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

[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.]

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 →

Esther Baker: Please Give Generously, the Shame of Jess Phillips, Sonia Poulton, Mark Watts and David Hencke

Posted on November 18, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Esther Baker was been handed a life-long restraining Order by Mrs Justice Steyn in her claim against John Hemming, which backfired spectacularly. She was handed a second lifelong Order when a child-abuse victim sued her. She has had her day in court and the ‘Truth’ has indeed been proven.

Esther Baker has been Ordered to pay my costs of applying to strike out her Defence to my libel claim and her ‘Counterclaim’. The judge has given her one last chance to rewrite it but she has to pay my interim costs. Orders in the Queen’s Bench are public, so you can download your own copy here. Baker is now begging for money on GoFundMe.com, claiming she needs the food to eat. Please give generously.

Many people have been unsympathetic to Baker, who has of course made untrue allegations of rape against one of my friends (which she is now restrained for life from repeating, and for which police are still investigating her). Baker’s crowdfunding campaign (archive) has only raised £70 in the last 24 hours. So, I have decided to put Baker’s case better than she ever could – because it amuses me and I might see some of the money.

Esther Baker is a tragic victim. No her rape allegations are not true. A court already decided that the ones against John Hemming are not true. Furthermore, I am simply willing to prove on primary fact that the Lord she accuses of rape is also innocent (he did not sue her ‘cuz he is dead) and her father too.

Esther Baker however, is very seriously mentally ill. Based on documents which have passed into the public domain after being used at public court hearings, she hears voices and suffers from command hallucinations. That is, the little voices in her head tell her to do things. Sometimes, she obeys their commands – for example by attempting suicide. Baker also continually makes spectacularly poor judgement calls and repeats those mistakes time and again, having learnt nothing. The most recent court sanctions were the 6th time she has botched attempted civil proceedings in exactly the same way. Bear in mind she is a second year law degree student.

Ms Baker holds unusual beliefs and maintains those beliefs in defiance of those facts which can be established. Her allegations to police were that she was raped by a cult (she does not like the word cult, preferring something along the lines of, “faith related abuse group”) including VIPs. She accused Hemming, a Labour Lord and her father as well as sundry police and users of her local church.

These events simply did not happen. The CPS summarised all of the evidence collected in the case relating to all of the alleged rapes by saying 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).

Is Paedophilia Internet Troll @CraftyMuvva really so Crafty?

Posted on November 11, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Esther Baker owes me money. On 3rd November 2020 Master Lisa Sullivan in the High Court ordered her to pay me £1,226.80 (order uploaded for transparency) and also struck out parts of her defence to my claim for libel and harassment. Predictably, Baker has been sniping and grumbling about it, making nasty remarks on Twitter to the extent that she dares to. What surprises me is the very small remaining rump of trolls who have time for her. One particularly vile individual is @CraftyMuvva, who is likely to face heavy scrutiny herself in the near future. Their latest ploy is to write unpleasant public posts on Twitter and then claim anyone who reads them is stalking them (evidence archive) by monitoring their communications.

The corrected strike-out and costs Order against Esther Baker.

For new readers, it is worth reminding them who Baker is. At the height of the paedophilia hysteria engendered by Exaro and Carl Beech, Esther Baker alleged that she was raped by a number of men on Cannock Chase as a child. After a police investigation into her ever-changing story, followed by CPS consideration, no charges were brought. Baker sought a review. The CPS responded to D1’s request under the Victim’s Right of Review Scheme. In that document, dated 15 March 2018, the CPS prosecutor says as follows, having reviewed all of the evidence collected in the case relating to all of the alleged rapes that there are “no witnesses”, “no medical or forensic evidence” and “no one else has come forward with a similar complaint”.

Continue reading →

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 →

Smith v Baker, Baker Defence and Counterclaim Partially Struck Out

Posted on October 20, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Judgement has been handed down by Master Sullivan in my strike-out application against Esther Baker in Smith v Baker and Dillon. I have a copy, and it has been released to BAILII so will presumably be going up there shortly.

Esther Baker has had parts of her Defence and Counterclaim struck out.

In short the judge has struck out parts of Baker’s Defence and Counterclaim and will make an Order that she files an amended one within 28 days. The precise form of the Order will be finalised at a hearing to be set for 30 minutes next week. It is not an unless Order, but it is intended to contain liberty for me to renew my strike-out application if the pleadings remain deficient. The judge also said, “I am not making an unless order for the reasons set out, but if there is any substantial breach in the amended pleadings, the relevant part is likely to be struck out”.

I am disappointed with some typos, including apparently mixing up the Claimant and Defendant in a couple of places and some similar errors, as well as one error of fact. These could have been avoided had a draft of the judgement been sent out in the usual way, which I did suggest. There are procedures for correcting these, called, the “slip rule” and “reconsideration rule” and I will comment further once I have invited the Master to address them.

[EDIT – 20/10/2020 18:20] The judge has now corrected all the typos and factual issues I raised and sent an amended judgement to BAILII.

Otherwise, the effect is positive. Ms Baker must correct her pleadings once the Order is finalised, or face final strike-out.

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 →

Hemming Brings it – Court Papers re Sonia Poulton Filed

Posted on October 9, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

This is just a brief note updating my previous articles about Sonia Poulton (1st here, 2nd here). At around 10:38am this morning proceedings were brought by John Hemming in his claim against Sonia Poulton. The fee has been paid and the filings accepted by the clerk. The court case is no longer a threat, no longer a possibility. It has been filed. Sonia Poulton has yet to be served or enter a defence, and it is now for a court to decide matters. However, she has been sent a receipt and copy of the final legal papers as a courtesy.

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

This will be a new development to Poulton, a figure who has faced legal threats for years but somehow avoided litigation. To me she seems to be a pathetic figure much like David Hencke, who humiliatingly settled Hemming’s libel claim against him in 2018. Once taken seriously by the national press, her career has followed a “this is spinal tap” model into self-publication. She has shaded into ever more dangerous territory and her recent podcast with Shaun Attwood has finally put her into deep waters.

Poulton now face the risk of further lawsuits. She has made public remarks about two supporters of Hemming, with the following words – “I’ve finally found out the reason why two creepy middle-age, childless men have been stalking me and survivors of child abuse for years. And I’m going to expose them,” (tweet) (archive). Her difficulty with this statement of course is that stalking is a crime. If the men can be identified, even by a small number of people, then they can sue her. In order to defend her statement, she might well have to prove that they are guilty of the offence for which they have not been convicted.

Hemming v Poulton Update

Posted on September 27, 2020 by Samuel Collingwood Smith

Sonia Poulton has been active in the world of child abuse, ‘research’ and independent journalism for some time. What she calls journalism, others call conspiracy theories. However until now, legal threats made to her by a variety of individuals have never been carried out. MHN can exclusively reveal that having consulted a media barrister, John Hemming now does intend to proceed with his claim against Poulton, who will be hearing further from him next week. Meanwhile two other men who are aggrieved with Poulton are now contemplating legal action.

Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

On 18 September 2020, Sonia Poulton published a video statement you can view here. In it, she monotonously reads to the camera the following words –

Continue reading →

Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

Exposing the Guilty – Protecting the Vulnerable

Yearly Archives: 2020

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

Esther Baker: Please Give Generously, the Shame of Jess Phillips, Sonia Poulton, Mark Watts and David Hencke

Hemming v Poulton: Sonia Poulton Begs for More Time

Is Paedophilia Internet Troll @CraftyMuvva really so Crafty?

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?

Smith v Baker, Baker Defence and Counterclaim Partially Struck Out

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

Hemming Brings it – Court Papers re Sonia Poulton Filed

Hemming v Poulton Update