This blog contains:

A record of my personal reflections, which by virtue of  social media  records how political consensus on equality  being rolled back for women was delivered, upheld, maintained and sold. A record of who prevented challenge during a period where it was decided that the law should no longer apply to us and how. In a period where institutions were pushed beyond breaking point in order to erode our citizenship it records how challenge was routinely and consistently prevented by those who identified mediators for discussion of inequality. It records specifically how the Guardian and the Labour Party maintained this consensus and ultimately tried to unleash violence against women to prevent us participating in democracy at all. It records what academia was selling so this could happen without challenge.

It is a record of why equality legislation and safeguarding were rendered meaningless by a class who believed the rule of law should not apply to working class women and it records the crisis they generated in a mistaken belief the rule of law shaping the welfare state could be undermined. It is a record that should be useful when this situation recurs. It is a record of the final days of the Guardian. It is a record of the crisis which forced elite cultures to recognise this law and consolidate it.

Even after institutions were failing, even when the death toll reached over 100k, the left and those wishing to develop media careers as feminists actively worked to prevent discussion of it. The Tories ended up desperate for solutions and this class ended up exposed. Their function was to prevent change and they had to be bypassed. We dont have any solutions because the people in this blog would not allow it and now these systems will form their boundaries through crisis and those crisis contain millions of real lives. Outcome doesnt change, you never could roll back equality for women like me, but the attempt really showed how far people would go to try.

I only ever had to maintain visibility and say hang on, thats the law, and we would have ended up back at this point. Eight years has been quite the revelation about the country I live in and how much they wanted the rule of law not to apply to me or the people I know. Its a record of what happened online so that millions of lives could be decimated offline.

Mostly its just a record of what happened when I tried to speak. Which has a fairly routine outcome apparently. A record of a class identity that couldnt be maintained once social media happened and that class identity was not mine. A narcissistic class who identified as our representation, spinning out as they met us for the first time.

Lisa Muggeridge. June 2009 – December 2018. The cost of speaking publicly eventually became too high and I had to accept the truth about the country I live in. Edmund Burke said a monarch is useful cos it gives people someone to blame. Damn sight easier than learning what political consensus means in a functioning democracy.

Joani Walsh

Banging the Tommy Robinson drum and exploiting child rape for the far right is fascism, if you do not wish to be called a fascist dont do these things. Normal decent people do not stand with fascists. I dont stand with fascists and I definitely dont stand with women who are telling themselves that exploiting child rape for men who rape and beat and terrorise poor communities is feminism. The reason is that balancing such an internal inconsistency leads to abusive and nasty behaviour. Like you whipping up a dangerous fantasist because free speech meant someone described you accurately. I do not stand with fascists and you are demonstrating why.

In an environment where identity forms without context a fascist like you is dangerous because of the way you respond to hearing your views descried accurately. Supporting a dangerous fantasist and participating in a nine year campaign because someone called your views what they are? THAT is why decent people dont stand with fascists. You will have to find a healthier way to deal with the disgust of normal decent people at your views. Whipping up stalkers ad abuse on twitter is unhealthy. Nothing I do relies on social media because there will always be fascists, extremists and abusive narcissists shaping it.

You are not a journalist, you are not a feminist, you are a fascist who lashes out when your views are descried accurately because your views are disgusting and it makes you ashamed that normal decent people reject those views and the people who hold them consistently. The only way you will ever be able to tally your demands that rapists and violent men get to exploit and harm child rape victims as feminism is by reacting with dangerous narcissistic rage and to harm people. The public warning about you was so an unsuspecting abuse victim does not get harmed by you. You are nothing new, ten a penny fascists always rely on the same things.

You are currently demonstrating HOW Caroline Farrow has caused so much harm. She already admitted it on Mumsnet, and didnt know she had done it because she is very seriously mentally unwell. Your white knighting is not about her, she is useful, its about your shame that normal decent people reject fascism and you are not smart enough to change that. Caroline Farrow is and always has been a dangerous fantasist  but she relies on people like you. And Toby Young, and Owen Jones. Narcissists and people ashamed of the impact of their views when they are described accurately. People whose shame at their repugnant views will facilitate her disturbing behaviour. You are a match made in heaven and please feel free to build yourselves a fantasy world on social media where that is normal. People can observe how this form of narcissism works in a contained environment. QED I dont even need to be on social media to know QED applies here.

Involvement of me in her fantasy world is harassment of me, your defamation of me makes no odds to me at all. A fascists view of me is really not something I am concerned with or need to be. I wrote that warning about you because I already knew what you were and how you would respond. I say no to let the rage demonstrate why the no was necessary to others. Your narcissistic rage, the pile on, social condemnation, the whipping up of a dangerous fantasist because you experience someone rejecting fascism? THAT my darling is why no sane person stands with a fascist. And why you rely on dissonance and narcissistic rage to protect your false identity as a journalist and feminist.

Its best to know where you stand. Nothing I ever did relied on social media and it was done several years before you joined the party. Nothing you can damage cos what I do speaks for itself and it doesnt rely on getting people hurt to manage a false identity. By the way Tommy Robinson is just a thug called Stephen Yaxley Lennon. His identity is as false as yours and Carolines. Its why all three of you rely on social  media and harm to others to maintain your delusions.

FYI I was never in a movement which used whipping up stalkers to punish women for objecting to the far right exploiting child rape. That was you demonstrating the limits of social media. That was something that would only exist on twitter, the movement I am part of is a global tidal wave shaping the real world and replaces that.

Its been quite the scare since I caused a narcissistic injury by objecting to you exploiting child rape for the far right. I hope it is a warning to other women stood with you about the risk you pose while you try to present rape and exploitation of girls who have already been harmed as feminism. Don’t ever stand with a fascist cos they will react like Joani Walsh to hearing those views described accurately. Fascists don’t like freedom of speech, its why all you will ever have is narcissistic rage at people being disgusted by what you are.

Caroline Farrow

My only connection with Caroline Farrow is to offer her a place to stay when she claimed she was suffering domestic abuse. In the 9 years since this point she has constructed an elaborate fantasy which she has had repeated by the New Statesman, Toby Young, and which she has sought to have repeated by many MANY people including violent men who support her in challenging me bullying her. BY harming me. She has sadistic tendencies and I am not her only victim by a long shot. When she is engaged in public performance about stalking it is usually her describing what she is doing to more than one person.

Her allegations were not true when she got them repeated in the Spectator cos Toby Young searched for himself on twitter, nor when the New Statesman gave her a platform because I was writing about political consensus on austerity, nottrue when she claimed I had threatened to take her children so I wouodnt be allowed to practice as a social worker, nor when the antifascists targeting my house used her as justification, the violent man local to me she worked with for several years was also not a respectable businessman I was blackmailing. They were not true when investigated by weirdo pro-lifers, not true when repeated in twitter storms which put Rachel at risk, they have never been true. THey were not true when made to the Local Authority I was in negotiation with over a start up, they haven’t been true on ANY occasion she has used a third party to disrupt my life, put my daughter at risk and Caroline’s enjoyment of being able to harm people is about her sadistic tendencies and nothing else. She is very dangerous and when you approach me about her you are a third party involved in a campaign running into its ninth year.

THis is the local man she claimed in her blog post was a local businessman I was blackmailing. He notified me when their claims were repeated in the Spectator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgWxf9t7o8E&t=24s He lives near me. The firstvideo is him assaulting a local councillor and not knowing he had done it, he was convicted of this, the second video is him escalating a parking tussle with a knife. Again unaware this was odd. He lives near me and used the police and other agencies as well as personal intimidation, he is unpredictable, violent, has upwards of 10 victims, and New Statesman were fully aware of this and this is why they gave Caroline a platform. Because Labour were offended by me writing aot the reality of austerity laid out in those youtube videos.

Below is pasted just ONE example of Caroline Farrow recruiting people to her fantasy, and living it out on twitter/. The impact on me has been extensive damage, including the deliberate placing of my child at risk. I dont need to refute Caroline’s allegations because she will tell you everything you need to know herself, she will tell you she has done this she will tell you what behaviour, she will even describe the impact on me and she will tell you how many institutions and people she has managed to get to repeat her claims. By describing her own behaviour. I don’t need to refute them because she is nothing to do with me. NOTHING. She was whipped up this time by a willing participant who objected to her views on the far rights need to exploit child rape being described accurately. I have no objetcion to you participating in Caroline Farrow’s fantasy life but you are not to involve me. Her ability to construct elaborate fantasies is only matched by the risk she poses to people. Particularly me.

Involvement of me in Caroline’s fantasy life is actually harassment of me. I don’t give a toss how sincerely you believe. Caroline Farrow has been engaged in the same pattern of ehaviour, consistently for 9 years, and the consistency of her attention to me is as frightening as the willingness of new audiences to bolster her dangerous fantasies out of a desire to harm me. Caroline has sadistic tendencies and a very long list of victims. I am not connected with her outside her imagination. She will offer you evidence herself. The posts she is written,the times she has managed to get her claims repeated, and she will describe the behaviour as being done to her and present you with evidence of people asking her to leave them alone as evidence of her delusions.  I do not currently have capacity to deal with the fantasies of a woman I dont know, but certainly NOT the fantasy of a woman this dangerous. My behaviour is consistent, and my online behaviour is very consistent. I am  not a mirror to dangerous mentally unwell fantasist and will not be pretending it is valid to ask me to be so. We are not adversaries, we have no connection outside her imagination and the harm to me when she acts out that fantasy to new, willing audiences.

THis is Caroline displaying the same fantasy in 2011. https://carolinefarrow.com/2011/09/07/little-miss-apopletic-2/

This was the blog where a copy of EVERY post I wrote was written and uploaded in real time, by someone watching for posts. http://idefytheeconomy.wordpress.com

What follows Caroline is sock puppets, usually one or two bolstering her defamation, which usually reveals stalking and almost continual monitoring of me. Since 2011. I avoid ALL environments where this behaviour flourishes and have for a long time been using Caroline as an indicator of environments to avoid because batshit thrives wherever she is. I am not required to bolster her internet fantasy life nor to accept risk she generates for me and my daughter. She is a dangerous fantasist, whose behaviour is about her own mental disorder and as such it is consistently demonstrated around her. Year in, year out, with only the audience changing as successive audiences move on.

THis is a copy of a ‘report’ sent to me investigating me, its not even the only one of its type. 6 years ago. I do not know these people but many are still around on twitter. Ask them. Not me.

Dear Catherine,

Below is the text of what I’ve been working on when I’ve had the chance over the last month or so. I have genuinely been attempting to get to the bottom of things, and to establish the truth as best I could.

You’ll see from it that I have not spared criticism of Caroline where I felt it was appropriate, but in the main, while I don’t think she’s whiter than white, I think she’s a pretty pale shade of grey, vastly more sinned against in these affairs than she is sinning.

I’ve addressed only those issues which have been raised publicly. Matters which you raised simply to me and have not raised in public have been omitted, in the interest of respecting the confidence you placed in me, despite my misgivings about that. I shall, therefore, omit what you’ve said about Paul, Stuart, and others.

In that, you should note, I am paying you a form of respect you have denied Caroline, given how casually you broke what you presented as her confidence when speaking to me.

I have not addressed the main body of the message to you directly, as I shall be copying it to Caroline and expect that it shall have to be passed it on to others, in light of how you’ve spoken of Caroline over the last two months and more, whether in person, over numerous phone calls, and in innumerable tweets.

Passing this on to others seems to be the only route available to clear Caroline’s name.

That said, I am tired of us airing our grievances in public and would rather this matter be resolved quietly and politely among ourselves. As such, I’d like to make a suggestion.

I would suggest you read this, and publicly state on Twitter that you have been wrong about Caroline, and would like to apologise to her; you should then send public messages to Stuart, Paul, Splinter, and anyone else to whom you’ve criticised Caroline, advising them of your change of mind and recommending that they should do likewise. Those others should include Damian Thompson, Tim Ireland, Lisa Ansell, and @PME200.

If you decide against doing this, then I do not see that Caroline could be faulted for distributing this analysis as seems appropriate. She may, of course, do so anyway. That may simply be the best way of lancing this boil.

It shouldn’t take long for you to get through this, as I imagine you’re a reasonably fast reader. I reckon four hours would be a reasonable length of time for you to read, ponder, and withdraw your allegations.

Once you’ve done that, we can set about fixing things between us all. This shouldn’t have happened.

Greg.

************************

 

Dear all,

Things have grown pretty nasty between us over the past couple of months, and though I’ve hitherto in the main kept my own council, I think it’s time to wade in properly.

I have refrained from taking sides up until almost this point, and I hope that my eventually having come to firm conclusions shan’t be seen as undermining this document, although that’s probably inevitable. Nonetheless, in explaining where I stand at this point, I fear I shall come perilously close to breaking confidences. That said, I don’t think I’ll cross the line, and certainly shan’t be saying anything that’s not already known.

If I do breach my word in any sense, please understand that I do not do so out of a wish to hurt anyone, but merely that these divisions between us all can, in some part, be healed.

I fear that what’s going on now is – in the main – a serious case of crossed wires. I think the situation has become exacerbated by emotions of one sort or another, but ultimately I think it comes down to misunderstandings.

Contents

INITIAL PHONECALL                                                                                                        3

DEVELOPMENTS                                                                                                                4

  1. Matters Bubble into View                            4
  2. A Nasty Comment from ‘The Catholic Community’                     5

iii. The Involvement of @stopanticath                                                                                   5

  1. Tim Ireland                                                5
  2. An Encounter with @riverflows77                  8
  3. Accusations Against Me                             12

vii. Comments from Outside                                                                                       14

viii. Cranmer and the C4M Advert                                                                              16

ALLEGATIONS                                                                                                                    17

  1. THAT CAROLINEHAS SMEARED PAUL PRIEST                         18

1.i. December 2011 and the SPUC Affair                                                                   18

1.ii. ‘The Pope of Corby’                                                                                             25

  1. PAUL PRIEST’S ANONYMOUS TROLL, 22:44, 3 MARCH                          26

2.i. Some notes on language, etc                                                                                 27

2.ii. The Context of the ‘Edward James’ comment                                                      28

2.iii. Troll data                                                                                                             29

2.iv. The Case of the Missing Apple                                                                            31

  1. JAMES PREECE’S ANONYMOUS TROLL, JANUARY 2012                           34

3.i. Visits to Laurence England’s blog                                                                         34

3.ii. James Preece weighing data.                                                                                 35

  1. WHETHER CAROLINECOULD BE JAMES PREECE’S ANONYMOUS TROLL    35
  2. THAT THE TWO ANONYMOUS COMMENTERS ARE IN FACT PAUL’S ‘BIG BENNY’                                                              36
  3. THAT CAROLINEIS IN FACT PAUL’S ‘BIG BENNY’                              36

6.i. Problems with the ‘Caroline as “Big Benny’” hypothesis                                      37

6.ii. More detailed charges via @stopanticath                                                             38

6.iii. Please, less of the daytime private detective dramas                                           38

  1. THAT CAROLINEHAS SMEARED STUART JAMES ON TWITTER                        39

7.i. Good Relations between Stuart and Caroline                                                        39

7.ii. Contacts with Lisa Ansell and a row with fellow Catholics                                              41

7.iii. Hospitalisation and sympathy                                                                             43

  1. THAT CAROLINEHAS SMEARED CATHERINE ON TWITTER                        44

8.i. Early March                                                                                                           44

8.ii. The last month or so                                                                                            46

8.iii. Dubious powers of deduction                                                                             46

8.iii.a. Mark Lambert as an unwitting accomplice                                                       47

8.iii.b.@riverflows77 as my mouthpiece                                                                     47

8.iii.c. Kevin McDougall as Caroline’s secret sidekick…                                            49

  1. CAROLINE’S SUPPOSED GOSSIP ABOUT A SEXUAL ASSAULT                        50
  2. CAROLINE’S ‘VICTIMISATION’ OF LISA ANSELL                         52

10.i. Lisa and Me                                                                                                         52

10.ii. The Pot Calling The Kettle Black                                                                                  53

10.iii. A potted summary of the Lisa affair                                                                  53

10.iv. Lisa and Toby Young                                                                                        56

10.v. Attempting to Deprive Lisa of Work?                                                                59

10.vi. Issues with Lisa in February                                                                              61

  1. WHETHER STOPANTICATH IS A SOCKPUPPET FOR CAROLINE 66

CONCLUSIONS                                                                                                                    71

INITIAL PHONECALL

Catherine Lafferty (@dolphinmaria) rang me on the night of 3 March to express concerns, in confidence, about Caroline Farrow(@blondpidge). To a small degree I had shared these concerns, in that I had had a worried hunch or two in the past, but I felt there was nothing more conclusive in what Catherine said than there had been in my own sense of disquiet.

Deeply uneasy after the phone call, I spent a lot of time searching data and trying to establish what correlated and what didn’t. I wrote to Catherine a day or so later, saying the following:

‘Last night left me pretty unsettled, to be blunt. I spent hours thinking things through, and checking stuff, and generally worrying, and hardly slept, and it’s been on my mind all day.

I’ve a lot of thoughts on the issue, but two especially keep bubbling to the surface.

The first is that though your hypothesis is very plausible in many respects, I think every single point in it can be contested. In particular, I discovered last night that Paul’s sitemeter is publicly accessible, and having spent ages going through it I can’t see any data there that would lead anyone to identify the commenter with anybody at all.

The second is that I don’t want to be drawn into this in any sense. I appreciate that you were warning me of a concern, and I’m grateful for that, but I felt kind of trapped by it; I don’t want to know things in confidence, if they’re the kind of things that cast doubt on somebody’s character. I was left feeling that I doubted someone but couldn’t resolve those doubts in any way. It didn’t seem fair.

That’s why I suggested that Paul email Caroline, and why I suggested that you speak to Caroline yourself. I think that’s the only fair way of handling this. In the meantime, of course, aside from not wanting to be involved, I’m out of play anyway: I’ve two days on buses, three long days in the library, a couple of meetings, some old friends, and hopefully a doctor’s appointment to be dealing with.’

I have since learned that I was not the only one to be approached in this way at the time, and I still stand by my view that the only fair and honest way of handling this would have been for Paul Priest (@OTSOTA) and Catherine respectively to have addressed Carolinethemselves.

What’s happened instead has been most disappointing, and I’ve been contacted by several people – Catholics and otherwise –to ask what’s going on and to express their horror. We’re not meant to be like this, people.

Since then, I’ve tried to avoid the issue as much as possible, though I’ve had a few thoughts and nuggets of information that have led me to doubt Catherine’s hypothesis more and more.

DEVELOPMENTS

Notable developments in the story – at least as I’ve seen them – since I received Catherine’s phone call have been:

  1. Matters Bubble into View

Just after noon on 7 March, Catherine began barraging @BattlementClare with a succession of tweets accusing her of recommending that mothers give up children for adoption and insisting that adoption was never an authentically pro-life solution.  She accused Clare of not thinking and said such things as

‘The fact is that I have been around Pro Life far longer than you and yes, I do know what I’m talking about. You do not. Now, I’m happy to go through your tweets and explain where you go wrong so that you can learn. But the exercise will only be fruitful if you pay attention to what I say in a spirit of humility and genuine enquiry.’[1]

After a day of haranguing @BattlementClare in this vein, Catherine then turned on Caroline, sneering at Caroline’s comment to Laurie Penny (@pennyred) that the mothers of feminism had been pro-life, and saying:

‘I know this stuff. You do not… You’d never even heard of Elizabeth Cady Stanton before you cut ‘n’ pasted the FFL material… It’s not bad manners to correct those who are in the wrong… This isn’t an area of which you have any knowledge (I do). You can’t bluff history, I’m afraid… Sorry but you’re old enough to be able to take criticism and correction…. My knowledge is superior to yours on this. You don’t have a history degree… You really ought to be able to take criticism in your stride… You don’t know what feminism is, who the early feminists were, nor are you familiar with their work… It’s what you’re trying to achieve which is the mystery… You haven’t even defined your terms. #Backtofirstprinciples’[2]

Such comments to @BattlementClare and Caroline continued right through 8 March. Indeed, abuse of @BattlementClare has gotten extremely personal, not to mention unfounded, reaching impressive depths on 15 April, which seems to have been during one of Catherine’s more hysterical weekends:

‘Ho hum, twitter’s resident thickie @battlementClare showing off her dumbness. Again. She never has any email from me…. The sockpuppet/harasser’s main attack dog (more like a mangy flea-ridden mutt) is a bored hysteric of a woman… The mutt is by common consent one of the thickest tweeps about… Should home-educators have to take IQ tests? If they fail to meet a minimum standard should they be disbarred from, er, educating?… Aaah I see the moronic mutt is claiming that pregnancy is an absolute defence against any wrongdoing… Notice how Fabulist ‘n’ Mutt suggest pregnancy is the worst possible, most traumatic condition in the world…. Which begs the question, why do they put themselves through this torture, again and again?… If it’s as Godawful an experience as they claim it is, that is. An odd position for self-styled Pro Lifers to take but there you go.’[3]

I didn’t think it likely that Catherine would say worse to @BattlementClare, but seemingly she did just that on 15 May, in front of her own and @BattlementClare’s children, after the funeral of Pro-Life campaigner Phyllis Bowman.

  1. A Nasty Comment from ‘The Catholic Community’

Caroline received the following comment on the morning of 9 March from an unassigned IP address:

‘Hello Caroline.

Just to let you know that the net is closing in. The evidence is being gathered. You will soon be publicly unmasked.

You still have time to publicly confess and apologise to those you’ve preyed upon and

attempted to destroy both within and outside the Catholic comminity.

Stop and repent.

You have now been issued fair warning.

The Catholic Community.’

The identity of this commenter is unclear, it having come from a clear proxy site. Generally, I am reluctant to attempt to identify anonymous commenters, but this I will say: whoever sent this knew that there were moves afoot to ‘unmask’ Caroline at a time when such moves were not publically known, and it seems to have been written in a style wholly alien to Paul Priest. Other than that, while we might have our suspicions, I don’t think we should be hurling accusations around.

iii. The Involvement of @stopanticath

In the aftermath of Catherine and Paul’s criticism of the 40 Days for Life vigil in London, the new @stopanticath twitterer turned on them, believing their very vocal criticism to be ill-founded in part and potentially damaging to the Church and the pro-life cause. Prior to this, @stopanticath had roamed rather widely, restricting itself to attacks on the Church from without and often abroad, such as by the likes of Ireland’s Colm O’Gorman.

In response, Catherine and Paul, as well as others such as @PME200, with whom Catherine was in contact, took to addressing @stopanticath as though it was a sockpuppet for Caroline, and explicitly referred to the account as such on frequent occasions. @PME200 even set up two short-lived twitter accounts expressly to mock Caroline and her supposed sockpuppetry. This might seem like oddly hypocritical behaviour for a man who likes to set himself up as an authority for how one ought to behave on Twitter, but I guess he takes a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ line.

  1. Tim Ireland 

Tim Ireland (@bloggerheads), originally described to me by Catherine as ‘an anti-Dorries blogger’, contacted Caroline on 4 April accusing her of harassing Lisa Ansell (@lisaansell3) using a range of sockpuppets etc. He asked whether Caroline wanted to comment before he did a write-up on the subject. As evidence for his argument, he cited a comment left on Paul Priest’s blog on 3 March. Aside from the comment proving nothing, as is shown below, it rather invited the question of why he’d been reading a Catholic blog – as he’d been doing since at least 20 March – with such a miniscule readership. I couldn’t imagine that he’d been a regular reader of it, and rather wondered whether he’d been directed there.

Certainly, there was something very odd about his subsequent actions with Caroline, where he claimed knowledge of emails she had sent and actions she had taken of which he could not have been aware unless he’d somehow been interfering with her email account or been told things which Caroline had only told Catherine.

The barrister Neil Addison, acting on behalf of Caroline, complained about Tim Ireland’s behaviour to Bedfordshire police, but as of 10 April – the date of the last email from Neil to the police that I have seen – nothing had been done, despite Neil having drawn attention to Tim’s having lied to Caroline in emails with the apparent intention of alarming her.

In subsequent weeks it was repeatedly said by Paul and Catherine that there was evidence about Caroline, but she would have to wait until it was produced. Time and again Caroline asked for the evidence to be produced, as did Clare, but it didn’t appear, and both became scornful about whether such evidence existed.

Paul subsequently claimed to people that Caroline was lying about this, as she knew that Bedfordshire Police had barred Tim Ireland – for now – from publishing anything about her, while they conducted investigations in relation to Tim Ireland’s involvement with Nadine Dorries.

On hearing about this, Caroline contacted D.I. Richard Wall of Bedfordshire Police, emailing him at 08:39 and again at 09:37 on Monday 1 May. The first email read as follows:

‘I am wondering whether you may be able to assist me with something?

I am still suffering with harassment that is related to Tim Ireland, although to be fair, there is nothing to suggest that it is Tim instigating this, he is simply involved in a very tangled web.

I have been publically and repeatedly accused of vague actions of which I am entirely innocent and for which no detailed “charges” or evidence has been produced. I will shortly be reporting the perpetrators to my local police force and we are considering what other legal redress is available.

To date no evidence of my supposed wrongdoing is available, although the accusations fly and Tim Ireland says rather obliquely and publically, that just because there is no discussion of evidence that is not to say none is available.

Everyone keeps lauding his “skill” as being an excellent electronic investigator, I know Mr Ireland will have my IP etc from emails he sent me, so my response is, if he has such evidence then surely he and the (small) gang of accusers should produce it?

Yesterday someone contacted me with the following:

‘They claim that evidence against you was due to be published, but that you contacted Nadine Dorris MP in order to have the police order that the journalist who was to reveal that evidence be stopped by police order. Meanwhile, you maintain your innocence on Twitter while crying out injustice against you, while encouraging them to publish what evidence they have, when you yourself know that the evidence cannot be published because your friend in a position of power and influence has put paid to that for the time being.’

To me this seems utterly implausible. I have never met Mrs Dorries, there is no reason to believe or suspect she would have any interest in suppressing the publishing of defamatory allegations against me. More importantly, I am not aware that the police have powers of this kind, surely this is a matter for the judiciary?

My lawyer is on holiday, so I am unable to ask him to contact you, but I would be grateful if you could confirm for me that no such order is in place in relation to myself & Tim Ireland? Surely if one were, then I would need to be made aware of it?

I need this information in order to clear my name and proceed with further steps. This whole affair is causing me considerable distress.’

Inspector Walls’s initial response was not very helpful, so Caroline emailed again, as follows:

‘Could you not clarify for me whether or not such an order exists?

Surely if such an order does exist in relation to me I should be entitled to know about it?

I have no authorized any such order, I would like Mr Ireland to publish any “damning” information he has in relation to me so I can disprove it. It is really affecting my mental health being under the impression that he has some information he says he is temporarily being banned from publishing.

I am pregnant, I am extremely stressed & surely I have a right to know this information? If there is an order that stops him saying things about me, when does it expire?

I hope you can clarify this please, it is like psychological torture. Is there an order in place banning Mr Ireland from publishing about me? If so when was this issued, on what grounds and when does it expire?’

Inspector Walls’s 10:00 reply was extremely helpful, being utterly unambiguous:

‘Mrs Farrow

I have no knowledge of any such order and agree that if one were in existence, you should be aware of it.

Kind regards

Richard’

It appears that Bedfordshire police know nothing whatsoever of any order barring Tim Ireland from publishing or revealing whatever he has supposedly discovered about Caroline. It seems that somebody is being dishonest: either Tim Ireland has been lying to Catherine, or Catherine has been lying to Paul, or Paul has being lying to others.

At least as importantly, all claims that there are vast amounts of data out there incriminating Caroline and merely withheld while legal matters obstruct them would appear to be nothing but hot air. Caroline and Clare are right: there is no evidence.

  1. A Meeting with @riverflows77

On the morning of Sunday 15 April at Mass in Westminster I bumped into @riverflows77, who was leaving as I arrived. We arranged to meet for something to eat after Mass, so he went to watch as much of The Big Questions as he could catch on telly, and after Mass we had a very late breakfast in a Spanish place across the road from the Cathedral. We talked for about an hour about the twitter row which by that point had been in full unedifying flight for weeks, and he filled me in what had happened over the previous day.

It’s worth running through the involvement of @riverflows77 in the row late the previous night and early that morning.

Catherine: . @LisaAnsell3 is owed the mother of all apologies for the grotesque hate campaign waged against her @_MillyMoo @holysmoke @deborahjaneorr… Anyone who is genuinely Pro Life cannot stand by and excuse the obscene hate campaign against @LisaAnsell3. #Conscience

Michael_Merrick then weighed in, pointing out that given her public displays of temper, Lisa can hardly be regarded as an innocent, provoking the following response.

Catherine: Ms Ansell’s temper was entirely understandable given the harassment to which she was subjected… I submit that Ms Ansell’s temper was restrained given the grotesque provocations to which she’s been subjected.

At this point Ben Trovato (@ccfather) had entered the fray.

Ben: One could say the same about the sustained hate campaign waged against someone else without any evidence being produced.

Catherine: Wrong; that person has suffered no hate campaign but they have falsely claimed one. As to evidence I shall keep my own counsel.

Ben: “Suffered no hate campaign” only if guilty of all accusations, smears etc – but no evidence produced: Justice? Charity?

Catherine: Who said no evidence produced? Surely not you. Would you be that rash?… You forget, sir, that I know rather more about this that I’m letting on.

Ben: No you did, as it happened. Read your previous tweet to me…

Catherine: I counsel you to reserve your talk of justice & charity for the victims: @lisaansell3@eChurchBlog @Otsota…. If I did I was mistaken.

Ben: Yes, you and @OTSOTA both say that frequently: but you can scarcely be surprised if that doesn’t convince me of your case… I’ll happily seek talk of justice and charity for all concerned in this unholy mess. I don’t yet know what justice is, but… I’m witnessing precious little charity anywhere about it… Well, that’s how I read “As to evidence I shall keep my own counsel.” Do you retract that?

Catherine: No. I stand by it. I am not saying anything about the evidence. Yet… Ask @lisaansell3, a single mother struggling to make ends meet about charity…

Ben: So my statement about accusations but no evidence produced was substantially correct.

Catherine: How do you know? How do you know what’s been presented to the miscreant in an attempt to get them to desist from their activities.

Ben: Perhaps I failed to make myself clear: I was talking about public accusations with no evidence made public, & questioning that… Off to bed now – early Mass. Good night.

Catherine: Um, wrong… A good deal of evidence has been both put to the miscreant and made public. There is more which has not.

It was at this point that @riverflows77 had intervened, repeatedly asking the same pertinent question, and getting no answers, merely abuse and veiled threats.

Riverflows77: evidence in public where exactly

Catherine: Are you being so idiotic as to challenge me? I’m telling you not to do so… Your tweets today @DeborahJaneOrrwere idiotic in the extreme. I strongly suggest that you keep quiet from now on.

Riverflows77: sorry I repeat the question evidence in public where?

Catherine: And I repeat my reply: I suggest you shut up lest you put your official position in danger. Capice?… This is not something your employer would be happy to justify. Be aware of that…. Be aware also of the fact that a number of journalists and columnists are following this discussion. Your choice, mate.

Riverflows77: um you said there was evidence in public where is it?

Catherine: Your employer has their own opinion of this. Get. The. Fucking. Hint… Your employer… Who pays your bills, mate?

Riverflows77: but where is this evidence that’s in the public domain that you speak of?

Catherine: Of which I speak, surely.

Riverflows77: sorry not clear you mentioned public evidence where is it so I can see it?

Catherine: Mystified as to why you wish to pursue this. I repeat, your employer would not welcome it. Not at all… Happy to speak to you on the phone…

Riverflows77: sorry you mentioned evidence in public presumably therefore it is publicly accessible where is it?

Catherine: Ok, you want to push this do you? Are you sure? I’m putting this to you: are you sure?… I warn you again of your position… I tell you not to listen to the siren voices of fabulists and careerists. They won’t defend your job… If you want to push this on your own head be it… RT @SplinterSunrise: The things you pick up from watching Columbo. Like how Columbo is always able to spot the guilty party…

Riverflows77: very odd you referred to evidence already in the public domain but when asked to refer to it directly you decline to do so

Catherine: Not at all. Odd – or perhaps not – that you use language which doesn’t sound like you…  As I said, you have my number. You know how to call it… I believe you were put up to your earlier tweets to @deborahjaneorr by people who do not have your best interests at heart.

Riverflows77: tell you what leave issue alone until conclusive evidence is acquired and publicly produced fair and reasonable?

Catherine: If Greg Daly wants to get involved in this, let him do so under his own name…. If Madam Fabulist wants to get involved in this, let her do so herself… Ask Madam Fabulist why her immediate reaction is always a technical one, followed by victimhood rather than rage at accusation… Read Dostoyevsky. There’s something about the criminal character …… Oh the violins, the violins. Whatever happened to the hypertrophic pregnancy, swiftly downgraded to an ovarian cyst, eh?[4]

Riverflows77: seriously shut up it’s getting pathetic

Catherine: Pathetic indeed. You tell a single mother thrown off jobs that it’s pathetic. Call yourself a socialist. Shame on you.

Riverflows77: so you missed the shut up part then

Catherine: RT @riverflows77: @dolphinmaria so you missed the shut up part then <- I think he did. Fool…. Single mother. Work. Conscience. Where is it?… Attempting to deprive a single mother of work *especially* during a recession is disgusting, scummy behaviour. Shame on you, Madam Fabulist.

Riverflows77: Single mother?

Catherine: You clearly haven’t been paying attention, yet you hector me for information. Yes, @LisaAnsell3 is a single mother…. You & @thirstygargoyle have conscience issues. Fucking pay @LisaAnsell3’s bills then. Put your money where your gobs are… I’ll say this again: single mother, deprived of work by a hate campaign. If that doesn’t revolt you, nothing will…. #Scum

Riverflows77: what’s she got to do with me telling you to shut up?

Catherine: WTF do you think this is all about? Oh, you don’t know. I suggest *you* shut up.

Riverflows77: this is about you having no evidence of anything and therefore shutting up

Catherine: I am genuinely shocked by how obtuse you are being… Since when does one tweet one’s way through a medical emergency?… Oh, silly me, the same way one tweets one way through painful breastfeeding & hypertrophic pregnancies day after day after day after .. etc… Since when is pregnancy a defence against harassment and hate campaigns?… Actually, no I’m not. Scrub that….

Riverflows77: 🙂

Catherine: If you loved me you wouldn’t RT an account which smears me. Sorry…. Accounts plural, rather… There are two of them which do so. Both written by bored hysterics.

Riverflows77: well I’m bored now goodnight

And that was that for a few hours, though Ben was to resume the discussion when he got up.

Ben: Classic! Believe me because I say so. Don’t challenge what I say. Can’t you see this makes you hard to believe?… Well that explains so much. I’m starting from “innocent until proven guilty.” and public accusation without public evidence…… is not in line with natural justice, let alone charity. Tell me where I’ve got that wrong?

Catherine: Can’t you see that I don’t give a damn? Haven’t you figured out that I won’t be rushed? I’ll take my own sweet time…. Oh and @riverflows77 already knows some of the evidence. The reason he’s jumpy all of a sudden … Well it’s to do with his job (partly) & someone’s involvement in this which makes it an even bigger story than it otherwise wd be… Heh! For everytime you mention “charity” give @lisaansell3 £10, ok?…  You want natural justice. You shall get it. In my time, not yours.

Ben: One of the things I enjoy about our little chats is the suden shifts from moral high ground to… various places really… I’m not sure I believe that first rhetorical question here. (If one can believe or disbelieve a rhetorical question.)… I maintain that fair process is part of natural justice.

@Riverflows77 had returned to the discussion just as Ben was leaving it.

Riverflows77: I have no idea what your talking about I have not been shown any evidence by anyone only vague accusations @CCFather

Catherine: *Your* memory is faulty then and *you’re* in error here. Now get lost.

Michael Merrick then took up issue with Catherine again, and @riverflows77 weighed in in response to Catherine’s claim that she was ‘demanding restorative justice, defending the weak, watching the guilty make their moves?’

Riverflows77: simply claptrap plenty of things claimed no evidence offered not getting lost you need to withdraw nonsensical claims

It was after that that he bumped into me as I was going to Mass, watched Caroline on The Big Questions and tweeted with @stopanticath as he watched, and returned so we could have a chat and something to eat. This was but the fourth time we’d ever spoken, and the first time at any serious length.

@riverflows77 told me how he’d pressed Catherine to point even to the allegedly ‘public’ evidence, and we agreed that even privately not one piece of compelling evidence had been presented thus far; as things stood, as far as we could see, there was no case to answer. That, of course, is presuming that any of us have a right to stand in judgement over each other in any case, which I don’t believe we do.

We chatted for about an hour, after which I headed off to meet @LauraWicking at the South Bank in order to celebrate @ericaablair’s birthday.

Despite having since met him a fifth time when having dinner at the house of @BattlementClare, I still don’t have @riverflows77’s phone number.

 

 

  1. Accusations Against Me

On the evening of Sunday 15 April I read up on what I’d missed in the previous day-and-a-half on Twitter, including the discussions @riverflows77 had described and what had gone on after we’d met up. Notably, Catherine had falsely accused me – solely on the basis of @riverflows77 having said that I shared his view – of dictating @riverflows77’s tweets, and of condoning wickedness by failing to express sympathy for how she had been smeared and Lisa Ansell had been treated.

While I was at Mass, and after @riverflows77 and I had had lunch, Catherine continued to argue with him as follows, all the while resisting requests that she present some evidence:

Catherine: Not claptrap, chum and you owe me an apology quicktime. We can do this the nice way if you want. You are warned.

Riverflows77: I have heard allegations and grounds for suspicion but never any evidence capiche? To say I “know” evidence is therefore a lie

Catherine: You have been given evidence. I’m telling you to retract your description of me as a liar… I will give you a reasonable amount of time, which will be communicated to you by a mutual friend. Think it over…. I will also insist upon an apology. Think it over. Do not provoke me further.

Riverflows77: consider yourself provoked with immediate effect. I have seen no evidence

Catherine: I have shown you evidence, it’s not my fault you don’t understand the meaning of the word… You have been shown evidence. You are very foolish man. More foolish than you can possibly realise.

Riverflows77: no, you made assertions which amounted to grounds for suspicion

Catherine: No, you were directed to evidence… Remember that your position is tenuous… I’m being generous. I’ve issued warning after warning after warning. You respond with reckless arrogance. Very stupid.

Riverflows77: so first you showed me the evidence now you “directed” me to it. I say neither has occurred, you are mistaken… you are not being generous you are making unsubstantiated claims, warn me all you like it is irrelevant

Catherine: I say you are a fool or a knave. Take your pick. Oh and don’t try debating English with me. Idiot…. I have not made a single unsubstantiated claim. You are a fool. Your employer will not approve of your behaviour…. I take a very dim view of people to whom I’ve been so loyal behaving the way you have done.

Riverflows77: I repeat I have not been shown or directed to or presented with any evidence after requesting it on several occasions

Catherine: And I repeat that you have. I also repeat my warning to you to cease provoking me. NOW…. I repeat that I take a dim view of your egregious disloyalty….

Riverflows77: loyalty is not at issue here, the facts are. I have seen no evidence you need to withdraw the claim that I have

Catherine: In fact it disgusts me…. The facts are not at issue. I have not made a single unsubstantiated claim. Your loyalty doesn’t exist. You are a disgrace.

Riverflows77: what disgusts you is not relevant what is relevant is that I have not been privy to any evidence by any means… the facts are not at issue what? The facts are always at issue!

Riverflows77: Evidence has been made manifest to you. If you can’t recall that, that’s your problem, not mine… What with you? Be serious… Get your lines dictated to you by some other fuckwit.

Riverflows77: so now I have no longer been “directed” to evidence, but it has “been made manifest”. But fact remains none has been presented

Catherine: You dig yourself in deeper and deeper all the while demonstrating your hopeless command of English… (Cf Synonyms) *rolls eyes*… Back later… You. Stop bothering me. Get deleting. Fast.

Within the hour, @riverflows77 replied to Damian Thompson’s tweet the previous night that had been ‘hearing rumours of a huge sockpuppet row brewing in online Catholic circles,’ by saying ‘there has been no substantial evidence yet presented @thirstygargoyle can confirm, suspicions remain but not amounting to much.’

Catherine’s initial reaction was merely to sneer…

Catherine: You’re stupid and stubborn. What a combination. Your problem, not mine. Now fuck off out of my sight.

Riverflows77: Nothing doing you need to get off twitter for a few days and shut up about whole subject

But she later returned to an unfounded claim of the previous night:

Catherine: Pay attention to the next RT. It reveals a great mind at work…. RT @riverflows77: @holysmoke there has been no substantial evidence yet presented @thirstygargoyle can confirm, suspicions remain but not amounting to much… And so genius @riverflows77 thereby reveals who has been dictating his tweets. Clever, eh @holysmoke @otsota @eChurchblog

And then onward she stormed…

Catherine: Right – let’s hope genius @riverflows77 is paying attention. 1. Neither he nor @thirstygargoyle are aware of all of the evidence @holysmoke… Ergo neither @riverflows77 nor @thirstygargoyle in any position to refute it or to describe it as mere suspicion, or not adding up to much…. 2. Leaving aside the fabulist for a moment, neither @riverflows77 nor @thirstygargoyle have once expressed sympathy for @LisaAnsell3…. Neither @riverflows77 nor @thirstygargoyle have once expressed any sympathy for me as as I’ve been smeared & defamed by sockpuppets & saddos…

@TruenFairview One of the most vicious cases of sockpuppetry and real life harassment that I’ve ever come across. A number of victims…. @TruenFairview The

 

 

 

Post script

THis record started because I could express a political opinion publicly for the first time in my life. It became, not through my choice, but after taking them at face value, a record of a mediating class in crisis as they generated instability at the end of a cycle. They generated instability by reproducing their class identity and social relations with social media and this is a record of why our elite institutions had no understanding of the rule of law when they tried to undermine it with austerity. I am grateful to have kept that record and it is done. There is no way for the class that the likes of Sophie Emera is from to see the systems I can see and see no need to put myself in the face of that class rage.

I went to see my MP, I said this is the system failure we have, this is the record I have created, this is what it means for Universal Credit, and our Local Authorities. The system failure is real and even though he is a Conservative he took the time to discuss in detail what I had seen and done. Including the reason I know there is no understanding of this at an elite level.

In 2010 it appeared, it felt like, it has felt since like equality was rolled back for women like me. In fact the context had changed around our elite cultures andthe shit i got was because I am that context. I do not have the right or the choice to place my daughter at risk and we won, the reason trans rights activists are so dangerous is we won. What they dont know is that this is the period where women will consolidate EVERY right won in the twentieth century. I don’t need to be on social media for that, to be part of that, and social media particularly twitter is just the remains of a dying media and politics culture screaming to everyone they never did know anything and this was all they had. Its over.

Parasitic dynamic is broken when the parasite behaves abusively. The host just has to walk away. Nothing I need or want on social media, I don’t need a permanent window into how bad our elite cultures were during this period. I already  knew. All twitter has done is ensured I could see it and bypass it. Which I have done. So can you. I am physically and emotionally worn out, but there is no need for me to take this kind of hate. A quick ‘we dont know about these systems’ would have done in 2010.

The alignment of our legal frameworks, safeguarding, equality legislation and our institutions is now happening. Its just that media cultures wentto die in a chatroom while it happens. Each age is a dream that is dying or a new one coming to birth. Its time to push. Really.

This blog is finished

Itwas a record of a process really, and its a complete record. I dontneedto be on social media at all. And its really best to get out of the theatre of narcs in a spin as they realise they have lost.Especially narcissistic activists like Sarah Brown.Sophie Emera told you how ashamed she was setting up a single mother with CPTSD to be targeted when she misrepresented me to make it appear a public figure. The article was creepy as fuck demonstration ofthe risk to women posed by Dr.Adrian Harrop and ‘Sarah’ Brown, who is a mentally unwell abusive male who presents as posing risk towomen. It makes men angry when women speak. Cerrain types cant hide it.

A parasitic dynamic is broken when the host says they are aware of the dynamic. The parasite behaving abusively just makes the break permanent and alerts everyone else to the end of the dynamic.

 

Kath Viner

Kath Viner is thanking the people willing to give the Guardian money, to be part of their identity. She says her paper is key to avoiding dangerous ideologies. The Guardian’s legacy identity means they think the law applying to and protecting working class women is dangerous, but Corbyns anti-semitism and direct threat of fascism isnt. They have assisted with the rule of law being undermined and now find they are fucked. Good.

The entire business model of the Guardian is dependent on their identity as speaking for the poor and mediator of inequality in a digital environment. They abandoned journalism, incited abuse of women to stop them discussing safeguarding, attempted to facilitate austerity and are now a thrid party in a concerted attempt to undermine safeguarding.

Dear Guardian, you tried to send working class women back to the dark ages. You wont survive it. Good. Your demise means British women can have the rule of law apply to them and means your thugs wont be abusing people to stop them participating in democracy. You are disgusting and your identity is false and all you have.