#UnfollowSoniaPoulton: Reminder that the Fringe Journalist who Attacked the Queen is a Child Abuser

Sonia Poulton Video Statement

Sonia Poulton seen making an ‘official statement’ on a lawsuit against her. Extracted still used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Yesterday, in the afternoon, Queen Elizabeth II died. As with any death, there are of course those who loved her, and those who did not. Basic human decency has always dictated that when a person dies their critics and enemies fall silent for a while, save to deliver eulogies. Of course, historic figures are not immune to criticism but, simply put, it can wait for a little while. In any event, there is in truth very little bad to say about the Queen. She has spent 70 years in uncomplaining public service. An exception to the rule is, of course, vile fringe journalist Sonia Poulton, who responded to news of the Queen’s death as below, including the words, “[…] the next few days is going to be a giant vomit-inducing festival of royal reverence with media tarts weeping and wailing about someone they don’t know […]” (archive). This is a public service reminder that Sonia Poulton was recently interviewed by police after naming two child torture victims who had been granted life long anonymity, and the video had to be taken down. Illegal or not, in my opinion that was serious child abuse. The charge has been levelled by others, including (according to a recent video by Natural Love) anonymous hackers. Unlike the hackers, your author is not anonymous. My name and picture is below and I will defend this article in court if need be.

Me me me: Child abuser and fringe 'journalist': Sonia Poulton unleashes her venom in response to the death of Queen Elizabeth II, a longstanding public servant.

Me me me: Child abuser and fringe ‘journalist’: Sonia Poulton unleashes her venom in response to the death of Queen Elizabeth II, a longstanding public servant.

Sonia Poulton likes to hold herself out as an expert on high profile allegations of child abuse, satanic abuse and VIP abuse. Her work is clearly adjacent to the Q-Anon conspiracy space. The problem is, she is in fact one of the shoddiest, so-called ‘journalists’ I have ever encountered but has chosen one of the most sensitive spaces to work in, which is clearly beyond her abilities and character. One example of her so called, ‘journalism’ is a previous video of a royal parade, made whilst the queen was alive, in which Poulton can be heard shrieking, “Nazi!” and, “She knights paedophiles!”

The case that got Sonia into trouble was a well publicised matter involving two children who were tortured by abusers into making false allegations. The judgement was placed online by the judge Mrs Justice Pauffley to try to dispel the hoax. The case citation (with link to the full judgement), is P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding) [2015] EWFC 26. It opens with a reminder that the children have lifelong anonymity and naming them could be a criminal contempt of court. I am going to be careful in this article to limit what I say strictly to the judgement as follows.

The basic facts alleged were that, operating from a North London McDonalds, a satanic cult was cooking and eating babies as well as sexually abusing them (see paragraph 14),

[…] Rituals were performed, so it was claimed, in an upstairs room at the McDonald’s restaurant where the “boss” allowed child sacrifice because he was a member of the cult. Human babies were prepared, cooked in the ovens within a secret kitchen and then eaten by cult members. […]

The only problem is this is rubbish. The children were tortured into making it all up as the judge says at paragraphs 16 and 17,

“16. I am able to state with complete conviction that none of the allegations are true. I am entirely certain that everything Ms Draper, her partner Abraham Christie and the children said about those matters was fabricated. The claims are baseless. Those who have sought to perpetuate them are evil and / or foolish.
17. All the indications are that over a period of some weeks last summer, P and Q were forced by Mr Christie and Ms Draper, working in partnership, to provide concocted accounts of horrific events. The stories came about as the result of relentless emotional and psychological pressure as well as significant physical abuse. Torture is a strong word but it is the most accurate way to describe what was done to the children by Mr Christie in collaboration with Ms Draper.”

It is worth going on to mention that the judge exhorts people to stop harming the children by giving credence to the hoax. The last sentence of the judgement, at 165, is as follows –

“The long term emotional and psychological harm of what was done to the children is incalculable. The impact of the internet campaign is likely to have the most devastating consequences for P and Q”

Sonia Poulton’s approach to this case was first to make a video about it with Shaun Attwood, giving it currency, and second to name the children. The police got involved and interviewed her, whereupon she claimed in a witness statement in an unrelated civil case that powerful people were running a conspiracy to silence her. Statements in court have wide immunities from being sued but when she put it online, outside court on her own website, she had to remove the allegations. Now her fundraising page contains just a narcissistic statement as follows (archive) –

“Earlier this year I was interviewed by the police about a potential breach of a reporting restriction regarding an old case.
The police have come back to say No Further Action will be taken.
All involved were satisfied with the interview I gave.
There is a general feeling that this all went too far.
My brilliant criminal lawyer, Sophie Hall, attended the interview with me – as did Muhammad Butt of BNT.
I recommend that bloggers cease and desist from publishing defamatory statements about me regarding this issue.”

In the end, Sonia was not prosecuted. However, the naming of the children breached a court order and risked harming them. Even if Sonia did not know about the order, she breached the Editor’s Code of Practice which protects child witnesses in cases involving sex crime, “The press must not, even if legally free to do so, identify children under 16 who are victims or witnesses in cases involving sex offences”. Furthermore, the judgement is a high profile one, available online. Some, ‘expert’ if she had not done basic research and read it! In my opinion, naming the children was child abuse.

To be clear, I am not alleging that Sonia deliberately set out to harm the children. However, she failed to research the case, appeared to be unfamiliar with the Editors’ Code of Practice and did not demonstrate any consideration of the risks inherent in blithely naming two pre-teens involved in a case of alleged satanic abuse. I say opinion as distinguished from fact because the police and CPS chose not to prosecute (which is not the same thing as her being innocent). However, I believe that if she is innocent of any criminal offence the irresponsible decision to name them was still abuse.

It is worth mentioning something else the judge said a paragraph 3, which was that a large proportion of viewers of YouTube videos about the case were paedophiles, “It is inevitable that a large proportion of those have a sexual interest in children. Any rational adult who uploads film clips to Youtube featuring children speaking about sexual activity must be assumed to realise that fact”. There is sometimes a fine line between sensationalist reporting and paedophile fan-fiction. If the judge is correct then a significant portion of Sonia’s audience may be made up of paedophiles who find it arousing.

Regardless, what Sonia did was horrible and wrong. That is the kind of person she is. The judge called people who continue to give currency to the hoax, “evil and / or foolish”. I think that is a fair description of Sonia, if anything somewhat generous. If you agree, please share this article and #UnfollowSoniaPoulton. In my opinion it is shameful that Brand New Tube and Muhammad Butt give her the time of day.

Full disclosure: I am currently involved in a complex legal dispute with Sonia over her other objectionable reporting of my friend former MP John Hemming. In fact, I have previously described her coverage of him as causing distress to, and in effect amounting to abuse of, his children. She has already settled one of the cases. You can find more details in the category on this site.

Share Button
This entry was posted in Family Courts, Free Speech, Human Rights, John Hemming, Law, Muhammad Butt, Samuel Collingwood Smith, Sonia Poulton, Twitter by Samuel Collingwood Smith. Bookmark the permalink.

About Samuel Collingwood Smith

Samuel Collingwood Smith was born in the north of England, but his family moved south early in his life and spent most of his early years in Hertfordshire before attending Queen Mary, University of London, where he studied Economics. Sam currently lives in the southeast of England. Smith was employed as a Labour Party fundraiser in the 2001 General Election, and as a Labour Party Organiser in the 2005 General Election. In 2005 Smith was elected as a Borough Councillor and served for 3 years until 2008. In 2009 Smith changed sides to the Conservative party citing division within Labour ranks, Labour broken promises and Conservative improvements to local services. In 2012 Smith started to study a Graduate Diploma in Law, passing in 2014. Smith then moved on to studying a Master's Degree in Law combined with an LPC, receiving an LL.M LPC (with Commendation) in January 2017. During his study, Smith assisted several individuals in high profile court cases as a McKenzie Friend - in one case being praised by Parliamentary petition for his charitable work and legal skills. Smith is also the author of this blog, Matthew Hopkins News, that deals with case law around Family and Mental Capacity issues. The blog also opposes online drama and abuse and criticises extreme-left politicians.

8 thoughts on “#UnfollowSoniaPoulton: Reminder that the Fringe Journalist who Attacked the Queen is a Child Abuser

  1. What an utterly vile woman she is. So hateful. I blocked her and then I switched to my work account and blocked her.

    Disrespecting the Queen and doxing those children are different things but the both spring from the same low character. I can just see paedophiles touching themselves as they listen to her grating voice talk about sickening child sexual abuse.

  2. One of the things I most regret is signing up to Brand New Tube. The site is still not working properly after it was hacked for the second time and I can’t delete my account. There doesn’t seem to be a button for it (the only way they can keep customers?) This revelation about Sonia Poulton is no surprise to me. The whole site gives me a skeezy feeling.

    Quite simply by repeating the hoax she was doing the work of the child torturers for a cheap bit of clickbait.

  3. This, sadly, is, in my opinion, just the tip of the iceberg of the number of online sins by Poulton. She is constantly attention seeking and wanting sympathy, today’s RISE program for example opened with her wanting sympathy for a recent personal accident in a street. It’s always “me, me, me” with her and it’s very revealing as an attitude.

    She really does need to learn restraint and not allow her mouth to run off as she has done numerous times as happened online again yesterday.

    IIRC in the now banned interview section with Attwood she was basically saying that she HAD to talk about the children otherwise she would be seen as a shill. That is utterly rubbish as reasoning for doing what she did.

    Also IIRC she has claimed that she has abided by the Editors Code of Practice at all times in at least one of her witness statements to the civil court [whilst it remained online]. That is now very clearly untrue that she abides by such, in my opinion, otherwise she would’ve not only researched the case in question much more thoroughly but also known that she couldn’t do what she did.

    The Police and CPS demonstrated a lack of consistency in approach to the incident too – whatever Attwood was punished with, the same should’ve applied to Poulton they were both equally culpable. Same goes for Poulton’s interview with Attwood at is at the heart of the Hemming case against Poulton. At least Shaun had the common sense to remove the offending material in the Hemming case.

    What is also particularly stunning are the number of reactions strongly against her views on the Queen etc. Many of which appear to be from people that she previously had support from, many claiming they’ve blocked or unfollowed her as a result.

    There are times when to be anti-monarchy and times not to be – yesterday was clearly one of the latter.

    I’m certain that when Poulton’s brother died she was online seeking sympathy and acknowledging that she knew what grief was – it’s clear that she has no empathy for others going through similar no matter whether she agrees or disagrees with the Royal Family. That complete hypocrisy by her speaks volumes for her underlying mental state in my view.

    Quite WHY BNT need to have her bile as the flagship outlet and not simply act as a hosting service for others is certainly open to question and challenge in my view too. BNT’s woes regarding the IT problems etc are not being helped by the behaviour of Poulton in my view and if people are turned away from the platform [as indicated by another comment above] then BNT are more likely to gain a more negative reputation than that they seem to have already. Again only my opinion.

  4. Unless someone akin to the London Met’s ‘acting detective sergeant’ Vicky Allen has deliberately hidden information from the Crown again, or the ‘chat’ was too vile and upsetting to report, it would appear stalker-murderer Couzens’ colleagues have not said anything as remotely sick and depraved as Vicky Allen had to say about the innocent victims of Sonia Poulton.

    Only the Wayne Couzens’ group ‘jokes’ about rape come even slightly close to anything which predatory Vicky Allen had to say during her ‘investigation’ of innocents. A fraudulent investigation which she delegated to Sonia Poulton’s gang members to ‘investigate’ for her and other lazy police.

    Wayne Couzens and his colleagues are NOT ‘an isolated incident’! They were simply unlucky to have been discovered by honest police during the investigation into the killing of Sarah Everard. Whereas Vicky Allen’s superiors assisted her in hiding evidence.

    Fortunately, the investigating officers in Sarah Everard’s case did not hide or delete the evidence found, and the sick police involved are to be sentenced in November.

    No sentence can be long enough for such dangerous police. They are unfit to live in society amongst the general population whom they are paid to serve and protect.

    “A serving Met police constable and an ex-officer have been found guilty of sharing “grossly racist, sexist, and misogynistic” messages with Sarah Everard’s killer.

    Jonathon Cobban, 35, and former PC Joel Borders, 45, shared WhatsApp messages about women and disabled people with Wayne Couzens.

    Judge Sarah Turnock described some of the comments as “abhorrent”.

    In comments on April 5 2019, Cobban and Borders swapped messages about tasering children, animals and disabled people.

    IOPC regional director Sal Naseem said: “The messages sent by these police officers were inexcusable and particularly disturbing given the profession they represent.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-62981675

  5. Pingback: Sonia Poulton: Anti-Semitism and Vile Child Sex Slave Allegations | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

  6. Pingback: Sonia Poulton: Anti-Semitism and Vile Child Sex Slave Allegations (Redux) | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *