks for court documents relating to the recent court case in which Esther Baker was found liable for racist harassment because of various proposed legal claims against it, in multiple jurisdictions. The last paragraph however is a demand I remove an article, which is said to be defamatory. Twitter are concerned with my article of 14 April 2020, headlined, “Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijay Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist”. So far they have not sought to challenge my article, “Labour’s Secret Deal with Twitter and Facebook to Surveil its own members”.

The article complained of referred to Twitter’s decision not to remove proven racist stalker Esther Baker’s account nor the tweets held by a judge to be racist stalking. The same article complained of Twitter’s failure to remove anti-Semitic material posted by a man named Alan Goodwin. As previously covered on MHN, Esther Baker has been successfully sued by former MP John Hemming and a child abuse victim who MHN is anonymising as a courtesy. Twitter, of course, has rules against racism and ‘targeted harassment’ so one would think in light of the lengthy judgement to the effect that Baker engaged in racist targeted harassment over a period of years the issue would be a no-brainer. Nope. “Clown Car”!

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

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