Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » And the Internet’s real stalker is ….

And the Internet’s real stalker is ….

Firstly I want to apologise to Jeremy for mocking him in the previous “Lethal Twit” post. Attacking him over the continuing harassment from the Grods alumni was wrong and I sincerely regret it.

This is the face of an Internet stalker, an obsessive who spends his spare time pretending to be me.

This is the face of an Internet stalker, an obsessive who spends his spare time pretending to be me.

I have copped a bit of flack for my “Lethal Twit” post and with the benefit of that wonderful 20/20 hindsight I would have played it differently, well what’s done is done and I think that it is worthwhile to explain in detail why the blog war is so hard to leave behind. A great deal of the credit goes to the idiot pictured above. He posts under the pseudonym of “John Surname” or more recently “John Winston” and he is a member of the “Grods alumni”.

He has a very long history of misrepresenting himself on the internet he and his pal AJ created a fraudulent internet presence pretending to be Corey Delaney and they take great delight in boasting about it here , But that is just the tip of the ice berg of his mischief making on the net, He also boasts about his trolling of dating sites where he has pretended to be a female Nurse just so that he can scornfully mock the people that are looking for love.

He has made special hobby of pretending to be me on the internet he posts comments in my name all over the place usually taking a piece of text from my writings and  using selective quoting and inappropriate context  to try to make me look silly, Now if I become aware of such a comment I get in touch with the site owner who has been defrauded and explain that the comment was not made by me and I ask for the comment to be removed. This is rather time consuming and very tedious. he has done it so often at JF Beck’s blog that the regulars know very well when a comment in my name has been posted that it is likely to have come from him. I literally can’t comment there any more because of Surname’s efforts.

This is the screen shot posted by Surname to boast about his fraud.

This is the screen shot posted by Surname to boast about his fraud.

His latest stroke was to sign me up for the White Ribbon day pledge, not such a bad thing many of you may think, you know because the campaign is all about addressing domestic violence. But there is a history behind his choice  here and it goes back to a blog post that I wrote a couple of years ago called  No to white ribbons and several posts on the same topic like “Toxic relationships and domestic violence , or a white ribbon is no answer” But John has been especially inspired by my choice of words from the “no to white ribbons” post where I said:

Women who goad, nag and belittle their partners must accept some responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I don’t condone men lashing out under such continued provocation but I can understand it. So lets be real here domestic violence is bad but it is about an unhealthy relationship dynamic rather than the vice and virtue inherent in each of the genders.


He has referenced this bit of writing of mine countless times but usually he only quotes the first sentence here so that he can imply that I am excusing domestic violence  and to make me look worse he usually deletes the word emboldened above (as it is  the original piece) his selective quote then makes me look like an apologist for wife beating. He had his nose very much out of joint on this part of his “hobby” when he tried to peddle this meme at Andrew Bartlett’s blog and I was able to demonstrate that he was deliberately misrepresenting me and a reading of the thread shows.

Surname does the crime and Scott Bridges acts as willing accomplice to publicise it.
Surname does the crime and Scott Bridges acts as willing accomplice to publicise it. (click to see John Surnames Twit pic)

Anyway back to Surname’s last stroke where he signed the WRD pledge in my name the historical context that I have outlined above explains why he thinks it is such a ‘jolly Jape”  and my following the tweeting of the Grods alumni lead me to the message I cite above.  I was a great deal less than happy about this so after writing an email to the WRD people  to have Surname’s fraud removed  I dutifully took  screen shots and retired to consider my options. As Ray Dixon suggested in the Lethal Twit thread  I probably should have written this post instead of that one, but you don’t get a total do-over when you have made a mistake in this world so there is no point in having too much regret about it now.

What can anyone do when confronted by pimply faced scum bag like John Surname/Winston? I have been operating on the assumption that all of the Grods alumni are equally responsible for the acts of any individuals and that is probably not entirely fair on the bit players in this long running soap opera, But what is guy to do when those same bit players protect him and they  are acting as willing accomplices  to the likes of Surname/Winston?

So the bottom line is if you come across comments posted around the traps that look like they are from me, but don’t look that consistent with what I actaully say here then it is probably more of Surname/Winston’s bullshit, drop me a line if you like and let me know what you have seen because he is a busy little shit who seems to spend a great deal of time on his harassment efforts, the latest being a fake Iain Hall twitter account.
Of course it is only correctly labelled as a fake now because I complained…

OK for those of you who are still with me I am asking for any help that you can give me to bring this scum bag to heel .

Because no matter what your politics, obsessives like Surname/Winston will spoilt it for everyone. and you never know when he might start pretending to be you and portraying  you as a wife beater, prostitute, a thief  or a drug addict.

Cheers Comrades


In the last paragraph before my conclusion I said that John Surname was the creator of the fake Iain Hall twitter account. However in the light of the admission (in the comments) from Damian Doyle (AKA “Toaf”) it was his doing I of course now know that my attributing that to Surname was in error.


  1. Abu Chowdah says:

    What a courageous apology and measured explanation of the shabby treatment that has been meted out to you over time. I am sure all who post here will appreciate the gesture and help in any way they can to put an end to Surname’s behaviour. Bravo, Iain.

  2. […] And the Internet’s real stalker is …. « IAIN HALL iainhall.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/and-the-internet%E2%80%99s-real-stalker-is – view page – cached I am interested to find out where my readers stand in the political spectrum so I have created a poll to find out. — From the page […]

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    In my opinion Surname (or whatever his name is) is an Internet stalker in nearly every sense and definition of the term. I think it’s about time he stopped his childish obsession and stalking. And it’s also about time everyone associated with him denounces his behaviour as much as they have denounced yours, Iain.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    I would not expect that any denunciation will be forthcoming from any the Grods alumni Ray.
    I will be happy to be wrong on that but I just can’t see it.

  5. PKD says:

    I must say Iain that in the old BBW days you probably would’ve deserved it, but the fact you apologised like this to Jeremy speaks volumes for the way you’ve moved on.

    I haven’t really been watching this much, but perhaps the others will take your apology in the spirit you mean it and likewise move on…lifes too short to go back to those bad old days again!


  6. Iain Hall says:

    Thanks PKD for your comment, your feelings about this are consistent with my own.

  7. Toaf says:

    Iain, I created the fake Iain Hall on Twitter, not Surname. I created it in response to your latest deception and immediately “followed” your stalking account (petersam040, now correctly labeled with your name) so you’d know in no uncertain terms that you’d been caught out. I renamed it to make clear it was fake after someone responded to a tweet without knowing it was fake, not because of any complaint you may have made. The account is now locked (as yours is) and idle. It was a juvenile act: I should have simply ignored you.

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Thank you for confessing your sins But I find it very sad that you , who has so often claimed to be so virtuous should stoop to such things. In any case If you are telling the truth you won’t mind sending me the password for that account so that I can control it as it is in my name and using my image, citing my home page ect. You know my email address.

  9. Abu Chowdah says:

    The irony is that Twitter is a load of bollocks, suitable only for air bandits.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    I agree Abu the problem with it is the sheer volume of phatic communication overwhelms any worthwhile content, there is no way to arrange the messages into coherent threads, it is open to the same sort of identity abuses that happen in blogging and as this post shows is incredibly popular with vacuous mobile device addicts.

  11. Jeremy says:

    “I must say Iain that in the old BBW days you probably would’ve deserved it, but the fact you apologised like this to Jeremy speaks volumes for the way you’ve moved on.”

    Not while that post continues to be published it doesn’t.

  12. Keri says:

    Looks like you owe someone else an apology, Iain.

    I believe you’ve accused someone else of having set up the fake account.

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes Keri, Iain should correct that reasonable assumption, but he hardly owes Surname an apology. I agree he should reference this post in the other one though.

  14. Len says:

    I give a broad “here here” to Abu’s first response, at the beginning of the thread.

    I have also seen the reckless regard of humanity this group inflicts on the planet, and I find this whole episode, sanctimonious, and wreaks of the greatest scenario of hypocrisy I think I have ever seen ?

  15. Iain Hall says:

    What is missing here is your condemnation of Surname”s pretending to be me on the net. I seem to remember that when some one was doing precisely the same thing to you that you were hardly silent about it, in fact don’t you have a disclaimer on your blog sidebar denouncing that particular misappropriation of your identity?
    As Ray suggests I have nothing to apologise to Surname for, especially as I have not received an email from Damian with the password to the account in question until I get that I won’t be totally convinced that I have been told the truth here.

  16. Keri says:

    How so, Iain? You accused someone of doing something they didn’t do. Usually that would be followed by an apology. Regardless of what Surname has done apart from that, it doesn’t excuse the fact that once again you made a claim without any kind of evidence to back it up.

  17. Iain Hall says:

    When Damian proves that he was telling me the truth by giving me the pass word to the fake Iain Hall twitter account I will amend the post with a correction but it will have to be an ice age in hell before I will ever apologise to Surname for anything. He does not deserve it even if I am wrong about anything that he has or hasn’t done.

  18. Jeremy says:

    “What is missing here is your condemnation of Surname”s pretending to be me on the net.”

    No it isn’t. I don’t have to play a condemnathon every time you demand it. I avoid talking about either you or Surname, and I’d much prefer it if you both did the same.

  19. Toaf says:

    Iain, the account is registered to my email address so I won’t be sending you anything. I’ll delete the account now.

  20. Abu Chowdah says:

    “I don’t have to play a condemnathon every time you demand it.”

    Now you know how Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt feel. Odd feeling, empathy, if you’ve never experienced it. You’ll get used to it, Jeremy.

  21. Iain Hall says:

    I am not demanding any that you condemn Surname, but I do note that you can’t bring your self to do so.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Thank you Damian, go forth and sin no more 🙂

  23. Husky_Jim says:

    Iain Mr. Surname did similar things to me as you know. Including using the same dating sites. Unfortunately he also chose to attack a person who had done nothing more to him than be a contact in a hotmail account he hacked.
    If you have any information as to Mr Surname’s true ID please let me know. I have a police complaint in about his activity, but have progressed only as far as knowing it is Surname who is responsible.

    Will fill you in when we know more.

  24. Toaf says:

    Jim, throw in a bottle of Scotch and I’ll think about it… 😉

  25. Jeremy says:

    Oh, get stuffed Jim. We all know just how far you’ve gone trying to stalk people offline. Calling people’s employers etc.

    Iain – Surname is not a public figure, and I don’t write about him.

    And note what Damian’s doing about his error? He’s withdrawing it and stopping the behaviour that has made you uncomfortable. There’s no excuse for you, if you were sincere, not doing the same in relation to your last post.

  26. Husky_Jim says:

    Calling people’s employers?
    That’s incorrect Jeremy.
    Mr Bridges was at the time a servant of the taxpayer. He was extoling the virtue of the female reproductive tract without hair and was at the time a Primary school TEACHER.
    I am a taxpayer Jeremy and the father of a primary school girl.
    I did not call anyone, but I emailed the school and linked the offending trash.
    The school took action as they should have.
    I would do it again and am proud of having done so.

    In light of the fact that Scott handed personal details to Surname who then defamed people with those details I feel rather at liberty to do what ever I like to him on line.

  27. Keri says:

    OH MY GOD, “Jim”. A TEACHER talked about the female reproductive tract? In a way that had nothing to do with his job?

    Call the police!

    Iain, I cannot for the life of me understand why you let this liar comment at your blog. He might not have crossed the line yet (Although he’s lied at least once in this thread already) but he will.

  28. Iain Hall says:

    I know very little about Jim Vs the alumni But as long as his Comments are civil and about John Surname’s internet impersonations then they are very clearly on topic for this thread.

  29. Iain Hall says:

    The “not a public figure” argument is bollocks.

  30. Jeremy says:

    I’ll tell you what argument is bollocks – your “but I was able to get access to your private information, therefore it’s okay for me to republish it” one.

    If I recall, certain people managed to get access to your email account who you would never have given access to. Would the fact that they were ABLE to do it somehow justify them publishing your private emails far and wide?

    You know perfectly well that you were not given permission to access my twitter feed, and you only managed to sneak in by the subterfuge of using a bullshit name instead of your own.

    Damian’s deleting his offending behaviour, because you were uncomfortable with it. When are you going to delete yours?

  31. Abu Chowdah says:

    Well Jeremy, equally it appears Iain doesn’t have to dance to your music every time you demand it. Suck it up, princess.

  32. Jeremy says:

    He doesn’t “have” to do anything. But his “apology” is insincere bullshit until he acts to remedy the situation he created.

  33. Darryl Mason says:

    “The irony is that Twitter is a load of bollocks, suitable only for air bandits.”

    So Abu won’t be signing up for an account so he can follow Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt when they start twooting, which they will do within the next month or so, if they do what they’re News bosses tell them..

  34. SockPuppet says:

    What’s wrong with you lot? You’ve all been arguing yourselves through a perfectly good Brownlow Medal call !! I bet you don’t even know who won .. or care. I don’t care either, but at least I know.

  35. Len says:

    ok put us out of our misery, I was stuck in a vid conf for the last hour and a half, with bloody rugby supporters,
    Who won ?

  36. husky_jim says:

    Jeremy is quite happy to justify the theft of other peoples art and ideas, but as soon as someone wants to republish his shite he has a hissy fit.

    You think it is appropriate for a primary school teacher to discuss “tacos” on the internet?
    I don’t and neither did his school as I understand it.

  37. Lori says:

    Besides his face being covered with acne that looks like a mild vesion of leprosy, does he also have a jaw malformation?

    I have seen bulldogs that have a nicer chin than him.

  38. Iain Hall says:

    Ok Folks I was in bed while you lot were having this little exchange so you will have to live with some of my belated comments.


    I’ll tell you what argument is bollocks – your “but I was able to get access to your private information, therefore it’s okay for me to republish it” one.

    As I said before if you were willing to let anyone follow you with out so much as a “By your leave” then your twitter feed was effectively not private in the first place.Secondly as I have said I was in error about the nature of the feed and that is more than evident in the comment thread where I made may self look very foolish by espousing an incorrect explanation of the ins and outs of the system. Thirdly I feel that if I delete or eviscerate the post that the alumni propaganda arm will distort the facts to paint me as some sort of “Dr Evil” and therefore in the interests of protecting the objective truth I want the post to stand as it was published.

    If I recall, certain people managed to get access to your email account who you would never have given access to. Would the fact that they were ABLE to do it somehow justify them publishing your private emails far and wide?

    Your comparison just won’t fly: Your twitter feed has a button on it where anyone can ask to follow it and you are the gate keeper so if anyone sees your inanities it is because you let them, where precisely does my email account have that option?

  39. Where’s John Surname to defend himself?

    So far we have everyone commenting except the mystery man himself.

  40. Iain Hall says:

    I do have him on my moderation list but in the spirit of fair play, that he has never exhibited himself, I will allow him a right of reply, should he seek it Leon.

  41. Keri says:

    “You think it is appropriate for a primary school teacher to discuss “tacos” on the internet?”

    Unless he was dicussing it as a representative of his school, what business is it of anyones?

    “I don’t and neither did his school as I understand it.”

    Well, you didn’t understand it.

  42. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I think my comment got “spammed”

  43. Len says:

    Good morning puppy dogs and pussy cats.
    How are we all on this wonderful morning.
    We all kissed and made up yet ?

  44. Abu Chowdah says:

    “Unless he was dicussing it as a representative of his school, what business is it of anyones?”

    Some of us believe that members of certain professions including teaching of children, the law, law enforcement, the judiciary and security and military forces should ascribe to a minimum acceptable standard of behaviour.

    Just letting you know, Keri. That view isn’t the exception but rather the norm.

  45. Len says:

    Nice comeback Abu, but you could have gone further….

    Society EXPECTS these professions’ standards, to be far and above higher, in this regard than most others. Most work contracts, for these types of professions have “strict morality clauses” in them, for just this reason.

    Minimum standards of behaviour are way higher, as are expectations. That is why these professions deserve, and have, the respect of the community at large, and that is a good thing.

  46. Ray Dixon says:

    OK, I’ll try it again (I think there are perhaps some key words here that are understandably banned at Iain’s blog and that’s why my last attempt to post this comment vanished into the ether):

    If I recall, certain people managed to get access to your email account who you would never have given access to. Would the fact that they were ABLE to do it somehow justify them publishing your private emails far and wide?

    “Managed to get access to”, Jeremy? You mean HACKED don’t you? Wasn’t it the case that the anonymous blogger known as ‘THR’ hacked Iain’s email account(s) and blog and that he then ‘shared’ the information with a number of people associated with Grods?

    That’s hardly the same as what Iain did to you. As you know, I don’t agree with the way Iain went about obtaining your tweets and republishing them but it was hardly illegal and, quite frankly, what harm has it done you? Yes, it’s dragged out a lot of nasty types here who have added insult to injury, but the injury was rather minor and you sort-of contributed to that by complaining so much.

    If it were me I would have made one (maybe two) retorts and just ignored it.

    Anyway, as I understand it, some of the information illegally obtained from Iain’s truly private files was indeed re-used and republished, at least by inference.

    If you have knowledge of it, and especially if you know THR’s true identity, have you as an officer of the court ever considered reporting it to the authorities? Conversely have you encouraged the others to do likewise?

    Fair’s fair Jeremy, you opened the door on that issue.

  47. Not Allen Jones says:

    I can tell you it was definately the case that a grods member (with the help of the administration of the site) hacked my email account and that he then ’shared’ the information with a number of people associated with Grods.
    They then used this information to defame an acquaintance of mine.
    Surname is at the heart of this activity.
    Sear and Bridges were at least complicit.

  48. Jeremy says:

    You’re defining what is acceptable by how difficult it is. Sure, Iain’s subterfuge to get access to my private twitter feed wasn’t particularly cunning, but it was still dishonest. Obviously whoever hacked his email went to more effort, but it was the same sort of behaviour. How difficult it was has nothing to do with the reprehensibility of it.

    The fact is that republishing that information was wrong, and is wrong, and Iain is continuing to do it.

  49. Ray Dixon says:

    Jeremy, it’s “wrong” and “dishonest” for someone to get themselves invited to a party when the host didn’t want them there but it’s not exactly illegal.

  50. Keri says:

    Ray, does that fact that it’s not illegal make it okay?

  51. Ray Dixon says:

    No Keri, it doesn’t make it “okay”, just (much) less of a big deal. I was commenting on Jeremy’s comparison of this ‘storm in a teacup’ to the illegal hacking of Iain’s email account(s).

  52. Keri says:

    I think the point was that information obtained in a decpetive manner was used in a way it wasn’t intended to be used in both scenarios.

    Whether they were both criminal offences or whether they were both of the same seriousness was not in issue.

  53. Ray Dixon says:

    The point was poorly made … that was my point, Keri. Again, we’re going in circles. Better things to do …

  54. Keri says:

    Your point about the point was poorly made, and you were telling me I’d missed the point in a different thread, Ray.

    No points for you!

  55. Ray Dixon says:

    Well Keri, let’s just stop the “point scoring”, eh? No one is “in front” here.

  56. SockPuppet says:

    Len, sorry for the long delay in answering you but I’ve been trying to work out how to stork someone on Twitter but I keep getting blocked.

    Anyhow it was Gary JUNIOR Ablett what won the Brownlow. You know, the little runt. I had my money on Richo at 5,000 to 1, and he was in front for a while, but someone forgot to tell me that he missed the last 16 or 17 games through injury.

    Can I use one of your spare names for my Twitter storking account? I think they’re onto me.

  57. Still no reply by Surname. It appears that he was been pwned by Iain.

    And by the way, coming to a party uninvited when its ‘invitation only’ and the premises which the party is being held at is either owned or leased by the host is illegal. Its called trespass.

  58. Len says:

    Thanks for the info mate, appreciated.
    There were many that had great years, but the kid, is definitely going to be better than the old man I think. Man, I hate Geelong, but he is a great player, certainly no denying that, nor can anyone deny the fact that he deserved it.

    Storking you ? run man run !

  59. Ray Dixon says:

    More nitpicking & pointless “point scoring” from Leon. And as usual he’s wrong. Not that it matters but for the record I said this:

    … for someone to get themselves invited to a party when the host didn’t want them there but it’s not exactly illegal.

    You see “Mr Lawyer”, wrangling an invitation and turning up does NOT amount to illegal trespass. Only if you’re asked to leave and you refuse to go. Geddit?

  60. Len says:

    These intelligencia think that I am David. That’s fine, doesn’t worry me in the slightest. We have only been working together for nigh on 15 years, but Iain knows that. We both sit in the office here late at night, over a couple of ales, and have a chuckle over these pages.

    As for me, I don’t particularly care who, or what you call me, whatever turns your wheel I guess.

  61. Ray,

    Someone who is not the host or one of the hosts does not have the legal authority to invite someone to the party. So what I said still stands.

  62. Ray Dixon says:

    Leon, give up. “The host” was fooled into issuing an invitation.

  63. SockPuppet says:

    Another thing my Dad’s lawyer said was that in his opinion it’s not good form for someone of his “elk” (why are lawyers called elks?) to say what Jeremy said when he said this:

    “If I recall, certain people managed to get access to your email account …”

    He reckons that means Jeremy is possibly a witness to the big crime of computer hacking and that people of his “elk” shouldn’t conceal information about crimes that they know happened if they have any.

    He reckons Jeremy is “skating on thin ice” and should give you whatever information he has about your computer being hacked and that if you was to contact the police over it they would have to ask Jeremy to spill the beans based on the remark he made about possibly having some inside knowledge of who done it and all that.

    He also reckons Jeremy’s remark is not a big deal on its own but he reckons the other “elks” should all be saying to him “Hey Jeremy stop complaining about your bloody dumb tweets being published, you’re not such a cleanskin yourself by the look of it.”

    I dunno what all that means but Dad’s lawyer asked me to say it cos he reckons Jeremy’s a real tool and that he’s doing his “elk” a lot of embarrassment and should either cough up or shut up.

    Goes over my head but I think Jeremy should stay off the “thin ice” cos he might fall in it.

    (Dad’s lawyer is also getting a restraining order on Carl the poof saying Carl can’t molest Dad any more. Fat lot of good that will do)

  64. Len says:

    I think the term usually used SP is “green” isn’t it ?

  65. SockPuppet says:

    I dunno what you mean Len. All this talk about crimes and elks and green has got me confused. I only know what Dad’s lawyer said about it all.

    The lawyer reckons it’s a clear case of Jeremy calling “wolf” (which is a funny thing for an “elk” to do). He says Jeremy’s bullshitting about being defamed here and someone of his “elk” should know that his tweets about tweeting while he’s in the car raises questions about it and so WTF is he on about being defamed?

    And he reckons Jeremy bringing up the hacking business might implicate him in having knowledge of whodunnit. The lawyer says Jeremy hasn’t said he doesn’t know whodunnit which makes you think he does. The lawyer reckons that’s potentially dodgy behaviour by someone of his “elk”.

    If that’s “green” I dunno. Although I think he’s a member of the Greens. As well as being an “elk”. He’s a green elk maybe? Crying “wolf”.

  66. Iain Hall says:

    Ah some good sense from the sock drawer!

  67. Len says:

    As in a bit “Green around the gills”

  68. SockPuppet says:

    What, like a fish Len? So he’s an elk, a wolf and a shark fish? Why are lawyers referred to as animals?

    One other thing Dad’s lawyer said was something about “right of reply”. He says Jeremy coming on here and rebutting the inferrations means he’s had opportunity to put his side of things into the interwests and if any damage was dun to his reputation as a good and law abiding lawyer that mutigates it a lot. Buggered if I know what that means.

    Dad’s lawyer is like a friggin’ text book when it comes to the law. He’s real great on what he calls “case law”, which I guess is about getting defamed while you got your suitcases in the trunk on the freeway.

    But I don’t think he’s much good in practice cos I just heard that Carl has ignored the dumb intervention order and gone and grabbed Dad by the goolies again. Sheeeez.

  69. Len says:

    No, that’s not what I meant SP.
    No mean spirit intended, and I apologise if that is the way it seemed.

    Green, in this connotation was used to portray inexperience, at least, in the true way the world/society really works.

    If he had left the issue alone, then it would have been forgotten a thousand comments ago. His relentless need, to defend himself, and friends, in the face of warranted criticism, made his situation worse not better.

    Remember the old aphorism, the more you attempt to cover your embarrassment, the more embarrassed you finally become ?

  70. RA says:

    My goodness, John Surname is hideous.

    What a f*ckwit.

    Can you imagine any female who’d want a piece of that?


  71. Abu Chowdah says:

    Some women find a prognathous jaw attractive. Look at Rudd. Makes a lot of Lefties wet, so I hear.

  72. […] finally tripped her up was the tone and content of comments posted after my piece on the internet stalker and lying scumbag who goes by the name of John Surname/Winston. Comments from “Jackson” became darker and more clearly bitter with an undertone that […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: