It is the end of the year and this is a brief, scheduled post to set out the current state of play in the court proceedings I am, or have been, a party to in Hemming v Poulton and Smith v My Media World and Butt. This is partly to counter-balance Sonia Poulton’s misleading comments about it.
In a bizarre official statement after the hack of Brand New Tube, Muhammad Butt, Brand New Tube CEO, looked far greyer than he did only two years ago. Picture used for the purposes of criticism of the video.
Smith v My Media World Limited and Butt – (near) total victory. I sued Muhammad Butt and My Media World Limited for libel and under the data protection act. They counter-sued for libel and harassment. The counter-claim was dropped, meaning all my articles stayed up and Muhammad ate his costs of the counter-claim and paid mine. In my case, it was settled by My Media World Limited and Muhammad Butt agreeing to a permanent, lifelong restraining (Tomlin) order. Some costs were paid to Muhammad by a wealthy backer, but overall far less than he paid out. This case is notable because I represented myself in all of the cases and did my own paperwork, except in this case for one hearing I instructed David Hirst of 5RB Media Chambers, and also used advice from Matthew Hodson of Gatehouse Chambers. Very happy with both barristers.
During the period of this case, My Media World’s Brand New Tube website (brandnewtube.com) was hacked again. This is notable because some of my coverage of their firm was allegedly defamatory or harassing. My Media World and Butt’s counterclaim was dropped however, meaning my articles stay up. Muhammad’s odd video about it is worth watching for comedy value. It is a shame because Brand New Tube is a good idea but the execution is poor and attempts at constructive criticism have received a hostile response.
Smith v Baker – Total victory. I sued Esther Baker and defended a counter-claim, representing myself. Her defence was largely struck out and she agreed to a lifelong restraining order. Baker counter-sued for libel and harassment. Her counterclaim was struck out and summarily judged in my favour because she failed to Reply to my defence of truth. My articles stay up. She is paying my costs back in instalments. It will take her a very long time.
Hemming v Poulton, Smith and Laverty – John Hemming is suing Sonia Poulton for libel and breach of the GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Sonia has counter-sued Hemming myself and Darren Laverty for harassment. Darren counter-counterclaimed for libel. So far, Sonia has settled with Darren and had a small part of her Particulars struck out.
Bizarrely, Sonia has claimed on her fundraising page and on Twitter that in the proceedings the court has accepted that she is a journalist against opposition by John Hemming at a hearing on 14 July 2022. No such decision was made because it is not in issue. The court order, which is public, simply adjourns the hearing and the judge remarks it is due to Poulton raising further matters the night before. We are seeking our costs of the hearing thrown away in all circumstances.
Sonia Poulton’s tweet is misleading. The court has in no way accepted her objections to the phrase referred to, nor made any decision on it.
The order from the July hearing simply adjourns. No finding was made on Poulton’s status of being a journalist.
The trial of the case when it happens is going to be of great interest to observers. Sonia has decided to put her journalism in issue by attempting to sue John and I for publishing criticisms of her journalism that I believe (after having sought second opinions) can be defended. She has literally made it a trial of her fringe ‘journalism’. This may be a tactical error as this is a woman who David Icke thought was a bit too much. Last year in 2021 when Sonia applied to amend her (counter)-claim I just consented and Sonia paid my costs. She does not seem to get we are not bluffing even after years of litigation.
The trial will likely be very costly. I have a complete indemnity. I can afford to lose financially and professionally. Sonia cannot afford to lose even in part without her reputation being ruined. Any article that is legitimate criticism is a nail in the coffin of what remains of her standing as a ‘journalist’.
Finally, in Hemming v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct – permission was granted for judicial review and a result is anticipated early in the new year.
Merry Christmas Sam and all the fellow readers here.
On the article content, MB had clearly run out of black shoe polish, it must be very expensive to keep having to deal with hackers when the site doesn’t ever seem to get the right sort of security and you are right Sam that constructive criticism of the IT efforts in the past there were seen as threats when they were nothing but observations and to point BNT in perhaps a better direction. Can only hope that MB has learnt some lessons and won’t be going for the market stall type approach to issues as important as user data in future.
Re Baker, I hope that 2023 may finally bring some peace for Mr Hemming on that score. She needs to learn some valuable lessons too, hopefully a current court case unrelated directly to Baker will set a much needed precedent.
Re SP, I find it very revealing that in all of her output she never wants to talk to or interview dissenting voices. I.e. she only focuses on those with the same viewpoints as herself it seems. That’s not journalism in the true sense, it’s ego massage.
Overall, 2023 is lining up to be exceptionally interesting and after a decade of certain associates of SP abusing people online I’m also hoping that she finally realises the scale of her incitement (instead of blaming everyone else) and that she and others of a similar vein are finally given the wakeup call they really need.
Esther Baker. Police protector. There seems to be an awful lot of this about. ie. Police being protected. Police who believe themselves not to be bent, have been found protecting bent police. Which renders them bent. Bent police are found to be protecting bent police. Now we have members of the public such as Esther Baker, alleging she has also been protecting police. In quite a big way. If we are to believe what she is now saying in her tweets, the police she mentions must be quite considerably bent. It is a known fact that lazy police and bent police will string people along and lie about investigating complaints. Therefore, she may not be lying. If she is taking days off from lying.
One assumes the police she is allegedly protecting are the same police who should have been protecting her from all those whom police knew to be enticing her and coercing her into making false allegations.
Therefore, it is understandable that some of the handful of people who somehow land on this ‘obscure’ blog purely by chance, not knowing how they could possibly have arrived at such a ‘cess pit’, won’t be at all grateful to learn that Esther Baker’s thread has finally snapped. Although the rest of the handful may see this as a break for independent police to step in, and finally make a start in investigating how and why the paedophile hoaxster gangs were able to get the police to collude with them in using liars and fantasists to wreck the lives of innocent people🍿
👩💻 Esther Baker 👩💻
@Esther9982
Replying to
@FlossGriffiths
I’ve been on fire most evenings for 7 years ….. but have been “doing the right thing”. In retrospect I’ve been protecting the police far, far more than they ever protected me. That time has now passed. They kept me hanging on a thread. The thread snapped.
1:51 AM · Jan 18, 2023
👩💻 Esther Baker 👩💻
@Esther9982
Initially of course I was keeping these issues confidential – due to ongoing police investigations. One of thousands of things I’ve never released.
But apparently those police investigations don’t exist – so there is no need for me to keep them confidential now is there?
6:08 PM · Jan 19, 2023
👀👀👀
“One of thousands of things I’ve never released.”
If this isn’t proof Esther Baker was wasted working in a betting shop! Being this good at hiding things and protecting bent cops for years could have seen her in a well paid job with the London Met police. Because this is the way the London Met is also known to operate. We already know Esther Baker is unconcerned about having people arrested without evidence. This would have given her extra cred within the London Met police. Though it has to be said, there seem to be few police left anywhere in the UK who have an aversion to making arrests without evidence. It appears to be quite common now.
No police contact of Esther Baker’s should have left her feeling obligated to protect them whilst they carried out investigations or pretended to carry out investigations. Although witnesses, victims, police, cps have evidence of police behaving precisely in this manner throughout this ten years long ‘paedophile hunt’ hoax. All police who strung Esther Baker along for even one day after they knew the consequences she was already facing due to their own ineptitude and failures in preventing her from continuing on the path she was on, are a disgrace to policing.
There is barely a square mile left of the UK which has not been infected in some way by bent police acting on false allegations made by ‘paedo hunters’. Some police are more to blame than others. Not one of them is blameless.