It seems having had a break of nearly a month, the bigot is back. We know Hayden vs Farrow is not yet concluded but it seems she’s returning to Twitter now that she’s ’employed’ by the ultra-conservative CitizenGO who oppose same-sex marriage, abortion etc.
With any luck she will get booted from Twitter. Then the High Court will hand her fat arse to her on a plate at the final trial.
It is three days since Farrow last tweeted. It must be some sort of record worthy of a #RingThePope.
We imagine the conversation went something like this:-
Farrow: I feel very upbeat about this outcome. Amanda Jones: You do realise an injunction has just been granted against you to prohibit you from doing something don’t you? If you try and do something similar to anyone else the claimant will seize on that and put it in front of the court. I strongly advise you to SHUT THE FUCK UP from now on until further notice. Mr Justice Bryan feels the claimant has a strong chance of winning at a final trial. That being likely it’s possible they’ll be a permenant injunction against you doing that to the claimant or anyone else if they can prove you’ve done it to others. Farrow: Maybe I’ll just tell everyone I want to feel like a wife, mother and human being again to try and save face. Amanda Jones: You do that.
Amanda Jones: Here’s my final bill. Fr Farrow: God bless.
We hope Farrow remains quiet for very a long time. She’s learnt an expensive lesson.
On Thursday 2nd May the hearing took place at the Royal Courts of Justice.
We attended despite being told by two people that we must not go. Quite who Dr Adrian Harrop thinks he is beyond us. He quite clearly thinks his ‘celebrity’ status gives him authority. You’re a nothing, Harrop. A nobody. You have a very long way to go before you reach Dr Christian or Dr Ranj status. You come across as a wanker who wants to try and increase your profile and status.
The claimant didn’t want us to go either; Hayden comes across as very hostile and totally up their own arse.
Mr Justice Bryan granted Hayden an injunction against Farrow to stop her mentioning Hayden or misgendering. Hayden didn’t escape criticism and had to give an undertaking not to talk about Farrow or contact her on social media either.
On Wednesday 1st May we received a ‘phone call. This changed all our plans and meant we definitely would be able to make it on Thursday 2nd May.
We still had to make a few arrangements to enable us to attend but it was all sorted within an hour or so.
We announced to others that we would be going. About two hours later we received an email telling us not to go. We would not be welcome. If we went, someone else couldn’t and they had more right to be there than us. We didn’t react.
Later that evening, we received a direct message on Twitter.
That message was as follows:-
We were gobsmacked. We consulted and discussed the situation with several people, including a solicitor advocate. We remained defiant and didn’t respond to the message.
The message above was from Dr Adrian Harrop who clearly thinks he has some sort of authority over people.
Having discussed the matter our resolve to attend increased.
On Monday 29th April, Mr Justice Waksman sitting in court 37 at the Royal Courts of Justice issued an order.
That order was as follows:-
The claimant then proceeded to carry out paragraph 2) by visiting the defendant’s address.
On arrival at the defendant’s address, the defandant called 999 to report the claimant claiming she was in danger. Unable to serve the order, the claimant left the order for the defendant as instructed in paragraph 2.