Tuesday, August 26, 2014


Dear Readers, 
         Being unfamiliar with that picturesque island of 

Jersey in the Channel Islands I thought the States of Jersey Police(Moto: Making Jersey Safer) would be very helpful in my efforts to unravel the circumstances surrounding the death of my son Simon Abbott.
How wrong I was. Simon, who had lived on the island for 20 years, died last year aged 47. All the indications are that the heart attack that killed him was brought on by the stress of being relentlessly cyber-bullied in the last two years of his life (See my post did-cyber-bullies-kill-simon-abbott)
Here I was sitting in South Africa, half a world away thinking that Police Chief Mike Bowron would be the right person to contact.
         Simon’s problems began after he set up the Samantha Abbott Trust in memory of his sister to help women suffering from postnatal depression. This was what caused Samantha’s suicide in 2009.
         He had plenty of unusual charity, money making ideas, but it seems that because he had never done this kind of thing before his inexperience resulted in one failure after another. After his first few schemes didn’t work the following ones had no chance because by then the island’s cyber-bullies had warned everyone off by accusing of him being a con man without any evidence to support this allegation.
The best known names among the bullies were Murray Norton a BBC Jersey Radio presenter for many years and a substantial charity fund organiser. His bullying partner was his freelance photographer friend Ian le Sueur, who was also a member of the National Union of Journalists. He arranged for Le Sueur to snatch a picture of Simon, which Le Sueur then used to further malign Simon on social media by calling him a con man and making out he was generally dishonest.
         Norton’s boss Jon Gripton, the Managing Editor of Radio Jersey had this to say about my son, We investigated some of the ‘Simon Abbott saga’ – however we decided against broadcast, partly because we were advised that the States of Jersey Police was investigating and partly because we thought this was more likely a tragic story of a grief-stricken, well-meaning individual who ultimately couldn’t deliver the events he dreamed up.
          Below is part of a letter sent in July this year to Bowron by Rico Sorda one of Jersey’s many anti- establishment blogggers (ricosorda.blogspot.com)                
          He and particularly his wife have been getting the same kind of cyber-bullying treatment as my son got. The bully in this case is Jon Sharrock Haworth, a 44 year old convicted petty criminal who has been used by the establishment to do its dirty work. He now appears to be protected game. Here's the gist of one episode revealed in Britian's parliament because Jersey's Data Protection law prevented it from being disclosed on the Island.

         As you will see from my earlier experience with Bowron which I will tell you about below he runs true to form protecting certain people connected to Jersey’s elite. Sorda got much the same dismissive treatment from Bowron as I got.  
               In an email I sent in October last year I put six questions to Bowron and he replied through his Deputy Barry Taylor.
         He confirmed that Simon had made two complaints to the Police about being cyber-bullied, but legal opinion was that no offence had been committed. He refused to name the individuals Simon claimed to be involved as he maintained I am unable to provide details of third parties to you under the Data Protection Law.
         This is a notorious piece of legislation that the authorities in Jersey use to cover a multitude of sins.
         At one stage it was given to me by an ambulance official as a reason why he couldn’t name the paramedics who had attended to my son when he collapsed at a cafĂ©.

         Taylor confirmed that my son had complained to the police about being assaulted and having his cell phone stolen. But he refused to name the person Simon named presumably because of that secrecy law. There were no independent witnesses so nobody was prosecuted.
         The fifth question I put to Bowron was: Did Simon ever complain to you personally about being cyber-bullied or assaulted? If so what action did you take?
         Taylor answered: Your son did introduce himself to Mr Bowron on one occasion in St Helier (the capital of Jersey) town centre when he gave Mr Bowron one of his business cards. Mr Bowron has no recollection of Simon discussing these particular matters with him.
         In my replying email to Taylor I said: Mr Bowron comes across as extremely vague for Jersey’s most senior policemen. What reason could Simon possibly have had in handing Mr Bowron his business card other than to get him to investigate Simon’s cyber-bullying allegations and perhaps also the assault incident? People don’t walk up to the Chief of Police just for the hell of it and say: ‘Wouldn’t you like my business card?’ without a very good reason.

         In my final question to Bowron I asked if Le Sueur, who has a business called Kandidprints was ever an honorary policeman.
         In keeping with the very unhelpful nature of his replies Taylor stated that as the States of Jersey Police was independent of the Honorary Police that operated in each of the 12 Parishes in the Island they had no details of these officers.
         My comment to him was: This makes the Jersey Police akin to the Keystone Cops. Are you telling me that the Honorary Police are so independent from your Force that you would be unable to establish if a particular person is, or was an Honorary policeman by merely picking up the phone.
         I wanted to know if Le Sueur, who Simon sued for libel together with Norton and various others in relation to cyber-bullying, had any Police connection because if so it appeared that this was why he was getting favourable treatment.
         He was also the person Simon claimed had assaulted him.
         That was my Bowron experience. He certainly seems to have adapted well to the entrenched code of secrecy that pervades the Island to protect those with influence. He was previously head of the City of London Police where I’m sure this kind of behaviour would have made headlines had it existed.

         Around the middle of last year I appealed to the BBC Trust against a decision made by its senior executives to dismiss my complain that Norton had cyber-bullied my son. As part of this appeal the BBC appointed an unnamed, so called Independent Editorial Adviser to look into the matter. I was given the adviser’s findings to comment on.
         The Adviser reported that the Jersey Police were asked if there had been any police investigation into Simon, his charitable affairs or his allegation of cyber-bullying made against him. Instead of telling the Adviser that this could not be disclosed under the Data Protection Law the Police replied:
         Between September 2009 and December 2012 Mr Abbott made a number of complaints (5) to the States of Jersey Police, and a similar number (6) were made against him by various people, some of which related to concerns about financial handling of charity affairs, as well as harassment-related complaints made both by and against him.
         Charges were not brought against any individual. In general this was owing to a lack of evidence regarding criminality and it included those concerns relating to financial dealings.
         Investigations into allegations that Mr Abbott was a victim of cyber-bullying and/or harassment were reviewed by legal advisers and it was determined that there was no evidence of criminality.
         There is no specific offence in Jersey relating to cyber-bullying but we would look at whether the activity constituted harassment. For the purposes of this Article a person ought to know that his or her course of conduct amounts to harassment of another person if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think it amounted to harassment.
         The BBC’s Adviser reported that Le Sueur had been a member of Jersey’s Honorary Police since April 2012.
         But one of the most sinister aspects of the report was this: The Police statement will be provided to the Committee (the people hearing my appeal) but it has not been shared with the parties to protect the privacy of the individuals referred to.
        That showed just how 'independent' the BBC's Adviser was. No wonder they wouldn't tell me his name.
        So the Two Faced Cops evidently disclosed a lot more to the BBC, with names as well, than the Corporation was prepared to let me see.   

The Police conveniently ignored examples of harassment by both Norton and Le Sueur that complied perfectly with the definition of the law. And the proof was there for all to see on social media.
         Here are a couple of examples:
Norton: I have pretty much run out of patience with this guy. I’ve met him, tried to help him and he has even had the cheek to complain to the BBC that I’m harassing him. The Police and the press and possibly the taxation authorities must be sent all the complaints with hard evidence that Simon has actually done something wrong if they are to do something. In Surrey, where his late sister lived, the local Sutton newspaper is tracking him and have been in touch. In Devon the press are following him. I got this the other day. Damien Mills: Hi! I’m a journalist in Exeter where Simon Abbott it staging another of his infamous fashion shows. Give him a shout and tell him your stories and concerns.
         My concern is his constant appealing to the ‘wannabe’ mentality of young girls asking for models for events that do not exist. I will once again ask Jersey Police if they have any further thoughts on him.
         Simon, if you are reading this, which my friends he might be, give it up, come clean on the finances of the Trust, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need, instead of fake events that help no-one, even those of us trying to raise funds.
         It was perhaps no coincidence that Norton had a reputation as Jersey’s top charity fund organiser and was best known for coordinating the annual Jersey Charity Auction which he had done since 1984. This was broadcast live on BBC Radio Jersey.
         In addition he had been a Radio Jersey presenter for many years and was the owner of two restaurants on the Island. So he was an entrenched personality who the Police would be unlikely to go against on the basis of a complaint from a nobody like my son.
         In court documents Simon claimed that Stop the Con Simon @NOTJERSEYFASHION was set up by Le Sueur. I know this, he stated, because he sent me an email by mistake saying he was the driving force behind the group of trolls. If someone Tweets anything positive about the Samantha Abbott Trust @NOTJERSEYFASHION will tell them not to help. He will Tweet ‘Question his past bullying actions’; ‘Discrepancies in the account’ (Yet he has never seen them); ‘Being investigated by Devon & Cornwall Police and Jersey Police’ (This is not true) and ‘Simon Abbott con artist and serial duper.’
         ‘Fashion Juice @Fashion_Juice is Ian le Sueur because of the same comments and because the picture that was taken of me in the church was put on this profile. Again he posts libel comments and has tweeted to dozens of celebrities telling them not to support the Samantha Abbott Trust.
         When the BBC’s adviser asked Le Sueur if he had put the photograph of Simon, that he snatched in a church at Norton’s behest, on social media he said he could not remember.
         Le Sueur’s Norton connection plus his close association with the Police no doubt ensured his immunity from prosecution in this case.
         Jon, a member of the Clean Up Jersey's Dirty Policing campaign.

Tuesday, August 19, 2014


Dear Rebecca Davis,

         You didn’t half get your knickers in a twist over my Tweets attacking you for swearing on Twitter. The on-line paper the Daily Maverick that you write for then, somewhat surprisingly, gave you space to vent your anger with In defence of sweary women.
         In your haste to get into print you didn’t let the facts stand in the way of a good story. With the result that you got the wrong end of the stick completely.
         You huffed and puffed for something like 1000 words displaying the huge chip you seemed to have about being a woman. At the same time, like a child that had just been reprimanded for swearing, you used the phrase Fucking hell which was the subject of my complaint twice and finished with I’m fucking angry.

         Just to emphasise that nobody, least of all a man, was going to stop you swearing, you threw in horsehit four times as well as your show off boast that Profanity is part of my rhetorical armoury.
         For those readers who don’t keep up with Twitter’s swearing female journalists the background was this. Rebecca commented on the case of a teenage boy who had been convicted of killing his parents and his sister who he also raped.
         She Tweeted: So the accused raped his own sister? Fucking hell.
         I asked on Twitter if it was alright to use Fucking Hell in the stories that appear in the Daily Maverick.

         I gave a link to a previous post I had written entitled Can Swearing & Journalism mix . In it I took Carien du Plessis the senior political writer at City Press to task for using crap, fukkit, bullshit and pee in my paints in her Tweets.
         I argued that as a journalist she would not be allowed to use this kind of language in the stories she wrote for City Press. So as she was in the public eye she had a duty not to swear on social media as this would reflect badly on her paper.
         And Rebecca you had obviously read this post because you referred to it in your Maverick report as being badly written and that I only accused Du Plessis of using the word crap.

         I wasn’t even aware that ‘crap’ counted as a swearword, which shows how far beyond the pale I really am, you added.
        It also shows what a wrong impression you can give if you leave out a significant part of the story. To use your phrase this is extremely selective. 
         Also had you done a bit of research you would have found that Du Plessis ceased her vile Twitter language immediately after my post appeared. Did she have second thoughts or did her Editor Ferial Haffajee tell her to stop it. I don’t know so I’ll leave it to you to decide what this proves.
         Your paper seems to have one rule for its writers and another for people who comment on it. Those who comment are expected to abide by polite society everywhere so I would have expected that writers like you would be required to do the same.
         Evidently your Editor and founder Branko Brkic and I have very different ideas of polite society. My version certainly doesn’t include the use of words like fucking and horseshit.
         Your paper’s website tells us that anonymous comments are not acceptable as they do not breed thoughtful civilised debate. Real names make for a real community.
         So could you ask Branko why it was that among the comments on the bottom of your story there were people (I assume they were people) with names like Kate, LG, Bonb, Panther, Hilton and McKeon etc. You can’t get much more anonymous than that.
          My second question to him is this. If names are so important why didn’t you mention my name which is on my Twitter profile? Instead you described me as a stranger; one of the critics of my swearing and this same man.
         By inference you attributed this to me. It is my experience, however, that the same men who jump to rebuke me for swearing do not seem remotely disturbed by the swearing of my male counterparts, which suggests that their delicate sense of offence is extremely selective.
         Well as you have not yet got the message Rebecca my criticism of your swearing had nothing to do with you being a woman. It was, as I have already mentioned, entirely due to the fact that you are a journalist. I would have said the same about any male journo who did what you did.
         From what I’ve seen so far the male scribes have more sense and don’t have to court publicity by soiling their own doorstep with swear words on Twitter.
         Having once been employed editing Oxford English Dictionaries I wouldn’t dispute your brag that you can legitimately lay claim to a rich and extensive vocabulary; a bounteous lexical storehouse stacked high and deep with sufficient entries to convey countless shades of meaning and nuances of emotion.
         A built in dictionary doesn’t necessarily make you a good journalist.
         You went on to say that I know loads of words. I know so many words that I know ‘horsehit’ is by no means my only option to express repugnance.       

         Yet like the little girl, sorry I better mention a boy as well, trying to get attention you chose swear words instead of any of the other more acceptable words in your head. So you had no logical excuse.
         As you rightly said The precise form the censor takes varies, but the essence is always the same. In choosing to swear on a public platform, you reveal yourself not to be a ‘lady’. You betray a fundamental lack of ‘class’. You expose a vocabulary so deficient that you lack non-sweary alternatives. You encourage observers to lose all respect for you.
         You said it Rebecca not me and whether you like it or not this is exactly how sweary birds are perceived by many people.
The key question is: Do newspapers that often expose the imperfections of others need columnists and reporters like this?
          Craig Bishop, who was probably unaware of the journalist aspect, gave an apt if not somewhat harsh summary of the situation in his comment on your report.
 This is not a feminist problem – it is a social problem, he wrote. Trying to paint swearing into a feminist corner, while not invalid, limits the total resources society can bring to bear upon the problem. Besides, swearing has been and always will be the refuge of the illiterate, the uneducated, the vilely narcissistic, and rightfully, people who have dropped a sledge hammer on their toe.
         As an aside I think a lot more women must be taking up DIY.  There’s an awful lot of foul-mouthed chicks out there. It doesn’t somehow make them equal to men. It makes them equal to the illiterate, uneducated and vilely narcissistic men they have been told they can be equal to.
         Why not be better?
         The first comment I got after my tiff with you referred to my Du Plessis post. It was an Anonymous one saying:  Fucking sexist crap, this.

         Obviously I don’t know who sent it but the wording has the same sort of ring to it as the Readers Comments Policy on the Maverick’s website that begins Don’t write stupid crap.
         That’s one of the problems with those many cowards who hide behind Anonymous tags. They leave so much to the imagination.
         Anyway enough of my cr..azy and fff…… fanciful ideas on how hacks should behave because we all know that practising what they preach is not one of their strong points.
         Jon, the Poor Man’s Press Ombudsman, who exposes the embarrassing stuff about the Press that it would prefer to keep under wraps.

P.S. In the interest of fairness I would have liked to get a comment from your Editor before I posted this but I was unable to do this. Your paper’s website tells us that as the individuals on your paper are constantly running around to bring you amazing news and analysis we can be a little hard to reach. This proved to be true as far as I was concerned.

P.P.S. This seems far from ideal if you are in the news gathering business.

P.P.P.S. It seems this post did some good because the Maverick's Readers Policy was changed. Here is my Tweet about it on 25/9/2014.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014


Dear Investors,
Kevin Pearman
         It’s nice to have an admirer. It’s not often that I get such praise. So I thought you might be interested in this very accurate assessment of my character.

         "I am amazed at the incongruity between your pompous self-righteous claim to show up the rouges that advertise scams in the papers contrasted with the fact that you feel justified in attempting to destroy the business that I have built up and one in which 450 people will be affected due to your feeble efforts  to make yourself  feel important? Anyhow, I have at least 98% of shareholders on my side and I have let them know that you are the one blocking our progress.
         What has caused you to become such a supercilious prick – a legend in his own lunchtime? Do you have a small penis? Were you not breast fed? Have you lived your life in the closet? Did the kids tease you at school, or all of the above?
         Look in the mirror and ask yourself, ‘What have I actually achieved in this life?’
         I can look in the mirror and see a face that is honest, has never hurt anyone and who has achieved 3 awards as an inventor contributing to this life. I created the It Makes Cents (to sell Cell C sim cards) that took off like a rocket and your interference (merely asking Cell C if the scheme had its approval) which destroyed the aspirations of 140 people plus blocked my attempts at raising money for my other project (N-Tyre Solutions). If it were not for people like me, mankind would still be rubbing sticks together to make a fire and your mother would have smothered you at birth.
       Your claims at being a ‘watchdog’ are laughable – no wonder nobody reads your pathetic blog you miserable cretin." 13/9/2013
         This attack came from Kevin Pearman who claims to have perfected a truck tyre monitoring invention that he has been trying to get on the road for more than 12 years under the N-tyre Solutions name. To help him to do this he has been adverting in the Sunday Times and probably elsewhere for investors in both the N-Tyre business and other schemes he came up with to raise further money for his tyre project.
         I wrote two posts ("Cell C’s strange dealings with man of many promises" and "Big business turns on little man with ‘brilliant’ concept" big business) about his money making ventures. They were based on what he told me in emails.
         In fact the Cell C story was unsolicited. I knew nothing about it until he told me and gave me all the facts in emails that ran to many pages and included full details of his marketing agreement with Cell C as well as a photograph of himself to go with the story.
Cell C cancelled his contract after I asked the then CEO Alan Knott-Craig if this had the firm’s blessing – a question that might have been asked by anybody contemplating putting their money into a scheme in which Kevin claimed people could easily make an extra R800 000 per annum.
         At the time Kevin told me in an email that he believed it was me who stirred the pot with Cell C – no hard feelings if it was, because I am a positive thinker and believe that everything happens for the best.
         He followed this with another email saying that he had played completely open cards with me for some time and he had now found not one but two very interested and very big corporates to take N-Tyre under their umbrella.
         However what he needed from me was to remove the two posts I had written about him because his two potential benefactors would not go ahead unless the negativity of these articles was removed from the internet.
         But when I asked who the two were he refused to name them.
         I replied saying: Kevin I’m afraid your story doesn’t add up. If these companies have been put off by what is on my blog they must assume that what is there is true. If that is so they would hardly go into a deal with you if my posts were removed, because that would not suddenly correct what is wrong. How do I know they ever existed?
         At all times you knew I wanted information for my blog. What’s on my blog is based purely on things you told me. I didn’t make them up and as you are constantly asking members of the public to invest in your various schemes I believe it is important for them to know what the background is before they part with what possibly could be their life savings.
         You say you have not hurt anyone, but what happened to the investors in your hot pad (to relieved muscle pains) business and how long have the people who put money into N-tyre got to wait for a return?
Kevin's promise if you invested in the
Heat in a Click hotpad business he was promoting

         What concerns me Kevin is that N-tyre Solutions always seems to have something just around the corner that is going to make you and your shareholders the millions that you believe your invention is worth. But you never get round the corner.
         You go from one dud business (hot pads) to the next (Cell C marketing) trying to make the R2-million you say you still need to make N-tyre profitable. You have said things like, ‘There has never been a doubt about the vast income potential of the N-tyre system.’ Yet years go by and this never materialises. Doesn’t that cast a HUGE, BIG DOUBT on its potential?
         You were asking the public to invest in the hot pads and Cell C projects. No doubt you collected money from people and I wonder if they got their money back.
         I spoke to one of your N-tyre shareholders who invested R150 000 nine months ago and if that’s the kind of investment you received I can’t understand why your 450 investors have not provided more than enough money to get the thing off the ground. If they each invested just R50 000 that’s a hell of a lot of money.
         So what has happened to their money?

Another invitation to invest in N-tyre that appeared in the
Sunday Times in December 2010
         In your most recent N-tyre circular (Sent to me unsolicited in Jan 2013) you told us you sold your own assets and raised R233 700, which you put into the company. You also invested R81 000 made by your new company The World Loves a Winner. What was that doing? Wasn’t that the company involved in the Cell C marketing operation?
         You also promised 15% interest (Way above anything you can get from the banks) to existing shareholders prepared to put in more money. Where their interest is going to come from it is hard to imagine if you can’t even raise the money to get the N-tyre gold mine operational.
         At some stage of the Cell debacle you asked me if I would be taking your side and I replied that I would be reporting as objectively as possible and that’s still my point of view.
         Pearman answered saying he was not going to deal with all the points I raised as it will clearly make no difference save to say that some investors have only put in R1000.
         At about this time, by some strange coincidence I began getting mystery calls on my landline at around three in the morning.
         Then in early February this year I got an email from David Erlank. He claimed to be an N-tyre shareholder and he offered to give me the low down on the latest scam involving Kevin Cholwich. He was a crook I wrote about (See Noseweek exposes Dearjon Letter) who was also exposed on M-net’s Carte Blanche investigative TV programme.
         In exchange for this information Erlank wanted me to remove the two posts I had written about Pearman’s money making schemes.
         I ignored this email.
         Then two months later I had an email from Pearman. He has a very short memory because in spite of the broadside he had given me he was now asking me for another favour.
         He stated he had been informed by Erlank that he had contacted me about Cholwich and would I be so kind as to forward him this message? Erlank would have done so himself, unfortunately his computer was stolen.      
         Why would Pearman now want to get the exact email from me, when Erlank could surely remember the gist of what he sent me?
         As nobody reads my pathetic blog it’s pointless me asking: Any ideas readers?  Well it looks as though this question will have to remain as unanswered as the calls I have been getting in the middle of the night.
         On second thoughts I think I have the answered to those. When coincidences keep happening they tell their own story.
         The calls stopped for a while and then Pearman phoned me the other day and when I told him I was not interest in his proposals the calls started all over again.
         I will leave it to you to decide whether or not you should invest your money with Pearman and his N-Tyre Solutions or any of his other projects. He has never complained that there were any inaccuracies about the information I gave in the two posts I wrote.  
         Yours faithfully,
        Jon, the ‘laughable’ Consumer Watchdog who could well save a lot of people from putting their money on the wrong horse.
P.S. Francois Joubert at the Investors Club doesn't seem to think that N-tyre is worth investing in. He's the editor of the small-cap stock newsletter Red Hot Penny Shares & the Resource and Scarcity Report. Below this is a comment to him dated 20 Feb 2014