Sonia Poulton has been active in the world of child abuse, ‘research’ and independent journalism for some time. What she calls journalism, others call conspiracy theories. However until now, legal threats made to her by a variety of individuals have never been carried out. MHN can exclusively reveal that having consulted a media barrister, John Hemming now does intend to proceed with his claim against Poulton, who will be hearing further from him next week. Meanwhile two other men who are aggrieved with Poulton are now contemplating legal action.
Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.
On 18 September 2020, Sonia Poulton published a video statement you can view here. In it, she monotonously reads to the camera the following words –
“I recently received notice of a potential threat of legal action against me. I have not been able to make this public until now. A former MP is attempting to have me remove a documentary that I made called Paedophiles in Parliament. It is available free on line and has been so for over two years.
The former MP threatened to sue me unless I take it down. I was first made aware of this threat to take legal action a week before I officially heard from this former MP, as information had been leaked to a blog. The individual involved in the blog spread rumours of this legal threat and also went on to accuse me of being a liar. I am in consultation with Brand New Tube’s legal team regarding the type of action that will be taken against this individual and others involved. I will not tolerate intimidation tactics, the like of which I have experienced for years due to the subject matters I report on.
There are ongoing issues that I cannot currently address in public, but the matters are being investigated. I do not accept that Paedophiles in Parliament should be removed. It is a documentary that address allegations of child abuse in the British establishment and has historic and contemporary relevance. It is a legitimate piece of reportage. I will vigorously fight this attempt by this former MP or anyone else to remove the documentary.
I would like to end this short statement by thanking the people at Brand New Tube and their legal team for the support they have shown me throughout. It’s much appreciated.”
The statement is of course highly misleading. Poulton was threatened with being sued for two 2019 videos, which as set out in the last MHN article on this, have already been taken down. She was not threatened so far with being sued over her 2018 video “Paedophiles in Parliament”, although Hemming has indicated he might accept removing it (along with other things) in a settlement in lieu of damages. Her collaborator Shaun Attwood has already retracted the allegations.
Pre-action correspondence is usually confidential. However, as Poulton has chosen to put some matters in the public domain, it is only fair to point out some of her mistakes. The common law defence of Reportage, for example, which she alludes to above, is a sub-set of the Reynolds defence and was abolished by s4 (6) Defamation Act 2013. The defence has been replaced by the defence of Public Interest under s4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Poulton will be receiving a further letter from Hemming finalised by counsel next week giving her a last chance to reconsider whilst the barrister gets the Particulars of Claim finished. Of course it is important to remember that it will be the court who decides whether or not the publications complained of are libel or whether Poulton’s public interest defence prevails. Although proceedings are expected, they have not yet been brought nor issued.
In the meantime, Hemming is now not the only person contemplating legal action against Poulton. In 2017 Poulton, along with Esther Baker, accused two men of stalking her. Police at first took the allegations seriously. One was arrested, the other had his home raided – but charges were dropped and later both men obtained compensation from police.
Unwisely, Poulton has continued to refer to the innocent men as, ‘stalkers’ – a serious criminal allegation – when they are both completely innocent. Whilst she has not named them this in no way means she cannot be sued as she has provided information that may identify them. The term is, ‘innuendo reference’. Failing all else, your author is willing to offer pro-bono assistance to investigate the potential claims.
Further action on this front, however, is likely to be delayed until Hemming’s claim is fully underway. The difficulty with Poulton is that until now no one has actually taken her to court, meaning that she has come to see all legal threats as bluffs. Once a very real lawsuit is on the table, she is likely to start to view things very differently.
The audacity of permavictims such as Poulton never ceases to amaze. They are entirely unqualified to be detective journalists yet they always manage to pull out the biggest scoops- almost as if;
They don’t test their “evidence”
They disregard anything that suggests their huge scoop is anything but and
They revel in the attention their “findings” afford them.
Hemming & Hopkins are heroes of our time, fearlessly disintegrating fake news with the shield of truth.
Yeah she tweeted today saying that she is going to expose two “creepy” men for “stalking” her and “survivors of child abuse” for “years” – https://twitter.com/SoniaPoulton/status/1311249656635183104 (https://archive.is/gmCtS). If she identifies them, I hope she can prove they are guilty of the criminal offence of stalking because otherwise it will not be so much the “Shield of Truth” as the “Baton of Bankruptcy”.
When Sonia Poulton makes a threat to her targets, she knows she could possibly bring them within an inch of a heart attack or diabetes, or worse. Shock and fear can shorten the lives not only of her targets, but also of their family members or people close to them.
Calling today’s targets “childless” is sick and twisted, and a sign she is flailing around for something to shout about as a distraction from other ongoing matters. Her targets or their partners could be infertile, or have lost children to cot death or traffic accidents. However, she would still call them “childless” out of spite, and to wound.
Sonia Poulton
@SoniaPoulton
Replying to
@BluskyeAllison
I’ve finally found out the reason why two creepy middle-age, childless men have been stalking me and survivors of child abuse for years. And I’m going to expose them.
11:20 AM · Sep 30, 2020·Twitter Web App
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/official-statement-from-tom-pride-to-claims-by-journalist-to-have-outed-his-real-identity/
Men have been beaten to death in the street because of people saying far less than Sonia Poulton says in the video below about Darren Laverty.
[Partially redacted by MHN for legal reasons]
Sonia Poulton has maintained if someone wants a fight over anything she has said, she will fight to the end, as she is confident of all her facts and sources, and checked them over and over again for possible errors before committing herself to people engaged in the csa debate.
She not only interviewed alleged csa victims, she also interviewed police officers with her ‘tough questioning’ techniques (on and off the record) to get to the truth about each of the people she accused of rape, gang rape and paedophilia etc.
Will look forward to seeing where she says her alleged evidence allegedly came from, and comparing it with where she has previously alleged it actually came from.
She states how being a journalist will protect her from having to name her sources. Good luck with that in this extremely grave situation she has created for herself; her gang; the police, and for each of her many victims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHoWmZCTSmw
[Some redactions by MHN for legal reasons]