Just a lil friendly Dino busy hoarding my rights
Joined February 2020
- Tweets20.1K
- Following2K
- Followers1.2K
- Likes64K
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
Filthy fiend Jonathan King has come out in defence of David Walliams. I am sure the mate also of rapist Russell Brand that is Walliams must be honoured to have the support of a sloppy slug like King - a cretinous creature convicted and jailed for abusing 5 teenage boys. #DavidWalliams #JonathanKing #RussellBrand #Filth #Scum #Fiend #SexualAbuse #Abuse #Rape #Monsters #BirdsOfARottenFeather
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
In the early 2000’s I was working nights, West End Central.
Got a 3AM call of a man harassing women drunk on Regent St, outside Hamleys.
I walked down, full uniform.
This guy was wasted.
Swaying too and fro. I stood in the doorway of Hamleys and watched him.
He had no idea I was there.
His drunken ass would try and accost women walking past, most also the worse for wear from drink, but none as bad as him.
I can only describe what I witnessed as predatory. Entitled, if that makes sense. Expecting someone to recognise him, and go home with him.
I waited for him to go hands on which looked more and more likely, as he became slightly more aggressive with each refusal.
Then I too would go hands on.
Then as one woman passed, he slurred “hello” and reached out to her, but he saw me.
He knew.
As drunk as he was he still corrected his behaviour immediately.
He smiled weakly and stumbled to the edge of the kerb, holding out his arm.
A black cab stopped.
He fell as he tried to get in the back.
The cabbie saw me watching him, and the window came down.
“Are you taking him or me?” he asked.
“He’s your problem now.”
That was best, as he was certainly not a problem I wanted to leave the custody Sergeant with.
That man was David Walliams.
I dealt with lots of famous people in the three years I was at West End Central and many of them presented a level of egotism bordering on the narcissistic.
I’m not saying that fame create entitlement. But it will amplify traits and behaviours that were already present.
What I’m trying to say is when people only hear the word “yes” all the time, they stop recognising “no” as a legitimate answer.
#RussellBrand #london #england
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
Dear Ms: Jemima,
I have examined the 2014 judgment, the 2015 judgment and final order, the appeal material and your statement of 9 November. I have never seen a gag like it. You can take a decisive step now: apply to lift the restrictions on Ms Berki’s legitimate disclosures, and answer some straightforward questions.
Yesterday, Mr Justice Bennathan told Russell Brand: “You had also become a sexual predator.” He sentenced him to ten years and six months. (independent.co.uk)
The Metropolitan Police said reporting sexual offences “can be incredibly difficult” and praised the women’s “immense bravery, dignity and resilience”. The Crown Prosecution Service recognised the extraordinary courage required to testify about deeply traumatic events. (news.met.police.uk, cps.gov.uk)
Does that understanding extend to Ms Berki?
She reported an alleged assault in 2014 and has repeatedly challenged the injunction. This year’s appeal decision records that she still maintained her allegation and had sought changes to the order. Yet its restrictions apparently extend even to further police disclosures. (taxpolicy.org.uk)
I condemn her antisemitic messages and threats without reservation. They were wrong and justified protection. They do not establish what happened during the encounter that preceded them.
You have now published those messages alongside your account. She remains constrained from answering freely.
You booked her, were present, and are yourself named in her allegations. She alleges in a press report appearing in a Hungarian News report that you returned and lay on the bed while Brand groped her. You deny seeing any wrongdoing. Your denial is the account of a directly interested party whose own conduct is disputed not an independent finding that she lied. Your account therefore needs testing.
First, when was the massage cancelled? The 2014 judgment records your account that Brand was uneasy with Ms Berki and did not wish to proceed. Now you say he had decided before she arrived.
The earlier explanation connects his refusal to unease about her; the latest places the decision before her arrival. Was the appointment already cancelled, or did he refuse after meeting her? What made him uneasy?
Second, what happened during the roughly thirty minutes you say she remained? When was she told the appointment was cancelled? Where did she wait? When was transport home arranged? Please kindly address and solidly rebut her account of being taken upstairs and invited to change.
Third, what was the misunderstanding for which contemporary reporting says you apologised? Produce the relevant exchange, including her friendly email and birthday greeting. Let the complete correspondence be read.
Fourth, what did the investigation establish about the sequence? The 2015 judgment criticised police disclosure delays and recorded that the judge could not view the CCTV because of computer restrictions. Witness statements and police material existed, but there was no full trial resolving the competing accounts of the encounter. (taxpolicy.org.uk)
Fifth, explain your own chronology. You say Brand’s violence led you to call police to remove him in 2014. When? Why did you remain a claimant when the injunction became permanent in 2015? What steps did you take to narrow it before December 2025?
Your assistance to journalists matters. It does not answer those questions.
You say you were told Brand’s agreement was required. The Court of Appeal identified an application to the High Court to amend the injunction as the proper route for addressing concerns about its breadth. His consent is not a substitute for the court’s decision. 1/2
I am going to describe some painful and personal things in relation to Russell Brand because I have been put in a position now where I feel that I have no choice other than to do so, given the misleading reports and speculation around the facts of a harassment injunction that was taken out to protect me and my family.
Firstly, and most importantly, I am and have always been strongly and unequivocally on the side of all of Brand’s victims. I am in awe of the courageous women who came forward at Brand’s trial, told their stories, testified and ensured justice was done. I have had my own personal experience of his violence, coercive control and abuse. I had to call the police to have him removed from my house in 2014 during a violent incident. I chose not to press charges at the time and not to go public with this, as I was worried about the impact of the press attention on my then teenage children. I have neither seen nor spoken to Brand since that period in 2014. Whilst my pain in relation to this, pales in comparison to what the women have testified in court have suffered, this was a difficult period in my life which has had a lasting impact.
Over several years, I assisted the journalists who finally exposed him; Ros Urwin, Louisa Compton and Dorothy Byrne. I also undertook to testify in court to his abusiveness, if the newspaper that published the victims’ accounts were ever to be sued.
I have spent much of my professional career trying to support unfairly demonised and silenced women, such as Monica Lewinsky and defending free speech.
In 2014, a harassment injunction was taken out against a woman called Szilvia Berki which was made final in 2015.
I fully understand the good intentions of those now advocating on her behalf online and agree with their demand for this harassment injunction to be varied, as my lawyer made clear to Berki’s lawyer in December last year.
However, the commentary and media reporting this week has presented an untrue narrative, which has opened me up to vile hatred and abuse online.
For this reason, and to correct the record, I am providing the factual background to that injunction to explain why The High Court found the campaign of harassment by Berki against me to be, "oppressive and unacceptable” and made the order permanent.
The background to this is that Ms Berki came to my house for roughly 30 minutes in June 2014, after I booked her to give a massage to Brand. By the time she arrived he had decided he didn’t want a massage and asked her to leave. She was clearly offended. I was present the whole time he was with her, and I did not see anything untoward, despite the fact that he was later found guilty of sexually assaulting other women and he later physically assaulted me. If I saw any man abuse any woman under any circumstances, I would do my utmost to stop them, without hesitation.
Ms Berki later reported to the police that Brand had pushed her in the back whilst she was leaving the house and that she also said she was “attacked” by my dog, which she described in her police statement as my dog licking her face. The police rightly investigated Ms Berki’s complaint. I cooperated fully with the investigation, provided a truthful statement about what I saw and also provided CCTV footage, which showed my overly exuberant but totally unaggressive dog jumping up.
Following an investigation into Ms Berki’s allegations, police concluded that there was no case to answer and that no criminal offence had been committed.
According to the police, at no time did Ms Berki ever state to them that she had been assaulted, threatened or falsely imprisoned.
There was also a subsequent review of the investigation by the IPCC and Thames Valley Police Professional Standards which found that the original police investigation had been correct in its findings.
In the meantime, several untrue stories appeared in the tabloid papers. Ms Berki forwarded an email to me confirming a payment for one such story she had received from The Sun newspaper. Articles were also published in The Telegraph, The Mail and The Mirror at Ms Berki’s instigation which contained her account of the alleged incident.
Then having at first said in a story published by the Daily Mail that she had found me to be “really very nice, very, very nice,” she later embarked on a campaign of vicious antisemitic and threatening abuse online and in emails.
Below is just a sample of some of those tweets and messages sent over many months (which were submitted to the judge who granted the harassment injunction)-
(Jemima is a) “deeply rotted JEWISH Bitch”
“Did you know that if your life is in danger you can LAWFULLY kill your attacker as defence?! … by now I could have lawfully kill at least 5-6 people who were hurting me”
“Also happy birthday (Jemima). I hope you have more. In other words I hope you don’t die this year.”
EMAIL- “If you make me very upset…you can expect the worts from me – I think you know this – without that I need to remind you”
“What is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils. English Jewish Evil dictatory”
“Would like to see justice, and I do not think that I should do it myself but what can I do when every organisation is scared of Jevils! ;)”
“They say … Do not hate all Jews because you know a few Jewish evils. They are on top always decadent and evils”
“Fortunately there are many mansions outside of the UK where Jewish money aristocrats are still not welcomed
#Germany #Austria #Italy #Hungary”
"Judge on High Court: I ordered her to shut up Jew. Do I have a case or not? soon we will kill her then".
“A pity that I was in the UK. BB In Hungary if you would report the Police they would for sure find it without an investigation already that the Jews are guilty. Sad”
“Every organisation is scared of JEVILS”
“When my great grandparents see what Jews did to me they do something in heaven to solve this. I will not make my hand dirty with Jews.”
“J evils … Rob, lie, crime”
“I am so happy I am free from the English Jewish Evil dictator and outside of England the High Court cannot rule”
“Probably I wait a bit more and than go public. What is going on in Britain is a dictatory of J evils.”
She sent an enormous volume of similarly disturbing emails and tweets to or about me, to my family, to my workplace, to journalists from the national media to members of my family, to UNICEF UK where I had been a goodwill Ambassador for decades, and to organisations my ex-husband was associated with, and to MPs.
She began disseminating on social media wild and untrue allegations about me, ranging from kidnap to cyberhacking, to having someone bump into her and laugh at her in the tube station, having her followed by two men, bribing the police, paying off a judge, and other false and alarming conspiracy theories based on my Jewishness.
The number, tone and content of these messages was extremely frightening. It was distressing for my then teenage children and my family. I was concerned that Ms Berki was potentially a real danger to my family and me. I have had stalkers before and this behaviour felt similarly threatening.
Although I was at this point no longer in contact with Brand, I agreed to the suggestion by his lawyer of a harassment order. My sole reason was to stop Ms Berki targeting me and my family. The harassment injunction was upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal on several occasions.
I engaged a lawyer of my own when I was made aware that Berki was applying to the court to vary the terms of the injunction. And I instructed my lawyer in December last year to approach Ms Berki’s barrister to say that I agreed to vary the injunction so that she could speak to the police again if she wanted to. I also instructed my lawyer to engage on her other requests.
I did this despite my real fears that the harassment would re-commence and that her threatening antisemitism, if again unleashed, might exacerbate the danger to my children and me that we continue to face because of our Jewish heritage and their father’s political career and incarceration in Pakistan.
Her barrister has not responded to my lawyer since May of this year despite trying to engage him. I was informed by her lawyer that any change to the injunction must also be agreed by Brand. I have no ability to compel Brand in this matter, as I have not seen or spoken to him in over a decade.
I hope this information will help clarify speculation about my involvement in the anti-harassment order.
I am glad and relieved that Russell Brand has finally faced justice.
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
Richard Osman has nailed Russell Brand here all ends up
Explaining Brands spin of playing a victim trying to be silenced by the establishment who don’t like him speaking the truth
The real truth was he knew he was a sexual abuser and the walls were closing in on him
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
Terrifying just how many men have outed themselves as fucking walking red flags 🚩
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
The “it wasn’t rape anyway because he just switched from vagina to anal!” men disgust me.
It never stops being a shock that such men refuse to really understand rape. That invading the most intimate parts of a woman’s body with the sexual part of your body is an act of violence if she doesn’t consent. Women don’t physically put themselves inside men’s bodies because they don’t have a penis and I don’t think many men fully understand or care about the importance of that, or the difference.
Or that prostitutes are regularly raped. Prostituted women don’t implicitly agree to some forms of sex even if they are paid for a different one. I think it’s all rape because she is being exploited - but despite that - if a man invades a different part of her body than was the “transaction” it’s rape. Still rape.
#RussellBrand
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
The real ones hated rapist Russell Brand before they even knew
Here's Stewart Lee absolutely dragging Brand during his Big Brother days
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
Russell Brand’s lawyer, Ian Winter KC, confronted Sunday Times journalist Rosamund Urwin, who led the newspaper’s investigation into Brand.
• Ian Winter KC: “I hope you are pleased with yourself.”
• Rosamund Urwin: “I’m pleased justice has been done.”
• Ian Winter KC: “Well, it wasn’t. You fucked it. Congratulations.”
During the trial, Ian Winter KC said that the media had “poisoned the well of justice.”
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one.
While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: ‘Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] “overcoming the cotton ceiling”.’
When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’.
In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman – they’re non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read ‘Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'.
@thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/arti…
In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your former CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male.
Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high.
Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
🚨 Russell Brand told the jury that Great Ormond Street Hospital barred him from his baby son’s open-heart surgery after the 2023 documentary.
Dr Raj Persaud, UK’s leading psychiatrist, says this is unlikely.
Dr Persaud also flags holes in Brand’s testimony and in the questions the prosecution asked him, calling the trial suspicious.
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
He (the accused) cannot be unaware that his identity is widely known and easily discoverable already, suggesting it isn’t as terminal as he says.
“Celebrity ‘suicide’ injunction could open floodgates, warns Ian Hislop”
thetimes.com/article/c58bef9…
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
"Brand believed he had ‘birthright to orgasm’, court hears
Comedian was ‘rampant’ in his desire to have sexual contact ‘whenever he pleased’
Brand ignored women’s consent because “all he cared about was his birthright orgasm”, a court has heard"
Telegraph
archive.today/f3drH
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
Fred Wallace thinks that women supporting a woman who was repeatedly drugged by her husband and raped by him and other men for more than a decade is "for nothing".
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
In other news: High Court refuses Good Law Project permission to intervene in our Hampstead Ponds case "the proposed legal submissions on behalf of GLP do not seem to me to add
anything"
Translucent have permission to intervene, including orally if time allows.
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
The jury in the Russell Brand case will start deliberating next Tuesday. If he’s found guilty, the dam of industry stories about him will burst.
Everyone has a story.
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
Like most people, I don’t support Hamas terrorists or the warmongering Israeli government and I despair how their war that has absolutely fuck all to do with us distracts from all the awful and important things we should be focusing on here in the UK.
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
It’s important that people know what happened here. Unqualified lunatic doctor goes rogue, hands out hormones et al to kids without telling their parents. Second doctor *whose job it is* to pass on safeguarding concerns passes on such concerns, plus her own. Result: second doctor investigated for ‘transphobia’, smeared, subjected to hostile 4-hr interrogation, mental health severely impacted, forced out of her job. Over the next few years all her worst fears are much more than confirmed. Many children suffer severe, irreversible & completely preventable harm, not bc of a ‘bad apple’ but bc of NHS culture
‘Why are you so concerned?’
From an excellent account by @hannahsbee of a tribunal that ended a few days ago. Dr Sarah Redvers’s life was made a misery and her reputation trashed by people whose allegiance was to an ideology rather than individual patients. But the scandal wasn’t confined to Brighton, as…
Women are ROARSOME 🦖🦕 retweeted
There’s a HRT shortage in the UK 🇬🇧
Women are once again left hunting pharmacies for HRT while the same estradiol is handed out so men can grow tits and pretend they’re women. Real women’s hot flushes, bone density and sleep come second to male entitlement. Every. Single. Time.