Truth, Accountability, and Legal Vindication
By Rip Davenport
I am making this statement to clarify the facts surrounding the reputational harm I’ve endured for over 15 years, and to assert both my legal rights and personal accountability.
In 2010, I made false claims, about expeditions I hadn’t completed, places I hadn’t visited. These were not criminal acts. They were exaggerations rooted in fear, insecurity, and a deep longing to belong within the adventure community.
I regret them.
I do not excuse them.
I take full responsibility.
But I am no longer that person. Over the past fifteen years, I have rebuilt my life, privately, publicly, legally, and ethically. My past does not define me, especially when that judgment ignores the documented truth of who I became. Growth is not evasion. Accountability is not silence. And transformation is not fraud.
But these mistakes did not justify the sustained, disproportionate harm that followed.
A U.S.-based individual in Montana launched a domain in my name and used it to publicly archive and amplify those early misstatements. He did so without my consent, without legal mandate, and without regard for the long-term consequences. His actions have severely impacted my ability to work, travel, and live safely. For nearly fifteen years, this domain has functioned not as a tool for accountability, but as a mechanism of reputational destruction.
The domain registered in my name was launched on March 30, 2010.
It aligned precisely with the timeline of my early misstatements, already acknowledged and addressed. But instead of allowing for growth, the individual used this domain to freeze my past in place.
He did not create it to inform. He created it to punish. What could have been a time-bound archive became a sustained mechanism of reputational harm.
False Claims Made by that individual.
- That I stole money from charities: I did not. No charity has ever contacted me with any suspicion or allegation of financial misconduct. I have never been investigated or charged with any such offense.
- That I fabricated a medical condition: I do live with a medical condition. I have chosen not to disclose its nature to that individual or the public. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), I am not obligated to do so. My medical privacy is protected under EU law.
- That I “conned” the Swedish Data Protection Authority (IMY) into granting legal protections: This is categorically false. I submitted extensive evidence of sustained reputational harm, impersonation, and privacy violations, including police reports, witness statements, screenshots of his website in my name, and a complete log of emails sent by the individual, as well as online comments, over the years.
The individual was found in breach of multiple GDPR violations following an extensive investigation by The Swedish Data Protection Authority (IMY), in cooperation with both the Swedish Police and Skatteverket (the Swedish Tax Agency).
The investigation revealed that sensitive user data was obtained under false pretenses and unlawfully shared with third parties, including a publicly accessible website, without valid consent.
The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection (IMY) issued a preliminary ruling highlighting Google LLC’s failure to comply with the complainant’s request to remove certain search results accessible within Sweden. These results, linked to a web address featuring a journalistic report by the U.S. citizen, appear in Google searches for the complainant’s full name.
Google’s handling of this personal data violates several core GDPR provisions:
- Article 17: Failure to erase the complainant’s personal data without undue delay.
- Article 9: Processing sensitive personal data without a lawful exception.
- Article 10: Processing data related to criminal offenses without authorization.
Under Article 58(2)(d) of the GDPR, IMY ordered Google to delist and remove the individuals domain from search results across all 27 EU member states. This was not symbolic, it was a binding legal action based on verified harm. It affirms that the damage was real, the violations were proven, and the protections granted to me and my family were earned through due process.
IMY condemned these breaches as “grave violations” of GDPR consent requirements and emphasized that such practices must “cease immediately.”
Legal vs. Ethical Contradiction
The individual continues to host the domain under U.S. law, citing freedom of speech as his legal basis. That is his right under the First Amendment. But legal protection does not equal ethical justification. The domain remains online because U.S. law permits it.
In contrast, Swedish and EU law have ruled the content unlawful, harmful, and in violation of my rights. The contradiction between these legal systems does not erase the harm, it documents it.
On Demands, Speculation, and Defamation
Over the years, the individual has demanded answers, insisting I “come clean” or he would not take the site down. But the truth is: he never would. The damage was already done.
His posture was not investigative. It was punitive. He positioned himself as judge, jury, and executioner, deciding unilaterally what version of me the world should see, and for how long.
That is not accountability. That is cruelty.
He has claimed I did not complete certain events because “nobody saw me.” This accusation is not only factually unfounded, it is legally and ethically preposterous. GPS tracking data in original file formats is available online. These files were reviewed by independent authorities. No manipulation was found. No fraud was alleged. The claim that I falsified GPS data is not based on forensic review, it is based on speculation.
- The absence of a crowd does not negate the presence of truth.
- The absence of a camera does not erase the act.
- The absence of public validation does not justify reputational harm.
He has publicly labeled me a “fraud” and “fraudster”, terms that carry serious legal and reputational weight. These accusations have caused lasting damage to my life, my work, and my ability to move safely through the world.
Calling someone a “fraud” online is not just an insult, it’s a legal accusation. Fraud is a criminal offense that implies intentional deception for personal gain. If no court has found someone guilty of fraud, publicly labeling them as such can be considered defamation.
Defamation laws in both the EU and U.S. protect individuals from false statements that damage reputation.
In the EU, this also violates the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) if personal data is published alongside defamatory claims.
In my case, no institution has ever found me guilty of fraud. The Swedish authorities and Swedish police reviewed the evidence and ruled in my favour. Continuing to call me a fraud, despite legal findings, shows intent to harm, not inform.
You cannot claim someone committed a crime unless it has been proven in court. You cannot publish damaging claims without verified evidence. And you cannot hide behind “free speech” to justify reputational abuse.
This is not journalism. It is unlawful distortion.
- I did not steal money.
- I did not fabricate a medical condition.
- I did not commit fraud.
Police Investigation and Legal Outcome
I reported the individual to the police in Ireland and Sweden. In turn, the police investigated me and contacted the charities in question. They reviewed his claims, examined the evidence, and found no grounds for criminal charges. No fraud. No theft. No deception warranting legal action.
In addition to institutional findings
I hold:
- Several independent witness statements from individuals who experienced or observed harassment by the same individual. These statements span multiple years, countries, and contexts. They were submitted voluntarily and without prompting. They confirm a sustained pattern of reputational harm and personal targeting.
- Five written references from my divisional officer, commanding officers and colleagues confirming my exemplary service as a rescue swimmer and medical first responder, as well as my full military records. These statements validate my training, deployments, and conduct. I requested them in response to his public attempts to discredit my service record.
- A letter from my GP, provided to police, confirming the existence of a legitimate medical condition. This letter was reviewed as part of the broader investigation. I am not obligated to provide evidence to this individual.
- These documents were reviewed by police and institutional authorities. They formed part of the evidence that led to legal rulings in my favour.
No fraud was found. No deception was proven. The harm was real. The violations were his.
Let me be clear: my case is not fraud. Fraud, under law, requires intentional deception for personal gain, typically financial or material, and resulting harm to others. That is not what happened.
I told lies. I exaggerated achievements. But I did not deceive institutions for gain. I did not steal. I did not defraud. And no legal body has ever found otherwise.
The Swedish authorities reviewed the full scope of my actions and his. They ruled in my favour.
- Skatteverket granted protected identity status to my family for 2 years.
- The Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection's (IMY) ordered the removal of his domain from EU search results.
Authorities confirmed the harm was real, and the violations were his.
I have resided in Denmark, Ireland, Malta, and now Sweden, each under full legal authorisation. These permissions were not automatic they were granted following formal vetting procedures, full criminal background checks, and administrative review.
If I were under criminal suspicion or subject to unresolved allegations, such status would not have been granted. I held permanent residency in all countries, assigned protected identity status, and recently granted full Swedish citizenship. These are not symbolic. They are institutional affirmations of my conduct, my record, and my legal right to live safely.
My past prison sentence has been legally cleared under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c. 53) of the UK Parliament. This legislation enables certain criminal convictions to be considered “spent” after a defined rehabilitation period, meaning they are no longer disclosed on standard criminal record checks. Its purpose is to ensure individuals are not permanently penalized for past convictions once they have served their sentence and demonstrated rehabilitation.
My conviction no longer appears on criminal disclosures and cannot be used to justify reputational harm. This legal clearance affirms that the sentence has been served, reviewed, and extinguished under law. It is not concealment, it is recognition of rehabilitation.
Is This Journalism?
The individual claims to be a "successful investigative journalist" on his LinkedIn profile. But his conduct over the years violates the core principles of ethical journalism as defined by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ).
Journalism is not the indefinite publication of unverified, outdated, or defamatory content. It is not the refusal to correct falsehoods. It is not the weaponization of a person’s name.
According to the SPJ Code of Ethics, journalists must:
- Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work.
- Verify information before releasing it.
- Minimize harm.
- Recognize that legal access to information differs from ethical justification.
- Avoid stereotyping.
- Never distort facts or context.
The individual has repeatedly violated these principles. He has refused to remove the website, speculated publicly about my medical history, and dismissed statements and verified evidence. This is not investigative journalism. It is reputational violence sustained by refusal to accept verified truth.
He refused to remove the website even after legal rulings and institutional investigations disproved them.
- His domain was not time-bound reporting, it was a sustained archive of reputational harm.
- He published medical speculation, personal identifiers, and defamatory labels (“fraudster”) with no legal basis.
- Convincing one young reporter to write a feature, or being contacted by another, does not confer journalistic status.
Another journalist who disengaged recognized the ethical red flags. His refusal to remove disproven claims, even after GDPR violations were confirmed, shows intent to harm, not inform. His domain remains online not because it’s accurate, but because U.S. law permits it. That’s not journalism. That’s legal opportunism.
This was not an isolated act. The individual created websites in the names of at least two other individuals, without their consent. These domains followed a similar pattern: personal identifiers, speculative accusations, and sustained publication without legal mandate. This establishes a documented pattern of reputational targeting, not investigative journalism. It shows intent to harm, not inform.
- The individual is not a journalist.
- He is a publisher of reputational harm.
- He did not investigate. He archived.
- He did not report. He punished.
- He did not seek truth. He sustained distortion.
This statement closes the record.
The harm was real.
The violations were proven.
The truth is mine to tell, and I will tell it.
For a full archive of his documented misconduct, legal violations, and institutional responses, click the button below.
