Hayden and their latest case

[Amalfimamma]

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

Gay star news https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trans-activist-mumsnet-high-court-order/amp/?twitterr_impression=true

Link from SH Twitter describes the user as having "verbally abused" SH on Mumsnet.

How dat then?

I still don’t know what they said. I’ve seen some horrible stuff on here but no one runs crying to a judge about it.

If verbally harassing people on Mumsnet is illegal, then what is AIBU even for ? 🤣

I do think that someone that dedicates their life to always seeing the negative and then trying to sue everyone must be quite a miserable and unfulfilled person. It's quite sad really. There's so much more to life than what this person chooses to see.

If verbally harassing people on Mumsnet is illegal, then what is AIBU even for ?

Indeed! Surely one of the founding principles of AIBU is that one should have the right to call another an 'atrocious cunt'?

Years ago someone threatened to thump me (it was quite funny really - they took umbridge because I was cackling about the price of prom dresses - in general not in particular to the thump-we). Other posters told them to get lost. They thought they were well ‘ard because they lived in Northern Ireland or summit. I’m from Glasgow. No contest.

I didn’t go crying to the law or even the moderators.

Omg felkko. She didn’t know what a weegie could do

She would have got her arse kicked

Is there reference to this alleged thing, anywhere?

If there were an alleged thing then I have heard there are various websites where things get archived. I have heard KiwiFarms mentioned a few times on here? Obviously I would not recommend visiting that site as it is full of genuine homophobes and transphobes and the tone of the discourse is beyond unpleasant.

Nobody has ever called me an atrocious cunt*. What am I doing wrong?

Someone did accuse me of molesting children once, which was a bit out of leftfield.

• on here

I didn't know there was another thing. Other than the golf thing, the sexual assault thing and the dishonesty thing. There were some other things mentioned in passing, but they seemed to be less serious than those things.

The things that that poster at the centre of this thing, wrote about, didn't seem to imply there were some other things. And I read the three posts. If they contained another thing that SH is desperate to remain secret, I didn't see it

The place to do with the Antipodean fruity things doesn't mention it, either.

Where is the assumption of a worse thing coming from?

Yes I don't know where this idea has come from either.

I thought the alleged thing was the alleged sexual assault?

Datun I only knew about the golf assault thing and the dishonest thing. Is the other thing well documented?

Ah. Ok. Well, How is that defamation, in that case? It's a matter of public record.

The same as the other two, Lizzie. I read about all of them at the same time.

Gosh, I must have missed that.

Steph is level headed and rational after being able to sleep on it.

It's only defamation to spread around someone's spent convictions if it's done out of malice. So if you are a shopkeeper, and you find the rival shopkeeper down the road has a spent conviction for being drunk and disorderly 25 years ago, and then start a whispering campaign to persuade shoppers to shop at your shop not his because he has a CRIMINAL RECORD then that is probably defamation.

If however you find that someone who is holding themselves out as a member of an occupation ordinarily associated with high levels of integrity, and using that status to deflect criticism and / or seek approval, then any spent conviction for violence or especially dishonesty could well be relevant and therefore not malicious.

Yep SH sounds like exactly the sort of person to be supplied with womens' confidential details, especially if they have a grudge against them for revealing their previous violent convictions. No problem there at all.

It's almost like the exact opposite of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme/Clare's Law.

I do think the judge should face a lot of criticism here.

The thing is - if you really argue about something ‘being said that shouldn’t have been said’ then people will go from ‘oh then must’ve passed out details on a job application or something’ to ‘they have WMD under their bed!’.

The rumour mill will go into overdrive and people can never quite remember the whole facts (the facts and nothing but the facts) so some of the weirder ones will stick.

Think a certain male actor and rumours of rodent abuse.

Hayden went ofter Glinner for revealing information about name changing and the formation of companies. And now a person on mumsnet for convictions in court not related to that, as I understand it.

And yes, of course, someone passing them self off as a lawyer with all the attendant professionalism, should not be surprised when people investigate past dealings or convictions.

And, someone advocating for men in female spaces it's going to be held to account for any dishonesty, or violence, or sexual assault. Dur.

Think a certain male actor and rumours of rodent abuse.

I don't remember ever actually reading about the original source. But nonetheless...

Are we talking Freddie Starr and Hamsters?

Hmm..probably not. ignore.