Category Archives: Human Rights

Blood on Their Hands: Kiwi Farms, Randi Harper and Very Ex-Sheriff David Morgan

Posted on by
4

There has been a lot of whining online from Kiwi Farmers and extremists over the last few days that the unceremonious departure of Kiwi Farms from Cloudflare is in some way the doom of free speech, or a victory for extremist transgender activists. I am a fairly right-wing British Conservative and I have been campaigning against Kiwi Farms for more than 6 years, sometimes aided by Conservative MP and Minister Grant Shapps. Kiwi Farms, owned by Joshua Conner Moon (who has changed his legal name to James Gabriel Potter) is not being banned for criticising transgender ideology – readers will find Britain’s new Prime Minister Liz Truss has some strong views on the subject. Kiwi Farms is being banned for all the crimes carried out by its owner and members. It is a site so vile it unites right-wing Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene with the Anti-Defamation League and Antifa. Even Hatreon, the literal wannabe neo-Nazi alternative to Patreon, banned Kiwi Farms. This is an article to remind readers of two truly awful individuals who helped keep the site up – Randi Harper and David Morgan.

JoshuaConnerMoon

A photograph of Joshua Conner Moon (legal name James Gabriel Potter) before he put on weight. Joshua Moon is a sadistic paedophile who admits to viewing cartoon child pornography and hosted fantasies about abducting, wounding and raping children to death. Image used under the UK Parody exception pursuant to s30A Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Kiwi Farms is not being banned because it is a final bastion of free speech. Kiwi Farms is being banned because it is an organised terrorism and gang-stalking site, that has hounded a number of innocent people – gay, straight, trans and normal – to suicide through defamation and criminal harassment. Its owner Joshua Moon is an avowed, maniacal, paedophile who is on record as saying that ordinary child pornography is not arousing enough for him and he needs, “hurtcore”. Who knowingly and willingly hosted fanfic paedophile stories in which, “Big J” – an alias for Josh himself, moved to a third world country, abducted, mutilated, raped and murdered children. If a service supports Kiwi Farms, they are not supporting free speech they are supporting a website whose members, led by sadistic paedophile Dynastia, took a vote to target children. Paedo-Dynastia has always been arrogant and convinced of his or her immunity – but what will they do when Josh is finally interviewed? They will be identified, hunted down and dealt with. The final straw for Kiwi Farms was repeated bomb threats.

The crumbling of Kiwi Farms is not over yet, but when it is gone there will still be free speech for Conservatives, for Gender Critical Feminists, even for the Alt-Right. Liz Truss herself has signalled her intent to use current Parliamentary legislation to protect the right to free speech online (archive). Those laws may protect many people such as Milo Yiannopoulos or Vox Day. There will be nothing for the Kiwi Farmers though. “Paedophiles unite for stalking yay!” is not a proposal that will ever gain popular public support. There will still be a Ralph Retort –  Ethan Ralph being yet another right wing commentator who is celebrating the downfall of the Kiwi Farms (archive).

Many people have expressed surprise that the owner of the Kiwi Farms site was not arrested earlier. Perhaps if he had, lives might have been saved – such as the 51 Muslims who were shot dead in the Christchurch Mosque shootings whose perpetrator was abetted by Moon (archive). For that, I blame two people. Step forward, Randi Harper, enabler of the paedophile monster Joshua Conner Moon! In 2016 Joshua Moon was arrested by Pensacola police after his stalking email service lolcow.email was used to threaten murders at local schools. Randi helped pressure the sheriff into releasing him. She was publicly thanked by the Kiwis and the thread on her was locked in gratitude. She wrote an article about the support on Medium, claiming to be motivated by morality (archive). However, she was later accused of using the site to attack her enemies (archive). Nora Reed, a transwoman who accused Harper, described her as, “a fucking snake”.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Solicitors Regulatory Authority – “Gathering Information” Over Alleged Gerald Shamash Letter to @Women4Wes

Posted on by
Reply

As a Conservative law blogger, I read left-wing Labour blog the Skwawkbox surprisingly often, usually in an attempt to convince Labour-backing family members that Keir Starmer is a bad man and they should consider that, “other” party. Earlier today, I happened to notice a story about a Twitter account called @Women4Wes and a letter the operator had allegedly received from solicitor Gerald Shamash from Edwards Duthie Shamash. The letter was so plainly deficient that I reported it to the SRA, since if he really wrote it, I felt it should be investigated as a conduct issue. The SRA have now confirmed they are gathering further information. At the same time, Edwards Duthie Shamash (EDS) have contacted me saying that the letter is a forgery, which I find to be a plausible explanation. Either way, someone is in trouble.

A letter allegedly from Gerald Shamash, solicitor, to a Twitter user. The letter opens by purporting to be an order.

A letter allegedly from Gerald Shamash, solicitor, to a Twitter user. The letter opens by purporting to be an order. Mr Shamash’s law firm, EDS, say it is forged and he did not write it.

This is a really bad solicitors letter. So bad, I was not certain that a real solicitor wrote it. The letter does not clearly identify a head of claim, although it refers to harassment and content which, “infringes” on their client’s character. It does not refer to a statute or to my mind comply with adequate clarity with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct or any pre-action protocol. For example, I am not clear how a site called, @Women4Wes can be said to be pretending to be Wes Streeting. If I was writing this letter for myself or someone I was charitably assisting as a McKenzie Friend, I would comply fully with the Pre-action Protocol for Media and Communications claims. There would probably be a schedule of harassing tweets and also defamatory tweets.

However, the real flaw is in the opening five words, “This CEASE AND DESIST ORDER […]“. I’m a gonna lay it out there. This letter is not a court order. Solicitors generally do not and cannot make, “cease and desist” orders. Judges do. Anyone with a reasonable familiarity with the legal system should know this and critically, a solicitor ought to know this is not appropriate. A legally ignorant, poorly educated, recipient might well confuse this with a court order such as a restraining order. It is on headed notepaper, apparently from a real firm of solicitors. It looks, “official”.

That is not to endorse the @Women4Wes account, which has to my mind made some very unwise posts. I did see, within moments of reading it, what I thought was an actionable post (albeit, not actionable by Mr Streeting). That is no excuse for this letter. If I was an aggrieved politician and I paid a solicitor to write a letter and they sent me this as a draft I would terminate the instruction on the spot citing a loss of confidence in their competence and then I would demand a full refund of the retainer.

I put the allegation to Gerald Shamash of Edwards Duthie Shamash and to his senior partner, Shaun Murphy, asking if they really wrote this letter. I received a letter from an associate denying it. I also put the allegation to the SRA press office. Taking my points, they confirm that they are looking into the matter. An SRA spokesperson said: “Now we aware of this, we will gather all relevant information before deciding on any next steps.”

Share Button

I Voted for Rishi Sunak

Posted on by
Reply

Today, MHN editor Sam Smith, having met both candidates, voted for Rishi Sunak in the Conservative Party leadership election. It was a decision on a narrow balance, and should not be seen as disparagement of the other side, but here are the reasons why.

MHN Editor met Rishi Sunak at an event organised by Grant Shapps MP, in the beautiful grounds of Brocket Hall in Hertfordshire. Picture shows Rishi speaking to party members.

MHN Editor met Rishi Sunak at an event organised by Grant Shapps MP, in the beautiful grounds of Brocket Hall in Hertfordshire. Picture shows Rishi speaking to party members.

Firstly, kudos to Welwyn-Hatfield MP and Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps. Thanks to him, local Conservative party members have had the chance to meet both candidates for leader – Liz Truss at the Christmas Party and, at a lunchtime event on Tuesday, Rishi Sunak. Sunak spoke to members in a room in beautiful Brocket Hall and afterwards spoke to members in the grounds. Kudos also to both candidates for meeting members.

The beautiful grounds of Brocket Hall in summer. Auberge-du-Lac restaurant is on the other side of the lake. Picture by MHN.

The beautiful grounds of Brocket Hall in summer. Auberge-du-Lac restaurant is on the other side of the lake. Picture by MHN.

Nonetheless, how to vote was a difficult decision because neither candidate shares my view – at least openly – on the issue most important to me. That issue is the Ukraine war and the linked cost-of-living crisis. My view is that our policy is wrong. Whilst Putin may well be a deplorable dictator, the Ukraine war and the consequent global energy, economic and cost-of-living crisis is the West’s fault.

Firstly, let us be clear. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy, who took power in 2019, is no heroic democrat. Forget Russian propaganda – readers need only look at what Amnesty International and the United Nations said about the Ukraine under his rule.

From the Amnesty International report on Ukraine 2021 (archive) –

Continue reading →

Share Button

Cloudflare and Kiwifarms: An Ominous Cloudflare Executive?

Posted on by
4
KiwiFarmsTwitter

Kiwi Farms is run by paedophile sadist Joshua Conner Moon and exists to harass the disabled. Click for full size.

#DropKiwiFarms has been trending on Twitter for some time now. The movement seeks to shut down Kiwi Farms – an evil website that this site has been campaigning against since 2016. Members of the campaign have been pushing for support services and providers to terminate the site – in particular Cloudflare. Cloudflare has today released a response (archive) that many have interpreted as a veiled refusal – essentially saying that it is dangerous and not their job to ban websites. In this article I muse on and recap on some of the Kiwis worst hits and recount a disturbing rumour about Cloudflare that some readers might want to look into. It is alleged that a particular Cloudflare user is a Cloudflare executive.

Kiwifarms markets itself as for, “gossip and exploitation of the mentally handicapped for amusement purposes”. Users of the site would defame and manipulate persons with serious disabilities living in the community – female members would even meet them and record ‘dates’ for cruel entertainment. The most well-known victim of the site was Christian Weston Chandler (CWC or Chris-chan), a vulnerable autistic man, now known as Christine whose life became a goldfish bowl – almost a real-life Truman-show. CWC is currently on trial for alleged incest with his mother. He is innocent until proven guilty, but there is substantial evidence that Kiwi Farms users sought to persuade him to commit the act. If he is guilty, it is beyond doubt that the Kiwis bear moral responsibility and likely legal responsibility.

The campaign by Keffals has been supported by some and criticised by others. It is a source of interest to me because I have seen both sides of this argument. Suing and campaigning to silence false and defamatory speech, whilst also wanting to protect controversial speech including, for example, Milo Yiannopoulos. I do not agree with a lot of what Milo says but he did not deserve to be banned from Twitter. I have been reflecting on the moral line. What is the difference? It is this –

What would happen to me if I started a website called SamsDrugsRUs.com and sold cocaine online? I would be arrested. Any service provider that found out would ban me. I would have my door kicked in by police and spend decades in prison. There is a reason drugs markets are on the darknet. There is no country in the world where that is legal. There is no country that will enforce a contract that one party is using for illegal purposes. You can evict a tenant who is running an illegal brothel or a crack-den. You can drop a website that is engaging in copyright violations.

The line with Kiwi Farms is the blatant illegality on the site itself and the spin-offs. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not the first politician targeted in connection with the site. Kiwi Farms owner Joshua Conner Moon set up a site called 9chan where users made a forum called /leftnudes/ for stalking left-wing politicians and boasted about trying to break in to British Member of Parliament Jess Phillips’ house.

Members of sinister Kiwi Farms sister-site 9chan (also owned by Joshua Conner Moon) claim that they tried to break in to Jess Phillips' house.

Members of sinister Kiwi Farms sister-site 9chan (also owned by Joshua Conner Moon) claim that they tried to break in to Jess Phillips’ house.

Continue reading →

Share Button

Could the UK High Court Case of Smith v Baker Determine the Delaware Case of Twitter v Musk et al and the Fate of Twitter’s Vijaya Gadde?

Posted on by
2
Vijaya Gadde at a Fortune Event

Vijaya Gadde 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 as well as anti-Semitism? Picture by Photograph by Kevin Moloney/Fortune Brainstorm TECH. (NC License here).

On 4 April 2020, I published the article, “Twitter’s Del Harvey / Alison Shea and Vijaya Gadde Openly Back Child Rape Stalker and Anti-Semite Racist”. Multiple parties, including Twitter, threatened lawsuits. Twitter did not make good on their threats. Esther Baker attempted to do so. The lawsuit over the article, brought by Esther Baker in the High Court in London, was commenced in 2020 (before the Twitter purchase was proposed) and determined in my favour last week. The lawsuit has the potential to harm Twitter’s reputation. So, did Twitter know about it, and did they disclose it to Elon Musk when they formed the purchase agreement between Twitter and Musk currently being litigated in Delaware in the United States? Did Twitter notify Musk of the legal risks arising from the matters in this article – “Labour’s Secret Deal with Twitter and Facebook to Surveil its own members”? The article ended with an express threat to draw it to the attention of the relevant regulatory law enforcement body.

It is worth recapping for new readers. In 2020 I was covering a significant amount of what, in my opinion, was wrongdoing by Twitter. The Labour Party head office team had been using an in-house application that used their database of member emails, cross-referenced with privileged access to the Twitter API, to scan their members’ tweets for statements warranting disciplinary action. It is unclear if members’ consent was ever clearly sought for this by either the Labour Party or Twitter, or whether they were told about it. It is likely that would have been a legal requirement for processing to be compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The second issue was Twitter’s inconsistent handling of complaints of breaches of its rules. Esther Baker, had, at the time, been made subject to two restraining orders by UK courts. One was for libel and the other was for, in the words of His Honour Judge Gargan, “particularly malevolent” and “racist” stalking. One of her supporters, Alan Goodwin, had made plainly anti-Semitic posts including gratuitous, utterly baseless, speculation that a senior British government minister had conspired with Mossad to cover up child abuse. The actions of Esther Baker (@Esther9982) and her supporter Alan Goodwin (@Ciabaudo), followed by Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde’s failure to deal with them even after being thoroughly put on notice, were the subjects of my 4 April article.

Around 8pm on 1 May 2020, I received a letter from UK lawyers Bristows telling me that my article was libellous and there was, “no conceivable chance of defending” it as truth or honest opinion and saying it should be, “removed immediately”. I refused, and published the relevant section of the letter and mocked them in this article. I then requested further information under UK pre-action rules. Much as Elon Musk complains, Twitter were curiously reluctant to answer my questions and backed off as I detailed in my later article, “Twitter and Bristows in Humiliating Libel Climb Down”.

Extract from Bristows' Email of 6 May 2020

Bristows now claim they were never threatening to sue me on behalf of Twitter. That letter they sent me late on a Friday night was just abstract information shootin’ the breeze.

Bristows are a proper libel law firm and therefore know better than to test me in court. I stand by the article. Vijaya and her colleagues have in effect supported the actions of Esther Baker and Alan Goodwin by not banning / permanently suspending them from Twitter, when others have been banned without recourse for far lesser wrongdoing. In fact Twitter did not even remove the tweets that were the actus re of the stalking, just made them inaccessible in the UK.

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

YouTuber Ann Drogyne to be Sued?

Posted on by
8
A Scary Legal Hammer

Allegations of serious crimes, like child rape, may not end well for the publisher when made in a non-privileged context.

The Witchfinder has been asked to assist in a possible court case, pro-bono, against YouTuber Ann Drogyne.

Recently, I have become aware of an argument between YouTuber “Ann Drogyne” and another minor YouTuber. A bit of a flame feud. I did not want to get involved because although my sympathies lie with their opponent, I cannot fight all the battles of everyone else on the internet. I was also of the view that there was an element of the old adage, “six of one, half-a-dozen of the other”.

Then Drogyne started posting calling her opponent a, “self-confessed child rapist”, on multiple websites. I have to say, that is going a bit far. From the records I have seen, the alleged rape was supposed to have occurred in 1992, 30 years ago. The alleged perpetrator was investigated at the time. They denied it at the time. Said it never happened. Police were given the names of the other parties. One can believe the alleged perpetrator’s account that police asked the alleged victim about it and the person denied it happened. No further action was taken. A journalist who repeated the allegation was later criticised by a judge for other questionable actions at the time.

The allegation seems to me to blatantly exceed the threshold in s1 Defamation Act 2013. It seems to me it will be hard to prove Truth given the contemporary denials, and the fact the only person who could possibly support the allegation, the journalist, says they cannot remember and also was criticised by a judge for other similar articles at the time. In fact, they were also interviewed by police and blamed a number of errors on sub-editors. Similarly, to use the defence of Public Interest, Drogyne would have (to simplify) show the criteria were met. The defence is not a cover-all, it is intended to cover balanced responsible reporting. I find it difficult to see how it could cover what was published.

I am also not sure about the compliance with the GDPR. Clearly an allegation of sex crime falls under Article 9 GDPR, assuming there is no exemption (e.g. domestic use, journalism).

I think there are grounds to investigate whether Drogyne has committed some civil wrongs. Subject of course to Drogyne’s right to explain or provide some defence.

After a recent video, Drogyne has today received a letter of claim from her opponent. I am providing pro-bono support. Oops. Still, perhaps they have a reasonable defence or explanation. We shall see in due course.

Share Button

Smith v Baker: Judgement Update

Posted on by
1
BakerRestrained

Esther Baker was been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn over her allegations against John Hemming. She agreed to lifelong restraint for her allegations against me.

The latest judgement in the turgid saga of Smith v Baker is out on BAILII. As readers will remember, I sued Esther Baker and most of her defence, as well as much of the counterclaim, has been struck out. She settled in a lifetime restraining agreement – a Tomlin Order, and I am still receiving my costs back in monthly instalments via High Court Enforcement Officers (High Court bailiffs basically). Some of the counterclaim limps on. There has been a favourable judgement on meaning. Judgement here.

By way of explanation, there is often a dispute in libel claims about meaning. The Claimant wants the court to find there were really damaging claims. The Defendant, that the claims held weaker meanings, or to find meanings that are easier to defend as Truth, Honest Opinion and so forth. So in this case the judge had a pre-trial held by written submissions, to decide meaning, what were allegations of meaning and fact, and what was defamatory at common law (i.e. what might be harmful).

Baker wanted some strong meanings. She did not get the. For example, about publication 1 (still up here) – one meaning she wanted was to say she was violent,

Continue reading →

Share Button

Just v Moody: Doctor Louise Moody Settles, but She is Right About Harrop

Posted on by
6

Last week I was interested to read an article by Doctor Louise Moody, which linked to uploads of legal letters she had sent claiming I had broken the law by serving ‘court documents’ on her. Not least, because forwarding an email with unsigned draft documents is not service (Bar Standards Board v O’Connor (a Barrister) [2012] 17th August, Visitors to the Inns of Court at 33) and if it is, recent case law states that McKenzie Friends are permitted to effect service for their clients, because solicitors use unqualified process servers all the time (Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2865, 67). She has now removed these allegations and settled with Simon.

The allegations were very serious, and amounted to an allegation I have committed a criminal offence, which Mr Just abetted and procured. After these cases were pointed out to her, she has now settled and removed the allegations, including agreeing with Mr Just never to repeat them, nor to mention him at all save to rebut allegations by third parties.

I add that I hope this matter is at an end because leaving aside this strange incident, I agree in large part with Moody on the issues of transgender identity. I feel that Doctor Harrop, the GP whose conduct was at issue in the online debate that apparently prompted all this, should have been struck off not just suspended. His conduct was far worse than Barbara Hewson’s. I take the view that drunkenly publicly swearing at your regulator as Hewson did is a slapped wrist / warning / week suspension offence.

However, in the Harrop case the GMC found,

“The tribunal considered that Dr Harrop’s actions in posting inappropriate tweets over a sustained period of time, in contradiction to the advice he was given, breached fundamental tenets of the profession.

His actions brought the profession into disrepute, undermining public confidence in the profession and the standards of conduct expected from members of the profession.”

It is amazing how many SJW ‘transgender allies’ and ‘male feminists’ turn out to engage in inappropriate or creepy behaviours. They seem to feel their beliefs justify anything up to and including stalking (that is not to say Harrop’s behaviour amounted to stalking, albeit it was found to be improper).

I would like to add again that I do not condone the @ReporterLAL account. I do agree with some of the observations and some of the, ‘victims’ clearly provoked matters but even so some of the @ReporterLAL account’s tweets I do not agree with and I distance myself from it, as does Mr Just. I expressly do not condone the comments about Dr Moody’s deceased partner.

Share Button

Dr Louise June Moody Abandons Deranged Kiwifarms Faildox of @ReporterLAL as Simon Just

Posted on by
4

In my previous article, I wrote that I had assisted Simon Just by helping to draft proceedings against Dr Louise Moody for her allegations he was secretly running an alleged troll Twitter account called @ReporterLAL. Within days she has humiliatingly deleted the tweets complained of and is now posting extracts from a public High Court judgement (see 88 ii) on Twitter (archive) in which a High Court judge said that there are, “unanswered questions” about the “closeness” of that account to Stephanie Hayden. In which case why accuse Just in the first place? The Just / @ReporterLAL allegation strikes me as the stupidest faildox ever. Just has never written about transgender self-identification or Dr Moody and to the extent I have, I was firmly on Moody’s side of the debate!

Moody Tweets about @ReporterLAL links to Stephanie Hayden

Moody Tweets about @ReporterLAL links to Stephanie Hayden, apparently abandoning Simon Just Faildox

The @ReporterLAL account is a long-running and controversial account. It has been repeatedly fail-doxed. One incident was when Dr Jacqui Dillon accused me. Dr Dillon is the literal Chair of the Hearing Voices Network (archive). Dillon also claimed that a famous rock star, Amy Lee of Evanescence, had personally told Dillon I was a stalker, and that Lee had a restraining order against me. Lee denied this and after I brought a High Court libel and harassment claim against Dillon, acting in person, Dillon quickly and humiliatingly settled and agreed never to repeat the allegation. My article is here and the permanent restraining / settlement order against Dr Dillon is here.

To be clear, I dis-associate myself from @ReporterLAL and so does Simon Just. I agree with some of their comments about false child abuse allegations but I do not approve of all their posts and I do not know who they are. I mostly fall on Moody’s side of the transgender debate. I have had limited recent correspondence with them, via their burner email, to discuss Moody’s allegations.

The Simon Just speculation however is one of the stupidest fail-dox I have ever seen. Just has never written about transgender issues. A search of his website yields no instances of the discussions of Stephanie Hayden, Louise Moody or most of the people ReporterLAL is involved with. For that matter, this site has never written about Hayden. The only ‘evidence’ I have seen is posts on Kiwi Farms along the lines of, “hurr durr they deny it so it must be true”. Kiwi Farms is a website run by a maniacal paedophile who supported the mass shooter of 51 innocent people at prayer and gloated about it (archive).

According to Kiwi Farms, Just, that guy who never wrote about the Hayden controversy (let me Google that for you), denies involvement so it must be true. I have seen the legal correspondence between Just and Moody. In my opinion there is likely a good claim for Just against Moody. On the other hand, the posts are deleted and Moody is now posting about the account’s links to someone else, which is not far off a retraction, albeit without an apology. Hopefully, it is the last we will see of allegations it is Simon Just.

Share Button