In 2019, a woman named Esther Baker was found liable in court and handed a permanent restraining order for harassing a child abuse victim, and even providing information to the catholic priest who abused him as a child. In 2021, a man named Wilfred Wong, a non-practicing barrister, was sent to prison for 17 years, with another 5 on license, for kidnapping a sobbing, terrified, child at knife-point. Why are former police officer Jon Wedger and veteran David Swift publicly enabling these people?
Enablers David Swift and Jon Wedger on Swift’s bizarre video channel. Picture used for the purpose of criticism and review.
The bizarre reason for Wong’s kidnapping was that he and his co-conspirators wrongly believed that the child was being abused by satanists. In fact, the only child abuse going on was the gang of imbeciles led by Wong who tore the child from their screaming foster mother after putting a knife to her throat and dragged them across half the country whilst ranting about Satan, before eventually being apprehended on the M1 by police in Northamptonshire.
Wedger, a former police officer and a long-standing associate of Wong, has been campaigning for convicted abuser Wong to be released, for example publishing logos and t-shirts with the logo, ‘free Wilfred Wong’ on his Facebook (archive).
MHN is aware of Wedger as a controversial figure, but I had never encountered him before a video on an obscure channel run by a person called David Swift was drawn to my attention. In it, Wedger claimed that a person well-known to MHN readers, Esther Baker, had been sued for a, “million quid”, “but she won she won” and “she has cleared her name”. Wut?
For those of you who have not been following, Esther Baker has not in fact won anything, nor cleared her name. Esther Baker was not sued for a, “million quid” by any politician. She sued former MP John Hemming and humiliatingly lost his counter-claim for libel. Her allegations of rape against him were found to be untrue and she was restrained for life as well as ordered to pay damages (archive). The restraining order is a public document and readers can download it here. The same year, Esther Baker was subject to another restraining order for harassing a victim of child abuse. The judge called her, “particularly malevolent”. The harassment was racist as well.
The express findings of the County Court judge agreeing Baker behaved in a “vindictive, “obsessive” and “malevolent” way. MHN has erased the barrister’s name to protect the anonymity of the victim of Baker’s years of racist harassment.
Not to be daunted, Esther Baker then put up posts that I felt libelled and harassed me and I got a restraining order against her. In fact, she put her hands up and consented to it after her defences of Truth and Public Interest were struck out. You can download it here. Baker’s co-defendant Jacqui Dillon had already settled and you can read that court order here. None of those orders were ever overturned. Baker is still paying me off costs at around £20 per month via high court enforcement officers.
Wedger was amongst the most wrong any self-appointed, ‘expert’ has ever been. However, I had never had any dealings with him before, so I thought it might just be an innocent mistake. I dropped David Swift and Jon Wedger an email with some of the restraining orders and also the public judgement in the harassment case. I sent them the order rejecting Baker’s appeal. More than four judges have looked at this in four three different cases.
I got a reply back from Wedger. Initially, he said he had not named anyone. When I pointed out that was not a defence to a libel claim, he emailed saying that, “I have taken “reasonable steps “to rectify this situation. Hopefully come end of play today it will be amended although I have no capability to conduct the technical side of things”. I also received an email on behalf of Swift, by his technical guy Matthew Evered. It said, “Thank you for your email. Please could you forward me a contact number so I can arrange for David to contact you shortly.” I declined. There was nothing to add that had not been put in the email and a brief earlier conversation I had had, to flag up the issue.
In reality, David just wanted to record an argument to look hard. That night he put up a video, in which he said my email with the court restraining orders and judgement was, “just words on paper”. He said he would put up all our correspondence and short phone conversation if I carried on. So what? He received an email with two restraining orders and a judgement proving what Wedger said was wrong. I have nothing to hide.
I have no doubt whatsoever about Baker’s guilt. She admitted online to communicating with the paedo-priest’s private investigator who was trying to help him in his case. I saw her posts myself. I saw the guilty actions.
At first I had thought that Swift and Wedger might be good blokes, but mistaken. In light of the bad faith response however, I have formed the opinion that clearly I was wrong, and their other critics are right. Swift and Wedger saw all the court orders. They saw the judgement in which Baker was found to have harassed the abuse victim and helped the paedophile priest. They chose not to respond – instead they chose to front.
For whatever reason, knowing Baker is guilty they have chosen to mouth off and not to set the record straight. I have formed a view that Swift and Wedger are not honest men. They are enabling two abusers – Wong and Baker. That is not on. Some people speculate that Wedger is in to make money – and Swift was talking about donations too. I would ask anyone who reads this not to donate any money to Wedger or Swift.
Unlike David Swift, I would not give out private, personal contact details. However, David Swift publishes a business email address and contact number for feedback. Those who disagree with him can send polite, respectful feedback at the details below.
Public contact details for David Swift from his website. Let him know your views!
Just after midnight this morning, John Wedger sent me an email asking me not to contact him again so I have not included his contact details. Well, he can opt-out of most contact. But he cannot opt-out of contact related to being sued, whether by myself or John Hemming. If he keeps on he is going to end up bankrupt and sharing a cell with his friend Wilfred.
(Hat tip to Real Troll Exposure for their coverage of this).
What a pair of sickos! They ought to bring back hanging for Jon Wedger backing Wilfred Wrong after what he did!
Baker’s no better, helping that sick paedo. Someone needs to go and give Swift a talking to at his house in Worthing! He wants sectioning! Again!
LOL. I thought that comment about Swift needing sectioning again was a joke but I searched and I found this –
https://twitter.com/CliveSpencer12/status/1392977315513184257
https://archive.ph/eXbBw
Nasty piece of work.
I couldn’t find the video referred. Mind you I don’t really want to give them views. Mr Wedger calls anyone who questions him a troll. I saw something about him saying people had left nasty stuff on his doorstep. If that’s true, well two wrongs don’t make a right as the saying goes, but he has Linkedin and Facebook pages for his gardening business so it’s not hard to find his address. I don’t begrudge him having a sideline in gardening but he put his own address out there. I think Wilfred Wong might actually have believed the lies he’d been fed but that doesn’t justify scaring two innocent kids and a foster mother. Esther Baker I can’t make out. I know that she said the man she accused had a mark on his back which he didn’t have so I’m minded to believe him. I see the writer of this blog is familiar with the TrollExposure blog. Some of Mr Wedger’s previous antics are mentioned there. JW (and one Mr Shaun Attwood) helped bring a certain Ms J Archer to prominence. Her tales always seemed VERY tall to me.
Just wanted to add that it was reported that at the time of the abduction the foster mother’s own biological daughter was also in the car so there were two traumatised children although only one of them was actually kidnapped.
“Well, he can opt-out of most contact. But he cannot opt-out of contact related to being sued, whether by myself or John Hemming. If he keeps on he is going to end up bankrupt and sharing a cell with his friend Wilfred.”
Those who have been involved in the ‘paedo panic’ who don’t end up in prison, may have to find jobs and take on second jobs when they are forced to start paying for the damage they have done to people.
Some may never be able to retire. Some may have to come out of retirement. The days of people believing that ‘if they have nothing to take, nobody can take them to court and take anything from them’, are gone.
We have seen enough evidence of Sonia Poulton’s intentions to continue supporting Esther Baker no matter how unbelievable her stories are, and no matter how many times Esther goes to court. She has made it clear to all her own and Esther’s followers that ‘there is no smoke without fire’. That she “thoroughly investigates” everything she states in the public domain. That her sources of “evidence” are politicians, media and police.
Stating such has enabled her to flog her wares to vast, captive audiences for a decade.
Few people have challenged her information and sources. Due mainly to having seen evidence of her and her gang’s threats of violence being well documented on websites all over the internet, and evidence held by victims and witnesses. The CPS and police also having seen the evidence of threats being carried out. Barristers have made this available to the Attorney General. Police reviews and resolutions currently pending.
The fact is, Esther Baker’s ‘evidence’ was found to be baloney in court. Having previously been found baloney by members of the public from the moment Esther was first launched. Anyone in doubt at that time, need only have watched her facial muscles whenever she spoke on camera.
Sonia Poulton’s “evidence” which allegedly supports Esther has never been made available. Which begs the question: Why has Sonia Poulton not provided this alleged “evidence” to Esther Baker?
Sonia Poulton has a track record for knowing more about what happened at the crime scenes of victims of child abuse than the victims themselves. No matter how decades ago.
One letter she wrote to a barrister, with regard to one of his clients lying about being abused as a child was extremely malicious, but worthy of being stuck on a fridge door to guarantee everyone a laugh every morning before breakfast.
She stated that she knew the barrister’s client was not abused in a care home during childhood, and that she holds proof he was not abused.
Let. that. sink. in.
She was already in a position where police should have had her arrested for all the lies she and her gang had concocted and told the police over many years, yet she was allowed to continue to fixate on her prey, and harass him after his case was flung out of court.
She stated the above to a barrister after she and her gang had used police from every part of the UK in a dangerous effort to assist her in dragging the abused person and other innocent people into a kangaroo court.
A duped judge was finally set straight by senior CPS, after police were told to produce all the documents and evidence which they were deliberately hiding. Hidden because it proved how corrupt the police were behaving towards entirely innocent people, and which showed police further assisting Sonia Poulton and her gang in the persecution of innocent people.
Sonia Poulton’s use of the Shaun Attwood show to keep Esther Baker’s lies and fantasies on the boil was vindictive and dangerous. She knows his channel is one of the most viewed channels regarding child abuse topics. With an above average potential for gaining millions of viewers per episode.
Though it is known that in another court case Sonia Poulton has grassed Shaun Attwood up for ‘buying’ subscribers/views/etc, it is unknown whether she grassed him up for the above to make the court feel it lessened the impact of the high viewing figures of the Attwood show she was a guest on. Deluding herself and misleading the court that fewer people had actually watched it than the viewing figures would suggest,
Jon Wedger has always sung to the same hymn sheet as Sonia Poulton. She is after all, famed/notorious for stating she has “evidence” in her possession and therefore cannot be sued.
Perhaps Sonia Poulton has shown Jon Wedger the “evidence” she allegedly holds which enables her to persecute innocent people without fear of prosecution.
It appears no police who assisted Sonia Poulton and her gang were allowed to access her personal correspondence. Missing out on a feast of who has which birth marks and scars…
Though some of her previous ‘evidence’, which she used in a futile effort to humiliate a man whom she could not control, is known to have been concocted by corrupt police and propagandist journalists. She knew this herself, before she used it as purchase to coerce people into believing he was a child rapist and violent enough to murder her in her bed.
Her complaint to police regarding a fear of being murdered in her bed was made at a specific time in her history of lying to the police. Corrupt London Met police also hid this evidence from the CPS. Until police were told to go fetch…
🍿
Jon Wedger, Sonia Poulton, Bill Maloney. All in it together from the very beginning. Using dangerous criminals and vulnerable fantasists and liars to make a buck for themselves.
See Ash and Ben Fellowes. Note who first coached them and prepared them for the world stage.
Police have consistently turned a blind eye and failed to begin investigations into how the ‘paedo panic’ began, and how and why it was allowed to gained traction.
Surely not all police were offered or expected to have a cameo or leading part in documentary fillums about stalking and paedophiles in Parliament?
Though a police inspector’s letter (written on police letter headed paper) confesses to, and proves beyond all doubt, that there are huge numbers of bone idle police who are in the wrong job. Police who still find it easier to allow themselves to be coerced by other colleagues into lying and abusing and abandoning their oath, than getting off their backsides, blowing the whistle, and doing the job they are paid to do. ie. To protect and serve the public.
It will all come out in the wash.
Mr Butt’s ‘unravel’ hasn’t been seen anywhere to date. Though it is alleged a parallel ‘unravel’ to rival all ‘unravels’ is set to go off like a ruptured golf ball when certain court matters reach their conclusion.
I have seen a copy of the police inspector’s letter. The date on it being most interesting.
It was sent to one of Sonia Poulton’s victims in the midst of police lying left, right and centre in order to obtain bent warrants to raid homes, seize devices, and silence people who were exposing the most obscene police activities. The letter was later made available to court as proof of police corruption.
Said police letter also providing further proof that acting detective sergeant Vicky Allen and her team did not only fail to investigate their quarry with due diligence, but relied entirely on a gang of criminals and liar informants for information. Some of those lying informants being police themselves.
n.b. It is undisputed that police are sometimes unable to solve major crimes against a person or persons without gang grasses.
Though police are also aware gang grasses are known to fit people up to hide their own criminality and protect themselves from prosecution.
Vicky Allen’s supervisors not only failed to investigate all false complaints by Sonia Poulton and her gang members, but also aided and abetted Vicky Allen and other police in engaging with criminals and completely failing the true victims of crime.
Allowing the criminals to continue gang-stalking; making threats of violence, and issuing death threats, after Allen’s case was shown to be corrupt on a vast scale.
Only when such police are sacked and nicked themselves, will the public be able to begin to feel safe from such dangerous, predatory police.
That moment, when bent police who don’t think they are as bent as the bent police in Daniel Morgan’s case, or as bent as the police involved in Stephen Lawrence’s case, slap each other on the back and do a Maori haka in the face of the general public.
Having just been given carte blanche to carry on being slightly bent, or full-on Wayne Couzens bent.
The youtube ‘auditors’ of police are a much maligned breed. It appears we will be needing many more of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/03/daniel-morgan-murder-no-officers-will-face-punishment-says-police-watchdog-cressida-dick?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
I’m not sure I agree with you about the auditors, Rory. They can take up police time and the police are already short on numbers. That said, I agree that where things have gone wrong the police force should admit it.
I don’t want to get ‘premature’ but if there should be a court case I could see some of the Wedgehog’s fans contributing to a go-fund-me towards legal fees same as Soggy Poultice’s fans have.
And this is a problem because?
I’m not sure which part of my post you are querying. If it’s people querying folk giving money to the Wedgehog for not yet existent legal expenses, I don’t want well-meaning but perhaps gullible folk to be conned out of their money. If it is a question about ‘auditors’ of the police, if Burglar Bill breaks into my abode I want the police to be able to come ASAP without being delayed by ‘auditors’. If any members of the police do wrong I agree they should be accountable.
I did answer the above question but either it’s been kicked into cyberspace or Witchfinder didn’t like it. I don’t like to think of good-hearted people who lack discrimination handing over some of their hard-earned funds to the likes of Wedgie and Soggy, especially if they are folks who have limited incomes. It does beg the question if Soggy is such a red hot journalist why isn’t she earning enough to fund her own legal battle.
My comments have appeared now – might have been in moderation, but I have had comments vanish (not here but on YouTube and not always because the YouTuber running the channel has excised them).
Your comments were just in the moderation queue. Moderation here is not always instant. This site also receives a lot of spam comments. If you think I have missed something, feel free to drop an email through.
YouTube, I agree, is weird.