SLAPP Censorship - Part 66 Out of 200: Alex Graveley Did Illegal Things, Then Asserted Mentioning Those Illegal Things is Privacy Violation
Alex Graveley "has suffered damage and distress" when the public found out he told women to kill themselves (he can possibly be arrested for that too, set aside strangulation)
When the real objective is to financially punish a critic/exposer (or to censor criticism) courts need to thwart lawsuits that game the system. The sooner, the better.
Graveley and Garrett both have women problems; actually, that's a gross understatement. They should be compelled to stay away from women; they endanger women.
In the previous part we showed that Graveley and Garrett not only collaborated but also recycled the same legal text, using the exact same legal team (hired guns who act as a proxy for them in London).
A lot remains to be said about the immorality of what they did and still do. That bodes poorly for Microsoft and it began in 2021. Their aim was very clear. A year later Graveley begged me to hide what he had done and two years later he made an "offer" which was actually a not-so-veiled threat against media in another continent. Maybe they have this notion of "owning" all the media all around the world, as it certainly seems like a cultural thing [1, 2]. In 2025 Graveley's hired guns said "that he objects to the processing of his personal data and requested that his personal data be erased from the Publications and the Further Publications."
By "personal data" they meant publicly accessible data or reporting.
"This is denied," I wrote in my counterclaim. "Paragraph 26 states things that never happened. Not even once was UK GDPR mentioned; the purpose of the communications was to beg and to issue threats. There was no legal basis cited."
Notice how the hired guns frame reporting in the UK (about US affairs of relevance to the entire world; it's about Microsoft corruption/fraud [1, 2]): "In the premises, by holding and/or recording and/or disclosing and/or publishing the Personal Data to the world at large and in failing to respond or act on the requests under Articles 17 and 7 21 the Defendant has infringed the Claimant’s rights as a data subject, in contravention of the UK GDPR."
So journalism is "in contravention of the UK GDPR."
Got it!
"Paragraph 27 is denied," I wrote (to the Court). "Like Paragraph 26, it repeats a false statement about what happened. The publication was in the public interest and required supporting material so as to obstruct revisionism attempts."
Then they say: "As a consequence of the Defendant’s infringement of the Claimant’s rights under the UK GDPR, the Claimant has suffered damage and distress as set out further below."
My response: "Paragraph 28 speaks of “damage and distress” without even once bothering to consider the harms done by the client, i.e. the person who was in prison and who told women to kill themselves in a very crude fashion. These are projection tactics." One example (there are more):
What truly lovely people! Now they send me threats that they will "shut down" my "existence" (my wife is mentioned as well). █
Related: Writing About Crime is Not a Crime | Reporting on Crimes From the UK, in the UK, or About the UK