🔴 PETER LLOYD EXPOSED: THE 1.1M VIEW LIE ATTACKING UK COURTS
The fundamental integrity of the British legal system and the professional standards of accredited court reporting are currently facing a coordinated assault from a new wave of high-profile disinformation merchants on social media.
( COPYTO JUDICIARY )
As Editor-at-Large of Video Production News, I am witnessing a dangerous pivot where the labor-intensive, legally precise work of professional court correspondents is being systematically drowned out by viral fabrications engineered for political leverage, optimised for clicks and views rather than accuracy.
The recent trial of Mohammed Abdulraziq at Birmingham Crown Court serves as a case study in how a factual, boots-on-the-ground report can be hijacked and inverted by influential figures who prioritise "reach" over reality.
Mohammed Abdulraziq was convicted of false imprisonment with intent to commit a sexual offence and sexual assault following the abduction of a five-year-old girl in Winson Green.
Our Birmingham correspondent, Jason King, was physically present in the press gallery throughout the entire process, producing a definitive record of the trial using professional Teeline shorthand to ensure 100% accuracy.
On January 15, 2026, the court correctly followed sentencing guidelines by adjourning the case until March 13, 2026, to allow for a "Dangerousness" assessment, ensuring Abdulraziq remains in custody on remand to determine if an extended sentence is required for public protection.
However, a parallel and entirely fictional narrative was launched by Peter Lloyd, posting under the handle @Suffragist_ , who informed his audience that the defendant was a Nigerian national who had been released on a "SUSPENDED SENTENCE."
Lloyd further exacerbated this lie by claiming that the trial judge had
"hid this outcome with a media blackout,"
a claim that is factually impossible given that our accredited reporter was sitting in open court documenting every word.
This post, accessible at:
https://x.com/Suffragent_/status/2013271732545646922
exploded across the X platform, eventually garnering over 1.1 million views.
The disinformation was immediately amplified by Susan Hall, a Conservative London Assembly Member and former mayoral candidate, via her handle @councillorsuzie.
Hall quote-posted the fabrication at https://x.com/councillorsuzie/status/2013283263431803298, adding the inflammatory caption:
“What is happening to our country?”
This endorsement from a public official provided a veneer of legitimacy to a total falsehood, generating an additional 40,000 views and fueling a narrative of judicial collapse based on an event that never happened.
The cycle of misinformation was completed by television personality and Prospective London Mayoral candidate Ant Middleton via @antmiddleton, who posted at https://x.com/antmiddleton/status/2013281142123456789.
Middleton wrote:
“Evil has well and truly breached our system! This is a battle that will not end well for them and those who protect them. History will repeat itself and sooner than you think! 🫡🇬🇧🏴”
Despite @UKCourtsLive replying to each of these individuals immediately on X with the factual court record, and despite a third-party Community Note being appended to the original lie that has been endorsed by 50,000 users, the posts remain live.
The platform itself has officially recognised our reporting as the "Trusted Source" in this community note to correct the record, yet the factual report by our Jason King sits at a mere 4,200 views while the verified lie sits at 1.1 million.
By refusing to delete these posts after being put on formal notice of their inaccuracy, Lloyd, Hall, and Middleton are moving beyond mere error and into the territory of intentional misinformation.
The irony is profound: while they decry an entirely fictional "media blackout," Peter Lloyd has now acted as a digital Gatekeeper & actively blocked our @UKCourtsLive account to prevent his followers from seeing the truth.
This is a calculated effort to silence professional court correspondence that provides the public with direct access to truth and replace it with a populist echo chamber that views the actual law as a mere inconvenience.
When public figures amplify lies that suggest a child predator has been freed by a "complicit" judge, they are not just "commenting"—they are engaging in a form of digital vigilantism that risks a Contempt of Court violation.
Publishing false information about an active case that is still awaiting final sentencing is a direct interference with the administration of justice.
ACCESS TO LAW:
As part of our campaign to improve citizens’ access and understanding of UK Criminal law, we will be explaining the relevant UK legislation surrounding any case law relevant to our articles.
The Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to the actions of Peter Lloyd, Susan Hall, and Ant Middleton due to the publication of factually incorrect information while criminal proceedings remained active.
Under the strict liability rule, a person is in contempt if their publication creates a substantial risk that the course of justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
By claiming a defendant received a suspended sentence when the matter was actually adjourned for a dangerousness assessment, Peter Lloyd published a falsehood that undermines the authority and administration of the court.
The continued presence of these posts on the accounts of Susan Hall and Ant Middleton, despite being provided with the factual record, may be interpreted as a persistent risk to the integrity of the judicial process.
The Defamation Act 2013 is also relevant to the assertions made by Peter Lloyd regarding an alleged "media blackout" and judicial "cover-up."
These statements constitute a serious imputation against the professional integrity of the trial judge and are likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the judiciary.
Because Susan Hall and Ant Middleton were placed on formal notice by our correspondents that the information was false, any subsequent reliance on a "public interest" defence is legally compromised.
Section 179 of the Online Safety Act 2023 creates a criminal offence for sending a communication that the sender knows to be false with the intent to cause non-trivial harm.
The decision by Peter Lloyd to block accredited journalists while maintaining a known falsehood, and the refusal of Hall and Middleton to retract their posts, provides a factual basis for assessing the "knowledge of falsity" required under this legislation.
By disregarding the officially designated "Trusted Source" correction on the platform, these individuals have prioritised viral engagement over their statutory and ethical obligations to the truth.
This legislative framework exists to ensure that the "Court of Public Opinion" does not interfere with the actual scales of justice or the professional safety of those operating within the legal system.
As an Editor-at-Large , I find it unacceptable that the expertise of a reporter who sat in a courtroom for hours is eclipsed by the reckless keystrokes of those seeking political relevancy.
