A High Court Judge has struck out a critical part of Sonia Poulton’s Defence to John Hemming’s claim and ordered costs against her.
Sonia Poulton faced yet another reverse on Wednesday as High Court Deputy Master Irena Sabic KC (archive) handed her a defeat in the latest round of former MP John Hemming’s ongoing libel, harassment and data protection claim against her. Hemming is suing Poulton for a number of online publications and she has been desperately claiming for several years now that most of them are not about John Hemming. Unfortunately, Poulton foolishly tried to claim allegations she made in a post (‘the 5th Publication’, in the claim) is not about John Hemming when she had signed a witness statement to the contrary. The judge was not impressed. In my opinion, based on the contradiction, Poulton was deliberately lying. Donors to Poulton should take note of the below, and seek their money back!
The Case Management Conference (‘CMC’) your author attended this week with Sonia Poulton was one of the maddest court hearings I have ever, ever attended, despite the extremely efficient judge. It was originally listed for costs management and case management. John Hemming and I then made applications for directions and to strike out parts of Ms Poulton’s claim. We followed the rules on cooperating for time estimates. Ms Poulton did not. We filed proper applications – Ms Poulton did not, but raised lengthy issues including a request for an expert witness. An anonymous expert witness. An. Anonymous. Expert. Witness. Despite being sanctioned on costs to the tune of over £30K at the hearing in October, Ms Poulton also applied for penalties against us for, “oppression” on costs.
As the hearing began the Deputy Master disposed of Ms Poulton’s applications in mere moments on the basis there was no time as there was no proper application (and therefore, time allocated in the hearing). She then moved on to the serious allegations against Poulton.
John Hemming’s barrister Matthew Hodson of Gatehouse Law ably delivered the first application. It is worth mentioning at this point that, although he was not there, both John and I had also taken extremely useful advice from David Hirst of 5RB Media Chambers. The application had two parts. Firstly, Hemming was seeking a preliminary trial of meaning, secondly, to strike out a key part of Poulton’s Defence.
Poulton is being sued for a publication in which she admits she was interviewed by police for a video in which she breached a court order by naming two child torture victims,
“[…] There was inordinate pressure applied to the Attorney General’s office, the Metropolitan Police and the CPS by people who are desperate to stop me reporting on matters of public interest including child abuse.
My brilliant criminal lawyer, Sophie Hall, attended the interview with me – as did Muhammad Butt of BNT – and both witnessed me putting on record the names of people pushing for me to be charged and to take me away from exposing Establishment abuse. These names have been noted by all involved.
It is important for people to know that there are some dark characters out there who spend a huge chunk of their day trolling and harassing survivors of child abuse as well as attacking those who bring awareness to the issue of child abuse.[…]”
In her defence to Hemming’s claim, Poulton denied that this passaged referred to him. Unfortunately, she had made statements to the contrary. In a witness statement. In court. With a signed Statement of Truth. Oops. Poulton made clear that she believes John Hemming, Darren Laverty and I reported her. Only, we had not. However, regardless of that the statement referred to Hemming.
Sonia claims we pressured the CPS. We did not even know she was interviewed by police about it until a video by Chancer after the interview happened.
Ms Poulton’s denial was summarily judged as having no realistic prospect of success. She was ordered to pay Hemming’s costs of application of £4,000 in 28 days. The problems Poulton now faces are serious. Denial of reference was core to her defence on that publication. The court will now determine a meaning, with it being a given that she was talking about Hemming. If she cannot defend the claim, she will face a bill for a lot more than £4,000. I also have an outstanding application for partial strike-out that I delivered myself. The Deputy Master has reserved her judgement, so Poulton’s costs bill could potentially even be higher (or slightly lower, if I am not successful).
The reason it is important for donors to consider this article is because Ms Poulton has been obtaining money from them based on seriously inaccurate statements. Indeed, in light of the contradictory witness statement, I have formed an opinion that Ms Poulton was lying. In her so-called ‘Fighting Fund’ page (archive) at present, Poulton says,
“The judge allowed Mr. Hemming to add one of my posts to his defamation case. I deny this was about him/them.
This was a general post about the enemies I have as a journalist. It did not name them because it was not about them.
As I told the judge: “Because of the work I do I have accrued many enemies but Mr. Hemming and Mr. Smith centre themselves in my life. They try and make everything I write and say about them in order to turn into lawsuits that they draw up themselves and at little cost to them””
In light of the strike-out, I would encourage donors and other supporters to reconsider their position, because they have not been told the truth. Not just to stop donating, but to (politely) ask for the money back and complain to platforms like Ko-fi and Patreon. ‘Media’ supporters like Ann Drogyne have never been given the full story and should think again.
One person I feel sorry for is Muhammad Butt, the CEO of Brand New Tube (now One VSP). Butt, for all our differences, appears to have put his trust in Sonia Poulton and put a good deal of money and faith behind her, only to be let down. He paid a lot of her initial legal bills in 2020 / 2021. Since leaving BNT / OneVSP, Poulton, for her part, has barely mentioned the platform that gave her some much backing (however unwisely). Perhaps Butt should be asking for his money back, too.
Original Post: “We filed proper applications – Ms Poulton did not, but raised lengthy issues including a request for an expert witness. An anonymous expert witness. An. Anonymous. Expert. Witness. Despite being sanctioned on costs to the tune of over £30K at the hearing in October, Ms Poulton also applied for penalties against us for, “oppression” on costs.”
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I. can’t. breathe.
To be sure, she’s probably just pretending to be afraid of ‘dark forces’ interfering with her ‘witnesses’ again. We all know what she’s like by now, so we do. Acting like she’s in the middle of a spy fillum. At her age.,, 🤣
Original Post: “Poulton was deliberately lying. Donors to Poulton should take note of the below, and seek their money back!”
She will see her arse over this 😃
Congratulations for yesterday! Anyone reading Sonia Poulton’s tweets, would think she was the winner yesterday.
I’ve seen she’s now begging for £4000.00.
£4000.00 = 800 cups of coffee!
I agree with MHN regarding Mr Butt, and feel sorry for him. Incidentally, Mr Butt is looking fitter and healthier than he did when Sonia Poulton was filling his head with lies and nonsense. He deserves money back for all he’s done for her.
The people who have donated to Sonia Poulton’s ‘work’ and suage funds, without knowing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about what they were actually paying towards, also deserve their money back.
MNB made his own bed, encouraged Poulton to continue and also remember made video attacks on others simply because he believed what he was told at face value. I have little sympathy for him, he was far too gullible and far too trusting and was prepared to bankroll Poulton’s stupidity AND back her in telling porkies to the cops. He’s neck deep in this whole mess imho.
Regarding Poulton’s “fighting fund”, those who are donating and encouraging her to continue her behaviour which was caught out in this hearing (and in others) are basically in the middle of “joint enterprise” and also Poulton is, in theory, defrauding them by NOT telling them the truth about what’s going on, what’s gone on and how many screw-ups she’s made along the way.
Ultimately, she could’ve put all of this to bed months and months ago if she had only not allowed her ego to rule her. Shaun Attwood had the common sense to apologise and remove material, Poulton had to continue and in doing so is risking professional and personal ruin. She has consistently told her donors, followers and her employers falsehoods regarding the case. And also in can be amply demonstrated that she didn’t tell the truth to the police either…
Regarding the specific of the Publication 5 inconsistency by Poulton, isn’t lying to a court in documents with statements of truth an act of contempt and/or perverting the course of justice?
Perhaps Sam can confirm?
Publication 5 is immensely important too because Poulton was only questioned under caution over a small snippet video from an interview with Attwood. The full version of the same interview has remained online by some of Poulton’s deluded followers and is much more damning in that it reveals it wasn’t just the names/ages of the children that she “made a mistake” over.
#askingforafriend of course
The false allegations made against several people by Sonia Poulton during her police interview, seem to have been made in order to continue in her quest to degrade them in the eyes of the police, and give rise to suspicion, or even used in ‘evidence’ that she is being persecuted by a group of people who are preventing her from ‘exposing’ child abuse crimes. (Rinse and repeat. She’s been there before.)
Would be interesting to see a police response in regard to her alleging they had informed her they were under pressure from the CPS to charge her, and had “commended” her on her “work safeguarding children” – during an interview being held with regard to the extremely serious matter of her having named two child torture victims…
Ah, if it was only the naming of the children. It was a LOT more than that.
Stupidly, her supporters left online copies of the full interview available to be obtained for the claimant etc to use in this case. It can be amply demonstrated, I have been led to believe, that the full video contains a lot more than just naming the kids. The court orders in the Hampstead case also protected the father of the children from allegations against him for example.
Poulton didn’t make a “mistake” at all. She knew exactly what she was doing, the material in question supports that opinion. Bear in mind that Poulton repeated the “mistake” bs in civil case documents too … which means what? Another act of contempt/PCJ?
Again perhaps Sam can clarify the legal stance on such.
Bruxism on May 3, 2024 at 11:00 am: “Would be interesting to see a police response in regard to her alleging they had informed her they were under pressure from the CPS to charge her, and had “commended” her on her “work safeguarding children” – during an interview being held with regard to the extremely serious matter of her having named two child torture victims…”
Any cop involved in that interview, if it wasn’t recorded, would cringe and probably want to deny it. Sonia Poulton had two witnesses though…
Rory Port on May 3, 2024 at 11:14 am:
“Any cop involved in that interview, if it wasn’t recorded, would cringe and probably want to deny it. Sonia Poulton had two witnesses though…”
If I was cop involved with that interview, and the interview was recorded, so I couldn’t get away with it, I’d have to blame it on the vodka, to be honest.
Couldn’t admit to saying any of that. It would only prove that I hadn’t checked her out prior to the interview 🤣
If they had said that then they were biased already prior to interview and should in theory be facing investigation by their PSD.
Grooming cops to believe however is not something new to Poulton.
SvT
on May 3, 2024 at 5:52 pm said :
“She has consistently told her donors, followers and her employers falsehoods regarding the case. And also in can be amply demonstrated that she didn’t tell the truth to the police either…
Regarding the specific of the Publication 5 inconsistency by Poulton, isn’t lying to a court in documents with statements of truth an act of contempt and/or perverting the course of justice?”
👀👀👀 👮👮👮
👨⚖️
What this case has demonstrated to date, is that an ego and belief is not bigger than the truth, a trained legal representative and that contradicting/lying on witness statements is only going to land more problems in that person’s “in-tray”.
Personally, I still find it incredible that Poulton has not really attempted to meaningfully settle this case and negotiate/compromise instead of making more and more demands. She’s getting caught out with her behaviour at almost every hearing it seems and once she lost her previous legal advisors the writing was on the wall somewhat.
This case isn’t about money vs no money, it’s not about politics, it’s not about establishment vs the press it’s really about stopping a woman from lying to the public and making the most heinous allegations against innocent people.
It strikes me she is only continuing with the case to further the pain that she has already inflicted, continues to inflict and attempt to intimidate the claimant and others. She will probably only even consider quitting/settling once it gets past disclosure stage – and then the problems for the claimant etc increase imho because Poulton is the sort of individual who would use disclosed material in collateral attacks. She is trying to make Mr Hemming and others lives difficult because she still believes she is right.
She isn’t. Never has been, imho either. She’s potentially heading towards a situation whereby she is made bankrupt several times and also whereby she is unemployable by any reputable outlet (although arguably she’s already at that point).
One additional point I’d like to make and raise a question for Sam again, if Poulton was aware of the claim in 2020 then any assets she has moved around – say to a relative – would have to be disclosed to the court surely in determining whether she had the funds at the time of claim? For instance, she was a shareholder in Truth and Integrity Productions with a rather dubious character who seems to believe in rather strange science and who is neck deep with the really dodgy ITNJ. She seems to have sold her investment in T&I since the claim was issued.
Which of course raises yet another question… did she use any of that money to pay for her own legal costs or did she not tell the likes of Butt and the public before asking for monies?
SvT on May 3, 2024 at 6:08 pm said:
“Ah, if it was only the naming of the children. It was a LOT more than that.”
👀👀👀👀👀
God bless us and save us. So this certainly seems to be yet another case of the police swallowing everything she tells them, without doing any investigation themselves, or retrieving copies of what she actually said, as opposed to what she seems to have fobbed them off with during her police interview.
It was extremely malicious of her to accuse innocent people of pressuring police to prosecute her during that police interview. Had she been persuasive enough to make police believe her ‘fears’ of being persecuted to the extent she alleged, this could have led to even more arrests and dawn raids of innocent people, than she’s already been involved in, so it could.
The police may also have written up any old rubbish in their notes about the people she accused on that day. It’s unfair of police not to have at least warned the accused of the allegations being made against them. Those police could not sit in front of me, and tell me with a straight face, that they thought someone accusing people of using ‘pressure’ to prosecute is normal behaviour which they see regularly. They had to think it was a bit unusual (or even quite worrying behaviour).
When she makes stuff up like this, the police have been known to act recklessly in her favour, and cause serious and life-long harm to innocent people and their families…
That is precisely the point – that she COULD have caused the police to continue their “arrest first and ask questions later” stance and is, I opine, exactly what she intended to happen.
But based on what? Her falsehoods.
Technically and to the letter of the law, anyone who deliberately makes a false allegation to the police is committing an offence. By naming the individuals, she accused to the police, in a statement she wrote in the civil case she was furthering those falsehoods into the public domain when previously they were private to the police. It is pretty clear that the court agree with that as problematic for her. Then denying that she did it is not only foolish but again criminal.
“In R v Cotter and Others [2002] EWCA Crim 1033 it was held that where the prosecution case is that a false allegation has been made, all that is required is that the person making the false allegation intended that it should be taken seriously by the police. It is not necessary to prove that she/he intended that anyone should actually be arrested. The offence of perverting the course of justice is sometimes referred to as “attempting to pervert the course of justice”. It does not matter whether or not the acts result in a perversion of the course of justice: the offence is committed when acts tending and intended to pervert a course of justice are done. ”
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences-incorporating-charging-standard
SvT on May 3, 2024 at 6:25 pm said.
“Personally, I still find it incredible that Poulton has not really attempted to meaningfully settle this case and negotiate/compromise instead of making more and more demands.”
Her latest ‘update’ has just made ‘going to trial’ look like a trip to the hairdresser’s.
“A quick update: I was in the High Court on Wednesday. It was initially intended to be a Case Management Conference to determine when we will be moving forward to trial – something I am keen to move faster on at this stage given I’ve had four years of being in the legal system with this.”
👀👀👀
“Short back and sides for Poulton, a number 2!”…
Seriously though, she was so keen to move things on faster that she is incapable, it seems, of negotiating a settlement whilst not seemingly understanding what is really at stake for her.
She’s sacked, or had them drop her, at least 3 legal representatives to date – and that’s not including any pro-bono mates she’s had advice from. I suspect, that those advisors have strongly suggested to her to settle and she won’t (it seems). IIRC in public domain documents (as a result of hearings previously) her legal fees hadn’t been paid and were still in the region of £38k. So if she loses the civil case then not only would she be likely facing having to pay Hemming’s (and others) costs and damages but also the outstanding bill with her legals (unless she’s managed to gather monies from third parties to pay the legals off).
Also, because of the nature of the breaches in the Hampstead case, she’s also running the risk of being labelled what she liked to label others. And if that happens then it’s unlikely her current employers would also want to be tarnished with such.
It’s obviously not up to use to determine outcomes, but anyone with an ounce of common sense and who has been following the outcomes of the likes of the Laurence Fox case should know that the courts are very much against false allegations. Especially ones which are so heinous as false allegations of child abuse, whether historical or current because of the sheer reactions that such can create.
Mr Hemming has already been violently threatened by believers in Esther Baker – that is also perhaps why he is seeking to stop Poulton from repeating her “mistakes” towards him. (Look up the Declan Canning case in Birmingham if in any doubt). https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5409461/Internet-troll-28-threatened-stab-former-MP.html
That Canning case just demonstrates how people can be incited to act by simply believing false allegations at face value.
SvT on May 3, 2024 at 5:52 pm:
“Regarding Poulton’s “fighting fund”, those who are donating and encouraging her to continue her behaviour which was caught out in this hearing (and in others) are basically in the middle of “joint enterprise” and also Poulton is, in theory, defrauding them by NOT telling them the truth about what’s going on, what’s gone on and how many screw-ups she’s made along the way.”
God bless us and save us, and also bless and save any clueless donors, who through no fault of their own, could become embroiled in matters about which the surfaces have barely been scratched…
Ms Poulton claims to have “made a mistake” in naming the children. For the avoidance of doubt I’m neither a journalist nor an ex-journalist but aren’t journalists advised to do due diligence. Might not, therefore, the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus reasonably expect a bona fide journalist to have been aware of the Judge’s ruling that the children not be named.
IPSO Editors Code of Conduct:
Clause 7:
The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
This is the same code of conduct that Poulton stated in a witness statement that she follows at all material times.
An interview with Attwood would, naturally, fall into a “material” time.
From the fuller interview, it is very clear she knew about the court order(s) because she also attacked the ruling judge… so that tells me that it wasn’t a “mistake” at all. It was, imho, a criminal offence and one of several in the same interview (full version).
Attwood, because he transmitted/published the interview received an alleged formal police caution. Poulton should’ve received at least the same because she clearly should’ve known better.
SvT on May 3, 2024 at 6:25 pm said: “For instance, she was a shareholder in Truth and Integrity Productions.”
🤣🤣🤣
Oh, my aching sides. I’ve seen it all now, so I have. Sonia Poulton, and truth and integrity 🤣
I won’t ask who could possibly have been responsible for making up such a crass name for the company…
Perplexed Bystander on May 4, 2024 at 8:46 am said:
“Might not, therefore, the man or woman on the Clapham omnibus reasonably expect a bona fide journalist to have been aware of the Judge’s ruling that the children not be named.”
Sonia Poulton isn’t a trained journalist, so she isn’t. So she believes she doesn’t have to abide by certain laws and codes. She is an ‘outlaw’, so she is. ‘Outlaws’ know the rules and laws, but actively choose to ignore them.
This is why we see her disregarding decisions made by judges, or making false allegations and lying in courts etc.
Bruxism on May 3, 2024 at 11:00 am:
“Would be interesting to see a police response in regard to her alleging they had informed her they were under pressure from the CPS to charge her, and had “commended” her on her “work safeguarding children” – during an interview being held with regard to the extremely serious matter of her having named two child torture victims…”
If I was cop involved in this, I would become more ashamed of myself and my colleagues every day, and realise that we deserve nothing less than to spend a few years breaking stones in a quarry. I would admit that I know it is wrong to overrule any judge who has decided a child or children, or a parent, has anonymity for life.
By now, I would be angry with all the cops who have had dealings with her for more than ten years, but who failed to put alarm bells on the system, to prevent more and more cops and innocent people, from getting caught up in the big web of lies and defamatory data held on the pnc.
If I was cop involved in this case, I would be ashamed that the journalist has shown me up for not having the most basic knowledge concerning child protection in this specific case, and was therefore unqualified to conduct such an interview at that time.
SvT on May 4, 2024 at 5:03 pm said:
“IPSO Editors Code of Conduct:
Clause 7:
The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences.
“From the fuller interview, it is very clear she knew about the court order(s) because she also attacked the ruling judge… so that tells me that it wasn’t a “mistake” at all. It was, imho, a criminal offence and one of several in the same interview (full version).”
SvT on May 3, 2024 at 6:25 pm:
“For instance, she was a shareholder in Truth and Integrity Productions with a rather dubious character who seems to believe in rather strange science and who is neck deep with the really dodgy ITNJ. She seems to have sold her investment in T&I since the claim was issued.”
You’ve reminded me there was also a kerfuffle towards the end of 2015 where she had to act very quickly to dissolve some company or other she owned, because she was being sued, and there were police complaints being made about her, and disturbing her plans to have a lot of her victims arrested.
If I was cop involved in Sonia Poulton’s voluntary interview, I would have serious issues with the colleague whom Sonia Poulton alleges to have called her a ‘”naughty girl” for being in contempt of court. This is inappropriate language and behaviour. She is an elderly woman.
It is very bad for cop to make light of a very serious matter by calling someone “a naughty girl”, when they are interviewing someone for revealing the names of children protected by law.
The cop who allegedly told her she could be looking at up to six years in prison, was being too kind. If I was cop involved in this, I would be honest, and state the actual length of sentence she should expect in reality.
*It is possible that some things which Sonia Poulton alleges police to have said during this interview, may not have been said at all. As previously noted, she has been here before. Lying to cops, and lying about cops.*
Ilie Myassovalot on May 5, 2024 at 4:54 pm said:
“*It is possible that some things which Sonia Poulton alleges police to have said during this interview, may not have been said at all. As previously noted, she has been here before. Lying to cops, and lying about cops.*”
Fortunately, she had two witnesses sitting in at her interview. Her criminal lawyer whom she alleges to keep on “speed dial”, and her ex employer Mr Butt of onevsp. They were in the same room, so should all have heard the same conversation as Sonia Poulton has been relaying to her flock.
Rory Port on May 5, 2024 at 5:31 pm said:
“Fortunately, she had two witnesses sitting in at her interview. Her criminal lawyer whom she alleges to keep on “speed dial”, and her ex employer Mr Butt of onevsp. They were in the same room, so should all have heard the same conversation as Sonia Poulton has been relaying to her flock.”
If I was cop involved in this case, I would grass on my colleagues for speaking to Sonia Poulton as if she were a personal friend with special clearance. I would also inform my superiors that Sonia Poulton has been talking to her flock about confidential policing matters, and alleging that my colleagues have behaved in an inappropriate (if not lewd) manner, which is only adding more fuel to the general public desire to see bent police being sent away to break stones in quarries.
I’m aware that Ms Poulton has fallen out with various colleagues over the years. I think MHN has covered this before (her collaboration with D Icke for example).
Looking on the Companies House website Truth and Integrity was dissolved on 26 December 2023.
Boxing Day… 26th December… hmmm…
That aside, the selling of shares in the company DURING the court case is the point. She’s also been thanking Lewis Montague in various speeches she’s made to “grift” some money.
Perplexed Bystander on May 6, 2024 at 2:14 pm Said:
“Looking on the Companies House website Truth and Integrity was dissolved on 26 December 2023.”
👀👀
Evil Auld Trout on May 4, 2024 at 7:50 pm replied to Ilie Massovalot:
“You’ve reminded me there was also a kerfuffle towards the end of 2015 where she had to act very quickly to dissolve some company or other she owned, because she was being sued, and there were police complaints being made about her, and disturbing her plans to have a lot of her victims arrested.”
This is possibly the one you mean: ‘SONIAPOULTON.COM LTD was on dissolved on 27 October 2015.’
If my memory serves me correctly, this was when Sonia Poulton and her team of “outlaws” shifted their swatting campaigns up a couple of gears. The likes of which had not been witnessed before. Nobody had ever seen so many bent police lining themselves up to actively collude in internet swatting against so many entirely innocent people before.
Where once the victims had only to fear Sonia Poulton and her “outlaws”, they soon found the police to be as equally badass and dangerous.
I agree with all those who say the police who have been involved with Sonia Poulton and her outlaws, should be sentenced to breaking stones for the rest of their lives. Police who knew what their colleagues were up to, and who chose not to prevent any of it, or covered it up, deserve the same.
SvT on May 4, 2024 at 5:11 pm said:
“Technically and to the letter of the law, anyone who deliberately makes a false allegation to the police is committing an offence. By naming the individuals, she accused to the police, in a statement she wrote in the civil case she was furthering those falsehoods into the public domain when previously they were private to the police. It is pretty clear that the court agree with that as problematic for her. Then denying that she did it is not only foolish but again criminal.”
If I was cop involved in any case which has featured Sonia Poulton and her outlaws, and I had ignored all the evidence given to police by victims and witnesses, I would be very ashamed of myself and my colleagues.
It is almost impossible to calculate all the false allegations made to police by Sonia Poulton and her outlaws over a decade. If I was cop on the case, I would find every single allegation, and list each of them as a separate crime. I would see it as my duty. To protect and serve. If I am unable to protect people from her and her outlaws, I am no use as cop.
If I was cop involved in Sonia Poulton’s police interview, I would have to ask my superiors why people such as Esther Baker, Carl Beech, and Sonia Poulton, have been allowed to invite people along to sit in with them when they attend police stations to talk about various matters concerning child abuse. I have known grown men want to take their mothers into these situations, and their requests have been refused. Why the special treatment? (Or will we find out, it was only Sonia Poulton and her criminal lawyers who were actually in the room with cops? Not quite the merry party as she has relayed.)
Rather like Carl Beech, who is known to have channelled Tony Hart during at least one of his police interviews, as he sat drawing pictures of buildings to entertain the cops, and waste an afternoon of police time, Sonia Poulton also pre-planned and stage-managed her police interview, and managed to manipulate a situation where she was supposed to be answering for her own actions regarding the naming of children, into yet another opportunity for her to engage police in her fantasies, and possibly have some more innocent people arrested. It is bad of cops not to have investigated her allegations. Or maybe they did investigate. If I was cop on the case, I would want to know cops had not written anything bad about the men she accused. Because cops usually do write bad things. Highly defamatory and inflammatory things, which other cops see on the pnc, and later use against innocent people. Without a scrap of proof. All cops involved in cases concerning Sonia Poulton can prove this to be true.
Ilie Myassovalot on May 5, 2024 at 4:54 pm said:
“It is very bad for cop to make light of a very serious matter by calling someone “a naughty girl”, when they are interviewing someone for revealing the names of children protected by law.”
By the most extraordinary coincidence, Sonia Poulton chose to use the phrase “naughty boy” on her show this morning, so she did. It was in relation to an ex cop who had been arrested for what she does all the time. ie. Harassing and stalking people, and making people feel threatened in their own homes, and whilst they are going about their daily lives. She’s done this with David Cameron and Baron Rothschild as well as ordinary members of the public. She said the police have told the ex cop they are taking no further action at this point, but have told him that they can open and review his case at any time – if he is a “naughty boy”. She said the phrase “naughty boy”, as if she wants to make it look like she regularly uses this phrase about adults being naughty boys and girls. Probably to impress that it was just a figure of speech when she said it during her travelling shows, and she hadn’t meant it to sound as if some creepy cop had told her she was a “naughty girl”.
We saw what she did there, so we did…
Ilie Myassovalot on May 7, 2024 at 6:59 am said:
“If I was cop involved in Sonia Poulton’s police interview, I would have to ask my superiors why people such as Esther Baker, Carl Beech, and Sonia Poulton, have been allowed to invite people along to sit in with them when they attend police stations to talk about various matters concerning child abuse. I have known grown men want to take their mothers into these situations, and their requests have been refused. Why the special treatment?”
👀👀👀
@ Ilie. I don’t think this police interview was properly conducted, or properly concluded at all, so I don’t.
It looks like yet another case of the police being star-struck by someone who has her own youchoob channel, and who pays for her twitter followers, and who has lately been seen to draw audience averages of 109 people per day (from all over the world) to listen to her breakfast shows. Don’t quote me on the viewing figure, as it came from a friend. It was only in the 90s when I last looked a while ago.
The way she tells it, it looks like she took charge of the police interview room that day. And gave the police what’s what. More or less telling them to stfu and listen to her, because she was being persecuted by shadowy figures and dark forces, who were trying to harm her and ruin her, and put her prison. And the police couldn’t tell her to stfu and stop lying, because they had allegedly been receiving messages from (possibly the same) high-up, shadowy figures, who were putting them under pressure to charge her 🤣
I could be wrong, so I could. The police may not be star-struck at all. It may simply be the case that these police are just absolutely crap at their job, and don’t follow proper procedures in some ‘special’ cases. For various reasons which they haven’t accounted for.
This is of course, if the police interview even really happened in the same way she wrote about it…
It is highly possible, that everything did happen as she has described though. It is an unarguable fact, that there has been some very strange policing and some very bad police involved in cases concerning Sonia Poulton and her team of “outlaws”.
The stories I’ve heard about those police…
Evil Auld Trout on May 9, 2024 at 9:22 pm said:
“It looks like yet another case of the police being star-struck by someone who has her own youchoob channel, and who pays for her twitter followers, and who has lately been seen to draw audience averages of 109 people per day (from all over the world) to listen to her breakfast shows. Don’t quote me on the viewing figure, as it came from a friend. It was only in the 90s when I last looked a while ago.”
109 listeners? That’s a lot more than I would have guessed. Someone was saying she doesn’t half bring up some unpalatable subjects at random when she’s ‘on the road’, doing her travelling shows.
‘Adrenochrome’ was one subject she tackled, and ‘woke’ her audience up to. Imagine hearing that coming over the mike on a Friday night! F*cking hell. Someone’s nan could be in the audience of one of her shows. They won’t sleep for months if they hear some of the stuff that comes out of her mouth.
She doesn’t even warn the audience that she’s about to talk about stuff which could make them feel ill. From all I’ve heard about her travelling shows, they should be x-rated.
God bless us and save us, Rory. I thought someone was pulling my leg, so I did, when they said they’d heard she’d been sure to mention adrenochrome at a show.
Now, nobody can tell me that’s a normal thing for anyone to be talking about to a paying audience, in a community centre on a Friday night. Because it’s not fecking normal, to be driving hundreds of fecking miles across the country, to talk to people whom you don’t know, and have never met before, about this sort of fear-mongering shoite.
If people who are interested in this sort of stuff want to meet up with her and gather in small groups at the bar, or on the car park, and allow her to rattle on about this stuff in detail after the show, that’s up to them. But she shouldn’t be doing this sort of stuff to a big audience of 20 or 40 people, who have paid to meet her and speak to her.
Let that sink in. The second half of that last sentence.
*Nobody could write this shoite.*
Evil Auld Trout, I do worry when folk go along with these weird “woo” conspiracies. It’s pretty easy to google (or use search engine of choice) for “andrenochrome”. When I searched it said it (a_____ome) was oxidised adrenaline and its purpose was to aid blood clotting. Folk really should have more common sense.
@ Perplexed Bystander on May 10, 2024 at 9:52 am said:
“I do worry when folk go along with these weird “woo” conspiracies.”
We’re quite right to worry about them, so we are. A lot of people involved in her conspiracies are still to feel the force of the law. Nobody wants any more people getting into trouble and having nightmares. The police will never get to the bottom of their in-trays.
Although she has bought herself a lot of twitter followers to look popular, she still has many die-hard followers who will jump on every bandwagon she finds, and set off on a fearmongering tour across social media with her. Slaying anyone who gets in their way, or threatening to sue them (lol) And latterly, as we now know, she’s also been touring around community centres in rural areas. Where I’m sure they’ll never have seen such a ‘turn’ in their lives. God bless them and save them.
If anyone has been to one of these events where Sonia Poulton is the ‘turn’, please drop a line on here, and let us know if she is the ‘star turn’, or one of several ‘turns’, or if she has a warm-up man. I’m definitely not interested in buying a ticket, but would like to know how much it costs to go to one of her horror shows, where nobody knows what’s going to come out of her mouth, and may give you nightmares.
The X tweet below is still alive and kicking on twitter, so it is. As God is my judge, Sonia Poulton can’t half tell some dangerous whoppers, so she can.
It must be frightening for the men she fantasises about. Lying in bed of a night, wondering if her tweets and posts will incite people into committing acts of violence against them, and hoping she hasn’t managed to con any more police into doing her bidding, by turning up at the homes of her innocent victims, dressed up in riot gear, and chucking kids out of their beds, and turning their mattresses over. She is a dangerous and sick individual. Police, up and down the country, know all about her long history of torture, and worse, so they do.
“@SoniaPoulton
Dec 10, 2023
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.”
It is very wrong of Sonia Poulton to try to collect money from her flock to pay her legal fees, by claiming that people want her “imprisoned and bankrupted” for making a fillum.
From all I’ve seen of her behaviour, I’d say that her having made a fillum wouldn’t even feature in the top 100 on anyone’s list of reasons why she should be fecking well locked up for good!
Incidentally, this fillum of hers that she constantly promotes, is absolutely crap, and tells you nothing you won’t already know if you’ve read her and her team of “outlaws” twitter timelines for the past twelve years. (Copies of deleted tweets are always available for police and courts, so they are.)
So, if you haven’t seen the fillum, don’t bother. You’ll either come away from it feeling let down, and wanting those hours of your life back for watching the fillum, and for reading the fecking pathetic comments about the fillum, or you’ll be threatening to take her to court for something. There is no middle road. How she can call her shoite fillums ‘work’ and ‘content’, I’ll never fecking know!
She’s an out and out fecking liar and fantasist, so she is. So are all her “outlaws” who have aided and abetted her in her lies and torture of innocent people.
Lying to her flock, the police, and now the courts, is showing us what a total ‘outlaw’ she is.
“Poulton denied that this passage referred to him. Unfortunately, she had made statements to the contrary. In a witness statement. In court. With a signed Statement of Truth. Oops. Poulton made clear that she believes John Hemming, Darren Laverty and I reported her. Only, we had not.”
I think after reading the original post, it is now safe to say that Sonia Poulton, campaigner for free speech, and self proclaimed ‘voice for children’, and many other click-baity causes, is a shocking liar who commits “depraved and serious crimes”, so she does.
Sonia Poulton wrote:
“FRIDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2023
HIGH COURT ORDER – ANONYMOUS COMMENTER
…Mr. Smith had published extensive comments (accusing me of depraved and serious crimes) on his creepily titled ‘Witchfinder General’ blog from an ‘anonymous commenter’.
…The High Court ordered Smith to supply me with the full identity of the commenter – and that is what he has done.
…I will pursue them in the future, should they continue. All of this was said in the High Court.
…I pursued this course of action because my good reputation is vital to the work I do.
I don’t represent media billionaires or politicians or royalty or the establishment, but the people.
Smearing me with heinous lies can potentially harm what I do. I won’t allow that to happen.
So, let this serve as a warning to other ‘anonymous commenters’ seeking to harm my reputation.
I will pursue this action again, should I need to.
You can’t buy a good reputation, but you can defend and protect it.”
Oh my days. 🤣 “creepily titled ‘Witchfinder General’ blog”, “pursue them in future”, “serve as a warning” “Smearing me with heinous lies can potentially harm what I do.”, “Good reputation” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
But to be serious, I don’t recall anyone on here stating anything which can’t be backed up with evidence (which police and cps are already known to have seen) nor do I recall anyone called ‘anonymous commenter’. What can be said after reading the original post, is that whomever ‘anonymous commenter’ is, they were on the nail, so they were. Sonia Poulton does indeed commit “depraved and serious” crimes. Lying in court cases is extremely depraved and serious, so it is.
Other people who have lied and made false allegations to police and courts in regard to a considerable number of unresolved matters involving Sonia Poulton, should beware of breaking any more laws such as contempt, perjury, witness intimidation, pcj etc in due course.
Perhaps Sonia Poulton would like to answer some or all of the questions in this:
https://spinvtruth.wordpress.com/2024/05/13/the-truth-will-out-part-one/
It would appear that she has been conning CSA campaigners and Esther Baker since at least 2017…
Wonder what some of Poulton’s coffee donors will make of that.
She will have seen her arse over this:
https://spinvtruth.wordpress.com/2024/05/13/the-truth-will-out-part-one/
My abacus ran out of beads counting all the f*cking crimes in this short article.
Would imagine Esther Baker will feel like she’s been hit by a bus when it all sinks in. She wouldn’t have been expecting to see this. Not after Sonia Poulton had made claims to have interviewed other people who were backing up Baker’s stories. Not after Sonia Poulton had been seen baying with the mob, that Carl Beech was made an example of, to deter victims of childhood abuse from coming forward.
The use and abuse of Esther Baker is particularly perverse and evil. Sonia Poulton had witnessed Esther Baker’s frequent melt-downs and breakdowns on twitter over a period of years, and yet she would have watched Baker walk into court, and put her own liberty at risk, to bolster one of Poulton’s other ridiculously ambitious court cases. At any given moment, if only one out of dozens of police throughout the UK had bothered to use the counter intel and forewarnings of Sonia Poulton and her Team Outlaw’s evidenced conspiracies to harm, and their organised crimes, such as making false allegations to police in order to have innocent people arrested, Esther Baker could have woken up to her doors being dollied off by police, being dragged out of bed, and at the very least, found herself arrested and charged with conspiracy to harm, and intent to commit sundry other crimes in cahoots with Sonia Poulton in a Crown Court setting.
The state of her again! Ffs. 🤣
“@SoniaPoulton
Have just had oral judgment from the High Court. Delighted to have succeeded on all points. Blogger Samuel Collingwood Smith (whom I am suing alongside ex-MP John Hemming) applied to remove parts of my harassment claim and was denied this in entirety. Costs were awarded to me and his appeal was refused. I shall be updating my legal page asap. Thank you wonderful supporters – this is an important decision. Comments off for legal reasons.
Last edited12:05 PM · May 13, 2024”
Thinking back to the stuff in the original post, I’d say this isn’t something she should be gloating about, to be honest.
She hasn’t stopped to consider Sam Collingwood Smith may have been trying to do her a favour. To save her from serious embarrassment. Litigants in Person are often helped in this way by the other side’s expertise.
Sam Collingwood Smith’s ‘loss’ has a silver lining though. The public will now be able to see what her harassment claims are all about.
Sonia Poulton: UPDATE HEMMING VS POULTON & OTHERS Wednesday 15 May 2024
“I will continue to defend myself. I am also continuing to raise funds to pay costs now and in the present, should I need to. My own costs, as said, are now minuscule but I still have other costs ongoing.” Which are absolutely f*cking gigantic, and are expected to grow exponentially, as she finds herself facing more court cases in due course. Which will necessitate her using the criminal lawyers whom she alleges to keeps on “speed dial”. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t answer the phone to her, so I wouldn’t. She didn’t give them the full story last time she used them. This would annoy me if I was her lawyer, so it would.
*Now and in the present* 😵💫
Her latest Fighting Fund update is full of … misrepresentation (perhaps the best description I can find without being offensive) again.
She doesn’t understand, yet, that such … misrepresentation… for direct monetary gain is potentially a criminal act of fraud. She needs to stop doing that for her own safety and liberty.
She’s also basically repeated the very issue that has seen her in court in the first place as well as completely … misrepresenting… the content of one of Sam’s letters.
It’s now very clear that even IF she has pro-bono legal advice that the quality of that advice is more like nursery school level than degree level. Also she has wonderfully contradicted what she has said in some recent videos which one of her supporters posted online – which is nice!
Informing venues or even legal advisors truthfully with evidence of her conduct is not harassment unless it comes with a specific threat. Indeed the letter Sam wrote that is in question was actually a media inquiry no different to the sort that Poulton herself would file.
She’s also claimed that Sam isn’t a journalist. It will be interesting to see how SHE defines what a journalist is considering that she has had no formal training, no qualifications for such a profession nor is she a member, and never has been, of the NUJ.
So what is she then? If Sam is in the same position as not having formal journalistic qualifications/training and isn’t a member of the NUJ and she describes him as not being a journalist what does that make her? I’d suggest that she’s managed to remove the journalist “tag” that she’s given herself. Whoops.
I believe also that she is desperately trying to maintain the untruth that she didn’t ditch support for Baker in January 2017 when her own words in emails to the police make it very clear that she did ditch support and the reasons why she did too. Those emails are damning. They also betray not only her “partnership” with Baker (in the rather conspiracy and fiction based criminal case they were both involved with creating) but also genuine CSA survivors who had relied upon Poulton.
It should also be borne in mind that until relatively very recently (2021 IIRC) that Poulton did NOT have a Data Protection registration. Any personal information given to her by genuine CSA survivors therefore was at risk and I believe still is.
The more she contradicts herself the more likely the court will clampdown hard as a result as the inconsistencies and contradictions will get picked up – if not by the court directly then very likely by her opponents.
By doing what she has now done in the Fighting Fund update imho she has basically re-libeled Mr Hemming, libeled Sam again and also made some glaring errors and further libels.
She claimed in an early formal witness statement to the High Court that she abides by the IPSO Editors Code of Practice. It is very clear she’s not doing so – clause 1(v) (Accuracy) requires a party in a civil case to ACCURATELY report the actions in a defamation case – that includes prior to any complete outcome. She is clearly the defendant in the case in which she is reporting and is therefore very likely breaching IPSO rules. Which would mean what? She lied to the court or is simply being very stupid? Possibly both too.
Whilst she seemingly wants to continue to con her followers into believing she’s doing a wonderful job, the reality is very different.
For example, she claims that Smith isn’t allowed to appeal at all the decision from 13th May. That is incorrect. The Deputy Master ruled that she would not permit a direct appeal there and then, however as I understand she did permit the filing of the appeal and also that it would have to be addressed by a higher authority than her – the appeal court being the most obvious.
In other words, Poulton has further misrepresented and libeled Sam in the process (in my opinion).
I strongly suspect therefore that instead of knocking issues on the head, Sonia Poulton by her own stupidity in the Fighting Fund update (archived offline btw for evidential purposes) has increased the problems she faces quite exponentially including possible criminal allegations against her.
🤣
Have TNT worked out she could be a massive liability? Like she was for BNT and ONEVSP?
Getting sacked is one thing, but resigning and walking away from paid work whilst taking the piss out of courts, and running up legal fees and costs to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and giving judges the run around, could cause a judge to ask questions. To make sure she isn’t behaving like one of those terrible parents who jacks their job in, to prevent themselves from having to maintain their offspring.
My thoughts are with those members of her flock who will be grieving at this time. I know it’s not quite like when ‘Take That’ split up, but I imagine it will be deeply affecting some of her flock whom she has encouraged to see themselves as one big family of revolutionaries and free speechers.
Meanwhile, I’m still feeling somewhat short-changed that she did not do an horrific rant about Mr Butt, her previous employer at BNT and ONEVSP, so i am hoping it’s not too long before we see a screaming, ranting ‘exposure’ of all the shortcomings of the TNT bosses.
One thing we can be sure about, is the reason she is no longer at TNT will not be her fault. It’s never her fault. To quote from her own hype, she is a ‘professional investigative journalist with integrity and a great reputation’.
🤣🤣🤣
“Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
I have resigned from TNT with immediate effect. I went to TNT to create a new breakfast show, I was told it was free speech. This was not my experience. Many of the staff are fab, loved working with them. I will say more when I’m ready.
12:31 PM · May 16, 2024”
🍿🍿🍿
SvT on May 16, 2024 at 9:38 am said: “I strongly suspect therefore that instead of knocking issues on the head, Sonia Poulton by her own stupidity in the Fighting Fund update (archived offline btw for evidential purposes) has increased the problems she faces quite exponentially including possible criminal allegations against her.”
If I was cop on the case of Sonia Poulton lying to her flock about what she is being sued for, I would be firm in demanding she be locked up whilst awaiting trial, and would wish for each of her flock to be given a refund and a hand written apology. She would have to refund a lot of donations, but she would only have to write a few letters. It seems there are very few people who make donations to this ‘fighting fund’ of hers. From general observations, only a few of them could be considered as ‘complicit’. However, the law may see things differently.
Rory Port on May 16, 2024 at 6:57 pm said:
“To quote from her own hype, she is a ‘professional investigative journalist with integrity and a great reputation’.”
🤣🤣🤣 Kills me, every time she says stuff like this. She says it with such a straight face. Like she actually believes it 🤣🤣
Her ‘fighting fund’ page has some interesting stuff on it, with regard to how she reels in her punters:
“And the FULL DETAILS are very interesting, and important, indeed.”
“My enemies are busy and I know who they are.”
How’s that for causing a bit of intrigue and drama, to have her flock believe she’s being persecuted by a web of ‘dark forces’, and to start coughing up even more coffees for Poulton’s ‘big reveal’? Then she rounds it all off with a little ditty she should have been telling herself for twelve years. Oh. my. days.
“That was over two months ago and we’ve heard nothing since. Which doesn’t mean we won’t but I felt the need to say this because my enemies want to use this one incident, in 30 years of journalism, to stop me doing what I do: raising attention to serious matters of public interest. I will fight that tooth and nail because my reputation is worth defending.
I want to thank Muhammad Butt of BNT for paying for that criminal defence for the interview. I didn’t use the Fighting Fund for it, although I have a feeling if I asked my supporters they would be more than happy for me to do so. Maybe not all, but some certainly would once the full details were known. And the FULL DETAILS are very interesting, and important, indeed.
Either way, no money from my Fighting Fund was used for that purpose.
I feel the need to clarify this issue. I won’t address everything that is said about me but this particular thing I need to.
I will talk more about it at a later stage. It’s a story with many parts and they are not immediately obvious but let’s say there has been inordinate pressure applied with the aim of charging me. My enemies are busy and I know who they are.
I am reminded, in an interesting turn of events, of the adage: “be careful when you set out to destroy your enemy that you don’t, in turn, destroy yourself.” ”
🍿🍿🍿