I never argued any of that. What I said was this ruling exposes once again how deluded and unreliable and useless Mr Molly / Mr Sparkles is.
Sparkles lies a LOT about a LOT of things. He is a man with a long history of being vile on the internet. Sarah's case will rely on exposing him as being completely unreliable and thus the Fox Botherer being defamatory for believing the lies he tells. Remember the Bar Standards Board has already accepts the Mr Molly's abusive and deceitful nature was key in clearing Sarah from complaint against her. As Sarah explains:
"On 27 March 2026 the BSB rejected the Good Law Project complaint against me, on the basis that my publications either cumulatively or singly did not cross the threshold into harassment and I was protected by Article 10 ECHR. Interestingly, the BSB set out numerous examples of Weddell's abusive and threatening behaviour to women as relevant to his credibility. Predictably when the GLP published the BSB letter on its website, they redacted all of this on the basis that it was necessary to keep Weddell 'safe'.
The GLP announced their intention to review this decision, and finally did so on 9 May 2026, instructing their KC to produce something that in my view was pretty sparse and making it very clear that they considered the BSB should apply the much lower Equality Act test of 'harassment' rather than the test in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In other words, the GLP are arguing that regulated professionals should not have any freedom of speech to discuss contentious political matters. The implications of this are obviously serious and I hope the BSB reject this review request.
However, the robust defence of my article 10 rights from the BSB and its recognition of Weddell's own poor behaviour, I hope is going to be useful support for my libel action. It also became clear in correspondence that Maugham did not have any evidence about Weddell's alleged suicide attempt until January 2026, i.e. five months AFTER he asserted this was my fault. I look forward to seeing what this 'evidence' actually entails.
And in other good news, I am delighted and very grateful to Roddy Dunlop KC for his offer to represent me on a No Win No Fee basis which will certainly make your money go further."
This is who is going be representing Sarah because he thinks her case is sound. I think Sarah's chances are good, she could lose of course.
Roddy Dunlop KC
Roddy is "generally held to be the most accomplished advocate in Scotland", and "is noted for the breadth of his practice, as well as his assertive and persuasive advocacy before the Bench".
Professional experience
Dean of Faculty Roddy Dunlop KC has a wide and varied practice. He is the only Scottish silk to be ranked in seven separate practice areas by Chambers UK, who place him as a “Star Individual” for commercial dispute resolution, and a Band 1 Silk in the areas of professional discipline, professional negligence, media law, product liability, clinical negligence and administrative and public law.
Zoonosis you might that that Mr Molly is a great representative of the "trans" community. The fact is he isn't 20 years go most "trans" people would not give him the time of day. He is a man with documented fetishes who clearly despises women and likes threatening them. It is men like him who are key in helping women getting their rights back. If you won't do safeguarding we are going to do it for you.
If Sarah wins in court it will be another nail in the coffin of the Trans movement. You can blame "nasty" women as much as you like, but it was you guys who decided to abandon any gatekeeping. You let any random bloke who likes wearing dresses call himself trans, no matter how awful he behaves, and now you are losing everything.
Male arrogance all over.
You underestimated women you thought they would put up with the worst men in the world in women's spaces. Big mistake!
Just because normal bl