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

“Doctor” Jacqui Dillon is psychotic. Not in the hyperbolous sense but in the proper medical sense that she hears voices (archive) and sometimes sees things that are not there, including (according to the Daily Mirror) hallucinating her own daughter covered in blood. Even so, Dillon has many achievements to her name – an honorary doctorate she received from the University of East London for her undoubted work in mental health. However, her achievements give her no right to hound others on Twitter or jump into complex debates about historic abuse without respect for guilt or innocence, nor to the families and children of those involved.

Jacqui Dillon calls Baker a survivor, but none of Baker’s alleged abusers have been charged. Baker was then placed under police investigation and Staffordshire Police have stated that a file is to be sent to the CPS for advice, including on potential charges.

Historic abuse is a complex issue. There are undoubtedly many persons who have been genuinely abused and even today authority figures want to turn a blind eye. I have written many articles, for example, about Reddit. Reddit is large social media website of sorts that was openly advertising two groups called, “/r/PedoCity” and “/r/PedoWorld”. The groups were openly advertised in a full text index, though no images were visible except to those warped individuals who joined. One was there for three years quite openly. They were banned the day after my article exposing it based on a tip-off from a whistle-blower.

Reddit, proudly hosting a forum for ‘Watching pedos rape the young’. Screenshot from their text index above. They hosted the ‘community’ for three years – until I wrote an article exposing it. Words cannot adequately express my contempt for Reddit CEO Steve Huffman.

So, when Dillon complains of paedophile apologists and modern fellow travellers to PIE on Twitter I have no doubt she is raising legitimate issues.

The problem is not everyone is guilty. Dillon believes she was abused by a paedophile. Perhaps that is true.

However, when dealing with abuse, there is a world of possibility for mistake and outright falsehood. In 2015, Esther Baker accused then MP John Hemming as well as a former Labour cabinet minister and a large group of other people of rape. She said she recognised Hemming as her assailant beyond doubt, that she had seen his whole body and he had various physical features including a birthmark on his back. The police investigation checked that and he does not have those features. The case inevitably ended with no prosecution.

Hemming is clearly not the man who raped Esther Baker – if she was raped at all. According to the BBC, Baker is now under police investigation for inventing all her allegations (archive). In fact matters have moved on. An advice file has now been sent to the CPS and police have stated that, “The CPS will consider the papers pertaining to the Perverting the Course of Justice allegation alongside any alternative offences they feel might be appropriate”.

After the police investigation closed (despite review requests by Baker), Hemming successfully sued two of Ms Baker’s supporters, David Hencke and Graham Wilmer (archive). Hemming was assisted by myself, a law graduate, pro-bono as well as barrister Richard Owen-Thomas. I helped advise on the pleadings.

The unnamed Labour Cabinet Minister accused by Baker was as old as 74, (depending on which of the varying dates for the alleged rapes is taken) and had had repeated prostate surgery. He likely lacked testicles because a common treatment for persistent prostate trouble at the time was orchiectomy.

Baker was initially offered free legal support by two separate firms of solicitors and barristers. After considering her papers and ‘evidence’ however they parted ways. In fact Simpson Millar solicitors even had a crowdfunding campaign Baker set up using their name taken down.

Describing Baker as a ‘victim’ or ‘survivor’ on social media tends to convey the defamatory meaning that Baker’s allegations are true and therefore potentially defames Hemming and Baker’s father. David Hencke was sued for precisely that. Below I include an extract from the pleadings in the libel case against him (which he settled) –

David Hencke was successfully sued, in part, for calling Esther Baker a ‘Survivor’.

David Hencke had some of the country’s top libel defence lawyers, RPC. He had insurance. On the best legal advice his money could buy, he settled. I saw a Twitter user claim that the libel action was not over describing Baker as a survivor. That is quite wrong –

This Twitter user is incorrect. Hencke *was* indeed sued for using the words, ‘victim’ and / or ‘survivor’ to refer to Baker. Doing so is potentially libellous.

Jacqui Dillon’s behaviour is unacceptable. To be fair, the tweet she was responding to from Ian McFadyen is on a very sensitive issue and he himself has used very strong language. McFadyen himself of course is a proven survivor of child abuse and he is entitled to his views. Ms Dillon is entitled to respond.

However, in this country we have the rule of law – Ms Dillon is not entitled to repeat allegations that have been shown to be mistaken. I have seen Twitter users warn her about her statements and I can confirm that we are aware of them.

Police have investigated and prosecuted one man over malicious communications to Hemming (archive). Hemming has successfully sued two people for libel. He is presently pursuing legal action against Baker and as a result she is due in court for Bankruptcy on Tuesday. Hemming is also considering action against Baker’s supporters including a Rotherham woman called Jayne Senior. Senior bills herself as a whistle-blower but was recently criticised for her behaviour towards real abuse survivors in a report by her local council (archive).

John and his family, as well as myself, have been contacted by concerned persons over these tweets. This article is just to make clear we are aware and if necessary, action can and will be taken. Dillon needs to understand that her status as an honorary Doctor does not make her immune to legal action, nor to safeguarding concerns. If she makes inappropriate statements on social media, her status could actually increase the damages awarded. The small and shrinking group of Esther Baker’s supporters on Twitter should carefully consider their words.