[Update 22 May 2022 – My Media World Limited and Director Muhammad Butt sued over this article in the High Court in a counterclaim in case QB-2020-003936. They dropped the libel case by discontinuance, after MHN editor Samuel Collingwood Smith entered a robust defence. The effect of discontinuance is they are automatically liable for Smith’s whole costs.]
On Friday, Sonia and Muhammad hosted a video entitled the Raw Report 04. Somewhat misleadingly, Poulton said this of me, “Sam Smith, has sent Muhammad Butt, Senior Founder of Brand New Tube a number of outrageous emails about me, sometimes citing Hemming’s case against me and how there is intention to damage me irreparably through it. Some of this correspondence is, in my view, reminiscent of blackmail and extortion with threats of public exposure for things which make no sense and demands for sums of money if BNT refused to comply“. If by “demands for sums of money”, she meant “a letter of claim”, sure. I am suing them for £100K over various publications I feel are defamatory and also Muhammad Butt’s video in which he condoned violence against me.
An email from the High Court e-Filing Service, Confirming Approval
In response to the misleading in the video claims, I confirm the following. In UK law, before suing someone you usually have to send them a letter. Such letters are ordinarily confidential. On 30 October 2020 I wrote a letter of claim to My Media World Limited (operator of Brand New Tube), Muhammad Butt and Sonia Poulton. The Defendants instructed a solicitor, Blake O’Donnell of Spencer West LLP, but did not reply in a compliant fashion. Instead they misleadingly described the letter as Blackmail in a public video on their website. Under the circumstances, I consider that either confidence in the letter has been waived by the Defendants or that there is now a countervailing public interest in my setting the record straight.
So, was it a bluff? Was it Blackmail? Unfortunately for the Defendants, nope. Over the weekend my supporters and I prepared the court documents and I filed them online on Sunday night. The court clerk approved the filing today. The court case has started. The value of the claim is £100,000. I did toy with the idea of publishing the letter of claim, which may still become appropriate but for now it is sufficient to provide proof that I am really suing them.
As my biography belows explains, I am not a solicitor. I do however have a Master’s Degree in Law (Legal Practice) and that includes the Legal Practice Course – the exam you need to do to become a solicitor here in the UK. The fact that I have not practiced but just used the skills in my IT business and charitable work is irrelevant. I have nearly 10 years experience as a McKenzie Friend now and have done 6 libel cases for myself or others. All successful. We shall see how matters progress.
Hi its jo’s Got A SOH, saw your link you left me
Anyone exposing Sonia Poulton and her gang for witchhunting, scaremongering, [deleted by MHN], and making false allegations of paedophilia against innocent people, is always accused of being whichever sock accounts are the most challenging to her at the time.
[deleted by MHN]
See also Jon Wedger and Bill Maloney acting similarly. Always accusing people of being trolls and stalkers when their own [deleted by MHN] behaviour towards vulnerable abuse victims is challenged.
[deleted by MHN]
This is only the beginning of the ‘unravel’. This is real life. Grown up letters. Filed in court. No more corrupt police giving Sonia Poulton and her gang items of data protected and privileged information. No more bent police trading for a chance to be in a documentary about paedophiles, or being coerced into doing her bidding without even the most cursory investigation into her own [deleted by MHN] background, or the backgrounds of those whom aided and abetted her vendettas with similarly false allegations.
[deleted by MHN]
Therefore, @majorleak2017’s tweets below are fair warning to Sonia Poulton and company.
[Tweets deleted as this is a private Twitter account after complaint from account holder]
This is all why the police are also involved as well as civil cases.
Not just one or two police forces either, several… [deleted by MHN]
Sorry for your loss Sue. But it wouldn’t matter to Poulton who had died. Her determination is to destroy others holds no bounds. But as you say, this is real life,real courts, real money. Her past reliance on her connections in the police have dwindled. To be told to piss off twice in relation to present events would indicate they’ve seen and heard enough over the years.
Further to your police evidence points, yes yes yes. They have plenty of evidence [deleted by MHN]. They may have to furnish a court with it sooner than she would like too.
I have the unused material in my case. I can’t yet use any of it as Poulton somehow managed to persuade a detective inspector Tiffany Chapman to threaten me with being prosecuted if I did use any of it. That’s right folks, Poulton doesn’t want, and has pleaded with the police to prevent me from sharing certain aspects of the case against me from 2016. Truth seeker? Shortly after I was rightly acquitted, or rather just after my successful defense, I wrote something and relied on some of the unused material to support what I’d written. Within a day or two I received a letter from DI Chapman threatening me not to share anything about the case online. They were relying on Sec 17 Criminal procedure and Investigations legislation 1996. I believe @Majorleak2017 also received similar.
Why would that be? Why would Poulton be so desperate to prevent us from writing about our ordeals?
Even now she’s of the mind that others shouldn’t be allowed to speak about her or write things that might present her in a negative light. It’s my suggestion that her mind set is similar to Trumps. F**king bonkers and in need of treatment that includes waking up in a cell for many moons to come.
Many people have recently taken to YouTube and other similar platforms to vent their annoyances at being hoodwinked by the likes of Attwood and his ilk. New exposures and revelations are almost on a daily basis. I’m loving it and subbing to many. Their identities are irrelevant as as their reasons for performing such needed civilian journalism. Researchers and truthers are needed if the likes of these shills and false prophets like Poulton are to be exposed and curtailed or restricted to the likes of BNT. What a shower of shit they are.
If I may I’d like to clarify something Poulton has repeatedly claimed. She’s announced that this so-called bombardment began in August this year. Firstly, just because she claims its a bombardment doesn’t mean that it is. It’s odd that she calls it such because of the military connotations. Shaun Attwood used similar military jargon when trying to justify his porn prank to Poulton in that car crash of a presentation they offered up as an interview. Coincidence? Must be.
Secondly, the insistence that this August was the date “it all” started. Rubbish. Her interview with Attwood was November 2019. She re-started it herself right there right then. The facts and the evidence will show that the interview was heard, via audio only, by someone in May this year and they heard a name being mentioned.
“Darren” is the name that was mentioned in relation to child abuse in children’s homes. Unfortunately for Poulton and Attwood this Darren wasn’t provided with the exact date of the interview with because his friend couldn’t recall the date of the podcast he’d heard. Attwoods name was unknown to me as my family and I had moved on with life and left the past behind us. But it was discussed and we agreed to scan of the various Attwood offerings. More out of curiosity than anything else.
My jaw dropped when I heard her spew the bile from years ago being offered up to Attwood in that interview. Worse, was the venom, the absolute viciousness of her delivery. Attwood lapped it up with his oooh’ and his argghh’s. It was an appalling sight. [deleted by MHN]
So it was decided to inform those whom she thought she could target in her quest to reinvent herself and her new hair-do. Not all were identified by name but her innuendos and instructions to “Google me” would leave any listener with no doubts as to who she was talking about. Folk who were wholly innocent of the crimes she claimed they committed. Folk with families, jobs and futures [deleted by MHN].
She blamed the police, the CPS and the IICSA for her failure. Then she asks for help from the police, CPS and IICSA. She accuses folk like the owner of this blog of “blackmail” and expects him to just let it pass by. Surely the signs of narcissism were there for Butt to see when he first met her. He’s as bad in my book.
His determination to believe and support Poulton must a very sad sight for those close to him who can see her for what she really is. Poulton’s own family must also know what we’re having to deal with here. I’m glad for her that she stopped parading her daughter for the cameras. Or maybe that wasn’t Sonia’s decision. Her daughter is now a grown women who can make her own mind up. [deleted by MHN] In time they’ll all be aired and then and only then will she see what kind of mother Poulton was/is. I write that as a father who’s had to inform his children that I could possibly be jailed for many years because of Poulton’s lies. And as a grandfather who now has to erase Poulton’s bile about me from the internet.
I’m not doing this for fun, [deleted by MHN].
I could disappear from this sewer. I could leave others to expose her for what she is. All that would be required is an apology, a correction, a promise to never repeat and a promise to delete [deleted by MHN]. I’m not YET seeking anything other than to leave a legacy my grandchildren will be proud of. And that doesn’t include being a child gang rapist or stalker or anything similar.
A note on moderation policy (important pay attention).
There a lot of strongly worded posts here. I am allowing them, because I have a complete defence to a defamation claim under s5 (2) Defamation Act 2013, “It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website”. That applies even if I moderate comments per s5 (12) “The defence under this section is not defeated by reason only of the fact that the operator of the website moderates the statements posted on it by others”. The reason for the latter provision is that otherwise no one would moderate the comments sections of their websites.
It is only fair I point out that defence does not protect said 3rd party posters. In making good faith moderation decisions, I am having regard to the fact that most of you are revealing domestic IP addresses meaning that theoretically the people you are talking about can identify and sue you, after following the s5 procedure or applying for a non-party disclosure Order. I also have regard to the fact that those known to me have been strongly publicly criticised by the persons they are posting about, and may have qualified privilege defences.
You have been warned.
Thank you mhn, for the warning and for deleting tweets within my post. Apologies to poster.