Well-known McCann supporter escapes jail for downloading 40,000 indecent images of children

Admin wrote:The dedicated McCann supporters are only interested in protecting them, nothing more.

Yet they scream to the rafters when one of their own kind is exposed as a total scumbag.

Mind you, he has always been that, since I first encountered his 'blogs'.

His comments about skeptics have really come home to roost, haven't they? Stupid and degenerate, was the gist; clearly not stupid or degenerate enough to have 40k unlawful images on their computers, though

Watcher wrote:

Admin wrote:The dedicated McCann supporters are only interested in protecting them, nothing more.

Yet they scream to the rafters when one of their own kind is exposed as a total scumbag.

Mind you, he has always been that, since I first encountered his 'blogs'.

His comments about skeptics have really come home to roost, haven't they? Stupid and degenerate, was the gist; clearly not stupid or degenerate enough to have 40k unlawful images on their computers, though

Precisely Watcher.

Nessling was hoist on his own petard, and we have seen the truth of what he is, a convicted pervert.


...and nothing less than that.

They deny being a group and say they're individuals, but criticise one of them and they all attack you. That sounds like a group to me. They haven't an original thought between them. I read their sites for the first time looking at this Nessling and I found posts which are repeated by different people on other sites. Very few do their own research, it seems.

Grom wrote:They deny being a group and say they're individuals, but criticise one of them and they all attack you. That sounds like a group to me. They haven't an original thought between them. I read their sites for the first time looking at this Nessling and I found posts which are repeated by different people on other sites. Very few do their own research, it seems.

Bar the odd one or two, there is no doubt they operate together, no matter the denials.

As you say Grom, the same material emerges on the different sites, reinforcing what you have said.

There is also an increasing level of what can only be described as paranoia among their senior members. These same members have vilified others through and have used privileged positions to remove material and attack others, who dare criticize the people they are online representing, i.e. the Mccanns.

For the benefit of the McCann supporters, who have been unwilling to criticize Nessling.

He is a 'VILE PIECE OF FILTH', who should have served a  custodial sentence, and has done immense damage to his victims and family.

That was removed elsewhere, but not on here.

Apparently, some find the truth goading. No doubt, as they were allies of Nessling.

I think some of these people are very ignorant

Let's take these two comments

''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''

These both seem to lack the most basic of understanding.
Paedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Often, they do not discriminate between boys and girls; rather it is the condition of childhood which lights their fuse. Usually, they identify as heterosexual men. Most are married. Most have children.

They are not corrupted by the internet - they have to go looking for this type of material, they won't happen upon it while browsing for a new telly. You can't ''make'' a paedophile, although there is a great deal of evidence to say that many were themselves victims of abuse, so it becomes a never-ending circle. The material existed before the internet and it will exist long after the internet has gone.

It is not a victimless crime - the victims are the children in the images. The victims are their own families when they are found out and sadly the victims are often their own children.

Nessling was supposedly writing a book for the teenage market - that's the kind of thing they do; always looking for access to kids, one way or another.

Watcher wrote:I think some of these people are very ignorant

Let's take these two comments

''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''

These both seem to lack the most basic of understanding.
Paedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Often, they do not discriminate between boys and girls; rather it is the condition of childhood which lights their fuse. Usually, they identify as heterosexual men. Most are married. Most have children.

They are not corrupted by the internet - they have to go looking for this type of material, they won't happen upon it while browsing for a new telly. You can't ''make'' a paedophile, although there is a great deal of evidence to say that many were themselves victims of abuse, so it becomes a never-ending circle. The material existed before the internet and it will exist long after the internet has gone.

It is not a victimless crime - the victims are the children in the images. The victims are their own families when they are found out and sadly the victims are often their own children.

Nessling was supposedly writing a book for the teenage market - that's the kind of thing they do; always looking for access to kids, one way or another.

Ignorance or a poor attempt at diversion ?

Either way, they won't deal with the cause.

Nessling is a paedophile, and there is no getting away from that. Nothing to do with the internet at all.

The attempts by some of Nessling's friends, and he did/does have associates, to protect or excuse him won't wash.

One claimed that his charity work showed his wish to help others, then of course there was Savile, who also 'helped' charities.

Essentially, what is happening, is attempted damage limitation by some parties. It won't wash. Those who supported him, or who are still trying some form of defense are very apparent, on various forums, and/or who have made comments on his blogs.

I suspect the increased vindictive comments in recent weeks by certain parties, meant they were fully aware of what was about to emerge, and they were afraid the backwash would taint the Mccanns even further. There has been comment on social media, with a few exacting their revenge on Nessling and those who supported. Evidently, the MSM have ignored what happened to Nessling, but I wonder what would have happened, if it had been a sceptic ?

Not hard to work out the answer to that question.

For the benefit of what remains of the Mccanns core online team, and who admitted to reading this forum.

Those who continue to defend Nessling or divert, have my complete and utter contempt.

Watcher wrote:I think some of these people are very ignorant

Let's take these two comments

''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''

These both seem to lack the most basic of understanding.
Paedophiles are sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Often, they do not discriminate between boys and girls; rather it is the condition of childhood which lights their fuse. Usually, they identify as heterosexual men. Most are married. Most have children.

They are not corrupted by the internet - they have to go looking for this type of material, they won't happen upon it while browsing for a new telly. You can't ''make'' a paedophile, although there is a great deal of evidence to say that many were themselves victims of abuse, so it becomes a never-ending circle. The material existed before the internet and it will exist long after the internet has gone.

It is not a victimless crime - the victims are the children in the images. The victims are their own families when they are found out and sadly the victims are often their own children.

Nessling was supposedly writing a book for the teenage market - that's the kind of thing they do; always looking for access to kids, one way or another.

Certainly they have a propensity for appearing grossly ignorant in the wider sense of the word ignorant.
One does wonder at the alacrity with which they are prepared to paint themselves into corners.Then of course there is the rank stupidity to suggest the internet is to blame for "posession of banned images". I wonder why the law was modified to specifically state that downloading [from the internet] = posession ? It suggests that the offence also may take place in other media, dummy.
What they did was to hitch up to the wrong wagon and instead of saying "oh shit we got that wrong" will now do/say anything to justify the original position. Well they have always professed to be "the party of empathy" so it is hardly surprising they will be empathic with someone who has been convicted under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
I just hope none of them have a job in research of any sort

The behaviour of most of the 'supporters' over this whole incident has been quite revealing, and has confirmed one or two things.

Indeed, most enlightening.

FROM A DERANGED MIND.


https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/

This really shows what he was from the start, along with the mindset of his fellows.

' if we learn nothing from the mistakes of history, then we are doomed to repeat them. And one such group of internet Nazi’s are once again attempting to determine what the great British public should be allowed to read. I award no prizes for guessing that I am referring to the anti-Madeleines, those people who laughingly refer to themselves as ‘McCann doubters.’

Now, as I said before, I respect other people’s right to hold an opinion, even if I disagree with it myself. What I do have a problem with, however, is those people who go online, and ram their opinions down the throats of anyone unfortunate enough to cross their path, and refuse to listen to any other point of view. I particularly resent these people claiming their opinions as fact, when the truth is that every one of these so-called ‘Reasons to doubt the McCanns version of events’ has been soundly rebutted and shown to be totally baseless, or in many cases, out-and-out lies.

Worst of all, though, is that anyone who does offer dissent from the McCann-doubter party line is bombarded with ridicule, abuse and even threats. All shades of 1930’s Germany, don’t you think? Within the Nazi party, the fastest risers were usually the most ignorant and violent. '

Another example of the deranged mindset of Nessling, comparing those who question the Mccanns as Nazis. That was also done by honestbroker and another poster, who was deleted elsewhere.

Admin wrote:FROM A DERANGED MIND.


https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/

This really shows what he was from the start, along with the minset of his fellows

How did he find the time and more to the point, why did he bother?

Travers wrote:

Admin wrote:FROM A DERANGED MIND.


https://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/the-anti-madeleine-dictionary/

This really shows what he was from the start, along with the minset of his fellows

How did he find the time and more to the point, why did he bother?

Good question.

He should have been sectioned some time ago.

He was prepared to say anything, no matter how far-fetched to try to discredit his targets. Attacking those he saw as his opponents was all he cared about.

I do find it interesting that is almost always supporters that do the attacking.
Us sceptics tend to raise questions and point out unpalatable details rather than attack supporters over their views.

The McCanns created a tale featuring an evil abductor stealing a child from her loving responsible parents. The facts don't support that story and so the facts must not be broadcast. The PJ, Amaral, the media and anyone else referring to the facts had to be discredited and silenced. The McCanns began discrediting the PJ immediately, they sued Amaral and the media and christened anyone else a 'vile troll'. Their supporters followed their lead. They ignore and excuse the facts and spend their time trying to discredit those who point them out.

Grom wrote:The McCanns created a tale featuring an evil abductor stealing a child from her loving responsible parents. The facts don't support that story and so the facts must not be broadcast. The PJ, Amaral, the media and anyone else referring to the facts had to be discredited and silenced. The McCanns began discrediting the PJ immediately, they sued Amaral and the media and christened anyone else a 'vile troll'. Their supporters followed their lead. They ignore and excuse the facts and spend their time trying to discredit those who point them out.

That has been their directive from the beginning.Attack those who question abduction.

There's a rumour that Nessling was posting on the jf, under an alias, and when the admin got wind of it, he was removed.

Saldo wrote:There's a rumour that Nessling was posting on the jf, under an alias, and when the admin got wind of it, he was removed.

Can we run a sweep?

Slartibartfast wrote:

Saldo wrote:There's a rumour that Nessling was posting on the jf, under an alias, and when the admin got wind of it, he was removed.

Can we run a sweep?

Why not.

Saldo wrote:There's a rumour that Nessling was posting on the jf, under an alias, and when the admin got wind of it, he was removed.

Recently?

enyam wrote:

Saldo wrote:There's a rumour that Nessling was posting on the jf, under an alias, and when the admin got wind of it, he was removed.

Recently?

Up to a few months ago.

Saldo wrote:

enyam wrote:

Saldo wrote:There's a rumour that Nessling was posting on the jf, under an alias, and when the admin got wind of it, he was removed.

Recently?

Up to a few months ago.

No one to take the money for crossing of the Styx?