Hayden v The Spectator

[MrsSnippyPants]

Decision: No breach - after investigation

Apologies if already posted, I hadn't seen it here and wondered if I had missed it

www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=00857-20

Don't be ridiculous. The time for cringing is in the past.

👏

I'd think some people would settle just to make the problem go away, the miscalculation here seems to have been that a newspaper would. If they're not backing down over the Prince Harry/Meghan Markle lawsuits then they're not going to back down to Hayden, who has a lot less resources to throw at them, either, but imagine you were an individual person, probably female, being threatened with a judgement against you.

Anyone know what biological details the claimant can't claim I misgendered that wanted including? I'm assuming not their criminal record.

Don't be ridiculous. The time for cringing is in the past.

But MNHQ still won't allow you to misgender a litigious transgender person.

Dammit, I should have said "correctly sex" not misgender. So easy to make mistakes.

she said it was misleading to omit certain biographical details of the woman.

Hayden said it was misleading too it biographical details of the woman who was convicted.

Those details were deemed irrelevant in court. They were details about the woman, not Hayden.

Too it, was meant to be to omit

Ha ha. Bad luck Hayden, you lost. You’re literally a loser 👋.

I predict this tedious person will carry on doing this though, even though they do have a history of losing.

Ms Hayden, if you're reading this:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

@Binterested

"Who funds all this?"

I costs nothing to raise a complaint about the Press. The private High Court prosecutions against (is it?) eight individual persons are funded entirely by us -- the taxpayers.

It was established by some of the most recent defendents that Miss Hayden has been granted court fee exemption to the tune of £40,000 in the past two years by claiming 110% "help with fees" which was granted as Miss Hayden is in receipt of state sickness benefits (ESA) because she is unable to work long term.

If it were not for this, Miss Hayden would have had to pay court fees, and so almost certainly would never have taken out any of the private prosecutions, as she would lose her fees if she lost.

The defendants, however, have been forced to run up bills for legal fees to defend the case against them. Some of them have had to crowd-fund for this, so again the taxpayer is paying (indirectly and this time by choice).

• sorry, 100% was a typo for 100%.

As far as I know there are no fees required to complain to IPSO and simply for deciding on a complaint being handled there is no award of costs. Since Hayden would be up to the task of preparing, filing, and arguing the complaint there's no reason it should cost anything beyond their time.

Good grief. No wonder Hayden can’t work. Vexatious litigiousness is rarely one of the requirements in a job spec.

Can you imagine the "so what have you been doing to keep yourself busy since your last job" part of the interview?

How the hell does the flat footed litigious one manage to get Stephself in the ESA support group? Is it true? Surely not?

Seems to be able to put a lot of time and effort into dragging people through the courts etc. It's like a full time vocation, so intense is Stephself's calling.

Asking for a friend, down at the dole office.

Can you imagine the "so what have you been doing to keep yourself busy since your last job" part of the interview?

Vexatious lawsuits and sock puppet role play on a Farm. 😂

Also they are a keen golfer I believe

For context (despite the police and courts not caring for such) the complainant was intent on highlighting my only previous conviction of theft by employee in 1996, when I was 15...

I'm 40 this year and the courts felt it was of no consequence in my trial, despite CPS and complaint best efforts

The Spectator found no issue with printing the facts, which is refreshing

Also, I hold no shame over nicking £50 from Sainsburys as an employee so that I could buy some make up, cigarettes and Booze

Weirdly, never repeated that behaviour... Unlike some 😁

sock puppet role play on a Farm

Oh no, they didn’t? That is a fool’s errand, if ever I saw one.