Jess Phillips MP, Her Outside Earnings … and How to Take Them Away

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

My last article was an exposé of the repugnant female MP Jess Phillips and her irresponsible, exploitative behaviour towards a mentally ill, alleged child abuse victim Esther Baker. As my article explained, there is now ample evidence Baker (who claims to hear voices) has accused the wrong men of rape. Conveniently for Phillips, one of them was her electoral opponent. The court process Esther Baker has initiated, egged on by others, has left Baker with a costs bill likely to be in the region of £12,000. Law enforcement and the public purse have wasted even larger sums. This article gives details and then provides a contacts spreadsheets for any reader who would like to help organise a boycott.

Unlike Baker, Phillips has no money problems. In fact her most recent register of interests (archive) shows a plethora of writing and speaking engagements. It is easy to see why the Corbynites dislike her so – she is hardly a horny-handed son of toil. In the last year Phillips has had numerous writing, speaking and television engagements (including her book) bringing her in around £45,000. She finds time to be Deputy Editor of House Magazine at £2,000 a quarter. All this whilst drawing a full time salary as a Member of Parliament employed by the good people of Birmingham Yardley.

Phillips has an extraordinary number of enemies –

Share Button

Jess Phillips MP, Mark Watts and Who Raped Esther Baker?

Defended banner for articles defended in court

[UPDATE – 17 August 2022. Esther Baker sued over this article in High Court Case QB-2020-001013. She lost. The court granted both summary judgement and strike-out finding the claim had no realistic prospect of success. No other person mentioned sued and the time limit has elapsed. Judgement here. My follow-up article here. This article has been added to the “DEFENDED!” category and readers may rely on it.]

Official_portrait_of_Jess_Philips

Jess Philips MP (official portrait, CC-BY-SA 3.0 license).

Who raped Esther Baker? Baker is suing John Hemming for libel, claiming he raped her. He is counter-suing. On 15 April 2019 I sat in the High Court with John Hemming, Barbara Hewson and Richard-Owen Thomas and looked on as Baker, accompanied only by former Exaro Editor Mark Watts, was handed a costs order likely to run to about £12,000. Baker was also ordered to have a psychiatric assessment to be filed at court. During the hearing it was revealed that Baker asserts that she is seriously mentally ill. Politicians and ‘journalists’ such as Labour MP Jess Phillips and former Exaro editor Mark Watts have encouraged Baker’s allegations yet Jess Phillips is not Baker’s MP and never has been. Were Phillips and Watts right to encourage a vulnerable mentally ill woman in making unproven allegations public? Were they right to expose her to the possibility of mental injury from public criticism and controversy? Were they right to expose her to legal risks? Have Watts and Phillips helped Esther Baker … or benefited from her distress?

As my previous article recounted, Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel – without legal representation. He is counter-suing. The claim is not yet decided but outcomes so far are have not been good for her. Barrister Barbara Hewson’s excellent article is here for an independent perspective.

Amongst other things, John Hemming alleges Esther Baker’s lawsuit is out of time. Despite regularly insisting on Twitter that the ‘truth’ will be revealed she has point blank refused to particularise the alleged ‘rape’. This led to the judge telling her that Hemming did not know the claim he had to meet – Baker’s pleadings were inadequate. She claims in reply that her lawsuit is not out of time because she was mentally ill and lacked mental capacity to litigate for part of the limitation period.

My earlier article did not cover Esther Baker’s mental health problems, as I wanted to treat the issue sensitively and appropriately in this piece. On Twitter Baker has admitted to being, ‘psychotic’ (archive) and referred to hearing voices. In the publicly available pleadings in her case it is alleged that she suffers from auditory and ‘command’ hallucinations. In simple terms, she hears voices in her head that tell her to do things. Sometimes she obeys.

For a woman in Baker’s position to bring a lawsuit as litigant in person is challenging. Whilst the case is not yet decided, there is now significant evidence on the other side. As the Mail reported (archive) Baker has admitted that she told police her rapist had a curved penis and a birthmark on their back. Hemming has never had either (and there is a photograph of his back exhibited in evidence) but does have a distinguishing characteristic that Baker did not mention in her pleadings. So if Baker was raped at all, there are good reasons a fair minded observer might conclude that it was not Hemming. Now a court will decide.

CreepyJessPhillipsSweetDreams

Jess Phillips eerily wishes Baker ‘sweet’ dreams, a few months after she accused Hemming.

Continue reading

Share Button

Mark Watts: Unparticularised

FOIACentreLogo

The logo of the so-called Freedom of Information Act Centre of which Mark Watts is ‘coordinator’.

On Monday, I wrote about the first preliminary hearing in the case of Baker v Hemming. In the hearing, Esther Baker was ordered to rewrite her claim, have a psychiatric assessment and pay costs to be subject to the detailed assessment procedure. At the hearing Baker was unrepresented but assisted by Mark Watts, former Exaro editor, who sat behind her and appeared to assist as a lay advisor. Now he has complained about myself, Barbara Hewson and Simon Just to the judge because we blogged about it.

It is curious that a man who claims to campaign for transparency like Mark Watts, who ‘coordinates’ for the ‘Freedom of Information Act Centre’, is suddenly not-so-keen on information getting out when he is the subject. There are three blogs that Watts complains of. My previous article here, barrister Barbara Hewson’s blog and Real Troll Exposure.

In the United Kingdom, most libel cases (unlike the Family Courts) are open to the public and it is perfectly legal to report on them. Providing the reporting is ‘fair’ and ‘accurate’ it even attracts qualified privilege. Watts’ complaint accuses all three of us of being ‘unfair’. What moved me to write this brief post however, was the fact that his complaint is … unclear. I have no idea why he thinks Barbara and Real Troll Exposure have been unfair. His only comprehensible complaint about my blog is that he is described as a blogger. I do not see how that is harmful to him, and the FOIACentre’s ‘News’ section to me looks like a blog attached to a niche research business.

Put another way his complaint is … inadequately particularised. Much like Esther Baker’s claim in which he advised her. I may be running some articles on Mr Watts in due course but for now I include his complaint below. In the spirit of Freedom of Information, of course.

Continue reading

Share Button

Baker v Hemming: Esther Baker Ordered to Pay Costs!

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has had a bad day in court.

The first interim hearing in Baker v Hemming occurred today, and Esther Baker has been ordered to pay the whole costs of the hearing as well as re-write all of her court pleadings. Furthermore, Hemming has been given leave to commence detailed costs assessment immediately.

Esther Baker is suing John Hemming for libel for saying she lied about her allegations of Rape. Hemming has counterclaimed for libel over a tweet he says is an allegation that he raped her. Hemming had applied to strike out Baker’s claim and her Defence to his counterclaim.

The hearing, which was open to the public, took most of the day with various breaks for advice and production of documents. Hemming was represented by barrister Richard Owen Thomas of 3PB chambers. In Hemming v Wilmer I assisted formally as McKenzie Friend but here I sat with them and provided informal support.

Baker acted in person but was assisted by Mark Watts, former editor of Exaro and currently Coordinator at the Freedom of Information Centre. At the start of the hearing he sat next to her like a McKenzie Friend but after a brief discussion with the judge he sat behind her and provided informal support. Watts accompanied Baker for more-or-less the whole day.

One interesting aspect of the case is the fact that both sides were supported by bloggers. I have been upfront about my support for John Hemming but felt I should make clear the extent of Watts’ support for Baker. Barbara Hewson also attended the hearing as an observer although she was not as closely aligned with any side.

At the start of the hearing Baker applied for an adjournment claiming she now has pro-bono support to amend her pleadings. This was granted, but because her pleadings were clearly deficient she was ordered to pay the costs of the hearing and the amended pleadings. She will be liable for those costs regardless of how the rest of the case proceeds, whatever the outcome. Baker has been given a tight timescale to file amended the pleadings. Baker had sought an initial decision on meaning, but a meaning hearing was not ordered. Baker has also deleted the allegedly defamatory tweet.

Continue reading

Share Button

Wrecked: Graham Wilmer’s Apology to John Hemming

EstherBaker

Esther Baker has made numerous allegations of sexual abuse. Now two of her supporters have entered into restraining agreements in settlements of libel claims against them. Baker is presently under police investigation herself.

Graham Wilmer, Director of the Lantern Project, has humiliatingly apologised to former MP John Hemming as part of the settlement of Hemming’s claim against him for libel and harassment. Hemming was supported by myself and I assisted him before Mr Justice Andrew Baker as McKenzie Friend at an ex-parte hearing on 5th January 2018. Wilmer had backed Esther Baker’s allegations against Hemming and claimed repeatedly that they were true. Now he has entered into a legal agreement never, for the rest of his life, to make any statement that might mean Hemming has committed any crime at all.

The Daily Mail (archive), the Telegraph (archive), the Times, Barthsnotes (archive) and Real Troll Exposure (archive) have published articles about the settlement but there seems to have been some confusion about what the claims were for and what the settlement actually says. So just to be clear –

  1. David Hencke was sued for libel as per my article on that settlement, but Graham Wilmer was sued for Harassment and Libel.
  2. Wilmer agreed to pay nearly all Hemming’s costs – £9,028. Hemming’s costs were very low by the standards of libel cases because he had a pro-bono legal advisor – me. Whilst I am not a solicitor I have an LL.M LPC (Commendation). John had paid a court fee of £3,028 and over £6,000 in various other expenses. Most of this was that I also recommended he seek an opinion from a barrister on a few issues. The barrister, Richard Owen Thomas was extremely helpful and professional and I recommend him.
  3. Wilmer agreed to pay £1,000 as a donation in lieu of damages to Birmingham Children’s Hospital.
  4. Wilmer agreed to apologise.
  5. Wilmer agreed never to make any publication or statement that expressly, by imputation or innuendo conveys the meaning that Hemming is guilty of any crime. This includes specifically the alleged rape of Esther Baker or the crime of Blackmail. This agreement lasts forever.
  6. The order settling the Hencke case states that there is no admission of liability, but the Wilmer order does not.

Fairly obviously, if John had won at a trial, he would have received his costs, damages, a judgement and some form of restraint on Wilmer. In short this agreement is exactly the same as what Hemming would have got on a successful judgement except with a discount on costs and damages for settling early. The letter of apology is below –

Continue reading

Share Button

Hencke Humiliated

A Scary Legal Hammer

Former Guardian journalist has had a long-overdue taste of real justice.

Former Guardian ‘journalist’ David Hencke, who was ‘Head of News’  at ill-fated Exaro News before it collapsed, has agreed to a settlement order in John Hemming’s claim against him on humiliating terms. Although he has made no admission of liability the terms of settlement require him to make a public statement, pay a donation to the charity Victim Support in lieu of damages and agree to significant restrictions on his reporting. The case proves that anyone who describes historic rape complainant Esther Baker as a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’ is at risk of being sued for libel and losing. Indeed Hencke has now agreed to restrictions on his use of those words.

Exaro news has a lot to answer for. During its brief period of prominence Exaro extensively covered and promoted a series of child abuse allegations, many of which have been investigated at vast public expense. Now, their star accuser Carl Beech is on trial himself for fraud and perverting the the course of justice (archive).

David Hencke’s article of 18 May 2018 was utterly despicable. The article covered another Exaro complainant, Esther Baker, whose unsubstantiated allegations of abuse by a number of VIPs have led to no convictions whatsoever. In the article, Hencke named former MP John Hemming and referred to Baker’s father. He used the word ‘survivor’ even though the Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) he was reporting on has specifically decided not to use that word in relation to people like Esther Baker whose allegations are not proven. That got him sued for libel in the High Court.

Continue reading

Share Button

Chair of UK Conservative Party Grant Shapps MP on Gawker.com Coca-Cola Robot Stunt – “Nazism and anyone sympathising for it is simply unacceptable”

Grant Shapps MP

Grant Shapps MP

This is going to be an upbeat post. The Witchfinder is pleased to note that people are listening to reasonable persuasion from GamerGate as well as other sensible, moderate voices. The battle against the unhinged, out-of-control left, the so-called ‘Social Justice Warriors’ can be hard. When there are setbacks or things seem to be going badly it is worth reminding ourselves of our successes.

No matter how much the left-wingers who infest the media try to talk it down, from their perspective the truth is grim. Moderate and Conservative voices in the gaming industry and more generally in society outnumber them vastly.

Continue reading

Share Button

Battery Farm Deprivation of Liberty

Bleeding Rose

Labour must take responsibility for the immense human suffering caused by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Picture licensed from Dreamstime)

The Witchfinder discovers that the Court of Protection is now on the verge of collapse. Bombshell Court papers show that it is contemplating bulk Deprivation of Liberty applications without representation of the person being detained.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) has been the subject of unprecedented criticism. It is a law passed by Labour and intended to fill various gaps in existing legislation. Like nearly all Labour legislation it has been praised for its visionary principles but destroyed due to its cumbersome, expensive and poorly thought out machinery. That machinery is now falling apart.

Continue reading

Share Button

The Year’s Best Political Figures

The best political figures of the year, according to the Witchfinder General.

It has been a long, bleak year. But the Witchfinder scraped through his law exams, which means this blog will continue and may even get around to some analysis of some case law. The Witchfinder will also continue his fair, just and reasonable approach to public figures.

For now though, the Witchfinder wanted to take some time out from persecution to recognise those political figures that are actually worthwhile and make a difference in a positive sense. So, without further ado, the Witchfinder recognises Grant Shapps MP, John Hemming MP and Louise Mensch.

Continue reading

Share Button