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

[G-Unit]

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.

As you might expect I disagree. He is being discussed because;

For many years he has been a prominent McCann supporter.
As such he has presented himself as a fine upstanding citizen without a blemish on his character.
At the same time he has demonstrated his irrational (imo) hatred of some of the people involved/interested in the case.
He has suggested he is intellectually and morally superior to those who have different opinions to his.
His secrets have now been exposed and it's clear he isn't the type of man he claimed to be.

I know that those who agree with his opinions about the case don't want him to be discussed, but why anyone should think it's a laughing matter escapes me. The agenda should not be set by anyone so long as threads abide by forum rules. That's censorship.

[Mr Gray]

As you might expect I disagree. He is being discussed because;

For many years he has been a prominent McCann supporter.
As such he has presented himself as a fine upstanding citizen without a blemish on his character.
At the same time he has demonstrated his irrational (imo) hatred of some of the people involved/interested in the case.
He has suggested he is intellectually and morally superior to those who have different opinions to his.
His secrets have now been exposed and it's clear he isn't the type of man he claimed to be.

I know that those who agree with his opinions about the case don't want him to be discussed, but why anyone should think it's a laughing matter escapes me. The agenda should not be set by anyone so long as threads abide by forum rules. That's censorship.

The only censorship I have seen is the ruling not to refer to him as a paedophile even when taht definition is supported by cites from reputable sites.......my sympathies are with abused children but in this case nesslings family too

[Brietta]

As you might expect I disagree. He is being discussed because;

For many years he has been a prominent McCann supporter.
As such he has presented himself as a fine upstanding citizen without a blemish on his character.
At the same time he has demonstrated his irrational (imo) hatred of some of the people involved/interested in the case.
He has suggested he is intellectually and morally superior to those who have different opinions to his.
His secrets have now been exposed and it's clear he isn't the type of man he claimed to be.

I know that those who agree with his opinions about the case don't want him to be discussed, but why anyone should think it's a laughing matter escapes me. The agenda should not be set by anyone so long as threads abide by forum rules. That's censorship.

At the best of times ... I do not want to discuss either in detail or as a generalisation ... the perversions of the underbelly of our society.
Nor do I wish to pollute my hard drive by 'research'.

It is worth remembering that elsewhere sceptics have posted sexually explicit and adulterated images on hate fora of a particular missing child and her family and in my time on this forum there was an attempt - rapidly circumvented - to do the same here.

We know this man's name and we know the name he posted under; the names of others who have been convicted of much the same offences are also readily available on the internet; we do not know what fora on which they may have posted nor under what names.

It is in my opinion disingenuous if not duplicitous to pretend that this man features on this forum for any other reason than the hope it might cause collateral damage to others neither connected to him or to his conviction.

In my opinion ... that is terribly low.

[stephen25000]

'It is worth remembering that elsewhere sceptics have posted sexually explicit and adulterated images on hate fora of a particular missing child and her family and in my time on this forum there was an attempt - rapidly circumvented - to do the same here.'

If you have proof of this provide a cite.

Otherwise , it is innuendo of the worst kind.

I could equally say,  that gross and hate images of people like Amaral, have been circulated on Mccann supporting forums.

[slartibartfast]

I can see two scenarios

1, he was interested in children in a sexual way before becoming involved in this case which IMO questions his reason for getting involved.
2, he became interested while involved, possibly as a result of “research”.

IMO it is logical that informal and voluntary groups will struggle to vet members so no blame can be attached to those groups, though any attempt at defending such a member would raise flags.

[G-Unit]

I truly can't understand why anyone would willingly read, let alone endorse some of the stuff Nessling wrote. Even if I had found myself choosing the 'support' side at the end of my research I still wouldn't have agreed with what he posted, just as I don't agree with people who post about the McCanns in a similar manner as he posted about Bennett and Amaral. 

My stance is that personal abuse of anyone is not acceptable, whoever does it and for whatever reason. Whatever happened to Madeleine a lot of people have suffered since. None of them deserve to be personally attacked. Commenting on people's actions is one thing, calling them names is another.

[Erngath]

I truly can't understand why anyone would willingly read, let alone endorse some of the stuff Nessling wrote. Even if I had found myself choosing the 'support' side at the end of my research I still wouldn't have agreed with what he posted, just as I don't agree with people who post about the McCanns in a similar manner as he posted about Bennett and Amaral. 

My stance is that personal abuse of anyone is not acceptable, whoever does it and for whatever reason. Whatever happened to Madeleine a lot of people have suffered since. None of them deserve to be personally attacked. Commenting on people's actions is one thing, calling them names is another.

I agree about personal abuse not being acceptable.
In my opinion no one has been subjected to the gross level of personal abuse suffered by
  Madeleine's family.

[Alice Purjorick]

Given the thousands who have fallen foul of our law isn't it just the pity that we are not a little bit better at enforcing it and rooting out the suppliers of the source material as well as the users?

In my opinion, your deity and untermensch comment says sooo much.  Definitely merits a  in any language.

Our criminal law for better or worse is based on beyond reasonable doubt. According to the advocates that works out at better than 91% so potentially there will be a 9% error. If you can dream up a system that is significantly better I am sure the Lord Chancellor's Office will be appreciative of your learned input.

[Alice Purjorick]

No, he got off very lightly IMHO.

Give him to Major Meatball for an hour!
[see The Bridge at Andau by James Michener]

[G-Unit]

I agree about personal abuse not being acceptable.
In my opinion no one has been subjected to the gross level of personal abuse suffered by
  Madeleine's family.

There has been abuse by both sides, all unacceptable. I haven't a clue who received the most and I don't see how anyone can know. Even if a score was being kept over ten years how can anyone judge which is worse, volume or content?

[sadie]

Nessling held very strong views on those who broke the law, particularly if the law concerned child sex offences;

A site that boasted, amongst it’s members, at least one convicted axe murderer, several sex offenders, and the admin team of which knowingly made a convicted paedophile a site moderator. Just think about that for a moment. They knew this man was a convicted child abuser, but were happy to let him help run a site which claimed to be Madeleine’s voice.

That site was for people who had a hatred of the Mccann Family.   Anyone else remember it? 

It was a site that claimed to be "Madeleines voice" yet its spiel was in the opposite direction

The forum leaders name began with B.... and had connections with ancient things that I have an interest in within this case.

The Axe murderer later trained to be a lawyer IIRC.  I have forgotten his name but John something seems to ring a bell.

And yep, several of them were sex offenders. 

Why wasn't there an outrage about them, do you think?


Who would want to be a member of that site?    I wonder if any within this forum were members there?

Please could you remind us of the name of the site you are talking about?

[sadie]

Indeed but as was to be expected the McCanns are being suggested as the trigger which made him act on these tendencies.

It's nonsense Engath.  Just innuendoes suggesting such.

The man in question has admitted to being 'at it' for 7 years, since 2010.

The book was published in 2012

[sadie]

I try to treat other posters with respect, even if I don't agree with their stance. Others, including Nessling, are not so reasonable. People's agendas, intelligence, compassion and charitableness  are questioned based solely on the fact that they have a different opinion than the poster.

In my opinion the gullible and naive are those who shared, believed, encouraged and/or repeated this man's views. They believed what he said about himself, them, and those who have questioned the McCann's story.

They need to accept that they were wrong about him. They couldn't know that he was a hypocrite and a liar, but I think the lesson to be learned is that reasonable people don't spend their time telling everyone how superior they are. They don't try to besmirch others in order to suggest that what they say can be ignored.

My opinion is that someone who acts as he did online is someone any reasonable person should avoid associating with. Perhaps some will take the lesson on board; I can only hope.

Anyone who never misleads on here, nor fails to accept fact, never gets disrespect.

What was wrong with his blog ?  I never noticed any superior behaviour

[sadie]

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

Easily found John and I believe acknowledged by him.

That is totally incorrect.   Two different men.

Please get your facts right.

[sadie]

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.

Excellent post Carana.  I think it is the man that we all know and he has many fine points to his character.  He did wrong, very wrong and now he must take his punishment. 

I echo your concern for his family.  Please be careful for their sakes; they have done no wrong.