From the Guardian:
A man has been cleared of harassing his wife’s millionaire lover on the internet in “a victory for free speech and the small man”.
Plumber Ian Puddick tweeted, blogged and posted videos online after being enraged by his wife Leena’s 10-year affair with Timothy Haynes, a City director.
…Puddick, of Enfield, north London, claimed he decided to expose the relationship after finding out Haynes was using company expenses to fund the affair, taking his wife to “wonderful places around the country”.
He described his shock when his home was later raided by anti-terror police at 6am, with officers removing phones, computers and even his satnavs.
Further details were given in an earlier report. Haynes’ company, Guy Carpenter, employed the private security firm Kroll and liaised with police (link added):
Michael Wolkind QC, representing Puddick, said his client intended to defend his actions. “This case is about Mr Puddick’s right to express his feelings about another person’s immorality. Ian Puddick dared to speak out about his wife’s affair and it has cost the public £1m for the extraordinary investigation carried out by an unusually enthusiastic police alongside an elite security firm.”
I haven’t looked into Puddick’s case in depth – it is possible that his pursuit of Haynes went beyond what Haynes could reasonably have been expected to take on the chin, but the use of anti-terror police to make life easier for a millionaire businessman at a cost of £1 million leaves an unsavoury impression. Puddick has a website here.
One person who disagrees with Wolkind – and with the judge who found Puddick innocent – is Nadine Dorries MP. According to a blog entry posted last night (and deleted this morning):
I am very disappointed with the judge’s finding following a three day trial of a case brought to court for on line harassment… I had really hoped for a different outcome today.
The reason for Dorries wished for “a different outcome” is because she believes that, despite being a public figure who is paid from the public purse, her political activities – and, crucially, her expenses – should not be subjected to hostile scrutiny. To this end, she employs false accusations of harassment to discourage critics, and boasts that the police do her bidding:
One of the especially ‘poorly’ compulsive obsessive’s [sic], recently alarmed the Police enough for them to issue a verbal warning on tape following a five hour interview. Following the warning, his tweets and blogs have remain monitored, as are those of people he communicates with on a regular basis in which I am discussed or mentioned.
This is an obvious reference to Tim Ireland; as I blogged here, Dorries objected to Tim’s presence at a hustings event in 2010, and the police advised Tim that further attendance at events involving Dorries could therefore be “construed” as stalking. Dorries has sought to portray this as as some sort of police acknowledgement of wrongdoing; milking it further, she now implies that the police consider his blog and others (including, surely, this one) to be a matter of police concern. Either she’s making it up, or we’re looking at more abuse of power.
There’s also a second reason why Dorries may have sympathy with Haynes: back in December, a married man left his wife to become her lover (this was a several months before Dorries began her campaign for “abstinence education”). Dorries did not appreciate her lover’s wife complaining to the Daily Mail, and took revenge.
If anyone wants to see what on-line harassment really looks like, I outline some genuine examples here, here, and here.
(H/T to Jules Lewis)
UPDATE: Sim-O has more.
UPDATE 2: More today.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Thanks for the HT! Perhaps another ‘sic’ after ‘remain’ in “have remain monitored”? Her grammar is atrocious, but perhaps she was what Private Eye might describe as ‘tired and emotional’ when she blogged.
Dorries is less noisy about the disability harassment I complained about. This apparently got as far as the CPS who decided not to prosecute. That appears to be further than any complaint against Tim has gone.
[…] Comments Nadine Dorries MP “Disappointed” by Ian Puddick Harassment Case Outcome « Bartholo… on Aide to Nadine Dorries MP Uses “Stalker” Smear to […]
[…] Bartholomew, did a post on Saturday about Nadine Dorries attack on Tim Ireland, has followed up the suggestion in her new and worse re-post that… My local newspaper editors […]
Andy – Private Eye has been conspicuously quiet when it comes to Nadine. I take the Eye and have for many years and have been rather surprised at the absence of Nadine’s interesting behaviour.
But perhaps there is a reason behind it, at least to my tiny mind.
Playing tic-tac-toe you will find one of the Eye’s “reporters” has link-loved for at least two years to Iain Dale (gossip columnist cum political attack-terrier) who is in turn very much link-loving of our dear Nad.
Perhaps there is another explanation. I’d love to hear it. It’s not as if Nads isn’t high profile enough for them
Carl – Private Eye has also been conspicuously quiet when it comes down to anything involving TI. That’s because they nicked a story of his and never, despite T’s complaints, gave him the credit. It’s why I cancelled my subscription, in the true PE style.
Posted Sunday, 19 June 2011 at 12:31
Nadine Dorries MP
http://blog.dorries.org/
“I am very disappointed with the judge’s finding following the three day trial http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9092204.Plumber_cleared_of_harassing_Billingshurst_millionaire/
of a case brought to court for on line harassment.”
It is said that this post was deleted. It has not been deleted… I’ve just found it and read it !!
I emailed N. Dorries suggesting that she familiarise herself with the history of this case.
I’ve not received a reply
[…] scrutiny of her statements and of publicly-available documents. She is, however, adept at using bogus claims of victimisation to discourage critical interest, and Anonymous have just handed her a gift. Share this:Like […]
[…] discourage critical investigation both of her political alliances and of her expenses. She has also previously boasted that the police “monitor” blogs that discuss […]
interesting discussion for lawyers and the public about the Human Rights aspect to blogging at : http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/16/law-in-action-on-social-media-prosecutions/comment-page-1/#comment-18841
Thank for the fair blog re my case, I have never & nor has anyone else ever blogged or posted online any details of the affair (who would give a ###t about a silly affair, I have blogged and posted 1000’s of posts about what the Police did to me.
At my Trial C/Terr Sgt Sarah Mayo told the court that i had posted 1000’s of posts about Tim Haynes, when asked if she or any of the 16 officers investigating the case had ever seen just one? Michael Wokind QC said i would like a Yes or No answer.
Sgt Mayo ..said No
Wolkind QC asked if she could show the court just 1 post, she said she could not (as there aren’t any)
ALL the media repeated her claim that there were 1000’s of posts as a fact.
C/Terrorism Police brutalised me in custody, when i compalined, they wiped the cctv and the officers never denied it,by they all sat on the fence and couldn’t remember what happened in the small room inside the police station. I remember !
Here’s what happened inc my Trial