The Peril of Another Person Telling Your Story.

There is a particular danger when someone else decides to tell your story for you: they may know enough of the facts to make their version sound convincing, while getting enough of the important details wrong to fundamentally distort the story.

That is precisely the issue I have with comments recently made by Tony Quigley, who uses the name Harry Munker on YouTube, in response to Shaun Cassidy threatening to serve me with legal papers over an article I published reporting on an exchange between Cassidy and Kaley Einav on YouTube.

Tony wrote:

“Do it Brother, He deserves no Mercy whatsoever.”

He then proceeded to give his account of my history, making a series of claims about my criminal and military history, my mother, my movements around Europe and the circumstances surrounding my mother's death.

The problem is that several of the supposedly “pertinent facts” in his account are simply wrong.

And when you are telling someone else's story, facts matter.

For the record, I have not received a suspended sentence for breaching a Stalking Prevention Order. That is not a minor distinction when someone is presenting a narrative about my alleged criminal history.

Tony also claimed that I was “kicked out of the army for snuggling marijuana.” Leaving aside the rather unfortunate choice of the word snuggling — I presume he meant smuggling — the circumstances surrounding my departure from the Army are considerably more complicated than the version he presents.

He also states that my mother was living with my sister at the time. She wasn't. She was living in a nursing home.

Then there is the geography. According to Tony, I attempted to flee to Pakistan. I didn't. The country involved was India. He also says that I couldn't get passports in Paris. The issue wasn't obtaining passports; it was obtaining the necessary visas.

These might sound like insignificant details to somebody constructing a story from memory, hearsay or material gathered from elsewhere. They aren't.

Perhaps most importantly, Tony claims that I never completed my Royal Military Police training.

Again, that is simply incorrect.

I completed my Royal Military Police training and passed out as a fully trained RMP. That is an important part of my personal history, particularly when somebody is attempting to construct a narrative about my military career.

Finally, Tony's account of my mother's death is wrong. My mother did not die in a house fire.

When somebody takes a collection of real events from another person's life, mixes them with misunderstandings and inaccuracies, and then presents the resulting story as fact, something rather important happens: the person whose life it actually was disappears from the narrative.

That is the peril of allowing another person to tell your story.

My life is not a fictional character created for somebody else's entertainment. Nor is it a convenient collection of anecdotes that can be rearranged to produce whatever impression somebody wants to create.

There are undoubtedly things in my past that I am not proud of. There are mistakes, controversies, difficult periods and events that can be discussed and criticised. I don't expect everyone to agree with my interpretation of them, and I certainly don't expect anyone to give me a free pass.

But if somebody wants to criticise me, get the facts right.

If you're going to tell the story of somebody else's life, at least take the trouble to establish what actually happened.

Because once inaccurate information is repeated often enough, it can acquire the appearance of truth. One person says it, another repeats it, somebody else quotes the repetition, and eventually the original error becomes “common knowledge”.

That is how reputations can be damaged.

It is also why I object to Tony Quigley's version of my history.

He is entitled to his opinions about me. He is entitled to dislike me. He is entitled to criticise my conduct and challenge things I have said or done.

What he isn't entitled to do, at least intellectually and morally, is rewrite my history and then present the rewritten version as though it were established fact.

This is my story.

I lived it. I know what happened to me, my family and my career.

I don't claim that my version is beyond question, but I do claim the right to correct factual errors when somebody else decides to tell my story for me.

And if Tony Quigley wants to tell my story, perhaps he should start by getting the basic facts right.

Because when you get the pertinent facts wrong, you aren't telling somebody's story.

You're telling your own version of it.

Satire, Harassment and the Use of a Person's Likeness Under UK Law: Where Is the Line?

Freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. In the United Kingdom, the law recognises that people must be free to criticise, ridicule, parody and even offend others through journalism, literature, television, art and comedy. At the same time, the law also recognises that individuals have a right to be protected from harassment, intimidation and other unlawful conduct.

Understanding where satire ends and harassment begins is not always straightforward. The answer depends not on whether a person is offended, but on the nature, purpose and overall context of the conduct.

The Importance of Satire.

Satire is one of the oldest forms of social and political commentary. It uses humour, irony, exaggeration and ridicule to expose perceived hypocrisy, incompetence or wrongdoing. By its very nature, satire is often uncomfortable for its target. If satire were required to avoid causing offence, much of history's greatest political commentary would never have existed.

In the UK, freedom of expression is protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights through the Human Rights Act 1998. This protection extends not only to ideas that are welcomed or considered inoffensive, but also to speech that shocks, disturbs or offends. Courts have repeatedly recognised that democratic debate depends upon robust discussion and criticism.

The Role of Caricature and Likeness.

One of the defining features of satire is the use of caricature. 

Artists exaggerate facial features. Writers invent fictional dialogue. Television programmes create puppet versions of real people. Today, creators may also use AI-generated images, digital artwork or manipulated photographs to produce humorous or satirical representations.

Using a person's likeness does not automatically infringe the law.

Unlike some countries, the UK does not have a broad, standalone legal right preventing people from using another person's image in satire or commentary. The question is not whether someone's appearance has been used, but how and why it has been used.

Spitting Image: Britain's Best-Known Example.

Perhaps no programme illustrates this better than the British television series Spitting Image.

For decades, the programme featured grotesque latex puppets depicting politicians, members of the Royal Family, celebrities and world leaders. Margaret Thatcher, King Charles III, Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump and countless others were portrayed in wildly exaggerated form.

The humour was often brutal.

Characters were mocked for their appearance, personality, intelligence, behaviour and political decisions. Entire sketches revolved around making public figures appear ridiculous.

Despite this, the programme became one of Britain's most celebrated satirical television shows. Why?

Because the purpose was political and social commentary through comedy, rather than a campaign of unlawful harassment.

Being Offensive Is Not the Same as Being Illegal.

Many people mistakenly believe that causing offence makes speech unlawful. It does not.

The courts have long recognised that freedom of expression protects speech that many people dislike. Satire almost always embarrasses someone. Political cartoons, stand-up comedy, newspaper columns and television sketches regularly ridicule identifiable individuals.

That is not, by itself, harassment. The law accepts that public debate often involves sharp criticism, ridicule and humour.

When Does Satire Become Harassment?

Harassment is governed primarily by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Unlike satire, harassment is not defined by whether material is funny or offensive. Instead, courts examine the overall conduct.

They ask questions such as:

• Was there a course of conduct involving repeated incidents?

• Was the behaviour directed at a particular individual?

• Would a reasonable person regard the conduct as oppressive or unacceptable?

• Did it cause alarm or distress?

• Was there a legitimate purpose, such as journalism, political commentary, artistic expression or comedy?

These questions focus on behaviour rather than merely the content itself. A satirical article criticising someone is one thing. A sustained campaign of intimidation, threats or unwanted contact may be something entirely different.

Context Matters. Context is everything.

Exactly the same image may be lawful in one setting and unlawful in another. A caricature appearing in a newspaper political cartoon is generally understood as satire.

The same image repeatedly sent privately to intimidate someone could form part of evidence in a harassment case.

Similarly, publishing a humorous AI-generated image alongside a satirical article is different from persistently targeting an individual with unwanted communications intended to cause fear or distress.

The law therefore looks beyond the image itself and considers the wider pattern of conduct.

Public Figures Receive Greater Scrutiny.

Public figures—including politicians, celebrities, campaigners and media personalities—are generally expected to tolerate a higher level of criticism than private individuals.

That does not mean they lose legal protection. It does mean that courts often recognise the wider public interest in allowing robust criticism of those participating in public life.

Television programmes, newspapers and online creators regularly use parody and caricature to comment upon people who influence public debate. This has long been regarded as an important aspect of democratic society.

AI Has Changed the Tools, Not the Principles.

Artificial intelligence now enables creators to generate realistic or exaggerated images of real people within seconds. Although the technology is new, the legal principles are largely familiar.

Whether an image is painted by hand, sculpted into a puppet or generated by AI, courts are still likely to ask the same questions:

• What was its purpose?

• Was it clearly satirical?

• Did it falsely assert factual allegations?

• Was it part of legitimate commentary?

• Or was it part of a wider course of oppressive conduct?

The method of creation is generally less important than the context in which it is used.

Other Legal Risks.

Even where conduct does not amount to harassment, creators should remain aware of other areas of law. These include:

• Defamation, where false statements seriously damage a person's reputation.

• Misuse of private information.

• Copyright issues involving underlying material.

• Passing off, where a person's identity is falsely used to suggest endorsement or commercial approval.

These are separate legal questions from harassment and should not be confused with one another.

The Balance Between Freedom and Protection.

The courts are frequently required to balance two important rights.

• On one side stands freedom of expression.

• On the other stands the individual's right to live free from intimidation and harassment.

Neither right is absolute.

The law attempts to preserve vigorous public debate while preventing genuinely oppressive behaviour. That balancing exercise explains why satire enjoys significant legal protection, while sustained campaigns directed at intimidating or distressing individuals may cross into unlawful conduct.

Conclusion.

Satire has always relied upon exaggeration, ridicule and imitation. From newspaper cartoons to Spitting Image, British culture has embraced the idea that humour often involves making identifiable people look foolish.

Using a person's likeness—whether through caricature, puppetry, photography or AI—is not, in itself, harassment. Nor does causing offence automatically make expression unlawful.

Instead, UK law examines the overall conduct, its purpose, its context and its impact. A satirical image published as commentary is fundamentally different from a repeated course of oppressive behaviour directed at causing alarm or distress.

The enduring success of Spitting Image illustrates this distinction. Its puppets caricatured some of the world's most recognisable individuals in often savage fashion, yet the programme became a defining example of lawful political satire. The legal question has never been whether someone was mocked, but whether the conduct, viewed as a whole, crossed the line from protected expression into unlawful behaviour.

That distinction remains just as relevant today in the age of AI-generated images and digital media as it was in the era of latex puppets and hand-drawn cartoons.

A Once-in-a-Lifetime Opportunity – Buy me a Ford Puma and Become Part of MattTaylorTV! History!

Some opportunities come along only once. This is one of them.

If you've ever enjoyed a MattTaylorTV! livestream, laughed at one of my songs, read one of my articles, or followed the wonderfully unpredictable journey that has become Matt Taylor TV, here's your chance to become part of the story in a very real way.

The Mission…

I'm looking for a generous supporter to purchase a Ford Puma—a stylish, practical car that will help me expand my happiness, comfort, work, travel more easily, create more content, and continue producing the videos, interviews, articles and projects that so many of you enjoy.

Rather than simply asking for support, I want to give something back.

Here's What You'll Receive…

As a thank you for making this happen, you'll receive:

A personal on-air shout-out on Matt Taylor TV.

A signed copy of my debut science-fiction novel, The Golden Cube.

The satisfaction of knowing you've helped support one of YouTube's most unique independent creators.

A Genuine Collector's Opportunity…

Signed first-edition books often become treasured keepsakes, especially when they're connected to the early career of an independent creator.

Whether you're already a supporter or discovering MattTaylorTV! for the first time, this is your chance to own a signed copy of The Golden Cube while helping shape the next chapter of the journey.

Why a Ford Puma?

The Ford Puma combines comfort, reliability and practicality—exactly what's needed for travelling to Kent to spend the weekend with my magical imaginary girlfriend, going fishing with my son, filming on location, attending events and continuing to create fresh content for the channel.

It's an investment in my happiness, future projects, bigger adventures and more entertaining content for everyone.

Become Part of the Story…

Every successful creator has supporters who believed in them before everyone else did.

This is your opportunity to be one of those people.

Years from now you'll be able to say:

"I helped make that happen."

That's something no one can ever take away.

Don't Miss Out…

Opportunities like this don't come around every day.

• A shout-out on MattTaylorTV.

• A signed copy of The Golden Cube.

• And the knowledge that you've helped fuel the next stage of the MattTaylorTV! adventure.

It's more than buying a car. It's becoming part of the journey.

Babs McKay - First Warning.

Babs McKay Issues Cease and Desist to YouTube Comedian Matt Taylor After Song Premiere.

65-year-old Babs McKay has formally issued a cease and desist notice to former Royal Military Policeman and YouTube comedian Matt Taylor, demanding that he leave her alone.

The notice follows the premiere of a Matt Taylor TV song about McKay, which was featured during a scheduled Matt Taylor TV show bonanza on 1 August 2026.

The development comes after McKay had previously vowed never to appear on Matt Taylor’s YouTube panel for any discussion and insisted she be left alone. Despite that stance, she later directed a series of questions to Taylor. Among them was an inquiry about whether he knew Simon Bean, the veteran campaigner who in 2019 vowed to “bring London to its knees” in response to threats of prosecution against former service personnel from the Northern Ireland conflict.

In her recent comments, McKay cited that Taylor is due in court in September over allegations of similar conduct — specifically, posting videos about what people say and do on YouTube.

The exchange has played out publicly in the comments section of Taylor’s content, with McKay posting a highlighted warning that framed the cease and desist as her “first warning” and referenced the forthcoming court date.

Elon Musk, Mel Gibson and King Arthur II.

If Elon Musk Is Down for a Historically Accurate Epic, Mel Gibson Should Direct the True Story of King Arthur II.

Elon Musk recently replied “I’m down” to a proposal that he fund Mel Gibson to direct a painstakingly authentic adaptation of Homer’s Odyssey—complete with period ships, armour, Homeric Greek dialogue and casting free of modern revisionism. That exchange, coming amid Musk’s sharp criticism of Christopher Nolan’s big-budget Odyssey, has opened a door. If the goal is cinema that prioritises fidelity to source material over contemporary fashion, there is a far more ambitious, more startling, and potentially more commercially explosive project waiting: a trilogy based on the research of Welsh historians Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett into the life of King Arthur II.

According to Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett, there were two distinct historical kings named Arthur, separated by roughly 150 years. The later figure—Arthur II (Athrwys ap Meurig), born around AD 503 and active in the sixth century—emerges from their reading of early Welsh genealogies, charters and chronicles as a real war-leader who fought a series of decisive campaigns across Britain. 

King Arthur I (late 4th century) is associated with the period of Magnus Maximus. He fought the Romans (and in their account achieved significant successes against them).

Their reconstruction, detailed across multiple books including King Arthur, II King of Glamorgan and Gwent and The Holy Kingdom, presents a narrative of national unification, cosmic catastrophe and transatlantic adventure that dwarfs the usual Arthurian cycle of romance and betrayal.

They argue that later medieval writers and chroniclers conflated the two separate historical figures into the single legendary King Arthur of romance. But in Wilson and Blackett’s own framework, Arthur I and Arthur II were real, successive, and distinct rulers, not a single person or a vague amalgam from the start.

Baram Blackett - Alan Wilson and Richard D Hall

Act One: The Twelve Battles and the Making of a Kingdom.

The first film would follow the young Arthur as he wages the twelve famous battles recorded in early sources such as the Historia Brittonum. Campaign by campaign he consolidates power across the island, defeating rivals and invaders until Britain is brought under a single crown—the “Great Kingdom” that, in this telling, forms the foundation of the later realm. Gibson’s gift for visceral, large-scale combat sequences (Braveheart, Apocalypto) and his insistence on linguistic and material authenticity would turn these battles into a relentless, geographically sweeping military epic. The result could feel less like fantasy and more like a sixth-century Saving Private Ryan set against the hills, rivers and Roman roads of post-Roman Britain.

Act Two: Asteroid Debris and the Onset of the Dark Ages.

The second instalment would depict the abrupt destruction of that hard-won kingdom by asteroid debris. In Wilson and Blackett’s account, the impact plunges the island into a prolonged climatic catastrophe in which nothing grows for seven to eleven years—ushering in the historical Dark Ages. The visual and dramatic possibilities are immense: skies darkened by dust, failed harvests, societal collapse, and a once-unified realm reduced to survival. Gibson has already shown he can film human endurance under extreme conditions; here the enemy is not merely other men but the sky itself.

Act Three: The Voyage to America and the Spear in Kentucky.

The final film would follow Arthur and his remaining forces as they take to the sea in some 700 ships, cross the Atlantic, sail up the Mississippi and establish a camp in what is now Kentucky. There they wage war against the indigenous peoples of the region. After a long day of fighting, Arthur is said to have removed his armour only to be assassinated by a ten-year-old Native American boy who slipped through the camp’s defences and drove a spear into his heart. The body, according to the researchers, was embalmed and eventually returned to Wales for burial.

This sequence alone—ocean crossing, riverine expedition, cultural collision, and a sudden, almost intimate death—offers the kind of tragic grandeur rarely attempted in modern historical cinema. With Gibson’s proven ability to stage both vast set-pieces and intimate violence, the climax could land with the force of the final moments of The Passion of the Christ.

Proponents of the Wilson-Blackett reconstruction argue that such a trilogy would possess a scale, originality and emotional range capable of surpassing even the opening-weekend numbers of Nolan’s Odyssey. They further contend that a director of Gibson’s intensity and track record with difficult, faith-inflected or culturally specific material could deliver performances and craftsmanship strong enough to contend for major awards, including Oscars. Whether those commercial and critical outcomes would materialise is, of course, unknowable; Hollywood has never been short of ambitious historical claims that failed to find an audience. Yet the sheer strangeness and sweep of the story—if executed with the same uncompromising physicality Gibson brought to Apocalypto—would at least guarantee that audiences had never seen anything quite like it.

Wilson and Blackett’s wider body of work supplies further connective tissue for anyone interested in “historically accurate” ancient narratives. They have argued that the Odyssey itself preserves a memory of a genuine world circumnavigation, that Homer drew upon an older Egyptian tradition, and that the figure of Odysseus corresponds to the Hyksos king Tefnakhte. Separately, and of particular relevance to Gibson’s filmography, they maintain that Jesus survived the crucifixion, travelled with members of his family to South Wales, and was later remembered there as the Lame Fisher King. Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ already demonstrated his willingness to treat sacred history with unflinching literalism; the idea of extending that approach to a post-crucifixion British chapter would be characteristically bold.

Posted by Monika Escobar

These interpretations remain highly controversial. Mainstream historians regard Wilson and Blackett’s readings of inscriptions, genealogies and place-names as speculative or erroneous, and no conventional academic consensus supports Arthur’s death in Kentucky, an asteroid-triggered Dark Age timed precisely to his reign, or the identification of Odysseus with Tefnakhte. The theories belong firmly to the realm of alternative history.

Yet the same could be said, from certain scholarly perspectives, of any attempt to film a “historically accurate” Odyssey. Myth, legend and sparse early sources leave wide room for interpretation. If Musk’s interest in Gibson’s Odyssey rests on a desire for fidelity to original texts and a rejection of present-day ideological overlays, then the Wilson-Blackett Arthur cycle offers an even more radical test of that principle: a narrative that challenges not only Hollywood convention but the received map of early medieval history itself.

Whether such a project would “change history forever” is beyond any producer’s power to guarantee. What it could do is put on screen a version of the Arthurian story that almost no one has seen—violent, catastrophic, transoceanic and ultimately tragic—and do so under the direction of a filmmaker who has repeatedly shown he is willing to risk everything for the story he believes is true. 

If Elon Musk is genuinely down for that kind of cinema, Mel Gibson and the research of Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett may represent the most ambitious, and most unexpected, next step.

READ MORE -

BRIGHTON 2222 PROJECT

Babs’ Bizarre Crusade: Accusing Others of Child Endangerment While Platforming Far Worse.

In a recent YouTube comment, a user known as Babs delivered what can only be described as a masterclass in hypocritical outrage. While agreeing with another commenter that Kaley Einav is “evil to her core,” Babs called for a lifetime ban from the internet for Einav — along with Jake Clarke, Justin Pomeroy, Ass1000, Shelly Mote, and Matthew Taylor — and demanded they be barred from going near any children or having any indirect contact with them.

The accusation is as serious as it is sweeping: these individuals, in Babs’ view, represent such a danger that they must be digitally and physically isolated from minors.

The problem? Babs’ own circle tells a very different story.

According to information shared by the targets of her attack, Babs has long supported an individual known as James Hind, who now identities as AJ — a self-described Satanist who has openly admitted to:

• Pretending to be a 12-year-old boy online

• Interacting with children as young as 11

• Sharing illegal content (of the most serious nature) with minors

• Identifying a paedophile groomer but choosing not to report him to authorities, reportedly because he “didn’t like the thought of ruining a paedophile’s life”

This is the person Babs chooses to defend and associate with, while simultaneously labelling law-abiding critics as child threats worthy of total banishment.

Even Tom Zero — described as one of Babs’ close friends for many years — recently remarked that she has a low IQ. On current evidence, it’s hard to argue with that assessment. Launching extreme, evidence-free calls for lifetime bans and child safety restrictions against people you dislike, while giving a free pass to someone who brags about catfishing children and shielding actual predators, is not the behaviour of a rational or morally consistent person. It is the conduct of someone weaponising child protection rhetoric as a personal attack tool.

This kind of reckless online finger-pointing doesn’t protect children — it distracts from real risks. If Babs genuinely cared about child safety, she might start by examining the company she keeps rather than issuing blanket condemnations against those who challenge her.

Final note: Accusing people of being a danger to children is not a casual debate tactic. It’s a serious claim that can destroy reputations. Babs should perhaps reflect on the mirror before handing out more imaginary restraining orders.