Hayden and their latest case

[Amalfimamma]

So this is the latest message to intimidate after their idea to compile a list of gc women

What the hell? Why on earth hasn't Mumsnet contested this application?

TBF, they might have done. They might be taking further advice now.

It would be nice to know @MNHQ

TBF, they might have done.

The judgement says that the defendent didn't oppose the application. So they didn't.

The judgement says that the defendent didn't oppose the application. So they didn't.

Oh, is there a second screenshot? Or has everyone headed over to twitter for the full details?

Does anyone actually give their real details here 🤔

The judgement says that the defendent didn't oppose the application. So they didn't.

Does that mean they were in court and didn't defend it? Or does it mean MN didn't turn up in court? Or even have a solicitor turn up in court for them?

Don't worry I can see it now.

I think this is about scaring Mumsnet users.

Looking at the three posts made by the user it's hard to see what actionable content there is.

This is clearly another one of those "SH gets 'hurty feelings', SH throws out a lawsuit" situations. It's just vexatious and pathetic tbh.

Just goes to show that these TRAs (and I use that in the loosest sense with SH) would rather silence women than put their efforts into actually improving the quality of life / services for the *trans community.

Also SH's gloating on Twitter is positively nauseating as well as incredibly childish.

Kiwifarms is a great resource. Very heartening to see a savage-tongued fightback against a very unpleasant character.

I wonder if that was the user that first released the appeal court papers which gave details of SH previous convictions? I think I remember SH mentioning that when they were getting irate on the first Caro support thread.

That user was the first to reveal them and I think it certainly was in the public interest that they did! This whole thing must be very important legally? Do you have the right to completely remove your past identity? Including links to spent convictions?

Mumsnet deleted the comment.... eventually

I'm guessing the appeal document was available publicly so I don't see how it breaks the law. Guess we need a barrister or solicitor to tell us. Definitely not a "self identified lawyer"

I see AH has surfaced again too. God.....

MAYBE, @MNHQ 's first step on receiving the court papers was to check their records for that user? And maybe they didn't find much and so it was moot IYSWIM?

I think this is about scaring Mumsnet users

Of course it is.

Great advice on this thread for anyone concerned.

As with others, I suspect that MNHQ won't have the data requested anyway.

Apart from a throwaway email address.

Which is why the target of the court application isn't really MN, and isn't a possibly occasional poster who no longer posts, but is us, us posters who do post. The message is "I was able to successfully target X", next time you might be next.

We can't expect MN to fight all such applications, unless it becomes apparent that it's an abuse of process. We certainly can't expect MN to refuse to comply with court orders.

Do you have the right to completely remove your past identity? Including links to spent convictions?

No you don’t, which is why they are only going after individual women who might get scared or that might scare others, purely for the kick SH gets out of intimidating others, and not after all the other sites which publish much much more info than has ever been written here.

In their shoes, I certainly wouldn't waste money to avoid revealing a burner email address at the name "Jane Doe", for example.

It's also MN's protocol to contact any MNer subject to these kind of proceedings or threat of proceedings, (I know this, because they've asked me in the past when I've been named in a legal threat letter). So maybe the MNer in question was minded to let SH do their worst too.

AH still making the golf jokes I see.

One would have thought that if this was really about the "right to be forgotten" (rather than an attempt to intimidate), it might be wise to reach for another sport.

nauticant

Yup. So for anyone worried about this and any info held my MN, if you’ve given name or an email that can be linked to you and you have a problem with that, then do as advised earlier. Never give a forum like this your real name, not because we are all commiting crimes here, but obviously particularly elsewhere on MN, we might share private details about our lives, children etc and we want to keep that private. SH is pretty low to target women and mothers trying to discuss their lives and get support anonymously. If it was about their own private details, they’d target Kiwifarms and not also give out these details to media. It’s a tactic to stop us discussing their criminal past.

It's all about power and intimidation.

I headed over to kiwi farms. 😂

‘Legal consequences’ 🤦🏽‍♀️ Nothing has actually happened other than MN has to give them some fake name and random email. No court decision yet and this person thinks they’ve won somehow. Jfc.

Nothing like bringing attention to yourself, eh? I wonder who didn't know about SH's past that now does thanks to this?

littlbrowndog KF thread is a hoot, isn’t it? . Very refreshing to see a site where SH isn’t tiptoed around.

See Item 4 [c] on this page of the GRA 2004:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/22

If Hayden does not have a GRC or did not have one at the time about which complaint is made no offence has been committed.