Judgement was handed down in Hemming v Poulton today. Ms Poulton is presenting it as an unqualified success on her fundraising page. In fact Hemming succeeded in having parts of Ms Poulton’s amended Defence struck out. Deputy Master Bard struck out all of Ms Poulton’s Defence of Honest Opinion and parts of her Truth defence, with further amendments likely on both sides and no end in sight. Her harassment counter-claim survives although that is not a high bar in a fact sensitive statutory tort. The hearing also dealt with a counter-counter-claim (in effect) by the 4th Party Darren Laverty. Despite the best efforts of Ms Poulton’s barrister Richard Munden of 5RB, who filed an 18 page Skeleton Argument, unrepresented Laverty got permission to bring a £500,000 (half-million) libel claim against Poulton. Finally, it was also confirmed that Ms Poulton is under police investigation for revealing the names of two underage child abuse victims in a video interview.
Sonia Poulton has issued an inflammatory and misleading ‘official statement’ on the dispute. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.
Your author did not participate in the hearing today as he was working, but had it on in the background at times (like the radio!), except when having connection problems. The judgement was only an initial procedural one, but one thing that amused me was that despite Poulton engaging an expensive lawyer to rewrite her pleadings the judge still struck out parts of it. She is also not trying to prove the Truth of Esther Baker’s allegations. Anyone on hashtag #Truth is going to be disappointed.
The judge criticised Sonia’s pleas on meaning.
Judge strikes out the plea of honest opinion in the absence of specification of what that opinion was.
After the hand-down the judge dealt with an application by the 4th Party Darren Laverty to bring his own Part 20 Counterclaim (some might say, a counter-counterclaim), for defamation and harassment. Laverty has claimed to be a victim of some forms of abuse as a child and was a core participant at IICSA – the child abuse inquiry. The basis of both claims is that Ms Poulton keeps calling him a child gang rapist for an alleged rape when he was 11. He was never charged or convicted and has some evidence that tends to show it never happened. The police interviewed him in the 1990s and he gave the name of the alleged victim. As far as he is aware, the victim confirmed it did not happen. #BelieveTheVictim.
The harassment claim was refused but permission was given for a libel claim against Poulton for an interview she did with James English that is on YouTube. The judge found it was likely to cause serious harm. Mr Munden, Ms Poulton’s barrister, was refused permission to appeal on the basis such an appeal would have no reasonable prospect of success, but can ask the High Court (the appellate court) for permission.
The Laverty judgement was oral and not written. However, one thing the judge did was to criticise both sides (not their lawyers) for ignoring the issues and trashing each other generally in their statements. This is unlikely to enhance Ms Poulton’s reputation as a professional journalist. Mr Laverty was subject to the same criticism but he is not a TV / video broadcaster for his day job.
Finally, one revelation which was confirmed was that Sonia Poulton is under police investigation for naming two child abuse victims. The children, who were tortured by their mother and lover according to a family court finding, have lifelong anonymity. So, if Poulton named them that could be a serious matter. The matter is presently with the CPS who say that, “case is currently being reviewed”. It is important to note that the fact of the police investigation and CPS review does not prove guilt. Ms Poulton is innocent until proven guilty. This blog would not normally name mere suspects on grounds of confidentiality, however, Ms Poulton’s co-accused Shaun Attwood named himself in a public video, and Ms Poulton’s involvement was confirmed during oral argument at the public High Court hearing today. In her witness statement, which has passed into the public domain having been referred to at a public hearing, she says as follows –
Sonia claims we pressured the CPS. We did not actually know until a video by Chancer a few weeks ago. Details which might identify the children even tangentially blanked out by MHN.
For the avoidance of doubt, we had no contact with the CPS until afterwards. We did not know about it until a video by Chancer quoting Shaun Attwood (here) about being interviewed. Mr Attwood’s video is, incidentally, mistaken. The CPS say there have not been charges, it is being reviewed. The police say investigations are ongoing. The only reason I contacted police or CPS was after seeing Chancer’s video as this blog (unlike some) actually checks its facts before publication. I also only used proper channels – I have not spoken to the prosecutor or police officers directly and I do not have their names.
It should also be made clear that the allegation is naming two children – no other form of abuse is alleged and the fact of the investigation in no way proves guilt. However, she does admit to naming them, and if not criminal, it is a further example of Poulton’s unfortunate approach to deeply complex and sensitive issues. Leaving aside the legal issues, what about the distress this could cause to the victims she named?
So, a fair summary of the hearing is in fact this –
- Poulton defence to libel partially struck-out but survives
- Poulton harassment counterclaim survives
- Laverty counter-counterclaim for £500,000 for libel given go ahead
Costs reserved until the 28th.
For balance, Sonia Poulton’s version of events about this hearing is on her fundraising page here (archive). It is worth noting that the text of the fundraising page refers not just to this case, but to, “legal issues that arise as a consequence of my work as a journalist and broadcaster working to expose corruption and injustices and raising awareness to matters of public interest”. This wording is wide enough to include using the money to pay for her defence to criminal allegations arising from her journalism. Whether readers choose to donate is up to them.
The counter counter claim survives. The harassment claim failed but the defamation claim for a cool half-million made it.
Pingback: Hemming v Poulton and Others – Update #2 – Spin vs Truth
The self-congratulatory Champagne celebration on Friday afternoon did not go unnoticed. Being considered OTT by members of the public who donated their hard earned money to a “fighting fund” set up by someone who alleges to have always been frugal.
It seems to be taking a long time for supporters and casual readers alike, to clock on to why Sonia Poulton’s
appeals for funding are so vague. 😃
She leaves her readers in no doubt that she is expecting to have to face up to more court cases in the near future. Though nobody appears to be questioning her as to why she is so sure of this.
It is perhaps for the best that they don’t ask. Because if she were to answer truthfully, her appeals for funding would probably dry up overnight.
The state of her again last week. Parallel Universe, anyone? 😜
It takes some nerve to open a bottle of Champagne on twitter in the middle of the afternoon. Waving it in the faces of people who tell her they can only afford to donate small amounts towards her “fighting fund.
Without people such as the author of this site, RTE and Chancer, nobody would know the real reasons why she is actually in court.
Her own spin on current proceedings is always vague and out of context. Her fantasies about violent men, dark forces and TPTB ‘coming for her’ to destroy her, have become so real to her, she thinks she’s in the same league as Assange and Snowden.
She isn’t.
If Ms. Poulton is so anti-CSA, then why is she supporting an alleged at trial security supervisor who works at the London offices of the Ministry of Defence as Security Supervisor accused of producing picture disc DVD’s of child porn as shown here >
https://christopherjohnhob6.wixsite.com/website/post/the-lie-of-sonia-poulton-much-ado-about-nothing
Gang involved in a “vicious online hate campaign” are finally brought to Court.
This is a very serious case. However, it pales in comparison to the joint enterprise by an organised gang of known activists, which the London Met and sundry other police continue to avoid prosecuting.
Despite police having all IDs and all the evidence with which to prosecute them.
https://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/man-hounded-from-home-by-online-rapist-paedophile-hate-ca-9204655/
Police in Scotland prove they are capable of charging a gang of “organised paedophile hunters”.
Whereas lazy English police spend years ignoring and hiding evidence of such courses of conduct, and prefer to tell innocent victims they should resolve matters in the civil courts.
Leaving victims and their families in fear for their lives and their livelihoods.
https://www.irvinetimes.com/news/19410318.irvine-team-shades-paedophile-hunters-face-stalking-threat-charges/
The case of Stephen Nolan is of interest here too:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57684497
Nolan had been mobbed by a group of individuals online with false allegations about him. Two [one reported in the article link and another later separately] were identified by Nolan and his legal team. Both have settled out of court with Nolan.
Nolan is apparently suing other individuals involved. His case(s) should be a stark warning to individuals who make up falsehoods online for kicks, clicks and likes.
Obviously, the worse the false allegation is the greater the reputational damage. I can think of nothing worse in that respect than a false allegation of child abuse not least because of all the emotive aspects involved in the subject.
A report on the 2nd settlement with Nolan can be found here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/broadcaster-stephen-nolan-settles-second-action-over-twitter-posts-1.4609801
The wider problem, of course, is the incitement that such false allegations can cause and the “belief” that someone has done something they haven’t done. It is also why I personally found Mr Munden’s comments in the hearing on 28th June 2021 regarding “opinion”, on “guilt” when someone hasn’t been convicted, to be very shortsighted and potentially going to lead to additional court cases. Not least because of other legislation which could theoretically also apply to his client.
Having grand capacity for misleading the public and police is seen as an attribute in some quarters.
Though the consequences for trying this out for size in court can be dire. In some cases leading to prosecutions further down the line.
Whilst nobody is expected to incriminate themselves, it isn’t considered wise to pull wool over the eyes of lawyers and courts by being vague or alternatively over-complicating matters in some vainglorious attempt to have a court believe actions are performed for the common good.
Back stories and historical facts would be bound to prove otherwise.
Sonia Poulton’s lust for inciting hatred and causing unrest never sleeps. Her most current material published at 3 04 am is offensive, and dangerously equates being gay with paedophilia.
Her personal thoughts on sexuality and sex should be kept private and not put out on social media.
https://mobile.twitter.com/brandnewtube/status/1413317995460452355
Since running out of people to accuse of being paedophiles and paedophile protectors, the Teletubbies were like sitting ducks to her.
Knitted characters and cartoon characters should now be wary.
Especially if they become involved in advertising life-saving vaccines.
Someone’s cravings for relevancy can no longer be satisfied by inviting thousands to meet and greet in Trafalgar Square during a pandemic.
Therefore this week, to keep oneself current and relevant, there has been a shameless public admission that a BBC boss had to contact them to have a word about their goading behaviour towards a female BBC employee.
Said female employee is a journalist currently investigating crank behaviour on social media.
The person reprimanded for goading and general disinfo is a known peddler of all manner of conspiracy theories regarding vaccines, freedom marches, and alleged paedophile gangs in Parliament.
We have been here before…
An early morning rant-to-camera with regard to the BBC journalist and their boss is not out of the question.
Though there is the risk of any such creative material being immediately granted its own ‘Exhibit’ number.
Without Sonia Poulton and other journalists’ scaremongering stories about ‘secret family courts’ and vaccines, and their own lies about being in possession of evidence that hundreds of Parliamentarians are involved in paedophilia, it is unlikely we would see people such as Jeanette Archer and her followers gaining the confidence to go out pitchforking and disrupting traffic as if it’s a God given right.
People who saw a sweating Sonia Poulton running around breathless and hysterical at Kensington council during a Grenfell protest were able to see how quickly a mob protest can get out of hand.
Ill managed police, with little training in mob situations beyond being shown how to wield a truncheon, or break someone’s arm by trapping it in a door frame and booting the bottom of a door, can quickly become outnumbered. Leaving innocent public servants and members of the public at serious risk of being trampled by the mob.
Rather like events during the storming of the US Capitol building. Though without guns. At present.
Though it is impossible to say whether some protesters involved in these ‘satnic’ protests may have been carrying weapons in their rucksacks whilst protesting about satanic paedophiles yesterday.
An increasing number of these people and their associates are already known to have used threatening behaviour and have indeed had possession of military grade weapons at times. Not always because they have been in the armed forces. Some people have a natural fascination for guns. Jake Davison of Plymouth being a recent case in point.
The wearing of stab vests during protests on hot Summer days suggests some people within these mobs feel they are a necessary piece of attire.
Which should be of some concern. Especially to those protestors who don’t have the protection of a stab vest “when it all kicks off’.
It is possible that should a time come “when it all kicks off”, the journalists who have incited the paedophile panic during the past decade will have deleted the posts and videos of their own most outrageous claims and calls to arms. Leaving little Joe Public left on their own to deal with the police and the fines.
Joe Public, finding themselves having to explain to the police that their evidence for believing Parliament is full of paedophile gangs is because a journalist has told them so, will not be a good enough defence.
There is a possibility they could find themselves in prison like Carl Beech. Or reduced to being bankrupt and left on the shelf by the majority of their peers, and isolated from the main debates. With nothing left to do but exchange cat memes with other people who are yet to be charged for the offences of threatening behaviour, stalking, harassing, making false allegations, and writing malicious communications etc.
Whereas the journalists and dubious organisations who originally groomed the mobs and set them up to fail, and who purport to want to ‘save children’ and ‘expose paedophile gangs, will still be raking in money from all the fabricated and lurid, click bait paedophile stories.