I am experimenting with crowdfunding to pay for research time and writing time, so this is my first go. I would like to spend a month researching and writing a piece looking at the relationship between debt and welfare, in the context of our failing asset based welfare model. Looking at Basic Income, inequality, and exploring a new approach to welfare spending using the ideas of Hyman Minsky. I have set the target at £250, which is roughly the rate for a piece paid for by a publication, and it will go out at Pieria.co.uk.
If you could share or contribute, please do. I will discuss any of the ideas in the article by email.
You have been blocked from my twitter account for quite some time because you a very dangerous and not very bright young woman. This morning I read an article about free speech and trolls, and was commenting on it using my twitter feed @lisamuggeridge. My comments were about the risk posed by trolling online, and the difference between words and a screen and a credible threat. I discussed Peter Nunn and repeatedly was clear that he was a credible and dangerous threat, I believe this was one of the few time son my twitter account I had been complimentary about Stella Creasy. I also discussed the following: the distortion of our justice system by media narratives about victims, I discussed the reason justice is blind and the facilitation of the undermining of our justice system by media narratives which suggested justice was about victims. Justice is in fact blind and about the person before the judge. I discussed risk assessment, which I am trained in, and the difference between words which expressed powerlessness and anger and those which could be perceived as a credible threat, I discussed the abuse of power dynamics which characterise abuse and the danger of media narratives about trolling on free speech. As Chris Grayling has just announced some quite bizarre measures which restrict free speech for everyone this is quite important, and I discussed the inappropriate sentencing of Issy Sorley and John Nimmo, one a vulnerable young woman who lacked capacity due to alcohol and had been acting in the midst of a twitter storm against a media figure and a man with a learning disability. Who had also been sent to prison. I did not include your twitter id or username and did not invite you to be part of the conversation. I was discussing issues which are in the news and information you put in the public domain. I discussed the power media narratives had and structural inequality and abuse of media power. At no point did I minimise the risk Peter Nunn clearly posed. Knowing that I cannot read your tweets you defamed me to over 20000 people claiming I had minimised the risk this man posed. You then went on a rant about the effect of this on you., even though it had not actually happened and I had said nothing of the sort. As I write about abuse of women this was clear defamation designed to damage my reputation. I would like to remind you that defamation is an offence and defamation by a media figure with over 20000 followers, knowing I cannot see and would not want to reply to your tweets is abuse. Abuse of a power dynamic and abuse which resulted in me dealing with the consequences all day. I appreciate that you do this frequently, and that I am not the only person who has been abused online by you in this way, I believe you attempted to destroy Mark Sparrows reputation in exactly the same way. I have reported the tweet to twitter but let me be clear, if you engage in online abuse of me in this way again and you defame me again I will take legal action against you. You are a very dangerous young woman and need to get narcissistic supply in another way, because defamation of the general public and dragging people into the melodrama in your head is not acceptable or legal behaviour. The platform the Guardian and the New Statesman give you and the fact you have already been responsible for two vulnerable people going to prison mean that next time this happens I will take legal action even if I have to file it myself. I will also take action with your employers. You have no reason to read my tweets and I do not expect you to do so, I will not put up with people swarming to ‘defend’ you when you engage in online abuse of your media platform and should I find myself in this position again, understand I will not hesitate to take action. If you cannot use twitter without abusing the general public, I suggest you log off. I am not interested in being part of the melodrama in the head of an abusive young media figure and am not connected to you. I will comment on the issues of structural inequality, the functioning of the justice system and the threat posed to the free speech demonstrated by Chris Grayling and the imprisonment of Issy Sorley and John Nimmo, and I will do so when I choose. You are not welcome to read my tweets but if you do, I suggest you remember that I am perfectly entitled to discuss these things. None of my argument was invalid, you would not have had to lie to encourage your followers to abuse me in your defence if it was. Understand that I do not tolerate abusive behaviour by media figures and I expect those tweets to be taken down. Do not involve me in your victim complex again.
This is not the first time I have had to deal with defamation from a media figure, and I will not tolerate it. If I have to take action myself, be assured I am smart enough to follow pre-action defamation protocols and take it to court on my own if I have to.