A High Court Judge has found that, child abuse allegations against Sonia Poulton have a real prospect of success.
Readers will likely have seen my previous article about the massive costs hit of £30,000 Sonia Poulton took in the High Court judgement of Mrs Justice Hill released on 24th November 2023, which is available on BAILII here. Poulton has of course published her own highly biased account. One fact she has chosen not to share with donors and supporters is the fact that the judge found child abuse allegations against her – specifically that she is guilty of a criminal offence for naming two child torture victims in breach of a court order – to have a, “real prospect of success”.
In 2021 Poulton was interviewed by police after naming two child torture victims in breach of a court order. My careful article opining that this amounted to child abuse, referring only to public judgements made available by permission of the judge, is still online – #UnfollowSoniaPoulton: Reminder that the Fringe Journalist who Attacked the Queen is a Child Abuser. After the interview, her co-host Shaun Attwood says he accepted a caution and the video was removed. Poulton claims she did not accept a caution and no further action was taken. In a witness statement used at the public hearing on 17-18 October this year, she produced a heavily redacted police email appearing to confirm the no further action decision, but in which she had redacted the sender, crime number and the reason no further action was taken.
Horrifyingly, she also said as follows – “[…]The Metropolitan Police have been very clear that sharing the video is a criminal act […]“. This of course, dovetails nicely with one of the additions John Hemming wanted to make to his claim, which the judge permitted, that Sonia was malicious in a post in which Sonia accuses him of trying to frame her for a crime. The basis of the malice pleading was firstly, John did not report her and did not know about it until afterwards, secondly, because she had no reason to think he reported her and thirdly because she knew she was guilty. This pleading was allowed. The important question is why?
John Hemming’s pleadings that Sonia is guilty of a criminal offence of child abuse by her naming two children in breach of a court order. The court found this had a, ‘real prospect of success’.
So what did the judge think? Why did she allow the new claim? She thought this –
In her judgement of November 2023 – Ms Justice Hill DBE allowed John Hemming permission to bring a claim of malicious defamation against Sonia Poulton. The claim based on Poulton being a child abuser, and knowing herself to be guilty of a criminal offence, maliciously accusing John Hemming, Darren Laverty and I of wrongfully reporting her to police. The judge found the claim has a ‘real prospect of success’. Only two relevant paragraphs from the lengthy judgement are shown.
John Hemming’s pleading is that Sonia was guilty and knew it. My article she is trying to sue me on went a far shorter distance. I just said that even if it did not amount to an offence, it was morally child abuse. Suffice to say I have an LL.M LPC (Commendation) and years of experience with libel and harassment claims as a McKenzie Friend. Aside from my own knowledge, I have taken legal advice from two separate media barristers and whilst I do not waive privilege, my view is that I will successfully defend the claim and Hemming will likely prevail in his. Suffice to say, even if Sonia is not guilty of a crime, my lesser allegation, set out as an opinion in my article, that Poulton is morally guilty of child abuse for violating the children’s anonymity and giving currency to a conspiracy theory that was harming them is extremely defensible. It is important to note that this is only a civil case and that even if Sonia Poulton loses it will not be a criminal conviction.
Regardless, as my previous article reported, Poulton has taken a £30,000 costs hit. In addition to that, she has had previous costs orders against her. She has tried to play down the £195 I received on her Norwich Pharmacal application, but that resolved the costs of the application – that is including her solicitor’s costs of making the application correspondence and so forth. So she has lost her lawyer’s fees we estimate at £5,000 + on that. With the other costs orders against her to be assessed and referred to in her costs schedules, the amount she is down so far could be around £70,000+.
It is difficult to see how John can fail on his allegation of malice at trial. In my opinion, to succeed on malice he only has to show Sonia had, at the time of her post, knowledge that there were reasonable grounds to report her video – even if she was personally innocent. If Sonia Poulton knows and accepts that sharing her video was a crime (as she put in her witness statement), and that she was told this by police, then when she posted about a conspiracy after the police interview she knew that whoever reported her had reasonable grounds. She misled her supporters and donors. The Witchfinder suspects it is no coincidence that two weeks after the hearing One VSP CEO Muhammad Naeem Butt put her, ‘Rise’ show on indefinite hiatus. Similarly, if Sonia knows that sharing her video is a crime, how is it harassment for me to express an opinion that same video child abuse?
That is not the only embarrassing fact Poulton is concealing. Normally, your author cannot share negotiation details – such things are privileged. However, at the last hearing all parties, including Poulton, consented to open some correspondence that would normally be confidential and it passed into the public domain under the collateral use rule. The letter was in the skeleton argument John’s barrister Matthew Hodson put to the judge. Poulton is not motivated by, ‘Truth’ at all. She wants £75,000 to settle, which she said would include correcting her video documentary, “Paedophiles in Parliament” as far as it referred to Esther Baker’s now debunked allegations:
‘Ethical’ Sonia Poulton demands £75K to settle child abuse claim. Why? She is in no position to make demands.
Sonia lives in a fantasy universe. She admitted that it was illegal to share her video in a witness statement we can now use. It follows that even if John had reported her (he did not) he had reasonable grounds and Poulton must have known. She was told that, she admits, by police – that is before her article. It was maliciously false. It is difficult to see how the libel, harassment and GDPR claims can fail on that point. So, if Sonia wants to settle she is going to have to start to be realistic.
It is important to note that the court has not yet decided the facts of the case, but for Sonia Poulton the worst case scenario comes ever closer. If the case proceeds to trial, Sonia now has no lawyers and no platform backing her. If she loses, she risks bankruptcy, unemployability, the stigma of being found a dishonest journalist and worst of all, the indelible stain of being a proven child abuser.
If she admitted the video was a mistake then she never should have tried to deflect the blame by claiming some sort of conspiracy. It is sickening. I will never donate to her again!
Samuel Collingwood Smith: “One fact she has chosen not to share with donors and supporters is the fact that the judge found child abuse allegations against her – specifically that she is guilty of a criminal offence for naming two child torture victims in breach of a court order – to have a, “real prospect of success”.”
👀👀👀
God bless us and save us. And there’s her, calling herself a ‘voice for children’ and all. Naming ‘two child torture victims’ on a show which has the potential to draw millions of viewers.
Children who are being abused right now, and adults who were abused in childhood, do not want or need such people acting as a ‘voice’ for them. It makes them live in fear of their own names and abuse details ‘slipping out’ of someone’s big mouth.
Indeed. It is shocking. Let us hope some of her donors and coffee-buyers come to their senses and withdraw their support! Clearly, whoever was funding her lawyers has already done so. That is why she is now unrepresented.
So according to what I’ve read on the CPS charging guidelines website Ms Poulton is exceptionally lucky she wasn’t charged with the breach of reporting restrictions under a couple of pieces of legislation to protect children’s identites. In other words, and by her own admission, she knows that she broke the law but then wants to blame others for reporting her for breaking the law? That is an incredibly stupid stance of hers if accurate. Especially as it is clearly a pattern of behaviour demonstrable to a court too whereby she blames everyone other than herself for her own stupidity.
Also, it is clearly a scare tactic re mal comms because there is an enshrined human right in the imparting and receiving of truthful information which, very ironically, the press rely upon. Anyone proving that she committed the acts in the video concerned, unless accompanied by viable threats etc and sent to her personally, could never be charged with Mal comms offences. A malicious communication has to be, by definition, untrue and threatening. Either she had been very badly advised by police or the advice never happened. If what she is saying is actual policy (not law) then anyone supplying HER with info could fall foul of mal comms too. Which she clearly didn’t consider when making her rather ridiculous claim.
Unfortunately therefore it does appear that Ms Poulton does spend more time in Wonderland than Alice.
“High Court Judge: Child Abuse Allegations Against Sonia Poulton Have, “real prospect of success”
Posted on December 4, 2023 by Samuel Collingwood Smith”
She will have seen her arse over this. She doesn’t ‘do transparency’ stuff regarding court cases concerning herself. This will be quite a flock-shocker. Few of her flock could have guessed any of this from the tripe she writes on her suage fund page.
*Sits back. Waits for a mammoth rant. On youtube. Like the one she did about David Icke. Oh wait… Maybe not. *
SvT on December 4, 2023 at 10:46 am said:
“So according to what I’ve read on the CPS charging guidelines website Ms Poulton is exceptionally lucky she wasn’t charged with the breach of reporting restrictions under a couple of pieces of legislation to protect children’s identites. In other words, and by her own admission, she knows that she broke the law but then wants to blame others for reporting her for breaking the law?”
👮♀️👮👮♀️👮 = 🦹🦹♀️🦹♀️🦹♀️
🎤🎤🎤🎤
Poulton’s been involved with so many police over the years whom she alleges to have praised her for her ‘work’, that I’ve lost track of them all. Am I correct in believing the police involved in this case, are also alleged to have praised her? I’d like to see them admit to this. In print. Would also like to know who gave these police their special powers to override judges.
Bruxism on December 4, 2023 at 1:18 pm
“Poulton’s been involved with so many police over the years whom she alleges to have praised her for her ‘work’, that I’ve lost track of them all. Am I correct in believing the police involved in this case, are also alleged to have praised her? I’d like to see them admit to this. In print. Would also like to know who gave these police their special powers to override judges.”
😂
👮♀️👮👮♀️👮 👀 👀👀👀
🍿🍿🍿
Rory Port on December 4, 2023 at 12:52 pm:
“This will be quite a flock-shocker. Few of her flock could have guessed any of this from the tripe she writes on her suage fund page.”
I agree. Although her flock will probably be more disappointed at finding out the ‘shadowy figures’ whom she leads people to believe are persecuting her for ‘exposing paedophiles’, are simply a large sprinkling of barristers, solicitors and judges, and a few innocent people who are refusing to put up with her dangerous behaviour.
Samuel Collingwood Smith: “Regardless, as my previous article reported, Poulton has taken a £30,000 costs hit. In addition to that, she has had previous costs orders against her. She has tried to play down the £195 I received on her Norwich Pharmacal application, but that resolved the costs of the application – that is including her solicitor’s costs of making the application correspondence and so forth. So she has lost her lawyer’s fees we estimate at £5,000 + on that.”
So when she recommends her flock to make Norwich Pharmacal apps, she is lying about the total cost of one.
£5000 is equal to one thousand coffees at £5 per cup. If she has spent her own money on this, fair enough. However, if she has spent £5000+ of her flock’s donations to threaten someone else in the middle of her other ongoing, expensive court cases, it’s a shocking waste of a terrific number of donations, isn’t it.
Can see why she had to play it down 😁
Pingback: Hemming v Poulton: The Magnificent Seven + Three – Spin-vs-Truth
https://spinvtruth.wordpress.com/2023/12/04/hemming-v-poulton-the-magnificent-seven-three/
“Oh dear #7
Any alleged attempt to introduce faked evidence into a criminal case is, without any doubt, an attempt to pervert the course of justice. It doesn’t actually need to happen for that to be the case. The intention is enough.
There is no time limit on the pursuit of such offences.
It is also without any doubt that the attempt to introduce such issues into a civil case is also an attempt to pervert the course of justice.”
One would have thought she had learned some lessons from the last time she and her associates did this. For which she and her associates are still to be prosecuted, ‘There being no time limits on the pursuit of such offences’.
Seems there were a number of police with extra special powers on that case too! Apparently, those police believed themselves to have special powers to investigate people thoroughly, and make arrests without finding any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. And by all accounts, these police very much enjoy driving around the countryside on their expense accounts, obtaining false warrants, to barge into homes where frail, elderly people and children are sleeping. Accompanied by swathes of armed police who like to make a point of waking up as many neighbours as possible. Strutting around with their big guns. Stealing devices, and trying to intimidate people, to prevent them from giving vital evidence in court.
God probably has a special place for these types of bent police. Meanwhile, on this planet, prison is the best place to keep these type of police.
My Nan wouldn’t have it that Sonia Poulton and Vicky Pollard from Little Britain are two entirely different people until I showed her this article. She kept telling us that Vicky Pollard had been given her own breakfast show, but we could never find it. Now we know which breakfast show Nan meant.
Sorry we didn’t manage to watch it before it was taken off air. Sounds like it must have been a big barrel of laughs to wake up to 😵💫
No need to stick a fork in Phillip Schofield. He’s done. It is well known that he is suffering serious mental health problems. So why keep sticking knives in him? Could tip him over the edge if someone showed him the vlog.
Although Schofield has the wherewithal to protect himself from being harassed and taunted by an interfering, untrained, unqualified journalist making vlogs about him, which could only retraumatise him and his family, and put them at more risk of humiliation and worse, there are other people involved. People such as Person X, and those who allegedly send sensitive company info to strangers during the night (and who could this very day be set for the high jump if they can be identified by jigsaw) may not have the wherewithal to make denials or bring court actions if they lose work or reputation etc.
Schofield has been investigated, and police did not find anything to prosecute him for. End of. No need to make vlogs which encourage people to rehash all their accusatory and inflammatory posts about who was which age and when. If Schofield and ITV have been involved in bullying, and running a company full of fear-filled staff who entered into the industry, knowing it is the most cut-throat industry in the world, there are highly trained professionals in a far better position to investigate it and handle it all, than somebody who mouths off on social media, to live off bought coffees. This type of vlog is also quite possibly interfering with the company’s own ongoing investigations into the alleged ‘bullying culture’ and staff complaints etc.
Remember Caroline Flack. Hounded to death.
Indeed. Certainly if there was no crime, anyone making lots of videos about it is at risk if they imply there was. It is not that it cannot be covered by specialist niche media, it is that it requires a certain amount of sensitivity which some people, such as Sonia Poulton, lack …
😵💫 Sonia Poulton is not being sued for making a film called Paedophiles In Parliament at all. Why is she saying such a thing?
Hundreds of individuals pump put emotive documentaries about paedophiles from all walks of life without any problems whatsoever. However, they are the people who have the necessary skills and resources to do the research; gather the facts; get their facts straight; ensure they can back up any allegations they wish to place in a public arena, and being careful not to weight their documentary down on one side, in favour of their own rumour mills and personal prejudices, and the prejudices and expectations of their intended audience.
The rules are very simple. Sonia Poulton fell foul of them. She is not involved in any court case for making a documentary. Therefore, anyone who wishes to make sensible and informative documentaries about paedophiles, should not be afraid or put off by Sonia Poulton’s ridiculous allegations and threatening behaviour this week.
Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
·
4h
Please read. My life is under sustained attack at the hands of an ex-MP and an ex-councillor. They have said the aim is to have me imprisoned and bankrupted. They are fixated on destroying me because I made a film called Paedophiles in Parliament. 1.
Correct on most things as I understand.
PiP is, however, now material evidence if the case progresses because it has been identified as the initial issues between claimant and defendant in the latest judgement. You are correct that PiP ISN’T the reason Poulton is being sued, it is for serial issues including libel in an interview with her buddy Shaun Attwood (supposedly ex drugs offender). PiP isn’t the reason she’s being sued but is the root cause of the disagreements and if only she’d have apologised and rectified her video after the court ruling against Esther Baker then it’s pretty clear many of the issues could’ve been avoided.
As you may have seen elsewhere there are also 11+ reasons why Poulton should be back in front of the judge in the civil case for contempt at the very least.
Poulton’s deliberate misleading of her audience today though is likely not going to help any defence she continues to plead and indeed given the incitement she has made and the direct targeting of the claimant and other parties in her tweets then it could be regarded as criminal in nature (not least mal comms, incitement to harass, witness intimidation, possibly perverting the course of justice to name but 4 possible offences). Whether that is the case is not up to us. It’s just an opinion based on what SHE has said publicly.
It would therefore not surprise me if Poulton appears in court charged with various offences though, not least on contempt of court and witness intimidation. There is a clear intent in her tweets today.
Her potential bankruptcy is because she used professional legal advice and didn’t have the personal resources to pay them.
Her own stupidity is the cause of her problems not those seeking to correct her alleged libel and other reprehensible behaviour. She may not like Sam allegedly writing to the venue of her “Christmas meeting” (curiously a location well away from her home too) but he didn’t do anything wrong as far as I know. He has every right to alert a venue as to the nature of one of it’s “users”. That does not mean that she should target Sam or anyone else, such as Mr Hemming, for him doing nothing legally wrong. If she had a problem with the supposed “harassment” then she hasn’t exactly made herself look squeaky clean because that allegation of “harassment” can clearly be read into her own material today. The difference being is that her material is VERY public.
Unfortunately, her followers are too believing of everything she tells them and believe her bullshittery at face value. They should be much more careful in that regard, because as we’ve seen elsewhere in court cases retweets/quote tweets etc can land someone in court too.
Also Ms Poulton would be very wise to read what constitutes malicious communications if she has made allegations that are simply untrue and can be proven to be such. Especially in material posted to incite responses today.
As for her claims of not being anti-semitic, perhaps she needs to review her own Raw Report, Rise and other video material and also her Twitter/X timeline to see that there is ample evidence which strongly suggests a root of anti-semitic thought in her conduct. Again not for us to decide.
Let’s just say I think Sonia Poulton represents everything wrong with journalism and the fact she acts like Alex Jones or Alex Belfield also isn’t going to help her legally. Genuine journalists don’t need all the drama and self attention… why does she? Perhaps it’s a mental health problem. Perhaps it’s not. If it is a mental health problem then she clearly needs some major psychiatric help as she refuses to accept that she ever does anything wrong… it’s always someone else’s fault it seems.
Either way, she isn’t doing herself any favours, in my opinion, and her fall from grace and exposure of her true nature is long overdue too, also in my opinion, given what she has done to others in the past including child abuse survivor(s). Ms Poulton should be aware some of us still are sat on material that she would not want to be made public… that EVIDENCE may yet make an appearance in a courtroom rather soon…
Merry Christmas.
Rory Port on December 4, 2023 at 12:52 pm said:
“High Court Judge: Child Abuse Allegations Against Sonia Poulton Have, “real prospect of success”
Posted on December 4, 2023 by Samuel Collingwood Smith”
She will have seen her arse over this. She doesn’t ‘do transparency’ stuff regarding court cases concerning herself. This will be quite a flock-shocker. Few of her flock could have guessed any of this from the tripe she writes on her suage fund page.
*Sits back. Waits for a mammoth rant. On youtube. Like the one she did about David Icke. Oh wait… Maybe not. *
Surprisingly, she actually did a rant this morning, Rory, so she did. I’d say her David Icke rant doesn’t even come a close second to today’s tweets. God bless her victims, and save them 🙏
When I saw those tweets today, you could have knocked me down with a feather, Rory, so you could.
I won’t copy her tweets here, because they are so venomous, she could possibly be arrested or sued for writing them, and I wouldn’t want to get myself in trouble for repeating her words in here. The tweets really are very bad, so they are. Some of her followers are unaware, or don’t care, that retweeting her tweets could land them in legal trouble.
As I understand, retweeting/quote tweeting is effectively a republication i.e. in the eyes of the law it is seen as a NEW publication of the same material. It could land anyone retweeting say malicious communications with mal comms allegations against the retweeter.
Ms Poulton’s behaviour today can best be described as “ill informed”.
SvT
on December 10, 2023 at 7:01 pm said:
As I understand, retweeting/quote tweeting is effectively a republication i.e. in the eyes of the law it is seen as a NEW publication of the same material. It could land anyone retweeting say malicious communications with mal comms allegations against the retweeter.
Ms Poulton’s behaviour today can best be described as “ill informed”.
Aye. That’s two words for it. Reckless and dangerous are two more.
Bruxism, I could think of plenty of other words to describe the behaviour too. But it’s probably best at present I don’t post those publicly. Rest assured there will be plenty to be said once the civil case is concluded because there is a lot more to come out about Ms Poulton’s actions and the FULL truth of her behaviour over the last 10 years to silence critics.
Yeah, you read that right, a journalist who claims to support freedom of speech apparently wants to silence ANY of her critics and take away THEIR Article 10 rights (amongst other things).
Today’s events are simply further confirmation of that pattern of behaviour in my opinion.
SvT
on December 10, 2023 at 9:58 pm said:
“Bruxism, I could think of plenty of other words to describe the behaviour too. But it’s probably best at present I don’t post those publicly. Rest assured there will be plenty to be said once the civil case is concluded because there is a lot more to come out about Ms Poulton’s actions and the FULL truth of her behaviour over the last 10 years to silence critics.”
🍿🍿🍿
The continued behaviour by Ms Poulton by misrepresentation and further harassment of named individuals today is quite clearly designed for a purpose and one which is most likely criminal – as in TARGETED harassment as part of a course of criminal conduct.
There is very clearly an attempt to join two distinctly separate incidents as being ONE when they are not and clearly she is now going to have to prove her allegations at some point. Likely to a level of beyond reasonable doubt too if her conduct continues.
She needs to understand that her incitement of her followers to call innocent people the “p” word (rhymes with “seedofile”) is not going to end well for her legally. Especially as it is now a very clear course of conduct on her part.
Unfortunately, for her, it would appear that she is now on a mission of self destruction and it is only a matter of time, I suspect, before her “clockwork grannies” have a short sharp shock regarding the true nature of who they have believed and supported. It will also likely only be a matter of a short period of time before Ms Poulton has her collar felt, likely this time on multiple allegations of criminality and that previous voluntary interview where she escaped prosecution for contempt of court is now likely to be problematic for her too, why? Because there is another pattern of behaviour in that she is clearly ignoring existing court orders… AGAIN.
If you’re wondering why I’ve coined the expression “clockwork grannies” to describe her followers it’s because they get wound up by her so quickly, so easily, are slow to act in other respects when it’s negative information about her, do no due diligence into her claims and most probably wouldn’t be so quick to condemn and target her opponents if they knew the whole truth. Also “grannies” would likely claim senility… which also seems a reasonable assessment of some of their behaviour – unfortunately for most of her supporters it’s very clearly early onset.
At a more fundamental level, some of those “clockwork grannies” appear to be employed in the public sector too by their own admissions and are apparently spending their work time posting vile comments on Twitter/X including false allegations of the “p” word. It’s not a good look and could lead to some major employment problems for those doing so. Will they be so keen to support Poulton’s bile if they lose their jobs for example as a result of simply believing at face value?
Alex Belfield was justly convicted and sentenced to five and a half years for the dangerous behaviour of stalking,”involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress”, which pales almost into insignificance by comparison with Sonia Poulton’s past and current behaviour.
Copied from wiki:
Stalking conviction
On 18 June 2021 Belfield was summonsed to appear at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court, where he was charged with 12 counts of stalking “involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress” on 1 July.[7] On 29 July 2021, Belfield appeared at Nottingham Crown Court accused of stalking eight people between November 2012 and March 2021, including BBC staff members Stephanie Hirst and Jeremy Vine.
Belfield was convicted in September 2022 for four of eight stalking charges at Nottingham Crown Court. He was sentenced to five and a half years in prison; before sentencing “he was allowed to deliver a pompous closing speech deriding the case as a ‘BBC and police witch-hunt’ and describing himself as ‘the No 1 anti-BBC journalist’. ‘I am offensive… My human right allows me to speak words that are not to everyone’s taste,’ he told the jury.”[8] The judge noted that while Belfield acknowledged the distress he caused the victims, he showed more concern during the proceedings about being treated unfairly and how the process impacted him (Belfield) personally.[9] [8]
That moment… when a walking corpse says the cops need to be brought in. Priceless. But to be fair, she’s right. Police really do need to be brought in.
👮👮♀️👮👮♀️👮👮♀️
🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿