The Mouse: A Question of Intent, Identity and Manufactured Evidence.
Back in June 2022, the notorious YouTube personality known as The Mouse made a rather extraordinary statement to me:
“I’ll never stop doing what I’m doing until you are in jail or sectioned – like John Paterson. Never.”
Those were his words. Not mine.
It's a statement that raises an obvious, yet rather uncomfortable question: Precisely what is The Mouse doing, and what does he intend to achieve, to bring about either my imprisonment or my admission to a psychiatric institution?
It's an important question, particularly given the circumstances surrounding my online activities, the restrictions imposed upon me by court orders, and the potential consequences of being associated with material that I am legally prohibited from publishing.
Let's consider one possible scenario.
What if somebody were to create social media accounts using my name, identity or recognisable online persona? What if those accounts were then populated with material associated with me, including content that I am expressly forbidden from uploading or distributing?
What if that material were subsequently presented to third parties, platforms or law enforcement as evidence of my own activity?
The potential consequences are obvious.
I have found myself having to explain, defend and disprove responsibility for content that I did not create, upload or authorise. Worse still, as the material appeared to breach a court order, it resulted in a police investigation and further legal proceedings, where upon the charges were dismissed due to no evidence.
In other words, somebody has already manufactured an online footprint that creates the appearance of misconduct by another person, namely myself.
It is a serious possibility, and one that deserves proper consideration.
It's Happened, and I’ve Suffered the Consequences
I believe the circumstances warrant investigation, particularly where accounts, uploads or other online material appear to be connected to my identity without my authorisation.
However, suspicion is not proof, and establishing who created an account, who uploaded particular material and who was responsible for distributing it requires evidence and a proper police investigation.
Evidence Matters.
Account creation records, upload histories, timestamps, IP information where lawfully obtainable, platform correspondence and other independently verifiable material could help establish what has happened and who was responsible.
I am not asking anybody to take my word for it. I am asking that the available evidence be examined objectively.
Because there is a fundamental difference between somebody genuinely breaching a court order and somebody being made to appear responsible for a breach committed by another person.
And when someone has publicly declared that they will never stop until you are either in prison or sectioned, the question of motive is hardly unreasonable.
The Mouse made his intentions clear in June 2022. Four years later, I believe it is entirely reasonable to ask whether his subsequent conduct should be examined in the context of that statement.
If the intention was simply to upset, antagonise or provoke me, that would be one thing.
But if anybody has deliberately attempted to manufacture evidence, impersonate me, or attribute prohibited material to my identity, that would be an entirely different matter.
I intend to keep the distinction clear, document what I find and let verifiable evidence speak for itself.
You can disagree with me, criticise me, ridicule me or challenge my opinions. What you cannot legitimately do is manufacture a false picture of my activities and expect me to accept responsibility for something I did not do.
Comments
Post a Comment