Category Archives: Sonia Poulton

#UnfollowSoniaPoulton: Reminder that the Fringe Journalist who Attacked the Queen is a Child Abuser

Posted on by
8
Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton seen making an ‘official statement’ on a lawsuit against her. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Yesterday, in the afternoon, Queen Elizabeth II died. As with any death, there are of course those who loved her, and those who did not. Basic human decency has always dictated that when a person dies their critics and enemies fall silent for a while, save to deliver eulogies. Of course, historic figures are not immune to criticism but, simply put, it can wait for a little while. In any event, there is in truth very little bad to say about the Queen. She has spent 70 years in uncomplaining public service. An exception to the rule is, of course, vile fringe journalist Sonia Poulton, who responded to news of the Queen’s death as below, including the words, “[…] the next few days is going to be a giant vomit-inducing festival of royal reverence with media tarts weeping and wailing about someone they don’t know […]” (archive). This is a public service reminder that Sonia Poulton was recently interviewed by police after naming two child torture victims who had been granted life long anonymity, and the video had to be taken down. Illegal or not, in my opinion that was serious child abuse. The charge has been levelled by others, including (according to a recent video by Natural Love) anonymous hackers. Unlike the hackers, your author is not anonymous. My name and picture are below and I will defend this article in court if need be.

Me me me: Child abuser and fringe 'journalist': Sonia Poulton unleashes her venom in response to the death of Queen Elizabeth II, a longstanding public servant.

Me me me: Child abuser and fringe ‘journalist’: Sonia Poulton unleashes her venom in response to the death of Queen Elizabeth II, a longstanding public servant.

Sonia Poulton likes to hold herself out as an expert on high profile allegations of child abuse, satanic abuse and VIP abuse. Her work is clearly adjacent to the Q-Anon conspiracy space. The problem is, she is in fact one of the shoddiest, so-called ‘journalists’ I have ever encountered but has chosen one of the most sensitive spaces to work in, which is clearly beyond her abilities and character. One example of her so called, ‘journalism’ is a previous video of a royal parade, made whilst the queen was alive, in which Poulton can be heard shrieking, “Nazi!” and, “She knights paedophiles!”

The case that got Sonia into trouble was a well publicised matter involving two children who were tortured by abusers into making false allegations. The judgement was placed online by the judge Mrs Justice Pauffley to try to dispel the hoax. The case citation (with link to the full judgement), is P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding) [2015] EWFC 26. It opens with a reminder that the children have lifelong anonymity and naming them could be a criminal contempt of court. I am going to be careful in this article to limit what I say strictly to the judgement as follows.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Whistleblower Sends Evidence BNT Held Personal Identity Document for Years

Posted on by
2

It is late, and I was only up watching TV. I have just received a whistleblower email making an incredibly serious allegation about Brand New Tube, the troubled online video sharing website hacked in 2020 and again earlier this month, that hosts controversial fringe content like ‘journalist’ Sonia Poulton. This is bad stuff.

I had to check a couple of things because I frankly did not believe it and I needed to check some HTML quickly from a third party site. I will need to call the ICO in the morning. I can say this goes way beyond passwords and emails. Full details tomorrow but there is incontrovertible proof that a lot of data was held that Brand New Tube did not declare as breached.

Share Button

Smith v Baker, Summary Judgement on the Counterclaim! MHN Wins. Devastation for David Hencke, Mark Watts and Sonia Poulton

Posted on by
8
BakerRestrained

Esther Baker has lost her claim over articles that meant (as the court found) that she is depraved, stalked a child abuse victim for years, is a racist stalker worse than most other racist stalkers, tried to undermine a paedophile priest’s criminal conviction, told deliberate and malicious lies on Twitter for the purpose of raising money under false pretences, has made numerous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse, children are being abused by paedophiles because money and police resources have been used up by Ms Baker’s groundless allegations instead of being available to protect them and that it is possible that some of these children have been raped as a result.

In 2020 I filed a lawsuit against Esther Baker for libel and harassment. I won, and she agreed to be restrained for life after her defences of Truth and Public Interest were struck out. That court order is here. However, a counterclaim by Baker against MHN editor Sam Smith continued. Now, in a judgement today of Mr Justice Griffiths, that too has been defeated after your author applied for strike-out and / or summary judgement. The case is over. Esther Baker loses. MHN editor Sam Smith wins. The result is a devastating humiliation for fringe journalists like Mark Watts, Sonia Poulton and David Hencke who have given her account credence over the years.

The result is also a vindication for victims of Baker like former MP John Hemming, Darren Laverty and Simon Just of Real Troll Exposure.  Each of these men has been subjected to substantial police involvement over the years due to Esther Baker’s false allegations. Now her supporters must suffer the consequences.

Baker and her supporters were cock-a-hoop earlier this year when Mr Justice Griffiths held that previous articles on this blog had defamatory meanings. Now, in today’s judgement the same judge has found that those meanings have been successfully defended, including via a defence of Truth –

“94. For these reasons, I am satisfied under CPR 3.9 that Ms Baker’s statements of case disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, that her statements of case are an abuse of the court’s process and are likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings, and that they fail to comply with the requirements of Practice Direction 53B and the Griffiths Order. I am also satisfied under CPR 24 that Ms Baker has no real prospect of succeeding on her claims and there is no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at a trial.”

Furthermore, these are not mere technical findings because Baker failed to comply with court rules. The judge found that, had she complied and filed paperwork on time, she would still most likely have lost and had no realistic prospect of defeating my defence of Truth. As an example, Baker was suing me for saying that her mental illness caused her untrue allegations of child abuse. However, a medical report she had filed in other proceedings stated that she had decided to participate in IICSA (the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse), because a voice in her head told her to. The evidence was simply overwhelming. She conceded her mental illness in her draft reply and told the judge at the hearing about the voices in her head.

It is also worth mentioning that before judgement, at several stages, I gave Baker the option to drop her counterclaim with no further order for costs. She was not forced to bring this – it was her claim. No one used expensive lawyers, I am a law graduate and I defended myself. Baker had many warnings. Hard working judges, High Court Master Lisa Sullivan and High Court Judge Martin Griffiths, both gave Baker many chances to correct her pleadings and reply coherently to my defence of Truth. They gave detailed judgements and guidance on what steps Baker should take. They made express allowances for Baker’s mental disabilities. Baker failed to follow the rules in the case she brought and had the opportunity to drop.

There are a lot of meanings spread across eleven articles. The meanings that have now been defended ought to devastate Baker’s reputation, shame her supporters and Staffordshire Police.

The imputations defended are as follows, in the judge’s words cut-and-paste from the judgement on meaning. Because there were 11 articles, some are repetitive or overlapping. Each meaning has a shield next to them to show they have been successfully defended in court and can be relied upon by readers –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Sonia Poulton, Fake News, and Holding Herself Out as a Journalist

Posted on by
12

On Wednesday 13 July 2022, there was a hearing in Hemming v Poulton. I was excused attendance, because although I am a party to the case the technical application between John and Poulton is nothing to do with me and also I had a medical appointment. So, I was astonished to read a highly misleading tweet (archive) by Poulton claiming the court had ‘accepted’ her objections to being described as, “someone who holds herself out as a journalist”. This is fake news.

A tweet by Sonia Poulton

Sonia Poulton’s tweet is misleading. The court has in no way accepted her objections to the phrase referred to, now made any decision on it.

What happened at the hearing is that it was originally listed before a Master but when further issues were raised late by the parties, the Master decided it needed to be dealt with by a judge and adjourned the hearing. Nothing was decided, least of all was there any decision that the phrase could not be used or was wrong, or that Sonia is a reputable journalist. Nor is it likely to be determined when the hearing was resumed as it is not in issue on the applications.

What was before the court was that John Hemming has applied to expand his claim against Sonia Poulton. Poulton objects. That is the application listed to be decided. The night before the hearing, Poulton via her barrister Richard Munden raised an issue of limitation that some of the proposed amendments relate to claims that are out of time. John via his barrister says they are not out of time but on the safe side applied for an extension of time on the morning of the hearing. With the new and technically complex material, the Master decided a judge should hear the applications.

Sonia did (by her barrister Richard Munden), object to the phrase but the court in no way, for example, told Hemming or his barrister Matthew Hodson not to use it nor struck the form of words out of Hemming’s documents. Hodson has not descended into the arena on this issue, but Hemming commented saying that the Master did not address the point at all. It is bizarre because Hemming is not even disputing Poulton is a, ‘journalist’ because it is not a regulated profession or reserved title. Anyone can stumble in off the street and say they are a ‘journalist’ in the UK. John’s pleadings at paragraph 2 say that the, “Defendant is a freelance journalist”. However, I am entitled to the opinion that Poulton is not a good or ethical journalist. There are a number of reasons and my opinion is based upon all of the facts set out in these linked articles of mine – [1] [2][3][4][5] and the matters raised in this one.

Poulton has been raising money on the cases she is involved in and statements like this to her supporters are highly misleading. It is not the first time. At a hearing last year, Poulton claimed that she had received 85% of her costs, “of the hearing” (archive). This was false. Poulton had received 85% of her costs of only one of several applications. The others had been decided differently – one she had no costs of. One she has to pay Hemming, but delayed until the end of the case. She also agreed to pay my costs and Darren Laverty’s. So her overall recovery was lower and she had to pay me. The overall effect of this order is that everyone except me lost money. Extracts from the order are below –

Extracts from the order sealed 14 July illustrate the misleading nature of Poulton's statements.

Extracts from the order sealed 14 July illustrate the misleading nature of Poulton’s statements. She got 85% of her costs on one application, lost all her costs of another, has to pay John later and paid Darren and I.

Continue reading →

Share Button

UPDATE: Hemming v Poulton, Sonia Poulton and Darren Laverty Settle

Posted on by
5
Judge's Hammer Coming Down on Gavel

One part of the court case ends.

What was originally called the case of Hemming v Poulton (QB-2020-003558) now actually has 4 parties due to various add-on claims (called Part 20 claims). Two such claims have now ended, being between Sonia Poulton and Darren Laverty.

Darren Laverty has made the following public statement:

“My court case against Sonia Poulton has been settled on mutually acceptable terms. This includes the libel claim I am bringing against them and their harassment claim against me. Neither party has admitted liability. For legal reasons I am not able to comment further. As the matter has settled, I regard the matter as at an end. Please do not criticise or disparage Ms Poulton.”

Sonia Poulton has made the following statement:

“As people know, I have been embroiled in legal disputes for the last year. One of those disputes has now ended. My court case involving Darren Laverty has been settled. It was made plain to me that even if I won at trial – and there was no guarantee of such – I would not be able to recover the significant sums of money spent on legal costs. It was therefore decided to end litigation on both sides. For legal reasons I am not able to comment further but I am truly grateful for the support I have been shown.”

I have been providing pro-bono support to Mr Laverty. Now that this case is over, Mr Laverty will shortly be opening up correspondence for a potential claim against Mr Lee Taylor Ryan (@LeeTaylorRyan).

Mr Ryan has for some years maintained that Darren Laverty is a rapist. The difficulty with this is there is compelling evidence that the rape never happened. Mr Laverty was quoted, when a very young man, in an Observer article as admitting to participating in a rape carried out by older boys when Laverty was a vulnerable child in care. Even if this was true, Laverty would be a victim of child abuse, not a perpetrator.

However, MHN has investigated and obtained police records. Police investigated the allegations at the time and contacted the other alleged perpetrators and ‘victim’. It never happened. Laverty says he was wildly misquoted and at the time as a poverty stricken care leaver could do not nothing about the wrongdoing of a powerful national newspaper.

The allegation appeared in an article in 1992 in the Observer by journalist Brian Johnson-Thomas who was later criticised at length for serious errors and misconducts in that precise series of articles, by Lady Justice Macur in a review published in 2017. Mr Johnson-Thomas for example conducted a photographic identity parade in relation to an alleged VIP abuser. He only used four photographs. Two of them were of the same man.

The Lady Judge said this –

“I regard the actions of Mr Johnson-Thomas in staging a photographic identity parade to have been extremely irresponsible. Whether he produced two or four photocopied photographs for consideration could not produce a reliable identification of an abuser and may well have contaminated any legitimate identification made with the safeguards provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and associated Codes of Practice.”

There were numerous other complaints about Mr Johnson-Thomas. Given the police investigation seems to show that the rape never happened, and given that he was accused of numerous other professional lapses in his coverage of alleged child abuse at the time, I accept Mr Laverty’s account over that of Mr Johnson-Thomas.

I would encourage others not to repeat Mr Ryan’s mistake of repeating or linking to the allegations against Mr Laverty and anyone with a copy of the article on a website or social media account to remove it. Republishing it would amount to actionable defamation, in my opinion.

I would invite others such as Alan Goodwin (@Ciabaudo) to exercise care and discretion. Persons living in Europe can be sued in London and various treaties oblige foreign governments such as Germany to enforce orders for costs and damages.

 

Share Button

Hemming v Poulton: Partial Strike Out and Poulton Faces New £500,000 Claim

Posted on by
12

Judgement was handed down in Hemming v Poulton today. Ms Poulton is presenting it as an unqualified success on her fundraising page. In fact Hemming succeeded in having parts of Ms Poulton’s amended Defence struck out. Deputy Master Bard struck out all of Ms Poulton’s Defence of Honest Opinion and parts of her Truth defence, with further amendments likely on both sides and no end in sight. Her harassment counter-claim survives although that is not a high bar in a fact sensitive statutory tort. The hearing also dealt with a counter-counter-claim (in effect) by the 4th Party Darren Laverty. Despite the best efforts of Ms Poulton’s barrister Richard Munden of 5RB, who filed an 18 page Skeleton Argument, unrepresented Laverty got permission to bring a £500,000 (half-million) libel claim against Poulton. Finally, it was also confirmed that Ms Poulton is under police investigation for revealing the names of two underage child abuse victims in a video interview. 

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Your author did not participate in the hearing today as he was working, but had it on in the background at times (like the radio!), except when having connection problems. The judgement was only an initial procedural one, but one thing that amused me was that despite Poulton engaging an expensive lawyer to rewrite her pleadings the judge still struck out parts of it. She is also not trying to prove the Truth of Esther Baker’s allegations. Anyone on hashtag #Truth is going to be disappointed.

The judge criticised Sonia’s pleas on meaning.

Judge strikes out the plea of honest opinion in the absence of specification of what that opinion was.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Sonia Poulton: Prove My Views Are Not Fake!

Posted on by
13
Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

So, there was a hearing today in Hemming v Poulton. The hearing began with Sonia agreeing to pay me £279 in costs. I then left, and wanted to wait until after the hearing to write about the other matters. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, a large of documents passed into the public domain. The hearing was an application by John Hemming to strike out or summarily judge Sonia Poulton’s pleadings as deficient. Poulton, to some extent, agreed and cross-applied to amend. Defences she still relies upon however, are an allegation she cannot be sure that views on her collaboration with Shaun Attwood were not purchased.

At the outset, I should say that I am a party to these proceedings and so my point of view is naturally selective and focused on my best case. However, since Sonia Poulton has been tweeting all day, a few balancing facts are in order.

Are you donating to Sonia? Did she tell you it is all about Truth? #Truth? Really. Check out this from her defence –

An extract from Sonia Poulton’s defence asking him to prove that the views on her video collaboration with Shaun Attwood are not fake.

If I were a professional journalist I would rather settle than run this as part of my defence. To be clear, Sonia expanded on this in a witness statement that was used in the hearing and therefore became public domain under the collateral use rule –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Poulton v Hemming: Poulton pays my costs of correcting her lawsuit!

Posted on by
1
Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. This morning though, she actually had to pay mine and another man’s modest costs of correcting her pleadings. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

At a hearing in the High Court before Deputy Master Bard this morning, Sonia Poulton agreed to pay my costs. Why? John Hemming is suing Sonia Poulton. She has entered a defence, which we thought was deficient. Sonia then counter-claimed alleging John, myself and a third man, “harassed her”. Mostly by criticising her on blogs and suing her. John applied to strike-out. Sonia initially talked to tough, but then applied to amend her pleadings. Unfortunately, they were still deficient and she agreed to remove one of her proposed changes at my request. The rest I agreed (because the court usually allows one chance at fixing poorly drafted pleadings, and because I am confident to defend them).

As a result, Sonia agreed to pay me £219, plus another £60 for my time amending my defence if the court does not strike out or summarily the pleadings on John’s application. Not the best start to her claim. Sonia has commented extensively on social media, so I will be doing an article later setting out some of the true facts of the case for people who might be minded to support her or even donate. Sonia also agreed to pay £225 to the third man.

However, I will be waiting until after the hearing of John’s application as I want to be careful as to what is said in court and what documents are referred to, so check back later or tomorrow. I have limited this post to decided matters. I would add that I have a high opinion of Deputy Master Bard who very kindly and professionally granted me an Order back in the days when you could go see the (Deputy) Masters in practice, whilst I was a law student.

Share Button

Bleach Mummy Charisse Burchett: Social Services Making Enquiries After MHN Investigation

Posted on by
1

Social services in West Berkshire have confirmed they will be making enquiries into the welfare of Charisse Burchett’s children (now dubbed, “Bleach Mummy” by MHN). The move comes after an exclusive MHN investigation revealed that Burchett advocates feeding Chlorine Dioxide, an industrial bleach, to children and expressly stated she would use it on her own children. Furthermore, she states that she never takes the children to the doctor’s surgery as their medicines, in her view, fail at treating issues. She prefers her tried and trusted tool – bleach!

An email screenshot from Social Services confirming they are making enquiries.

Andy Sharp, West Berkshire Council’s Executive Director of People, is on the case.

There is a nasty subculture of medical conspiracy theory that preys on those with incurable illnesses and their loved ones. One such is the, “Miracle Mineral Supplement” (MMS) scam. The UK Food Standards agency Food Crime Unit prioritises stopping the sale of this here in the UK because it is actually an industrial bleach (archive). The United States Food and Drug Administration issued a press release “FDA warns consumers about the dangerous and potentially life threatening side effects of Miracle Mineral Solution”, (archive).

Charisse Burchett however, advocates its use for children, especially autistic children, and says she would use it on her own children if appropriate. She responds aggressively to horrified Twitter users disagreeing and insists, contra the UK FSA and US FDA, that it is not bleach [1] (archive) –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Charisse Burchett of Bath, Somerset: A Threat to Children and the Vulnerable?

Posted on by
1

Earlier this year, a Bath woman known as Charisse Burchett (a fan of BNT creator Sonia Poulton) was excoriated online and in the Daily Mirror (archive), Sun (archive) and Mail (archive), after refusing to wear a mask on a flight from Berlin to the United Kingdom. Bereaved relatives of Covid-19 victims condemned her ignorance and arrogance. Though she claims a “private” medical exemption, by her own admission police did not find it acceptable. Now, she has ignorantly defamed former MP John Hemming, claiming he needs to face a jury when in fact his accuser Esther Baker’s allegations have been found to be, “untrue” in the High Court and she has been restrained for life from repeating them. By refusing to wear a mask and risking spreading Covid, denying the existence of Covid, as well as spreading debunked false allegations that cause huge distress to Hemming’s children, she is likely to pose a risk of harm to a number of vulnerable people.

Charisse Burchett - condemned by the bereaved.

Charisse Burchett – condemned by the bereaved.

One of the most tragic things about Brand New Tube’s (BNT) output is the denial of very real diseases. The website features Vernon Coleman, a man who still denies AIDS is a disease (archive) – “[…] it is now my considered view that the disease we know as AIDS probably doesn’t exist and has never existed”. There is no doubt AIDS is real, like Covid-19.

When I saw Charisse Burchett’s tweet about John Hemming earlier, at first I thought it beneath notice. She is just some nobody mum from the provinces with a bad attitude. A not-very-bright consumer of BNT conspiracy theories. Her remarks about Esther Baker and John Hemming were dead wrong. The facts are these as set out by High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn –

Continue reading →

Share Button