Wednesday, 6 March 2013

A hidden aspect of British home education





One of the things about the home education scene in this country that I find endlessly fascinating is the enormous discrepancy between the public and private faces of those who are sometimes seen as the leaders of the community; people like Mike Fortune-Wood and Alison Sauer, for instance. These people are as reasonable and pleasant  as can be when people are watching, but as soon as they think themselves unobserved they will lie their heads off and even engage in conspiracies which veer very close to the criminal in order to suppress the views of those with whom they disagree.

     I have written before of Mike Fortune-Wood’s attempts to close this blog down; either by telling lies about me, for example to newspapers, or, when that fails, by conspiring with others to have me arrested.  Alison Sauer is cut from the same piece of cloth. Indeed, her behaviour is worse and she will stoop to anything in an attempt to stop people asking questions about her activities. It was suggested yesterday that the spate of comments advertising dumpsters for trash and garbage on here was sheer coincidence and that I was seeing a conspiracy where none existed. This is not true. This spamming was a direct consequence of my piece about Alison Sauer and how her business activities had caused the Department for Education to ban flexi-schooling. Is this a conspiracy theory? Well no, it is more a case of conspiracy fact.

     Alison Sauer has a group of cronies with whom she chats late at night via the internet. These include Cheryl Moy from Doncaster, Sarah Eaton from Leicester, Kat Brown from Leeds and various others. I make no apology for naming names, for reasons that will become apparent. When Alison Sauer gets irritated with me, she appeals to these people, who then flood the comments here with aggressive  messages. Alison says things like;

‘Do not engage in discussion and do not respond to anything he says’

The aim, you see, is not to talk about things, but merely to make coherent discussion here impossible. Sometimes, this tactic does not work and then stage two comes into play, which entails targeting my family. Here is an exchange between Alison Sauer and some of her followers. They are discussing me:




Alison Sauer

Please spread this message but ONLY by PM
    Kat Brown

    Far too tempting just to sign up his email address to random lists for fun.
      Alison Sauer

      Can anyone get me his house address? 
        Chez Moy

        whats his wife called?

          Alison Sauer

          And for future reference and deliveries of manure...
          Simon Webb
          XXXXXXXXXXXX
          Loughton
          Essex
          IG10 XXXX

            A number of things occur to one when reading this sort of thing. Why would Cheryl Moy want to know about my wife? Does she wish to talk to her about home education? Also, why would Alison Sauer wish to know my home address? When she finds it, why is she publicising it in this way? The answer to both questions is the same. The aim is to harass my family and try to stop me expressing my opinions on home education. I might mention that nuisance deliveries started to my home after Alison instigated this campaign and my email address became clogged up with a lot of nonsense. The advertising of dumpsters the day before yesterday was all of a piece with this and was also a direct result of Alison Sauer’s activities.

                 This then is the private face of some of the well-known figures in British home education. Although they attempt to portray themselves as being sensible types with whom local authorities and the Department for Education can deal professionally; in the background they are organising campaigns of intimidation and wasting police time with spurious allegations.  No holds are barred when it comes to trying to shut down the voice of anybody who disagrees with them.  This accounts in large part for the seemingly unified response to consultations on home education. Dissident voices are mocked and belittled and when that does not work, threats are made.

                 As for those who suggested yesterday that I was creating a conspiracy theory; well, what can I say? When a group of people I have never met begin to enquire about my wife, ask about my home address and talk of sabotaging my email, this looks less like a conspiracy theory and more like an  actual conspiracy. What do readers think? Incidentally, clicking on Alison's name will enable you all to keep up to speed with her and some of her activities.

            74 comments:

            1. Yes. You are right. It's disgusting and creepy and hopefully, people will give less credibility to those characters in future. As someone who has been frequently bullied over many years by a small group of home educators on a local yahoo group, I can attest to this kind of behaviour.

              However...

              You do tend to engage in much the same thing from time to time, Simon. Once you have the name of someone who disagrees with you, you set out to find out as much as you can about them in order to trash them publically, by referring to some detail about their private lives, often ridiculing them. Eg, AS does historical re-enactment or this person attends this church or likes knitting or organic gardening or some other activity you find ridiculous or objectionable. This is why so few commenters here leave their names. Remember the frequent guessing of Mrs Anon's name?

              Much of what you say here is a valuable insight. I tend to agree with you about half the time, so I definitely don't want you muzzled and I am outraged that there are some trying to do this. There are serious issues at stake. But both 'sides' need to stop being so personal.

              ReplyDelete
            2. 'Once you have the name of someone who disagrees with you, you set out to find out as much as you can about them in order to trash them publically, by referring to some detail about their private lives, often ridiculing them. '

              I am not sure how true this is. Those who disagree with me here are not really at risk of that at all. Anne Brown for example, disagrees with most of what I say. I am not about to start researching her family and trashing her reputation! With people that attack me and lie about me in various places, then the case is altered. The knitting reference involves Firebird 2110 from Surrey. She described herself as a 'wool crafter' and I still think it reasonable to ask what is meant by the expression. She has done a sight more than just disagree with me, though! In other words, if people come here and debate openly with me, then there is not the slightest risk of their being attacked. When people are organising campaigns against me, then yes, it is likely that I shall want to know more about them and why they are behaving in such a way. And if they have been telling outrageous lies about me in the comments sections of newspapers, then they may very well find a few jokes being made about them here.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. You'd be in for an incredibly boring time if you tried, Simon!

                Seriously, though, are you sure the spam is down to Alison etc? Cos there's also been a sudden explosion of spam on a quilting blog I follow, and I'm not sure how they'd have annoyed her.

                The writer of that one did investigate and found that spambots had been trawling and picking out key words from previous posts. Which, given that quilting patterns have names like 'Robbing Peter to Pay Paul' led to some interesting results.


                It must be very frustrating though, so I hope it stops soon.

                Atb
                Anne

                Delete
            3. 'And if they have been telling outrageous lies about me in the comments sections of newspapers, then they may very well find a few jokes being made about them here. '

              Your desire for revenge is interfering with the free flow of ideas here just as much as the behaviour you describe in this post, which is clearly disgusting.

              ReplyDelete
            4. 'Your desire for revenge is interfering with the free flow of ideas here just as much as the behaviour you describe in this post, which is clearly disgusting.'

              I am not convinced that this is true. I tend to let other people get on with their business without interfering. When something bad happens in home education, such as the abolition of flexi-schooling; then I will comment upon it. Since I believe that Alison Sauer shoulders most of the blame for this, I said so. I do not see that as 'seeking revenge'.

              ReplyDelete
            5. That Bucket woman needs to stop keeping up appearances. She claims to make things better by training Local Authority staff. She has for some home educators made things far worse than before she went in to train the LA.

              I don't think looking at her activities by clicking on her name will do anyone any good. It is all a lot of Hyacinth Bucket talk on there like lunches with Lords and trips to her second home in Graham Stuart's constituency. She is keeping up appearances just like "that Bucket woman".

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. "She claims to make things better by training Local Authority staff. She has for some home educators made things far worse than before she went in to train the LA."

                She did try to "fix" flexischooling and look what happened there!

                Delete
              2. Look here, she openly admits on this blog she tried to fix flexischooling:

                Negotiations are ongoing with the government to formally recognise
                flexischooling as a viable alternative to traditional learning.

                If you look at the bottom of the post (from last September) she signs her name:

                http://mum6kids.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/flexischooling-conference/

                Alison you have fixed flexischooling so that nobody can ever do it again. Well done you!

                Delete
            6. Simon wrote,
              "A number of things occur to one when reading this sort of thing. Why would Cheryl Moy want to know about my wife? Does she wish to talk to her about home education?"

              That's rich coming from someone with a history of researching and publishing the history, family background, and family details of people you disagree with. I don't like their behaviour, but this is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You are as bad as each other, so maybe you deserve each other?

              "The advertising of dumpsters the day before yesterday was all of a piece with this and was also a direct result of Alison Sauer’s activities."

              Since many blogs have suffered a similar deluge I still doubt there is a link. But I'm sure they are happy for you to think there is!

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. " But I'm sure they are happy for you to think there is!"

                They are attention seekers. There is no such thing as bad publicity for them. If people say bad things about them here AS and her cronies will have sympathy from their 'friends'.

                Their 'friends' are probably scared of them, so like that Bucket woman they too have appearances to keep up i.e. that they are really their friends.

                Delete
            7. "With people that attack me and lie about me in various places, then the case is altered."

              Maybe they felt attacked by your comments? I know that you will claim that you were attacking an idea or some such excuse, but the way you attack ideas often feels very personal to those who hold them. To take an example you’ve attempted to suggest are equivalent in the past, suggesting that AE is virtually child abuse does not feel the same as someone suggesting that phonics is not a very good way to teach reading.

              ReplyDelete
            8. 'You'd be in for an incredibly boring time if you tried, Simon!

              Seriously, though, are you sure the spam is down to Alison etc? Cos there's also been a sudden explosion of spam on a quilting blog I follow, and I'm not sure how they'd have annoyed her.'

              I am quite sure, but cannot say more without compromising one of my sources! Hand on heart Anne, you might find my views irritating and wrong; have you ever had the apprehension that I might launch an attack on you? I am inclined to doubt it.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. I'm sure Mrs Anon did not suffer from apprehension that you might launch an attack against her. Until you did.

                Delete
              2. I've never thought about it, Simon. As long as what you say interests me, I'll read it and challenge you if I don't agree with it. Countering your arguments lets me practice arguing my corner without being rude, which comes in very useful for my annual contact with my LA, who share many of your views.

                If you did 'launch an attack' wouldn't I just have to close my browser window to defeat it in seconds? Or are you the Darth Vader of the HE world?

                Anne

                Delete
              3. I'm glad to hear you are thick skinned enough not to be bothered by what is posted about you on a public web site. Unfortunately, comments perceived as lies or insults do bother some people as Simon amply and repeatedly demonstrates.

                Delete
            9. Anne wrote,
              "The writer of that one did investigate and found that spambots had been trawling and picking out key words from previous posts."

              That certainly fits with the paragraph on Simon's blog that included several references to recycling and rubbish bins being followed by lots of spam about dumpsters (as suggested by someone else yesterday, I think).

              ReplyDelete
            10. 'I'm sure Mrs Anon did not suffer from apprehension that you might launch an attack against her. Until you did.'

              Mrs Anon of course was another anonymous poster here; what attack did I launch on her? I am intrigued by this allegation!

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Mrs Anon's comment were probably about 50/50 for and against your views (sorry Mrs Anon, if I'm misrepresenting you) and identified herself as Mrs Anon so that all her comments could be recognised as coming from a particular individual. At some point over the last year (I've tried and failed to find it - Google's indexing method appears to have changed) she said something that upset you. Something you presumably experienced as an attack because you attacked her (verbally, obviously). Immediately she expressed how upset she was at this attack and said that she would now join the ranks of anonymous posters.

                Haven't you at least missed her comments, even if you missed that particular message? Or maybe you care so little about the views of others that you don't bother to retain such information.

                Delete
            11. I came on here to say that, despite being no friend of Alison Sauer's, I think you are seriously off beam with this. The conversation you pasted, whilst in no way edifying, simply does not establish that Alison or her buddies had anything to do with the dumpster spam. However, as Alison has now deactivated from facebook, who knows, maybe you had something. The spam was odd, you don't normally get spamsters having conversations with each other do you?

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Alison has not deactivated. If she did she couldn't get the attention she craves. Her 'friends' will now have to spend their day stroking her ego and giving hugs

                Delete
              2. Ooo the contributors to the thread must have me blocked then. That's a plus :D

                Delete
            12. ' because you attacked her (verbally, obviously).'

              The pseudonym 'Mrs Anon' rings a bell, certainly. That I 'attacked' her is less certain. As I say, perhaps you could tell us about the nature of this supposed 'attack'? Of course, this has little to do with people using their real names here, unless this individual really was called 'Mrs Anon'.

              ReplyDelete
            13. Watching to see how fast EO's Wales Rep will distance herself from Sauer's latest faux pas...

              ReplyDelete
            14. Simon wrote,
              "The pseudonym 'Mrs Anon' rings a bell, certainly. That I 'attacked' her is less certain. As I say, perhaps you could tell us about the nature of this supposed 'attack'?"

              I'm surprised her name only 'rings a bell' given that so few posters agree with any of your comments. Unfortunately, as I've already said, I've tried and failed to find the conversation and have had to rely on memory.

              "Of course, this has little to do with people using their real names here, unless this individual really was called 'Mrs Anon'."

              Why? You don't need to know someone’s real name to verbally attack them online. You also attempted to work out who they were several times; maybe they were concerned that you would identify them and start publishing their location, their hobbies, their partner's name and job, etc. It says a lot that someone doesn't even want to risk continuing to use a pseudonym in order to comment on your blog.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Sorry, my mistake entirely, I abjectly apologise. It was Old Mum, not Mrs Anon. So, sorry to Simon, Mrs Anon and Old Mum. You accused her of lying, of being a brazen hypocrite, and of making personal attacks against you.

                This is the page, http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/closing-down-debate.html.

                Just switch the names in the previous comments.

                Delete
            15. 'You don't need to know someone’s real name to verbally attack them online. You also attempted to work out who they were several times; '

              Yes, but you see I don't think for a moment that I did attack this person, online or otherwise. I might quite possibly have tried to guess her name. This is the problem with dozens of anonymous people all commenting; it is hard to keep track of who's who! None of this would happen if people just used their ordinary names, as I invariably do whenever I post a comment anywhere on the internet. It's not hard.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. "This is the problem with dozens of anonymous people all commenting; it is hard to keep track of who's who!"

                That's why some people have used a pseudonym. But even that feels too risky for some on your blog.

                "None of this would happen if people just used their ordinary names, as I invariably do whenever I post a comment anywhere on the internet."

                You don't need a real name to keep track of a conversation when someone is using a pseudonym. That's why they use the pseudonym.

                Delete
            16. Instead of discussing previous anonymi (?) let's get back to home ed, shall we?

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Yes, please!

                Anne-onymous

                (Sorry, but I've spent too long today trying to explain puns to an autistic boy whose use of language is incredibly literal to resist that.)

                Delete
            17. 'You don't need a real name to keep track of a conversation when someone is using a pseudonym. That's why they use the pseudonym.'

              Well, the problem is that those using pseudonyms sometimes use them and at other times do not. Cheryl Moy, for example, whom I mention above, sometimes posts here as 'Pink'. At other times, she will just comment anonymously; even when she has signed as 'Pink' just a few minutes earlier. It is confusing. It would not be confusing if people signed their names, as I do.

              'That's why some people have used a pseudonym. But even that feels too risky for some on your blog.'

              I suppose that if commenting here is really such a risky enterprise,
              I hesitate to ask what the risks are, it might be better not to come on here at all!

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Simon said,
                "Well, the problem is that those using pseudonyms sometimes use them and at other times do not...It would not be confusing if people signed their names, as I do."

                Well posting under different names will always be a possibility and we only have your word that you don't use other names (a statement of fact, not an accusation). But I'm as sure as I can be that Old Mum and various other pseudonym users have stuck to posting under the same name. Using your own name doesn't make using alternatives at other times any more or less likely than using a pseudonym.

                Delete
              2. "I hesitate to ask what the risks are, it might be better not to come on here at all!"

                The trouble is people don't have to come here in order to be investigated and have the results published by you. But using a pseudonym or signing anonymously helps.

                Delete
              3. Things like this:
                'Her other daughter works at a solicitor's office in Llandudno.'

                Delete
            18. "I suppose that if commenting here is really such a risky enterprise, I hesitate to ask what the risks are, it might be better not to come on here at all!"

              People have things to say, people have been threatened with lawsuits by Alison Sauer and her cronies. It is for this reason that people choose to speak out and to do so under a pseudonym.

              ReplyDelete
            19. 'people have been threatened with lawsuits by Alison Sauer and her cronies. '

              Have they, by George? Any more information about this?

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Keep up Simon, don't you read The Lampoon?

                Delete
            20. The threats were veiled and looked like they were giving information about libel on AS public status.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Was that on here? If so it might have been me, but I have nothing to do with AS and was purely giving information, possibly as a warning, certainly not as a threat.

                Delete
              2. It was on her Facebook status but was deleted after about an hour of being up.

                Delete
              3. Fair enough.

                Delete
              4. I have a screenshot tho...

                Delete
            21. I believe she of traffic light fame has instructed a "defamation specialist" and she implied this was to be a joint action with, presumably, Wendy and Alison. Complete nonsense in my opinion and a nasty way of silencing people who don't agree with you.

              ReplyDelete
            22. 'she of traffic light fame'

              Sorry to be obtuse, but who is this?

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Oh sorry I thought you knew. You said that you knew who was behind the traffic light idea in Nottingham when you commented here http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/home-education-and-traffic-lights.html

                Delete
            23. 'Oh sorry I thought you knew. You said that you knew who was behind the traffic light idea in Nottingham when you commented here http://homeeducationheretic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/home-education-and-traffic-lights.html'

              Ah yes, I did not catch the allusion. This is 'bulldog', I suppose.

              ReplyDelete
            24. Alison Sauer is now accused of undertaking a spamming exercise that would require the person doing it to be an IT specialist. Meanwhile in one of her other hours in her 36 hour day she is threatening people?

              Presumably she also made the postman late, caused his beer to be served warm, single handedly elected the current government and prevented him from getting a tax rebate too. Or was it just the moles in his garden and the junk mail pile she created?

              It is common knowledge that he is obsessed with Ms Sauer, he has for example described holding various photos of the presumably delectable lady (I can't say myself whether she is or not) in different outfits. Would it not be easier for him to simply obtain a naked photo of her, pin it to his wall in the convenience in his house and use it when frustration mounts? I'm sure we could obtain one if it would help.

              That might relieve his needs and leave the world to get on without constant refrains from the poor lad that the woman had upset his little life.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. The thought of Ms Sauer posing naked is a bit disconcerting....she is a bit long in the tooth for such things

                Delete
            25. 'It is common knowledge that he is obsessed with Ms Sauer, '

              Interesting. One cannot help but get the impression from the facebook exchanges above that the boot might very well be on the other foot! Also curious to see the masturbation motif reappearing here.

              'a spamming exercise that would require the person doing it to be an IT specialist. '

              No great skill needed to send links like this to a blog. I have no idea if Alison Sauer did this herself; I said that she instigated it. It is all of a part with the nuisance deliveries to my home, email problems and so on that she began.

              ReplyDelete
            26. 'believe she of traffic light fame has instructed a "defamation specialist" and she implied this was to be a joint action with, presumably, Wendy and Alison. '

              Apropos of which, I assume that we all know that Wendy Charles-Warner's daughter is a barrister in Leeds? This may be where the legal advice is coming from.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. I was under the impression that Hafod herself is a solicitor. That is what Alison told people on any Facebook groups when people would have problems with their Local Authority. Hafod would dispense advice to them.

                Delete
              2. Don't you mean lawyer? Alison always said Hafod was a lawyer. She never said solicitor.

                Delete
            27. I am fairly sure that Wendy Charles-Warner is not a solicitor. You can search the Law Society records for those qualified to practice in this country;

              http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?view=solsearch

              I have searched under both Charles-Warner and Cook, her maiden name. Of course, she may be a barrister. Her other daughter works at a solicitor's office in Llandudno.

              ReplyDelete
            28. One wonders why you are stating that Alison has committed criminal offences whilst claiming that she is litigious?

              Do you have a defamation wish? By the way that is a joke.

              ReplyDelete
            29. 'One wonders why you are stating that Alison has committed criminal offences whilst claiming that she is litigious?'

              I have no idea if she is litigious, nor do I recollect saying that she has committed criminal offences. I actually said that she would, ' engage in conspiracies which veer very close to the criminal'. I have an idea that organising harassment of this sort, by encouraging people to arrange nuisance deliveries to my home and so on, probably is a criminal offence. If Alison Sauer wishes to test this by starting proceedings against me, then of course we shall see. Of course, I might then feel obliged to take the matter of the harassment to the police.

              ReplyDelete
            30. She is neither a barrister nor a lawyer nor a solicitor and never has been. Not under either of the names you mention or any of the names in between.

              ReplyDelete
            31. I have heard from an impeccable source, David Icke himself, that She Who Should Not Be Named (lest you be sued) is actually one of the lizard overlords. Part of her lineage does trace back to the Royal family, so it's clear that David Icke is correct.

              He must be so proud of you Simon, being his acolyte in revealing Truth in the face of Conspiracy.

              I have seen a photo of her with Elvis, taken in Bognor Regis in 2004. I wish I had a copy to pass on to you.

              Keep up the good work, and do let us know if she shot President Kennedy. I have my suspicions...

              ReplyDelete
            32. Incidentally, just in case anybody is considering proceedings with regard to the above post, I ought to mention that this would involve witness summonses being issued to all those who participated in the conversation about harassing me and my family. These include Tracy McPherson of Berwick, Hellen Barnes Kowalkowskie of Nottingham, Kat Brown from Leeds, Sarah Eaton of Leicester, Cheryl Moy of Doncaster, Ann-Marie Harrigan, Jai Daniels-Freeston, Dawn Baxendale and various others. How pleased these individuals would be to get drawn into the business; I cannot say. Mind, I suppose that they really should have thought of this before involving themselves in a conspiracy of this nature.

              ReplyDelete
            33. Alison might want to read up on the case of Olly Cromwell who similarly incited readers on twitter to deliver shit to an adversary. Luckily for him he only posted a picture not an actual address so the charges were dropped....

              ReplyDelete
            34. Indeed, yes. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 covers this sort of activity as well. It would be amusing to see Alison Sauer try to explain in court why she feels that her behaviour was not criminal...

              ReplyDelete
            35. Looking at the definitions of stalking and harassment, Simon and Alison are both guilty as charged.

              http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/

              The have both used the internet to, 'locate personal information about a victim', and also, 'damaging the reputation of the victim', for instance.

              ReplyDelete
            36. 'Looking at the definitions of stalking and harassment, Simon and Alison are both guilty as charged.

              http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/

              The have both used the internet to, 'locate personal information about a victim', and also, 'damaging the reputation of the victim', for instance.'

              Interestingly enough, that was the line that Maire Staffard, Nikki Harper and Mike Fortune-Wood took when they tried to have me arrested. I have to say, I spoke to the officer in Lincolnshire who handled the complaint and he told me that as far as he was concerned, the whole thing came close to the offence of 'wasting police time'. I think that you will find that encouraging people to deliver animal excrement to my home address is in a different category from poking fun at people.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. The trouble is, both of you will claim that you were 'poking fun' or joking. Unless they have actually delivered animal excrement, how can you prove it wasn't an joke amongst friends? The only way you know about it, and can therefore claim to feel harassed as a result, is because someone sneaked the information to you. Wouldn't they have needed to intentionally tell you that they were going to do it for it to count as harassment? As far as they were concerned, you should never have heard about their joke, so how could they have intended it as harassment?

                Delete
            37. The have both used the internet to, 'locate personal information about a victim'

              Well if that's a crime then the intelligence services, genealogists, police, debt collectors, customs and excise officers, tax inspectors, private investigators and virtually all employers and personnel managers as well as anyone else who carries out background checks or uses 192.com to look up a phone number is in trouble.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. The number of actions taken that are included on the list as well as the intention of the person taking the actions play a part too which is clear if you bother looking at the page I gave the link to. I didn't want to write an exhaustive definition of harassment - that's why I included the link to the relevant page.

                Delete
            38. I did look at the link. Nowhere does it state that using the internet to locate personal information is a crime, only that it is one of the ways the internet may be used to stalk someone. The crime of stalking cannot exist unless there is harassment for which specific tests apply. Simply carrying out internet research doesn't constitute harassment by and of itself. Perhaps you should read your own link?

              ReplyDelete
            39. As for damaging the reputation of the victim? Both alleged victims already damage their own reputations to such an extent as to render it impossible for them to be further damaged by anyone else.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. Well except possibly for claiming they have both been charged and convicted of these offences..."Simon and Alison are both guilty as charged" that seems somewhat defamatory to me...

                Delete
              2. Except that it's clear from the rest of the post that, at worst, it's only an opinion. People are allowed to have opinions. And in this case, it was more a joke than an opinion.

                Delete
            40. Interestingly, as my name is in the list that Simon has just mentioned, I have a copy of the conversation (I was in it) and Simon I would like to ask, have you purposely not copied the full conversation? or has your spy conned you and not shown you the full thing? The part you quote has only half a sentence, the full sentence and the rest of the conversation would shed light on many of the questions that have been raised.

              ReplyDelete
              Replies
              1. It isn't unknown for Simon to cut quotes short or quote them out of context. If the rest of the conversation lessens the impact by, for instance, making it clear that you were joking, it wouldn't surprise me.

                Delete
            41. "Nowhere does it state that using the internet to locate personal information is a crime"

              I didn't say it was. I mentioned is as one of the many actions carried out by Simon that cumulatively could add up to stalking or harassment. I doubt either Simon or Alison have done enough to count as a crime, to be honest. My point was that Simon has done to others exactly what he now claims is harassment against himself.


              ReplyDelete
            42. What's up all, here every one is sharing these knowledge, therefore it's nice to read this web site, and
              I used to pay a quick visit this weblog every day.


              Also visit my web page waist to height calculator

              ReplyDelete
            43. If you desire to take a good deal from this paragraph then you have to apply
              such methods to your won webpage.

              Also visit my web page; best diet

              ReplyDelete