Allegations of serious crimes, like child rape, may not end well for the publisher when made in a non-privileged context.
The Witchfinder has been asked to assist in a possible court case, pro-bono, against YouTuber Ann Drogyne.
Recently, I have become aware of an argument between YouTuber “Ann Drogyne” and another minor YouTuber. A bit of a flame feud. I did not want to get involved because although my sympathies lie with their opponent, I cannot fight all the battles of everyone else on the internet. I was also of the view that there was an element of the old adage, “six of one, half-a-dozen of the other”.
Then Drogyne started posting calling her opponent a, “self-confessed child rapist”, on multiple websites. I have to say, that is going a bit far. From the records I have seen, the alleged rape was supposed to have occurred in 1992, 30 years ago. The alleged perpetrator was investigated at the time. They denied it at the time. Said it never happened. Police were given the names of the other parties. One can believe the alleged perpetrator’s account that police asked the alleged victim about it and the person denied it happened. No further action was taken. A journalist who repeated the allegation was later criticised by a judge for other questionable actions at the time.
The allegation seems to me to blatantly exceed the threshold in s1 Defamation Act 2013. It seems to me it will be hard to prove Truth given the contemporary denials, and the fact the only person who could possibly support the allegation, the journalist, says they cannot remember and also was criticised by a judge for other similar articles at the time. In fact, they were also interviewed by police and blamed a number of errors on sub-editors. Similarly, to use the defence of Public Interest, Drogyne would have (to simplify) show the criteria were met. The defence is not a cover-all, it is intended to cover balanced responsible reporting. I find it difficult to see how it could cover what was published.
I am also not sure about the compliance with the GDPR. Clearly an allegation of sex crime falls under Article 9 GDPR, assuming there is no exemption (e.g. domestic use, journalism).
I think there are grounds to investigate whether Drogyne has committed some civil wrongs. Subject of course to Drogyne’s right to explain or provide some defence.
After a recent video, Drogyne has today received a letter of claim from her opponent. I am providing pro-bono support. Oops. Still, perhaps they have a reasonable defence or explanation. We shall see in due course.
Ann Drogyne. Ann Bankrupt moar like!
That’s … a big statement of Ann’s isn’t it? S’gun need some proving!
I did not want to get involved in this. But, there is a line, and “Ann” has not just edged a toe over it so much as bounded over and sprinted for the sunset.
One notes it is rinse and repeat time again.
To spell it out for those people currently salivating over the false allegations of rape and paedophilia in the above case, the ‘news story’ was introduced and distributed throughout the public domain from 2013 because the accused would not comply with a gang who were intent on hunting down innocent men by falsely accusing them of paedophilia.
The police are fully informed and have all evidence of this.
London Met police, provincial police, solicitors, barristers and cps have seen evidence and court recorded witness statements regarding how the false rape and paedophile allegations ‘news story’ was originally obtained; why it was obtained; why it had to be distributed throughout social media; where and when it was to be distributed, and by whom.
Police have the names of all conduits. A number of whom have already had warnings or been arrested and charged for similar and related offences.
Due to a prolific number of court cases regarding the same gang, powder has had to be kept dry lest the perpetrators destroy more evidence than some extremely corrupt police have already allowed them to dispose of.
n.b. Barristers, police and cps have already seen such evidence. It spurred some of them into finding yet more evidence buried by police (ie. buried by police other than the disgraced London Met police).
London Met police already proved to have been hiding evidence for a considerably shorter period. Before being forced to reveal it.
This may have led perpetrators to believe they have escaped arrest and private prosecutions.
This is not the case. It is only a matter of time. The damage they have caused is immeasurable and ongoing. (See original post above.) Evidence against them is overwhelming, and described similarly by police in writing.
Police know that criminal acts were being screen-captured and immediately reported to police and lawyers. Gang members could have been arrested whilst crimes were in progress, to prevent escalations.
Police chose not to make arrests and prevent further harm. Despite knowing their refusals to accept evidence and statements in support of a great many falsely accused people were well documented and had been submitted to lawyers and signed under oath.
n.b. Police threatened and abused witnesses in their own homes to prevent them from giving evidence in defence of falsely accused people. (Evidence of which was latterly supplied to courts and lawyers, and currently subject to police reviews.)
Despite extremely threatening and dangerously abusive behaviour by police, witnesses for the falsely accused made decisions not to collude with police in perverting the course of justice. Choosing instead to contact the Attorney General, cps and Defence lawyers directly when their evidence was repeatedly refused.
Thus ensuring corrupt police would be prevented from continuing to act on the say-so of dangerously deluded gang members. ie. Those people who were making false allegations and death threats to prevent innocent people from reporting crimes and acting as witnesses for people falsely accused of the most heinous crimes.
No words can properly describe the dangerous manner in which victims of this gang have been treated by police.
Had the police acted on their oath when first informed of the ‘VIP paedophile witch hunt’, very few people would still be suffering and living in danger today. Nor would many innocent people have gone to their graves, leaving their families humiliated and in despair.
The evidence of police twisting the statements of the falsely accused and prime witnesses to accommodate their own warped agenda and corruption is a national disgrace.
Though the vast majority of police involved in this case of cases are unfit for purpose, a number (small) of police will be receiving some thanks.
Not least, a provincial police inspector who has described in no uncertain terms how thoroughly depraved a number of officers are. Remarkable honesty under the circumstances. To say the officers he described are ‘bad to the bone’, would be a gross understatement. His angle being that police appear to believe there is safety in numbers. His letter was to be relied on as evidence had a case not been thrown out of court.
Though it was very unprofessional of him to use police letter headed paper, a number of barristers considered the contents ‘dynamite’. His ‘insider’ view of the corrupt and unhealthy minds he worked with makes it clear that extremely corrupt police are allowed to operate and fester with encouragement and support from senior police.
Wayne Couzens and his colleagues must not be thought of as a rare breed. There are too many instances of recorded evidence proving the police will refuse to arrest violent people, misogynists, misandrists and suspected paedophiles.
Allowing death threats, threats of extreme violence, blackmailers to continue. Allowing paedophiles such as Carl Beech to continue abusing children for several years longer than anyone thought possible. Under the very noses of the police.
That the police have been allowed to cover up the most heinous behaviour of other police in some deluded attempt to “maintain public confidence” only serves to further demonstrate UK policing in general is a national disgrace.
Many of us have stated for years, that without police intervention and the conclusion of private prosecutions, the false accusations and dangerous blogs will continue to be used to destroy people.
[Partly redacted by MHN for legal reasons]
Have been observing this spat and “flame war” for some time, as Sam may know Darren has been falsely accused of the “rape” for some time now and that false allegation and continuation of it revolves around the person who “Drogyne” has been clearly supporting and who settled with Darren in a civil case.
“Ann” is a fool to do what “Ann” is doing now, not least because “Ann” hasn’t taken account [regarding costs issue for example] that the court cases moved on since that published judgment which “Ann” is seemingly wholly reliant upon. [Redacted]
Not like it’s bloody obvious or anything.
[Redacted] take notice of the letters previously issued by Imran Khan and Co on Darren’s behalf which are exhibited here back in 2018: https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/legal-notice-part-two-last-chance-saloon/
Those letters were the result of the IICSA “core participant” status that Darren had at the time and “Ann” is now ridiculing. Oops. Darren will likely be reliant upon those letters in due course should this alleged case progress.
“Ann” would now be wise, in my opinion, to take a step back and assess how “Ann” would react if in a similar position of false allegations of child rape were thrown at “Ann” for years on end, how difficult it has been for Darren and family and for “Ann” to remove the offending material and apologise without further delay, in my opinion. I doubt that will happen however.
“Ann” also needs to stop and consider WHY Darren was acquitted before trial in the “harassment” case: it wasn’t for the reasons “Ann”‘s friend claimed… it was actually because the defence submitted their disclosures to the CPS/Police. Those disclosures revealed that the complainants hadn’t been truthful with the police forces involved and therefore there was no public interest in pursuing a case whereby the complainants were as much to blame for Darren’s reactions as he was. How do I know this? Because I supplied some of the evidence involved in that acquittal and was wrongfully arrested by the same officers who tried to silence my defence material too late. That attempt was I still believe a gross attempt to pervert the course of justice and to deny Darren a fair trial. “Ann” needs to reflect on that, again in my opinion.
Had “Ann” been paying proper attention and not reliant on simply one side of events this would be very clear.
Are Darren or “Ann” perfect? Far from it, no-one is. There are faults on both sides in the “flame war” and Darren has already been given my views privately on his part, but as you pointed out, Sam, there are limits to online flaming.
It’s also very ironic, in my view, that “Ann” runs an anti-cyberbullying group whilst conducting the exact sort of thing that “Ann” professes to be dead against.
There is also the small matter of the possible breaking of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which “Ann” seems to be doing fairly regularly towards Darren in particular. Every one has a right to move on, Darren has come from a very damaging childhood to a reformed character, constantly re-triggering him is not a good move by “Ann” in more ways that one in that it now appears more like an extension of the previous vendetta from the settled case rather than simply a spat between just “Ann” and Darren.
Btw “Ann”s attendance at various hearings in that case and previous misinterpretations in videos [archived btw “Ann”] won’t assist either in any defence that “Ann” may yet bring, in my view: why? Because it demonstrates a premeditated mindset or Mens Rea, “Ann” as a former police station receptionist should know.
Will be keeping an eye on this one and reporting back on “Spin vs Truth” in due course. For now, these are only my observations on the matter.
[Edited by MHN for legal reasons]
Commiserations to Darren Laverty and his family. He gave this attention-seeker fair warning about using false informatio.
The only useful thing [Ann Drogyne] person seems to have ever done on social media, was exposing Shaun Attwood from Raw Report, after he had a woman get down on her knees, dressed up as a four year old, to have (or allegedly simulate) oral sex on camera.
Besides having been ‘in the police’, whatever that is supposed to mean, it seems this person is also an actor like Bill Maloney, Say n’more. Say n’more.
Except, don’t give up your day job.
It can’t be the first time they will have heard that 🤣
I started watching Ann Drogyne’s channel before it became well-known. I tried to comment on both Ann’s and the Crminologist’s channels wishing they could return to some sort of neutrality but the dreaded YouTube algorithm appears to have given me the order of the boot. Ann has made some valid points about some of the charlatans promoting a satanic panic. I’m just sad to see these YouTube wars.
It is possible of course that Ann and Darren just deleted your comments?
It’s possible the YouTubers in question deleted my comments I guess. I didn’t aim to be impolite. It seems to be the human condition for people to fall out. Ann has made some sensible videos about the dangers of trying to promote a satanic panic – which is happening in some corners of YouTube.
I hope the two parties can agree to disagree. I’ve been accused of being a shill (not here) but as I’ve noted before if I was one I musn’t be a very good one because I’m not adept at persuading folk to drop an argument.