[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.]
Esther Baker has made numerous unproven allegations of sexual abuse. Now she is literally paying the price.
Today, at 12:55 in the afternoon at the Liverpool Civil and Family Courts, Esther Baker was made bankrupt as a result of her crumbling libel claim against John Hemming and her failure to pay the costs order. At this point, most mentally healthy people would think again about supporting her. Two notable exceptions to common sense however are “Dr” Jacqui Dillon and Rotherham Councillor Jayne Senior. Despite Hemming now having won two libel claims against significant opposition – a former Guardian journalist and a charity CEO – these two women continue to refer to Baker’s allegations on Twitter.
I do not intend to deal in much detail with them now, as that is for later articles. However a brief introduction. Jayne Senior is a councillor in Rotherham and manager of a charity called Swinton Lock. She received an MBE for supposed whistleblowing. However, the shine has been knocked off her by recent revelations in an independent safeguarding report commissioned by her local council. The findings were that she mistreated real abuse victims who used her charity. This was bravely exposed by Sammy Woodhouse (@SammyWoodhouse1). The findings are set out in detail in the Yorkshire Post in these articles [1] (archive), [2] (archive). A third article [3] (archive) sets out her failed attempts to silence media critics by complaining to police. Most recently, Jayne Senior has been complaining on Twitter that her local police are contemplating restricting her right to complain (archive). She has also been complaining about me – to no effect.
“Dr” Jacqui Dillon is a mentally ill woman who by her own admission sees things and hears voices as set out in my previous article here. Dillon, like Baker relates an unproven history of alleged child abuse. She admits her first psychiatrist thought they were delusions. However she eventually found a psychiatrist who believed her and launched a successful career as a mental health ‘advocate’ and ‘survivor’ despite there being no convictions. This is dealt with in more detail in this excellent blog here. Dillon has a nasty history of calling people “paedophiles”, their “supporters” and “enablers” on Twitter but now complains of criticism. Again, this has been of no effect. I am entitled to scrutinise and criticise public statements by a public figure.
Both of these women have seen the unravelling of Baker’s life, and her court losses. They are aware of the bankruptcy proceedings. Yet they have this strange belief that it could not possibly happen to them. If they persist in supporting her, they are likely to find out just how wrong they are.
For Baker, it is a tragedy. John Hemming bears her, surprisingly, no ill-will. He recognises she was offered inappropriate encouragement by others. There is sufficient evidence even in public statements for me to name Jess Phillips MP in this article. Even now if Baker would cooperate, admit her mistake and produce evidence as to those who encouraged her, it may be another resolution could be found. In some circumstances those others may even be liable for all the costs.
Pingback: Bankruptcy and Other News – Spin vs Truth
Thanks Sam for this, I find it astonishing that Baker has not yet learnt that none of this is a vendetta against her, people have a right to defend themselves against falsehoods by seeking legal recourse. She started the libel case for which she’s been held accountable for costs and clearly didn’t think in advance what could happen.
She was ordered to pay costs by the court, she was given a clear order stating 14 days to pay.
She didn’t pay after starting her case when she clearly didn’t have the financial nor legal resources to tackle. What on earth was she thinking it would achieve? Did she think that someone was going to simply roll over and accept more lies told about them after what she had already done to them? And what about Hemming’s family? They too have suffered.
Whoever advised her to go down that route of libel case, if indeed anyone did, should be held liable too in my view.
I think she is being very foolish with her conduct online today claiming that she is being “blackmailed” into paying money. She’s not. A court order is not blackmail. Nor has she been “coerced” into making false allegations she has made her own allegations and employed the services of others to make them at times for her – see IPSO complaint by a certain G Wilmer for one.
I do think that she needs proper psychiatric help, but given what else she’s done that she should’ve been sensible enough to see that her false allegations against people [not only Hemming but others] were going to result eventually in action against her in the courts.
The fact she invited this particular course of action of bankruptcy upon herself via her non-payment of the ordered costs could’ve and should’ve been reasonably foreseen by her.
It is particularly ironic that she claims that her mental health has been affected by people’s responses to her conduct when she clearly has no idea of the affects that her conduct has had on others, mentally, physically, legally, politically and morally.
Her continued false allegations have a legal consequence that sooner or later she’s going to have to wake up to. That is the sad reality that she is facing, unfortunately she still is deluding herself that she’s telling the truth regardless of the consequences.
There comes a time when that delusion is also a danger to herself and others and it may be that it is in the public interest to seek to section her for such in order to prevent anyone else being harmed by her madness.
I believe that Staffordshire Police should have more than enough evidence to charge her with PCJ offences in the same way Carl Beech was charged – she would then get her “day” in court like he had, the delusions she has are on a par in my view with Carl’s and at least he had the common sense to remain anonymous!
As an aside his mental health “issues” were not a factor in the charging decisions and nor should they be in Baker’s.
Quite why it’s taking Staffordshire Police so long to investigate themselves effectively [when really they should’ve referred to an outside force] is now suspicious in itself in my view and suggests an over emphasis on an element of “protection” towards Baker instead of impartiality. There is a hint of that in statements from them in the past. She is no longer the “victim” but the suspect despite her claims otherwise.
Too many police officers bought into the “belief” of tall tales from the likes of Beech and Baker – those who did so forgot their basic oath of office – “impartiality”, “fairness”, “upholding basic human rights”… all were gazumped by a ludicrous and farcical policy of “belief” over evidence.
Those who manipulated the police as a result are only part of the problem, the police themselves are also culpable in their conduct of belief over proof – they didn’t have to go down that route at all.
I have separate evidence of other force conduct which displays a very disturbing attitude towards a protection of Baker rather than establishing facts. It’s very worrying that someone is so blindly believed when there is a mountain of evidence saying otherwise.
All of this was avoidable.
All of this was clearly foreseen by people with a more sensible and logical outlook.
All of this was predicted.
All of the warnings about what would eventually happen were ignored. Those were specific choices made by the “victims” in making false allegations in the first place and the police.
It’s therefore a pity for Baker that instead of listening to reason, logic and the “legaleze” that she CHOSE the route recklessness and the endangerment of other people’s lives and livelihoods which has now resulted in some rather strong restrictions on her finances.
I suspect she did so [made that choice] when she did because of Carl Beech’s successful CICA claim payout in April 2015. Pound signs lit up in other words. It was very telling that her story changed around that time.
Had the boot been on the other foot regarding what she’s done however she would no doubt have been screaming “victim” even more loudly than she already has and does.
At no point has she considered the consequences to those she seeks to silence with her continued falsehoods and attempts to silence any valid or reasonable criticism of her conduct. To suggest such criticism is harassment is lunacy. Even worse when the police believe it is without any threats or demands made. That’s the level of stupidity they also descended to.
Those who continue to encourage that level of lunacy should now be taking a long hard look at themselves, those who engaged in believing such lunacy should also be held accountable.
Whether through legal proceedings or criminal investigations. I’m not referring to John’s case specifically there.
Carl Beech was not a one off – there are very tangible links between him and Esther Baker – not least for example through them both having a close relationship with Mark Watts.
That common denominator relationship should form a basis for a much wider reaching criminal or journalistic investigation than just Beech’s or Baker’s own offending/alleged offending.
Why hasn’t it? Answer that question and you’ll likely have the underlying motives for all of what has gone on.
pmsl over and over. Silly cow. Makes her stalking allegations against me and Simon look more pathetic than what the judge deemed them to be a few years ago.
Baker is a nutter, crank, fool, fabricator of lies and myths.
You watch all her cronies try and blame Hemming for her stupidity.
[edited by MHN – some text removed for legal reasons]
Bit of an empty victory. A foolish woman with no money has failed in her plans to fleece her victim. She’s not sorry, isn’t contrite and humbled. She’ll carry on in her diminishing manner on twitter gradually fading into obscurity now the sky news crew are long gone and she’s little more than a sideshow laughing stock.
There is a hearing for strike-out of the remains of her claim and a restraining order on Thursday 17th October 2019 – 2 days time. If successful she will owe a lot more and be restrained.
Restraining order seems sensible. Hopefully she’s been forgotten and the case won’t be picked up by some dumb American like Tom Dunn. I do not want to see justice for Esther T Shirts being sold.
Jayne Senior and Jacqui Dillon are bitching about you and Senior is saying she was not talking about Baker in her tweets?
I think Senior and Dillon especially need [redacted] threads.
[Edited by MHN to remove provocative name of chan site]
I have edited your post slightly to delete the name of the chan you proposed, which is unacceptable.
Thanks for drawing that to my attention. There is no point posturing here or on Twitter. We will respond now through the proper processes. It will not be until after the strike-out and injunction hearing this Thursday 17th October 2019. If, at that hearing, Baker is injuncted with a penal notice to stop accusing John or contacting his supporters, helping her break the order is also a crime (contempt) so her supporters can be committed to prison if they keep tweeting how they support and believe her. They can also be sued separately.
Senior seems to be on a mission to ruin herself. She was harshly criticised in a safeguarding investigation recently per the article in the Yorkshire Post. The report said that, “SLAC Trustees may wish to consider whether they believe Mrs Senior is able to consistently demonstrate the high levels of integrity and honesty expected by anyone employed to work with vulnerable people”. This should be disclosable on an ECRB check so it is unlikely she will be able to find work with vulnerable adults anywhere if she leaves her current job.
Jayne has also been complaining to South Yorkshire Police (SYP) and Staffordshire Police to the extent that SYP have told her they may place restrictions on her ability to complain. Her complaints to Staffordshire have just hit a snag too. Perhaps she will get in touch with DC Bainbridge, but he may be reluctant to discuss civil litigation with her. For some reason.
I wonder whether the report concerning Jayne Senior referenced by the Yorkshire Post article is in the public domain. If so, where can access it.