SLAPP Censorship - Part 30 Out of 200: The Time We Reported Abuse to Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and It Was Escalated to Its Cybercrime Unit
After online abuse since 2012 (I rightly and based on verified facts criticised Red Hat - now IBM - over 'secure boot' and then Garrett - an outspoken, rude, and flamboyant Red Hat employee - started heckling me in my own platforms, ultimately repeatedly defamed me for his large Twitter audiences) I decided it was time to escalate to cops and was advised, accordingly, by associates
Garrett (Red Hat) not even mentioned until he started trolling and harassing me for criticising his employers' monopolistic and users-hostile agenda (working for Microsoft to undermine computer security [1, 2] under the guise of pseudo-security)
In the last part we covered violent language and rhetoric because Garrett had requested information regarding his own violent language and rhetoric. During the trial, Garrett did not deny writing or saying those things, instead he made shallow excuses for writing or saying those utterly foolish things as a grown-up, an adult. The judge didn't seem too impressed and her decision alludes to that in passing several times.
To be clear, at the trial my wife and I were self represented because we couldn't spend a million dollars on lawyers and barristers. Prior to that we used only one barrister, first to sue Garrett [1, 2], who repeatedly attempted to end (settle) the case that he himself had started and soon relied on third parties funding it (Garrett's money didn't last long; he started the case that he could not himself finance without outside help or help from a Microsofter who had spent time in prison) and then respond to time-wasting requests (Garrett requesting documents that he already had and oftentimes originated from him).
They have used at least two barristers from the same firm at their end, based on the metadata in the PDFs. Two barristers! No kidding. They won't say who funded their litigation, but public admissions exist that the lawyers got paid by other people.
Our barrister felt strongly about the case (worse one he ever saw in his career as a barrister, according to him) and told us we can write about it once it's over (it finished 6 months ago!). He was instructed by our solicitor at the time, a high-profile lawyer now representing Richard Tice, who sued Dale Vince last week. When Brett Wilson LLP worked for Vince it was found to have engaged in abuse of process based on a High Court judge - exactly the same sort of abuse directed against my wife and I months earlier. They did this to us twice [1, 2], once in 2024, then again in 2025 (for the Serial Strangler from Microsoft). What compels them to call everything "UK-GDPR violation" when they themselves routinely violate the privacy of their "opponent" and their clients dox family members? Remember that a month ago I was receiving threats from burner accounts demanding that I remove articles about Brett Wilson LLP. Days later they tried to put my family and I in prison [1, 2] - rather surreal in light of the fact that only a few weeks earlier their client's spouse called him a rapist. So much projection going on! Somehow a reporter in the UK (Europe) is the "bad guy" because two dudes in the US abuse women and the reporter merely opposes what those dudes' employers do [1, 2] since 2012. In a nutshell, they try to censor past and future articles (self-censorship) while doxing family and trying to deplatform sites because of their own contempt and effort to hide what the law firm did, as well as its clients in America. They pick on the wife, who was indeed abused online, over matters that go back to 2012 (when Garrett worked for the company criticised, not personified), and then exploit British taxpayers' money to suppress British voices for Americans, seeking unethical outcomes while the litigation gets funded by rich people (we assume in America). It started in 2021 with threats to sue. To be clear, this is a matter of national security observed by politicians at this point. We planned to file an appeal, anticipating further misuse and abuse by these bullies from America, but to go ahead with an appeal it takes quite a bit of money in a country that generally demands money for proper access to justice.
We have every right to protest what Brett Wilson LLP did to us since February 2024. Months ago this firm got sued by its own clients [1, 2, 3]. There are signs of financial problems and a considerable number of people left (mostly women, all the managers are men). Violence against women seems to be a joke to these people [1, 2] and some of their biggest clients come from countries where it's permissible to beat up wives.
That site is offline at the moment. Qatar's money at work?
They're allegedly good at helping bad people silence good people who speak about bad people's behaviour, actions, sometimes corruption and even strangulation (when begging isn't enough).
2 days ago we mentioned impersonation of other people in IRC by Garrett (he was asked about this by me repeatedly under cross-examination and confirmed that he had done so). So this from 2024 seems relevant in hindsight:
Under Paragraph 15.27.9 of the Defence and Counterclaim “admission by the Claimant under the name mjg59_ that he was switching between machines while using the IRC network””Request
14. Please set out the date and time of the admission.
Rianne covered this. M.J.G. said so on March 5 2023 at 07:05:10 (GMT) in the #techrights channel. He used his own name to say so.
March 5 2023 at 07:05 on switching between machines:
2026 update: This is what led us to assume he used several computers in parallel.
To be clear, the following does not run afoul of injunctions but is merely our response (from 2024) to questions about what was reported to the police in 2023 onwards. This just accurately records the history of the case and events that led up to escalation.
Back to 2024:
Under Paragraph 17.4 of the Defence and Counterclaim“The Defendants reported the Claimant to the police for investigation, their awareness of the Claimant being behind the harassment and abuse being well substantiated by the facts and matters pleaded in paragraph 15 and its subparagraphs above.””
And under paragraph 7 of the Defence and Counterclaim
“The Claimant even launched attacks on the First Defendant’s siblings, mother and grandparents, matters that were referred to the police.”
Requests
15. Please state:
(a) when the Defendants and each of them reported or referred the Claimant to the police;
(b) how the Defendants and each of them reported the Claimant to the police;
(c) what the full complaint(s) of the Claimant were that Defendants and each of them raised with the police;
(d) to which police force(s) the report(s) were made; and
(e) the outcome of the reports and/or referrals made.
This overlaps Request #9.
(a) The reports were done over the telephone (non-emergency line) starting in July and August, spanning hours in total and involving calls made both by the police and to the police.
(b) Those were verbal reports.
(c) Those are confidential.
(d) Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and its cybercrime unit.
(e) Those are still open as nobody ever suggested that anything had been closed. The police has textual records on its computer systems. We have no access to these records. So this request is not possible to fulfil. The records are for the police, not for us. We have no copies of these, not even partial. It’s safe to assume the Crime Numbers are still applicable and the reported crimes unsolved.
2026 update: Due to their age we assume they are closed by now. We reported what we did to the best of our knowledge (at the time).
The reports alarmed Garrett, who later (in his disclosures) showed communications with another person that my wife and I both (separately) reported to the local police, opening several elaborate cases. He'd hate to admit this, but we cannot 'unsee' what we saw. This association is a serious liability to him. He seems to seriously believe that anything that proves any sort of culpability is instantaneously rendered "inadmissible".
Advertise yourself as working for sex, then the spouse says this in public several times.
Instead of apologising you then try to hide it. Reputation laundering by censorship?
During the trial Garrett admitted to me (under sworn oath; he swore on the Bible and was very evasive all along) that he had attempted to deplatform/censor sites before he turned on us. He lacks a belief in free speech; he reserves/keeps this freedom to himself alone while lawyering up to muzzle critics - to the point of partnering with mobsters (he admitted they had coordinated, so they defamed me many times and lied to several judges). A good liar can lie with a sense of self-righteousness and even sincerity. Those are not white lies. █
