This is just a note that Operation Untechnica has ended as it has now been confirmed that Intechnica has not been supporting the Block Bot. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary or appropriate to tweet them. The project on the wiki has been marked accordingly.

People get passionate about things they care about and 34,000 people care about KiA. It is natural to give feedback – for example about the new layout.

As it happens I like the layout. I do have feedback for tweaks given in the appropriate thread. I also agree that as the community grows KiA will need sub and sibling forums like /r/SocialJusticeInAction and will need to reach out to like minded groups. If we reach 100,000 we are not going to coordinate all those people on a single subreddit.

When people are tempted to bitch they should remember part of the reason they care about KiA is that the moderator team have already done a really good job.

The Witchfinder has annoying, but necessary news.

I will be blunt. As everyone knows, I started a County Court claim against James Billingham on 24/04/2015. However, on 06/05/2015 (Wednesday last week) the Information Commissioner’s Office (a part of the UK Government) decided to wade in by announcing they were taking action, whereas before I only knew they were investigating [Edited for clarity 09/05/2015]. There are a lot of people in on the matter now and I have taken further advice over the last week.

The short version of the advice is that circumstances have changed – there will now be a significant investigation and anything I can achieve with my claim is now achievable via the ICO. The claim is obviously not meritless as the ICO have agreed to investigate, but the investigation is likely to be complex and create large, risky costs in County Court because of the very large number of people involved. It is extremely likely that the claim would now not be allocated to the Small Claims track. If it was ever suitable for Money Claims Online it is not now.

Fortunately, up until now the Defendant and his employer have refused to reply to correspondence or take any steps in the proceedings (thereby flouting the costs rules) which means they would normally be sanctioned and in any event would be hard pressed to gain costs of discontinuance. Conveniently the same would apply if it was struck out via MCOL. So now is a good time to refocus on the efforts via the ICO and minimise personal risk.

Also, I have been conducting this matter responsibly and it is important to take legal advice when it is given – to do otherwise really would be ‘harassment’. Having cleared my name once I do not wish to do so again.

Regarding the GoFundMe. I will hold the monies against any risk and then use them as promised for entertainments at the next GamerGate meet up. To be clear – so far no money has been drawn and I will produce accounts.

The ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) complaint remains running, we are also still able to campaign against the Block Bot by (for example) email campaigns and should they engage in further objectionable conduct we can look again at legal proceedings. There are likely to be significant sanctions if the Block Bot transfers the data abroad.

The Witchfinder has further news.

So I called the Court this morning and I got to the bottom of James Billingham’s correspondence with them. Apparently he is unrepresented by a solicitor, whether his own or his employers’. Perhaps he was fronting when he said they were supporting him? If so they must be really delighted with him for dragging them into this and associating them with a project that actually at one stage blocked Barack Obama as a ‘harasser’. I have offered to completely cut them out of the matter if they confirm. Until then I encourage everyone to continue with Project Untechnica.

In any event on 01/05/2015 James contacted the Court, not entering a proper defence nor an application to strike out. He asked for the Court’s opinion on my claim which he feels is vexatious. Court officers are not allowed to give legal advice so they sent him a standard email saying so advising him he needs to take legal advice. I would add my own suggestion of an actual lawyer (instead of his friend MAMelby).

Continue reading →

Just a quick update. I have been informed by the Court that James Billingham has emailed them without copying me in. This is usually against the rules. I have requested the document. The mail has been referred to a judge to consider whether the claim is suitable for the online system.

Likely outcomes are –

• nothing the claim will continue
• transfer
• strike out as unsuitable for the online system with a direction it may be re-issued via the old-fashioned paper system

Either way he will only be delaying matters. (This only applies to my County Court claim not the ICO investigation).