Please explain?

No, I'm not Pauline Hanson nor is she my aunty.

What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.

Each seems to accusing the other of being a paedophile and making nasty
suggestions about the other's children and their relationship to them.

This is of concern, it has been going on for some time and seems to show no
indication of abating. My concern is as to whether there is even a remote
trace of truth in either of their claims.

I feel that the Police need to become involved. These are people who spend
an inordinate amount of time on the net (a place where genuine paedophiles
frequent) and are interested to some small degree in photography, another
paedophile trait.

If they are totally innocent of all the paedophile related charges they are
hurling at each other, then nothing will happen to them. Not directly.

I am going to make a formal, written complaint to the Police. I will make
my approach through a reasonably senior Police Officer who I have known for
some years and trust him to hand it down to the relevant section for a full
investigation. I will make it plain that I am not at all sure that either
is in fact a paedophile, but as there is a potential for a children to be
involved, that I feel a very thorough investigation is advisable.

I will of course, not be using "BlackShadow" but my correct name and title.
It is likely that nothing will come of it once the Police finish
investigating; I think that in all probability they are just two immature
twits who have chosen an unfortunate way of expressing invective. A bit
like shouting "terrorist" in an airport when you think about the way
suspected paedophiles are investigated nowadays.

Most paedophile investigations last at least two years before the suspected
paedophile is either charged or dropped to an inactive level. (I don't
think that they are ever actually cleared.)

During that two years, all email, newsgroup posting, landlines and cell
phone calls are monitored. Their neighbours and workmates are subtly
questioned and their families' medical records examined. Their children's
school staff will be queried and any ex spouses or children also
questioned. The Police don't even need to query the news servers like
motzarella, google or individual etc., they work directly with the ISPs of
the suspects. That power came into force in Queensland this week, the last
Australian state to comply. The Police are probably going to be anxious to
use their new "no warrant required" powers.

I can't imagine why people would do this.

Police *cannot* and will not ignore a suspect child abuse or paedophile
issue, even if they immediately suspect that the person involved is just an
idiot with a loud mouth and not really a paedophile. Of course, as long
nothing else they do is illicit, if their possessions are all legitimate,
if they don't have vindictive exes, if their employers are open-minded, if
their neighbours are understanding and trust them, if the kids at their
children's school don't gossip, then all will be ok - as long as they
aren't paedophiles.

Oh, and most suspects get attention from the tax office and immigration to
check on income and travel. I almost forgot that one.

I am not kidding, after all, it is a civil duty and it costs me nothing but
a letter not much longer nor different to this post. Usually the suspect
won't even be aware of Police attention for months, not until rumours from
neighbours or workmates etc., start to reach them.

The reason I feel this way? Because the old saw about smoke and fire has
some truth in it. If these two continue with the paedophile abuse and
comments about each other's children, this needs to happen. One or both of
them might be a deviate. Maybe they are paedophiles who had a falling out -
who can tell with all these accusations muddying the waters?

Why don't the two of you claim to be relatives of Bin Laden and threaten to
blow each other up - that would attract less official attention than
calling each other a paedophile.

One thing is absolutely certain, whether you are paedophiles or not, you
are both idiots to keep shouting paedophile the way you do.

BlackShadow

Maybe when the Police seize their computers for a forensic examination
they'll post some images and we can see if either one of them is actually a
photographer.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:21 pm, BlackShadow wrote:

What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.

No socks on my end and I've never known Noons to use any either,
although I'm sure he wished he had a few times.

It all started when Noons objected to my posting in aus.photo.
He seems to think it is an Australian-only club and any outsider that
posts there gets met with a quick "**** OFF AUS.PHOTO!"

Like the other Net Nanny, Johhny Mac, Noons has a particular hardon
for crossposts to aus.photo.
Any time I make a photo-related post or post one of my pics there and
it is a crosspost, he will hijack the thread with his usual "BRET IS A
PEDO" nonsense.

There is very little I can do about it other than give him the same
thing back. That way, someone searching for NUNO SOUTO on the web may
come across it and question him about it just as some of my relatives
have questioned me about his lies. He sets such a wonderful example
for his kids.





I suppose your innocence in all this is what prevents you from not
posting your irrelevant crap in Aus.Photo is it?

Before any fight can end, one of the combatants needs to simply stop.
Your past performance in flame wars isn't looking good when it comes to
the likely hood of you being the hero who does stop.

You never know, it could just all go away if you stopped cross posting
your American specific messages into an Australian specific newsgroup.

Noons might be an oddball but no more so than you, Bret. He has the high
ground in this fight. You are engaged in posting foreign messages to an
Australian newsgroup. Why don't you just stop?

Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:21 pm, BlackShadow wrote:

What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.

No socks on my end and I've never known Noons to use any either,
although I'm sure he wished he had a few times.

It all started when Noons objected to my posting in aus.photo.

No, it didn't all start there.

He seems to think it is an Australian-only club and any outsider that
posts there gets met with a quick "**** OFF AUS.PHOTO!"

Like the other Net Nanny, Johhny Mac, Noons has a particular hardon
for crossposts to aus.photo.
Any time I make a photo-related post or post one of my pics there and
it is a crosspost, he will hijack the thread with his usual "BRET IS A
PEDO" nonsense.

There is very little I can do about it other than give him the same
thing back. That way, someone searching for NUNO SOUTO on the web may
come across it and question him about it just as some of my relatives
have questioned me about his lies. He sets such a wonderful example
for his kids.

You could simply stop the baiting, taunting and especially the
cross-posting. That's the "little" you can do. Hah!

You and a few others - fortunately a very few- are the only ones who
consistently start x-posts. You and "Rita" are the two who do the most
of it, and the ones I will set followups to r.p.d. when I want.

--
lsmft

"Usenet Police"

| I'm glad I don't live in whatever fascist/communist country you live in
| where vindictive people see nothing wrong with turning in complete
| strangers (who might just be the same person using two different names)
| to the police for something written in a newsgroup, and making
| accusations that don't have a chance of holding up in a proper court of
| law.
...
The
| favorite line from the jack booted thugs known as "law enforcement
| officers" in countries where the citizens have no rights to begin with.
|
| You do live in China, right?


sounds like the us/uk/aus to me..

On 8/30/08 2:50 PM, in article , "D-Mac"
wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:21 pm, BlackShadow wrote:

What I'd appreciate is some explanation about is the puerile feud going on
with Annika and noons and their many and varied socks.

No socks on my end and I've never known Noons to use any either,
although I'm sure he wished he had a few times.

It all started when Noons objected to my posting in aus.photo.
He seems to think it is an Australian-only club and any outsider that
posts there gets met with a quick "**** OFF AUS.PHOTO!"

Like the other Net Nanny, Johhny Mac, Noons has a particular hardon
for crossposts to aus.photo.
Any time I make a photo-related post or post one of my pics there and
it is a crosspost, he will hijack the thread with his usual "BRET IS A
PEDO" nonsense.

There is very little I can do about it other than give him the same
thing back. That way, someone searching for NUNO SOUTO on the web may
come across it and question him about it just as some of my relatives
have questioned me about his lies. He sets such a wonderful example
for his kids.





I suppose your innocence in all this is what prevents you from not
posting your irrelevant crap in Aus.Photo is it?

Before any fight can end, one of the combatants needs to simply stop.
Your past performance in flame wars isn't looking good when it comes to
the likely hood of you being the hero who does stop.

You never know, it could just all go away if you stopped cross posting
your American specific messages into an Australian specific newsgroup.

Noons might be an oddball but no more so than you, Bret. He has the high
ground in this fight. You are engaged in posting foreign messages to an
Australian newsgroup. Why don't you just stop?
****. And all this time I thought "aus.photo" was all about Austin. You
folks know Texas is still a Republic?

Usenet Police wrote:
In article ,
BlackShadow wrote:

Police *cannot* and will not ignore a suspect child abuse or paedophile
issue, even if they immediately suspect that the person involved is just an
idiot with a loud mouth and not really a paedophile. Of course, as long
nothing else they do is illicit, if their possessions are all legitimate,
if they don't have vindictive exes, if their employers are open-minded, if
their neighbours are understanding and trust them, if the kids at their
children's school don't gossip, then all will be ok - as long as they
aren't paedophiles.

I'm glad I don't live in whatever fascist/communist country you live in
where vindictive people see nothing wrong with turning in complete
strangers (who might just be the same person using two different names)
to the police for something written in a newsgroup,

If what is written consists of consistent claims that the other is a
paedophile then you could consider a person who ignored it as more
vindictive toward children.

and making
accusations that don't have a chance of holding up in a proper court of
law.

I have made no accusation, they have, and if any of it is true then it will
a Police action in a criminal court. No tort law involved here.


Try it here buddy-boy and you'll be facing a defamation lawsuit a mile
long that will take the rest of your life to pay off.

Do you have any more puff and bluster? That first bit didn't have much effect.

Reporting a possible crime is not actionable. If it goes further it will be
the Police who make the decision and I doubt they are likely to be sued for
defamation. They don't prosecute without evidence. If the people who have
been accusing each other of being a paedophile are inconvenienced by a
period of close Police scrutiny, then it is something they should have
considered before choosing this particular path. There are two things that
authorities don't take lightly in modern western society, potential
terrorism and potential child molesting.

"Nothing to fear
from an illegal search if you've got nothing to hide", hunh?

So they tell me - the honest people that is. Other's opinions may differ. I
gather yours does. Can we ask why?


The favorite line from the jack booted thugs known as "law enforcement
officers" in countries where the citizens have no rights to begin with.

Nobody had any rights to begin with, it was law enforcement that secured
and now maintains those rights.

You do live in China, right?

How did you guess?

Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning with a
member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos" about this
matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police experience, are so
uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use the term, even joking or
as a term of abuse. The nice lady Police Officer tells me that true
paedophiles do tend to use it a lot to offend other people. That
conversation will continued on Monday afternoon. She, and a couple of her
compatriots are coming to visit and have a chat about the matter, but this
time it will be "on the record".

Of even more interest is the fact that Police forces have an international
cooperative agreement to aid each other in investigations of this nature.
The US Police won't ignore a request from the Australian Police to
investigate someone if it gets to that stage. At the moment I am pretty
sure it will. Already joint Australian/US Police plus FBI and Interpol have
brought charges against several hundred paedophiles from all over the
world. Often, she told me, they start with a tip as inconsequential as
this. Look at a coupleof months ago when all those people were arrested
simply for having their IP addresses logged by a Russian server that
carried child pornography. That was Task Force Argos in action. Two of them
committed suicide as soon as they were charged and many of them have
already been sentenced to long goal terms. That started when someone on a
news group accused another of being a paedophile, but in that case they
really were. I wonder what will happen in this case? Many of them had
deleted all files but the Police were still able to have them resurrected.
They weren't thorough enough.

Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is? They have a list
of all WEB and FTP addresses, plus peer to peer IP addresses that have been
known to support child porn or other (violent rape, bestiality) porn and
they run a check to see using their suspect's ISP records to see whether
the suspect has ever visited those sites. If they have, then the hunt is
definitely on. This is a very interesting experience for me, I'm getting to
meet some very interesting people and learn about some interesting techniques.


BlackShadow

In message , BlackShadow
writes
Usenet Police wrote:
In article ,
BlackShadow wrote:

Reporting a possible crime is not actionable. If it goes further it
will be the Police who make the decision and I doubt they are likely to
be sued for defamation.

They could prosecute for wasting police time.

Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning with
a member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos" about this
matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police experience, are so
uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use the term, even
joking or as a term of abuse.

They the Police person has little of no experience of Internet news
groups. It may be the case in Australia but on the 'net you find a lot
of very childish abuse goes on.

The nice lady Police Officer tells me that true paedophiles do tend to
use it a lot to offend other people.

That does not fit with information I have.

That conversation will continued on Monday afternoon. She, and a
couple of her compatriots are coming to visit and have a chat about the
matter, but this time it will be "on the record".

I think you are wasting a lot of police resourses pointlessly.

Of even more interest is the fact that Police forces have an
international cooperative agreement to aid each other in investigations
of this nature.

Only to a point

The US Police won't ignore a request from the Australian Police to
investigate someone if it gets to that stage.

They are quite likely to. The US LEA and government have refused direct
requests for evidence on multiple homicide investigations.

Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is? They have a
list of all WEB and FTP addresses, plus peer to peer IP addresses that
have been known to support child porn or other (violent rape,
bestiality) porn and they run a check to see using their suspect's ISP
records to see whether the suspect has ever visited those sites. If
they have, then the hunt is definitely on. This is a very interesting
experience for me, I'm getting to meet some very interesting people and
learn about some interesting techniques.

Why are you so interested in pedophilia?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"BlackShadow" wrote in message
...


Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is?


Explain all their carefully worked out top secret procedures to
the first Joe who walks in off the street ?


zen



BlackShadow

In article ,
says...
Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning with a
member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos" about this
matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police experience, are so
uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use the term, even joking or
as a term of abuse.


You seem to have no trouble using it.

--
Alan LeHun

Chris H wrote:
In message , BlackShadow
writes
Usenet Police wrote:
In article ,
BlackShadow wrote:

Reporting a possible crime is not actionable. If it goes further it
will be the Police who make the decision and I doubt they are likely
to be sued for defamation.

They could prosecute for wasting police time.

How? They are not being forced to act on deliberately false information?
They make the decision to act or not based on what you provide them. All
that I have provided them is well documented in Google.


Interestingly, after an "off the record" conversation this morning
with a member of an organisation called "Police Task Force Argos"
about this matter, I was told that non-paedophiles, in Police
experience, are so uncomfortable with paedophilia that they won't use
the term, even joking or as a term of abuse.

They the Police person has little of no experience of Internet news
groups. It may be the case in Australia but on the 'net you find a lot
of very childish abuse goes on.

They have vast experience, why do you think that they have initiated so
many successful prosecutions internationally? Don't you read news headlines?


The nice lady Police Officer tells me that true paedophiles do tend to
use it a lot to offend other people.

That does not fit with information I have.

I am sure that there is an almost unaccountable number of things that don't
fir the information that you have.


That conversation will continued on Monday afternoon. She, and a
couple of her compatriots are coming to visit and have a chat about
the matter, but this time it will be "on the record".

I think you are wasting a lot of police resourses pointlessly.

It is their decision. They have initiated successful investigations based
on similar newsgroup data.


Of even more interest is the fact that Police forces have an
international cooperative agreement to aid each other in
investigations of this nature.

Only to a point

No, it is to the point where shared resources no longer require political
intervention or legal requests or warrants.


The US Police won't ignore a request from the Australian Police to
investigate someone if it gets to that stage.

They are quite likely to.

They never have yet. They may decide that there is not point in furthering
the investigation, but not until they have had a close look. They don't do
what TV cops do and work on "hunches".

The US LEA and government have refused direct
requests for evidence on multiple homicide investigations.

This is nothing to do with homicide and I doubt that your claim is true.
Australia and the US have had several recent high profile cooperations on
homicide's.


Do you know what one of the first things the Police do is? They have a
list of all WEB and FTP addresses, plus peer to peer IP addresses that
have been known to support child porn or other (violent rape,
bestiality) porn and they run a check to see using their suspect's ISP
records to see whether the suspect has ever visited those sites. If
they have, then the hunt is definitely on. This is a very interesting
experience for me, I'm getting to meet some very interesting people
and learn about some interesting techniques.

Why are you so interested in pedophilia?

I am interested in seeing accusations of paedophilia that are probably
unfounded, but just *might* be true, incessantly bandied about in
newsgroups that by nature are hobby and family oriented.

Annika might be just a maggot with no sense of decorum plus a foul mouth
and mind, but I have seen enough of his posts to be damned sure that I
don't want him looking at images of my daughters or wife. Noons is also
foul mouthed and abusive, but he is the one being provoked by Annika by
attacks on his daughter and character etc.

I think that based on performance, Annika is far more likely to be a
paedophile than noons, but then I am not an investigator with the time or
resources to make that determination. The Police can and will. He has made
comments about a very young girl's physical attributes that most men,
certainly fathers, would not dream of doing. Unless of course they really
were paedophiles. Regardless of whether he is a paedophile or not, he is as
about appealing as a puddle of dog's vomit to any decent father of young girls.

Now do you understand my interest?


BlackShadow