UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Off Topic and General Discussions => Off topic, general discussions and the Wide Awake Club. => Topic started by: G-Unit on December 02, 2017, 12:17:08 PM
-
Suffolk man avoids prison after downloading over 40,000 indecent images of children
Ipswich Star
By Jane Hunt
16 November 2017
Nessling, 59, now of Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
He was given a 16-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to do 150 hours unpaid work in the community.
He was also ordered to take part in a 35 day rehabilitation activity programme and ordered to sign the sex offenders’ register for ten years. He was also made the subject of a sexual harm prevention order.
Sentencing Nessling, Judge David Goodin said: “You plainly have it in you to be a decent, responsible member of society.” He told Nessling, who is a father and a grandfather with no previous convictions, that the offences he had committed clearly crossed the custody threshold. However, he felt able to pass a suspended sentence because he had admitted the offences at an early stage and there was sufficient prospect of rehabilitation in his case.
More: http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some may argue that Nigel Nessling's conviction for viewing, making and downloading child pornography has nothing to do with the case of Madeleine McCann.
While his offence may have no connection, the man himself certainly did. He was involved with a group called Forever Searching, which, in turn, is said to have been approached by the McCanns to help them with their search.
2010
The charity I am raising money for is Forever Searching. I have been involved with, and helping to raise money for this charity for a couple of years now.
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/vee8
One of the founders of this group (I'm not sure it's a charity) was quoted as saying it was launched in September 2007 by six women in response to Madeleine's disappearance.
It works by using a network of worldwide volunteers registered on the site to distribute posters, emails and press releases.
Forever Searching also sets up pages on social networking websites for each of the children they investigate.
The McCanns approached Forever Searching just after the site launched as part of a global campaign to find their daughter. Niamh said: "They are still suffering immensely. They contacted us because they knew we could reach people from around the world to help them in their search.
Read more at: https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/ulster-woman-forever-searching-for-madeleine-1-1872708
Forever Searching was organised;
2008 Facebook
We are looking for volunteers to help within our small, friendly, professional group. Can you spare some computer time? As a volunteer you will need to use the internet to research possible target audiences, as well as emailing posters of missing children worldwide. You will be allocated a Team Leader who is there to assist you whenever needed. You will be required to email your weekly progress reports to your team leader and discuss where to focus next. You will need to have basic computer skills, be reliable and have a passion for missing children. If you wish to help our group please register at www.foreversearching.com We thank you – and the children thank you
At one point the UK Missing Persons Bureau was recommending the group as have This Morning on ITV.
http://www.sardawales.org.uk/old_site/4._Organisations_Help_and_Support.pdf
http://missingpersons.police.uk/en-gb/about-mpb/our-history
https://www.itv.com/thismorning/missing-people-helplines
So some of Nessling's online activity between 2008 and 2019 was probably directed by Forever Searching and his progress was reported back to them.
I'm not suggesting that the group knew of or condoned ny of his other activities at all. People with agendas often infiltrate organisations in order to achieve their own ends. What I am saying is that he worked his way into one organisation which was in contact with the McCanns for some reason. Whatever his role was in that organisation, I assume they had no knowledge of his activities as vee8 because I assume they would not condone them.
377
-
I will allow this thread as long as it is based on factual information with appropriate cites.
-
I will allow this thread as long as it is based on factual information with appropriate cites.
The newspaper article I posted during the week which you deleted was factual. Why was that deleted ?
-
The newspaper article I posted during the week which you deleted was factual. Why was that deleted ?
I started the thread because I want to explore how easy it is for people like Nessling to deceive others. He presented himself as someone who cared deeply about missing children but at the same time his actions meant he was condoning/encouraging child sex abuse.
Please do post carefully and factually so we maybe learn something from this.
A lot of what he posted as vee8 has been deleted, but his blog still exists which demonstrates his attitudes and opinions to a certain extent.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/about/
-
I started the thread because I want to explore how easy it is for people like Nessling to deceive others. He presented himself as someone who cared deeply about missing children but at the same time his actions meant he was condoning/encouraging child sex abuse.
Please do post carefully and factually so we maybe learn something from this.
A lot of what he posted as vee8 has been deleted, but his blog still exists which demonstrates his attitudes and opinions to a certain extent.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/about/
Without being familiar with someone in real life & knowing that they access the dark web, how can you make a judgement on someone who holds largely the same opinions as yourself on a particular matter?
-
Without being familiar with someone in real life & knowing that they access the dark web, how can you make a judgement on someone who holds largely the same opinions as yourself on a particular matter?
Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned from all this by everyone commenting on th case ?
-
Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned from all this by everyone commenting on th case ?
Do you think it will stop the allegations about a certain member of the Tapas 9 & the endless accusations of all supporters being "paedo enablers" or will Nessling's conviction simply provide more fuel for the sceptic machine?
-
Well what ever, Nessling like Amaral is now a convicted criminal.
Sceptics like supporters may now bore for England with the mantra... ?>)()<
I bet there is already a song sheet from the Brill Building on what to say in response to:
"Dress it up how you like, the man now has a criminal record for sex offences and will remain on the sex offenders register for ten years".
There ain't a lot more to say really.. $6(&
-
Do you think it will stop the allegations about a certain member of the Tapas 9 & the endless accusations of all supporters being "paedo enablers" or will Nessling's conviction simply provide more fuel for the sceptic machine?
I did say there was lessons to be learned on both sides.
-
To even discuss whether or not innocent posters/members of the public who are passionate about a particular cause could be using groups as a smokescreen for something far darker is sewing the seeds of suspicion & discontent amongst us. Do we want to go down that route because, if so, I'm out of here.
-
I started the thread because I want to explore how easy it is for people like Nessling to deceive others. He presented himself as someone who cared deeply about missing children but at the same time his actions meant he was condoning/encouraging child sex abuse.
Please do post carefully and factually so we maybe learn something from this.
A lot of what he posted as vee8 has been deleted, but his blog still exists which demonstrates his attitudes and opinions to a certain extent.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/about/
[undoes plaster over mouth]
When I was a kid we had a saying:
"Never turn your back on a cubmaster". It worked for most for some it didn't.
What you describe has been going on for years. Organisations that are for childcren are, not surprisingly, like magnets for certain types. I don't know the answer except that all the initiatives devised by governments, of varying flavours, since I was a boy haven't worked and realistically there is no reason to believe the next one will. Maybe it's one of those problems to which there is no solution except to teach your kids to be vigilant and not trust anyone at face value then just hope for the best?
-
To even discuss whether or not innocent posters/members of the public who are passionate about a particular cause could be using groups as a smokescreen for something far darker is sewing the seeds of suspicion & discontent amongst us. Do we want to go down that route because, if so, I'm out of here.
Then that will have to be avoided Misty.
As to Nessling, his accusations against other people have come home to roost.
-
Do you think it will stop the allegations about a certain member of the Tapas 9 & the endless accusations of all supporters being "paedo enablers" or will Nessling's conviction simply provide more fuel for the sceptic machine?
It depends what you call 'allegations'. If I choose to discuss the statements in the PJ files which refer to a certain member of the T9, I'm not accusing or alleging; I'm discussing. Some people seem unable to understand that distinction.
I have never called any supporters 'paedo enablers'. As far as I know there is no 'sceptic machine', but if there is I'm not a cog in it. I don't speak on anyone's behalf but my own.
I would like people to stop assuming;
that there's some kind of organisation telling people what to say and think.
that everyone belongs to it and
can therefore answer questions about it.
From what I have read of Nessling's posts he was very sure that he was right and he was pretty scathing about those who didn't agree with him. All his efforts on behalf of the McCanns were wasted in my opinion, because of what he was doing at the same time; encouraging child sex abuse.
Those who were fooled by him, who agreed with him and encouraged him will now suffer because of their association with him. They couldn't be expected to know what he was, but they could have disassociated themselves from some of his worst posts and views in my opinion.
tand concepts such as compassion or charity.
-
It depends what you call 'allegations'. If I choose to discuss the statements in the PJ files which refer to a certain member of the T9, I'm not accusing or alleging; I'm discussing. Some people seem unable to understand that distinction.
I have never called any supporters 'paedo enablers'. As far as I know there is no 'sceptic machine', but if there is I'm not a cog in it. I don't speak on anyone's behalf but my own.
I would like people to stop assuming;
that there's some kind of organisation telling people what to say and think.
that everyone belongs to it and
can therefore answer questions about it.
From what I have read of Nessling's posts he was very sure that he was right and he was pretty scathing about those who didn't agree with him. All his efforts on behalf of the McCanns were wasted in my opinion, because of what he was doing at the same time; encouraging child sex abuse.
Those who were fooled by him, who agreed with him and encouraged him will now suffer because of their association with him. They couldn't be expected to know what he was, but they could have disassociated themselves from some of his worst posts and views in my opinion.
tand concepts such as compassion or charity.
That, in my opinion, is an excellent post G-Unit. 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
To even discuss whether or not innocent posters/members of the public who are passionate about a particular cause could be using groups as a smokescreen for something far darker is sewing the seeds of suspicion & discontent amongst us. Do we want to go down that route because, if so, I'm out of here.
We have been asked to use facts and cites on this thread. Has anyone suggested that people may be doing/have done that? I expect people get involved for a variety of reasons and only they know what they are..
-
[undoes plaster over mouth]
When I was a kid we had a saying:
"Never turn your back on a cubmaster". It worked for most for some it didn't.
What you describe has been going on for years. Organisations that are for childcren are, not surprisingly, like magnets for certain types. I don't know the answer except that all the initiatives devised by governments, of varying flavours, since I was a boy haven't worked and realistically there is no reason to believe the next one will. Maybe it's one of those problems to which there is no solution except to teach your kids to be vigilant and not trust anyone at face value then just hope for the best?
When I was seventeen, I was a Cub Master. I don't think I have anything to say beyond that.
-
I am completely disgusted by the desire to involve The Mccanns in this. And please don't pretend otherwise. This is precisely what some of you are trying to do.
But should this Forum wish to go down this road then there is nothing more that I can do. Perhaps it ever was inevitable. So have your Cess Pit if you so prefer.
-
I am completely disgusted by the desire to involve The Mccanns in this. And please don't pretend otherwise. This is precisely what some of you are trying to do.
But should this Forum wish to go down this road then there is nothing more that I can do. Perhaps it ever was inevitable. So have your Cess Pit if you so prefer.
There is no evidence that I have seen which suggests that they knew this man existed. The only connection is that he allied himself to their cause. He supported them and forcefully attacked those he saw as attacking them.
Perhaps he truly believed he was helping, but his recent exposure has destroyed any credibility he may have enjoyed. I think it's about being aware that if a person tends to be abusive online they are best avoided.
-
I am completely disgusted by the desire to involve The Mccanns in this. And please don't pretend otherwise. This is precisely what some of you are trying to do.
But should this Forum wish to go down this road then there is nothing more that I can do. Perhaps it ever was inevitable. So have your Cess Pit if you so prefer.
I think you are right to highlight this particular point Eleanor and that is precisely why the previous thread was deleted. The McCanns are not responsible for what Nessling did and that must be made crystal clear. I'm sure they would be the first to agree too that Nessling has damaged their campaign albeit ever so slightly, but then again that is completely outwith their control. Paedophiles will latch onto campaigns just as normal people do and there is very little any of us can do about it.
In my opinion however, I think the judge was extremely lenient on Nessling, a few months at her majesty's pleasure was the very least he should have received. These vile contemptable individuals have a hard time in prison and rightly so, Nessling was bloody lucky to escape it. Lets hope he has learned his lesson!
-
I think you are right to highlight this particular point Eleanor and that is precisely why the previous thread was deleted. The McCanns are not responsible for what Nessling did and that must be made crystal clear. I'm sure they would be the first to agree too that Nessling has damaged their campaign albeit ever so slightly, but then again that is completely outwith their control. Paedophiles will latch onto campaigns just as normal people do and there is very little any of us can do about it.
In my opinion however, I think the judge was extremely lenient on Nessling, a few months at her majesty's pleasure was the very least he should have received. These vile contemptable individuals have a hard time in prison and rightly so, Nessling was bloody lucky to escape it. Lets hope he has learned his lesson!
Yes, he should have gone to prison. No doubt about that.
Just read around what he accused others of.
-
Some may argue that Nigel Nessling's conviction for viewing, making and downloading child pornography has nothing to do with the case of Madeleine McCann.
While his offence may have no connection, the man himself certainly did. He was involved with a group called Forever Searching, which, in turn, is said to have been approached by the McCanns to help them with their search.
2010
The charity I am raising money for is Forever Searching. I have been involved with, and helping to raise money for this charity for a couple of years now.
https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/vee8
One of the founders of this group (I'm not sure it's a charity) was quoted as saying it was launched in September 2007 by six women in response to Madeleine's disappearance.
It works by using a network of worldwide volunteers registered on the site to distribute posters, emails and press releases.
Forever Searching also sets up pages on social networking websites for each of the children they investigate.
The McCanns approached Forever Searching just after the site launched as part of a global campaign to find their daughter. Niamh said: "They are still suffering immensely. They contacted us because they knew we could reach people from around the world to help them in their search.
Read more at: https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/ulster-woman-forever-searching-for-madeleine-1-1872708
Forever Searching was organised;
2008 Facebook
We are looking for volunteers to help within our small, friendly, professional group. Can you spare some computer time? As a volunteer you will need to use the internet to research possible target audiences, as well as emailing posters of missing children worldwide. You will be allocated a Team Leader who is there to assist you whenever needed. You will be required to email your weekly progress reports to your team leader and discuss where to focus next. You will need to have basic computer skills, be reliable and have a passion for missing children. If you wish to help our group please register at www.foreversearching.com We thank you – and the children thank you
At one point the UK Missing Persons Bureau was recommending the group as have This Morning on ITV.
http://www.sardawales.org.uk/old_site/4._Organisations_Help_and_Support.pdf
http://missingpersons.police.uk/en-gb/about-mpb/our-history
https://www.itv.com/thismorning/missing-people-helplines
So some of Nessling's online activity between 2008 and 2019 was probably directed by Forever Searching and his progress was reported back to them.
I'm not suggesting that the group knew of or condoned ny of his other activities at all. People with agendas often infiltrate organisations in order to achieve their own ends. What I am saying is that he worked his way into one organisation which was in contact with the McCanns for some reason. Whatever his role was in that organisation, I assume they had no knowledge of his activities as vee8 because I assume they would not condone them.
Do you realise what an unpleasant post this is, Gunit ?
Despite your protests to the contrary you are pointing your finger at missing people and child charities and making obvious insinuations. And of course they would know that he was Vee8
You do realise, do you, that some people with dodgy backgrounds would love to get rid of the organisations looking for missing children ?
Because without those organisations the dodgy person would be safer from being detected
-
Do you realise what an unpleasant post this is, Gunit ?
Despite your protests to the contrary you are pointing your finger at missing people and child charities and making obvious insinuations. And of course they would know that he was Vee8
You do realise, do you, that some people with dodgy backgrounds would love to get rid of the organisations looking for missing children ?
Because without those organisations the dodgy person would be safer from being detected
I would say that you find the content unpleasant rather than the way it was presented, a case of shooting the messenger. We all know that the topics we discuss can be unpleasant Sadie, should we ignore them in favour of all the nice cute ones?
-
I think you are right to highlight this particular point Eleanor and that is precisely why the previous thread was deleted. The McCanns are not responsible for what Nessling did and that must be made crystal clear. I'm sure they would be the first to agree too that Nessling has damaged their campaign albeit ever so slightly, but then again that is completely outwith their control. Paedophiles will latch onto campaigns just as normal people do and there is very little any of us can do about it.
In my opinion however, I think the judge was extremely lenient on Nessling, a few months at her majesty's pleasure was the very least he should have received. These vile contemptable individuals have a hard time in prison and rightly so, Nessling was bloody lucky to escape it. Lets hope he has learned his lesson!
In my opinion, John, this man and his vile criminal conviction do not have the power to damage the McCann campaign on behalf of Madeleine.
They have achieved their aim of having Madeleine's case officially reopened and subject to full investigation as a result of their very successful campaign. Some people do not rest easy with that from FOI demands from the time of the scoping exercise to recent FOI demands about Operation Grange officers' travel to the Algarve.
The theme of this thread and the contributions made to it in my opinion demean the whole ethos of this forum, but in my opinion that is exactly the intent.
-
In my opinion, John, this man and his vile criminal conviction do not have the power to damage the McCann campaign on behalf of Madeleine.
They have achieved their aim of having Madeleine's case officially reopened and subject to full investigation as a result of their very successful campaign. Some people do not rest easy with that from FOI demands from the time of the scoping exercise to recent FOI demands about Operation Grange officers' travel to the Algarve.
The theme of this thread and the contributions made to it in my opinion demean the whole ethos of this forum, but in my opinion that is exactly the intent.
Maybe damage was the wrong word, he certainly hasn't done it any favours by his odious activities.
-
Do you realise what an unpleasant post this is, Gunit ?
Despite your protests to the contrary you are pointing your finger at missing people and child charities and making obvious insinuations. And of course they would know that he was Vee8
You do realise, do you, that some people with dodgy backgrounds would love to get rid of the organisations looking for missing children ?
Because without those organisations the dodgy person would be safer from being detected
Do you have any cites or is that all just IYO?
-
In my opinion, John, this man and his vile criminal conviction do not have the power to damage the McCann campaign on behalf of Madeleine.
They have achieved their aim of having Madeleine's case officially reopened and subject to full investigation as a result of their very successful campaign. Some people do not rest easy with that from FOI demands from the time of the scoping exercise to recent FOI demands about Operation Grange officers' travel to the Algarve.
The theme of this thread and the contributions made to it in my opinion demean the whole ethos of this forum, but in my opinion that is exactly the intent.
Your objection to such tactics was noticeable by its absence when the boot was on the other foot as it were.
Because of that the words sanctimonious and claptrap spring to my mind.
-
Do you think it will stop the allegations about a certain member of the Tapas 9 & the endless accusations of all supporters being "paedo enablers" or will Nessling's conviction simply provide more fuel for the sceptic machine?
Hear Hear.
What he did is dreadful and sadly some children will have been damaged, often by their own father trying to make money with the sale of disgusting photos. Most children will never know, thank goodness, but it is still an abuse.
He has been sentenced ... and is serving that sentence which is immensely harder with his being a public figure with a distinctive name.
Now kindly leave him alone and give his family a break, as well as the children involved. He is serving his sentence, his misery will be intense, without all the additional abuse. Allow him to get on with it and serve his time, please.
-
Your objection to such tactics was noticeable by its absence when the boot was on the other foot as it were.
Because of that the words sanctimonious and claptrap spring to my mind.
What boot and what foot?
-
In my opinion, John, this man and his vile criminal conviction do not have the power to damage the McCann campaign on behalf of Madeleine.
They have achieved their aim of having Madeleine's case officially reopened and subject to full investigation as a result of their very successful campaign. Some people do not rest easy with that from FOI demands from the time of the scoping exercise to recent FOI demands about Operation Grange officers' travel to the Algarve.
The theme of this thread and the contributions made to it in my opinion demean the whole ethos of this forum, but in my opinion that is exactly the intent.
What is the ethos of this forum? My personal view of this particular thread was- justice for Madeleine, not the parents. To discuss what may have happened to her- look into all the available details to see what crops up.
Like any proper police enquiry there are no- no go areas- all and everything is on the board many unpleasant theories to be looked at. Because let's face it, something seriously unpleasant did /and may still/ be happening to MBM. And this was down to the parents behaviour. The inability to accept that 'charity workers' and other 'good and great people' can be paedophiles is cause for concern. IMO. Which was ofcourse thrown out of a supreme court. Should we not look at those who befriended or associated themselves to the parents? I think we should! or should we just talk up all the nice stuff... erm.. yeah about that...
-
Hear Hear.
What he did is dreadful and sadly some children will have been damaged, often by their own father trying to make money with the sale of disgusting photos. Most children will never know, thank goodness, but it is still an abuse.
.He has been sentenced ... and is serving that sentence which is immensely harder with his being a public figure with a distinctive name.
Now kindly leave him alone and give his family a break, as well as the children involved. He is serving his sentence, his misery will be intense, without all the additional abuse. Allow him to get on with it and serve his time, please.
Public figure ?
No Sadie, he is a convicted criminal who will now spend 10 years on the sex offenders register.
I.M.O. His family are well rid of him.
-
What is the ethos of this forum? My personal view of this particular thread was- justice for Madeleine, not the parents. To discuss what may have happened to her- look into all the available details to see what crops up.
Like any proper police enquiry there are no- no go areas- all and everything is on the board many unpleasant theories to be looked at. Because let's face it, something seriously unpleasant did /and may still/ be happening to MBM. And this was down to the parents behaviour. The inability to accept that 'charity workers' and other 'good and great people' can be paedophiles is cause for concern. IMO. Which was ofcourse thrown out of a supreme court. Should we not look at those who befriended or associated themselves to the parents? I think we should! or should we just talk up all the nice stuff... erm.. yeah about that...
If you read your post again very carefully indeed it may dawn upon you that exactly what you advocate is actually the promotion of pornographic speculation from which some individuals derive satisfaction.
-
Hear Hear.
What he did is dreadful and sadly some children will have been damaged, often by their own father trying to make money with the sale of disgusting photos. Most children will never know, thank goodness, but it is still an abuse.
.He has been sentenced ... and is serving that sentence which is immensely harder with his being a public figure with a distinctive name.
Now kindly leave him alone and give his family a break, as well as the children involved. He is serving his sentence, his misery will be intense, without all the additional abuse. Allow him to get on with it and serve his time, please.
Seriously Sadie... I mean SERIOUSLY!!
"what he did is dreadful and sadly some children will have been damaged, often by their own father trying to make money with the sale of disgusting photos. Most children will never know, thank goodness, but it is still an abuse."
Some children will have been damaged, some? care to give a figure? Are you suggesting that some children may have 'enjoyed' it? Do you know what class A images are?
Most children will never know what exactly? do you have inside information stats or aball park figure of what Most is equal to? 40 thousand pictures... and only some will have been damaged, well that's ok then thank god it wasn't all of them.
This is what the ethos of this forum is about. now stay back and let the man who does charity work get on with his life. leave him alone... poor him he is now a victim of trolls.. OMG stop already!
-
If you read your post again very carefully indeed it may dawn upon you that exactly what you advocate is actually the promotion of pornographic speculation from which some individuals derive satisfaction.
Vile. Suggesting I am advocating anything.. maybe in your circles perhaps. I tend not to mix with 'those' types myself.
Asking about Mrs Gaspars statement would indeed bring a smile to any sleaze bag.
-
Well there you go. Someone that The McCanns never knew did something that The McCanns never knew of. So why is this a subject for discussion?
Oh my goodness, Nigel Nessling defended The McCanns, and now some of you have a need to tear someone into pieces.
Or perhaps some of you are hoping for an opportunity to discuss something that most people would rather not think of.
There is nothing to be gained from that.
-
Seriously Sadie... I mean SERIOUSLY!!
"what he did is dreadful and sadly some children will have been damaged, often by their own father trying to make money with the sale of disgusting photos. Most children will never know, thank goodness, but it is still an abuse."
Some children will have been damaged, some? care to give a figure? Are you suggesting that some children may have 'enjoyed' it? Do you know what class A images are?
Most children will never know what exactly? do you have inside information stats or aball park figure of what Most is equal to? 40 thousand pictures... and only some will have been damaged, well that's ok then thank god it wasn't all of them.
This is what the ethos of this forum is about. now stay back and let the man who does charity work get on with his life. leave him alone... poor him he is now a victim of trolls.. OMG stop already!
I have never seen, nor wish to see, a photograph of the type that these abusers look at, but it is my understanding that some involve a child/toddler being seemingly normally photographed in a partly clothed state ... then afterwards ... without the child knowing anything about it, the nasty bits are added to the photograph.
Most of us snap our kids in states of neatly dressed ... right thru to, especially as babies, in the nuddy ... and nothing is thought about it. If the peadophile "merchants" get hold of that photo, then they change by the addition of the Horror stuff. That is what I think happens sometimes, maybe often.
That child will most probably never know that his/her photo has been changed in any way....
Hence what i said before
Some poor kids have their fathers abuse them and that photographed, or even videod. Some of the kids might be trafficked kids. These poor souls will be traumatised for life.
I want to make it clear that I do not believe that Madeleine was abducted for this reason, nor for any peado activity of any sort
-
There is no evidence that I have seen which suggests that they knew this man existed. The only connection is that he allied himself to their cause. He supported them and forcefully attacked those he saw as attacking them.
Perhaps he truly believed he was helping, but his recent exposure has destroyed any credibility he may have enjoyed. I think it's about being aware that if a person tends to be abusive online they are best avoided.
I've never seen Vee abusive on line.
But perhaps with all the abuse heaped on him, he reacted some time?
I am sure he was trying to help the charitable organisations
-
Well there you go. Someone that The McCanns never knew did something that The McCanns never knew of. So why is this a subject for discussion?
Oh my goodness, Nigel Nessling defended The McCanns, and now some of you have a need to tear someone into pieces.
Or perhaps some of you are hoping for an opportunity to discuss something that most people would rather not think of.
There is nothing to be gained from that.
I don't think anyone is suggesting the McCanns knew or associated with Nessling. There is no need to discuss very distasteful theories, but ... in my opinion ... it must be mentioned they do or did exist and it would be on any police force agenda, even if only for a few minutes!
No one wants to think about this (I certainly don't!).
Caveat added
-
Do you have any cites or is that all just IYO?
Anyone with common sense would realise that Gunit.
Now I know that you have common sense in abundance so I think you are just pulling my leg
-
What boot and what foot?
Oh I am sure you can work it out. If not you are traveling on a false prospectus... 8(0(*
-
I've never seen Vee abusive on line.
But perhaps with all the abuse heaped on him, he reacted some time?
I am sure he was trying to help the charitable organisations
Yeah, perhaps he was misunderstood. a real nice guy, being targeted by trolls... we could all be wrong.
Class A images are harrowing. I am not even going to try and describe some I saw at court on jury duty years ago. To defend this creature says a lot...
-
Is this the thin end of the wedge that has inscribed upon it:
"Supporters are deity; sceptics are untermenschen" ?
Give it a rest.
Mr Nessling received what he should have under our laws. Who or what he may have supported is irrelevant to whether he was guilty as charged. That is not just imo it is our law.
-
Oh I am sure you can work it out. If not you are traveling on a false prospectus... 8(0(*
Just another unsubstantiated allegation then.
-
Just another unsubstantiated allegation then.
Now you know that is not the case.
-
Now you know that is not the case.
Quite obviously you are mistaken ... as patently I do not have a clue what your cryptic post was all about ... then there isn't much change there really if your intellect matches your propensity for declaring it's profundity.
-
Is this the thin end of the wedge that has inscribed upon it:
"Supporters are deity; sceptics are untermenschen" ?
Give it a rest.
Mr Nessling received what he should have under our laws. Who or what he may have supported is irrelevant to whether he was guilty as charged. That is not just imo it is our law.
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 &%%6 in any language.
-
Now you know that is not the case.
oh gwan gwan borrow this big boy...pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis ^*&&
&%%6 &%%6
Dontcha love googling big words on google.. It is such fun.
-
oh gwan gwan borrow this big boy...pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis ^*&&
&%%6 &%%6
Dontcha love googling big words on google.. It is such fun.
The thing is Mistaken, you may need to Google 'big words' ... I do not 8(0(*
-
Is this the thin end of the wedge that has inscribed upon it:
"Supporters are deity; sceptics are untermenschen" ?
Give it a rest.
Mr Nessling received what he should have under our laws. Who or what he may have supported is irrelevant to whether he was guilty as charged. That is not just imo it is our law.
You are absolutely correct.
-
Yeah, perhaps he was misunderstood. a real nice guy, being targeted by trolls... we could all be wrong.
Class A images are harrowing. I am not even going to try and describe some I saw at court on jury duty years ago. To defend this creature says a lot...
I am sure they are. I am glad that I have never seen any . Might give me nightmares. Sorry thta you had to see them.
Mistaken, I am a trained Counsellor, which I did on a voluntary basis for 8 years. As part of this I have counselled a mercenary [someone who is employed privately to go in and kill with a trained team... in other words a paid killer] as well as another who was a paedo.
We are trained to be compassionate, to listen and not to judge. The judging is done by the professionals.
Any person that came into me and said he was a paedo (who had not been found out) I would have immediately reported to the police. Once sentenced, then it is Just to support them if they hit rock bottom. It was not our job to goad them until suicide, but to encourage them to rebuild their lives, free from depraved images and try to get them back into being useful members of society.
-
There is no possible defence to what Nessling did so we won't be hearing from him publicly any time soon. It's just too bad that he betrayed the trust shown in him by missing children organistaions and that his [ censored word]ocial activities have tainted the good work done by others.
-
The thing is Mistaken, you may need to Google 'big words' ... I do not 8(0(*
How did you know those 'big' words, other than from reading or hearing them yourself ?
Hardly a special attribute.
-
There seems to be a lot of sour grapes in the comments last night from certain parties.
Nestling chose to do what he did, and at the time was accusing others of the same.
In my view, he has got his just desserts.
-
Well there you go. Someone that The McCanns never knew did something that The McCanns never knew of. So why is this a subject for discussion?
Oh my goodness, Nigel Nessling defended The McCanns, and now some of you have a need to tear someone into pieces.
Or perhaps some of you are hoping for an opportunity to discuss something that most people would rather not think of.
There is nothing to be gained from that.
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.
-
Anyone with common sense would realise that Gunit.
Now I know that you have common sense in abundance so I think you are just pulling my leg
No, I'm not. I see a post without cites which is purely your opinion. Opinion which I disagree with, so your common sense isn't the same as mine, sorry.
You accuse me of making insinuations OPINION.
You suggest that there are people who would love to to get rid of the organisations looking for missing children. OPINION.
You say that without those organisations the dodgy person would be safer from being detected. OPINION.
Where is the evidence to support your opinions??
-
No, I'm not. I see a post without cites which is purely your opinion. Opinion which I disagree with, so your common sense isn't the same as mine, sorry.
You accuse me of making insinuations OPINION.
You suggest that there are people who would love to to get rid of the organisations looking for missing children. OPINION.
You say that without those organisations the dodgy person would be safer from being detected. OPINION.
Where is the evidence to support your opinions??
I dont see any point in this thread. We all agree what Nessling did was wrong .
-
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 &%%6 in any language.
Nessling, 59, now of ...... ...., Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183
-
A REMINDER.
OPINIONS POSTED AS FACT WILL BE REMOVED.
-
Nessling, 59, now of ...... ....., Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183
what do you understand by "making indecent images".....making hard copies of images?
-
I dont see any point in this thread. We all agree what Nessling did was wrong .
That it takes all sorts to make this world? its related to the McCann case because of his support I suppose.
I can imagine the furore it would cause if some guy like this was an anti and it came to light.
After reading a Brenda Leyland thread on here,people and glass houses come to mind.
-
There is no possible defence to what Nessling did so we won't be hearing from him publicly any time soon. It's just too bad that he betrayed the trust shown in him by missing children organistaions and that his [ censored word]ocial activities have tainted the good work done by others.
AFAIAC all paedophiles should be chemically castrated and/or spend the rest of their lives behind bars. There is no cure for this vile perversion which actively encourages the terrible abuse of innocent children.
However - I disagree that this disgusting person's crime should be seen to to have 'tainted' any missing child organisations - any more than I would agree that J. Saville's crimes can be said to have 'tainted' the charitable organisations for which he raised money, or the members of the public who worked hard to support them. They are also his victims imo.
This is definitely NOT a case of 'mud sticks' imo - if that is what is being inferred by some. This unforgivable crime belongs solely to Nessling and should not be used to cast aspersions on other people or to score points.
My sympathies are entirely and wholly with the abused children, and it's about time the 'owners' of the internet were required to spend some of their £billions on tracking down the sources of this 'dark side' of the web and bringing these monsters to justice. I don't believe the technology does not exist to do that.
These people will always exist - but we don't have to make it so easy for them to ply their evil trade.
.
IMO
-
what do you understand by "making indecent images".....making hard copies of images?
The newspaper article wasn't specific, so take your pick;
Prohibited activities are labelled ‘making’ and distribution, and the legal definitions for each are as follows:
Making – “To take or permit to be taken or make any [indecent images].”
The Crown Prosecution Service have described prohibited ‘making’ offences (under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978) as:
To cause an indecent image to exist
Produce an indecent image through action
‘Bring about’ an indecent image (a particularly unspecific and wide-reaching definition)
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/making-vs-distribution-what-indecent-images-charges-actually-mean/
-
That it takes all sorts to make this world? its related to the McCann case because of his support I suppose.
I can imagine the furore it would cause if some guy like this was an anti and it came to light.
After reading a Brenda Leyland thread on here,people and glass houses come to mind.
Indeed it does Barrier.
-
AFAIAC all paedophiles should be chemically castrated and/or spend the rest of their lives behind bars. There is no cure for this vile perversion which actively encourages the terrible abuse of innocent children.
However - I disagree that this disgusting person's crime should be seen to to have 'tainted' any missing child organisations - any more than I would agree that J. Saville's crimes can be said to have 'tainted' the charitable organisations for which he raised money, or the members of the public who worked hard to support them. They are also his victims imo.
This is definitely NOT a case of 'mud sticks' imo - if that is what is being inferred by some. This unforgivable crime belongs solely to Nessling and should not be used to cast aspersions on other people or to score points.
My sympathies are entirely and wholly with the abused children, and it's about time the 'owners' of the internet were required to spend some of their £billions on tracking down the sources of this 'dark side' of the web and bringing these monsters to justice. I don't believe the technology does not exist to do that.
These people will always exist - but we don't have to make it so easy for them to ply their evil trade.
.
IMO
Excellent post.
-
That it takes all sorts to make this world? its related to the McCann case because of his support I suppose.
I can imagine the furore it would cause if some guy like this was an anti and it came to light.
After reading a Brenda Leyland thread on here,people and glass houses come to mind.
All in your opinion only.
-
The newspaper article wasn't specific, so take your pick;
Prohibited activities are labelled ‘making’ and distribution, and the legal definitions for each are as follows:
Making – “To take or permit to be taken or make any [indecent images].”
The Crown Prosecution Service have described prohibited ‘making’ offences (under Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978) as:
To cause an indecent image to exist
Produce an indecent image through action
‘Bring about’ an indecent image (a particularly unspecific and wide-reaching definition)
https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/making-vs-distribution-what-indecent-images-charges-actually-mean/
if we dont know...then we dont know and cannot take our pick with any accuracy. It can be simply forwarding an email. I dont condone or wish to make excuses for nessling but being from a scientific background I like to understand things
-
All in your opinion only.
I'm not a great fan of newspaper articles,but according to this KM introduced paedophilia through her book,was this the attraction for Nessling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384421/Kate-McCann-Im-tortured-thought-Maddie-abused-paedophile.html.
Yet we've not seen a word of condemnation from the family spokesman,yet when it was mentioned a higher profile person was linked to child abuse they were said to be horrified.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3642312/Kate-Gerry-McCann-horrified-Clement-Freud-child-abuse-claims-emerged-home-Praia-da-Luz-befriended-Madeleine-vanished.html
-
I'm not a great fan of newspaper articles,but according to this KM introduced paedophilia through her book,was this the attraction for Nessling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384421/Kate-McCann-Im-tortured-thought-Maddie-abused-paedophile.html.
Yet we've not seen a word of condemnation from the family spokesman,yet when it was mentioned a higher profile person was linked to child abuse they were said to be horrified.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3642312/Kate-Gerry-McCann-horrified-Clement-Freud-child-abuse-claims-emerged-home-Praia-da-Luz-befriended-Madeleine-vanished.html
I wondered how long it would be before the mccanns would somehow be blamed...
-
I wondered how long it would be before the mccanns would somehow be blamed...
Show where any apportion of blame is attached? if not withdraw the post.
-
Show where any apportion of blame is attached? if not withdraw the post.
I'm not a great fan of newspaper articles,but according to this KM introduced paedophilia through her book,was this the attraction for Nessling.
Yet we've not seen a word of condemnation from the family spokesman,yet when it was mentioned a higher profile person was linked to child abuse they were said to be horrified.
#Blamed for introducing paedophilia and blamed for not condemning Nessling
-
I'm not a great fan of newspaper articles,but according to this KM introduced paedophilia through her book,was this the attraction for Nessling.
Yet we've not seen a word of condemnation from the family spokesman,yet when it was mentioned a higher profile person was linked to child abuse they were said to be horrified.
#Blamed for introducing paedophilia and blamed for not condemning Nessling
So are you saying its not factually correct that Kate thought a paedophile had taken Madeleine? this after all is a McCann thread on the board of Justice forum.
-
Nessling is to blame for his actions.
No one else.
He chose to do what he did.
If he had these tendencies, he should have sought psychological and medical help.
-
So are you saying its not factually correct that Kate thought a paedophile had taken Madeleine? this after all is a McCann thread on the board of Justice forum.
Are you saying that Kate McCann expressing her terror at what may have happened to Madeleine was the trigger which caused this man to download child pornography
-
Are you saying that Kate McCann expressing her terror at what may have happened to Madeleine was the trigger which caused this man to download child pornography
You don't know what happened, and neither did Kate Mccann.
After all, she wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared, was she.
As to Nessling, he had a choice. No one forced him to do what he did. it was of his own volition.
-
Nessling is to blame for his actions.
No one else.
He chose to do what he did.
If he had these tendencies, he should have sought psychological and medical help.
Indeed but as was to be expected the McCanns are being suggested as the trigger which made him act on these tendencies.
-
Indeed but as was to be expected the McCanns are being suggested as the trigger which made him act on these tendencies.
We do not know what triggered Nessling's behaviour. Only he can answer that, and i don't see an answer forthcoming.
-
Nessling is to blame for his actions.
No one else.
He chose to do what he did.
If he had these tendencies, he should have sought psychological and medical help.
Of course he is...no one else to blame
-
Of course he is...no one else to blame
Is that a tacit admission than you can't find any thing in my post which apportions blame to any one else.
-
Is that a tacit admission than you can't find any thing in my post which apportions blame to any one else.
no
-
That it takes all sorts to make this world? its related to the McCann case because of his support I suppose.
I can imagine the furore it would cause if some guy like this was an anti and it came to light.
After reading a Brenda Leyland thread on here,people and glass houses come to mind.
There is no comparison between the two 'cases' imo. You will not find anyone on here trying to shift the blame onto another person (or persons) for a decision Nessling chose to make of his own volition.
IMO
-
I dont see any point in this thread. We all agree what Nessling did was wrong .
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.
-
WE know certain facts...nessling has been convicted as a paedophile.......we know what the experts say about this behaviour...those are facts.
-
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.
As I have never read anything he has posted your criticism does not apply to me. The worst abuse I have seen on this forum did not come from a mccann supporter.....I still dont see the point in highlighting nessling...there are unsavoury posters on both sides
-
WE know certain facts...nessling has been convicted as a paedophile.......we know what the experts say about this behaviour...those are facts.
But perhaps not in this mans case is the qualifier.
-
There seems to be a lot of sour grapes in the comments last night from certain parties.
Nestling chose to do what he did, and at the time was accusing others of the same.
In my view, he has got his just desserts.
No, he got off very lightly IMHO.
-
WE know certain facts...nessling has been convicted as a paedophile.......we know what the experts say about this behaviour...those are facts.
Nessling, 59, now of Heron Close, Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183
That isn't a conviction as a paedophile, there are other reasons why people do it;
the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study found that men (less than 1% were women) who view child pornography include those who are:
• Sexually interested in prepubescent children (pedophiles) or young adolescents (hebephiles), who use child pornography images for sexual fantasy and gratification
• Sexually “indiscriminant” meaning they are constantly searching for new and different sexual stimuli
• Sexually curious, downloading a few images to satisfy that curiosity
• Interested in profiting financially by selling images or setting up websites requiring payment for access
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-l-pulido-phd/exploring-why-offenders-v_b_9330296.html
-
Nessling, 59, now of Heron Close, Stowmarket, admitted three offences of making indecent images of children and possessing prohibited images of children.
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/ipswich-man-avoids-prison-after-downloading-over-40-000-indecent-images-of-children-1-5283183
That isn't a conviction as a paedophile, there are other reasons why people do it;
the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study found that men (less than 1% were women) who view child pornography include those who are:
• Sexually interested in prepubescent children (pedophiles) or young adolescents (hebephiles), who use child pornography images for sexual fantasy and gratification
• Sexually “indiscriminant” meaning they are constantly searching for new and different sexual stimuli
• Sexually curious, downloading a few images to satisfy that curiosity
• Interested in profiting financially by selling images or setting up websites requiring payment for access
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-l-pulido-phd/exploring-why-offenders-v_b_9330296.html
Thank you for at least in engaging in intelligent debate. I havent time to read the whole article at the moment but something strikes me straightaway. We are not talking about downloading a few images which would apply to sexually indiscriminant or curious...imo....but downloading thousands of images as in nesslings case...thats where the difence is..imo
-
WE know certain facts...nessling has been convicted as a paedophile.......we know what the experts say about this behaviour...those are facts.
There are many reasons why people practise paedophilia, let's not generalise.
-
There are many reasons why people practise paedophilia, let's not generalise.
Im not generalising...Im quoting expert opinion. At the heart of paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children which for most of us is highly unusual.
-
Im not generalising...Im quoting expert opinion. At the heart of paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children which for most of us is highly unusual.
Did anyone attend Nessling's trial, does anyone know why he undertook the activities that he engaged in? A Wikipedia definition of paedophilia is of little help.
-
Posters are reminded not to bring anonymous comments from other websites. Please keep posts factual and relevant. TY
-
Did anyone attend Nessling's trial, does anyone know why he undertook the activities that he engaged in? A Wikipedia definition of paedophilia is of little help.
are you now saying that nessling is not a paedophile....he downloaded thousands of sexual images of children
-
I'm not a great fan of newspaper articles,but according to this KM introduced paedophilia through her book,was this the attraction for Nessling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384421/Kate-McCann-Im-tortured-thought-Maddie-abused-paedophile.html.
Yet we've not seen a word of condemnation from the family spokesman,yet when it was mentioned a higher profile person was linked to child abuse they were said to be horrified.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3642312/Kate-Gerry-McCann-horrified-Clement-Freud-child-abuse-claims-emerged-home-Praia-da-Luz-befriended-Madeleine-vanished.html
The way you say 'introduced paedophilia throughout her book' you make it sound so sordid, the only reason why paedophiles were mentioned is because the McCann's were probably told that a paedophile could have taken Madeleine. To mention this could have been the reason why Nigel Nessling started watching paedophilia is nonsense, paedophiles were mentioned in the McCann case right at the start, when Madeleine wasn't found, it would be natural to think that she may have been taken by a paedophile as this is why many young girls are snatched.
-
are you now saying that nessling is not a paedophile....he downloaded thousands of sexual images of children
In general terms, paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder when a person aged sixteen years-of-age or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not begun puberty (generally eleven years old or less).
Notice that the original article by the Ipswich Star never mentioned the terms paedophile or paedophilia once.
-
In general terms, paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder when a person sixteen years of age or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not begun puberty (generally eleven years old or less).
from what I have read it isnt totally accepted as a psychiatric disorder...and is perhaps more a sexual inclination...in as much that homosexuality was once considered a psychiatric disorder.
-
In general terms, paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder when a person aged sixteen years-of-age or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not begun puberty (generally eleven years old or less).
Notice that the original article by the Ipswich Star never mentioned the terms paedophile or paedophilia once.
so what you are saying is that in your view nessling was not necesarily attracted in a sexual way to children yet he downloaded some very extreme child pornography
-
Posters are reminded not to bring anonymous comments from other websites. Please keep posts factual and relevant. TY
I have been quoting from Nigel Nesslings blog, with links because otherwise I am just posting my opinions about what he said and no-one can check whether I'm telling the truth. It's central to my argument to demonstrate how he abused and questioned other people in his posts.
I have seen many links on the Forum to https://stopthemyths.info/. Please could you explain why they are allowed but my links aren't?
-
In general terms, paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder when a person aged sixteen years-of-age or older is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children who have not begun puberty (generally eleven years old or less).
Notice that the original article by the Ipswich Star never mentioned the terms paedophile or paedophilia once.
just re read the article re Poppy Worthington....no mention of paedophilia in that article either
adam Johnson was reglarly referred to as a paedophile even though his victim was 15
-
from what I have read it isnt totally accepted as a psychiatric disorder...and is perhaps more a sexual inclination...in as much that homosexuality was once considered a psychiatric disorder.
There is no evidence that the man is or was a paedophile, so there's no point in discussing it's nature or causes.
He is and was a criminal who knowingly broke the law over a period of years, at the same time as bragging about what an upright citizen he was on his blog. If anyone wants to check if I am telling the truth about what he said on his blog they will have to p.m. me for a link to it.Or use google search by entering his name.
-
There is no evidence that the man is or was a paedophile, so there's no point in discussing it's nature or causes.
He is and was a criminal who knowingly broke the law over a period of years, at the same time as bragging about what an upright citizen he was on his blog. If anyone wants to check if I am telling the truth about what he said on his blog they will have to p.m. me for a link to it.Or use google search by entering his name.
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
-
just re read the article re Poppy Worthington....no mention of paedophilia in that article either
adam Johnson was reglarly referred to as a paedophile even though his victim was 15
Probably because the age of consent is a factor.
-
Probably because the age of consent is a factor.
read johns definition
-
so what you are saying is that in your view nessling was not necesarily attracted in a sexual way to children yet he downloaded some very extreme child pornography
No. What I'm saying is that it is inappropriate to apply labels when we don't know all the facts.
-
I have been quoting from Nigel Nesslings blog, with links because otherwise I am just posting my opinions about what he said and no-one can check whether I'm telling the truth. It's central to my argument to demonstrate how he abused and questioned other people in his posts.
I have seen many links on the Forum to https://stopthemyths.info/. Please could you explain why they are allowed but my links aren't?
You attributed a link to an anonymous poster called Vee.
-
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
The term correctly applied doesn't appear to fit the specification of the charges. All we can say is that he is a convicted sex offender and will have to sign the sex offenders register and notify the local police of his whereabouts for the next ten years.
-
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
Downloading images of children does not satisfy the acknowledged definition of a paedophile. To be a paedophile one has to have had an EXCLUSIVE interest in children. As the subject of this thread is a family man, a father and a grandfather, that criteria would appear to be non applicable. As journalists are generally street wise to these terms that is probably why the Ipswich Star reporter Jane Hunt chose not to use the term in her article.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
Mods please note: Sex offender is the appropriate term to use, this is NOT up for discussion.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
'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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 &%%6 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.
-
No, he got off very lightly IMHO.
Give him to Major Meatball for an hour!
[see The Bridge at Andau by James Michener]
-
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?
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
That is totally incorrect. Two different men.
Please get your facts right.
Wrong again Sadie.
Do keep up.
-
I think it is the man that we all know and he has many fine points to his character.
Snip
IMO, this is why this thread is here. It would have been very short if no one had attempted to defend him.
-
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
You seem to be admitting that you will disrespect people on here if IN YOUR OPINION they mislead or fail to accept fact. I assume you think you're always right then.
Are you sure you read that blog properly? I had cites, but the censors have been busy.
-
You seem to be admitting that you will disrespect people on here if IN YOUR OPINION they mislead or fail to accept fact. I assume you think you're always right then.
Are you sure you read that blog properly? I had cites, but the censors have been busy.
I have no respect for people who are abusive towards the mccanns
-
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.
However, i will say this now and maybe get screamed at, I think it is a shame that his full address has been posted. With people like some on here, who clearly hate him, I hope that there will not be any vengeful vigilantes around.
I echo your concern for his family. Please be careful for their sakes; they have done no wrong.
It seems it's acceptable to link to this site, so I will. Nessling posted here as Vee8 and was salivating over how other's families might suffer when their actions were revealed.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2550-the-hounding-of-the-mccann-s
There's an interesting comment below this article asking Nessling to think of his family;
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/twisting-the-knife-part-two-goncalo-amaral/
-
I have no respect for people who are abusive towards the mccanns
I have no respect for people who are abusive to anyone.
-
Wrong again Sadie.
Do keep up.
Well I should make sure that you are right because if you have it wrong, then I were the second man, I would sue you.
Cite please that Vee and Hotrod are are one and the same
They both have a great love for hotrod cars and the renovation of old iconic cars.
-
IMO, this is why this thread is here. It would have been very short if no one had attempted to defend him.
No it wouldn't because stephen (and others) kept manufacturing new ways of keeping the topic alive.
This thread was almost certainly promoted cos it had his name in big letters at the top. Publicity against him
The man has been sente4nced . His life is an absolute hell atm, his families too. Everything has been turned upside down, lost his home, lost his status, and friends shunning him ... probably lost his job ... and if he hasn't will he be able to face the abuse there?
Believe you me, I know this from counselling this bloke who had sinned in the same way, his life is hell and will likely remain so to some extent for the rest of his life.
Time to back off guys so that hopefully he and his family can rebuild some sort of life. He is serving his punishment, believe you me ... and so sadly, are they.
-
I have given my reasons for starting this thread.
I repeat, the thread is intended to facilitate a discussion about whether Nessling could be seen as a nice person before he was convicted of a heinous crime. In my opinion his posts demonstrate that he was not. This is how he describes people who don't agree with him;
Ah, ‘Team McCann!’ A name oft bandied about on internet chat rooms and forums by people who lurk under rocks and in damp places, people unable to understand concepts such as compassion or charity.
according to the Anti-McCann Mars bars (Same I.Q.)
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/team-mccann/
-
I have given my reasons for starting this thread.
I repeat, the thread is intended to facilitate a discussion about whether Nessling could be seen as a nice person before he was convicted of a heinous crime. In my opinion his posts demonstrate that he was not. This is how he describes people who don't agree with him;
Ah, ‘Team McCann!’ A name oft bandied about on internet chat rooms and forums by people who lurk under rocks and in damp places, people unable to understand concepts such as compassion or charity.
according to the Anti-McCann Mars bars (Same I.Q.)
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/team-mccann/
"Team Mccann" always amuses me. I've been called that several times.
Unlike the other side, as far as I am aware, we are all ordinary folk individually trying to right a huge number of injustices against The Mccanns
-
Well I should make sure that you are right because if you have it wrong, then I were the second man, I would sue you.
Cite please that Vee and Hotrod are are one and the same
They both have a great love for hotrod cars and the renovation of old iconic cars.
VEE8 and Hotrod, are both names used by Nessling online.
-
"Team Mccann" always amuses me. I've been called that several times.
Unlike the other side, as far as I am aware, we are all ordinary folk individually trying to right a huge number of injustices against The Mccanns
Do you know who came up with the phrase 'Team McCann', Sadie? I do.
-
I think the McCanns would prefer if we didn't post as the debate keeps things going
Why, have you asked them. ?{)(**
-
I'm sure the McCanns would be happy to suppress all comment that they disapprove of.
-
I'm sure the McCanns would be happy to suppress all comment that they disapprove of.
I think they mainly object to the lies told about them
-
I think the McCanns would prefer if we didn't post as the debate keeps things going
The only connection to the McCanns was Nessling's support fr their cause. Why should they know or care?
-
Are you suggesting there is something inherently wrong with stating that Nigel Nessling has been prosecuted and convicted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003? It's the truth isn't it?
Much the same as it's true Goncalo Amaral was convicted for falsifying evidence.
Is it perhaps you wish to be the arbiter of truth?
My preference is due process to which this man has been subject ... anything more than that, as having his name heading a special thread on this forum, in my opinion amounts to a mob of nameless individuals indulging in knee jerk vigil[ censored word]m.
-
The only connection to the McCanns was Nessling's support fr their cause. Why should they know or care?
I'm talking about posting in general
-
My preference is due process to which this man has been subject ... anything more than that, as having his name heading a special thread on this forum, in my opinion amounts to a mob of nameless individuals indulging in knee jerk vigil[ censored word]m.
Nessling's posts, in my opinion, were abusive and nasty. I would say he was a troll. His online behaviour appears to have been encouraged and applauded by some. Was that the right thing to do or should such behaviour always be condemned and discouraged by those interacting with such people?
-
Nessling's posts, in my opinion, were abusive and nasty. I would say he was a troll. His online behaviour appears to have been encouraged and applauded by some. Was that the right thing to do or should such behaviour always be condemned and discouraged by those interacting with such people?
imo.......all abuse should be discoraged....including abuse towards the McCanns
-
My preference is due process to which this man has been subject ... anything more than that, as having his name heading a special thread on this forum, in my opinion amounts to a mob of nameless individuals indulging in knee jerk vigil[ censored word]m.
Well, bearing in mind what he accused others of, on a regular basis, that is just desserts. I.M.O.
-
Well, bearing in mind what he accused others of, on a regular basis, that is just desserts. I.M.O.
He got off too light compared to other sex offenders who were caught with much less material and were sent to prison. The damage done to some of these children by these deviants will stay with them for the rest of their life, if I had my way they'd all be strung up.
-
He got off too light compared to other sex offenders who were caught with much less material and were sent to prison. The damage done to some of these children by these deviants will stay with them for the rest of their life, if I had my way they'd all be strung up.
No doubt in my opinion.
He should have gone down and served time with a substantial custodial sentence.
-
My opinion is that some crimes are forgivable. I know a young man who got drunk and beat someone up. He went to prison. His family and girlfriend forgave him and stuck by him. He has never committed another crime, the couple have just had a baby and he is well on his way to getting a degree. He made a stupid mistake.
Nessling's crime wasn't a mistake. He isn't young and foolish, he's a mature man. He intentionally broke the law knowing full well what the consequences were likely to be. Even so, his crime would have been unremarkable and not worthy of singling out had he not sought to deceive people.
He presented himself as a fine upstanding member of society; an employed family man with a social conscience. He denigrated liars, bullies and child abusers but at the same time he himself lied, bullied people online, and abused the children whose images he viewed and collected.
A crime is one thing, and can sometimes be forgiven. Trust is another thing and is very difficult to regain once destroyed.
-
I have removed the last three or four posts as they are unnecessary. It matters little what label is applied to Nessling as his conduct was vile and now he and his loved ones are paying the price. I agree though he should have been given a short prison sentence which might have had more impact on him and what he had done. Out of interest, has he been sacked from the RAF?
-
My opinion is that some crimes are forgivable. I know a young man who got drunk and beat someone up. He went to prison. His family and girlfriend forgave him and stuck by him. He has never committed another crime, the couple have just had a baby and he is well on his way to getting a degree. He made a stupid mistake.
Nessling's crime wasn't a mistake. He isn't young and foolish, he's a mature man. He intentionally broke the law knowing full well what the consequences were likely to be. Even so, his crime would have been unremarkable and not worthy of singling out had he not sought to deceive people.
He presented himself as a fine upstanding member of society; an employed family man with a social conscience. He denigrated liars, bullies and child abusers but at the same time he himself lied, bullied people online, and abused the children whose images he viewed and collected.
A crime is one thing, and can sometimes be forgiven. Trust is another thing and is very difficult to regain once destroyed.
I wonder how much of this was made known to the judge before sentencing.
-
I have removed the last three or four posts as they are unnecessary. It matters little what label is applied to Nessling as his conduct was vile and now he and his loved ones are paying the price. I agree though he should have been given a short prison sentence which might have had more impact on him and what he had done. Out of interest, has he been sacked from the RAF?
He was a civilian. He was either a helicopter technician or a photocopier engineer, depending on the source.
-
I have removed the last three or four posts as they are unnecessary. It matters little what label is applied to Nessling as his conduct was vile and now he and his loved ones are paying the price. I agree though he should have been given a short prison sentence which might have had more impact on him and what he had done. Out of interest, has he been sacked from the RAF?
As far as I can see he was sentenced in line with similar cases and according to a post by Alice in line with the current guidelines...
-
I wonder how much of this was made known to the judge before sentencing.
I think most of these crimes involve misleading others about who you are and what you're doing. I just find the particular deceptions by this man more disgusting because he used the disappearance of a child to promote his lies about himself.
-
My opinion is that some crimes are forgivable. I know a young man who got drunk and beat someone up. He went to prison. His family and girlfriend forgave him and stuck by him. He has never committed another crime, the couple have just had a baby and he is well on his way to getting a degree. He made a stupid mistake.
Nessling's crime wasn't a mistake. He isn't young and foolish, he's a mature man. He intentionally broke the law knowing full well what the consequences were likely to be. Even so, his crime would have been unremarkable and not worthy of singling out had he not sought to deceive people.
He presented himself as a fine upstanding member of society; an employed family man with a social conscience. He denigrated liars, bullies and child abusers but at the same time he himself lied, bullied people online, and abused the children whose images he viewed and collected.
A crime is one thing, and can sometimes be forgiven. Trust is another thing and is very difficult to regain once destroyed.
What would anyone feel if this was their father....would they completely turn against their father and never speak to him again
-
What would anyone feel if this was their father....would they completely turn against their father and never speak to him again
I suppose it all depends on so many factors. These images were collected and made over a long period of time however, this was not a moment of madness. He knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences of doing it were. It's a wonder he was caught at all, anyone know how that came about?
-
What would anyone feel if this was their father....would they completely turn against their father and never speak to him again
Well if it were my father.he would loose my trust.
I would also wonder how he looked at my daughters. a child is a child who ever they are.
Some crimes you can't, just walk away from.
What he did is one of them. I myself could never look at him as the respected father again.
That would be gone forever.
-
What would anyone feel if this was their father....would they completely turn against their father and never speak to him again
Just forget, forgive, live & let live.
Then invite him round to babysit the kids.
Great idea.
-
I suppose it all depends on so many factors. These images were collected and made over a long period of time however, this was not a moment of madness. He knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences of doing it were. It's a wonder he was caught at all, anyone know how that came about?
I have read in various articles there are monitoring services now employed to catch them.
e.g. In today's papers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
200 held over child sex abuse screened live on the web: Teachers, police, military and NHS staff are arrested for targeting British victims
Almost 200 were arrested in a week for grooming children on streaming apps
They pose as children and trick youngsters into exposing themselves online
Some record the footage and use it to blackmail victims into more depraved acts
Detectives said the swoop had saved 245 children from abuse and exploitation
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5145609/200-held-child-sex-abuse-screened-live-web.html#ixzz50OEq4QFC
-
Even if his grandchildren were safe from him, could the same be said for friends of the grandchildren?
Don't see how he could really be trusted in the future.
-
Well if it were my father.he would loose my trust.
I would also wonder how he looked at my daughters. a child is a child who ever they are.
Some crimes you can't, just walk away from.
What he did is one of them. I myself could never look at him as the respected father again.
That would be gone forever.
The trust would have to go
-
The trust would have to go
Yes,and then you loose the father figure, the man you looked up to gone.
-
Yes,and then you loose the father figure, the man you looked up to gone.
True....would you totally condemn or try to understand why
-
True....would you totally condemn or try to understand why
He's a married man with children,an adult.
If it had been a affair with an adult, then i would try an understand why.
But he turned to children Davel, so no.
-
These people are beyond understanding. They are what they are and don't see that they are doing wrong.
-
These people are beyond understanding. They are what they are and don't see that they are doing wrong.
Some may well think they are doing wrong
I posted one case of a paedophile wanting chemical castration but being denied it
-
These people are beyond understanding. They are what they are and don't see that they are doing wrong.
It seems he's going to get some kind of therapy so someone is going to try and understand him
-
These people are beyond understanding. They are what they are and don't see that they are doing wrong.
You cannot possibly know that they don't see what they are doing is wrong.
Some may, some may not
-
Even if his grandchildren were safe from him, could the same be said for friends of the grandchildren?
Don't see how he could really be trusted in the future.
That's the point I've been trying to make. No-one would want him to have unsupervised access to any children ever again imo. Even if he had brought me up and never done anything to me, I wouldn't allow him to be with my children because he is now a different person.
-
That's the point I've been trying to make. No-one would want him to have unsupervised access to any children ever again imo. Even if he had brought me up and never done anything to me, I wouldn't allow him to be with my children because he is now a different person.
I'm just wondering how we would react if it was a member of our family..... would we want them to get therapy or sent to prison to be beaten by other prisoners
-
True....would you totally condemn or try to understand why
Who can tell you why? The man who spent years lying about who and what he was? The 'experts', some of whom get it wrong and recommend releasing people from institutions only for them to reoffend? There's no requirement to condemn, but there's no requirement to understand either.
-
I'm just wondering how we would react if it was a member of our family..... would we want them to get therapy or sent to prison to be beaten by other prisoners
I think they are put on what is called protection.
Ironic when you think any vile crime, in prison they are protected
-
This is one of Nessling's blogs.
On there an old friend of his warns him what his actions are leading to. Nessling's response can be viewed as well.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/twisting-the-knife-part-two-goncalo-amaral/
-
I'm just wondering how we would react if it was a member of our family..... would we want them to get therapy or sent to prison to be beaten by other prisoners
I don't think I would care. All my care and compassion would be directed at the rest of the family.
-
I think they are put on what is called protection.
Ironic when you think any vile crime, in prison they are protected
They should...in a civilised society ...be protected from unlawful acts
-
I'm just wondering how we would react if it was a member of our family..... would we want them to get therapy or sent to prison to be beaten by other prisoners
He looked at child porn, he was doing it for years.
He was given a SHPO, he should have gone to prison he is not safe to be around imo.
No application is necessary for the court to make a SHPO at the point of sentence although the prosecutor may wish to invite the court to consider making an order in appropriate cases. The court may ask pre-sentence report writers to consider the suitability of a SHPO on a non-prejudicial basis.
In order to make a SHPO, the court must be satisfied that the offender presents a risk of sexual harm to the public (or particular members of the public) and that an order is necessary to protect against this risk. The details of the offence are likely to be a key factor in the court’s decision, together with the offender’s previous convictions and the assessment of risk presented by the national probation service in any pre-sentence report. The court may take into consideration the range of other options available to it in respect of protecting the public. The court may want to consider:
-
I think that's a completely different topic. I don't think it adds anything relevant to Nessling's case.
Is this a thread set up specifically to abuse one named criminal?
Why on earth would we wish to do that?
What is there left to discuss regarding that case?
He was charged with a heinous offence. He was put on trial ~ found guilty ~ and sentenced. Isn't there a wider picture to be considered here?
For instance ...
In my opinion there is a question of rehabilitation for those already convicted and there is a question of awareness and prevention of triggers for susceptible individuals to be considered.
Not forgetting the most important issue of all ... safeguarding children who may already be in contact with those who may be led to believe that video games such as Sony's is normal behaviour.
Not to mention the children themselves who may be exposed to the ethos of aberrant behaviour such as that portrayed in what I would consider to be a step closer to pornography and be desensitised as a result.
This game will no doubt feature in Christmas stockings throughout the country. It is legal, so why not? In my opinion the fact that you are insensitive to the implication this could be in making abusers for the future while wishing to continue to excoriate one particular abuser from the past who has been lawfully dealt with shows you are not looking at the bigger picture here.
-
Is this a thread set up specifically to abuse one named criminal?
Why on earth would we wish to do that?
What is there left to discuss regarding that case?
He was charged with a heinous offence. He was put on trial ~ found guilty ~ and sentenced. Isn't there a wider picture to be considered here?
For instance ...
In my opinion there is a question of rehabilitation for those already convicted and there is a question of awareness and prevention of triggers for susceptible individuals to be considered.
Not forgetting the most important issue of all ... safeguarding children who may already be in contact with those who may be led to believe that video games such as Sony's is normal behaviour.
Not to mention the children themselves who may be exposed to the ethos of aberrant behaviour such as that portrayed in what I would consider to be a step closer to pornography and be desensitised as a result.
This game will no doubt feature in Christmas stockings throughout the country. It is legal, so why not? In my opinion the fact that you are insensitive to the implication this could be in making abusers for the future while wishing to continue to excoriate one particular abuser from the past who has been lawfully dealt with shows you are not looking at the bigger picture here.
Well it is the Nigel Nessling thread, isn't anything else off topic.
-
Is this a thread set up specifically to abuse one named criminal?
Why on earth would we wish to do that?
What is there left to discuss regarding that case?
He was charged with a heinous offence. He was put on trial ~ found guilty ~ and sentenced. Isn't there a wider picture to be considered here?
For instance ...
In my opinion there is a question of rehabilitation for those already convicted and there is a question of awareness and prevention of triggers for susceptible individuals to be considered.
Not forgetting the most important issue of all ... safeguarding children who may already be in contact with those who may be led to believe that video games such as Sony's is normal behaviour.
Not to mention the children themselves who may be exposed to the ethos of aberrant behaviour such as that portrayed in what I would consider to be a step closer to pornography and be desensitised as a result.
This game will no doubt feature in Christmas stockings throughout the country. It is legal, so why not? In my opinion the fact that you are insensitive to the implication this could be in making abusers for the future while wishing to continue to excoriate one particular abuser from the past who has been lawfully dealt with shows you are not looking at the bigger picture here.
This is a thread to discuss, not to abuse one named criminal.
If you wish to explore the subject of child sex abuse in general a new thread might be appropriate.
-
Well it is the Nigel Nessling thread, isn't anything else off topic.
Indeed so.
-
My children would eat him for breakfast if there was the least hint of any untoward behaviour; but that situation is not going to arise either for them or for yours, is it?
In common with thousands of others ... sorry scrub that ... he is known and where he is living is known, that in itself is not usual.
Now that he is prime fodder to vigilante attacks I think that is what is more likely to cause harm to his children than anything else. So when punting the 'rights of children' maybe the rights of his nearest and dearest should be considered.
Or don't you think they have any?
-
My children would eat him for breakfast if there was the least hint of any untoward behaviour; but that situation is not going to arise either for them or for yours, is it?
In common with thousands of others ... sorry scrub that ... he is known and where he is living is known, that in itself is not usual.
Now that he is prime fodder to vigilante attacks I think that is what is more likely to cause harm to his children than anything else. So when punting the 'rights of children' maybe the rights of his nearest and dearest should be considered.
Or don't you think they have any?
How dare you say he is fodder for vigilante attacks after what he has done ?
-
How dare you say he is fodder for vigilante attacks after what he has done ?
You like a bit of rough justice, do you?
-
My children would eat him for breakfast if there was the least hint of any untoward behaviour; but that situation is not going to arise either for them or for yours, is it?
In common with thousands of others ... sorry scrub that ... he is known and where he is living is known, that in itself is not usual.
Now that he is prime fodder to vigilante attacks I think that is what is more likely to cause harm to his children than anything else. So when punting the 'rights of children' maybe the rights of his nearest and dearest should be considered.
Or don't you think they have any?
LOL, well did he consider them. don't you put this on me.
He is the one that brought there misery, to the door.
-
You like a bit of rough justice, do you?
He is a convicted criminal who admitted to his crimes.
How many times have you attacked Amaral ?
-
LOL, well did he consider them. don't you put this on me.
He is the one that brought there misery, to the door.
Exactly.
I am getting the impession , that Nessling is being defended.
-
Exactly.
I am getting the impession , that Nessling is being defended.
It seems that way.
-
This man's offence has no relevance to anyone other than himself and his family; the fact you wish to "discuss" otherwise proves exactly your intent in bringing this particular thread to the forum.
You seem unable to grasp that he made his offence relevant by campaigning, blogging and posting about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann while, at the same time, committing the offences he was sentenced for.
I saw no similar reminder of 'family business' when the state of Goncalo Amaral's marriage and his relationship with his children were discussed.
-
My concern is for the children.....how did their photographs get on the net...who is responsible
-
My concern is for the children.....how did their photographs get on the net...who is responsible
OH NO !!! I had no idea the children's photographs were exposed on the net. Whoever is responsible for that is in my opinion every single bit as bad as anything he has admitted to.
-
My concern is for the children.....how did their photographs get on the net...who is responsible
I seem to recall his daughter wrote/coauthored a book. There seems some publicity photos of her.
-
In my opinion no-one is attempting to defend his criminal behaviour. It is his connection to the McCann case (which makes his case of interest because they occurred at the same time.
-
OH NO !!! I had no idea the children's photographs were exposed on the net. Whoever is responsible for that is in my opinion every single bit as bad as anything he has admitted to.
not his children...the children featured in the 40,001 photos
-
not his children...the children featured in the 40,001 photos
Who posted them? I would have thought only the police had access to them, being as they're evidence.
-
not his children...the children featured in the 40,001 photos
That is even worse ... whoever did that has absolutely no shame.
In fact is the offence not on a par with or even more serious than his? ... if they are posting images of abused children on the internet?
-
Who posted them? I would have thought only the police had access to them, being as they're evidence.
I havent a clue who posted them...i havent seen them...if nessling found them someone must have posted them...if he downloaded them someone must have posted them
-
I havent a clue who posted them...i havent seen them...if nessling found them someone must have posted them...if he downloaded them someone must have posted them
Oh, you're referring to a supplier. Seek and you will find, I assume.
-
In a week during which we have been horrified by the news of Nessling's conviction, this headline has now surfaced.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5145609/200-held-child-sex-abuse-screened-live-web.html
But for every new way the police find to unearth this despicable behaviour it appears that the internet money giants want to actively encourage young children online.
https://news.sky.com/story/facebook-launches-parent-controlled-app-messenger-kids-for-young-children-11156713
-
In a week during which we have been horrified by the news of Nessling's conviction, this headline has now surfaced.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5145609/200-held-child-sex-abuse-screened-live-web.html
But for every new way the police find to unearth this despicable behaviour it appears that the internet money giants want to actively encourage young children online.
https://news.sky.com/story/facebook-launches-parent-controlled-app-messenger-kids-for-young-children-11156713
I don't think there's more of it, just a greater willingness to search for it and prosecute the offenders. This has become easier using technology.
-
I don't think there's more of it, just a greater willingness to search for it and prosecute the offenders. This has become easier using technology.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3714671/Huge-sex-abuse-investigation-Scotland-sees-77-suspects-arrested.html
30 million images found in one investigation. How does that compare to the pre-internet era?
-
if nessling had lived pre internet it is quite possible he would have kept his fantasies to himself and would not have been in any trouble
-
if nessling had lived pre internet it is quite possible he would have kept his fantasies to himself and would not have been in any trouble
He may not have even had that type of fantasy without the internet. There is so much explicit but legal material, not just sexual, available at the click of a button that it's hardly surprising the lines of morality & decency are so blurred,
-
In a week during which we have been horrified by the news of Nessling's conviction, this headline has now surfaced.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5145609/200-held-child-sex-abuse-screened-live-web.html
But for every new way the police find to unearth this despicable behaviour it appears that the internet money giants want to actively encourage young children online.
https://news.sky.com/story/facebook-launches-parent-controlled-app-messenger-kids-for-young-children-11156713
Interesting, but nothing to do with the McCann case.
-
Interesting, but nothing to do with the McCann case.
Nessling's conviction is nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine. It has everything to do with what he was able to access on the internet beyond the case.
-
I havent a clue who posted them...i havent seen them...if nessling found them someone must have posted them...if he downloaded them someone must have posted them
Don’t spoil the faux outrage...
-
Don’t spoil the faux outrage...
It should not be faux outrage and Im surprised you have said that. Who are these children who are the subjects of photos and what steps are being taken to protect them
-
Nessling's conviction is nothing to do with the disappearance of Madeleine. It has everything to do with what he was able to access on the internet beyond the case.
Nessling was very much involved with the case of Madeleine McCann. He spent his time giving his opinions on it and making vile attacks on anyone who disagreed. When he fancied a break, he turned to his other interest; looking at and downloading pornography featuring children. His conviction exposed his activities and ended his hypocritical behaviour.
The internet is neutral, it's people who decide whether to use it for good or for evil. Nessling said he was using it for good in the McCann case, but attacking others in the way he did can't be described as a good thing to do in my opinion. All his activities on the internet were carried out without any consideration for the harm they might cause to others.
-
One DB was very much involved with the case of Madeleine McCann. She spent her time giving her opinions on it and making vile attacks on them, even leafletting their neighbours.
While screeching her opinion about neglect she meantime stole eighteen thousand pounds from her own parents to holiday in Spain and left her dementia suffering parents alone for five weeks which led to them being found in a dreadful state.
She received a two year suspended sentence.
I assume there are hypocrites among sceptics and supporters.
Maybe a thread could be started to discuss this woman's appalling behaviour.
-
One DB was very much involved with the case of Madeleine McCann. She spent her time giving her opinions on it and making vile attacks on them, even leafletting their neighbours.
While screeching her opinion about neglect she meantime stole eighteen thousand pounds from her own parents to holiday in Spain and left her dementia suffering parents alone for five weeks which led to them being found in a dreadful state.
She received a two year suspended sentence.
I assume there are hypocrites among sceptics and supporters.
Maybe a thread could be started to discuss this woman's appalling behaviour.
Too late, Erngath. All the same arguments in reverse, as it were. Sauce for the goose and all that.......
McCann troll who stole £18,000 from parents gets 2 year suspended sentence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5921.msg213436#msg213436
The noticeable difference being that the MSM picked up the Butler case, but not the Nessling one.
-
Perhaps they have been informed by the group of sceptics who are campaigning. to have his sentence altered to a custodial one.
Both appalling crimes and both carried out by hypocrites.
She was one of the group who wanted the twins removed by social services but then went on to steal from and neglect her own parents.
Reading that thread I am reminded of how many posters have gone.
It was a fairly short thread!
-
Perhaps they have been informed by the group of sceptics who are campaigning. to have his sentence altered to a custodial one.
Both appalling crimes and both carried out by hypocrites.
She was one of the group who wanted the twins removed by social services but then went on to steal from and neglect her own parents.
Reading that thread I am reminded of how many posters have gone.
It was a fairly short thread!
Who would they be then?. Can you provide a link to support this?
-
Who would they be then?. Can you provide a link to support this?
The CMOMM.
Their Facebook part of the organisation.
They are sending appeals to the Attorney General.
-
The CMOMM.
Their Facebook part of the organisation.
Thank you 8((()*/
Not somewhere I go.
-
Too late, Erngath. All the same arguments in reverse, as it were. Sauce for the goose and all that.......
McCann troll who stole £18,000 from parents gets 2 year suspended sentence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5921.msg213436#msg213436
The noticeable difference being that the MSM picked up the Butler case, but not the Nessling one.
Everyone managed to get the outrage ~ faux or not faux ~ regarding one of the most horrible cases of the abuse and neglect of elderly parents I have ever heard of, out of their system after sixty posts though ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5921.msg212999#msg212999.
Not counting reference on other threads and deleted threads ... it looks to me there is a determination to make this one run and run and run and ...
Worst of all in my opinion in this the Christmas season is the naked chagrin being shown that so far the MSM are not picking up on the [ censored word ]s' charter they espouse towards the family of a missing child. In my opinion that will not be for their want of trying.
-
Everyone managed to get the outrage ~ faux or not faux ~ regarding one of the most horrible cases of the abuse and neglect of elderly parents I have ever heard of, out of their system after sixty posts though ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5921.msg212999#msg212999.
Not counting reference on other threads and deleted threads ... it looks to me there is a determination to make this one run and run and run and ...
Worst of all in my opinion in this the Christmas season is the naked chagrin being shown that so far the MSM are not picking up on the [ censored word ]' charter they espouse towards the family of a missing child. In my opinion that will not be for their want of trying.
Noticeably on that thread there were appeals to curtail the discussion in consideration of her family, a grandson I believe.
Pity such appeals have not had the same effect here.
I am admitting my part in extending the duration of this thread but definitely over and out.
-
Noticeably on that thread there were appeals to curtail the discussion in consideration of her family, a grandson I believe.
Pity such appeals have not had the same effect here.
I am admitting my part in extending the duration of this thread but definitely over and out.
Yes ...if we ignore the thread it will peter out...
Over and out
-
Noticeably on that thread there were appeals to curtail the discussion in consideration of her family, a grandson I believe.
Pity such appeals have not had the same effect here.
I am admitting my part in extending the duration of this thread but definitely over and out.
There are similarities, but there's two differences which have, in my opinion, extended this thread. As far as I could see, no-one on that thread tried to argue that there was no connection with the Madeleine McCann case. Also, there was no documented connection between the guilty person and those who post here.
-
There are similarities, but there's two differences which have, in my opinion, extended this thread. As far as I could see, no-one on that thread tried to argue that there was no connection with the Madeleine McCann case. Also, there was no documented connection between the guilty person and those who post here.
Quite right.
-
It should not be faux outrage and Im surprised you have said that. Who are these children who are the subjects of photos and what steps are being taken to protect them
The faux outrage is the people misunderstanding your original post which IMO was fairly clearly talking about Nessling viewing pictures on the internet and not as some would have us believe someone posting Nessling’s pictures after the event.
-
My children would eat him for breakfast if there was the least hint of any untoward behaviour; but that situation is not going to arise either for them or for yours, is it?
In common with thousands of others ... sorry scrub that ... he is known and where he is living is known, that in itself is not usual.
Now that he is prime fodder to vigilante attacks I think that is what is more likely to cause harm to his children than anything else. So when punting the 'rights of children' maybe the rights of his nearest and dearest should be considered.
Or don't you think they have any?
You clearly don't understand how these sexual predators work Brietta. Have you ever heard of the term 'grooming'? These men groom children over a long period of time, they gain their trust and make it all seem normal. The child doesn't know any better and it is only when they get older that they realise that they have been abused. So claiming that your children would eat him for breakfast is rather naive if you don't mind me saying.
-
Exactly.
I am getting the impession , that Nessling is being defended.
People are embarrassed now that the truth is known about what sort of a person Nessling really is. The vitreol and hate spewed out by him should have been a warning to his followers that the man had underlying issues.
-
People are embarrassed now that the truth is known about what sort of a person Nessling really is. The vitreol and hate spewed out by him should have been a warning to his followers that the man had underlying issues.
You have summarised the situation exactly.
-
People are embarrassed now that the truth is known about what sort of a person Nessling really is. The vitreol and hate spewed out by him should have been a warning to his followers that the man had underlying issues.
If spewing vitriol and hate is some kind of proof that the poster has underlying issues then what does that say about those who have been spewing vitriol and hate against the McCanns and their supporters for the last 10 years. There are forums that do very little else.
You can't have it both ways.
To even suggest that people on any side should be able to tell from their posts etc what people do 'in private' is preposterous.
IMO
-
If spewing vitriol and hate is some kind of proof that the poster has underlying issues then what does that say about those who have been spewing vitriol and hate against the McCanns and their supporters for the last 10 years. There are forums that do very little else.
You can't have it both ways.
To even suggest that people on any side should be able to tell from their posts etc what people do 'in private' is preposterous.
IMO
Have you condemned Nessling ?
-
Have you condemned Nessling ?
I suggest you go back and read my first post on the subject - you've obviously missed it.
-
if nessling had lived pre internet it is quite possible he would have kept his fantasies to himself and would not have been in any trouble
But then again his desire may have manifested itself in other sexual activities relevant to pre internet times.
-
You clearly don't understand how these sexual predators work Brietta. Have you ever heard of the term 'grooming'? These men groom children over a long period of time, they gain their trust and make it all seem normal. The child doesn't know any better and it is only when they get older that they realise that they have been abused. So claiming that your children would eat him for breakfast is rather naive if you don't mind me saying.
You really do not know my children, Angelo, both they and I have a very clear understanding of precisely what 'grooming' entails.
You are misrepresenting the crime with which this man was accused.
For which he went through due process of being charged ... to which he pled guilt ... tried ... found guilty and sentenced. 'Grooming' was not on the charge sheet.
-
Yes ...if we ignore the thread it will peter out...
Over and out
Very difficult to ignore repeated accusations of being not concerned with child abuse.
I guess it was a tactic to persuade me to engage again with his thread The offensive post was rightly removed yesterday and now the same accusations again.
Will try to ignore but it is difficult.
It would appear the offensive post has been removed.
Thank you to whoever removed it.
-
You really do not know my children, Angelo, both they and I have a very clear understanding of precisely what 'grooming' entails.
You are misrepresenting the crime with which this man was accused.
For which he went through due process of being charged ... to which he pled guilt ... tried ... found guilty and sentenced. 'Grooming' was not on the charge sheet.
My reference to grooming was in response to your claim that your own children could never fall prey to sexual predators, that in my opinion is a very naive position to take. Even as adults they could still fall victim to these beasts.
-
Yes ...if we ignore the thread it will peter out...
Over and out
Not like you davel, are you embarrassed?
-
I suggest you go back and read my first post on the subject - you've obviously missed it.
Noted and read.
-
Very difficult to ignore repeated accusations of being not concerned with child abuse.
I guess it was a tactic to persuade me to frontage with this thread
My offensive post was rightly removed yesterday and now the same accusations again.
Will try to ignore but it is difficult.
Every sane adult should be very concerned with a problem which appears to be growing. The big internet giants have the ability to remove this filth from the internet but apparently money and revenue streams are more important to them. Nuff said!
-
If spewing vitriol and hate is some kind of proof that the poster has underlying issues then what does that say about those who have been spewing vitriol and hate against the McCanns and their supporters for the last 10 years. There are forums that do very little else.
You can't have it both ways.
To even suggest that people on any side should be able to tell from their posts etc what people do 'in private' is preposterous.
IMO
It all depends how you define vitriol and hate. I have read Nessling's posts under his own name and his online name of Vee8. I have no hesitation in delaring that his posts were vitriolic and hate filled. I have seen similar posts on Twitter directed at the McCanns. I haven't seen it on Forums with an anti-McCann stance. so if anyone has a link please p.m. me with it.
My opinion is that people who are nasty on the internet should all be shunned. It may not be possible to deduce what they do in private, but it's certainly possible to deduce that they're not very nice people. Anyone agreeing with them and applauding them is encouraging bad behaviour imo.
-
It all depends how you define vitriol and hate. I have read Nessling's posts under his own name and his online name of Vee8. I have no hesitation in delaring that his posts were vitriolic and hate filled. I have seen similar posts on Twitter directed at the McCanns. I haven't seen it on Forums with an anti-McCann stance. so if anyone has a link please p.m. me with it.
My opinion is that people who are nasty on the internet should all be shunned. It may not be possible to deduce what they do in private, but it's certainly possible to deduce that they're not very nice people. Anyone agreeing with them and applauding them is encouraging bad behaviour imo.
Having been alerted by the link to his blog that was posted here I wholeheartedly agree.
-
It all depends how you define vitriol and hate. I have read Nessling's posts under his own name and his online name of Vee8. I have no hesitation in delaring that his posts were vitriolic and hate filled. I have seen similar posts on Twitter directed at the McCanns. I haven't seen it on Forums with an anti-McCann stance. so if anyone has a link please p.m. me with it.
My opinion is that people who are nasty on the internet should all be shunned. It may not be possible to deduce what they do in private, but it's certainly possible to deduce that they're not very nice people. Anyone agreeing with them and applauding them is encouraging bad behaviour imo.
It is always possible to put forward a point of view without resorting to foul language.
-
It all depends how you define vitriol and hate. I have read Nessling's posts under his own name and his online name of Vee8. I have no hesitation in delaring that his posts were vitriolic and hate filled. I have seen similar posts on Twitter directed at the McCanns. I haven't seen it on Forums with an anti-McCann stance. so if anyone has a link please p.m. me with it.
My opinion is that people who are nasty on the internet should all be shunned. It may not be possible to deduce what they do in private, but it's certainly possible to deduce that they're not very nice people. Anyone agreeing with them and applauding them is encouraging bad behaviour imo.
I take it you have made an exception for Tony Bennett when passing that opinion.
-
I notice that a car was firebombed outside Nessling's home in 2003. Was the motive ever established for such an attack?
-
I take it you have made an exception for Tony Bennett when passing that opinion.
?{)(** I've got to admit g-units post left me speechless ... and that name is just for starters.
In my opinion though the attitude and mind set which drives these individuals is entirely mirrored in this thread which in my opinion was aimed squarely at the McCanns with the perpetrator of the vile offence merely a very convenient vehicle to use.
I really do believe the members of this forum too require to examine their collective conscience before passing judgement on any one else.
-
I notice Nigel Nessling's 17-year-old daughter's car was firebombed outside the family home back in June 2003. Was the motive ever established for such an attack?
Dad Nigel Nessling, 46, said: "I think it's absolutely terrible. My daughter worked and saved to get herself that little Fiesta - it was her pride and joy, she absolutely loved it.
"She'd only passed her test two weeks ago and was just getting used to having a bit of freedom to get herself out and about.
"Then some hooligan comes along and decides to chuck a lit rag in through the back window and take it away from her.
"It makes me sick, absolutely sick. There's kids out there who don't know the meaning of responsibility or discipline."
http://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/firebug-torches-teenager-s-car-1-97287
And there's kids out there whose lives have been irreparably damaged by sex offenders.
-
?{)(** I've got to admit g-units post left me speechless ... and that name is just for starters.
In my opinion though the attitude and mind set which drives these individuals is entirely mirrored in this thread which in my opinion was aimed squarely at the McCanns with the perpetrator of the vile offence merely a very convenient vehicle to use.
I really do believe the members of this forum too require to examine their collective conscience before passing judgement on any one else.
I believe that certain members of this forum need to examine their conscience in regard to passing judgement on others, and blame those responsible for this case.
-
I take it you have made an exception for Tony Bennett when passing that opinion.
I don't agree with Tony Bennett's actions, but I haven't seen any posts from him which contained personal attacks of the kind posted by Nessling. If you have please provide cites (by PM if you prefer).
-
People should keep in mind that when someone admits to a crime before a Court that they are generally admitting to a lesser charge than would have applied should they opt to go to trial.
The procedure before trial in simple terms is this. The prosecutor, always mindful of his or her department's budget, will have discussions with the accused's lawyer or barrister in respect of a plead. Thereafter, a deal will be put to the accused to the extent that some charges will be reduced or even dropped in exchange for an early pleading of guilt. It will also be pointed out to said accused that the judge will normally look favourably on an early admission of guilt and award a lower sentence accordingly.
-
?{)(** I've got to admit g-units post left me speechless ... and that name is just for starters.
In my opinion though the attitude and mind set which drives these individuals is entirely mirrored in this thread which in my opinion was aimed squarely at the McCanns with the perpetrator of the vile offence merely a very convenient vehicle to use.
I really do believe the members of this forum too require to examine their collective conscience before passing judgement on any one else.
Unless you know something I don't, I can think of no reason why this thread can be seen as being aimed at anyone but Nigel Nessling. As far as I know they didn't know him or endorse him so they cannot be held responsible for what he did. Neither can his behaviour be said to have brought them into disrepute.
The only people I see as culpable are Nessling and those like him, whether they support the McCanns or question them. My conscience is clear because I have never encouraged or applauded anyone who employs nasty personal attacks on others to try and garner support for their stance.
-
Unless you know something I don't, I can think of no reason why this thread can be seen as being aimed at anyone but Nigel Nessling. As far as I know they didn't know him or endorse him so they cannot be held responsible for what he did. Neither can his behaviour be said to have brought them into disrepute.
The only people I see as culpable are Nessling and those like him, whether they support the McCanns or question them. My conscience is clear because I have never encouraged or applauded anyone who employs nasty personal attacks on others to try and garner support for their stance.
Standing silently beside those who are employing the very tactics you describe is possibly tantamount to encouraging or applauding them. Perhaps you should start by reading Bennett's treatment of Sergey, which I understand is now in the members-only section of another forum you belong to.
IMO.
-
I don't agree with Tony Bennett's actions, but I haven't seen any posts from him which contained personal attacks of the kind posted by Nessling. If you have please provide cites (by PM if you prefer).
I have to reply to you G Unit, even though I don't agree that this thread serves any purpose apart from going over what Nigel Nessling did, it will not make us any more aware of how people behave in private at all.
As for being abusive and nasty online, I can't see that being a red flag to anyone that that person could not be a friendly person off line and have such a disgusting 'hobby'.
I really don't agree about what you say about Tony Bennett either, no he doesn't swear at anyone, he makes himself out to be a upstanding citizen doesn't he? A Christian? Only wanting truth for Madeleien. Though what upstanding Christian, writes a letter pretending to be a dead Madeleine? goading and torturing her family? Then to the words of 'Silent Night' mock that they may go to prison. Is that ok to you?
-
Unless you know something I don't, I can think of no reason why this thread can be seen as being aimed at anyone but Nigel Nessling. As far as I know they didn't know him or endorse him so they cannot be held responsible for what he did. Neither can his behaviour be said to have brought them into disrepute.
The only people I see as culpable are Nessling and those like him, whether they support the McCanns or question them. My conscience is clear because I have never encouraged or applauded anyone who employs nasty personal attacks on others to try and garner support for their stance.
Forums generally have some form of moderation but blogs are a law unto themselves. The only way to get something removed from a blog if the creator refuses is to complain to the internet service provider who hosts it. This is seldom successful however.
-
I have to reply to you G Unit, even though I don't agree that this thread serves any purpose apart from going over what Nigel Nessling did, it will not make us any more aware of how people behave in private at all.
As for being abusive and nasty online, I can't see that being a red flag to anyone that that person could not be a friendly person off line and have such a disgusting 'hobby'.
I really don't agree about what you say about Tony Bennett either, no he doesn't swear at anyone, he makes himself out to be a upstanding citizen doesn't he? A Christian? Only wanting truth for Madeleien. Though what upstanding Christian, writes a letter pretending to be a dead Madeleine? goading and torturing her family? Then to the words of 'Silent Night' mock that they may go to prison. Is that ok to you?
If someone is nasty online I don't want to interact with them on or offline. Once again Tony Bennett is mentioned, even though he isn't overtly abusive. Is he the best you can find? I haven't seen the posts to which you refer, sorry. i know he's a member of this Forum, and his posts seem free from abuse and polite.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=505
-
If someone is nasty online I don't want to interact with them on or offline. Once again Tony Bennett is mentioned, even though he isn't overtly abusive. Is he the best you can find? I haven't seen the posts to which you refer, sorry. i know he's a member of this Forum, and his posts seem free from abuse and polite.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=505
We also have to consider what Nessling accused Bennett of.
Hardly pleasant.
-
Standing silently beside those who are employing the very tactics you describe is possibly tantamount to encouraging or applauding them. Perhaps you should start by reading Bennett's treatment of Sergey, which I understand is now in the members-only section of another forum you belong to.
IMO.
So should we condemn supporters for standing silently beside Nessling?
-
So should we condemn supporters for standing silently beside Nessling?
That would depend on which of the wise monkeys "you" liken yourselves to.
-
That would depend on which of the wise monkeys "you" liken yourselves to.
Looking at his posts, I would condemn any sceptic who posted likewise. However I don’t search the internet to find supporters or sceptics to condemn and tend to restrict myself to places I post.
-
From what I have read individuals who are sex offenders do not advertise their perversions: this man is no different.
Of course he was a hypocrite. People leading double lives do that.
Of course he presented a different public persona to his private one. People leading double lives do that … in fact almost everyone does whether sex offender or no.
I never expected anyone to realise what he might be up to, but his online persona was not that of a nice person. I did provide proof, but it was deleted. His posts were encouraged and applauded by others, so it does have something to say about others as well as him.
-
It must be a real bummer for those with a higher intelligence, as avowed by Nessling they are, to find they were not following the Messiah but some gink with a flute who led 'em right up the garden path and dropped them in the pond.
A bit like this me deerios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q41a-2AN3Uo
-
It must be a real bummer for those with a higher intelligence, as avowed by Nessling they are, to find they were not following the Messiah but some gink with a flute who led 'em right up the garden path and dropped them in the pond.
A bit like this me deerios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q41a-2AN3Uo
Do you have ant idea how many followers he had....this thread manages about 10 on average...which seems to be a similar number to other forums.
-
Do you have ant idea how many followers he had....this thread manages about 10 on average...which seems to be a similar number to other forums.
I don't think that is relevant to the point I was making.
Clearly a number on here followed him. The slavish copying/aping of his syntax* is testament to that.
* used in the loosest possible sense of the word of course.
-
Do you have ant idea how many followers he had....this thread manages about 10 on average...which seems to be a similar number to other forums.
I have no idea how many followers he had. Do tell.
-
I have no idea how many followers he had. Do tell.
It was Alice who raised the terms followers and Messiah...which I find s bit barmy...imo the influence of these blogs is wildly overestimated...this thread has an average of 12 followers
-
I never expected anyone to realise what he might be up to, but his online persona was not that of a nice person. I did provide proof, but it was deleted. His posts were encouraged and applauded by others, so it does have something to say about others as well as him.
He wasn't a nice person because he condemned those people who were saying the McCann's were guilty, you don't have the opposite side do you? What were they saying about him? so that he had to reply in such a nasty way? I have come across many nasty anti's in my time, some downright disgusting in their posts.
People are cheering Bennett on Richard D Hall, yet what they are saying is appalling, Bennett likened Madeleine to Lolita, is that nice?
At the moment the photo's of Madeleine are yet again being poured over, some of the posts I can't repeat as they are suggesting evil things. These people are being cheered on, encouraged, yet without swearing or being abusive to others they are still upsetting and sickening posts.
I can ensure you if any of those posters were to converse with me online and say what they are saying, then I can honestly say I would be abusive to them, I would probably call them something horrible, because, when you are so angered by others using a child to discuss things like that, a child who can't defend herself, a child whose parents are trying to find her and are suffering daily wondering what is happening to her, it brings out the worse in people.
It doesn't mean that we can tell by the actions of others what they do in private though, they cover it up that is how they get away with it, Drs, teachers, social workers you name it, they are everywhere covering up their sordid secret.
-
He wasn't a nice person because he condemned those people who were saying the McCann's were guilty, you don't have the opposite side do you? What were they saying about him? so that he had to reply in such a nasty way? I have come across many nasty anti's in my time, some downright disgusting in their posts.
People are cheering Bennett on Richard D Hall, yet what they are saying is appalling, Bennett likened Madeleine to Lolita, is that nice?
At the moment the photo's of Madeleine are yet again being poured over, some of the posts I can't repeat as they are suggesting evil things. These people are being cheered on, encouraged, yet without swearing or being abusive to others they are still upsetting and sickening posts.
I can ensure you if any of those posters were to converse with me online and say what they are saying, then I can honestly say I would be abusive to them, I would probably call them something horrible, because, when you are so angered by others using a child to discuss things like that, a child who can't defend herself, a child whose parents are trying to find her and are suffering daily wondering what is happening to her, it brings out the worse in people.
It doesn't mean that we can tell by the actions of others what they do in private though, they cover it up that is how they get away with it, Drs, teachers, social workers you name it, they are everywhere covering up their sordid secret.
Well said
-
Preying on the predators: Inside the team who removed 57,000 web pages of child abuse material in a year
A team of analysts, former call-centre workers, drama students, mums and grandparents, took down the pages, each containing tens of thousands of abuse images, last year
ByEmily RetterSenior Feature Writer
22:52, 6 DEC 2017UPDATED22:54, 6 DEC 2017
At his computer screen in his pleasant office, on a mundane industrial estate near Cambridge, Peter stared into the bedroom of a 12-year-old British girl forced into performing an explicit sexual act in front of her laptop.
The image was particularly depraved and, although obviously sickened, Peter forced himself to look.
He had a job to do. In the background was a cupboard that he recognised from Argos, British plug sockets, and another sign he cannot specify, which allowed him to roughly locate the traumatised child.
He informed local police, who rescued her within two days from the clutches of the unseen voyeurs who had groomed her and forced her to perform for them, before posting the sick results of their devastating abuse online for countless other paedophiles to watch.
Peter, whose identity we are protecting, sees an image of a child being sexually abused most days of his working life.
As one of 13 analysts employed by the Internet Watch Foundation, his job is to take the images down and, if possible, trace the victims.
He and his fellow analysts, former call-centre workers, drama students, mums and grandparents, took down 57,000 web pages, each containing tens of thousands of abuse images, last year.
Over half of them involved children under the age of 10, and 2% were aged two and under. Peter, 45, explains: “I view thousands of images of child abuse every day.
"A lot of the images I see are of children in their bedroom, but generally all you can do is take the image down and that is a small victory.
“There is no starker warning to parents who might let children take their laptop into their bedroom. They could be inviting anyone in.”
Peter reveals that police found this particular British 12-year-old had been groomed for years. And that is not rare.
This week, the National Crime Agency revealed they had overseen the arrest of nearly 200 paedophiles, thought to be grooming around 250 victims, in a one-week blitz.
Around a third of the cases involved children being coerced to send indecent images of themselves over the internet, or live stream their abuse.
The use of live-streaming apps by paedophiles is on the rise.
This week Glen Friend, from London, became the first to be jailed for using a live-streaming app to abuse a child. Through it, he groomed a nine-year-old and enticed her to expose herself.
The NCA arrests around 400 people a month for sharing indecent images of children online. This is just one of the reasons the Daily Mirror’s NSPCC and Childline Christmas appeal is so vital.
Every hour, 20 calls and online chat requests to Childline go answered due to a lack of funding and staff. Just a few pounds could make a huge difference to a desperate child crying out for help.
The Internet Watch Foundation is pivotal in rescuing children from abuse.
Just two months after the 12-year-old’s case, Peter managed to pinpoint another British victim, a girl aged around 13.
“It was the same kind of thing – in her bedroom, with a laptop. We figured out where she was,” says Peter, himself a dad of two stepchildren, aged 11 and seven.
“This job does alert you to the dangers children are in if you leave them unattended on the internet. Ours don’t go in their bedrooms to use it, and we keep an eye on their search history.”
Peter and his team seek out illegal material so obscene that only employees are allowed in the office, which has been chosen to ensure that occupants in surrounding buildings cannot see inside.
Peter has been working here for two years. Before, he was an RAF intelligence analyst. In Afghanistan and Iraq, he saw images of people being blown up.
“But until you see what we see here, you can’t comprehend it. It is horrific,” he admits. “If it’s a baby in a No1 Dad top, for example, that really hits home.”
He says becoming a stepdad was a driving force in his decision to take the job. His colleague Isobel, 28, doesn’t have children but is equally motivated.
She studied drama and then worked in a call centre, but desperately wanted to do something “worthwhile”.
“I didn’t know what to expect at all. We are talking the most shocking images – a baby being abused,” she says. “But I’m just really proud to remove these images.
“I have stopped people looking at them. And every time an image is looked at, that child becomes re-victimised.”
Yet the analysts admit that many of the harrowing images they remove go straight back up online. Isabel explains that they take whole websites of twisted abuse down, only to see them reappear.
She says: “We keep on it, we have the URL and we keep grabbing it. There have been some we have been taking down since I started here three years ago.”
The foundation was formed in 1996. Every year, it removes around 60,000 web pages displaying millions of images.
It is the only organisation of its kind in the UK, and, even with just 13 analysts, it is the biggest in the world.
It partly sustains itself with EU grants, but 80% of its funding is raised by charging its 132 members, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, for the use of its products, including tools to block indecent images. “I have [blocked] 12,000 images in a day,” explains Peter.
The recruitment process is strict – only those with strong “emotional resilience” are chosen.
Two interviews, including one with a psychologist, are followed by a session where images are presented to candidates in phases – beginning with adult porn, moving through animations of child abuse, then sexual posing and sexual activity, and finally sadistic abuse. There is a phased six-month introduction process. Peter says: “Most months you see something where you have to get up and go for a walk.
“But we are ready for it. And if there are images that keep reoccurring in our minds, our counsellor can give us techniques.” As well as a 10-minute break every hour, all analysts have a mandatory counselling session every month and see a psychologist each year.
One of their coping techniques, bizarrely, is juggling. Downstairs, the analysts’ chill-out zone is surprising – a bright space with bunting, picnic tables, table tennis, bowls of calming lavender – and yes, juggling balls.
“Having this distances us from what we do,” says Isobel. “We can’t be drawn in, and here it is bright and colourful.”
It’s the boost this small team needs. They only wish the child victims they see every day were safe in a room like this, and that is why they do what they do.
For more information about the Internet Watch Foundation or to find out how to report images of child sexual exploitation visit www.iwf.org.uk.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/preying-predators-inside-team-who-11651980?ptnr_rid=627654&icid=EM_Mirror_Nletter_DailyNews
The case under discussion here is merely the tip of the iceberg as far as the sexual abuse of children is concerned but in getting fixated on one individual's case ... which has been subject to due process ... there is a grave danger of ignoring the real and present dangers facing our vulnerable children.
Misty has posted concerns of recent developments with the internet giants enabling more children the freedom of instant communication ... in my opinion this has to run hand in glove with measures to safeguard them from those who will and are perversely utilising that same freedom to corrupt and ruin young lives.
As outlined in the above Mirror item that has begin with supervision in the home and in my opinion more resources ploughed into tracing and prosecuting those who as facilities on the internet progress, advance their predatory practices apace.
I truly do not think we fully appreciate the scale of the problem and future implications for our society if this is allowed to get any more out of control than it is already.
Yes ... there is a discussion to be had ... but it does not centre on one offender who has been brought to book for viewing images ... not live streaming them. Which in my opinion is something even more creepy and is the immediate problem which requires to be addressed.
As I see it the present live streaming abuse which has already caused some youngsters to commit suicide and which must be blighting the lives of many more, is a far more important target for concern than offenders who are caught and judged unlikely to offend further ... and who now will get a routine visit from the police any time there is a criminal act committed anywhere in his locale.
He is known to police ... his name is on the sex offender's register ... in my opinion, it is the unknown ones we really need to be concerned about.
-
Allows the defence of “I’m a member of the Internet Watch Foundation”.
-
Now back to Nessling and on topic.
Erngath. Do you not realize people's perceptions of him were made before we knew about the court case, and the accusations he made at other people are appalling ?
-
Allows the defence of “I’m a member of the Internet Watch Foundation”.
Actually ... no, it does not, and your prejudicial comment indicates why it may be problematic in getting control of the present situation.
My research into the individual under discussion here, raised an interesting point. How do we originally know his name ... how do we know his posting identity to enable the connection to be made?
He was hacked many years ago by individuals who made it their business to 'out' him. I will cite that later when I have time to find it again.
He pleaded guilty when caught.
He did not make the rather obvious defence that his computer had been hacked, did he?
-
Actually ... no, it does not, and your prejudicial comment indicates why it may be problematic in getting control of the present situation.
My research into the individual under discussion here, raised an interesting point. How do we originally know his name ... how do we know his posting identity to enable the connection to be made?
He was hacked many years ago by individuals who made it their business to 'out' him. I will cite that later when I have time to find it again.
He pleaded guilty when caught.
He did not make the rather obvious defence that his computer had been hacked, did he?
If you are referring to Nessling.
His blogs.
Some are still up, as are his opinions and book reviews, e.g. on Amazon.
-
Now back to Nessling and on topic.
Erngath. Do you not realize people's perceptions of him were made before we knew about the court case, and the accusations he made at other people are appalling?
Just as appalling as the appalling accusations made against the MCanns.
The nature of some of these accusations must be indicative of their type of personalities.
-
If you are referring to Nessling.
His blogs.
Some are still up, as are his opinions and book reviews, e.g. on Amazon.
The advantage you have over me in relation to this man ... is that you appear to know quite a lot about him ... and I do not.
However all of that is an irrelevance as to why his name is in the heading of this thread.
He is now a convicted criminal but he is one who had no input whatsoever into the events of May 2007.
So I am at a loss as to your fixation on him and his blogs since they play absolutely no part whatsoever in the case brought against him ... therefore , in fact, a total irrelevance.
-
The advantage you have over me in relation to this man ... is that you appear to know quite a lot about him ... and I do not.
However all of that is an irrelevance as to why his name is in the heading of this thread.
He is now a convicted criminal but he is one who had no input whatsoever into the events of May 2007.
So I am at a loss as to your fixation on him and his blogs since they play absolutely no part whatsoever in the case brought against him ... therefore , in fact, a total irrelevance.
The content of your post was entirely predictable.
As to his posts and blogs, quite a lot of people have been on the receiving end of his bile, including me, easily found on the net, e.g. book reviews on Amazon. They show his nature. That you intent to divert from that is also predictable.
As to fixations, as you call them, they are quite evident in you. I.M.H.O. of course.
-
The content of your post was entirely predictable.
As to his posts and blogs, quite a lot of people have been on the receiving end of his bile, including me, easily found on the net, e.g. book reviews on Amazon. They show his nature. That you intent to divert from that is also predictable.
As to fixations, as you call them, they are quite evident in you. I.M.H.O. of course.
No one has been at the receiving end of as much appalling bile as the family of a missing child.
-
No one has been at the receiving end of as much appalling bile as the family of a missing child.
I presume you can prove that statement ?
-
I presume you can prove that statement ?
Why don't you ask Alice to prove his statements,?
-
Very difficult to ignore repeated accusations of being not concerned with child abuse.
I guess it was a tactic to persuade me to engage again with his thread The offensive post was rightly removed yesterday and now the same accusations again.
Will try to ignore but it is difficult.
It would appear the offensive post has been removed.
Thank you to whoever removed it.
Where have i accused you of not being concerned with child abuse.
Nigel Nessling is a sex offender involving children, i can't see how that can be defended.
It's wrong also that several posters are accusing G-Unit ,starting this forum for ulterior motives.
G-Unit IMO is a credit to this forum, and never as i can see uses underhanded tactics,
.
-
Why don't you ask Alice to prove his statements,?
I would thought you would have realized by now, what I have already seen online and the support he received, before his criminal conviction, has supplied the relevant info, and Alice was effectively saying the same.
I.M.O. of course.
-
Actually ... no, it does not, and your prejudicial comment indicates why it may be problematic in getting control of the present situation.
My research into the individual under discussion here, raised an interesting point. How do we originally know his name ... how do we know his posting identity to enable the connection to be made?
He was hacked many years ago by individuals who made it their business to 'out' him. I will cite that later when I have time to find it again.
He pleaded guilty when caught.
He did not make the rather obvious defence that his computer had been hacked, did he?
That defence only works if it is true and I believe applies to the computer on which the images were found.
The police IT guys would soon discover if the defence were true.
-
Where have i accused you of not being concerned with child abuse.
Nigel Nessling is a sex offender involving children, i can't see how that can be defended.
It's wrong also that several posters are accusing G-Unit ,starting this forum for ulterior motives.
G-Unit IMO is a credit to this forum, and never as i can see uses underhanded tactics,
.
Thank you Kizzy. Accusing others of having ulterior motives is just a mud-slinging tactic. The aim is to counter what the person is saying by suggesting they're being duplicitous. It's used regularly on Forums and blogs to try to silence others or cast doubt on their integrity. Take this statement from the subject of this thread;
the average anti does not fit that demographic, i.e. intelligent, rational or sane.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/read-the-files/
Those accusations are clear and unambiguous. Those who question the McCann's version of events are unintelligent, irrational or insane. That's the same tactic taken to a higher level. None of it can be proved, obviously, but the hope is that it might stop some people from reading and believing what these 'anti's' say.
I'm glad you were able to see that the accusation was false because I really don't try to mislead, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
-
Thank you Kizzy. Accusing others of having ulterior motives is just a mud-slinging tactic. The aim is to counter what the person is saying by suggesting they're being duplicitous. It's used regularly on Forums and blogs to try to silence others or cast doubt on their integrity. Take this statement from the subject of this thread;
the average anti does not fit that demographic, i.e. intelligent, rational or sane.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/read-the-files/
Those accusations are clear and unambiguous. Those who question the McCann's version of events are unintelligent, irrational or insane. That's the same tactic taken to a higher level. None of it can be proved, obviously, but the hope is that it might stop some people from reading and believing what these 'anti's' say.
I'm glad you were able to see that the accusation was false because I really don't try to mislead, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Exactly, well said
-
Exactly, well said
Seconded. 8((()*/
-
I would thought you would have realized by now, what I have already seen online and the support he received, before his criminal conviction, has supplied the relevant info, and Alice was effectively saying the same.
I.M.O. of course.
So what are you saying exactly? People supported him when he was an avid pro McCann on the internet. So what? That doesn't mean a thing. No one was to know what he did in secret. Though you profess that you and others had thoughts about him before his conviction, how I don't know, everyone was shocked so you weren't is that what you are saying? Explain why.
-
So what are you saying exactly? People supported him when he was an avid pro McCann on the internet. So what? That doesn't mean a thing. No one was to know what he did in secret. Though you profess that you and others had thoughts about him before his conviction, how I don't know, everyone was shocked so you weren't is that what you are saying? Explain why.
I read some of his blogs, insults and libel of other people.
Didn't you ?
-
So what are you saying exactly? People supported him when he was an avid pro McCann on the internet. So what? That doesn't mean a thing. No one was to know what he did in secret. Though you profess that you and others had thoughts about him before his conviction, how I don't know, everyone was shocked so you weren't is that what you are saying? Explain why.
It would suggest to me that they may very well be of a similar mindset.
-
It would suggest to me that they may very well be of a similar mindset.
What do you mean by that?
-
I read some of his blogs, insults and libel of other people.
Didn't you ?
So by reading his blog you were able to ascertain he was viewing obscene photo's? How?
-
If you've seen his blogs, you'll know what I mean- nasty, vindictive and ugly on the inside.
-
If you've seen his blogs, you'll know what I mean- nasty, vindictive and ugly on the inside.
His blog just showed him arguing with anti's nothing else. You are aware there are anti's who used the same sort of language are you?
-
So by reading his blog you were able to ascertain he was viewing obscene photo's? How?
I didn't say that, and I wasn't referring to his conviction. so don't put words in my mouth.
I said I formed my view of him from what he did and his internet activity.
-
His blog just showed him arguing with anti's nothing else. You are aware there are anti's who used the same sort of language are you?
Then maybe they share a similar personality.
-
I dont think anyone should be allowed to hide behind a pseudonym on the internet and get away with abusing others. If people were forced legally to use their real names most of this dreadful abuse would disappear instantly IMHO.
ETA. A further reminder guys to play nicely. TY
I agree with that, John, I think it would make the internet a much better experience for all ... but I think there would still be people who would find ways to get round it or even find different methods to abuse others utilising their identities.
There already is an area of the internet ... it has a name which escapes me for the moment ... which is used to communicate and share images such as that under discussion.
I think the time is long overdue for internet providers to take some of the responsibility for what goes on using the services provided by them and help the police to cut them off at source or at least to make it more difficult for them.
-
I didn't say that, and I wasn't referring to his conviction. so don't put words in my mouth.
I said I formed my view of him from what he did and his internet activity.
You said: "I said I formed my view of him from what he did and his internet activity."
I won't put 'words into your mouth' but perhaps taking a bit more care of how you phrase your comments might remove the temptation.
In my opinion ... it is impossible for one individual to determine anything about another individual using your criteria.
The nearest and dearest of perps who live under the same roof very often know nothing of what is going on ... so how can you?
-
G Unit can you explain why exactly you started this thread?
-
So what are you saying exactly? People supported him when he was an avid pro McCann on the internet. So what? That doesn't mean a thing. No one was to know what he did in secret. Though you profess that you and others had thoughts about him before his conviction, how I don't know, everyone was shocked so you weren't is that what you are saying? Explain why.
I wasn't shocked, why would I be? I might have been if I knew him and had an opinion about his character, but I didn't.
Having looked at how he behaved on the internet he wasn't the kind of poster I would have wanted to read, let alone support or get to know. My description of him would be probably be rabid rather than avid pro McCann. Attack is the best form of defence comes to mind.
-
I wasn't shocked, why would I be? I might have been if I knew him and had an opinion about his character, but I didn't.
Having looked at how he behaved on the internet he wasn't the kind of poster I would have wanted to read, let alone support or get to know. My description of him would be probably be rabid rather than avid pro McCann. Attack is the best form of defence comes to mind.
I can describe quite a few of anti's in the same manner.
-
I can describe quite a few of anti's in the same manner.
People that anyone with any sense keeps away from. .
-
I can describe quite a few of anti's in the same manner.
Two wrongs don't make it right.
-
His blog just showed him arguing with anti's nothing else. You are aware there are anti's who used the same sort of language are you?
Arguing? Calling them unintelligent, irrational and insane is arguing, is it? I call it abusing, not arguing.
-
G Unit can you explain why exactly you started this thread?
I have already done that more than once.
-
Actually ... no, it does not, and your prejudicial comment indicates why it may be problematic in getting control of the present situation.
My research into the individual under discussion here, raised an interesting point. How do we originally know his name ... how do we know his posting identity to enable the connection to be made?
He was hacked many years ago by individuals who made it their business to 'out' him. I will cite that later when I have time to find it again.
He pleaded guilty when caught.
He did not make the rather obvious defence that his computer had been hacked, did he?
Members of the public searching for child porn on the internet for the purpose of shutting down sites is asking for trouble IMO.
-
Snip
Those accusations are clear and unambiguous. Those who question the McCann's version of events are unintelligent, irrational or insane. That's the same tactic taken to a higher level. None of it can be proved, obviously, but the hope is that it might stop some people from reading and believing what these 'anti's' say.
Snip
It is an all too typical approach.
-
I have already done that more than once.
Can you explain again please and do you feel that the thread has been worthwhile?
Has it achieved what you intended?
-
Members of the public searching for child porn on the internet for the purpose of shutting down sites is asking for trouble IMO.
No more so than in my opinion, members of the public setting themselves up as judge and jury in the case of a missing child.
At least there is a positive outcome from this organisation of the removal of 57,000 web pages of child abuse material in a one year blitz, children rescued and arrest and imprisonment of offenders.
Brilliant work but if that's all there is to protect children ... it is very patently not nearly enough.
-
Posted by whom, when, where? Examples would help rather than opinions.
I told you before and you replied you didn't see it
-
I wonder who the biggest culprit is?
I would say obscene language...racial stereotyping takes some beating
-
Can you explain again please and do you feel that the thread has been worthwhile?
Has it achieved what you intended?
Post 3 page 1
I started the thread because I want to explore how easy it is for people like Nessling to deceive others. He presented himself as someone who cared deeply about missing children but at the same time his actions meant he was condoning/encouraging child sex abuse.
The thread has been very enlightening and I have learned a great deal. I hoped that the thread might lead people to reflect on the manner in which the case is discussed and perhaps decide to disassociate themselves from people like Nessling.
In my opinion that hasn't happened. Nessing and his posting style have been defended and excused. No-one seems to have considered that his style and tactics might simply appeal to others with a desire to join in and be nasty, regardless of the cause.
In my opinion the means are just as important as the ends.
-
Post 3 page 1
I started the thread because I want to explore how easy it is for people like Nessling to deceive others. He presented himself as someone who cared deeply about missing children but at the same time his actions meant he was condoning/encouraging child sex abuse.
The thread has been very enlightening and I have learned a great deal. I hoped that the thread might lead people to reflect on the manner in which the case is discussed and perhaps decide to disassociate themselves from people like Nessling.
In my opinion that hasn't happened. Nessing and his posting style have been defended and excused. No-one seems to have considered that his style and tactics might simply appeal to others with a desire to join in and be nasty, regardless of the cause.
In my opinion the means are just as important as the ends.
I assume you realise he has deceived his family who were much closer to him than anyone.
If he could deceive them, then anyone else is easily deceived.
No doubt his family believed he cared deeply about missing children.
I will only say that having a polite, respectful, non aggressive, posting style does not ensure that the poster is not hiding some nasty beliefs.
One of them most homophobic, racist and biggoted posters involved in this case couches his nasty beliefs in very polite, non aggressive manner.
I hope eventually the thread does achieve what you are hoping for.
-
I told you before and you replied you didn't see it
When? Where? Tell me more.
-
No more so than in my opinion, members of the public setting themselves up as judge and jury in the case of a missing child.
At least there is a positive outcome from this organisation of the removal of 57,000 web pages of child abuse material in a one year blitz, children rescued and arrest and imprisonment of offenders.
Brilliant work but if that's all there is to protect children ... it is very patently not nearly enough.
They are both wrong.
In my book however equivocation is worse.
So just for the record what is your true belief and spare us the swallowed dictionary routine.
-
For you part that is called being wise after the event.
I had to put up with one of your cohorts calling me a paedophile and terrorist supporter among other things.
I never noticed you or other supporters complaining about it, rather giving each other high fives.
If you don't like the heat get out the bleedin' kitchen.....simples.
Well you've got your own back.
Haven't you?
Can I have a cite for me doing that which you accuse me of.
I, for one do not appreciate being called a disciple of a man who has a conviction for gathering child pornography.
-
It's quite ironic that two posters here who know most about his posts are sceptics....I don't think I ever saw any of his posts
-
It's quite ironic that two posters here who know most about his posts are sceptics....I don't think I ever saw any of his posts
Not really.
He posted on Amazon, and then abruptly stopped.
-
Either you knew what he was in which case your bad, otherwise why the outrage?
Because Alice knew when he made that post that Nessling had been convicted of an appalling crime but yet chose to call supporters Disciples.
But just keep making excuses.
-
Because Alice knew when he made that post that Nessling had been convicted of an appalling crime but yet chose to call supporters Disciples.
But just keep making excuses.
How many times have people who supported Amaral, been called disciples of him or even worship him, by some McCann supporters ?
-
It's quite ironic that two posters here who know most about his posts are sceptics....I don't think I ever saw any of his posts
I don't post unless I research. It didn't take long to read his posts because most of them were hurriedly deleted.
-
Post 3 page 1
I started the thread because I want to explore how easy it is for people like Nessling to deceive others. He presented himself as someone who cared deeply about missing children but at the same time his actions meant he was condoning/encouraging child sex abuse.
The thread has been very enlightening and I have learned a great deal. I hoped that the thread might lead people to reflect on the manner in which the case is discussed and perhaps decide to disassociate themselves from people like Nessling.
In my opinion that hasn't happened. Nessing and his posting style have been defended and excused. No-one seems to have considered that his style and tactics might simply appeal to others with a desire to join in and be nasty, regardless of the cause.
In my opinion the means are just as important as the ends.
The thing is G Unit, youi are posting as a sceptic, so you wouldn't have taken his comments very well would you? His posts were aimed at sceptics who abused the McCann's and claimed they were guilty. If he was an sceptic or you a supporter and you read his posts, would you see it the same way?
I can honestly say I tried to be as polite as possible when commenting on this case, but I didn't get the same attitude when being replied to. I was told I needed to wake up, not be so naïve that anyone can see they are guilty, as well as being called some very choice names and being accused of being in a paedophile ring. So you see it works both ways.
-
The thing is G Unit, youi are posting as a sceptic, so you wouldn't have taken his comments very well would you? His posts were aimed at sceptics who abused the McCann's and claimed they were guilty. If he was an sceptic or you a supporter and you read his posts, would you see it the same way?
I can honestly say I tried to be as polite as possible when commenting on this case, but I didn't get the same attitude when being replied to. I was told I needed to wake up, not be so naïve that anyone can see they are guilty, as well as being called some very choice names and being accused of being in a paedophile ring. So you see it works both ways.
The thing is, Lace, I don't agree with abusive behaviour whoever does it. I too have been abused but refuse to retaliate in the same manner.
-
This is my opinion, which I hoped might give people pause for thought. Nessling was well aware that his activities could be discovered if his computer was examined but he continued committing his vile crimes for years.
At the same time he was presenting himself as a fine upstanding caring person by involving himself in the Madeleine McCann case. His self-appointed role was to support Madeleine's parents by viciously attacking those who were suspicious of their abduction theory.
I think his attacks on two named people went beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour, as did his attacks on those he grouped together under the heading of 'anti's'. I think they revealed that he was an angry and bitter man who used the case to vent those feelings.
Anyone who behaves in a similar way should be shunned, in my opinion, but Nessling was encouraged and applauded by some because of his support of the McCanns.
Perhaps in the future people will think twice about supporting anyone who thinks they can say whatever they like about others so long as they are on the right 'side'. It doesn't help any cause if such angry and vindictive people support it in my opinion. Such people exist on both 'sides' and should be condemned and shunned by both sides. They have latched onto a tragedy and turned it into a slanging match.
-
I think it was aimed at those who admired him before his crimes were discovered. Admiring and encouraging a nasty vindictive person was OK, it seems, but not a sex offender. We all have different standards, it seems.
Some of those admiring him can be seen in the comments here, even Isabel Duarte. Really? Who knows.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/2008/05/10/hello-world/#comments
I dont see any admiration for Nessling just people liking his site and supporting the Mccanns throug their abuse.
I think the fact they did not suspect he was a paedophile is neither here nor there...paedophiles are usually deceptive
-
This is my opinion, which I hoped might give people pause for thought. Nessling was well aware that his activities could be discovered if his computer was examined but he continued committing his vile crimes for years.
At the same time he was presenting himself as a fine upstanding caring person by involving himself in the Madeleine McCann case. His self-appointed role was to support Madeleine's parents by viciously attacking those who were suspicious of their abduction theory.
I think his attacks on two named people went beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour, as did his attacks on those he grouped together under the heading of 'anti's'. I think they revealed that he was an angry and bitter man who used the case to vent those feelings.
Anyone who behaves in a similar way should be shunned, in my opinion, but Nessling was encouraged and applauded by some because of his support of the McCanns.
Perhaps in the future people will think twice about supporting anyone who thinks they can say whatever they like about others so long as they are on the right 'side'. It doesn't help any cause if such angry and vindictive people support it in my opinion. Such people exist on both 'sides' and should be condemned and shunned by both sides. They have latched onto a tragedy and turned it into a slanging match.
Your argumnet holds no water...there are several examples of abusive comments by sceptic posters who are condoned...supported and admired
-
Your argumnet holds no water...there are several examples of abusive comments by sceptic posters who are condoned...supported and admired
It becomes a question of what is abuse.
-
It becomes a question of what is abuse.
it is a question of what one person considers to be abuse...so again the argument is merely subjective and therefore of no value. The next problem is that am not allowed to post examples of abuse due to censorship on the forum...therefore any reasonable debate is impossible
-
This is my opinion, which I hoped might give people pause for thought. Nessling was well aware that his activities could be discovered if his computer was examined but he continued committing his vile crimes for years.
At the same time he was presenting himself as a fine upstanding caring person by involving himself in the Madeleine McCann case. His self-appointed role was to support Madeleine's parents by viciously attacking those who were suspicious of their abduction theory.
I think his attacks on two named people went beyond the bounds of reasonable behaviour, as did his attacks on those he grouped together under the heading of 'anti's'. I think they revealed that he was an angry and bitter man who used the case to vent those feelings.
Anyone who behaves in a similar way should be shunned, in my opinion, but Nessling was encouraged and applauded by some because of his support of the McCanns.
Perhaps in the future people will think twice about supporting anyone who thinks they can say whatever they like about others so long as they are on the right 'side'. It doesn't help any cause if such angry and vindictive people support it in my opinion. Such people exist on both 'sides' and should be condemned and shunned by both sides. They have latched onto a tragedy and turned it into a slanging match.
G - I have been genuinely puzzled by what it is you are trying to achieve. Why you are singling out one person because he committed a crime in his private life which no-one following the McCann case could possibly have known about is a mystery to me. It seems to me you are using his crime to criticise and pass judgement on other people in the most unjust way.
As you know - for all the nasty opinions posted about sceptics/and Amaral on the net - there are just as many nasty opinions posted about supporters and the McCann family on the net.
So what's to be done? IMO we can't control other people's behaviour on other sites and so the abuse will continue, but we can make sure our own forum does not degenerate in that particular direction.
All we have to do is remember to 'Attack the posts and not the posters.'
It really is that simple imo.
AImHo
p.s. My last post on this subject.
-
G - I have been genuinely puzzled by what it is you are trying to achieve. Why you are singling out one person because he committed a crime in his private life which no-one following the McCann case could possibly have known about is a mystery to me. It seems to me you are using his crime to criticise and pass judgement on other people in the most unjust way.
As you know - for all the nasty opinions posted about sceptics/and Amaral on the net - there are just as many nasty opinions posted about supporters and the McCann family on the net.
So what's to be done? IMO we can't control other people's behaviour on other sites and so the abuse will continue, but we can make sure our own forum does not degenerate in that particular direction.
All we have to do is remember to 'Attack the posts and not the posters.'
It really is that simple imo.
AImHo
p.s. My last post on this subject.
Once we start to look at posts by posters on other forums then posts on all other forums become relevant to this site and I think that is a can of worms that some would prefer not to be opened
-
When we have discussed abuse here many times there is a continual claim that someone else started it. Several time s I have called for and end to all abuse and sniping but certain posters just have not been interested. So ..again...I am quite happy to see the end of all abusive and sniping commnents...lets stop...does anyone want to try it...the answer is yes or no....it really is that simple
-
Can you explain again please and do you feel that the thread has been worthwhile?
Has it achieved what you intended?
Well i for one is grateful of this thread, it has made me able to warn family members who live in that area.
It was said earlier in the thread that what he has done would not affect me, well it did.
Surprisingly they knew nothing of it, although living quite close.
It's also correct, that with him pleading guilty, the full extent of what he did is not known. IMO
Unfortunately Nessling is still amongst them, but at least now they know.
Hopefully will have alerted anyone else who lives close, as well who read this thread.
-
This forum, sadly has seen posters regularly attacking the poster instead of the post in the past. Some of the worst offenders have departed, so hopefully the resulting improvement will continue.
During my recent research I have noticed that many sites have no recent posts (unless they are hiding them, which is of interest in itself). Perhaps the level of hatred and abuse some of them displayed was what led to their demise.
This site is unique because it gives a voice to all with an interest in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. If it can set an example by being polite and respectful at all times, that will be an impressive achievement of which we can all be proud.
That was the aim of the thread.
Again G-UNIT well said, 8@??)(
Although, you should not have to keep explaining yourself IMO
-
Well i for one is grateful of this thread, it has made me able to warn family members who live in that area.
It was said earlier in the thread that what he has done would not affect me, well it did.
Surprisingly they knew nothing of it, although living quite close.
It's also correct, that with him pleading guilty, the full extent of what he did is not known. IMO
Unfortunately Nessling is still amongst them, but at least now they know.
Hopefully will have alerted anyone else who lives close, as well who read this thread.
Why should any of your family memberes be at thtreat from nessling. Surely we all do what we can to keep our children safe...none of us knows who live on our area...what extraa precautions will your relatives be taking...no more than I take with my children yet I live miles away
-
A thread that attracts only a handful of posts might not be worthwhile ,but the same can't be said for one which has attracted nearly 400 so far.
-
Why should any of your family memberes be at thtreat from nessling. Surely we all do what we can to keep our children safe...none of us knows who live on our area...what extraa precautions will your relatives be taking...no more than I take with my children yet I live miles away
Excuse me, i cant believe you did not get the point.
No none of us know who live in our area, but we should. [especially when it's made public]
They do keep there children safe, but now can keep them safer.
How do you know, they don't know him.
imo i wouldn't think him safe among children. [would you]
-
When we have discussed abuse here many times there is a continual claim that someone else started it. Several time s I have called for and end to all abuse and sniping but certain posters just have not been interested. So ..again...I am quite happy to see the end of all abusive and sniping commnents...lets stop...does anyone want to try it...the answer is yes or no....it really is that simple
Well said davel. I have noticed your efforts to move away from such practices and I hope we can all agree to disagree in future without making accusations or insinuations about each other. That was what I hoped this thread would accomplish. 8@??)(
-
Excuse me, i cant believe you did not get the point.
No none of us know who live in our area, but we should. [especially when it's made public]
They do keep there children safe, but now can keep them safer.
How do you know, they don't know him.
imo i wouldn't think him safe among children. [would you]
I wouldnt want him near my children. The point I am making is we protect our children anyway...
-
I wouldnt want him near my children. The point I am making is we protect our children anyway...
Sometimes though, it is better to know who from.
Don't forget Davel, he was involved in children's charity's so i would imagine children.
Who's parents would have trusted him, at the same time as keeping their children safe.
-
Sometimes though, it is better to know who from.
Don't forget Davel, he was involved in children's charity's so i would imagine children.
Who's parents would have trusted him, at the same time as keeping their children safe.
the current thinking is to trust nobody.....when schools ask for help from parents with transport they want a current DBS.....Im very careful who has access to my children...
-
the current thinking is to trust nobody.....when schools ask for help from parents with transport they want a current DBS.....Im very careful who has access to my children...
Good ,so am i.
Not everyone is though, but they don't deserve their child being abused.
DBS checked is good, wonder if Nessling was at some point, there is always a first time.
No child is 100% safe, from sex abusers.
-
It seems some people can live with Nessling's "Devil's Dictionary" where he refers to 'anti's' as " a disparate group of paedophiles, murderers, social failures and mental cripples."..." a) a shut-in b) a cranky pensioner c) mentally disturbed d) developmentally delayed e) jobless or f) all of the above."....
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/
On the other hand, a mildly critical post referring to people like them is seen as abusive. That seems somewhat over sensitive to me.
-
Lots of people on this thread have tried to justify Nessling's abuse by pointing the finger at others. So far, imo, they haven't managed to find anything matching his loathsomeness.
-
Lots of people on this thread have tried to justify Nessling's abuse by pointing the finger at others. So far, imo, they haven't managed to find anything matching his loathsomeness.
No-one has tried to justify his online behaviour imo. Rather, what there has been is an uncalled-for attempt to tar those who posted alongside him with the same brush.
Clearly you have not encountered those of a more vile disposition than Nessling & I have no intention of providing cites to prove a point.
-
Excuse me, i cant believe you did not get the point.
No none of us know who live in our area, but we should. [especially when it's made public]
They do keep there children safe, but now can keep them safer.
How do you know, they don't know him.
imo i wouldn't think him safe among children. [would you]
In my opinion ... not a terribly good idea.
Investigations opened into vigilante murder of man mistaken for paedophile
IPCC and Bristol council review dealings with Bijan Ebrahimi, burned to death by neighbours after photographing vandals
Steven Morris and agency
Tuesday 29 October 2013 09.12 GMT
Two independent investigations are under way into the murder of an innocent man who was beaten and burned to death after vigilante neighbours mistook him for a paedophile.
Bijan Ebrahimi, 44, had taken a series of photographs of local youths attacking his hanging baskets and intended to hand the images to police as evidence.
But someone saw him with the camera and told police that Ebrahimi, who was registered disabled and couldn't work, had taken pictures of children.
Officers took him away for questioning and as Ebrahimi left his council maisonette in Bristol residents began chanting: "Paedo, paedo".
He was quizzed at a police station but officers soon realised he was blameless and released him. By then rumours had begun circulating in the Brislington area that he was a child abuser and two days later he was murdered.
A neighbour, Lee James, 24, beat Ebrahim unconscious and then with the help of his friend Stephen Norley, also 24, dragged him into the street. He was doused with white spirits and set on fire.
James pleaded guilty to murder and Norley admitted assisting an offender. They will be sentenced at Bristol crown court next month.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission is examining how officers dealt with Ebrahimi before his death.
Last month the IPCC said it had served notices of gross misconduct to three police constables who had dealings with the murdered man. They have been suspended by Avon and Somerset police.
An inspector, sergeant and constable who dealt with Ebrahimi while he was in custody have also been served with notices of gross misconduct.
Bristol city council has launched its own voluntary review of any contact it had with the victim.
Speaking after the hearing, an Avon and Somerset police spokesman emphasised Ebrahimi was innocent. He said: "Mr Ebrahimi was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence – breach of the peace – and after being interviewed he was released with no further action taken.
"We can categorically state he had not taken any indecent images and that nothing of concern had been found on his computer."
In a family statement his relatives said Ebrahimi was a "loving and caring man" who lived for his garden.
They said: "Bijan was a quiet, disabled man whose only joys in life came from his horticultural interests and his cat. Bijan was a caring, loving and unselfish man. He was an excellent uncle and a warm, supportive brother."
Ebrahimi was arrested and released on Friday 12 July and was killed in the early hours of Sunday 14 July.
One resident, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: "On the Thursday evening everyone came out and they were calling him a paedophile. There were about 20 people out there all having a say. They had him down as a 100% paedophile. When the police took him away everyone was cheering. Then he got released back into that."
Another resident added: "Whoever started those rumours now has to live with that. He wasn't a paedophile and he's now dead. That's a hell of a conscience to have."
Neighbours spoke of Ebrahimi's passion for the flowers and plants he grew in front of his maisonette. But after youngsters started destroying his beloved garden he began taking pictures to hand over to the council and the police.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi
-
In my idea not a terribly good idea.
Investigations opened into vigilante murder of man mistaken for paedophile
IPCC and Bristol council review dealings with Bijan Ebrahimi, burned to death by neighbours after photographing vandals
Steven Morris and agency
Tuesday 29 October 2013 09.12 GMT
Two independent investigations are under way into the murder of an innocent man who was beaten and burned to death after vigilante neighbours mistook him for a paedophile.
Bijan Ebrahimi, 44, had taken a series of photographs of local youths attacking his hanging baskets and intended to hand the images to police as evidence.
But someone saw him with the camera and told police that Ebrahimi, who was registered disabled and couldn't work, had taken pictures of children.
Officers took him away for questioning and as Ebrahimi left his council maisonette in Bristol residents began chanting: "Paedo, paedo".
He was quizzed at a police station but officers soon realised he was blameless and released him. By then rumours had begun circulating in the Brislington area that he was a child abuser and two days later he was murdered.
A neighbour, Lee James, 24, beat Ebrahim unconscious and then with the help of his friend Stephen Norley, also 24, dragged him into the street. He was doused with white spirits and set on fire.
James pleaded guilty to murder and Norley admitted assisting an offender. They will be sentenced at Bristol crown court next month.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission is examining how officers dealt with Ebrahimi before his death.
Last month the IPCC said it had served notices of gross misconduct to three police constables who had dealings with the murdered man. They have been suspended by Avon and Somerset police.
An inspector, sergeant and constable who dealt with Ebrahimi while he was in custody have also been served with notices of gross misconduct.
Bristol city council has launched its own voluntary review of any contact it had with the victim.
Speaking after the hearing, an Avon and Somerset police spokesman emphasised Ebrahimi was innocent. He said: "Mr Ebrahimi was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence – breach of the peace – and after being interviewed he was released with no further action taken.
"We can categorically state he had not taken any indecent images and that nothing of concern had been found on his computer."
In a family statement his relatives said Ebrahimi was a "loving and caring man" who lived for his garden.
They said: "Bijan was a quiet, disabled man whose only joys in life came from his horticultural interests and his cat. Bijan was a caring, loving and unselfish man. He was an excellent uncle and a warm, supportive brother."
Ebrahimi was arrested and released on Friday 12 July and was killed in the early hours of Sunday 14 July.
One resident, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: "On the Thursday evening everyone came out and they were calling him a paedophile. There were about 20 people out there all having a say. They had him down as a 100% paedophile. When the police took him away everyone was cheering. Then he got released back into that."
Another resident added: "Whoever started those rumours now has to live with that. He wasn't a paedophile and he's now dead. That's a hell of a conscience to have."
Neighbours spoke of Ebrahimi's passion for the flowers and plants he grew in front of his maisonette. But after youngsters started destroying his beloved garden he began taking pictures to hand over to the council and the police.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi
Can you tell me what happened to the police officers who did not listen to this man, even after he complained on numerous occasions ?
Hold on, here's a link,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/police-failure-protect-bijan-ebrahimi-murder-ipcc
-
Good ,so am i.
Not everyone is though, but they don't deserve their child being abused.
DBS checked is good, wonder if Nessling was at some point, there is always a first time.
No child is 100% safe, from sex abusers.
Apparently no child is safe from vigilantes either ... according to the police.
Child protection
Vigilante paedophile hunters ruining lives with internet stings
Police say the actions of the vigilantes can be damaging to abuse victims as well as innocent people wrongly suspected
Snip
... He said there were at least 5,000 police officers trained and accredited in child protection and urged parents who are concerned that their children are being targeted to contact the police and not vigilantes. "I can guarantee that if a parent thinks their child is being targeted on line they will get a far better response from the police or Ceop than from any other way," he said. "The risks of allowing this kind of vigilante behaviour to continue are immense. It is hugely risky for the child, and other children who may be being abused by the same person, to do anything else."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/vigilante-paedophile-hunters-online-police
-
No-one has tried to justify his online behaviour imo. Rather, what there has been is an uncalled-for attempt to tar those who posted alongside him with the same brush.
Clearly you have not encountered those of a more vile disposition than Nessling & I have no intention of providing cites to prove a point.
I have seen denials that his behaviour was abusive. Others have referred to abuse by others as if that excused him. I referred to those encouraging and applauding him and said I wouldn't have posted alongside him without objecting to his abuse. In my opinion it would be difficult to be more vile than Nessling.
-
I have seen denials that his behaviour was abusive. Others have referred to abuse by others as if that excused him. I referred to those encouraging and applauding him and said I wouldn't have posted alongside him without objecting to his abuse. In my opinion it would be difficult to be more vile than Nessling.
https://ordinisrubricrucis.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/internet-troll-apologizes-to-mccann-family/
-
https://ordinisrubricrucis.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/internet-troll-apologizes-to-mccann-family/
"Sean ‘Mad-dog’ Hyland.........................."
That speaks volumes in my book.
Stick him in a big sieve with Nessling and and others of their ilk then set the sieve adrift in The North Sea.
-
I have seen denials that his behaviour was abusive. Others have referred to abuse by others as if that excused him. I referred to those encouraging and applauding him and said I wouldn't have posted alongside him without objecting to his abuse. In my opinion it would be difficult to be more vile than Nessling.
Agreed, IMO some people seem to regard citicism of the McCanns as abuse.
-
Agreed, IMO some people seem to regard citicism of the McCanns as abuse.
.
Criticism isn't abuse......calling them shit parents is abusive....calling them liars is abusive.....telling lies about them is abusive
I also think there's nothing wrong in the slightest saying they were wrong to leave the children......saying it everyday for 10 years is abusive....all imo
-
.
Criticism isn't abuse......calling them shit parents is abusive....calling them liars is abusive.....telling lies about them is abusive
I also think there's nothing wrong in the slightest saying they were wrong to leave the children......saying it everyday for 10 years is abusive....all imo
So shit parents or liars vs paedophiles, murderers, social failures, mental cripples, mentally disturbed or developmentally delayed?
-
So shit parents or liars vs paedophiles, murderers, social failures, mental cripples, mentally disturbed or developmentally delayed?
That's all quite abusive...I cant even post the abuse I received,,,its so didgusting....but I think it reflects more on the person who said it than myself
-
It seems the sentence received by Nessling is the norm...a doctor convicted of downloading 5000 images kept his job...as did many others it seems
-
It seems the sentence received by Nessling is the norm...a doctor convicted of downloading 5000 images kept his job...as did many others it seems
Do you have a cite please?
-
It seems the sentence received by Nessling is the norm...a doctor convicted of downloading 5000 images kept his job...as did many others it seems
A doctor who admitted possessing,distributing and making indecent images was jailed for three years,so not quite the norm.
-
A doctor who admitted possessing,distributing and making indecent images was jailed for three years,so not quite the norm.
lets have a cite ....interesting
-
Do you have a cite please?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1449918/Navy-doctor-admits-child-porn-offences.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5161231/Would-want-manslaughter-doctor-care-child.html
IS THE GMC’S POSITION A CONSISTENT ONE?
Not according to consultant cardiologist Peter Wilmhurst, who has written that the ‘decision of the GMC to take a tough stance against Dr Bawa-Garba contrasts with the GMC’s leniency when dealing with doctors whose conduct is more worrying’ adding that: ‘The GMC took no action against 100 doctors placed on the Sex Offenders Register (SOR) for accessing child pornography.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5161231/Would-want-manslaughter-doctor-care-child.html#ixzz50l17tVQe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
lets have a cite ....interesting
http://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/north-devon-children-s-doctor-imprisoned-for-three-years-over-child-pornography-1-4939180
North Devon children’s doctor imprisoned for three years over child pornography
-
http://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/north-devon-children-s-doctor-imprisoned-for-three-years-over-child-pornography-1-4939180
It looks like he had downloaded a lot of videos which were extreme...and distributed these videos...he also denied everything and used sophisticated software to hide his activities
-
It looks like he had downloaded a lot of videos which were extreme...and distributed these videos...he also denied everything and used sophisticated software to hide his activities
He admitted it.
A SICK paediatric consultant has admitted possessing indecent images of children while working at a hospital in Devon.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2862150/top-paediatrician-pleads-guilty-to-possessing-indecent-images-of-children-while-working-at-devon-hospital/
-
It looks like he had downloaded a lot of videos which were extreme...and distributed these videos...he also denied everything and used sophisticated software to hide his activities
It never said that,the article says as a warning to others.
“I hope that this case sends out a strong message to those using the internet for deviant purposes that we have the capability to use advanced technology and expert help to uncover the truth and bring offenders to justice.”
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1449918/Navy-doctor-admits-child-porn-offences.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5161231/Would-want-manslaughter-doctor-care-child.html
IS THE GMC’S POSITION A CONSISTENT ONE?
Not according to consultant cardiologist Peter Wilmhurst, who has written that the ‘decision of the GMC to take a tough stance against Dr Bawa-Garba contrasts with the GMC’s leniency when dealing with doctors whose conduct is more worrying’ adding that: ‘The GMC took no action against 100 doctors placed on the Sex Offenders Register (SOR) for accessing child pornography.’
Peter Wilmhurst has made an allegation, but has provided no evidence to support it.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5161231/Would-want-manslaughter-doctor-care-child.html#ixzz50l17tVQe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
The link to Nessling's dictionary, already posted on this thread is quite illuminating.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/
-
He admitted it.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2862150/top-paediatrician-pleads-guilty-to-possessing-indecent-images-of-children-while-working-at-devon-hospital/
He admitted it once it was found on his computer by experts...he originally denied it and used sophisicated software to hide it....he also sowed little remorse it seems
-
The link to Nessling's dictionary, already posted on this thread is quite illuminating.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/
most Ive seen seem very accurate
-
He admitted it once it was found on his computer by experts...he originally denied it and used sophisicated software to hide it....he also sowed little remorse it seems
The article makes no mention of him using sophisticated software,most if not all criminals deny the charge until they are presented with some compelling evidence.
-
http://www.fosters-solicitors.co.uk/news/crime/is-it-ok-to-swear-at-the-police/206 (http://www.fosters-solicitors.co.uk/news/crime/is-it-ok-to-swear-at-the-police/206)
If the police had stated they were particularly offended by that word in the context it was used, or if there had been any evidence that other members of the public were present (other than the defendants' friends, who gave every indication they were not offended) then the case might have been decided differently.
thats a quote from the same link
-
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/
These are his words.
' Paedophile.
A person, usually though not exclusively male, who has a severe sexual perversion which compels them to seek sexual intercourse with young children. In normal society such individuals are reviled and despised. In Anti-Madeleine land however, these individuals are revered and admired. Paedophiles are welcomed as honoured guests into their forums, and in real life must be protected at all costs. '
-
The link to Nessling's dictionary, already posted on this thread is quite illuminating.
https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/
He seems to be a very angry man lashing out verbally at a group that exists solely between his own ears.......
You will find one of the type in most pubs most evenings.
-
He seems to be a very angry man lashing out verbally at a group that exists solely between his own ears.......
You will find one of the type in most pubs most evenings.
I have encountered a few in my time.
-
In my opinion ... not a terribly good idea.
Investigations opened into vigilante murder of man mistaken for paedophile
IPCC and Bristol council review dealings with Bijan Ebrahimi, burned to death by neighbours after photographing vandals
Steven Morris and agency
Tuesday 29 October 2013 09.12 GMT
Two independent investigations are under way into the murder of an innocent man who was beaten and burned to death after vigilante neighbours mistook him for a paedophile.
Bijan Ebrahimi, 44, had taken a series of photographs of local youths attacking his hanging baskets and intended to hand the images to police as evidence.
But someone saw him with the camera and told police that Ebrahimi, who was registered disabled and couldn't work, had taken pictures of children.
Officers took him away for questioning and as Ebrahimi left his council maisonette in Bristol residents began chanting: "Paedo, paedo".
He was quizzed at a police station but officers soon realised he was blameless and released him. By then rumours had begun circulating in the Brislington area that he was a child abuser and two days later he was murdered.
A neighbour, Lee James, 24, beat Ebrahim unconscious and then with the help of his friend Stephen Norley, also 24, dragged him into the street. He was doused with white spirits and set on fire.
James pleaded guilty to murder and Norley admitted assisting an offender. They will be sentenced at Bristol crown court next month.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission is examining how officers dealt with Ebrahimi before his death.
Last month the IPCC said it had served notices of gross misconduct to three police constables who had dealings with the murdered man. They have been suspended by Avon and Somerset police.
An inspector, sergeant and constable who dealt with Ebrahimi while he was in custody have also been served with notices of gross misconduct.
Bristol city council has launched its own voluntary review of any contact it had with the victim.
Speaking after the hearing, an Avon and Somerset police spokesman emphasised Ebrahimi was innocent. He said: "Mr Ebrahimi was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence – breach of the peace – and after being interviewed he was released with no further action taken.
"We can categorically state he had not taken any indecent images and that nothing of concern had been found on his computer."
In a family statement his relatives said Ebrahimi was a "loving and caring man" who lived for his garden.
They said: "Bijan was a quiet, disabled man whose only joys in life came from his horticultural interests and his cat. Bijan was a caring, loving and unselfish man. He was an excellent uncle and a warm, supportive brother."
Ebrahimi was arrested and released on Friday 12 July and was killed in the early hours of Sunday 14 July.
One resident, who wanted to remain anonymous, said: "On the Thursday evening everyone came out and they were calling him a paedophile. There were about 20 people out there all having a say. They had him down as a 100% paedophile. When the police took him away everyone was cheering. Then he got released back into that."
Another resident added: "Whoever started those rumours now has to live with that. He wasn't a paedophile and he's now dead. That's a hell of a conscience to have."
Neighbours spoke of Ebrahimi's passion for the flowers and plants he grew in front of his maisonette. But after youngsters started destroying his beloved garden he began taking pictures to hand over to the council and the police.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi
Well seems the police failed to protect him.
These stories are very very few and far between, i think you will find more people are targeted when they involve the police over various things.
But then they are attacked not by vigilante's but yobs, yobs are everywhere.
Yet people like Nessling are in the news nearly, every week or more praying on little girls and boys.
Children need protecting..
what exactly is it . IYO
In my opinion ... not a terribly good idea.
-
Im talking about the written word....google his name and you wil find several more written articles
I would sooner read he is no longer of this world.
-
Everyone has the right to express an opinion, but that does not include denigrating others for no reason .... in fact libeling them on occasions. Posters are more careful these days how they couch their words, saying awful things, but keeping within the Law .... just about!
Wrap it up how you like. It is still abuse .... and all the more foul attacking parents who are mourning the loss of their daughter.
I wonder if people who have behaved like this will have the courage to put up their hands and apologize profusely if Madeleine is found .... or the case is solved. My guess is that they will vanish into the woodwork, then find some other poor souls to have a go at.
Nigel Nessling spent his time abusing. When he wasn't abusing and accusing others on the internet he was abusing children by viewing vile pictures of them being sexually abused.
-
Nigel Nessling spent his time abusing. In my opinion ...When he wasn't abusing and accusing others on the internet he was abusing children by viewing vile pictures of them being sexually abused.
A fair number of Nessling's blogs are still online, and he condemns himself with his own typed and twisted hate of others.
His unfounded accusations of others are there to read as well.
-
Having gone through this thread today and cleaned it up in accordance with the forum rules I have found the vast majority of posts to be informative and fair. The usual off-topic and inappropriate posts have found theie way to the sin bin.
This is a difficult thread for some so please bear this in mind when posting. Respect for others should be our priority. TY
-
Having gone through this thread today and cleaned it up in accordance with the forum rules I have found the vast majority of posts to be informative and fair. The usual off-topic and inappropriate posts have found theie way to the sin bin.
This is a difficult thread for some so please bear this in mind when posting. Respect for others should be our priority. TY
Where is the respect for Nigels family by opening another thread with his name emblazoned at the top? Sorry John, but i consider that deliberate and I am surprised that you have done it (or allowed it)
-
Where is the respect for Nigels family by opening another thread with his name emblazoned at the top? Sorry John, but i consider that deliberate and I am surprised that you have done it (or allowed it)
Its a thread to discuss a prolific blogger who turned out to be a child sex offender. And as promised this thread now resides in the Off-Topic board of the forum. The duplicate thread was deleted.
You should refer your question to Nigel Nessling as it is he who disrespected his family in the first instance by downloading 40,000 indecent child images.
-
I wonder why this thread is deemed 'Off Topic' when Nigel Nessling was clearly heavily involved with the Madeleine McCann case?
Myself and a great many others have spent all weekend e-mailing Portuguese authorities, including their prime minister, as well as all the British papers, and you can rest assured, the major part of the Praia da Luz population are apparently incensed at the actions of these barbarians. Whoever did this is most clearly involved with the abduction, and is desperate to stop anyone giving vital information to the investigators.
http://madeleineadestinybegun.activeboard.com/t26547185/posters/
A thread dealing with a similarly involved person has not been put here, but perhaps it should be?
Topic: McCann troll who stole £18,000 from parents gets 2 year suspended sentence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5921.0
There have been various comments on 'level playing fields' and this, in my opinion, demonstrates the imbalance perfectly.
-
I wonder why this thread is deemed 'Off Topic' when Nigel Nessling was clearly heavily involved with the Madeleine McCann case?
Myself and a great many others have spent all weekend e-mailing Portuguese authorities, including their prime minister, as well as all the British papers, and you can rest assured, the major part of the Praia da Luz population are apparently incensed at the actions of these barbarians. Whoever did this is most clearly involved with the abduction, and is desperate to stop anyone giving vital information to the investigators.
http://madeleineadestinybegun.activeboard.com/t26547185/posters/
A thread dealing with a similarly involved person has not been put here, but perhaps it should be?
Topic: McCann troll who stole £18,000 from parents gets 2 year suspended sentence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5921.0
There have been various comments on 'level playing fields' and this, in my opinion, demonstrates the imbalance perfectly.
Well said.
There do seem to be a lot of spurious threads on the main section of the Mccann section of the forum, so why do they remain there ?
IMO of course.
-
Well said.
There do seem to be a lot of spurious threads on the main section of the Mccann section of the forum, so why do they remain there ?
IMO of course.
I hope you aren't criticising the forum owner.
-
I hope you aren't criticising the forum owner.
No, of course not, just pointing out that a very similar thread should perhaps also be moved.
-
A level playing field is what the forum strides for so suggestions for topics which should be deemed off topic are always welcome. My own view is that you cannot apportion any blame towards the McCanns or anyone else for that matter for what Nigel Nessling did, he and he alone is culpable. His conviction and fall from grace has nothing to do with the search for Maddie imho.
-
Using the same criteria neither had the Butler case.
-
Using the same criteria neither had the Butler case.
No names no pack drill but check this out from that thread:
"What a thoroughly disgusting bitch, but why am I not remotely surprised to read this latest news? How many "sceptics" is that now with criminal records of one sort or another?"
-
Its a thread to discuss a prolific blogger who turned out to be a child sex offender. And as promised this thread now resides in the Off-Topic board of the forum. The duplicate thread was deleted.
You should refer your question to Nigel Nessling as it is he who disrespected his family in the first instance by downloading 40,000 indecent child images.
Thank you John.
After I posted last night, I found that there were three threads about him with his name emblazoned across the top .... good to see that it is down to one thread.
Thinking about his family; what they are going through. With their uncommon surname, they are instantly recognisable: They do not have a surname like Smiths, Jones or Brown where they will be one of millions and might go unnoticed.
Let us hope that after all the goading, the forum settles down to a more pleasant place. We don't want any suicides because of us thoughtlessly tearing in. Think of the family guys. They did nothing wrong.
-
Thank you John.
After I posted last night, I found that there were three threads about him with his name emblazoned across the top .... good to see that it is down to one thread.
Thinking about his family; what they are going through. With their uncommon surname, they are instantly recognisable: They do not have a surname like Smiths, Jones or Brown where they will be one of millions and might go unnoticed.
Let us hope that after all the goading, the forum settles down to a more pleasant place. We don't want any suicides because of us thoughtlessly tearing in. Think of the family guys. They did nothing wrong.
What about Mick, Carl and Maureen Sutcliffe? Should we not discuss their brother because it might upset them?
-
What about Mick, Carl and Maureen Sutcliffe? Should we not discuss their brother because it might upset them?
Were they "supporters"
-
Thank you John.
After I posted last night, I found that there were three threads about him with his name emblazoned across the top .... good to see that it is down to one thread.
Thinking about his family; what they are going through. With their uncommon surname, they are instantly recognisable: They do not have a surname like Smiths, Jones or Brown where they will be one of millions and might go unnoticed.
Let us hope that after all the goading, the forum settles down to a more pleasant place. We don't want any suicides because of us thoughtlessly tearing in. Think of the family guys. They did nothing wrong.
Two words............
BRENDA LEYLAND.
-
Thank you John.
After I posted last night, I found that there were three threads about him with his name emblazoned across the top .... good to see that it is down to one thread.
Thinking about his family; what they are going through. With their uncommon surname, they are instantly recognisable: They do not have a surname like Smiths, Jones or Brown where they will be one of millions and might go unnoticed.
Let us hope that after all the goading, the forum settles down to a more pleasant place. We don't want any suicides because of us thoughtlessly tearing in. Think of the family guys. They did nothing wrong.
To explain Sadie. It is part of the editing process that when a thread is split due to mass deletions it shows as two threads, and when it is further split it shows as three. Usually this lasts for only a few minutes but last night I forgot to removed the two deleted threads thus why you saw three threads with a similiar title.
There is a fine line between discussing current events and intrusion, hopefully we err on the safe side.
Shenanigans across the boards is something we are all used to, all part of the entertainment. What will not be tolerated however is wilful abuse of other members or disrespect of the moderators.
-
Two words............
BRENDA LEYLAND.
Ah, that is what you are getting revenge for is it?
She brought it upon herself, but whilst we expressed disgust at what she had said about an innocent and bereaved family, none of us piled in and tore her to pieces as you and a few others have with the Nesslings.
Is it your intention along with others, to drive Nigel or any of the Nessling family members to suicide by rigorous goading? If that happens, will you be satisfied?
Like the ancient Jewish belief: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ...... (Exodus 21:24-25).
I thought that humanity had moved on from that stephen
-
To explain Sadie. It is part of the editing process that when a thread is split due to mass deletions it shows as two threads, and when it is further split it shows as three. Usually this lasts for only a few minutes but last night I forgot to removed the two deleted threads thus why you saw three threads with a similiar title.
There is a fine line between discussing current events and intrusion, hopefully we err on the safe side.
Shenanigans across the boards is something we are all used to, all part of the entertainment. What will not be tolerated however is wilful abuse of other members or disrespect of the moderators.
Thank you for your explanation, John. I truly couldn't believe it when I saw three threads all attacking one man (and because of the uncommon name, his family, of course).
And that is why I protested so strongly .....
-
Ah, that is what you are getting revenge for is it?
She brought it upon herself, but whilst we expressed disgust at what she had said about an innocent and bereaved family, none of us piled in and tore her to pieces as you and a few others have with the Nesslings.
Is it your intention along with others, to drive Nigel or any of the Nessling family members to suicide by rigorous goading? If that happens, will you be satisfied?
Like the ancient Jewish belief: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ...... (Exodus 21:24-25).
I thought that humanity had moved on from that stephen
No cowardly vigilantes exposed Nessling to the public gaze, he wasn't the subject of a news blitz by Sky and he hasn't been doorstepped by Martin Brunt. He was guilty of a heinous crime, unlike Brenda Leyland, but the MSM have chosen to ignore it.
He never hid who he was and seemed to think he was immune from any accusation of trolling, although he was clearly guilty of it. Judging by the lack of interest by the media it seems he did indeed have nothing to fear.
If he can't take criticism of his behaviour he should have listened to the one person who cared enough to warn him that he was taking the wrong path years ago. Speculating that his family members might commit suicide is irresponsible in my opinion, because you are implying that they might feel guilt or shame by association. They have absolutely nothing to reproach themselves for and they were his victims also. Nothing which has been written here has been other than sympathetic to and supportive of his family. Suggesting that any of it might adversely affect them is a bit of an exaggeration imo.
-
No cowardly vigilantes exposed Nessling to the public gaze, he wasn't the subject of a news blitz by Sky and he hasn't been doorstepped by Martin Brunt. He was guilty of a heinous crime, unlike Brenda Leyland, but the MSM have chosen to ignore it.
He never hid who he was and seemed to think he was immune from any accusation of trolling, although he was clearly guilty of it. Judging by the lack of interest by the media it seems he did indeed have nothing to fear.
If he can't take criticism of his behaviour he should have listened to the one person who cared enough to warn him that he was taking the wrong path years ago. Speculating that his family members might commit suicide is irresponsible in my opinion, because you are implying that they might feel guilt or shame by association. They have absolutely nothing to reproach themselves for and they were his victims also. Nothing which has been written here has been other than sympathetic to and supportive of his family. Suggesting that any of it might adversely affect them is a bit of an exaggeration imo.
Excellent post.
I see she had deleted her comment.
NO ONE is goading his family.
From what I have heard, his former wife has changed her name. They have my every sympathy.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRFoGvuWAAAJRQg.jpg:large)
-
How many judges are the same? They should be sacked. They make me sick!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/783495/pervert-policeman-downloaded-indecent-child-images-spared-jail
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRFoGvuWAAAJRQg.jpg:large)
Ironic, isn't it? How on earth did he make sense of his behaviour in his own head? Was he cynically using Madeleine's disappearance for his own ends or was he seriously confused? I don't suppose we'll ever know. It should ring warning bells for everyone interested in the case, though, in my opinion. People so hate-filled could well have serious underlying issues just as he did.