Statement on Brand New Tube Hack – Long Video Coming Soon

Posted on August 22, 2022 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

I have had a number of people contact me about an alleged hack of Brand New Tube (‘BNT’) last week. They are concerned about their data security. I covered a previous hack of the platform in 2020 and made a video. Readers may rely on that video, because BNT supremo Muhammad Butt sued me in the High Court using expensive lawyers. I defended myself and won, he lost – filing notice of discontinuance and throwing in the towel. Today the ICO have confirmed that Brand New Tube has failed to notify it of the data breach. If true, they have breached data protection law once again. [UPDATE 23 August 2022 – The ICO have corrected themselves. Their initial email was wrong. Brand New Tube did in fact report the incident by 17 August. However, all the other criticisms in this article remain unchanged. In particular, Brand New Tube have failed to answer whether they received concerns in December 2021 about the website’s security.]

The ICO confirms no report was made. The ICO was asked very specific questions and given My Media World’s registration number. The ICO initially said no report was received. It now admits this was wrong.

I want to confirm to supporters that I am preparing a lengthy video on this. However, I have already verified certain facts. Brand New Tube has been hacked – their Twitter account confirmed it on 14 August 2022 (archive). The hackers claim to have obtained the database including SHA-1 password hashes, and to have been able to extract the passwords. They claim to have extracted over 200,000 customer passwords (it is possible to de-hash unsalted hashed passwords using tools such as rainbow tables). If true, this would only be possible due to negligence of a very serious kind.

In the UK, it is a mandatory legal requirement to report breaches to the ICO. The hackers and Brand New Tube customers on Twitter (archive) allege that BNT was warned months ago and failed to take action. That means at the latest the website operator should have disclosed to the ICO by Wednesday 17 August 2022. ~~The ICO confirms they have not~~. [The ICO now confirms this was wrong and their initial email above was incorrect.] I also put the allegations to Brand New Tube via their lawyers on Friday and I can confirm that they have not denied being warned of a security breach in December 2021. The ICO was given My Media World Limited’s registration number and the website URL, and was asked very specific questions.

Continue reading →

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

Posted on August 17, 2022 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

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 →

Muhammad Butt and Brand New Tube Abandon Libel Claim – Baker Late and Seeking Relief from Sanctions

Posted on May 23, 2022 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

An outright victory for the Witchfinder.

The Witchfinder has been served with notice of discontinuance of the libel and harassment (counter) claim against him by My Media World Limited (operator of Brand New Tube / BNT) and its Director Muhammad Butt. The effect of the discontinuance, according to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), is that their claim ends and they automatically become liable for my costs of the claim just as if I had won at trial. Your author is legally qualified with an LL.M LPC (Commendation) and I represented myself in the proceedings. At the time of the discontinuance, your author had entered a robust defence and applied to strike out the claim (much like a motion of demurrer, for American readers) and was threatening to apply for security for costs. All the articles complained of are still up and will now have a new, “Defended!” banner adding. In other news, Esther Baker’s counter-claim is also floundering.

The articles successfully defended are:

There was no proper letter of counterclaim. There was a letter from Muhammad and BNT’s former solicitor Blake O’Donnell which in my opinion (and I dun got a distinction on my civil litigation exam) was drafted incorrectly because it did not clearly identify a head of claim. Indeed, ironically one of the allegedly libellous articles now defended was this one in which I pointed out the technical deficiencies in his letter.

Continue reading →

A Bad Day for Muhammad Butt (and Sonia Poulton) of BrandNewTube.com / My Media World Limited

Posted on March 11, 2021 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

[Update 22 May 2022 – My Media World Limited and Director Muhammad Butt sued over this article in the High Court in a counterclaim in case QB-2020-003936. They dropped the libel case by discontinuance, after MHN editor Samuel Collingwood Smith entered a robust defence. The effect of discontinuance is they are automatically liable for Smith’s whole costs.]

Last year I wrote an article explaining that I had filed a High Court claim for £100,000 against Sonia Poulton of BrandNewTube.com, founder Muhammad Butt and the company itself (My Media World Limited). The claim was filed on 09 November 2020 and was deemed to be served on 22 December 2020. Three months on, they still have not entered a Defence. Today at a public telephone hearing in the Queen’s Bench, their latest antics (a further extension application) led to a modest costs Order against them and Master Thornett also made what is called an Unless Order. Unless they get on and enter their Defence by 4pm 25 March 2021 judgement will be automatically entered in my favour. The Order also means that they never get back their costs of paying their lawyer to apply for an extension of time.

Sonia Poulton issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on her dispute with John Hemming. Even stranger, she is now clinging onto my claim despite the fact that I have effectively dropped her as a Defendant. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Even weirder, is why Sonia Poulton was there at all. Last year to the extent I could understand their weird legal correspondence, Poulton was insisting I am a criminal blackmailer. After proceedings were issued she changed that view claiming she totally did not mean that and so I filed a partial discontinuance, dropping that claim against her. The claim against Butt and My Media World Limited continues unaffected. Because the partial discontinuance was filed and served before a defence I can make the claim again if she repeats the libel or tries to claim she has justified her original allegation. So … she can go.

All that is left, at most, is an argument about the costs of her third of their joint response to the letter of claim. But nope – she was there and ignores my attempts to unjoin her as a party. What parties would normally do is agree a consent Order but as Sonia does not wish to do so I may have to make an application, which the court has the power to order costs of.

The Order made today says as follows –

“1. Unless by 4.00pm 25 March 2021 the Defendants file and serve a Defence (whether individually or collectively), then judgment on liability for damages to be assessed shall automatically be entered.”

I was very grateful to Master Thornett for his professional and efficient conduct of the hearing. I have actually helped litigants, charitably, in cases involving him before, although we have not interacted directly, and he is known for sensible, assertive case management. As the hearing was public, so is the Order and a copy may be downloaded here. The judge actually gave them less time than I was willing to accept. I suggested an Unless Order for 30 March 2021, but he gave them only until 25 March – a clear court signal to stop messing about!

Continue reading →

Raw Report with Sonia Poulton Fails to Take Off – Are Brand New Tube Counting the Cost?

Posted on December 18, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

In an episode of the Raw Report not so long ago, Sonia Poulton called this blog, “little read”. In some ways is fair comment, in relative terms MHN has a low circulation. At times, however, articles have had vast numbers of views and I have been surprised by the influence I have exercised. Even so, MHN is not my day job – it is a pastime that allows me to do some good but these days I have little time for. In recent years I have posted far less than once a week. Unlike myself, Sonia Poulton claims to be a professional journalist – so it is only fair to scrutinise the performance of her viewer figures.

The Raw Report with Sonia Poulton was launched in September 2020. Since then, it has failed to take off, with views as measured from replays trending down to around 3,000 views per video. Picture used for the purposes of criticism and review.

Every Friday, Sonia Poulton livestreams the Raw Report. Shortly afterwards, a replay of the full episode is posted. The viewing figures for each episode are published. This can give a rough idea of viewership and trends. There are obvious caveats of course. Most views of livestream archives usually occur around the time of an episode but views can occur indefinitely so older videos will generally have an advantage. The number of views of an archive is not the same as the number of live viewers. There was a gap in the series when Sonia’s brother died.

Even so, after 8 episodes and 3 months, 5 days after the most recent episode it had 3,090 views. On 8 November 2020 episode 4 (uploaded on 6 November) had 3012 views. So it is not a huge change. Furthermore, not every view represents a person and not every view represents a person who watched the episode to the end. On 8 November Poulton had 8,473 subscribers and today she has 9,375. That is an increase of under 250 a week. It is not insignificant but it is not going viral.

Continue reading →

Hemming v Poulton: Sonia Poulton Begs for More Time

Posted on November 16, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

A few weeks ago I reported on a public statement by Sonia Poulton. In her video she responded bullishly to a threatened claim in damages by John Hemming. In the description, she thanked, “Brand New Tube and their legal team”. Whether or not thanks were due is a matter of opinion. In her video Poulton seems to refer to at least one defence which has been abolished. Since then Hemming has filed his claim in the High Court and served Poulton. Despite her public bravado, her confidence seems to have wavered. Today, her third solicitor since the matter began obtained an Order for an extension of time to serve a Defence.

Sonia Poulton talked tough and issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Now, she is on her third solicitor and has begged the High Court for more time to serve a Defence. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Of course, there would normally be nothing wrong or unusual about asking the court for an extension of time except that per the video above Sonia had already prepared her defences. So … why not just write them up? Why ask for more time? The Order the court has made is public, so I can say that it was made on the basis of CPR 23.10 (without notice / hearing from John) and costs lie in the case (the winner of the libel claim will get the costs arising from the application and resistance to it).

Because the Order was made under CPR 23.10 Hemming now has the option of applying to set it aside or pointing and laughing at the other side’s frantic antics. What he does is a matter for him but he is unlikely to be feeling especially stressed.

In the meantime, your author confesses to being genuinely bewildered by Brand New Tube’s (BNT) approach to Poulton. In a recent edition of the Raw Report, Muhammad Butt (a director of My Media World Limited, which owns BNT) confirmed Sonia Poulton was employed. Yet, she continues to produce content as an employee which carries a high risk of defamation proceedings in relation to un-convicted, living, individuals it is suggested ought to be suspected of child rape and / or murder. Not, one would suspect, a recipe for business success (or solvency).

High Court Case Filed: Seeking £100,000 from Brand New Tube, Sonia Poulton and Muhammad Butt

Posted on November 9, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

On Friday, Sonia and Muhammad hosted a video entitled the Raw Report 04. Somewhat misleadingly, Poulton said this of me, “Sam Smith, has sent Muhammad Butt, Senior Founder of Brand New Tube a number of outrageous emails about me, sometimes citing Hemming’s case against me and how there is intention to damage me irreparably through it. Some of this correspondence is, in my view, reminiscent of blackmail and extortion with threats of public exposure for things which make no sense and demands for sums of money if BNT refused to comply“. If by “demands for sums of money”, she meant “a letter of claim”, sure. I am suing them for £100K over various publications I feel are defamatory and also Muhammad Butt’s video in which he condoned violence against me.

An email from the High Court e-Filing Service, Confirming Approval

In response to the misleading in the video claims, I confirm the following. In UK law, before suing someone you usually have to send them a letter. Such letters are ordinarily confidential. On 30 October 2020 I wrote a letter of claim to My Media World Limited (operator of Brand New Tube), Muhammad Butt and Sonia Poulton. The Defendants instructed a solicitor, Blake O’Donnell of Spencer West LLP, but did not reply in a compliant fashion. Instead they misleadingly described the letter as Blackmail in a public video on their website. Under the circumstances, I consider that either confidence in the letter has been waived by the Defendants or that there is now a countervailing public interest in my setting the record straight.

So, was it a bluff? Was it Blackmail? Unfortunately for the Defendants, nope. Over the weekend my supporters and I prepared the court documents and I filed them online on Sunday night. The court clerk approved the filing today. The court case has started. The value of the claim is £100,000. I did toy with the idea of publishing the letter of claim, which may still become appropriate but for now it is sufficient to provide proof that I am really suing them.

As my biography belows explains, I am not a solicitor. I do however have a Master’s Degree in Law (Legal Practice) and that includes the Legal Practice Course – the exam you need to do to become a solicitor here in the UK. The fact that I have not practiced but just used the skills in my IT business and charitable work is irrelevant. I have nearly 10 years experience as a McKenzie Friend now and have done 6 libel cases for myself or others. All successful. We shall see how matters progress.

Smith v Baker – Costs Order. Are Brand New Tube’s Muhammad Butt, Sonia Poulton and Spencer West’s Blake O’Donnell Next?

Posted on November 3, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now it is revealed she is under investigation herself by two police forces, one for nearly a year.

As per my previous article, Master Sullivan in the High Court has found Ms Baker’s pleadings to be deficient (revised judgement here). I feel that Ms Baker has had enough chances given her behaviour in related cases, but the Master has given Ms Baker a second chance. She has refused me permission to appeal against that decision. However, Ms Baker has been Ordered to pay the whole of my costs in the application to strike out in the amount of £1,226.80, within 14 days on the basis that her pleadings were deficient, had to be re-written, my application was consequently reasonable and Ms Baker’s opposition to it was not reasonable. Ironically, the only element queried on my costs schedule by Ms Baker was the postage, which of course would have been unnecessary had she agreed to accept service by email instead of insisting on my serving an 800+ page bundle on paper. My arguments that we were all guilty of tree murder were accepted by the court and the parties have now been Ordered by the Master to serve by email. It is also worth Ms Baker remembering that long (and by long I mean nearly 200 pages) pleadings take time to read and those costs are recoverable.

So who is next? I am presently contemplating a claim in damages against fringe journalist Sonia Poulton (who is being sued by John Hemming for allegedly repeating Baker’s allegations of sex crimes against him – allegations a court has ruled, “untrue”), Muhammad Butt and Brand New Tube. By ‘contemplating’ I mean I have served a letter of claim and propose to file the claim on CE-File either Friday or early next week. The slight uncertainty is only that verbatim transcripts have been ordered and may not be ready until next week.

The basis for my claim is simple. On 17 October 2020, Mr Butt published a video in which he used the following words – “I condone any violence against you by any Muslim”. I have sent him a letter of claim. Around the same time, Ms Poulton tweeted accusing me of Blackmail because of an email I sent to Muhammad Butt. After I sent a letter of claim and other matters, the video was made private.

Continue reading →

Video: Brand New Tube’s Data Protection Breaches, Muhammad Butt and Sonia Poulton

Posted on October 15, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

New, ‘uncensored’, YouTube competitor Brand New Tube has been hacked. In the aftermath, it has been revealed that they have apparently breached the Data Protection Act. Full MHN video with details and documentary evidence.

This is a video about Brand New Tube. Real Troll Exposure / Spin v Truth has also done some videos on this. The operator of Spin v Truth, Simon Just is concerned that some people wrongly think he has been in touch with the hackers. He denies this, there is no evidence of this in his videos, and asking them for comment for his articles or videos would not be illegal anyway unless he was actually involved in their crimes.

The video refers to an email from the ICO. Here are screenshots –

Part 1 of an email from the ICO press office confirming Brand New Tube was not registered.

Continue reading →

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

Posted on April 14, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

[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, 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.

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 →

Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

Exposing the Guilty – Protecting the Vulnerable

Category Archives: Defended!

Statement on Brand New Tube Hack – Long Video Coming Soon

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

Muhammad Butt and Brand New Tube Abandon Libel Claim – Baker Late and Seeking Relief from Sanctions

A Bad Day for Muhammad Butt (and Sonia Poulton) of BrandNewTube.com / My Media World Limited

Raw Report with Sonia Poulton Fails to Take Off – Are Brand New Tube Counting the Cost?

Hemming v Poulton: Sonia Poulton Begs for More Time

High Court Case Filed: Seeking £100,000 from Brand New Tube, Sonia Poulton and Muhammad Butt

Smith v Baker – Costs Order. Are Brand New Tube’s Muhammad Butt, Sonia Poulton and Spencer West’s Blake O’Donnell Next?

Video: Brand New Tube’s Data Protection Breaches, Muhammad Butt and Sonia Poulton

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