My withdrawal from the IICSA

I have considered my position with regards to being a core participant at the IICSA and have concluded that I no longer wish this to be the case. The evidence that I have seen thus far has shocked and disappointed me to the extent of becoming distressed, upset and angry. The procedural mechanics of the IICSA have failed in all aspects. It seems to me that no-one will benefit from being a CP unless you have something to hide from the public or unless you are a lawyer who's attached oneself to the inquiry. Frankly, it's a sickening sight and I regret ever getting involved.

Billhar Uppal (or Bill as we knew him before he became a self-professed expert) confirmed to me during his evidence that the IICSA is nothing but a cash cow for those who've gained the titles of professional victim jockey's. Time after time I have witnessed this grotesque spectacle of lawyers draining the victims of child abuse for every penny available. Millions of pounds have been and still are being wasted in the name of abuse victims. I refuse to be part of this.

Furthermore, the refusal of the IICSA to investigate the media's role in my case evidences a refusal to see the truth of how they treated me as a victim of child abuse. The very fact that a fabricated document the Observer Newspaper and North Wales police concocted in order to try and discredit me (by alleging I took part in a gang rape at the age of 11) was ignored, is enough to ensure myself that the truth was never going to be part of this inquiry. The recent (2016/17) criminal actions (perverting the course of justice) by the newspaper and the metropolitan police and others will now never see the light of day. Why? Because that's the way it is! It's us and them and they have the upper hand. The IICSA supports this behaviour by proxy.

The final straw was the refusal by the IICSA to pay expenses for victims to attend the hearings when their evidence was being presented. The insistence by the IICSA for victims to watch their evidence being presented via YouTube is a cold and callous manoeuver. It's equivalent to the state abusing us again, only this time as adults. I will not allow this to happen to me.

Additionally, the IICSA's decision to allow fake and/or false accusers like Esther Baker and Graham Wilmer to become CP's destroyed any credibility it thought it had. Ditto Billhar Uppal and other lawyers. 

So from here on, I want nothing to do with the farce that is the IICSA.

Repeated Perjury

Just for the record. The image below was cropped from a forensic police analysis report into my old laptop. It's not important to anyone who isn't being sued. It might, however, play a small role in destroying anyone assertions that I wrote the Twitterati blog. Especially if they are lying to the courts, again. The thing is, if you're going to repeatedly lie to the courts then you'd better be prepared for the consequences. 

Perjury.

If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he or she knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he/she shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

David Rose's denials.

David Roses's response when challenged about the article.

Guardian-Letter of Regret

So now we're at the stage where the article isn't available, it's proven to be fabricated and it's been removed from the archives. The disclosure of the fabricated information was to Sonia Poulton who then passed it on to the police who then passed it on to the CPS. They thought they could bolster the prosecution/police's case against me. Ooops.

"is not in any way usual business practice on the editorial side of GNM." I should hope not! 

Whilst any doubters are at it they may wish to contact the Ombudsman at the Observer, Stephen Pritchard. Ooops maybe not, he's the one who disclosed the information. 

A Crime is a crime is a crime even when the criminal is an institution

I've been taking advice from legal eagles.

1.The actions of the Readers Editor of the Observer have been found to have breached the Data Protection Act 1998. Despite an appeal by the Guardian, the ICO still ruled that they had breached the DPA 1998.

2. A document that Stephen Pritchard forwarded to a prosecution witness in my case had been contested and challenged for some 10 months prior to Pritchard sharing it. Ergo, he knew the contents had been challenged and part of that challenge was my assertion that it had been fabricated by someone. Why on God's earth would he share it knowing that I had claimed it was a fake. Why indeed? Maybe to pervert the course of justice? All the signs are there to suggest it was for exactly this reason.

3. Additionally, Pritchard's claim that the document was a legal affidavit fell on its face when it was compared to a bonafide legal affidavit. For example, any legal affidavit would probably have the date it was made on it somewhere. Not in this case, the document is undated. Not only that but throughout the pages, there are corrections and other scrawls that don't have any initials next to them. A real legal affidavit it is not.

4. Despite the offer of damages running into the thousands of pounds and a letter of regret the Guardian still refuse to disclose the origins of the document. They also refuse to acknowledge that the document is still out there and could be shared at any time to anyone. I have no way of knowing if it is already out there online.

5. Now, if you or I had behaved in such a manner, what do you think the consequences would be? If you or I had a tendency to pervert or had intended to knowingly pervert the course of public justice, do you think we would have been prosecuted? I think we would be facing a prison sentence should we be convicted. And rightly so.

6. Is there press immunity from prosecution? It would seem that thus far, justice has yet to be meted out to some who deserve it. Additionally, because the Guardian repeatedly refuse to accept what's staring them right in their faces and continue to act like an ostrich; Are they not as guilty as the man they employ and continue to support by denying me the right to clear my name? I doubt the readers would disagree with me.

7. As for any future legal action, I have been assured by the Guardian's lawyers that I will be liable for all their costs, interest included. But, only if I lose. Charles Prestwich Scott wouldn't recognise any of those involved in this saga as anyone who shares his values.

The values he described are: honesty; cleanness (today interpreted as integrity); courage; fairness; and a sense of duty to the reader and the community. From here


Judge for yourselves using the CPS guidance.
I'll update this entry as time passes.



Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences
The following factors will be relevant to all public justice offences when assessing the relative seriousness of the conduct and which offence, when there is an option, should be charged. Consider whether the conduct:


Perverting the Course of Justice

was spontaneous and unplanned or deliberate and elaborately planned;
was momentary and irresolute or prolonged and determined;
was motivated by misplaced loyalty to a relative/friend or was part of a concerted effort to avoid, pervert, or defeat justice;
was intended to result in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice;
actually resulted in trivial or 'serious harm' to the administration of justice.

Examples of 'serious harm' include conduct which:
enables a potential defendant in a serious case to evade arrest or commit further offences;
causes an accused to be granted bail when he might otherwise not have;
avoids a police investigation for disqualified driving or other serious offences;
misleads a court;
puts another person in real jeopardy of arrest/prosecution or results in the arrest/prosecution of another person;
avoids a mandatory penalty such as disqualification;
results in the police losing the opportunity to obtain important evidence in a case.

In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour. Although there may be public interest factors against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutions for public justice offences should usually go ahead and those factors should be put to the court for consideration when sentence is being passed.

Perverting the Course of Justice
The offence of Perverting the Course of Justice is committed when an accused:

does an act or series of acts;
which has or have a tendency to pervert; and
which is or are intended to pervert;
the course of public justice.
The offence is contrary to common law and triable only on indictment. It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.

The course of justice must be in existence at the time of the act(s). The course of justice starts when:
an event has occurred, from which it can reasonably be expected that an investigation will follow; or
investigations which could/might bring proceedings have actually started; or
proceedings have started or are about to start.

Disclosure or Deceit?

Imagine discovering that a National Newspaper had supplied an un-dated, fabricated/conflated confidential and contested affidavit to try and assist with having me locked up. The very same affidavit that was put forward as an excuse for publishing that I was a gang rapist and abuser of children. There's no date, there's no official legal recognition and it has a dodgy signature.

Then try to imagine an e-mail which confirmed the sharing of such an affidavit by the reader's editor of the newspaper was deleted from the unused material supplied by the prosecution/police to the defence side in a criminal case. Could happen, could it? Watch this space

Oops, nearly forgot. Then try also to imagine that the Information Commissioners Office found that the paper had breached at least three of the Data Protection Act's regulations by sharing the affidavit.

Quantum

Traditionally, awards in data protection cases have been low: before 2014 the greatest award for distress in an English reported case was £750 with a nominal £1 being awarded for financial loss (Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance4). Contrast this with awards in privacy cases, such as in the leading case of Gulati & Ors v MGN Limited5 (confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Representative Claimants v MGN Limited6), where the court awarded various celebrities who were victims of phone hacking between £72,500 and £260,250 to compensate for the distress they had suffered.

The issue for defendant solicitors, where a claimant solicitor conflates claims for misuse of private information and breach of data protection obligations, is reconciling the level of awards for distress in the leading privacy cases with awards for distress in DPA cases.
from here
Data Protection Act Breaches

Observer Article Removal.

I'll just leave this here shall I, fatty? I'm just popping to the loo.

For those that don't know, Fat Al continuously relies on an article which was removed from the Observer archives. He thinks by tweeting it repeatedly that it will return to the public arena and all of a sudden people will believe he is the best campaigner in his batshit mental world. He normally tweets it when I've published something about him or his fat arsed mates. He left the UK under a cloud of darkness involving a thirteen-year-old and a bag of chips apparently. Far be it for me to speculate about the truth behind the lurid allegations this twitter account has made public. The real batshit crazy nutter-bus passengers have as much idea about the truth behind the allegations as I do. But who cares about the truth anyway? 

The hard truth is that most of the time, newspapers will reject your request to have an article unpublished. News organizations’ primary responsibility is to report objectively, not to protect your online reputation, and they themselves may face criticism if they unpublish materials too readily. A search of the Observers archives will evidence no sign of the article that was removed as a "gesture of goodwill" by the editor. I'm very grateful for the gesture but argue that the creation of the article is FFF- fabricated and or fake and or and false and or all three)

Removing content from external sites is notoriously problematic. Getting a newspaper to remove defamatory information is possible (though not easy), and when that information is deleted, Google will automatically stop showing it in search results. Newspapers are an important historical resource, and they’re proud of this fact. They’re generally quite hostile (as opposed to "gestures of goodwill") to the idea of deleting or removing published articles.

Typically, when information published is factual news, the most important factor in determining whether removal is possible is who the webmaster or news organization that published the content. In most circumstances, the only way to get factual news stories removed is to contact the organization or webmaster that published or is hosting the content. Whether a particular organization will remove an article will depend heavily on the internal policies of that particular organization and how convincing your reasons are (such as having evidence which proves the news article is FFF) for having the content removed.

You only have one shot to get it right and to remove news articles from the internet. Most news organizations are initially not very receptive to removing, editing, altering, or correcting content. However, if you take the correct approach and are able to make a persuasive case as to why your particular request should be granted many webmasters will be happy to comply, as it will be the right thing to do.

While the best case scenario for a party harmed by a defamatory news article is complete removal of the article from the internet, media companies may offer some other options. For instance, if the harmed party can obtain a judgment that states a story is false and defamatory, some media companies may be willing to request that it be de-indexed from search engines (e.g. Google). 

Moreover, media outlets may offer to correct or update a story if the requesting party provides proof of an inaccuracy or a new development. I'm working on this. The biggest new development so far is the emergence of an affidavit that isn't an affidavit by any description. Firstly, it's un-dated. Secondly, it's not signed by those who would have signed it as a legal affidavit i.e. solicitor, lawyer, paralegal or anyone who knows how to write their name. Thirdly, I'd never had sight of it until January 2016. Fourthly, any examination of it would show some very odd marks and scribbles, unsigned corrections are evident throughout the document.


Make your case, and make it well. There’s usually no legal reason to get an item taken down, so you’ll only succeed if you ask respectfully and eloquently. If they do remove the item, they’ll be doing it as a favor to you. Or as in my case "a gesture of goodwill".

https://www.reputationdefender.com/blog/privacy/how-remove-negative-information-and-news-articles-web

https://www.minclaw.com/how-to-remove-news-articles-from-google-and-internet/

E-mail from Stephen Pritchard (Readers Editor, Observer Newspaper)

Barbara Hewson.

Why am I writing this? To express my admiration and support of a barrister who has challenged and metaphorically battered those who've decided she is a wrong-un. Nothing could be further from the truth. She has supported myself and my family along with others who've come across the likes of Alun Goodwin, Exaro, Sarah Phillimore, @Sunnyclaribel and their fellow cultists (spell check) who are the epitome and embodiment of social media (Twitter) trolls. I'll provide a list at the bottom. Here's a couple of recent examples of the thousands that have been posted on Twitter

Ron‏ @Tweets2CV  2h2 hours ago

Replying to @Sunnyclaribel
Her chambers must tolerate her because she brings in money. The only conceivable reason.
0 replies0 retweets1 like








KirstenElliottSwift‏ @KirstenTElliott  Sep 13

Replying to @Sunnyclaribel
Or is it something more sinister?




Cathy Higgins....‏ @justmebeingme4  Sep 12

Replying to @Sunnyclaribel
Often wondered about this...such dedication 2 defending paedophiles must be a cash cow 4 people who feel nothing about consequences of #CSA
1 reply1 retweet3 likes








stevo‏ @ting_and_blow  Sep 12

Paedophiles are not just in the male form. Just saying...
                       Sunnyclaribel‏ @Sunnyclaribel  4m
4 minutes ago

Sunnyclaribel Retweeted Sunnyclaribel
A paedophile managed to intimidate me into silence when I was ten. No amount of hate/intimidation from Barbara Hewson will shut me up now.
Sunnyclaribel‏ @Sunnyclaribel  Sep 12

Did Barbara Hewson get backhanders to run her harrassment/hate/abuse/ intimidation campaign against Esther Baker?






I've witnessed the social media (Twitter) attacks on BH for a few years. To this day the attacks continue and to some extent have progressed from calling her a 'paedo protector' to 'nonce lover' to 'child rapist supporter'. Those responsible have serious issues with BH and her defence of folk like me who've been falsely accused of rape, child abuse and stalking. She will not allow these idiots and anonymous non-entities to faze her. I admire that in anyone. I've shrugged off similar piss smelling shit heads for years.

Here are a few examples of just some of BH qualifications

• She campaigned against the court-ordered treatment of pregnant women, claiming that family courts were depriving women of fundamental rights to personal autonomy and to a fair trial.
• In Ireland, she appeared in a number of cases in the Four Courts in Dublin, notably concerning the home birth midwife Ann Kelly during 1997-2000, but also vulnerable adults
• The Times profiled Hewson as its Lawyer of the Week on 11 February 2010.
• She was named as a Band 1 Junior for Court of Protection - Health & Welfare in Chambers Legal Directory (2015). The Legal 500 (2014) called her a "leading junior" in the fields of Administrative Law, Civil Liberties, and Disciplinary Law

Given these qualifications and her vast experience of legal experience and arguments over the years, I'd love to witness any single one of the internet trolls that attack her daily, face up to her in a legal setting. I doubt they would even reply should she furnish them with court papers. BH and I met by chance. I took the piss for a while but then began to research this 'controversial' barristers background. Surprisingly for me, I found myself warming to her side of the many arguments she has been dragged into or involved herself with. Not just on social media but elsewhere too (court cases, appeals etc).

Her ideologies and mine differ in certain respects but in the main, we agree on many things. The main subject where we both agree on is the area of false allegations. Many will be aware of the trauma my family and I have endured in recent years due to malicious and false allegations. Not once has BH's support faltered. She didn't have to publicly show her support. She didn't have to engage with me publicly. So why did she? Because she knows right from wrong that's why. She witnessed the build-up to and the culmination of attacks that finally led to the police believing certain shit heads regards allegations against me and others. Her support thereafter increased upon witnessing these monsters attacking those of us that challenged the status quo regards the spurious and invented allegations of VIP historical child sexual abuse. 

Her legal advice to my legal team was exemplary. Her knowledge of legislation and precedent blew us away. There were times when I wished she was representing me. It felt like she was sometimes. Her public admissions to be a defence witness at any trial that may have taken place encouraged a massive increase in attacks on her. She swatted them one by one like flies. Some task, given the unquantifiable amount that headed her way. Not long after the judge dismissed my case I withdrew from Twitter. In other words, I kept a promise to my family and friends. It mattered not one iota to those that smell of piss and puke. They continued and continue to wield their picks and axes at her.

BH can defend herself against anyone that tries to suggest she has anything other than the good welfare of the ideologies she chooses to defend. 

This entry is written in lay terms. By an individual with some experience of the care system, prison system and criminal justice system. However, I have far more experience than the majority of those who attack BH. I have met tens of barristers, solicitors and legal advocates over the past forty years. Not one has had the balls to say what they think. Not one has had the guts to stand up and publicly speak for the poor (financially) innocents of false allegations. For this alone Kudos is due.

So there you have it. A nice article about Barbara Hewson from a qualified criminologist. 

The list below contains the most recent piss stinking twitter trolls who attack BH on a daily basis. The list is by no means exhaustive. Far from it. But you'll get the picture if you ask Google to have a look for you.

@Sunnyclaribel

@ciabaudo ‏

@Lazer_Light23

@thewakeupcall09

@craftymuvva 

@REBELTROOP 

@ZedTrafficker

@SVPhillimore

@OlsenSigur

@dfdugmore 

@MySweetLandlord

@WandaKostka 

@chigginjones

@chrisstacey1

@MarkWatts_1

Enjoy the weekend. It's only down to people like Barbara Hewson that I can.