On Aug 28, 5:37Â*pm, "The Todal" wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 28, 3:04 pm, "The Todal" wrote:

You're sounding increasingly like a Usenet inhabitant. You rant, you
complain, you blame others for not paying attention to what you've
said in the distant past, and your response to any reasonable
request is along the lines of, "idiot, you obviously know nothing
about this topic".

Much though I'd like to be a dedicated supporter, I think I must
decline this opportunity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How do you know you haven't see me in any of those- or heard my
voice?

A strange question. Â*You actually sound totally self-obsessed, believing
that your fame has spread far and wide. I assure you that I have never heard
your story on TV or read it in the newspaper.

Â*I don't believe I am ranting, complaining or blaming anyone
here for 'not paying attention'- except you. Â*Please provide evidence
of this:
your response to any reasonable request is along the
lines of, "idiot, you obviously know nothing about this topic".

I have not read a single reasonable request for information or
evidence from you.

Please provide evidence... !

Really. You're like a double glazing salesman who calls at the door trying
to flog your product. "I'm not convinced that your product is quite right
for my needs", to which your reply is "Please provide evidence that it
isn't".

You aren't willing to set out your case, you are convinced that I know all
the facts already and you regard my queries as unreasonable. Â*I'm afraid my
reaction now is: I don't give a **** about your sob-story and I assume you
must be the author of your own misfortune.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No I am not self obsessed- so give up your amateur psychology. I am
****ING angry and for very good reason. My family and particularly my
children have experienced a living hell.

The Guardian, Thursday April 26 2007
Article history

More on Ore

As a family who have suffered horribly over the lies spun to the
public, we are grateful to you for printing more of the truth
(Operation Ore flawed by fraud, April 19). We have lost our home (but
before we did, we had people throwing eggs at the house and spray
painting "paedo" on it; when I complained to the police I was told
"not our problem - that's what you get for being a kiddy fiddler");
our jobs (it is not suitable for a teacher to be living with a man who
possibly could have paid to view indecent images); and our savings.

Social Services tried to take our child and forcibly put him up for
adoption (they failed) and almost all our friends and much of our
family have disowned us. In our case, we proved fraud, but that did
not stop the CPS from pursuing the case. Even if you could prove you
had never heard of Landslide, that did not stop the local paper
reporting about a "disgusting pervert" in the neighbourhood. So thank
you.
[name and address withheld]

http://www.inquisition21.com/article...age_num~5.html

http://www.obu-investigators.com/med...oto/33/cat/501


Recommended (0)
Report abuse
Clip | Link TotallyConfused
Apr 20 07, 9:22pm
At this moment, I am absolutely sobbing my guts out and trying not to
throw up my lovely cottage pie. Why???

Here is a BRITISH GOVERNMENT WEBSITE!!! Unfortunately, I can't do
different colours here so the reader will have to make their own
interpretation.

This to me is child abuse by the UK gov't................

"We are pleased to report that we are on target for the official
launch of the new Be My Parent web service. The website will feature
children�s profiles, photographs and videos, alongside information
about adoption and fostering.

Because quality and security are our main priorities and because we
want to develop, refine and test the service to the highest standards,
we have decided to reschedule the date when the website will be
publicly available. Subscribers to the site will be able to view
children�s profiles from 30 April.

Special offer for families

Prospective families will receive a discount when they subscribe to
both the Be My Parent website and the Be My Parent newspaper. You will
be able to subscribe to the online service from 30 April 2007 by
visiting www.bemyparent.org.uk

View subscription fees for website and newspaper (from April 2007)

Register your details to be kept informed about subscribing to the Be
My Parent website.

Special offer for agencies

Pay one price, get featured twice! Throughout 2007, you only pay one
price to feature a child in both the newspaper and on the new Be My
Parent website.

View referral fees here

Did you know that from April you can include a video with each child
profile? Find out more

Why not print a flyer about Be My Parent online to give to your
prospective adoptive and foster families?


CHILDREN BEING LISTED AS "SPECIAL OFFERS!" I have met people who have
resigned from adoption committees because of children being referred
to as "easily adoptable interracial commodities"

This refers to my original points.....Mr Carr is part of a "child
protection industry" (in my view more like a child abuse and neglect
industry) and therefore all his comments on the issue of psuedo images
must be discounted. Mr. Carr's spokesman has admitted to me in writing
that he actually is not an internet expert and only parrot speaks what
the government tells him to say.

Look at what all of this really is about people.......wake up....I
personally know a lady who's baby was forcably adopted because the
baby fell out of a bouncing chair and bruised her cheek. By the time
they finished evaluating her and established the truth, the SS turned
round and said, "ah, well you see, because it took so long, the baby
doesn't know you anymore so we putting her up for adoption". If you
don't believe me, google, Yvonne Coulter or Unity Injustice (her name
has been posted here with her permission)

So if I have been telling the truth for the past three days on here
about the SS, then maybe, just maybe I could be telling the truth of
ORE!!! Love and Peace to All Kind Regards TC

TotallyConfused
Apr 18 07, 9:34am
John Carr is a liar. He has made ridiculous comments like: �These are
images of child abuse� Yes, Mr. Carr, I am sure Sam Fox felt abused in
the Sun in the 1980's- afterall, she was only 16 at the time- now
classed as Child Pornography due to SOA 2003- which of course could
land one on the Sex Offenders Register.

�Every man on the Operation Ore list clicked on an icon saying �click
Here for Child Porn"" (a proven lie)

I raised a formal complaint against Mr. Carr to NCH; the written anwer
I got was that Mr. Carr only says what the government tell him to say!
John Carr is no more an internet expert than I am Mickey Mouse.

I would also refer you to the research of Kilby (Lancashire
Constabulary)

With regard to "Catch a Predator" in the USA- these "stings" are
organised by a bunch of nut jobs calling themselves "Perverted
Justice" led by a mid 20's university drop out who calls himself
Xavier. Xavier has been told by US law enforcement to cease his
"operations". NBC have gotten into trouble with the FCC when it
emerged that the producers were paying Xavier to pose as pre-teen
girls on the web.

I have no doubt that there are some horrific images on the internet.
But I don't believe that it is as extensive and widespread as Carr,
Gamble and Hyde want us to be believe. Think about the real agenda.
What is the most precious to a parent? Their children. What does the
average Mail and Mirror do when "experts" are screaming "Your children
are at grave risk of being abused!" Yes of course, you should have
more money Mr. Charity and Mr. Government. Of course I agree we should
give up freedom of speech and control the internet- that will make our
children safer.

TC

TotallyConfused
Apr 18 07, 10:47am
I find the response to my posting very interesting. Did you not
realise it came from a woman?

I personally have no strong views about adult pornography or "psuedo
images". I do however have strong views about REAL child protection
and the prevention of abuse. NCH and the NSPCC are NOT in the business
of child protection- all they want you to do is "show me the money".

I actually contacted the NSPCC to find out what percentage went on
real child protection. The answer? ZERO Just so you are aware, 78% of
their income goes to pay for their tv adverts- but they class that as
"child protection" When asked how many children were removed from
abuse in 2006 DIRECTLY due to action from the NSPCC: answer, erm, ah,
well ZERO. It will not surprise you that my �2 a month (yes just �2 a
month) direct debit has been cancelled. TC

Todal, you may form a line from the right grovelling that I don't talk
about these issues. I clearly do. I clearly also know the law.
TC (also known as the domestic goddess)

On 28 Aug, 17:46, wrote:

Do you actually know how operation ore worked? That is a SERIOUS
question. *You are of course aware that in some cases, 88% of 'credit
card transactions' were fraud. *We were able to produce proof of
credit card fraud. *

But your husband isn't on the register because of credit card fraud,
is he? He's in it because he admitted to having over fifty (I'll stick
with the press report figure for now) indecent images of children on
his computer.

How they came to search his computer is irrelevant. Or would you say
that someone pulled over by the police for a minor vehicle defect and
then discovered to have a body in the boot is unjustly doing life for
having a blown indicator bulb?


Ian

On 28 Aug, 17:40, wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:22*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

What newspaper article... again, I know of one article about my
family, but the number you quote is incorrect. *

What about the one on www.totallyconfused.co.uk? The one which
includes

"Under extreme duress that included extortion-type threats and
psychological torture, Simon was forced to plea bargain and accept
responsibility for 43 of the images the Operation Ore team claimed
were on his hard drive. He spent time in prison as a result."

That your chap, or someone completely different?

Ian

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:18:50 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

There are plenty of cases of teachers successfully marrying their
students.

I assume that you are thinking more of a university setting than a
primary school..

I personally know of three or four cases where secondary school
teachers successfully married their pupils. Admittedly the marriage
didn't take place until after the pupil had left school and I suspect
any prior in-school relationship was conducted very discreetly.

This happens more frequently in colleges of FE and universities and
the principal concern of the authorities is that the lecturer could
unfairly favour the "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" in exam or assignment
marking. The question of child abuse rarely, if ever, arises even
though some of the students are only 16 or 17.

--
Alasdair.

wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:30 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 28 Aug, 10:17, "The Todal" wrote:

You - since you bring it up - are apparently affected by the fact that your
husband or partner was convicted of possession of indecent images of
children. I don't see why that should make *you* unemployable at all. If it
does, then it is extremely unfair and worthy of a very public campaign. I am
not sure that you are fully committed to such a campaign since there seems
to be no website that sets out clearly what your grievance is. You have
occasionally alluded to websites that refer obliquely to Operation Ore.
That may inadvertently give the impression that you are campaigning for the
legalisation of child pornography, which can only undermine any public
sympathy for your situation. You probably need a Max Clifford to advise you.
Furthermore she (if it is a she) repeatedly misrepresents the
conviction. Saying "he was done for credit card fraud" when he
actually plead guilty to having indecent pictures of children won't do
her any favours at all. "Why doesn't she admit it?", and employer will
ask, followed by "What has she got to hide?"

Most unfortunate, of course. But I suspect that this is an area where
candour is a less bad option than concealment.

Ian

Do you actually know how operation ore worked? That is a SERIOUS
question. You are of course aware that in some cases, 88% of 'credit
card transactions' were fraud. We were able to produce proof of
credit card fraud.

Is this some sort of new form of heisenberg uncertainty principle? That
the manner by which the police arrive at the decision to investigate a
computer in some way changes the contents of that computer?


But when is threatening your children... you do
what they say. It is called a Sophie's Choice. I know EXACTLY what
was in those images.... I know exactly now what was going on. You
would be surprised what people admit to when they are completely
terrorised.

Yep, get caught breaking the law and a whole load of choice disappears.
The answer is to not break the law - not complain about those that are
merely trying to do their best for the children of law-breaking parent(s).

--
Sue

On Aug 28, 6:13*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 28 Aug, 17:40, wrote:

On Aug 28, 5:22*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
What newspaper article... again, I know of one article about my
family, but the number you quote is incorrect. *

What about the one onwww.totallyconfused.co.uk?The one which
includes

"Under extreme duress that included extortion-type threats and
psychological torture, Simon was forced to plea bargain and accept
responsibility for 43 of the images the Operation Ore team claimed
were on his hard drive. He spent time in prison as a result."

That your chap, or someone completely different?

Ian

And then you haven't read further.... of the '43'...34 were
unallocated clusters which is not actually admissable in court- but
the CPS tried. (Did I mention we had a crap solicitor?!) So now we
are back to what I said. File names sounding 'dodgy', using kazza v.
1.... at the time of arrest he thought it was for trying to get a
crack for windows XP. And under direct threat. 'If you don't accept
guilt we will have the SS here in 10 minutes with an EPO'- as he was
going through the doors to plead...what would you do? Also defense was
not at the time allowed independent examination and was not even shown
the Encase report until a year after. And don't forget, it was taken
to the court of appeal...immediate release as the sentence was
'manifestly excessive'. Also remember the date of the article you
quote; more has been learned since then.
TC

DB. wrote:

I'm surprised that in a *very* long thread nobody has brought out
the point that:

quote from OP
What makes John's case all the more disturbing is that all three of
his accusers suffer from autism to such a degree that they are unable
to speak.

Their allegations have been extracted using 'Facilitated
Communication' (FC), a controversial method which relies on one
individual resting his or her hand on the arm of a person with
restricted mental or physical capacity, effectively guiding them as
they communicate using a keyboard.

It is a method that is banned in countries such as the U.S., Australia
and New Zealand, after critics warned it is like using a Ouija board -
but not in the UK.

In John's case, the person helping take the statement from each of the
three men in question wasn't properly trained in FC - indeed, on one
occasion he says the 'facilitator' was the mother of an accuser.
/quote

What's this 'FC' all about? As the OP / Mail article says, this
seems to make the matter yet more disturbing.

Crikey - I hadn't read th original article, but this seals the deal
completely.

"Facilitated Communication" is a total sham, and has no credibility
whatsoever - gravely-disabled subjects who have no language skills are
suddenly able to spell out words on a keyboard like Stephen Hawking....
yeah, right.

This man is a victim of a modern-day Salem accusation, and deserves public
support.

On Aug 28, 6:23*pm, Palindrome wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 28, 5:30 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 28 Aug, 10:17, "The Todal" wrote:

You - since you bring it up - are apparently affected by the fact that your
husband or partner was convicted of possession of indecent images of
children. I don't see why that should make *you* unemployable at all. *If it
does, then it is extremely unfair and worthy of a very public campaign. I am
not sure that you are fully committed to such a campaign since there seems
to be no website that sets out clearly what your grievance is. You have
occasionally alluded to websites that refer obliquely to Operation Ore.
That may inadvertently give the impression that you are campaigning for the
legalisation of child pornography, which can only undermine any public
sympathy for your situation. You probably need a Max Clifford to advise you.
Furthermore she (if it is a she) repeatedly misrepresents the
conviction. Saying "he was done for credit card fraud" when he
actually plead guilty to having indecent pictures of children won't do
her any favours at all. "Why doesn't she admit it?", and employer will
ask, followed by "What has she got to hide?"

Most unfortunate, of course. But I suspect that this is an area where
candour is a less bad option than concealment.

Ian

Do you actually know how operation ore worked? That is a SERIOUS
question. *You are of course aware that in some cases, 88% of 'credit
card transactions' were fraud. *We were able to produce proof of
credit card fraud.

Is this some sort of new form of heisenberg uncertainty principle? That
the manner by which the police arrive at the decision to investigate a
computer in some way changes the contents of that computer?

* But when is threatening your children... you do

what they say. *It is called a Sophie's Choice. *I know EXACTLY what
was in those images.... I know exactly now what was going on. *You
would be surprised what people admit to when they are completely
terrorised.

Yep, get caught breaking the law and a whole load of choice disappears.
The answer is to not break the law - not complain about those that are
merely trying to do their best for the children of law-breaking parent(s)..

--
Sue- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which part of this can you not comprehend? I am not some misty eyed
virgin. I know exactly what was found on that computer, date
downloaded, file names, location. I am still trying to work out Sue
if you actually know anything about the law.... My husband was
prepared to pay the price for the law he did attempt to break- trying
to find a crack for windows xp...when they told him what they found,
he passed out and couldn't stop vomitting once they brought him
round. We are also rare in that we demanded a REAL risk assessement.
Not many get that. We demanded it. No sexual interest in children.
And never had one.

And as an American, I believe this very strongly! If the basis for the
warrant was unjustified, then the entire search/raid was unjustified.
So Sue, I shall report you to the police (who under british law have
no need to check my accuracy) for sacrificing pigs in your lounge.
They might not find that but find you had an illegal stash of fags
from France over your duty free limit. Using your reasoning, you must
be prosecuted to the highest level of the law. Using your logic, it
doesn't matter that your home was entered under false and an
intentionally misleading premise.... A crime was solved! A law was
broken and a perp brought to justice!

So sayth the followers of Orwell.
TC

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:29:25 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

Instead of whining that the allegations should be expunged from his record,
he should continue to apply for posts, he should insist politely that he
should be interviewed,

No one has a right to be interviewed and no one has a right to be
told why they have not been selected for interview. He could insist
to his hearts content it probably wouldn't get him anywhere.

and he should if necessary pursue legal action against those who refuse to interview him.

Assuming the prospective employer openly stated it was because of
their risk assessment based upon information revealed on his enhanced
CRB disclosure, on what grounds could he challenge that decision?

Even if the risk assessment consisted of no more than "entry=too much
risk" would it be open to legal challenge?

wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 6:13 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 28 Aug, 17:40, wrote:

On Aug 28, 5:22 pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
What newspaper article... again, I know of one article about my
family, but the number you quote is incorrect.

What about the one onwww.totallyconfused.co.uk?The one which
includes

"Under extreme duress that included extortion-type threats and
psychological torture, Simon was forced to plea bargain and accept
responsibility for 43 of the images the Operation Ore team claimed
were on his hard drive. He spent time in prison as a result."

That your chap, or someone completely different?

Ian

And then you haven't read further.... of the '43'...34 were
unallocated clusters which is not actually admissable in court- but
the CPS tried. (Did I mention we had a crap solicitor?!) So now we
are back to what I said. File names sounding 'dodgy', using kazza v.
1.... at the time of arrest he thought it was for trying to get a
crack for windows XP. And under direct threat. 'If you don't accept
guilt we will have the SS here in 10 minutes with an EPO'- as he was
going through the doors to plead...what would you do? Also defense was
not at the time allowed independent examination and was not even shown
the Encase report until a year after. And don't forget, it was taken
to the court of appeal...immediate release as the sentence was
'manifestly excessive'. Also remember the date of the article you
quote; more has been learned since then.
TC


By "unallocated clusters" do you mean "unallocated storage space" ie deleted
files or do you mean or the clusters are unallocated by the operating system
in the File Allocation Table ?