Walis Hoogly (James Hind) v's Matt Taylor.

Navigating Online Attacks and Personal Defamation.
Online spaces can be empowering, connecting people across boundaries and providing platforms for expression. Yet they also create opportunities for misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and targeted harassment. My recent experiences have underscored how easily digital interactions can devolve into personal attacks—accusations, insinuations, and character judgments that bear little resemblance to reality.
One such instance involves an individual using the name Walis Hoogly, whose comments toward me have grown increasingly hostile. Among other claims, she has accused me of being a “deadbeat dad” who has never contributed to the upbringing of my children. This accusation is not only false but deeply hurtful. I have always supported my family and remain committed to doing so. To see something so central to my identity as a parent twisted into a weapon feels like an attempt to erase years of responsibility, sacrifice, and genuine care.
Beyond questioning my role as a father, this individual has gone so far as to ridicule the idea that I might have a girlfriend, suggesting she would be unattractive or otherwise insulting simply for being with me. These comments say far more about the mindset of the person making them than about me or anyone in my life. They reflect a style of online antagonism designed not to seek truth but to provoke, belittle, and unsettle.
The tone and tactics of these attacks are reminiscent of past experiences I have had with online trolling. Recently, I encountered an online persona known as James Hind, whose behaviour followed a similar pattern—provocation through personal jabs, challenges to one’s credibility, and an overall disregard for the emotional impact of their words. That earlier episode taught me how difficult it can be to distinguish between genuine individuals and constructed identities in online spaces. It also revealed how common it is for people to fabricate stories, motivations, or personas in order to escalate conflict or generate chaos.
My current experience with Hoogly echoes that sense of uncertainty. When people online make bold claims about your life but remain vague about their own identities, it becomes tempting to draw parallels or speculate. But the deeper issue is not who someone “really is”; it is the environment that encourages people to attack others so freely while shielding themselves from accountability.
In responding to these situations, I have learned that the healthiest approach is to remain grounded in what I know to be true: my responsibilities, my relationships, and my integrity. No amount of online noise can rewrite the facts of my life, nor can insults undermine the value I place on my family or personal commitments. While I cannot control what others choose to say, I can choose to counter hostility with clarity, honesty, and a commitment to conducting myself with respect—even when I am not shown the same courtesy.
Ultimately, these experiences reflect a broader challenge of modern digital culture: the ease with which misinformation spreads, the casual cruelty some bring to virtual spaces, and the difficulty of defending one’s character in an environment where anonymity can encourage the worst in people. Yet I refuse to let these encounters define me. My life, my actions, and my relationships speak for themselves, and no amount of online antagonism can silence that truth.