Stephanie Hayden takes Graham Linehan to court for doxxing

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

Their statement is here:

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1046792462067519489?s=19

That is correct, Phoolani.

"Essentially, doxing is revealing and publicizing records of an individual, which were previously private or difficult to obtain."

Publicly available records of companies house are neither private nor difficult to obtain.

Stockpiling popcorn now.

My transistors are all-silicone, Charlie. Totally natural!

AKA Women, you must NOT connect the dots, do not connect the dots - look into my eyes, not around my eyes, look into my eyes! Aaand you're under.

Do NOT connect the dots:

Do NOT connect the dots between the fey, docile knitter and the previous extreme porn campaigner.

Do NOT connect the dots between the passionate Green issues Lib Dem campaigner and the previous teenager you may have concerns about potentially being groomed by adult 'trans/furry/babies' when they were vulnerable.

Do NOT connect the dots between a vulnerable trans 'lawyer' and a previous conman.

Do NOT connect the dots between the NUS officer, passionate about telling us all there is no such thing as a 'real woman' and the exhibitionist wanker posting child abuse cartoons for fun.

Do NOT connect the dots.

Stay in your lane.

Keep focused on your wifery, home-making, middle-aged business.

Turf shame be upon you for connecting any dots. Off to the gulag for you.

I looked up "doxxing", and it has nothing to do with the difficulty in obtaining the information. It is an intimidation tactic and one @turfclub was using a lot on Twitter until suspended today.

pom

Is that the gulag with the footner spa and entertaining crafts workshops? (Possibly with dot-to-dot books as one of the activities?)

" You don't want the fact that you shared this "lawyers" dox pointed out do you. "

Are you asking for a link to this thread?

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1045385676366045184.html

Well if you insist.

" You don't want it pointed out you are a troll on Twitter and likely a PBP yourself on here."

You just appear to have confessed to being a PBP yourself. Did you notice that?

Oh and by the way I was banned from Twitter for calling a man a man.
No secret. You can go gaslight on my thread if you like: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3381835-Naming-someones-sex-is-hate-speech-apparently
Run along now.

Just a reminder - "doxxing" is usually used in connection with taking someone with an anonymous internet name and making the connection with their real life identity.

Not, to use a watch-dog style example of the sort the BBC might cover, connecting the present identity of a con artist with their previous identities, identities under which they, just to pick a totally hypothetical crime as an example, fraudulently failed to declare accounts for their businesses, leading to said businesses being struck from the list of companies. That's not the generally accepted meaning of the phrase "doxxing".

Starting to thing that TW are stoodges or a political diversion. It makes no sense that we’re indulging the whims of fantasists like this. We need to get on with the real work.

I think I was doxxed in a way on Facebook.
I suspect by TRA.
About a year ago, the same week I liked fair play for women and this never happens pages.
So that sucks.

I doubt there's a legal definition of what constitutes a dox. But a defamation suit might hinge on whether what glinner tweeted was justified ie true. So it could come down to a fusty old judge's deliberations over internet lingo. I hope it doesn't get that far.
Though if it gets to court there 's an opportunity for supporters with placards saying 'down with this sort of thing'. Bright side.

Oh and by the way I was banned from Twitter for calling a man a man. , Sure you were, there are hundreds of "gender critical" people doing that all over Twitter. They are not suspended but you are, who also coincidentally spread the dox in this case.

You just appear to have confessed to being a PBP yourself. Did you notice that?, your reading comprehension isn't very good is it? Maybe why you resort to doxing on Twitter as you can't debate. I accused you of projection, implying I am a long banned poster when you most likely are, you just did it again. Did you notice that?

Manderlay I don't think the legal case is about doxxing, I think it's about defamation, specifically whether the information about SH which Glinner put up on twitter is a malicious falsehood, or is in fact the truth.

This seems to all consist of evidence to do with claims concerning the fraudulent (or not) setting up of companies, evidence which even the crustiest of judges would be well-placed to assess, and which should be readily verifiable by checking through the records of companies house.

Here, have some of my popcorn while we wait. (Team Glinner FTW!)

@TerfClub, Thanks! Why didn't you link that before, it shows the "doxxing" in question and it is ... Linking the company number of Linehans wife's business! We need a LOL emoji as that is incredible.

I guess you were rightly embarrassed for Linehan calling that "doxxing", when you know exactly what doxxing is.

@FermatsTheorem - thing is in UK law Linehan has the burden of proof to demonstrate all of "@Turfclubs" claims are true. That will be fun, I'm sure an internet troll suspended by Twitter multiple times made no mistakes in that thread he RT'd without checking

Unfortunately one can self-ID as a lawyer in the UK. It is not a protected term. Holding out as a solicitor however, is a criminal offence.

Yes, but if (and of course it is if, we must all of us wait to see how the case pans out in court) even some of the claims are untrue, if others are found to be true, then SH may find winning a libel case is a bit of a Pyrrhic victory. Kind of Streisand effect thing.

That sounds like quite a job for 'Stephanie', showing that a retweet constitutes libel, especially when the tweets are in a long chain and can be added to or deleted from after the act of retweeting.

It's almost as if 'Stephanie' is talking shite. Not unlike a certain poster in this thread.

I'm sure they wouldn't be related at all.

Formats. Yes it seems to be defamation and harassment too from the screen shot. I thought gl's saying that sh had doxed Mrs glinner would be one of the claimed falsehoods. You're right it's more likely to be the implication of dishonesty that sh claims is defamatory. But we don't know so it's popcorn for now ...

I hope he isn't about to find out how terrible our libel laws are.

I really liked your twitter feed TurfClub, although I'd not long found it. You seem to be under attack here, so I'll just stand next to you until it stops.

@eurochick, I checked her timeline and she has a letter of undertaking from another twitter user who abused her. That person signed the legal docs and accepted they were abusive and they'd not mention her again. So that is one win for the "fake" lawyer, one more reason for the comedy writer to be worried.

I by the way am a Father Ted fan, so while I am being devils advocate here it isn't good to see Linehan fall so far. For me it is symptomatic of this forum, full of people who throw out their common sense for an obsession with trans people. Looks like it could cost Graham his pride at the least, most likely she'll make him donate a few grand to a trans charity and apologise.

Apropos of nothing, here's some fat bloke harassing a woman in her home and uploading it to his Youtube channel.

It's a good thing nobody in this thread behaves like that towards woman, because that fat bloke seems quite the misogynist bully.

I think we're all on Turf's side, Smelly, barring one obvious exception.

@TerfClub, lol, Linehan must be so happy to see you so ignorant of the law. That sounds like quite a job for 'Stephanie', showing that a retweet constitutes libel ... Go look up McAlpine and libel, that precedent was set a long time ago.

What was the BirdsEye response?