Taylor’s Kangaroo Court: AJ LASHBROOK IS GUILTY.

FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

READ MORE:

https://taylorskangaroocourt.wordpress.com/2026/01/31/aj-lashbrook-guilty-of-3-counts-of-spreading-lies-and-misinformation-with-intent-to-kill/

https://taylorskangaroocourt.wordpress.com/2025/09/17/taylors-kangaroo-court-degenerate-aj-lashbrook-exposes-his-own-perverse-mindset/

https://taylorskangaroocourt.wordpress.com/2025/09/04/taylors-kangaroo-court-the-case-of-aj-lashbrook-again/

https://taylorskangaroocourt.wordpress.com/2025/09/01/taylors-kangaroo-court-aj-degenerate-in-the-dock/

AJ of the Lucifer Family

There is a point at which online commentary stops being opinion and starts becoming something far more serious. Not because of tone, and not because of disagreement, but because of lies.

The issue at hand is not a single remark or isolated comment. In the online world, people say foolish things every day. What changes the nature of speech is repetition, amplification, and escalation.

Exhibit One begins with a crude and defamatory claim involving two adult men. It is sexualised, humiliating, and unsupported. On its own, some might dismiss it as online provocation.

But it did not stop there.

Exhibit Two saw the claim escalate into an allegation of sexual abuse involving a woman. At this point, the commentary moved beyond insult and into the realm of reputational destruction. Sexual abuse allegations are not rhetorical devices; they carry real-world consequences.

Then came Exhibit Three — the most serious escalation of all. The word rape was introduced. Once that word is publicly attached to named individuals, there is no rewind button. It alters perception permanently, regardless of whether evidence exists.

The Critical Contradiction

Here is where the matter becomes unavoidable.

The woman referenced in these claims was invited to comment publicly. Her response was simple and unambiguous:

“I’ve never come across AJ saying that.”

No outrage. No embellishment. Just a contradiction.

Following this, a direct question was put on the record:

"Will you take this opportunity to refute the claims being made that you were sexually abused and raped by Justin and I, on the night of your birthday in 2022?"

This was an opportunity for clarification. For confirmation. Or for denial.

What followed was silence.

False or unsubstantiated allegations do not exist in a vacuum. They isolate people, invite harassment, and can place individuals at real risk. Intent does not need to be proven for damage to occur.

Taylor’s Kangaroo Court Sentences AJ LASHBROOK to a Taylor Kangaroo YouTube Protection Order (TKYTO)

In the jurisdiction of Taylor’s Kangaroo Court — AJ Lashbrook has been found Guilty of 3 counts of spreading lies and misinformation, with intent to kill.

Taylor’s Kangaroo Court prohibits the Respondent, AJ Lashbrook (from the Fuckwit Family):-

1. Contacting by any means, directly or indirectly Kaley Einav, Jake Clark, Justin Pomeroy and Matt Taylor, or incite another person to do so; this includes but is not limited to contact in person, calls, letters, emails, messages, social media.

1. Entering West Sussex, East Sussex, Hampshire, Kent, Surrey, London, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire as defined by the exclusion zone on the attached map.

1. Attending any place you believe Kaley Einav, Jake Clark, Justin Pomeroy and Matt Taylor, is present, or remaining in that place once you are aware of their presence.

2. Posting or encouraging or inciting any other persons from posting on the internet or otherwise publishing or broadcasting any video, comment, opinion or other material which directly refers to Kaley Einav, Jake Clark, Justin Pomeroy and Matt Taylor. If directed to do so by your Police Offender Manager or other Police Office must remove any post under your control when requested to do so.

3. Having or using any Social Media, Social Networking, Gaming or Dating website unless with written permission of your police offender manager and having supplied username and emails associated with each site * The Oxford English Dictionary defines Social Media as “websites and software programs used for social networking” and Social Networking as “the use of dedicated websites and applications to interact with other users, or to find people with similar interests to one’s own”

Taylor’s Kangaroo Court requires the Respondent, AJ Lashbrook to be aware:-

This Order will last until 31 December 2039.

A person who, without reasonable excuse, breaches an YouTube Protection Order commits an offence. A person guilty of an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or both, or on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine or both.

I've been Accused of Rape!

READ MORE - https://mttv.substack.com/p/ive-been-accused-of-rape

Tales from YouTube - The Devil is a Liar.

From Allegation to Escalation: The Claims Made by AJ Lashbrook.

One week after making a serious public allegation against Matt Taylor and Justin Pomeroy, YouTube commentator AJ Lashbrook has escalated his claims further—this time asserting that the woman at the centre of the controversy was raped.

AJ Lashbrook aka Lucifer aka Unlisted

The original allegation concerned an incident in June 2022, when a woman arrived at Matt Taylor’s home uninvited. Lashbrook alleged that Taylor and Pomeroy had sexually abused the woman—an accusation that was already grave in nature and unsupported by any publicly available evidence.

Now, Lashbrook has gone further.

Posting in the live chat of a YouTube stream, Lashbrook—who has a criminal conviction for animal abuse—wrote:

“I was actually surprised when I found out that Pomeroy and Taylor raped that poor lady.”

This statement marks a significant escalation in rhetoric, shifting from an allegation of abuse to a direct claim of rape—one of the most serious accusations that can be levelled against any individual.

No police statements, court records, or verified testimony have been produced to substantiate this claim. The woman herself has never made such an allegation publicly, nor that any criminal investigation has supported Lashbrook’s assertion.

The manner in which the claim was made—via a YouTube live chat, rather than through any legal or journalistic channel—raises serious questions about responsibility, motive, and the potential harm caused by broadcasting unverified accusations to an audience.

False or reckless allegations of sexual violence do not merely damage the reputations of those accused; they also undermine genuine victims by cheapening the gravity of such crimes and turning them into tools of online conflict.

The escalation from “abuse” to “rape” within the space of a week illustrates a pattern often seen in online harassment campaigns: accusations grow more extreme over time, not because new evidence has emerged, but because outrage itself becomes the currency.

At present, Lashbrook’s claim remains precisely that—a claim. One made publicly, without evidence, and with potentially life-altering consequences for those named.

As with all allegations of this nature, the distinction between accusation and fact is not merely important—it is essential.

Tales from YouTube - Harry Munker, "It's just a complete waste of time. And that's tragic."

Noise, Fantasy, and the Fear of Meaning

Criticism, when offered in good faith, aims to illuminate. It engages with ideas, interrogates evidence, and leaves space for disagreement. The comment left by Harry Munker on my YouTube channel presents itself as such a critique—an unvarnished statement of “truth.” Yet on closer inspection, it reveals something quite different: not an analysis of my work, but an attempt to invalidate the very premise of creative autonomy.

The comment opens with an appeal to a vague collective—“people don’t rate AI content,” “they want original content.” No evidence is offered, no audience defined. This rhetorical move is familiar. By invoking an unnamed majority, the speaker positions himself as a spokesperson for consensus without the burden of proof. It is not argument by evidence, but by implication: everyone agrees, therefore debate is unnecessary. Ironically, this technique is among the least original in online discourse.

From there, the comment moves to audience erasure. I am told I have “no audience,” followed immediately by the concession that I once had one, and that it was “alright.” The contradiction is telling. The aim is not factual accuracy but psychological reduction—shrinking past engagement so the present may be dismissed as illegitimate. This tactic allows the critic to deny continuity: whatever existed before does not count, therefore whatever exists now cannot matter.

The accusation that I have “never really created anything apart from noise” continues this pattern. “Noise” is not a category; it is an aesthetic judgement masquerading as a conclusion. It avoids the inconvenience of definition. To label something as noise is to refuse engagement while maintaining the posture of having evaluated it. Panels, commentary, narrative projects, and long-form discussion are dismissed not because they lack form, but because their form is inconvenient to the critic’s worldview.

A significant shift occurs when the comment begins to moralise time. I am told that I am “wasting” my life, that I “cannot get that time back.” At this point, the critique abandons content entirely and becomes existential. This is no longer about whether the work is effective or persuasive, but whether it is permissible. Time-shaming is a form of social control, asserting that there exists a correct way to live, and that deviation from it is not merely inefficient, but foolish. Such arguments rarely arise from indifference; they arise from discomfort with autonomy.

The most serious charge is that my work has achieved nothing except “getting myself in trouble” and “facilitating abuse.” These are heavy moral accusations, yet they are offered without example, context, or evidence. This vagueness is strategic. By refusing specificity, the critic avoids accountability while still delivering the stain of allegation. It also reverses the dynamics of harm: if someone is targeted, harassed, or opposed, the implication is that they must have caused it. Responsibility is reassigned not through proof, but through insinuation.

The declaration that “this is the truth, like it or not” marks the closing of the rhetorical trap. Such language does not strengthen an argument; it attempts to end one. It asserts authority rather than earning it, positioning disagreement as denial of reality itself. History suggests that truth rarely requires such aggressive self-assertion.

The dismissal of King Arthur as “never having existed” exemplifies the comment’s broader misunderstanding. The project is not a literal claim about historical census records, but an engagement with myth, symbol, and political narrative. To reduce this to a factual gotcha is either wilful simplification or bad faith. Myths shape cultures, laws, and identities precisely because they are not bound by literalism. To deny their power is to misunderstand how meaning operates in the real world.

In a moment of apparent generosity, the critic acknowledges my work ethic, only to declare it tragically misapplied. This backhanded compliment serves a dual purpose: it allows the speaker to feel fair-minded while still condemning the entire direction of my work. Yet it also exposes a contradiction. If fantasy is meaningless, why does it provoke such sustained attention and concern? People do not write essays about things that truly do not matter.

The comment concludes by declaring that because fantasy “isn’t real,” there is neither success nor failure—only wasted time. This position collapses under minimal scrutiny. Nearly every social structure, political movement, and cultural institution began as narrative before becoming material. To deny the reality of imagination is not realism; it is a refusal to acknowledge how reality is made.

Ultimately, the comment reveals less about my work than about the anxieties of the critic. It is not indifference that drives such a response, but fixation. One does not spend this much energy explaining why something is meaningless unless it has already intruded upon one’s sense of order. The paradox is unavoidable: in attempting to erase significance, the comment confirms it.

If my work were truly nothing, silence would suffice. Instead, there is noise—carefully constructed, morally weighted, and insistently delivered. And in that noise, meaning persists, whether acknowledged or not.

READ MORE - https://trollcomments.wordpress.com/2026/01/26/he-loves-to-judge-you/

Martin Webb - Best Mayor for Sussex - Brighton Palace Pier Sale Sparks Call for Council Ownership.

The potential sale of Brighton Palace Pier has prompted calls for Brighton and Hove City Council to step in and purchase one of the city’s most iconic landmarks, framing the moment as a rare opportunity to secure long-term benefits for residents.

Martin Webb, independent candidate for Sussex mayor, has described the sale as a “once-in-a-generation” chance for the city to take control of one of its most loved—and consistently profitable—assets. He argues that public ownership of the pier would allow profits to be reinvested directly into Brighton and Hove, helping to fund vital local services for decades to come.

Unlike other high-profile regeneration projects that have struggled to deliver value, Webb points out that Brighton Palace Pier has more than a century of proven trading history. It is a reliable commercial success, generating steady income year after year. In his view, this makes it a far safer and more sensible investment than many recent council-backed schemes.

Webb estimates that a realistic purchase price could be in the region of £14 million—an amount he notes is comparable to what the council is currently spending on the controversial road works at Old Steine. He suggests that buying the pier would not only represent stronger commercial sense, but would also be far more positively received by residents.

Any acquisition, Webb stresses, would need to be handled properly. Public ownership should not mean stagnation. Instead, he envisions a pier that becomes “more Brighton”: more creative, more distinctive, and more reflective of the city’s unique cultural character. With the depth of local talent available, he believes the pier could be enhanced into a world-class attraction while remaining authentic and locally rooted.

The proposal hinges on political will. Webb argues that, if the council chose to act with ambition and vision, the necessary funding could be found. Managed well, he believes the pier could deliver excellent long-term financial returns, strengthen the city’s finances, and secure the future of a treasured landmark.

Above all, the idea is about ownership and control. Bringing Brighton Palace Pier into public hands would mean it becomes “our pier”—run in the interests of the people of Brighton and Hove, shaped by local priorities, and preserved for future generations.

MattTaylorTV! January 2026 Extravaganza.

A King for Britain? Why Tommy Robinson’s Christmas Message Misses the Mark.

In a recent public statement, activist and political figure Tommy Robinson sought to anchor his message in traditional Christian imagery. “Jesus lived for us. He died for us. He rose again,” he proclaimed, having previously said, “We are here to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.”

On the surface, these are familiar sentiments heard in churches and communities across the country during the festive season. However, a closer examination reveals a narrative that is not only theologically and historically selective but, critics argue, politically opportunistic. It raises a pointed question: if the goal is to unite the nation behind a patriotic symbol, is the figure of Jesus Christ the most appropriate banner—or is there a more fitting, homegrown alternative?

The Problem with the Platform.

Scholars of religion and history widely agree on two points that complicate Robinson’s framing. Firstly, virtually no biblical scholar asserts that Jesus Christ was born on December 25th; the date was adopted by the early Church, aligning with pre-existing pagan winter solstice festivals. Secondly, the core miracle of the Christian faith—the resurrection—is, by its very definition, a matter of faith. As one critic of Robinson’s approach notes, “no one really believes anyone comes back from the dead” from a purely historical-evidential standpoint.

This leads to the central accusation against such rhetoric: that it is “jumping on a bandwagon, to win votes and influence people.” The charge is that leveraging the superficial iconography of Christianity—detached from its theological substance and historical complexities—is a disingenuous strategy. It employs a near-universal cultural reference point not for spiritual edification, but for political mobilisation.

A Patriotic Alternative: King Arthur II.

If the objective is to “guarantee a position as a patriotic champion” and unite the country behind a single historical figure, the critic proposes a radically different candidate: King Arthur II.

Here, the argument takes a distinctive turn towards British legend. While Jesus Christ is the transcendent “King of Kings” in Christian theology, King Arthur II is presented as “our nation’s greatest king.” The symbolism is meticulously contrasted: Jesus was not born on Christmas, but King Arthur II, it is claimed, was—on December 25th, 503 AD.

This proposal is underpinned by a potent logic of national identity. King Arthur II—a figure from the post-Roman "Dark Ages" who united the Britons against Saxon invaders—represents a sovereign specifically of British soil. His life is one of national defence, unity, chivalric virtue, and a distinctly British brand of leadership. For a political project seeking to wrap itself in the flag, this figure offers a narrative free from global religion’s complexities and directly tied to the land and its legendary past.

Uniting Behind a Legend?

The underlying challenge, of course, is that one figure resides in the realm of faith and the other in historical fact. The historical evidence for King Arthur II is fiercely debated among historians, with many considering him a composite mythological figure. Yet, for the purposes of national symbolism, this may be irrelevant. Legends often hold more unifying power than contested histories.

The critic’s argument ultimately suggests that Tommy Robinson’s invocation of Jesus Christ is a strategic misfire. It employs a global religious icon whose birth date is acknowledged as symbolic and whose following transcends national borders. In doing so, it fails to tap into a more specific, earthy, and patriotic mythology readily available in Britain’s own legendary archive.

“If Tommy Robinson wants to unite the country behind one historical figure,” the case concludes, “then it must be King Arthur II and not Jesus Christ.” The message is clear: for a campaign seeking to champion a vision of British patriotism, a king born—legendarily—on Christmas Day in Britain’s own misty past might be a more potent, and less theologically fraught, symbol than a messiah born in Bethlehem.

The debate highlights a perennial tension in politics: the choice between leveraging universal religious symbols or cultivating exclusive national myths. This Christmas, the suggestion is that for certain political projects, a British king may trump the King of Kings.