Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 19, 2022Liked by David Farrier
I'm really glad you have chosen to weigh in on this. I've followed this page religiously since it started as a) I have been on the receiving end of this behaviour through the media industry and b) I am a lawyer who experienced severe harassment before the #MeToo era (which inadvertently resulted in me being put off practising within the profession at age 20). I applaud the bravery of those who have come forward. Especially the survivors who have been named and had to deal with keyboard warriors questioning their story, truth and been accused of "being on a witch hunt".
One thing I have been grappling with (and would love to hear some thoughts on) is about accountability for the actions of others. Some of the posts on BTGC have centred on the business partners/ associates of perpetrators- and I am constantly debating with myself the level of responsibility and accountability third parties should have in these circumstances. Are we responsible for the actions of others? In what cases should we be? Where's the line? I think it's subjective/ case by case basis. Thoughts? I mull this over, as when I look back at my experiences in media, I feel like I was wilfully blind to some of the going ons'- particularly involving young, vulnerable members of staff. Everything was written off as being "part of the culture", and I wish I did more in protecting others and trusted my gut. Honestly, even 5 years ago- the ego fuelled, power tripping, party culture was, just normalised. Almost part of the job description if you wanted success. It makes me feel ill.
Sorry that this is so long- but final point. From reading that "legal letter" a few times, I am utterly dumbfounded at what exactly they thought the letter would achieve from this. My theory is that the Party (X) is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and perhaps has interim name suppression. It might explain why they believe that defences of truth or honest opinion wouldn't stand (unless they are just idiots that are bluffing).
Seeing how the Harmful Digital Communications Act works in this context would be incredibly interesting. This legislation has so far been clogged up by disgruntled influencers that don't seem to have a shred of accountability for their online presence- rather than protecting the vulnerable from very real digital crimes and harm. Technology is so far ahead of our legal system, and I hope with every fibre of my being that perpetrators with deep pockets aren't prioritised over victims- many of which, at the time, didn't feel they could speak up or get help.
Shit that was long. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk haha. It feels slightly freeing to talk about issues that grapple at my heart strings every day. Em xx
Article one (a), part 1, verse i: herewith and hereafter it's well known that none (0) people are as impressive as they think whence pretending to write like a lawyer
Firstly, there's no such thing as too much Webworm. Thought I should clear that up for you ;) Secondly, does the fact that someone read their behaviour on the account, recognised themselves and then freaked out and went to such lengths to have it removed not sort of prove their guilt? I realise this wouldn't mean anything in a legal sense, but i love that they are sort of creating / compiling more evidence against themselves of what a bullyish arse they are. I feel terrible for Shelley, what a horrible experience and stress to have to deal with. She needs to take legal action against X for placing her under unreasonable amounts of stress with threats based on poor investigative work.
I love and hate how they threaten massive media attention in court as a deterrent if she doesn’t back down but attention to this is what they’re trying to stop. I look forward to when the “anonymous Mr X” becomes the “known Mr ex musician” but for now I’m going to google pictures of Barbara streisand‘s super cool house.
It seems outrageous to me that “Mr X” would be prepared to take this matter to court and open himself up to widespread media attention and publicity - only further drawing attention to his shitty behaviour AND which specific situations he was responsible for as shared on BTGC - when he won’t even disclose his name and identity in the letter from him lawyer?????? What an own goal. Sounds like total bullshit and that if he had his bluff called, he’d chicken out because he’s a fucking coward and knows he’s a disgrace and will be forced to face the consequences of being a disgusting sex pest.
I’ve followed both those accounts, which I hope was the exact opposite effect Mr X and his slimy PI/legal advice team wanted.
This whole attack feels dirty af and I wish the best for the awesome accounts that have been targeted - may they continue their brave fight and expose these a***holes!!
I think lots of people are aware of the hell that Colin Craig put Rachel MacGregor through, so the intimidation factor is heightened by that. Thank you for two new Insta accounts to follow though.
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022Liked by David Farrier
Certainly, that original document doesn't part the sniff test and can be safely ignored from a legal challenge perspective.
The alleged defamation has no standing for the obvious reason that honest opinion and truth *are* protected and demonstrating personal injury to someone who has not been named is, de facto, not legally possible.
Unfortunately, as you state it's purpose is intimidation, and the implicit threat of legal timewasting which can be costly to defend against. The best defensive tactic is probably what has been undertaken - sunlight.
A point on identifying the 'owners' of a social media account though, either implicitly or by supposition - this is absolutely do-able.
It would require some OSINT nouse (followed up with some malware emplaced via social engineering) but there are certainly people who will do that for a reasonable fee.
It appears that Mr X read something on the site that helped him to recognise himself. The mere fact of threatening defamation when he hasn't been named is pretty much an admission of guilt. He and his PI and lawyer are shit bags and are worth suing back just for a bit of fun, but they are also not worth the freaking energy.
I did think the request to remove all the info makes sense from Mr X's point of view. If only one item is removed, everyone knows who has taken the standover tactics inviting further scrutiny. Sunlight is definitely required to stop this kind of behaviour from continuing.
You definitely do not do too many webworms! I love them and eagerly await the death follow up! Thank you for speaking out on this. As sad as it is, I think some men hear what’s being said better if another man is saying it. We need more men to do this. Thank you thank you x
What I find strange about many of the statements is that they are summarised by a statement along the lines of "The court will find you guilty". If a lawyer wrote this tripe, "it" must be a sandwich short of a picnic as no lawyer I know would ever try to predict what the court verdict will be. Certainly to do this in writing would be to invite public and professional ridicule and censure, maybe even sacking and striking off!
Is the lawyer here literally Lionel Hutz? God what a crock. I hope this blows up massively in the sex pest’s face without any of the victims being implicated.
Bullying scum - I can’t believe they think that using tactics like that would work. But probably for a lot of good, honest people (unlike themselves) it does. I hope these amazing women all stay strong.
I'm really glad you have chosen to weigh in on this. I've followed this page religiously since it started as a) I have been on the receiving end of this behaviour through the media industry and b) I am a lawyer who experienced severe harassment before the #MeToo era (which inadvertently resulted in me being put off practising within the profession at age 20). I applaud the bravery of those who have come forward. Especially the survivors who have been named and had to deal with keyboard warriors questioning their story, truth and been accused of "being on a witch hunt".
One thing I have been grappling with (and would love to hear some thoughts on) is about accountability for the actions of others. Some of the posts on BTGC have centred on the business partners/ associates of perpetrators- and I am constantly debating with myself the level of responsibility and accountability third parties should have in these circumstances. Are we responsible for the actions of others? In what cases should we be? Where's the line? I think it's subjective/ case by case basis. Thoughts? I mull this over, as when I look back at my experiences in media, I feel like I was wilfully blind to some of the going ons'- particularly involving young, vulnerable members of staff. Everything was written off as being "part of the culture", and I wish I did more in protecting others and trusted my gut. Honestly, even 5 years ago- the ego fuelled, power tripping, party culture was, just normalised. Almost part of the job description if you wanted success. It makes me feel ill.
Sorry that this is so long- but final point. From reading that "legal letter" a few times, I am utterly dumbfounded at what exactly they thought the letter would achieve from this. My theory is that the Party (X) is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and perhaps has interim name suppression. It might explain why they believe that defences of truth or honest opinion wouldn't stand (unless they are just idiots that are bluffing).
Seeing how the Harmful Digital Communications Act works in this context would be incredibly interesting. This legislation has so far been clogged up by disgruntled influencers that don't seem to have a shred of accountability for their online presence- rather than protecting the vulnerable from very real digital crimes and harm. Technology is so far ahead of our legal system, and I hope with every fibre of my being that perpetrators with deep pockets aren't prioritised over victims- many of which, at the time, didn't feel they could speak up or get help.
Shit that was long. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk haha. It feels slightly freeing to talk about issues that grapple at my heart strings every day. Em xx
Article one (a), part 1, verse i: herewith and hereafter it's well known that none (0) people are as impressive as they think whence pretending to write like a lawyer
Firstly, there's no such thing as too much Webworm. Thought I should clear that up for you ;) Secondly, does the fact that someone read their behaviour on the account, recognised themselves and then freaked out and went to such lengths to have it removed not sort of prove their guilt? I realise this wouldn't mean anything in a legal sense, but i love that they are sort of creating / compiling more evidence against themselves of what a bullyish arse they are. I feel terrible for Shelley, what a horrible experience and stress to have to deal with. She needs to take legal action against X for placing her under unreasonable amounts of stress with threats based on poor investigative work.
I love and hate how they threaten massive media attention in court as a deterrent if she doesn’t back down but attention to this is what they’re trying to stop. I look forward to when the “anonymous Mr X” becomes the “known Mr ex musician” but for now I’m going to google pictures of Barbara streisand‘s super cool house.
It seems outrageous to me that “Mr X” would be prepared to take this matter to court and open himself up to widespread media attention and publicity - only further drawing attention to his shitty behaviour AND which specific situations he was responsible for as shared on BTGC - when he won’t even disclose his name and identity in the letter from him lawyer?????? What an own goal. Sounds like total bullshit and that if he had his bluff called, he’d chicken out because he’s a fucking coward and knows he’s a disgrace and will be forced to face the consequences of being a disgusting sex pest.
Is Shelley OK? Does she need to lawyer up or can she just ignore these idiots?
I’ve followed both those accounts, which I hope was the exact opposite effect Mr X and his slimy PI/legal advice team wanted.
This whole attack feels dirty af and I wish the best for the awesome accounts that have been targeted - may they continue their brave fight and expose these a***holes!!
Often what plays out when perpetrators resist being held accountable is a technique called DARVO which stands for ‘Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender’ https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html in which the accused tries to silence whistleblowers and victims and confuse and deceive onlookers and bystanders by playing the victim. Weinstein, R. Kelly, Epstein, Maxwell, Kavanaugh, and Trump all use it. And arguably, so is Mr. ‘X’. https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/sc-fam-kelly-interview-denial-response-0312-story.html
I think lots of people are aware of the hell that Colin Craig put Rachel MacGregor through, so the intimidation factor is heightened by that. Thank you for two new Insta accounts to follow though.
Certainly, that original document doesn't part the sniff test and can be safely ignored from a legal challenge perspective.
The alleged defamation has no standing for the obvious reason that honest opinion and truth *are* protected and demonstrating personal injury to someone who has not been named is, de facto, not legally possible.
Unfortunately, as you state it's purpose is intimidation, and the implicit threat of legal timewasting which can be costly to defend against. The best defensive tactic is probably what has been undertaken - sunlight.
A point on identifying the 'owners' of a social media account though, either implicitly or by supposition - this is absolutely do-able.
It would require some OSINT nouse (followed up with some malware emplaced via social engineering) but there are certainly people who will do that for a reasonable fee.
It appears that Mr X read something on the site that helped him to recognise himself. The mere fact of threatening defamation when he hasn't been named is pretty much an admission of guilt. He and his PI and lawyer are shit bags and are worth suing back just for a bit of fun, but they are also not worth the freaking energy.
I did think the request to remove all the info makes sense from Mr X's point of view. If only one item is removed, everyone knows who has taken the standover tactics inviting further scrutiny. Sunlight is definitely required to stop this kind of behaviour from continuing.
You definitely do not do too many webworms! I love them and eagerly await the death follow up! Thank you for speaking out on this. As sad as it is, I think some men hear what’s being said better if another man is saying it. We need more men to do this. Thank you thank you x
What I find strange about many of the statements is that they are summarised by a statement along the lines of "The court will find you guilty". If a lawyer wrote this tripe, "it" must be a sandwich short of a picnic as no lawyer I know would ever try to predict what the court verdict will be. Certainly to do this in writing would be to invite public and professional ridicule and censure, maybe even sacking and striking off!
Is the lawyer here literally Lionel Hutz? God what a crock. I hope this blows up massively in the sex pest’s face without any of the victims being implicated.
Bullying scum - I can’t believe they think that using tactics like that would work. But probably for a lot of good, honest people (unlike themselves) it does. I hope these amazing women all stay strong.