Plucky little independent ANM has been dragged back to Court by Skeptics’ vexatious legal action, not with a genuine legal challenge to facts, but because when they have nothing to cover their perjury, supposed Skeptics’ Melanie Byng, and Dr Andrew Lewis, together with evidence-tampering lawyers Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave, and Jonathan Price of Doughty Street Chambers, resort to vexatiousness, throwing the fact that free speech they don’t like exists into court, like babies chucking all their toys out of the pram.
“She wrote, your Honour, and we don’t like it.”
“He made a video your Honour, and we are uncomfortable with the facts being out there.”
Updated CPS Guidance
This kind of vexatious complaining about others’ free speech contradicts new CPS guidance which emphasises the necessary freedoms guaranteed by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, and cites the high bar for communications causing gross offence.
The guidance begins to address the dawning reality of networked targetization and specifically describes the course of conduct of these fake Skeptics in many respects including disability hate crime, trolling, doxxing, defamation, harassment, stalking, contempt, including perjury, and malicious communications.
In spite of current difficulties in proving and prosecuting deliberately covert behaviour, the solid application of these guidelines to their course of conduct points to the likelihood that at some point the truth of their malice and perjury would be revealed: even the best liars have to slip up sometime.
And so it is with the lie of being able to tolerate free speech.
Vexatious Enemies of Free Speech
Er no, you won’t.
So much for “Free Speech Hero” Robert Dougan’s fake battle cry in this tweet, and when with Simon Singh, ironically criticising the British Chiropractic Association for not being able to hack the open marketplace of ideas.
As usual when perpetrating vexatious perjury, “Good Thinking Society” patron Dougan’s signed “witness statement” was not only riddled with lies, but also slyly contradicted itself. Pretending to demand “only” our home, the draft Order slipped in with it in fact demanded tens of thousands of pounds extra, presumably hoping Judges will continue not to notice they are lying.
Back-peddling Fakery – Malice Denied
Dr Andrew Lewis, whose efforts to cash in on “Steiner criticism” involve publicly proclaiming Steiner schools to be an “insidious and pervasive cult“, is privately “happy to be convinced” that admitted unchecked bullying at a national Steiner headquarters school was really just ordinary bullying, and not that cultish type of bullying at all. Only anecdotal stories with no evidence whatsoever are good enough for this faker. Here’s his submission to Parliament in 2011 on The Impact of Libel Laws on Bloggers at (EV 39).
Meanwhile Melanie Byng magically switches from her former stance of Steiner being a dangerous cult that needs wiping from the face of the earth, to relying on her massive experience of Steiner, for the insight that actually, now, it’s often the parents fault “my Lord‘. Melanie Byng’s hate-campaign includes so many references to us being out for money, it’s a wonder she isn’t shy to demand £240,000 from us, and yesterday, threaten to evict us, when we told her vehicle problems were causing unavoidable delay in leaving our home.
Admitted Malice and Harassment
But the biggest lie of all was contained in the exhibits of their big fat vexatious claim in the middle of the school holidays, to get an Order for Sale on our home.
In service of pretending it had nothing to do with wanting to curtail our freedom of speech, or the fact that we continue to expose their lies, they emphasised just how much we were “the architects of our own misfortune” by including previously confidential details of their behind-the-bike-shed dealings with us in “mediation”, because gosh just look how reasonable Byng and Lewis were there your Honour!
So reasonable that Richard and/or Melanie Byng were even going to write to fake critics, Alicia Hamberg in Sweden and Diana Winters in the US admitting that Prof Byng’s credentials are being used to fuel a criminal smear in order to harass. Wasn’t that nice of them!
Melanie Byng and Andrew Lewis made it very clear that this frank admission could not be used further to remedy the “understandably distressing” harassment of fake judgments perpetrated against grieving strangers by a mental health Professor and his wife, and Andrew Lewis, even though Byng’s disclosure is full of boasts like “there are lots of people who know about this now and they will tell each other. But let me know the minute you see anything because I can probably do something about it”, and “there was a big Guardian open festival last weekend, with lots of journos meeting and discussing and debating. So who knows what got about.“
They also wanted to force us not to be able to speak about their “involvement in any alleged mobbing to date“.
Obvious perjury trolls Judges
But compare that mediation admission with Melanie Byng’s thrice judicially sanctioned expression of “honest belief” in court that she did NOT do that at all, but in fact wanted nothing to do with us, convincing the judge by her demeanour in court and in the face of many admissions in her own email disclosure such as “At the end of this is his clinical judgement, which she seems to have forgotten”,
She’s saying Professor Byng encapsulates grief into judgements of “risk” in strangers, for his own personal gain.
Melanie Byng told the Judge that it would have been “impossible” for Professor Byng to make such a clinical judgement, presumably because that would be obvious and malicious, criminal harassment.
Cultish Oppression
Our point of view in court was that in order to slay our family, Melanie had run back into the arms of the cult she claimed to decry. Now we know better: what a superbly cultish moment for those claiming to be rationalist critics as they silently acquiesce to the use of perjury by Melanie Byng, and Andrew Lewis to force the only family successfully mediating over unchecked bullying in Steiner out of their home and, basically, steal it.
They backed down from their vexatious BS in the end: after all, death threats can’t easily be ignored coming from those privately admitting perpetrating disability hate-crime, to stalk, and spy to prevent free association and even free speech itself, and who are this confident in their ability to pervert the course of justice. Did somebody say malevolent trolls? Oh the lulz…
Far from being the architects of such grotesque harassment, we were advised by the police that not settling for that tortuous “admission”, was sensible and that this information should be in the public domain straight away, and that was even before the CPS published it’s updated guidelines. So here it is.
Meanwhile elsewhere, in other countries, over there, anywhere but here, free speech is under threat apparently.
3SA90091, Amazon News Media, Andy Lewis, Angel Garden, Article 10, BCA, Bryan Cave, CO, contempt of court, CPS, Cults, democracy, Disability hate-crime, Doughty Street Chambers, Dr Andrew Lewis, Freedom of Speech, harassment, humanism, Jonathan Price, Melanie Byng, Professor Richard Byng, Robert Dougans, Simon Singh, Steve Paris
And there’s that bit during the trial where she said that what she wrote, namely, “angel has a borderline personality disorder. This is a clinical judgement, not a personal opinion”, was clumsily expressed (ha! How much clearer can that statement be, I ask you) and even tried to claim she’d written it the other way round! ie that it was a personal opinion not a clinical judgement.
Then later, having told the judge how well versed she is in understanding mental health disorders, she insisted that she can make a clinical judgement all on her own! Which isn’t a personal opinion at all, isn’t it. Oh the Lulz indeed.
and all this is even before you consider Andrew Lewis’ refusal to obey the court Order to disclose his “warning” to the “big hitters” – which he just ignored.
No need to wonder why, clearly too incriminating for him, and those supposed “big hitters” who just lap it up – better to lie cheat and steal, and take refuge in being successful at that rather than bothering to have any personal integrity.
What kind of “big hitter” journo would buy into such facile BS anyway. “Big hitter” sounds like a misnomer sadly., doesn’t take much backbone to gang up on a woman! Shameful state of journalism in U.K.
There is no doubt in my mind that the High Court who heard your case were VERY wrong to hear you case pending the Magyar Heloisnki Bizottsag Case ref 18003-11 and they are now in contemp of the Strasberg Court simply by the fact Article 10 was wilfully abused by your opponents and the Judge.
In my own experience, one organisations are convinced that a particular route (true or not) is likely to limit damage to an organisation they will follow it almost mindlessly. My situation at the tail end of 2011 was complex. Complexity is also used as a way to create a ‘front’ that suggests confusing – therefore undermining any position that seeks to support an argument.
I saw corrupt acts occurring on a regular basis. No so corrupt…but when you are in a community that treats the truth as ‘to be manipulated’, as it was at Bl******L Co***** ICT, you start to question whether you are on the same page as your colleagues. Don’t get me wrong – the majority kept themselves to themselves, but I couldn’t – I had one of the widest remits across a wide variety of customer groups.
What happened?
It all started with an attitude of “No one will never find out”.
Firstly I saw £100k of funding paid into a project account for ERDF ‘diverted’. I never did discover where it went (indeed others have tried)… it just disappeared. I whistle blew, but was ignored by my own Head of Department. It put me in a difficult position.
The Council was looking at reducing roles, but a few months before the Senior Management Team clarified that this would not impact ICT. We were all undergoing interviews and considering our roles, but I unfortunately ended up (after a minor operation as a day case in my vacation time) laid low by a serious post operative infection. My own HOD insisted I should attend a meeting while still under the influence of pain killers and while my doctor had signed me off. I was not well, but it was made clear to me that I was “letting my colleagues down”. I eventually gave in – having received several calls. That was my mistake.
I decided that I would audio record the meeting. My HOD did not like anyone minuting meeting (and he seldom did). The audio recording is a direct 2 plus hour, word by word record of what went on, what was said, and later, what was offered. The meeting was pressurised and abusive. I decided I would break the meeting up eventually and walked out.
Needless to say- the audio recording was deemed ‘inadmissible’ brought about by what I can only describe as a lie made by Bl******l’s Legal Council. The Judge, however, recognised that the Council had “no leg to stand on” as they had not documented the meeting as per their own requirements.
It’s a long story, dragged out over 3 years. I was disgusted by the manner in which the Tribunal was continued.
Interesting, Bl*******l ‘won’; I appealed and ‘lost’. I was unable to bring the audio recording to attention, yet all it was was a recording of what was said.
When I tried to revisit the case of the “missing money”, it was deemed ‘vexatious’.
When I tried to get hold of the tribunal papers to prove there had been errors, I was refused…I fact the documents had been “accidentally destroyed early”
When I tried to get hold of records about the “missing money” from other sources (Lan******** County Council) the records were lost.
Put simply, the ‘system’ seems to allow potentially minor concerns to develop into blatant acts of corrupt behaviour.
It is time that was stopped.
We are living in strange times when a whole supposedly class of caring Brits jump about trying to defend Human Rights – it’s like a cosy bed-time story for them and they are only too willing to suspend disbelief to believe it’s fair NOW but won’t be if…
Corruption happens in other countries, read: we are better than them. No. We’re not. Any evidence to the contrary is immediately blamed on the individual – usually by mental health smears of one sort or another.
Wake up.