Why we won’t stoop to doxxing, harassment, & trolling

In late August 2017, as we read through and wrote up the notes from our Faithful Correspondent at Rupert Quaintance’s trial, one thing in particular gave us cause to reflect on this blog’s role in putting an end to the Hampstead SRA hoax.

It became clear quite early on that Rupert’s main defence strategy would revolve around a single idea: that he was aiming his threats of violence not at the parents of children who’d attended Christ Church Primary School, but rather at the trolls and harassers who were terrorising him and making his life a living hell. (Okay, that was paraphrased somewhat, but you get the idea.)

As it turned out, this strategy didn’t work: the jury did not buy Rupert’s excuse, and he ended up receiving a nine-month prison sentence.

But during the trial, for a while at least, it looked as though Rupert’s argument might have gained some traction. The fact that the jury took two days to deliver its verdict, and that they were unable to come to a unanimous decision, tells us that at least some of Rupert’s barrister’s arguments rang true, for at least some of the jurors.

This concerns us.

2016 CPS Criminal Guidelines

In October last year, the Crown Prosecution Service revamped its guidelines for prosecuting cases involving online harassment.

According to Liat Clark’s article in Wired.com,

Derogatory hashtags, the publishing of personal information – also known as “doxxing” – and inciting others to join a full-on harassment campaign are all offences listed in the document, published today. The latter, referred to by the CPS as “virtual mobbing”, can be prosecuted under the Serious Crime Act 2007.

While this is good news for the parents, teachers, social workers, police officers, clergy, and others who’ve been targetted for nearly three years by the Hoaxtead mob, it can also represent a double-edged sword. In a case like Rupert’s, a person accused of harassment could potentially play the “I was harassed too!” card, and quite literally get out of jail free.

In Rupert’s case, we were interested to note that despite his claims to have been “petrified” and in fear of his life, he did not actually produce any evidence of the alleged harassment he’d received. While we’re no legal experts, it would seem to us that if a person were going to use this as an effective defence, they ought to at least enter a few examples of said harassment into evidence, and this did not happen.

However, we spent some tense moments, trying to recall whether anyone on this blog had ever said anything to Rupert that might qualify as bullying, harassment, or cyber-stalking.

The problem, as we see it, is that it can be very difficult to walk the fine line between self-defence—letting a person know what the consequences of their actions could be, for example, or simply telling them to stop their offensive behaviour—and taking on the role of aggressor.

‘No death threats’ no longer enough

Since we started Hoaxtead Research in May 2015, we’ve had one cardinal rule: we do not make, nor do we condone, death threats.

From time to time, new readers who aren’t aware of this policy have left comments which edge too close to the line, and we’ve either corrected them or removed the comments altogether. We’re proud of this, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that while “no death threats” is a necessary ingredient, it is no longer anywhere near sufficient. To remain a powerful force for good on the internet, it’s increasingly important that we ensure that our behaviour is beyond reproach.

Funnily enough, we wrote about this issue in September 2016, following the spate of arrests that had just taken place:

Just as we don’t want to prejudice anyone’s right to a fair trial, nor do we want anything we say here to be taken by anyone—including any accused persons—as goading, gloating, or offering “implied consent” to engage in mutual slagging.

In other words, we don’t want to create a situation in which the accused could potentially use the defence argument that people from this blog are engaging in or initiating conversations about the case, and that any harassment they might have committed was only proportionate and in response to what they received.

(It’s almost as though we anticipated Rupert’s defence, no?)

As we said last year, we don’t want to do anything that could impede the free exchange of ideas amongst our readers. Our Comments section is arguably the most important part of this blog, and we love that our readers feel free to share ideas, insights, information, and humour with one another. We hope that never changes.

One of our great strengths is our ability to critique the actions of those in the Hoaxtead mob, and to offer critical thinking in place of the sheep-like beliefs of the conspiraloons.

We know we have no control over how our readers behave when they’re outside the bounds of this blog, and we cannot presume to tell anyone what to do. We hope, though, that those who use this blog as a discussion forum will carry that basic civility with them when they encounter Hoaxtead mobsters elsewhere on the internet.

As we know, there are charges currently pending for other Hoaxtead mobsters (including Sabine McNeill and Jake Clarke), and we want to be certain that we don’t give anyone on the other side even the slightest excuse to say, “Oh, I wasn’t aiming my harassment at the parents; it was directed toward the trolls!

As disingenuous an argument as that might be, we want to ensure that we are squeaky clean. We want nothing we say or do to leave even the slightest room for doubt in the minds of those who make up the next jury.

After all, we’ve come too far to drop the ball now.

This article was originally posted on 7 September 2017.

52 thoughts on “Why we won’t stoop to doxxing, harassment, & trolling

  1. Thing is Rupert wasn’t stood outside the hoaxtead research wing of gchq, he was outside a school. Of course the trial saw through his flimsy excuse for a defense.
    Death threats aren’t cool, especially when the Muppet making them with no capacity to carry them out finds out they’re still in legal trouble.
    Most of the idiots pushing the satanic babyeating cult narrative are jobless clowns with zero social lives, no real friends and acute bitterness towards authority, be it social services, the police, the courts, politicians and overpaid TV presenters. They seem to be fueled by hatred and a desire to threaten and abuse anyone who questions their wackadoodle world view and belief in McDonalds serving freshly killed babies in hidden rooms, of churches given to child sacrifice, plastic willy wielding tattooed schoolteachers and shoes made of babyskin. They just project their own miserable failings and self loathing onto anyone they offend and insist they’re fighting high level MI6 Satanists.
    They’re just twisted thugs out to bully people.
    Second only to death threats is the rejoicing of people’s passing. Just compare the pyramid scheme magic energy machines carrion cackling against the subdued acceptance of the passing of Dr Coleman founder of the naughty list so beloved of the crackpots. Not a single reference to her having a house fall on her, no ‘ding dong’ munchkin songs, nothing.
    Definitely the way to go on here is to maintain the decorum and grace befitting adults engaged in serious research and reportage.

    My own channel however will be laden with jejune satire, sarcasm and all manner of shenanigans.

    Enjoying my holiday from broadband and it’ll make my return even sweeter. Hoaxgirl, mild cat, belinda and Deborah madmoo are on my agenda for a right old remixing and mockerizing.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Wow Grobnob, you’ve put in words exacty what I think about The Mob (c).
      You aren’t me are you?
      I’d add that with the advent of the Internet, it’s given a way for all these nutters to link up and form a sort of social community where they think they’ve found like minded people (for once in their life) and they seem to believe their internet interactions are some form of friendship of like-minded peeps. Reality is, as we see, they invariable end up fighting fiercely as their beliefs are mainly delusional which is bound to end in tears.

      I’d give an example, without mentioning a single person although the name Angela Power-Disney comes to mind, of how these newly formed relationships soon fall apart for a variety of reasons. What I find fascinating (in a ghastly way) is that: were there always this many people in society who readily adopted these fanatasies or is it the internet that’s awoken something in their heads?. I suppose it was hard to create a mas sof nutcase believers when you only had penpals.

      # a great example of this mass delusional latching onto wackiness is the success of David Icke who presents nothing new ( OK The Moon being hollow and some sort of base for Nazis maybe original) as all his claims have bene around since the beginning of the last century and he has jost rolled them all up into a saleable circus act with a BBC trained presentation skill and claimed them as his own (why I call him the greatest plaigarist).

      Liked by 3 people

      • As a crowdfunder of the Iron Sky films, I’d have to object to the idea that his Nazis on the Moon idea was original. However, I have to thank Mr Icke for his ceaseless promotional work of the franchise. I’m aware that he thinks they are documentaries whereas they are only terrifically fun low budget B movie SCI FI.
        The third film is being funded by the Chinese and will reveal all about the Illuminati. Sadly, as this installment won’t be crowdfunded, the usual perk to appear in the film will not be on offer, so my proposed whip round for EC to appear as “MI5/GCHQ” operative will not be possible.
        Fun fact: The Earth fleet in the first Iron Sky has a Tardis in it, but surprisingly no QEG devices.

        Liked by 2 people

        • A working QEG device would stretch credibility beyond breaking point. Moon Nazis are much more plausible than completely breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

          Liked by 2 people

  2. ‘We know we have no control over how our readers behave when they’re outside the bounds of this blog, and we cannot presume to tell anyone what to do. We hope, though, that those who use this blog as a discussion forum will carry that basic civility with them when they encounter Hoaxtead mobsters elsewhere on the internet.’

    Well said.

    I know that some people go hell for leather on You Tube (described by Rupert as ‘the wild west’) and elsewhere when it comes to comments but I don’t go in for it myself. I see no point in bothering the troofer cult members and they’re boring to me now anyway. I can’t tell anyone else what to do though. I have to say I’ve rarely seen anyone outside of this blog making threats, other than the threat of the police and/or court. If people have done worse than that then I couldn’t support it at all.

    I prefer to err on the side of caution as my hope is that those who harass individuals are at least visited by the police and hopefully appear in Court to answer for what they’ve done. I don’t want to give them a defence of any kind. If I engage in a bit of ridicule at times – well that’s not illegal yet.

    Despite all that I’d like to say this to those troofers who feel like they’ve been mangled online in relation to Hampstead. You brought it on yourselves. This came about because you didn’t just discuss the Hampstead case. You named the names of innocent people and/or you broke the law by identifying other people’s children who’d been involved in a case like this.* If you do that then I suppose you have to expect people to fight back. When Rupert was in Court and complained about trolls the Judge said ‘If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen’. That’s the bottom line really.

    You all say ‘wake up’. How about ‘grow up’ for a change.

    *Victims of a sexual offence or those who make a complaint (even if nothing comes of it) have automatic anonymity for the rest of their lives under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. With reference to the post of Neelus’ latest attempts to harass the poor buggers who are forced to take her calls. I know I have been taken to task before for reveling in her discomfort with her current self inflicted situation but, I just cannot help it! Her attempts to intimidate those who have to take her calls are hilarious. “Are you aware you have a personal liability for 50 million pounds “or some such tosh must terrify the recipients ( not ). All the possible recipients of such calls must by now have received guidance on what to say. I imagine they have been told something along the lines of what not to say as well, such as:

    Go f%$k yourself.
    Piss off you raving looney.
    Have you taken your medication today?
    The good Lord moves in mysterious ways Mrs Berry.
    Just pay the money you owe you stupid bint.

    I reckon some of them must be sorely tempted but kudos to them for not doing so.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Every call centre gets a few known knobheabs. Usually they adopt a hang up policy on people well established as timewasting loons. Neelu’s just a bum really. A deadbeat who doesn’t meet her financial requirements and gets upset when cars and houses she’s neglected to pay for are taken back. She’s a spoilt petulant brat with a grossly overinflated sense of entitlement and self importantance. She’s an ex pharmacist who suffered a nervous breakdown when her sister’s baby, who was born with a terminal condition, sadly died and she cracked under pressure and has refused to accept reality since. Now her whole life revolves around her being a hugely important witness/whistleblower and the government is falsely prosecuting her for benefit frauds and mortgage arrears. She still needs to hit bottom before she can get the help she really needs. It’s high time she had some clinic time, supervised medication and a few therapy sessions to address her warped delusions and debt issues. The poor woman can’t have much of a life left to her paranoid fantasies and being bandied around the internet as a laughing stock.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dear GtT. Very eruditely put matey. She has serious issues and refuses to acknowledge them and she actually does have my sympathy but she is still a source of great amusement to me at least. Mind you, so is APD but she’s just a nasty person in every sense and always has been.

        Liked by 3 people

      • I wondered whether her car accident (seems she & her sister had seperate ones) with a ‘neck’ injury sent her on a downward spiral but with Neelu claiming they are owed $$Gazillions for them it’s looking far more like the old “whiplash” sceanrio.
        I still maintain we’ll find out she has other properties. Her move from the Ilford house seems to have been quite smooth with her being able to go back and forth and harangue the odd security guard looks a tad suspicious. Did she have an alternative house all set up to go?

        Liked by 3 people

        • I have no doubt that Berry has milked the ‘whiplash’ claim for every available benefit. She has no problems gadding around the UK when it suits her purpose.

          Liked by 3 people

    • FS, did you hear her latest video (see yesterday’s comments section)? Three receptionists in a row effectively told her to get lost and put the phone down on her 😀

      Liked by 4 people

      • That’s what I was referring to ABBC. I thought those three reacted wonderfully. Calm. cool and collected. I can’t wait for the next installment of “The Trials And Tribulations Of Neelu “. I would love to be the one answering the phone. Imagine the wind up she would get.
        “Yes Mrs Berry, it has all been a terrible mistake. Just go around to your house and tell the man I said it is OK to let you in and we will be sending your 50 million around by armored truck this afternoon and Her Majesty will be around about 5 for a cup of tea with you and Ted to discuss her abdication. Is that OK for you? “

        Liked by 3 people

        • That property has increased enormously in value over the time she has had it. If she had played by the rules she could have sold it and bought somewhere quite palatial outside of the South East.

          Liked by 1 person

      • If Neelu appeared on my door step with a sledge hammer demanding access to my loft I don’t think I would let her in.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I for one would never be rude about that nice Mr. Quaintance. I’ve always admired his reassuring appearance and his ability to walk with his knuckles placed several feet above the ground.

    Liked by 4 people

    • She needn’t fret. I reckon Malcolm’s up for it, even if he does feel the need to dress up as his mum in order to flirt with her.

      Liked by 1 person

    • That is not even remotely true. Several of my gay friends have slept with straight people including, rather spectacularly, one of my straight friends. The only difference is that after that my straight friend is now bi!

      Is Cat taking rejection of her advances badly? 🤣

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Speaking of doxing the mainstream media has picked up on Sarah Ruth Ashcraft & the Tom Hanks claim. I have a very sneaky feeling that our “Sarah Ruth Ashcraft” is a phony and looking at her profile pic on Twitter confirms it. It’s not a snap you would generally choose rather it looks like one that she/he has nicked from elswhere.

    What is QAnon? Explaining the bizarre rightwing conspiracy theory
    The sprawling internet theory, beloved by Trump supporters, has ensnared everyone from Tom Hanks to Hillary Clinton

    Liked by 4 people

    • Others more experienced than me need to investigate “Sarah Ruth Ashcraft” (I have to spend all my time making sure Puss doesn’t spill her bloody vodka on the keyboard).

      I see several writers from the Daily Beast, Buzz Tech etc are onto QAnon ( from whence “Sarah” emanated) which possibly are dozens of Russian bots. Something has happened in the last 4/5 years where 4 Chan etc have been taken over by “trolls” doxers etc who are dominating and definetly Trump supporters. But are they American?. I reckon they are all part of that Russian building in Moscow now dedicated to invading all sorts of social media for poltical reasons. “Sarah” arrived in 2016 conveniently around US election time. The photo below is very suspect. Why hold up a US newspaper if not to create the impression she is American?. Has someone else already got suspicious?. I have a pal who is also a railway nut and says initialy he thinks the snap on her Facebook profile isn’t a US railway track as they are generally narrower than European tracks (but don’t quote me he said which I have). Her pics are few & rather nebulous in location without identifying anything US. Is our “Sarah” a Russian lady?.


      Liked by 1 person

    • I think APD has just ruled herself out of being an MKULTRA target there with the “bright kids from all backgrounds.” No evidence whatsoever to show she is or has ever been bright.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Hold your nose, folks. Angie’s let another one off.

    I’m only a few minutes in and she’s already falsely claimed to have ADHD (again), called us “cyber-terrorists and a “government-controlled website,” re-told her lies about us trolling her daughter and disabled people and stated that our “end goal is to get people to kill themselves”. Enjoy…



    • @Angela

      I can think of quite a few people you’ve made feel suicidal, now you mention it. Still, if threats, slander and malicious hate campaigns provide you with a nice little sympathy card to play on GoFundMe, who am I to argue?

      How’s that working out for you, by the way…?

      Liked by 1 person

        • She claimed you disappeared off the scene for ten years, think it was to justify Shill Baloney’s unexplained absence.

          I notice APD said “discernment” or referred to the word once every few seconds and again mentioned not wanting donations of money (as that is not what she is about these days), rather she’d prefer donations of practical help….which basically means coveting her daughter’s possessions and crying till she gets them.

          It occurred to me today that if Shill Baloney is a plant whose requisite is to throw the cat among the pigeons, that the reality is that he’s acting a part….could it be his persona is modeled on Gerard Mannix Flynn?

          APD is so transparent in her efforts to attract Brian Harvey’s attention and to be likeable to him..I wonder if he feels flattered.

          Liked by 2 people

          • From what I’ve seen all Brian Harvey would do is repeat the same story over again. I believe him when he says he was hacked….a lot of people were and it’s well documented. I’m struggling to see what new info he’s actually bringing which hasn’t been presented to the public already. He seems to think he’s exposing the phone hacking and police involvement…..been done mate. I do have sympathy with him though because what happened to him was awful.
            He seems to think it was all about him and it wasn’t and his dot joining is a bit dubious.
            Give him credit though – he’s got the angle on Bill Baloney and isn’t being quiet about it.
            If you read this Brian – you doing an interview for Angie is a bit like Jon Wedger hanging out with Bill Baloney. You lose all credibility.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I’m going to have to look that Gerard bloke up…… I was watching Bills speech at the 2010 rally again, today and his interview with ITV where he claimed they were begun that day….. the amount of times he mentioned Hollie G as well as accusing the Queen Mother were even more horrific, than at the time given what has unfolded since……. And that is what Jon Wedger says inspired him to help Bill…… ????
            As for Angie yeah, she’s just still trying to goad and provoke me, mock, sneer and belittle, whilst giving a pass to liars and frauds…… So what if I stopped campaigning for a time…… as it goes I put my heart and soul into beginning the rallies ’93, it burnt me out and after the ’94 one I needed to stop, so what….. they carried on, regardless, because it really wasn’t and couldn’t be all dependent on me or any other one person to keep them going. There’s a lot i could say and probably will, when I’m good and ready…… I doubt that Brian is in the least bit flattered and am sure that he’ll see right through her shite, if he hasn’t already.

            Liked by 2 people

          • What gets me is she rants about Sheva disappearing for however many years (which, by the way, she didn’t), when she only jumped on the child abuse bandwagon herself three years ago. I guess she was too busy beating the crap out or her own kids to bother before that.

            Liked by 2 people

          • @ TOT, that first video – the beginning of it – is so pertinent to an earlier discussion on one of That’s a fact Jack’s videos. Actually all of it, both videos, as the second is a continuation of the first. Very telling.

            Angie needs some intensive counselling of the sort which asks the necessary questions….like “Why did you set your daughter up?” and “Why did you engineer a situation with your father wherein you called upon your emotionally ill-equipped children to fight your battle?”

            She is the ultimate architect of her own demise. I can relate to dysfunctional family dynamics negatively affecting one personally but I can’t relate to her deliberately using such as a means for causing drama which distresses your children and grandchildren like that.

            Her motivation in doing so? Jealousy of her parents good relationship with her children….

            I looked at her daughter’s fb page recently, there was a photo of her with another woman posing for the camera and APD asked “Who is that woman swamping you?” I immediately thought APD was being very territorial.


  7. For Angela:

    Complete lies about your daughter’s fake profile & your sister’s. 

    What kind of mind have you got to make up those things?

    Your main focus is to get money.

    You discredited yourself no problem.

    Parents association never had €20,000 on it’s books!

    People get paranoid from misuse of drugs. Just leaving that there.

    You mean you don’t want anyone telling the truth about you.

    Nobody targets your children.

    Hmmmm Oldcastle people hate you, I wouldn’t say that, everyone just thinks your crazy, wacko, a liar & a nasty vindictive person, who when you can’t get your own way, you throw your toys out of the pram, like when the house & land were being sold & you created a racket about that.

    Jimmy Saville was not a Satanist, he was an out & out dirty paedophile who you were so happy to be associated with one minute, even though he allegedly touched your sister up, next minute you are changing your story.

    You are not the only person that joined Jimmy Saville on walks for charity, but some people don’t crow about it on the internet & never did before he was found out.

    You are the most unChristian person ever. How dare you quote Scripture when you are such a nasty person. 

    If you are ‘born again’, you wouldn’t be necking the booze down or cavorting with who you were living with in the cottage & the alleged German scammer.

    You seem to be fascinated with child abuse & again, spouting crap all over the internet, yet you don’t look around you & see the paedophiles within throwing distance of yourself & your grandchildren. 

    You talk such crap, tell such lies, like the one you posted about Joe Van Tonder having 24/7 Garda protection outside his home, come on, even you have to admit what a whopper that was & it was soon taken down when we at Hoaxtead told Mr. Van Tonder about your post.

    I couldn’t listen to anymore of your bull. Over & out. 

    Liked by 5 people

Comments are closed.