Until now this information hasn’t been disseminated among the public or on social media outlets. I’ve sat on it. Anyone wishing to challenge my disclosures need only do what I’ve done to unearth the details of the case i.e. detailed research and foot-work. I’ve chosen to withhold the supporting evidence for reason only known to a few. I would mention however the ruling in the case was applicable to any future publications and apply to anyone who reproduces the words which were ruled on. It’s a known fact that Webster never spoke to any former care residents other than myself. His decision to use a pseudonym for me evidences Websters fear of being challenged through the courts again. It’s another known fact that I’ve received numerous apologies from numerous publications who chose to libel me. I settled a case with the Mirror in 2000 for £10,000 and an apology with a promise never to repeat the defamatory bullshit.(pic 1) Further back (1997) is the apology from another Trinity publication for similar stupidity.(pic 2) Webster knew that I’d been receiving advice from those more qualified than most and decided against using my name to deflect any prospects of legal action by me.
Others have written about rationale behind Websters use of false names:
The latter quote certainly holds considerable weight given the support the book has received in recent times. Its my offering that offenders and abusers and their followers have been relying on chosen words from the book to conceal their activities for some time. I’ve personally been targeted by those who seek comfort from Websters lies and hidden messages which perpetuate the abuse of children. Its one reason why I’m unable to share the paper work. All will become clear in the not to distant. But be under no illusions, there has been a legal ruling in this case and that ruling has remained in place since 2002 and will do for many decades to come.