It’s hard to imagine being in the situation we’re in now. We believed that, though flawed, the system worked. But how can we reconcile this belief when looking at the facts in this case, and then reading the judgement for case no. 3SA90091?

It’s like the judge is telling us that “2+2=cabbage”, and everyone in the system turns round and says “of course 2+2=cabbage; that’s so obvious, anyone can see that”.

This is the reason why we’ve decided to make short videos, each highlighting a single discrepancy in the judge’s lengthy but oh so flawed judgement.

Because we can’t help shaking the feeling that many must think, “if the judge judged as he did, he must’ve looked carefully at all the evidence and come to a reasoned decision based on the facts and nothing else.”

And that’s a hard belief to overcome as we’ve been taught from an early age that justice is, well, just.

But if the facts of the case go so against the judgement, how do you overcome that?

Well, we’re hoping people will take the time to watch these short videos and come to realise that maybe, just maybe, 2+2 might equal something other than cabbage.


video 2, “effect and cause” deals with paragraph 12:


video 3, “covert involvement” deals with paragraphs 46 and 241:


video 4, “the strawman argument”, deals with paragraphs 227, 240 and 242:


video 5, “an honest expression?”, deals with paragraph 65:


video 6, “mental health smears”, deals with paragraphs 248254:


video 7“doctored involvement”, deals with paragraph 96:


video 8, “an extreme of possible usages”, deals with paragraphs 200, 201, 202, 203 and 253.


video 9, “natural and ordinary meaning”, deals with paragraph 168.


video 10“the consistent thread”, deals with paragraph 226.viii.


video 11“quoting lies”, deals with paragraphs 79 and 263.


video 12“lies”, deals with paragraph


video 13“fomenting a gang”, deals with paragraph 226.ii.


video 14“stalking”, deals with paragraph 226.iii.


video 15“malice”, deals with paragraphs 35, 229, 231.ii, 231.iii, and 238.