The Court Hearing Sonia Poulton Does Not Want You to Know About

In May this year, parts of Sonia Poulton’s case involving former Liberal MP John Hemming were struck out by a High Court Deputy Master – Irena Sabic – because they contradicted her previous witness statement – we said as dishonest lies. However, she succeeded in preserving other parts of her case, which she portrayed as a complete victory in the case as opposed to merely mitigating her losses in a procedural skirmish. The net costs payment was £3,850 against her. In particular Ms Poulton said that my appeal was refused. This was highly misleading – permission to appeal had only been refused by the original judge and Poulton knew an appeal was being pursued. In due course, as per the order shown below, that permission was granted by a higher court. The hearing was listed for 23rd October 2024 at the High Court in London, today. There has been not a whisper of this from Sonia Poulton, which in itself highly misleads her followers and donors.

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

In May a High Court Judge has struck out a critical part of Sonia Poulton’s Defence and ordered costs against her. Ms Poulton claimed this was a victory because part of her pleadings survived, and misleadingly claimed my appeal was refused. In fact permission was granted and it is being heard today.

Here is Ms Poulton’s X post (archive):

Poulton misleads her followers and donors by claiming complete victory and a refusal of my appeal.

Poulton misleads her followers and donors by claiming complete victory and a refusal of my appeal.

Here is the truth in the form of the order of High Court Judge Mrs Justice Steyn DBE:

Contrary to Ms Poulton's misleading statements permission was granted and the appeal is today. Whoever wins, Poulton's honesty and integrity cannot be trusted.

Contrary to Ms Poulton’s misleading statements permission was granted and the appeal is today. Whoever wins, Poulton’s honesty and integrity cannot be trusted.

Ms Poulton’s statements, as ever, were not to be relied upon. She knew full well that the first instance appeal refusal is not final and I could ask the higher court – the Deputy Master said I could in the remote hearing which Poulton attended.

Share Button

Robert Jenrick Impresses on Immigration at Hertfordshire Conservative Party Hustings

MHN is backing Robert Jenrick MP for leader of the Conservative Party. At an event on Sunday 20th October 2024, your author had the privilege of meeting him at an official hustings. Whilst Kemi Badenoch, who was also there, is an impressive candidate, I felt that Jenrick was by far the stronger and had a much clearer policy platform.

Robert Jenrick speaks to a packed hall in the Old Palace at Hatfield House. Your author can just be seen on the left, four rows back behind Jacob Rees Mogg.

Robert Jenrick speaks to a packed hall in the Old Palace at Hatfield House. Your author can just be seen on the left, four rows back behind Jacob Rees Mogg.

Before moving on to my support for Jenrick, let us not overlook Kemi Badenoch. I was tempted to back her for leader because she has a similar background to myself, starting as a software developer before studying law. She is an impressive candidate, and not to be disrespected. Second of six is nothing to sniff at.

Even so, Jenrick was far better. He has an extremely coherent platform – identify the core issues, number one being immigration, and identify solutions. Jenrick intends quite clearly to cut through the red tape of the European Court of Human Rights by withdrawing from it as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Convention provides a number of rights, for example the right to life, to be free from arbitrary state execution, free from arbitrary detention, free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, free from slavery, the right to a fair trial and also the right to family life. These were used, for example, to block the Rwanda plan attempted by the previous Conservative government. By withdrawing from the Convention, Jenrick will put truly radical options on the table for resolving the problem of illegal and legal migration.

I asked a question which the very efficient Hertfordshire area officers enabled me to have heard. I asked about Jenrick’s position on Ukraine. This was very near the end of Jenrick’s section and was cut off, but he answered it afterwards whilst mingling. His position was very cautious – he was in favour of Ukraine winning but not willing to escalate – I suspect he believes that the war will be resolved long before he is anywhere near number 10 Downing Street – so I was not dissatisfied with his answer.

Overall it was a very positive event.

Share Button

Cleverly Out Despite Shapps Support – MHN Supports Robert Jenrick for Conservative Leader

Robert Jenrick is MHN's pick for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

Robert Jenrick is MHN’s pick for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

James Cleverly is out of the race for Conservative leader, despite being boosted by the support of former MP and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps who was chair of his leadership campaign (archive). Cleverly obtained 37 votes, rivals Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch obtained 41 and 42 respectively. Cleverly doubtless benefited from Tory ‘big beast’ Grant Shapps’ support – it just was not enough. The question is which candidate can now connect with the the party, reconnect with former Conservative voters and appeal to the wider public. MHN says that means a proper strategy with credible policies that appeal to to voters and to Conservative Party members – past, present and future.

Grant Shapps has always been good at picking Conservative leaders. He was one of the signatories to David Cameron’s nomination papers for leadership. My personal opinion is James Cleverly gained more from Shapps’ support than Shapps did from backing him. Of course, Shapps is a canny politician and the support was undoubtedly in part based on the calculation that Cleverly could win and then reward his supporters. He was very close to correct – two or three votes more would have seen Cleverly in the final round. It was very close and Cleverly’s loss of two votes in the final round came as a big surprise to observers.

Grant Shapps, former MP for Welwyn Hatfield and former Defence Secretary. His support has been a large, influential boost to Cleverly's campaign. Even Shapps' formidable campaigning skills however, did not get Cleverly over the line.

Grant Shapps, former MP for Welwyn Hatfield and former Defence Secretary. His support has been a large, influential boost to Cleverly’s campaign.

The question is, what comes after the ballots of MPs? It is all very well to be able to predict and count support in the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but after their votes comes the Party members’ vote followed by the most important vote of all – the next general election.

Make no mistake, Labour did not win the last election. Keir Starmer obtained a large majority with fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘disaster’ of 2019. In the 2024 General Election, Starmer’s Labour received 9,708,716 votes. In 2019, Corbyn’s Labour had 10,269,051 votes. The only reason Keir Starmer got a whiff of power was that the Conservative vote split. When the New Labour-ish right regained power in Labour and ousted Corbyn, Tony Blair wrote a triumphant article in the Guardian, “Labour’s task is not to make itself feel better – it’s to win power” (archive). He summarised his message about Corbyn like this,

“The proximate cause of defeat was not complicated or hard to see, but simple and in plain sight. We put forward a leader and a manifesto that voters thought unacceptable to such a degree that many were repelled. Too extreme economically. Anti-western. Lacking in patriotism. And therefore dangerous.”

Tony finished, “These things are obvious. The frustration is that it is necessary to say them”. I haven’t seen Tony Blair for years since I was Labour Party staff in 2005 and as a local staffer I was part of the entourage on a visit he made to Enfield. I felt like responding, “touché”. The reason Corbyn was ever Labour Party leader is the same as the reason Keir Starmer got less votes. New Labour is a far, far more tainted brand than Corbyn’s hard leftism has ever been. That is an objective truth demonstrated by the cold hard numbers from the last election.

MHN author Sam Smith and (then) newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1997.

MHN editor Sam Smith and (then) newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair a very, very long time ago in 1997.

When I was 18 I was a starry eyed Labour supporter, indeed a party official. What we were promised was a, “Third Way” (archive) between left and right. What we got was something else – a government that mostly cared about image. Not just spin over substance but which presided over a culture in which whistle-blowers and critics were actively terrorised. As a few examples from many, there were the mid-Staffordshire Hospital scandal (archive), the Essex scandal (archive) and of course the Rotherham Scandal (archive). Under Labour, police and local authorities were afraid to acknowledge or tackle the rape of 1,400 children due to a fear of being accused of racism by the government. Aside from that was a great deal of race baiting and laughing with contempt at our members and supporters. There was casual corruption even over trivial issues. The contempt for the supposedly benighted masses ran to the bone. That is Tony’s legacy. That is why Keir Starmer got less votes than Jeremy Corbyn. That is why I cannot envisage ever returning to Labour. That is why all attempts to rehabilitate Blair have failed. To respond to Tony, “The frustration is that it is necessary to say.”

Continue reading

Share Button

@RedotEngine Makes Progress – @GodotEngine Mismanagement Exposed

A week ago MHN published an article on a split in the @GodotEngine community caused by perceived partisan political posturing and high-handed bans. This week, I revisited the two repositories to see whether new rival fork the Redot Engine (@RedotEngine on Twitter, @Redot-Engine on Github) were making any actual development progress. I observed that Redot were beginning to ramp up and move forward. Whilst trying to compare, I discovered that @GodotEngine had left pull requests (units of completed programming work) open and unresolved for over five years. Based on the Godot Engine project’s own public records and my experience as a Senior Software Developer and owner of an IT firm, in my opinion that is mismanagement by the Godot Engine maintainers.

The Godot Game Engine project maintainers have left *completed* work by volunteer developers to languish for over five years without approving or rejecting.

The Godot Game Engine project maintainers have left *completed* work by volunteer developers languish for over five years without approving or rejecting. If it still, ‘needs work’ after five years the request should be closed and they can always open a new one if they want to submit an improved version.

Redot Engine is a fork of the moderately well known open source project, the Godot Game Engine. It was formally launched last week after posts by project members were perceived by some as partisan political comments. This was accompanied by controversial bans and social media blocks which alienated a significant chunk of the Godot community. I followed up to see if there was any development substance to the new project or whether it was just political noise.

Continue reading

Share Button

The Godot Game Engine, Juan Linietsky, Nathalie Galla, Purges, Misogyny and Abuse

Juan Linietsky is the founder of the open source product the Godot Game Engine. He has set his Twitter profile private after a storm of protest hit the project, including over his own statements.

Juan Linietsky is the founder of the open source product the Godot Game Engine. He has set his Twitter profile private after a storm of protest hit the project, including over his own statements, which could amount to unlawful discrimination if made in jurisdictions such as the UK.

The popular open-source project for the game making tool Godot Game Engine is imploding after describing itself as #Wokot on Twitter, facing allegations of political purges and unlawful processing of user data, leading to a storm of condemnation by users, donor exits and the creation of a rival ‘fork’ called the Redot Engine. The problem has been worsened by a tone deaf post about gender politics from founder Juan Linietsky which may be seen by some as pro-transgender, but, although he may not have intended it, in your author’s opinion may be seen by others as endorsing abuse and misogyny. In some jurisdictions, the post could be seen as unlawful discrimination or creating a hostile environment.

The Godot Game Engine is an open-source tool for making games. For those readers unfamiliar with software development, it is a pre-written library of code that can be used to avoid reinventing the wheel when making games. Such libraries are popular because they save a lot of time and money. They are not generally political and nothing in the Godot Engine license has any political content, instead using the popular MIT license.

Problems at the project began on 27 September 2024 when the official account posted this tweet (archive):

The Godot Engine official account triggered the controversy by describing the engine as #Wokot.

The Godot Engine official account triggered the controversy by describing the engine as #Wokot.

The post, to MHN’s mind is gauche, but it was probably not the cause of the project’s problems. The project was responding to ludicrous assertions online that only ‘woke’ game developers used engines, which is absurd. Lots of companies use engines from a variety of commercial and open-source brands. What really triggered the outrage was blocking people for mild dissent and requests for technical fixes:

A developer sent this mildly critical message only to be blocked.

A developer sent this mildly critical message only to be blocked.

Twitter user @funnygamedev tweeted the above message asking for fixes to bitmap font functions (archive), only to be blocked shortly thereafter (archive). Other users reported similar experiences, only to be blocked. Some users even complained of being blocked when they had never used or interacted with the @GodotEngine account [1] (archive) [2] (archive).

Continue reading

Share Button

Shame of Cambridge Police: How Investigator Susan Marsh Failed Me as a Victim of Sex Crime

Your author is a proven victim of sex crime. Proven in the High Court, not the court of Tumblr, when I was the subject of revenge pornography / falsified pornography by neo-Nazis. Readers might expect the most supportive and appropriate institution to be police. Far from it. In this article I am naming and criticising Investigator Susan Marsh 3253, whose behaviour, in my view brings shame on Cambridgeshire Police and Chief Constable Nick Dean. The failure to support me as a victim of sex crime is consistent with a recent report critical of the force (archive), which criticised how the constabulary deals with calls from members of the public and management of sex offenders.

Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police Nick Dean was planning to retire but then decided to stay. Cambridge deserves better.

Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police Nick Dean was planning to retire but then decided to stay. Cambridge deserves better.

On 10 April 2024 I was the victim of a serious, real world crime (not internet crime). I consider this connected to the earlier sex crime referred to. Hertfordshire Police attended. Officers listened, with bodycam active, as I explained my concerns. They asked me to upload documents, which I did, that pointed towards a suspect based on their online publications.

Whereupon nothing happened. When I called to enquire, I was told the crime had been allocated to a police employee. When I updated the crime online because the suspected perpetrator had posted online as being in the area, the police officer who saw my update had no idea of the prior information I had given and closed the investigation. In the meantime, another police force dealing with a similar, likely related, offence in another part of the country, had been hard at work obtaining forensic evidence and CCTV footage. They identified the suspects’ vehicle, a 5 door model.

Continue reading

Share Button

Hemming Wins Preliminary Trial in Hemming v Poulton

John Hemming and Sonia Poulton faced each other in court again in Hemming v Poulton at a preliminary trial of meaning on 11th July 2024. The hearing did not go well for Sonia, who has always denied defaming Hemming.

Artists impression – John Hemming and Sonia Poulton clash at the High Court in London on 11th July 2024, backed by supporters. Poulton extends a skeletal hand across the battlefield, urging her undead minions forward.

For the past four years, Sonia Poulton has been denying she defamed John Hemming. As to some of her posts she even denies they mentioned him. That position began to crumble, badly, earlier this year when Deputy Master Irena Sabic (a High Court procedural judge) struck out Poulton’s denials as inconsistent with a witness statement and ordered a preliminary trial of meaning.

The preliminary trial of meaning occurred on 11th July 2024 and the judgment is here, for those who prefer to read the court’s words for themselves. Under consideration were two of the five publications for which Poulton is being sued. The judge, Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre, found both publications contained defamatory meanings. The weakest was an opinion meaning – but still defamatory, for a video Poulton made with Shaun Attwood and published in 2019. Even so, Poulton faces a critical difficulty. Opinion meanings are usually easier to defend – except for damning documents that have now passed into the public domain. Correspondence with police shows that Sonia Poulton finds Esther Baker so untrustworthy she would not give evidence for her in their failed criminal trial (charges dropped) against Darren Laverty.

Continue reading

Share Button

Sonia Poulton Resigns from TNT: Did She Jump Before Being Pushed Over Child Abuse Case?

Sonia Poulton says she has resigned from Australian online platform TNT Radio (archive). But did she jump before she was pushed after misleading her followers again about her latest loss in the ongoing case of Hemming v Poulton, which includes allegations of child abuse against her? As a result of misleading statements by Poulton, MHN is publishing the whole court order from a recent hearing.

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

A High Court Judge has struck out a critical part of Sonia Poulton’s Defence and ordered costs against her. She has also parted ways with her most recent employer (again). Are these things connected?

At the last hearing in Hemming v Poulton, both former MP John Hemming and I applied to strike out parts of Sonia Poulton’s Amended Defence and Counterclaim. In fact, both applications were partly prepared by myself, based on advice from barrister David Hirst and John’s application was delivered by barrister Matthew Hodson.

John’s application succeeded, mine failed. Net result? Part of Sonia Poulton’s pleadings were struck out as inconsistent with an earlier witness statement (that is, lies). She was ordered by Deputy Master Sabic (a High Court procedural judge) to pay John £4,000 and I was ordered to pay her £150. John is indemnifying me, so he is bound to pay it. On any measure, Sonia still made a net loss of £3,850.

Sonia is being sued by John Hemming for libel, harassment and breach of the GDPR. The claim includes allegations of child abuse. One part of the claim is that Hemming alleges that Sonia named two child torture victims in breach of a court order, when the judge who imposed the order had made clear it would harm them. Hemming says that Sonia was interviewed by police and the video was taken down. Sonia Poulton admits to this. Hemming then goes on to say Poulton lied to her followers about it on her fundraising page, accusing him (and for that matter, myself and Darren Laverty) of trying to frame her to conceal child abuse perpetrated by himself. He says she acted with malice because she knew she was guilty of the crime, even if she got off by grovelling and saying it was an accident. Even if she did not believe she was guilty, she at least knew it was reasonable to report her to police, since accidental or not, she did breach a child protection court order. So even then, he argues, her post was malicious. Sonia denied her words bore this highly libellous meaning on the basis that she was not talking about us. Irena Sabic KC struck out the denial because it contradicted an earlier witness statement. In effect, the court has found that Sonia was talking about us. Her words referred to Hemming. The next step is a pre-trial to determine what her words meant.

Sabic upheld John’s application and said my application had merit and was, “ably” presented but she wanted to leave the contested pleadings for trial. So, my application failed. The judge did not grant me permission to appeal the refusal of my application, but she said I could run all of those defences at trial. I have applied to the higher court for permission, it is an appeal from a Deputy Master so it goes to a High Court Judge. In the meantime there is a preliminary trial which Sonia is likely to lose as the key point in her defence was struck out. Unfortunately, Sonia has written about this in misleading terms as though she had a great success. What is horrifying is that at least some of Sonia’s deluded followers think she has won the entire case.

Twitter user xCharlyJox is going to be disappointed.

Twitter user xCharlyJox is going to be disappointed.

@xCharlyJox believes Sonia has won. In fact, the whole order is below.

Continue reading

Share Button

Lying Sonia Poulton Has Critical Defence Summarily Judged, Ordered to Pay Costs – Donors Should Ask for Money Back

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

A High Court Judge has struck out a critical part of Sonia Poulton’s Defence to John Hemming’s claim and ordered costs against her.

Sonia Poulton faced yet another reverse on Wednesday as High Court Deputy Master Irena Sabic KC (archive) handed her a defeat in the latest round of former MP John Hemming’s ongoing libel, harassment and data protection claim against her. Hemming is suing Poulton for a number of online publications and she has been desperately claiming for several years now that most of them are not about John Hemming. Unfortunately, Poulton foolishly tried to claim allegations she made in a post (‘the 5th Publication’, in the claim) is not about John Hemming when she had signed a witness statement to the contrary. The judge was not impressed. In my opinion, based on the contradiction, Poulton was deliberately lying. Donors to Poulton should take note of the below, and seek their money back!

The Case Management Conference (‘CMC’) your author attended this week with Sonia Poulton was one of the maddest court hearings I have ever, ever attended, despite the extremely efficient judge. It was originally listed for costs management and case management. John Hemming and I then made applications for directions and to strike out parts of Ms Poulton’s claim. We followed the rules on cooperating for time estimates. Ms Poulton did not. We filed proper applications – Ms Poulton did not, but raised lengthy issues including a request for an expert witness. An anonymous expert witness. An. Anonymous. Expert. Witness. Despite being sanctioned on costs to the tune of over £30K at the hearing in October, Ms Poulton also applied for penalties against us for, “oppression” on costs.

As the hearing began the Deputy Master disposed of Ms Poulton’s applications in mere moments on the basis there was no time as there was no proper application (and therefore, time allocated in the hearing). She then moved on to the serious allegations against Poulton.

Continue reading

Share Button

Riddings Park Community Centre: Moderate Trustees Resign Over Event by Extremist Sonia Poulton

After being put on an indefinite hiatus by the video sharing platform One VSP, extremist Sonia Poulton has been trying to fundraise by other means. On Saturday 9th December, concerningly, Riddings Park Community Centre allowed an event of hers to go ahead despite being notified of some of Sonia Poulton’s content. Meanwhile her former platform Brand New Tube has been reprimanded by the ICO, shortly before it was renamed One VSP, and is now under investigation by OfCom. A judge has found that allegations of child abuse made against Poulton by Hemming as part of his libel and harassment claim have, “a real prospect of success”.

Sonia Poulton promotes Albert Bishai

Sonia Poulton promotes the channel of a man called Albert Bishai – with this sinister graphic. In your author’s opinion, this graphic bears the racist and anti-Semitic meaning, promoted by Sonia Poulton, that the world is ruled by a Jewish conspiracy in the name of Satan. According to the public notice of investigation, OfCom are investigating whether One VSP has taken sufficient measures to protect the general public from, “material that would amount to a criminal offence under laws relating to terrorism, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and racism and xenophobia”.

In a recent court judgement, allegations of child abuse against Poulton were found to have a ‘real prospect of success’ and John Hemming was given permission to bring a claim against Poulton on that basis. Screenshots from his draft amendments to his claim and the judgement below:

John Hemming New Pleadings Malice Crime Accepted

John Hemming’s pleadings that Sonia is guilty of a criminal offence of child abuse by her naming two children who had been tortured in breach of a court order. The court found this had a, ‘real prospect of success’.

Judgement November 2023 - Judge Finds Real Prospects of Success on Child Abuse Allegations Against Poulton

In her judgement of November 2023 – Ms Justice Hill DBE allowed Hemming permission to bring a claim of malicious defamation against Sonia Poulton. The claim is based on her abusing two child torture victims by naming them in breach of a court order. When Poulton was interviewed by police and the video was taken town, it is alleged that she then defamed John Hemming and others as having tried to frame her. The judge found the claim has a ‘real prospect of success’.

The remaining Trustees have not denied any of the allegations when they were put in writing by MHN.

The content of Sonia Poulton’s output is now the topic of concern from many people and institutions. We will continue to campaign for her to be de-platformed for promoting hate speech and reckless, irresponsible journalism. The two resignees are to be commended. The remaining Trustees have only themselves to blame for being tarred with the brush of Poulton’s vile extremism.

Share Button