What I Explained to Police About Blackmail and Death Threats via Burner Accounts (a Practice Which Generally Constitutes a Crime)
Solicitors are not above the law
Today I've communicated several times with police (another investigator is involved now). I told them that the law firm connected to what I deem criminal communications had issued exactly the same demands (sans the fouls language and threats to end my existence) as the demands from the law firm itself. It claims to know what's in those criminal communications (not divulged) while fronting for a man who was imprisoned for strangling (they seem to not understand what's wrong with strangulation of women; no wonder women flee this firm very rapidly). They are making it abundantly clear (in hearings and filings associated with these) they use their clients to drive their own agenda, which is censorship of critics - something they have done for well over a decade (they threaten to sue their own clients if they complain, then they sue online platforms over reviews submitted by their own clients - customers of the law firm!).
The details of the investigation remain confidential for now (divulging information would compromise any ongoing investigations, as a rule of thumb).
Someone must be willing to explain - at the very least to the general public - these mafia tactics by "hired guns" - in this case a clique of closely-connected ("good friends") 4 men, which is basically what "Media" (their primary 'expertise') at BW boils down to now.
Law firms that interacted with them told me that they are "bullies" they engage in "bullying". They do even worse. They love to bully other lawyers.
This, in my humble assessment, also merits another extensive enquiry* (like Leveson Inquiry) into how such so-called "law firms" - dubbed "hired guns" by the national regulars - do their so-called "business". This issue, if widespread, needs to be eradicated at its very core. I very much remain sceptical this is just a "rotten apple" or rare exception**. If they'd do anything to "win", how far would they go? █
____
* The reason why is the Leveson Inquiry is relevant here is that it helped uncover a widespread phenomenon. At first they pretended this was a rare exception and they even threw insulting libels at our past lawyer for correctly insinuating crimes had been committed by Rupert Murdoch's press in the UK. The slurs were meant to distract from a very large scandal.
** The full expression is "one bad apple spoils the batch" with the meaning that the whole lot is bad starting from the one bad apple, it's not just one "bad apple"; the bad apple ruins the entire batch and it is the entire batch which must be replaced. In short, if they allow the illegal and unethical behaviors, even through inaction, the lot of them are bad.