Men are using the law to gaslight women – we’re fighting back

Content warning: sexual abuse

When we published the story of how Liv Nervo, the DJ, was tricked into sex and pregnancy by a wealthy businessman called Matthew Pringle, we were promptly threatened by his lawyers, AFP Bloom. 

We had said that, although not technically rape, obtaining her consent through his elaborate lie looked quite a lot like it. AFP Bloom said our publication breached Pringle’s rights to privacy, was highly defamatory and false. They demanded we take it down. 

It’s still up.

Pringle and his lawyers shouldn’t be issuing these threats if they don’t plan to make good on them. It brings the legal system into disrepute. And some weeks on he hasn’t taken any action. But that’s how they roll – wealthy bullies like Pringle.

Pringle also claimed we were in breach of a court order – in contempt of court – because his child had a right to privacy and publishing his name would enable his child to be identified.

At a legal level this proposition was tricky – both for him and for us. The High Court did make an order but that order did not apply in the Court of Appeal where Liv was named in a public hearing. Obviously we have taken the view we are entitled to publish what we have. 

But at a moral level – it’s reprehensible. He doesn’t have parental responsibility, his conduct towards his child is the very opposite of loving, and Liv (who is bringing her child up) believes naming him, and calling out his reproductive coercion, is important. To us, and to her, Pringle’s argument feels like gaslighting, pretending to care for his child when his real object is to escape public censure.

Just a day earlier we published a story of how a professor at Oxford University, who we named, is alleged to have raped a younger female academic.

What followed was the same story in a different setting.

It didn’t take long for his lawyers, Kingsley Napley, to get in touch threatening us with, yes, a breach of his right to privacy and defamation proceedings. Most strikingly of all, they insisted that by publishing his name we risked breaching the woman’s right to anonymity – a crime under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Yes, it’s that gaslighting again. The morally reprehensible hiding of an alleged rapist under the cover of the protection intended for victims.

Again, they demanded we immediately take our piece down. And again we refused. 

Kingsley Napley then obtained an order from the High Court – without giving us any notice – which obliged us to take our piece (and social media) down. And we have.

Very shortly we will apply to the High Court to try and get that order discharged. Publishing these stories is incredibly hard – and expensive. But it’s critical that men who engage in sexual misconduct are named. Otherwise they continue to pose a threat to women. And there is no consequence for them – or deterrence for others.