I observe that Alison Sauer is now telling people that I am lying about her role in helping to close down free speech on this blog. Earlier today, I posted a brief account of how this was done and below will be found evidence that Alison did precisely what I have said that she did.
Perhaps readers might like to ask themselves why Cheryl Moy could possibly have wanted to know my wife's name? They might wonder why Alison really wanted to know my home address. She said that it was because Wendy might need to serve 'papers' on me, but all I had said was that Wendy lived near Snowdonia. What legal action would be possible for mentioning that somebody lived near a National Park? Having acquired my address, for the purpose, as she claimed, of Wendy Charles-Warner serving papers on me, why do readers suppose that she then gave it to everybody else? Was that in case they too wished to serve me with papers? Or was it perhaps to encourage people to send nuisance deliveries to my home? And why on earth did Alison only want this to be spread via private messages? Might it be that she wished to keep her role in coordinating the harassment secret? Since Alison is telling her friends that I am making all this up, and since she is reading this blog, may we expect her to come on here and tell us all about this? Does anybody not think that this looks like a woman launching a campaign of harassment and intimidation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Aaaah, I see. The whole Katya rape threat thing makes more sense now.
ReplyDeleteYes, what with Alison publishing my address, Cheryl Moy asking what my wife was called and then Katya talking about giving my daughter's name and address to a rape fantasy site, it was all getting a bit much. All that crew are cut from the same piece of cloth.
ReplyDeleteSimon I used to enjoy reading your blog. But I've just revisited after a long time and can't help but wonder why you don't put all this negative energy into something else?
ReplyDeleteNegative energy? You don't think it's important that there seems to be a plot to take over a charity that the government listens to, that there are narcissistic and sociopathic people manipulating home educators? I'm glad Simon is taking the time to document this stuff, I would rather know what is going on.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is though Simon, whilst many people are well aware of the antics of these people and would not disagree with your opinion of them, you make yourself less than credible with your twisting of the facts to suit whichever version of the truth you'd like to publicise. Take the Katya incident for example. Initially you claimed to have no idea what her reference to rape fantasy websites was about, then when questioned you filled in a few more details about the context but still claimed not to know what she was talking about, and now, in this post, you detail exactly what she was referring to. Why couldn't you have just been up front in the first place and made it clear that her "threats" to you were off the back of you mentioning where Wendy lived? You knew full well what it was all about, yet you claimed to have no idea. So in answer to your above question, yes, I would say you are.
ReplyDeleteYou may see a connection between mentioning that a certain individual lives near the Snowdonia national Park and the later threat to put my daughter's details on a rape fantasy website; but I'm afraid that I do not. Katya's talk about rape was eighteen months after I had mentioned that Wendy Charles-Warner lived near Snowdonia and I am not at all sure that it was to this that she was referring. Tell me, how are you so sure?
ReplyDeleteActually, reading through what Katya said again, there is nothing at all about mentioning Wendy's address. She talks of a feud with Wendy, putting her daughter at risk, my obnoxious attitude and so on.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, that old chestnut. The danger factor is always unidirectional and always points back to them.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to the September posts?
ReplyDeleteI was rather looking forward to the next instalment.
'What happened to the September posts? '
ReplyDeleteYes, i'm sorry about that. A certain individual visited London on Thursday to see a barrister. This may have some bearing on a defamation case with which she is involved and although so far I am not connected with the business, the rumour is that she would love to see me in court as well. Under the circumstances, it seemed wiser to put some posts on hold for a while. rest assured, they will almost certainly be returning on October 6th, when we will learn who has won the contract to develop the non-statutory guidelines for elective home education in Wales. It is a damned nuisance that one or two people who keep fooling around with lawyers can have such an effect, but there it is!
What is the point of guidelines if they are non-statutory? That means that they can be disregarded. In England many LAs disregard the EHEGLA from 2007. Sounds like they have some extra money in the budget left over and they need to use it or lose it. The guidelines need to be something that we can hold them to, have them over a barrel if you will, if they don't follow them. These non-statutory guidelines are a waste of everyone's time and tax money!
ReplyDelete