Concern... Safe Guarding my Own Children.

I am a father first. Everything else—my blog, my videos, the endless online arguments—comes second. In February 2024 that order of priorities was tested in the ugliest way possible.

An anonymous group calling itself The Legion left a comment on Guerrilla Democracy News. They called me human vermin. They accused me of lies, stalking and pedophilia. Then they went further. They referenced James Hind’s Satanic Views blog and Hoaxtead Research as the sources that supposedly justified their judgment of me. 

Read more: https://guerrillademocracy.blogspot.com/2024/02/i-quit-i-wont-take-it-anymore.html?m=0

They told me my children were already known to Hind. They asked how I would feel if someone doxed my partner or made fake nudes of my children. They painted a picture of police and social services turning up, of me being banned from seeing my own kids for life. They signed off with the usual Legion rhetoric: We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

I read it. I felt the chill. And then I made a decision. I would not tell my children.

Not because I took the threat lightly, but because I took my responsibility as their father seriously. These people were faceless. They had no presence in our real lives. I had already put practical safeguards in place against online risks. Dragging my children into the details of some internet thug’s fantasy about paedophiles and social services would only hand the Legion the exact power they wanted—the power to frighten the people I love most. I refused to do that. The slur was pathetic and irrelevant to the actual safety of my family. I treated it accordingly.

I never met James Hind. My children have never met him. He has no standing in our lives. Yet somehow he, or people operating under the Project Night Watch banner connected to him, decided my judgment as a father was not good enough. They took it upon themselves to contact social services in Brighton and Hove and complain that I had not “acted upon” the malicious communication in the way they preferred. 

They framed their interference as safeguarding. From where I stood it looked like something else entirely: an outsider who had already been cited as a source of the original threat now using the machinery of the state to punish me for refusing to let that threat dictate how I raised my children.

What kind of mindset produces that sense of entitlement?

It begins with the belief that one’s own reading of an online situation is more authoritative than the parent who actually lives with the children. Distance becomes a strange kind of licence. Because Hind has never sat at our table, never watched my children grow, never carried the daily weight of protecting them, he can treat the whole thing as an abstract moral problem to be solved by a referral. The abstract is always cleaner than the real.

It continues with the conversion of long-running online hostility into a duty of care. Hind has spent years presenting himself as a defender of children against what he sees as false and damaging ritual-abuse narratives. Once that identity is fixed, disagreement with him, or even the simple act of continuing to post, can be reclassified as endangerment. My refusal to alarm my children becomes, in that frame, evidence that I am unfit. The referral then feels not like interference but like the only responsible step.

There is also the convenience of institutional power. Reporting someone to social services is almost cost-free for the person making the report and extremely costly for the family on the receiving end. In the middle of an online feud it becomes a weapon that looks, on paper, like concern. The original Project Night Watch statement made the logic plain: they were acting because of my decision, not because of any new evidence of physical danger in our home.

I understand the urge to protect children. I live that urge every day. What I do not accept is the idea that an anonymous or semi-anonymous online actor, citing his own previous writings as justification, has the right to second-guess a father’s careful choice about how much of the internet’s filth should be allowed into his children’s heads. 

My children are not props in someone else’s moral performance. They are not leverage. They are not evidence.

I chose not to alarm them. I stand by that choice. The people who decided my parental judgment required a formal complaint to social services revealed more about their own need for control than about any genuine risk to my family. That is the mindset I have had to live with, and it is the mindset I continue to reject.