Postby tigerloaf » Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:43 pm
No matter what absolute drivel Rosalind/Rosalinda/Linda Hutton might scribble on her disgusting and increasingly degenerate blog she cannot deny the basic fact that she has posted (and personally chosen to allow to be posted by anonymous commentators) vile and malicious accusations against others.
She has no defence against that and could well be the subject of either criminal (depending on precisely what crimes she is being reported for) or civil action regarding such behaviour. The evidence is on the internet for all to see. It would probably take a jury a matter of seconds to convict her should they be asked to ponder the matter.
It would be absolutely no defence whatsoever for her to claim she was responding to other people's intimidation of her. Not only could a lawyer very easily prove this to be untrue as could anyone who has followed the saga of her online activitiy, it simply would not wash with the Judge who would be very forceful in reminding this so-called former legal-secretary (Does she really mean s.tamp-licker?) that it is no defence in law and she should take personal responsibility for her own actions.
She should also be reminded that her reliance on cannabis or other drugs for personal comfort will not wash with the Judge either as an excuse for her malicious online behaviour. However, if she can prove the mental illness she has written of which supposedly affects her by submitting to tests then maybe that will prove to be a mitigating factor.
I read a few hours ago that Hutton is angry that people are actually not just accusing her but condemning her as guilty of malicious online activity, of posting heinous statements about named individuals without furnishing (or having the ability to furnish) any proof whatsoever. She seems to think it demands a court case before people can proclaim their belief that she is guilty.
She is fundamentally wrong in this. If you witness an event (as I have personally witnessed the depraved activity of Rosalind Hutton on her Cristobel blog) and as I witnessed a road incident the other day, then you are expected to state who you believe is at fault, who was the guilty party. There are hundreds of people who can testify that they have witnessed her and know her to be guilty of posting and allowing to be posted malicious lies on her blog and that she is carrying out a sustained series of articles harassing and defaming others. Her guilt is blindingly obvious. Whether this brings about civil or criminal conviction is another matter but it is foolish of her to try to suggest she is not guilty of the actions.
Put simply, this woman acts appallingly online. She has admitted to a national newspaper that her malicious online behaviour and nasty online abuse is done for the fun and the enjoyment she gets from it (the "BUZZ").
There are people whose capacity to behave decently online, to refrain from obscenity and goading, suggest they have no place in online society. (You only have to look at the latest depraved posts from this woman to see what I mean.) In the real world such behaviour is controlled more effectively. People are prevented from going into places where they are known to be unable to control themselves. Banning from shops for shoplifters, pubs for violent alcoholics, neighbourhoods for uncontrollable teenagers, town centres for beggars and so on. People like Hutton should be banned from all social media and blogs by law if they cannot control their outbursts there.
There is one good thing to come out of this online fighting, though.
The reputation of Sonia Poulton has yet again been trashed not by those who oppose her appallingly simplistic and badly-researched views on the McCann case but by one of the people her home movie about the case is actually most reliant on.
What kind of publicity storm will this spat between a star of the home movie and Bennett, the convicted liar, bring at the time of its premiere (if it ever gets released of course)?
On the issue of Poulton, a woman who seems to be totally off her trolley, it has been suggested to me that a full report
of this spat between Hutton (who tells malicious lies on the net for fun),
of the home movie and the doorstepping of Kate McCann with previously answered questions,
of the behaviour of this so-called journalist at the inquest of Brenda Leyland,
of the use of Brenda Leyland's name without the permission of the family,
of the lies she has told about being commissioned over this movie,
of her ongoing relationship with the online, gun-toting, nasty boy,
of her disastrous stint on Lizard TV and the acrimonious arguments with Icke,
of her public relationship and support for certain online abusers,
of her strange online connections with other journalists
would make a nice little email to be sent to various producers of morning shows. Perhaps they are aware of some of the nastiness of this woman whose services they still rely on when even louder mouths are unavailable but do they realise what kind of person she is in the round? In particular are they aware just what kind of troll she is herself and just how much she supports proven and self-confessed online abusers such as Hutton?
I know I have asked Poulton previously to answer some simple questions about her behaviour and she has pointedly failed to answer any.
But I will ask two more here today just to set the record straight and so that she knows she has had the opportunity to reply.
Ms Poulton -
Firstly, do you have any comments on the points I will be making shortly to various producers about your movie, your use of the Leyland name for publicity, your online behaviour, your interaction with online abusers etc? I am perfectly prepared to consider any such comments before sending my concerns about the MSM using a person such as yourself to comment on matters which I believe (and have evidence to show) you are actually involved in.
Secondly, and this is rather more tongue-in-cheek, do you ever lash out at the gun-toting nasty boy you have become so enamoured with about the fact that just a tiny proportion of that lottery win could have kept you and him in home-movie making for the rest of your lives? You might have even found a camera man who does not wobble so much and an editor whose cuts/dubs are not so badly done. What a mug he was to throw it all at the wily Kazakhstanis? Still, he has you to keep him now so he isn't so worried is he?
