Blogger Nigel Nessling avoids prison after downloading 40,000 indecent images.

[stephen25000]

You attributed a link to an anonymous poster called Vee.

Vee8 is on an online name used by Nessling, as is hiscother moniker, hotrod.

Easily found John and I believe acknowledged by him.

[John]

Vee8 is on online names used by Nessling, as is hotrod.

Easily found John and I believe acknowledged by him.

If you can prove that I will allow the links.

[G-Unit]

No evidence he was a paedophile....so he will have no problem applying as a helper at a nursery.....your post is ridiculous imo...there is ample evidence he is a paedophile ..imo ...several thousand downloaded images

I do not..or perhaps I do ...understand that posters want to deny he is a paedophile

As he is the subject of a Sexual harm prevention order and an entry on the Sex Offender Register it is your suggestion that he could work with children that's ridiculous.

No one has denied that he's a paedophile, just pointed out that there's no evidence that he is. Offenders can view, make, download and store pornography featuring children without fitting the profile of paedophilia.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/ancillary-orders/22-sexual-harm-prevention-orders/

[G-Unit]

You attributed a link to an anonymous poster called Vee.

I thought I was linking to his blog. There is, though, proof there that he was vee. His mates call him that in their comments, and his real name is all over the site too.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/a-minute-for-madeleine/

Almost all the posters on Stop the Myths post anonymously, by the way.

[John]

Mods please note:  Sex offender is the appropriate term to use, this is NOT up for discussion.

[Carana]

I've read the news, and I'm shocked.

Unless there is a (very remote) possibility that the reporter got the wrong name, misspelled it or there is someone else with the same name in the area, I guess it really must be him.

At no point did I, or anyone else I've ever had contact with over the years, ever have any suspicions. I didn't always agree with what he wrote, but that's neither here nor there.

A few thoughts:

I've noticed the partisan approach in the recent "me too" saga that took off in the US. In my view, there shouldn't be any partisan bias: the behaviour is reprehensible, whichever "side" the person belongs to and whatever the subject of debate.

At the same time, I remember what Debunker once said, and I'm having to paraphrase, but it was that - in his line of work - he managed to separate the person from that person's behaviour. I know that Debunker wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I often found him to be interesting.

I can only presume that what may have started out as curiosity became a secret addiction.

NN has a family and they must be devastated. I hope that everyone discussing this will be as sensitive as possible for their sakes.

[Mr Gray]

I've read the news, and I'm shocked.

Unless there is a (very remote) possibility that the reporter got the wrong name, misspelled it or there is someone else with the same name in the area, I guess it really must be him.

At no point did I, or anyone else I've ever had contact with over the years, ever have any suspicions. I didn't always agree with what he wrote, but that's neither here nor there.

A few thoughts:

I've noticed the partisan approach in the recent "me too" saga that took off in the US. In my view, there shouldn't be any partisan bias: the behaviour is reprehensible, whichever "side" the person belongs to and whatever the subject of debate.

At the same time, I remember what Debunker once said, and I'm having to paraphrase, but it was that - in his line of work - he managed to separate the person from that person's behaviour. I know that Debunker wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but I often found him to be interesting.

I can only presume that what may have started out as curiosity became a secret addiction.

NN has a family and they must be devastated. I hope that everyone discussing this will be as sensitive as possible for their sakes.

if there was any sensitivity to the family it would not be discussed here

[G-Unit]

What is for sure is that as far as the Madeleine McCann case is concerned his involvement is over. He will no longer be peddling his opinions and attacking those who disagree with him.

[Erngath]

I thought I was linking to his blog. There is, though, proof there that he was vee. His mates call him that in their comments, and his real name is all over the site too.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/a-minute-for-madeleine/

Almost all the posters on Stop the Myths post anonymously, by the way.

As do posters in  most forums.

[Mr Gray]

What is for sure is that as far as the Madeleine McCann case is concerned his involvement is over. He will no longer be peddling his opinions and attacking those who disagree with him.

and of what if any importance is that

[G-Unit]

if there was any sensitivity to the family it would not be discussed here

If he had put his family first it wouldn't be.

[Brietta]

Whatever terminology is used to describe those persons with an interest in downloading pornographic photographs of the abuse of children some of whom are babes in arms ... there is no doubt that successful prosecution of many must probably run into the hundreds if not thousands per annum.

The man under discussion is one of those thousands.

Why are we discussing him here in isolation?  If he is worthy of commanding his very own thread ... why not the others whose offences and convictions are recorded elsewhere on the internet ... on the same websites as is this man's?

In my opinion, for the simple reason that there are posters here ... who are known collectively as sceptics ... who are desperate to have the discussion.

In my opinion there can be only one reason for their insistence and it has been mentioned previously in the course of this thread.

In my opinion John's initial instinct to discard the first thread on this subject was the correct one.  It set a standard.

I am devastated that it was allowed to be resurrected ... and I don't think one has to listen too hard to hear the enemies of this forum laughing at us.

[G-Unit]

and of what if any importance is that

One less person abusing others on the internet? One less person involved in child sex abuse on the internet? I don't think that's a bad thing.

[Mr Gray]

One less person abusing others on the internet? One less person involved in child sex abuse on the internet? I don't think that's a bad thing.

there was more than one caught which is a good thing...as for one less abuser on the net......that is rather ridiculous

[misty]

One less person abusing others on the internet? One less person involved in child sex abuse on the internet? I don't think that's a bad thing.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4979924/jon-venables-jamie-bulger-killer-parents-identity/

Convicted in 2010 for possession of illegal images & again in 2017.

If one of the UK's most prolific criminals can use the internet freely, it is naive to think that Nessling cannot do the same should he feel the need.