Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 50 total)
  • Anonymous to release child abuse evidence
  • votchy
    Free Member

    Heard on the radio this morning that the hacking group anonymous (probably spelt differently lol) are threatening to release evidence regarding child abuse involvement of senior/important people that they have obtained. What are your thoughts? Should they hand this over to the police or do ‘we’ think the police already know this but are yet to action etc?

    cover up?

    MSP
    Full Member

    As “hacktavists” any real information they have will have come from other sources and must(should) be known about by the police. If they actually do have evidence that action isn’t being taken against criminals because they are in positions of influence and power then they are right to expose it.

    On the other hand if it is just a load of conspiracy innuendo and bullshit then they are dickheads.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    On the other hand if it is just a load of conspiracy innuendo and bullshit then they are dickheads.

    +1

    Also most likely scenario, they just libel a load of innocent people.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    jam-bo
    Full Member

    What this thread needs is more lizards and pyramids. I’m not convinced until jivehoneyjive is here.

    Lawmanmx
    Free Member

    name and shame, these vile ****ers have been protected for too long.

    binners
    Full Member

    Given the relentless way in which the establishment has ruthlessly pursued child abusers, and remained steadfast in its steely resolve to bring every last one of them to justice, I can’t for the life of me think why they would feel the need to do this?

    footflaps
    Full Member

    name and shame, these vile ****ers have been protected for too long.

    Vigilante justice invariably never gets the right people.

    Remember the Speaker’s wife, George Monbiot and co all doing exactly this.

    Let me remind you with George Monbiot’s eloquent apology.

    I have helped to malign an innocent man.

    By George Monbiot, published on monbiot.com, 10th November 2012

    I have done a few stupid things in my life, but nothing as stupid as this. The tweets I sent which hinted – as I assumed to be the case – that Lord McAlpine was the person the child abuse victim Steve Messham was talking about were so idiotic that, looking back on them today, I cannot believe that I wrote them.

    But I did, and they are unforgiveable. I helped to stoke an atmosphere of febrile innuendo around an innocent man, and I am desperately sorry for the harm I have done him. I have set out, throughout my adult life, to try to do good; instead I have now played a part in inflicting a terrible hurt upon someone who had done none of the harm of which he was wrongly accused. I apologise abjectly and unreservedly to Lord McAlpine.

    What follows is in no sense an attempt to excuse the tweets I wrote, but simply to try to explain them.

    I knew that Steve Messham had been treated appallingly, and I believed that the terrible things done to him had been compounded by a denial of recognition and a denial of the recourse to the law which was his due. When I saw his interview on Newsnight I was very upset. I trusted his account unquestioningly. I was horrified by what he said, and by the fact that the identity of the man he was talking about appeared to have been kept secret for so long.

    I felt a powerful compulsion to do what I have done throughout my career: to help the voiceless be heard. But in this case I did so without any of the care I usually take when assessing and reporting an issue. I allowed myself to be carried away by a sense of moral outrage. As a result, far from addressing an awful injustice, I contributed to one.

    I have acted in an unprofessional, thoughtless and cruel manner, and I am sorry beyond words.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    Genuine fresh evidence that needs action – should go to the enquiring authorities.

    If it’s just more jhj-style vague gossip and speculation, with nothing to actually use as legally substantiable evidence, that’s as useless to the victims as what has gone before.

    We all know terrible things have been done and covered up – that needs putting right through the law of the land, not through a scattergun internet witch hunt that may destroy some innocent people in the process.

    IHN
    Full Member

    And of course, if it is actually evidence, obtaining and publishing it by illegal means will very probably mean that it could then not be used in any legal case against the alleged perpetrators, meaning that the chances of them being convicted of the crimes are even smaller.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    If it makes it into the press, then it would make finding an unbiased Jury very hard, so could easily jeopardise any chance of conviction.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    I think IHN and footflaps have hit on the real danger of this kind of thing, especially if it is celebs involved, and then suddenly a lot more victims start reporting incidents through their “legal representatives”.

    Though I don’t think any convicted celebs have appealed on this, tbf?

    An impartial judicial process can easily be knocked of course by media/internet irresponsibility.

    jambalaya
    Free Member

    Where would anonymous get electronic evidence from ? The only written evidence stored on computers would be on police files unless they have hacked into individuals machines and found illegal stored images.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    unless they have hacked into individuals machines and found illegal stored images.

    Id assume thats what it is

    spawnofyorkshire
    Full Member

    unless they have hacked into individuals machines and found illegal stored images.

    This

    Hopefully if they’ve genuinely found something they work with the authorities to make sure the ba*ds get arrested and tried properly

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    My fear is that whatever they release identifies possible victims as well as possible abusers.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    Id assume thats what it is

    Well releasing it won’t do any good as you can’t prove which machine it came from and you can’t use it as evidence as there’s no proper forensic trail, plus it just alerts the owner to purge his machine.

    You could hack into anyone’s machine, suck out a few files, add in some kiddie porn photos and release the lot online, proves absolutely nothing…

    PJM1974
    Free Member

    Most of the time the seem to wait until the politician/banker/DJ has died before deciding that they were indeed a predatory pederast and that the signs were there all along…

    natrix
    Free Member

    Given the relentless way in which the establishment has ruthlessly pursued child abusers, and remained steadfast in its steely resolve to bring every last one of them to justice, I can’t for the life of me think why they would feel the need to do this?

    I find it puzzling as well……………..

    iffoverload
    Free Member

    I think some of this is about

    John Mann, a Labour MP for Bassetlaw, has urged Home Secretary Theresa May to address state secrecy shrouding these allegations.

    Mann believes the Official Secrets Act is obstructing ex-Special Branch police officials from stepping forward with vital information

    it is hardly news that corruption is widespread in the political system and it is pretty much useless in representing the publics interests in general e.g

    https://stop-ttip.org/

    aracer
    Free Member

    That seems like rather a lot of effort to go to to stitch somebody up, when there are far easier ways once you’ve hacked into their computer…

    hels
    Free Member

    Well, I for one won’t believe a word of it unless it comes with a nice pyramid flowchart and some fancy infographics.

    piemonster
    Full Member

    Well, I for one won’t believe a word of it unless it comes with a nice pyramid flowchart and some fancy infographics.

    We also need a photo of two people. Well know to know each other to be in the same image.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Oh, go on then, since you asked nicely…

    This piece from The Australian, linking notorious child killer Sidney Cooke to the Australian High Commission in London and Jimmy Savile’s Driver, David Smith is worrying

    Wonder why the story hasn’t been publicized in the UK?

    Seem to remember Somafunk mentioned something about a taxi firm…

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    Quick Poll:

    Hands up who followed any of the links JHJ has posted on this thread?

    If you did, how many of them?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    just the last one

    it depressed me

    hels
    Free Member

    I would imagine that is something to do with the fairly robust libel laws in the UK ?

    “I am aware” “evidence existed” “allegations were made” yes quite the smoking gun you have there.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Any of these pieces in isolation could just be of minimal consequence, but when you look at the bigger picture that emerges, there is certainly something not quite right…

    Let’s not forget the 114 missing files

    The Wanless review which failed to find files relating to high ranking Diplomat to Canada Peter Hayman, on whom Margaret Thatcher was briefed

    The briefing document prepared by the Home Office should any questions arise in the commons stating:

    Line to take ‘there has been no cover up’:

    Given 4 further files have recently come to light which the Government refuses to name, how many other files are yet to be revealed?

    Also we have the matter of CIA and KGB (doubtless along with other intelligence agencies) being aware of the paedophile inclinations of a number of politicians

    hels
    Free Member

    This is the cute bit about conspiracy theories that I love – unsubstantiated hearsay from an witness is considered concrete proof, yet what is being billed as a genuine cabinet office paper (also unverified) that says “there has been no cover up” – but that isn’t proof that there isn’t a cover up ?

    So in essence, what The Man says is all lies, but what people say that conforms with the conspiracy theory is gospel.

    It’s like arguing about religion with Dolphins, ultimately pointless.

    hels
    Free Member

    Closely followed by my second favourite piece of flawed logic (if I was asked for a Top Ten) “they wouldn’t bother denying it if it wasn’t true”. Yes, quite.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    You misunderstand hels…

    that is a briefing document produced for MPs

    ~much like an actor gets a script to practice~

    ‘There has been no cover up’ is the line to take in public…

    unsubstantiated hearsay from an witness is considered concrete proof

    One witness in isolation would be questionable, but when you have several, from many different walks of life, all pointing to the same conclusion, denial, though the easy option, is irresponsible

    lemonysam
    Free Member

    It’s like arguing about religion with Dolphins, ultimately pointless.

    And in the end you always find yourself talking at cross porpoises?

    ‘There has been no cover up’ is the line to take in public…

    Which does not mean that it is not true

    hels
    Free Member

    “that is a briefing document prepared for MPs”.

    No it isn’t. It is a piece of paper with some words typed on to it on an old typewriter, and a few scribbles/corrections in biro, that somebody has photographed and posted on an internet site.

    Give us half an hour when I get home and I can make you another one – what would you like it to say ?

    Cross porpoises – nice one !

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    No it isn’t. It is a piece of paper with some words typed on to it on an old typewriter, and a few scribbles/corrections in biro, that somebody has photographed and posted on an internet site

    But! But!

    It says ‘Secret’ at the top and everything!

    It must be not only genuine but also untrue and a part of some overarching conspiracy by The Establishment.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    What on earth are those photos supposed to ‘prove’ that celebrities and MPs meet occasionally? Hardly shocking stuff.

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Which does not mean that it is not true

    Debatable, given Thatcher actively prevented Peter Hayman from being named

    No it isn’t. It is a piece of paper with some words typed on to it on an old typewriter, and a few scribbles/corrections in biro, that somebody has photographed and posted on an internet site.

    Funny you should say that, since as well as being mentioned in the article above, the source I got it from happens to be Meirion Jones the guy who’s Newsnight investigation into Jimmy Savile was shelved from above

    Here’s his tweet that I nabbed the image from

    Trimix
    Free Member

    Keep looking and you will find whatever you want to.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    It’s like arguing about religion with Dolphins, ultimately pointless.

    And in the end you always find yourself talking at cross porpoises?

    Sorry but that gag is too good to be lost amongst a load of conspiracy links

    jivehoneyjive
    Free Member

    Keep looking and you will find whatever you want to.

    Fail to look and you’ll accept any old lies you’re fed by the powers that be…

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 50 total)

The topic ‘Anonymous to release child abuse evidence’ is closed to new replies.