A court case is a private matter between the people involved in it and the justice system. A hearing takes place, arrangements are made, and eventually the parties are informed of what happens next.

So imagine my surprise when a particular date connected with my court case appeared to be known and displayed by someone who isn't a defendant, isn't the complainant, isn't a witness and, as far as I am aware, has no involvement in the proceedings whatsoever.

That person is Alex Jones of Colchester, associated with Castle Corbenic Ltd. Public company information identifies Alex Jones as a person with significant control of Castle Corbenic Ltd, with 75% or more of the shares and voting rights.

And that brings us to the rather obvious question:

What exactly has Alex Jones got to do with my court case?

Apparently, nothing.

Yet somehow the date has become something worthy of being displayed publicly.

“The court case that was the cause of drama this week was moved to February 2027 for trial after a hearing yesterday at Lewes Crown Court.”

Fair enough.

Except there is an interesting little detail in all of this.

It wasn't Alex Jones's court case.

It wasn't his hearing.

It wasn't his trial.

It wasn't his prosecution.

It wasn't his defence.

And he wasn't the person sitting in court waiting to discover when the next stage of the proceedings would take place.

So why does he feel entitled to put the date out there?

There's a difference between knowing something and being entitled to announce it

This is where things get interesting.

There is nothing inherently mysterious about a court listing. Court cases can, in appropriate circumstances, become publicly accessible information. The fact that somebody knows about a hearing does not automatically mean that they have committed an offence by mentioning it.

But there is a significant distinction between "I know something" and "I have a reason to announce something."

Those are two completely different questions.

And in this particular situation, the question I am asking isn't:

“Is Alex Jones legally allowed to know the date?”

The question is:

“Why is Alex Jones interested in publicising the date of somebody else's criminal trial, particularly when the people directly involved had apparently not yet been informed?”

That is a very different question.

The curious timing

According to the statement above, the case was moved to February 2027 following a hearing at Lewes Crown Court.

But if the defendant and complainant hadn't yet been told the new trial date, then seeing somebody else publicly displaying that date creates an obvious question:

How did they know?

And perhaps even more importantly:

Why were they displaying it?

I'm not suggesting an answer.

I'm not claiming Alex Jones obtained confidential information.

I'm not alleging that he interfered with the court.

I'm not suggesting that he has done anything unlawful.

Those are matters that would require evidence.

I'm simply pointing out the oddity of the situation.

A court case concerning me has a new date.

Alex Jones isn't involved.

And yet Alex Jones appears sufficiently interested in that date to put it on display.

That's the bit I find fascinating.

The obsession with somebody else's calendar

There is also something rather surreal about watching people on the outside become fascinated with the calendar of a court case in which they have no formal role.

Imagine having your own life, your own work, your own company and your own problems to deal with—and nevertheless finding the time to keep track of when somebody else's trial has been listed.

Then imagine announcing the date before the people actually involved have apparently been told.

At that point, the natural reaction isn't necessarily outrage.

Sometimes it is simply:

“Why?”

Why is this important to you?

Why are you monitoring it?

Why do you feel the need to tell everyone else?

And what exactly is the purpose of doing so?

Those are perfectly reasonable questions.

And then there's Castle Corbenic

Alex Jones is publicly associated with Castle Corbenic Ltd. Companies House-derived information identifies him as the person with significant control of the company.

Castle Corbenic's own public-facing description of its activities is one thing.

But my court case is another.

There is no obvious connection between running a company and monitoring the date of my trial.

Which brings us back to the title of this piece.

What has the date of my court case got to do with Alex Jones?

On the information available to me:

Nothing.

And that is precisely why the public display of the date is interesting.

If Alex Jones were involved as a defendant, complainant, witness, lawyer, journalist or otherwise formally connected with the proceedings, there would be an obvious explanation.

But if he isn't involved, then the explanation becomes less obvious.

And when something isn't obvious, asking questions isn't unreasonable.

The important distinction

I want to be careful here.

There is a massive difference between saying:

“Alex Jones published the date of my trial.”

and saying:

“Alex Jones did something unlawful by publishing the date.”

The first is a factual proposition that can potentially be established by looking at what was published.

The second is a legal conclusion requiring considerably more information.

I'm making the first observation and asking questions about it.

I'm not pretending to know the answer to the second.

Perhaps there is a perfectly innocent explanation.

Perhaps the information was publicly available.

Perhaps someone else gave him the information.

Perhaps he simply came across it somewhere.

Perhaps he thought it was interesting.

Perhaps he considered it relevant to his audience.

There are numerous possibilities.

But if that's the case, why not simply say so?

The irony

The irony is that the court case is supposed to be about what happens in court.

Not what happens on YouTube.

Not what happens on Facebook.

Not what Alex Jones thinks.

Not what somebody else predicts.

And certainly not about people celebrating or anticipating a trial before the evidence has been tested and a court has reached its conclusions.

The proper place for the allegations against me is the courtroom.

The proper place for the evidence is the courtroom.

And the proper place for the verdict is the courtroom.

Until then, there is a defendant who is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

So perhaps the more interesting question isn't:

“When is Matt Taylor's trial?”

Perhaps it is:

“Why is Alex Jones so interested in knowing?”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a question I don't have an answer to.

But Alex Jones might.

Maybe he should tell us.

It never ceases to amaze me how far AJ Lashbrook (hiding under the aliases “un listed” and “Lucifer”) will go in his obsession to smear and slander anyone who dares to stand up to him.

The latest example? A disgraceful comment aimed at Jake:

“it’s documented that you are a danger to children jake.”

Let’s be clear — Jake is not a danger to children.” This is Lashbrook doing what he does best: inverting the truth, throwing mud, and hoping some of it sticks. It’s not only false, but it’s dangerous. Accusations of this nature can destroy reputations and livelihoods, and Lashbrook knows it. That’s why he does it.

The irony? While he tries to paint others as monsters, Lashbrook himself has a real conviction on his record — one of animal cruelty. Yes, you read that right. The man who shouts the loudest about others being a “danger” has himself been judged by the courts for causing harm to innocent creatures.

So which is worse — slandering a man like Jake, who is no danger to children whatsoever, or being officially convicted of cruelty?

It’s a textbook case of hypocrisy. Lashbrook wants the world to believe he is some kind of moral authority, but the truth is the complete opposite. His past actions speak far louder than his lies.

Jake, far from being any kind of danger, is the one being stalked, bullied, and defamed. Lashbrook, meanwhile, continues to project his own darkness onto others, weaponising false allegations while ignoring his own shameful record.

People deserve to know the truth: those who shout “danger” the loudest often do so to distract from their own deeds.

James Hind, known for his obsessive and relentless targeting of individuals, has once again attempted to skew reality through his misleading and disingenuous statements. In his recent blog post titled, "Matthew Taylor (Brighton) breaks truce inside 24 hours," Hind falsely claims that a truce existed between Project Night Watch (PNW) and Matthew Taylor, only to declare that Taylor has broken it. Let’s set the record straight: no such truce ever existed. What did occur was Taylor publicly conceding that Hind had achieved his goal through a campaign of lies, harassment, and relentless provocation, he declared that "James Hind wins." Hind’s insistence on interpreting this statement as some formal "truce" is not only misleading but further evidence of his continued efforts to manipulate narratives.

Breaking Down Hind’s Narrative.

Hind claims that Taylor’s supposed truce lasted "less than 24 hours" before Taylor allegedly violated it by posting a video titled “Sock Puppet Blues,” which Hind interprets as an attack on PNW and the “retired” James Hind brand. However, there was no agreement to break in the first place, making this entire assertion baseless. Taylor’s concession was a statement of frustration and exhaustion in response to Hind’s sustained campaign of harassment - not a pact or a promise to stop responding altogether.

This distinction is crucial because it highlights how Hind continually warps facts to suit his narrative. He has positioned himself as a victim, feigning indignation at Taylor’s actions to justify his continued aggression.

The False Victimhood and Deflection Tactics.

Hind’s narrative is built around a recurring pattern: portraying himself and PNW as victims of Taylor’s obsessive behaviour, while simultaneously using this supposed victimhood as a shield for his own misconduct. In his blog post, Hind frames Taylor as a “stalker” with “obsessive-compulsive disorder,” attempting to pathologize Taylor in order to invalidate his legitimate grievances and criticisms. This tactic not only dehumanises Taylor but also attempts to shift focus away from Hind’s own unethical behaviour.

Hind goes on to mention Taylor’s supposed “obsession” with xxxxx xxxxxxxxx, citing a blog post where Taylor lamented being silenced by a Stalking Protection Order (SPO) that prevents him from telling his side of the story. Hind conveniently omits the context here, which is that the SPO has been a tool used to suppress Taylor’s right to respond to a smear campaign against him-a campaign that Hind himself has been actively perpetuating.

Misrepresentation of Events and Continued Harassment.

Hind’s portrayal of Taylor as a dangerous stalker who needs to be contained by legal orders is another cornerstone of his narrative. He claims that Taylor is a “serial liar” and a “delusional fantasist,” whose social media presence is nothing more than a platform for spreading false allegations and terrorising his “many victims.” This language is intentionally inflammatory, designed to paint Taylor as a dangerous threat while ignoring the reality of Hind’s own provocations and inflammatory statements.

What Hind fails to acknowledge is that Taylor’s public comments and social media posts have largely been defensive in nature-responses to ongoing attacks, not unprovoked assaults. The fact that Hind continues to publish defamatory and accusatory content, even after Taylor’s declaration that “Hind wins,” is proof enough that the real instigator is not Taylor but Hind himself.

A Cycle of Harassment and Gaslighting.

Hind’s strategy is clear: provoke a response from Taylor, then use that response as evidence of Taylor’s instability or aggression. This cycle of harassment is fueled by Hind’s relentless need to control the narrative, ensuring that he is always seen as the innocent party while Taylor is cast as the villain. By repeatedly accusing Taylor of breaking non-existent truces and using labels like “stalker” and “abuser,” Hind attempts to justify his own behaviour while gaslighting Taylor into silence.

Moreover, Hind’s assertion that there is “no reason for Taylor to focus on xxxxxxxxx anymore” is both dismissive and misleading. It ignores the fact that the very reason Taylor is compelled to address xxxxxxxxx and others is due to the false narratives and accusations that Hind and his associates have continued to spread. When Hind states that xxxxxxxxx has “moved on” to focus on his “Star Trek interests,” he is attempting to erase the harm that has been done and the ongoing impact of those false accusations.

Hind’s Continued Aggression and Lack of Accountability.

The underlying irony in Hind’s post is that while he accuses Taylor of breaking a so-called truce, it is Hind himself who has shown no intention of ceasing his attacks. His fixation on Taylor remains as strong as ever, and his willingness to fabricate narratives to maintain control over the situation is indicative of his own obsessive behaviour. By framing Taylor’s exhaustion and concession as some kind of victory for PNW, Hind reveals his true intention: to beat his targets into submission, forcing them to either disappear or conform to his version of events.

In the end, Hind’s latest post is not an update on some broken agreement but rather a continuation of his strategy to dominate and discredit Taylor through manipulation, distortion, and relentless harassment. His rhetoric is tired, his tactics transparent, and his obsession evident.

Conclusion.

James Hind’s latest post is not a reflection of Matthew Taylor’s failure to honour a truce, but rather a testament to Hind’s own inability to let go. His continued fixation on Taylor, even after the so-called “retirement” of his James Hind brand, is proof that he remains as engaged in this toxic battle as ever. If anyone needs to take a step back and reevaluate their behaviour, it is Hind himself.

Until he does, we can expect more of the same: lies, manipulation, and a relentless campaign to rewrite reality to suit his needs. The question, then, is not if Taylor will respond but how long Hind will continue his obsessive quest for domination. As always, the real story lies not in what Hind claims, but in what he carefully avoids acknowledging-his own role as the true harasser in this saga.