Opinions on onlyfans and adult entertainment industry

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

How many new subscriptions did she get with her social media I'm a little victim campaign

I get the feeling the lovely Megan has fallen under the influence of activist types..
The BLM, direct provision in the bio..and the she/her too..

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I get the feeling the lovely Megan has fallen under the influence of activist types..
The BLM, direct provision in the bio..and the she/her too..

Activism is grand, it's how change starts.
Have no issue with that, and I'm parent to a kid is incredibly politically motivated and involved.
I wouldn't get too bogged down in that aspect at all tbh.

Interestingly however, Andrew's tweet paste does confirm that Megan J Renee and Megan Sims are one and the same.
The head of sexual image abuse at the newly minted victims advocacy service is a woman who produces porn.
Not at all a difficult thing to reconcile when your counselling someone who's cloud account has been hacked and your personal photos shared.
You are a victim of crime, she's lost a revenue stream.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

Activism is grand, it's how change starts.
Have no issue with that, and I'm parent to a kid is incredibly politically motivated and involved.

I dunno really..I think there can be a push to activism that isn't necessarily positive..Like, are we to seriously listen to this young one's input in writing law in this country..Yeah, she's personally affected, but like, she's "grown up" thinking the Kardashians were something to be aspired to..

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno really..I think there can be a push to activism that isn't necessarily positive..Like, are we to seriously listen to this young one's input in writing law in this country..Yeah, she's personally affected, but like, she's "grown up" thinking the Kardashians were something to be aspired to..

Not only is she personally affected she is adamant she's a victim.
When I say activism is grand, I should have qualified that a little more.
It is if you can defend your stance, convince others what should or could be changed and build consensus towards changing that.
Activism as a fashion accessory? Taking a stance without applying some critical thought to who, what, why, where, when or how?
That's just idiocy

There's no safe space or echo chamber allowed, you have to change minds not shout until people just switch off.

Now the gardaí are wrong btw
They are arranging support (always good) for anyone who wishes to make a statement.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I get the feeling the lovely Megan has fallen under the influence of activist types..
The BLM, direct provision in the bio..and the she/her too..

Shocking, isn't it. Activist women. They'll be looking for the vote next.

Padre_Pio

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Shocking, isn't it. Activist women. They'll be looking for the vote next.

She's just finding out what the music industry found out 20 years ago. If you put content on the internet, expect it to get stolen.

AndrewJRenko

banie01 wrote: »

Nice to see you back, any opinion yourself?
Or are you merely continuing to repeat what you seem to have been told to?

Any disputation to the inference your failure to address Linda doxxing a child lends?

As for throwing herself under a bus?
I'm sure her actions have led to quite a few extra views on her Onlyfans.
So hardly.

The only people thrown under the bus by conflating revenge porn with copyright infringement are the actual victims of blackmail, coercive control and abuse based on images they shared privately or had stolen from them.

Those are the people left wondering what credibility can be assigned to them now they may well be lumped in with onlyfans girls.
The only people hurt are them, and they have my sympathy.
I hope they bypass victimsalliance completely and engage with one of the professional women's and victim support services.

Earlier you said you knew of one instance of blackmail arising out of this?
The Garda commissioner has said there is none, which is it?

You lied with your claim that I said that the NZ lad had it coming to him. I never said any such thing. You tried to justify your lie with some nonsense about what I didn't say. Apparently I'm supposed to deny something now in order to get a little honesty about what I actually said - the old 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet' technique.

And now you've added a further lie - that I'm somehow being 'told to' say things by somebody. As I said before, why you lie?

I've said very little about the NZ situation, because, funnily enough, I know very little about the NZ situation. I know that's a fairly novel approach round here on boards, but it works for me. I've seen your claims about IP address tracking, but (taking a leaf out of your book), I've seen no evidence of this myself so it clearly never happened.

The Garda Commissioner has NOT said that there are no instances of blackmail or harassment. He has said that Gardai have no reports

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I dunno really..I think there can be a push to activism that isn't necessarily positive..Like, are we to seriously listen to this young one's input in writing law in this country..Yeah, she's personally affected, but like, she's "grown up" thinking the Kardashians were something to be aspired to..

This might be a surprise to you, but her views on the law are just as important as yours.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Shocking, isn't it. Activist women. They'll be looking for the vote next.

Would be nice if they weren't all clones of each other with exactly the same set of beliefs about everything. The real rebels these days are the pro life Trump loving types.

banie01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You lied with your claim that I said that the NZ lad had it coming to him. I never said any such thing. You tried to justify your lie with some nonsense about what I didn't say. Apparently I'm supposed to deny something now in order to get a little honesty about what I actually said - the old 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet' technique.

And now you've added a further lie - that I'm somehow being 'told to' say things by somebody. As I said before, why you lie?

I've said very little about the NZ situation, because, funnily enough, I know very little about the NZ situation. I know that's a fairly novel approach round here on boards, but it works for me. I've seen your claims about IP address tracking, but (taking a leaf out of your book), I've seen no evidence of this myself so it clearly never happened.

The Garda Commissioner has NOT said that there are no instances of blackmail or harassment. He has said that Gardai have no reports

So the Gardaí are wrong and criminal activity in relation to this cache has occured?
Well you'd better tell them then...
Make them aware or do you need an explanation of what legislation the offender could be charged under?

Andrew this has been explained to you multiple times.
There was no lie, the sentence you have issue with has a qualifier.
Go back and re-read a few times should you still not grasp it fully.

Much like the Gardaí drawing an inference from someone's refusal to answer...
Given how many times you refused to engage in whether you agreed Linda's actions were right.
Inferring you agree with her actions is quite reasonable.
If you wish to disavow me of the notion?
Go back, pick any one of the multiple times you were asked and address it with something better than

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Honestly, if you're best argument is that the 16 year old lad might get a slap from his mammy if she's in a bad mood, you're on fairly shaky ground.

because condoning a possible violent reaction is a bit extreme.
You dodged and diminished the possibility of a violent reaction from the parents everytime it was raised.
So let's try this instead.

What actual harm was imposed on the girls it is claimed that this boy shared images belonging to?
I note that there is talk about mental trauma and self harm?

Let's imagine the doxxed NZ boy's mother didn't "just give him a slap"?
Let's imagine she labelled her child a sex abuser?
It's not a huge leap to think he might spiral into depression or self harm is it?

So I'll ask you again, what is your opinion of the actions Linda undertook in doxxing a child?

As for how she tracked the child down, I do know you mentioned earlier perhaps it was via twitter?
That may well be.
The mechanics of the how are important however?

If she parsed info such as usernames, twitter, web posting history and perhaps even an email header to lockdown the boys identity?
That would be a quite impressive feat.
No less wrong, and the problem I have with her undertaking it that way at all?
Well, it's really down the wealth of talent brought to bear on the victimsalliance website.

If however she obtained the IP from discord?
Discord has only 2 ways to do that, without it being disclosed by discord on foot of warrant.
1 is to trick the targeted user to open an IP grabber.
The other is to be the server admin.

So how the boy was located has a huge bearing on the whole story.
But however she found him, from 12000 miles away she decided to identify and inform his family members of his alleged activity?
Bit hypocritical, nah?

Isn't that precisely what she's advocating against?
So I'd like to know how she sourced the boys ID?
I"d like to know how she ensured it was the boy and not someone else at the home address?
I'd like to know why a victims rights activist chose to abuse a child in the same manner she is professing to be against.
I'd like to know what due process she afforded the child before she undertook the doxxing?
I'd like to know why if there was evidence to doxx a child?
Why that evidence was not passed to NZ police for prosecution.
One can't be a victims right advocate for one class of victim whilst victimising another.

And not a lie regarding your opinions Andrew merely an observation.
I could well be wrong, but unless you are "TonyDaDub"
The Twitter link you posted without comment?

Well buddy,... That was someone else's opinion wasn't it?

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Shocking, isn't it. Activist women. They'll be looking for the vote next.

Imagine your not bother to hear amnesty international wants them lose representation if they don't agree that women have penises and testicles , because it's considered far right hate speech

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

Imagine your not bother to hear amnesty international wants them lose representation if they don't agree that women have penises and testicles , because it's considered far right hate speech

You might want to try that in English at some stage, ideally with a source to support whatever claim you are making.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You might want to try that in English at some stage, ideally with a source to support whatever claim you are making.

Look it up yourself .

It's all self service these days

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

Look it up yourself .

It's all self service these days

I tried putting it through Google Translate but it came back with "Sorry, I can't make any sense of this pile of crap, but it looks like yer man has spent a bit too long hanging round with extreme right wingers".

hatrickpatrick

Conflating copyright infringement with sexual assault is f*cking moronic. It's extremely simple: If something was sent as a direct message to someone else, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and the law should punish people who violate that. If it was published - whether to a selective audience or a general one - there should be a reasonable expectation that it will become publicly available.

The hijacking of the revenge porn issue by people who are pissed that the internet doesn't tend to respect copyright, and the attempts to conflate copyright infringement with sexual abuse, is absurd, obnoxious and frankly an insult to the victims of genuine sexual abuse, image-based or otherwise.

If somebody has a sex scene in a mainstream film - say, any bond movie ever produced - and that film gets torrented by millions of people, has that actor or actress suffered "image based sexual abuse"? They have in their bollix. It's a joke that we're even having this conversation, frankly.

hatrickpatrick

It actually amazes me that victims' groups aren't distancing themselves from the copyright bandwagoners, to be honest. It must be extremely insulting and hurtful to a victim of having their intimate images shared publicly without their consent, to see people hijacking their cause for purely financially motivated reasons. F*ck them and what they're doing. The revenge porn issue is a serious one which needs to be addressed and those seeking to use it to sneak new copyright laws in through the back door are creating a serious risk of the whole issue being totally undermined and ridiculed in the eyes of the general public.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I tried putting it through Google Translate

Total fail but hey

Junkyard Tom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It must be extremely insulting and hurtful to a victim of having their intimate images shared publicly without their consent, to see people hijacking their cause for purely financially motivated reasons

The behaviour of the latter may well have dissuaded the former from coming forward and weirdly nobody seems to be making that point publicly.

Gatling

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The behaviour of the latter may well have dissuaded the former from coming forward and weirdly nobody seems to be making that point publicly.

It's not helping I'd say.

You several twitter accounts making various claims of whats In this leaks including thousands of cp images and videos , nobody has come across anything online then the top guard says no cp found ,

Meanwhile the same twitter accounts operate on onlyfans streaming their porn that they want people locked up for 7 years for sharing images and videos they pay for .

Anyone who makes a claim in the future will be fobbed off ah sure didn't your on twitter say there was tens of thousands of images and videos leaked nobody could find what makes you any different

BorneTobyWilde

MAybe we need a ''Now you're talking to a teenage OnlyFans model'' thread.

It could be an in sight to that mind set .

BorneTobyWilde

18 years ago in Ireland there was zero porn stars in Ireland, or glamour models, or Page 3 girls.. and zero smart phones.
Claire Tully was one of the first irish topless model, and even that was shocking to so many. She had donations to charities thrown back in face because of who she was.

But this generation of kids grew up with smartphones, they're watching hardcore porn from the moment they get a smartphone, and some kids get them at 7 or even younger. There is no control of the content on smartphones, so is it any wonder that a percentage of this generation are happy to do what they've been looking at on their smartphones.

I can imagine a lot of those onlyfans models come from parents who happily threw their kid a smart phone at 7, and let them do what they wanted with it.The smartphone became the example to follow, not the parenting.

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

It's not helping I'd say.

You several twitter accounts making various claims of whats In this leaks including thousands of cp images and videos , nobody has come across anything online then the top guard says no cp found ,

Have a little think and see if you can work out why evidence of child pornography hasn't been released into the public domain.

banie01 wrote: »

So the Gardaí are wrong and criminal activity in relation to this cache has occured?
Well you'd better tell them then...
Make them aware or do you need an explanation of what legislation the offender could be charged under?

Andrew this has been explained to you multiple times.
There was no lie, the sentence you have issue with has a qualifier.
Go back and re-read a few times should you still not grasp it fully.

Much like the Gardaí drawing an inference from someone's refusal to answer...
Given how many times you refused to engage in whether you agreed Linda's actions were right.
Inferring you agree with her actions is quite reasonable.
If you wish to disavow me of the notion?
Go back, pick any one of the multiple times you were asked and address it with something better than
because condoning a possible violent reaction is a bit extreme.
You dodged and diminished the possibility of a violent reaction from the parents everytime it was raised.
So let's try this instead.

What actual harm was imposed on the girls it is claimed that this boy shared images belonging to?
I note that there is talk about mental trauma and self harm?

Let's imagine the doxxed NZ boy's mother didn't "just give him a slap"?
Let's imagine she labelled her child a sex abuser?
It's not a huge leap to think he might spiral into depression or self harm is it?

So I'll ask you again, what is your opinion of the actions Linda undertook in doxxing a child?

As for how she tracked the child down, I do know you mentioned earlier perhaps it was via twitter?
That may well be.
The mechanics of the how are important however?

If she parsed info such as usernames, twitter, web posting history and perhaps even an email header to lockdown the boys identity?
That would be a quite impressive feat.
No less wrong, and the problem I have with her undertaking it that way at all?
Well, it's really down the wealth of talent brought to bear on the victimsalliance website.

If however she obtained the IP from discord?
Discord has only 2 ways to do that, without it being disclosed by discord on foot of warrant.
1 is to trick the targeted user to open an IP grabber.
The other is to be the server admin.

So how the boy was located has a huge bearing on the whole story.
But however she found him, from 12000 miles away she decided to identify and inform his family members of his alleged activity?
Bit hypocritical, nah?

Isn't that precisely what she's advocating against?
So I'd like to know how she sourced the boys ID?
I"d like to know how she ensured it was the boy and not someone else at the home address?
I'd like to know why a victims rights activist chose to abuse a child in the same manner she is professing to be against.
I'd like to know what due process she afforded the child before she undertook the doxxing?
I'd like to know why if there was evidence to doxx a child?
Why that evidence was not passed to NZ police for prosecution.
One can't be a victims right advocate for one class of victim whilst victimising another.

And not a lie regarding your opinions Andrew merely an observation.
I could well be wrong, but unless you are "TonyDaDub"
The Twitter link you posted without comment?

Well buddy,... That was someone else's opinion wasn't it?

Lies and more lies. So let's recap:
- You lied about me saying that the NZ lad was asking for it
- You lied about someone telling me what to post
and now,
- You lied about me condoning someone's actions.

The simple fact is that I've said very little about the NZ issue, because, as explained above, I know very little about the NZ issue. You also appear to know very little about the NZ issue, but are quite happy to fantasise about your conspiracy theories around IP address tracking and more.

I can only suggest that you might want to hold back until you actually know what you're talking about.

And now, I'm not going to be bullied into 'disavow' anything. That's not how this works. You don't get to put words into my mouth and then force me to deny your fantastical claims.

But please stop telling lies, so that the discussion can have some slight grip on reality.

AndrewJRenko

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

18 years ago in Ireland there was zero porn stars in Ireland, or glamour models, or Page 3 girls..

The Sunday World was doing Page 3 girls from the 1970s, and local versions of the Brit tabloids followed on.

tylercheribini

So when Im watching American porn on free to view sites illegally I am engaging in the act "revenge porn" and should be punished accordingly?

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have a little think and see if you can work out why evidence of child pornography hasn't been released into the public domain.

Because it's not there .

Maybe take your own advice and actually think before making **** up

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

Because it's not there .

Maybe take your own advice and actually think before making **** up

What specifically have I 'made up'?

BorneTobyWilde

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Sunday World was doing Page 3 girls from the 1970s, and local versions of the Brit tabloids followed on.

In full dress? No way was there topless girls in Sunday World in 70s

banie01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have a little think and see if you can work out why evidence of child pornography hasn't been released into the public domain.

Well the claimed CP was released to the Guards and upon review they have categorically stated there is none.
So are they liars too?
I mean you are the one who shared mickthehack's tweet confirming Harris stating there was no CP.
https://twitter.com/mickthehack/status/1331648671759396865
Did he lie about that? Did you?
If there was CP in the cache, Harris' claim to the policing authority would be in error, or to use your preferred term "a lie"?

“We’re aware of the circumstances. As yet we’ve had no actual complaints of image-based sexual abuse or coercion or harassment or such like. So there’s actually no crimes under investigation in this jurisdiction at this moment in time,” Mr Harris said.

Is Drew continuing the old Garda tradition?
Is this from your source?
I'm sure you'll save all the girls tho, you keep up the good work and sharpen that sword.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Lies and more lies. So let's recap:
- You lied about me saying that the NZ lad was asking for it
- You lied about someone telling me what to post
and now,
- You lied about me condoning someone's actions.

The simple fact is that I've said very little about the NZ issue, because, as explained above, I know very little about the NZ issue. You also appear to know very little about the NZ issue, but are quite happy to fantasise about your conspiracy theories around IP address tracking and more.

I can only suggest that you might want to hold back until you actually know what you're talking about.

And now, I'm not going to be bullied into 'disavow' anything. That's not how this works. You don't get to put words into my mouth and then force me to deny your fantastical claims.

But please stop telling lies, so that the discussion can have some slight grip on reality.

You seriously have comprehension issues.
Between calling me a liar after having the issue repeatedly and quite painstakingly explained to you.
Claiming you are being bullied?
If you believe any of the lying or bullying happened?
That your name has been impugned?
That you have been victimised?

Asking your position, isn't bullying.
Asking questions that your refusal to address gives rise to reasonable inference from, isn't bullying.
I take the time to answer your questions, manners would assume the same would happen in reverse.

Click on report, otherwise cop the fúck on.

Triangle

banie01 wrote: »

Well the claimed CP was released to the Guards and upon review they have categorically stated there is none.
So are they liars too?
I mean you are the one who shared mickthehack's tweet confirming Harris stating there was no CP.
https://twitter.com/mickthehack/status/1331648671759396865
Did he lie about that? Did you?
If there was CP in the cache, Harris' claim to the policing authority would be in error, or to use your preferred term "a lie"?


Is Drew continuing the old Garda tradition?
Is this from your source?
I'm sure you'll save all the girls tho, you keep up the good work and sharpen that sword.




You seriously have comprehension issues.
Between calling me a liar after having the issue repeatedly and quite painstakingly explained to you.
Claiming you are being bullied?
If you believe any of the lying or bullying happened?
That your name has been impugned?
That you have been victimised?

Asking your position, isn't bullying.
Asking questions that your refusal to address gives rise to reasonable inference from, isn't bullying.
I take the time to answer your questions, manners would assume the same would happen in reverse.

Click on report, otherwise cop the fúck on.

It's kind of like arguing with a trump supporter.

The guards say there's no cp and no investigation yet he get his facts from twitter from someone with a vested interest.....

It's better to just walk away and save your sanity 😉

banie01

Triangle wrote: »

It's kind of like arguing with a trump supporter.

The guards say there's no cp and no investigation yet he get his facts from twitter from someone with a vested interest.....

It's better to just walk away and save your sanity 😉

I said that myself a few days ago, perhaps that was when I bullied him?

AndrewJRenko

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

In full dress? No way was there topless girls in Sunday World in 70s

That's my memory. Not certain was it the World or the Irish versions of the Brit tabloids, but there was definitely Irish girls in there.

Porn isn't really that new to Ireland.

banie01 wrote: »

Well the claimed CP was released to the Guards and upon review they have categorically stated there is none.
So are they liars too?
I mean you are the one who shared mickthehack's tweet confirming Harris stating there was no CP.
https://twitter.com/mickthehack/status/1331648671759396865
Did he lie about that? Did you?
If there was CP in the cache, Harris' claim to the policing authority would be in error, or to use your preferred term "a lie"?


Is Drew continuing the old Garda tradition?
Is this from your source?
I'm sure you'll save all the girls tho, you keep up the good work and sharpen that sword.




You seriously have comprehension issues.
Between calling me a liar after having the issue repeatedly and quite painstakingly explained to you.
Claiming you are being bullied?
If you believe any of the lying or bullying happened?
That your name has been impugned?
That you have been victimised?

Asking your position, isn't bullying.
Asking questions that your refusal to address gives rise to reasonable inference from, isn't bullying.
I take the time to answer your questions, manners would assume the same would happen in reverse.

Click on report, otherwise cop the fúck on.

Are you still hiding behind your 'apparently'? The problem with that is, as you admitted yourself, you had nothing to base your inference on, as I had said nothing at all about the NZ lad, because, as I explained, I know nothing about what happened myself.

In your desperation, you are now drawing 'inferences' from the things I haven't said, I might try that myself. You haven't said you're against paedophilia here so therefore I conclude that you're pro paedophilia. Care to disavow me?

See how that works? Maybe you'd be better off concentrating on what I did say rather than what I didn't say.

You're not a Garda, and I'm not charged with any crime. So you don't get to draw inferences on the things I haven't said.

Have you worked out how the Gardai checked the 160k images and worked out the age of each person in the photo in 2 or 3 days?

RWCNT

banie01 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mickthehack/status/1331648671759396865

Can anyone confirm if a nude photos of someone under the age of 18 would be defined as "Child Sex Abuse Material" ?

The term "Child Sex Abuse Material" to me suggests an image that shows a minor being abused - e.g. being sexually assaulted by an adult

Surely a nude picture of a minor (a sexually suggestive one, not like the cover of the Nirvana album) would still be classed as CP?

Basically, is there a distinction between CP and CSAM? Someone in the comments of the tweet is claiming that there is, but I don't know if that's the case. If so, there may very well be images of children among what the Garda are looking through. Would appreciate input from anyone who knows the legalities around this, as I reeeeaaaally don't want to Google either of those things.

banie01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you still hiding behind your 'apparently'? The problem with that is, as you admitted yourself, you had nothing to base your inference on, as I had said nothing at all about the NZ lad, because, as I explained, I know nothing about what happened myself.

It's not hiding Andrew, it's called a qualifying statement.
Apparently you support the doxxing of a child, your effort to dodge the question everytime it's raised lend credence to that belief.
Fairly basic English TBH.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In your desperation, you are now drawing 'inferences' from the things I haven't said, I might try that myself. You haven't said you're against paedophilia here so therefore I conclude that you're pro paedophilia. Care to disavow me?

Of course, disavowal follows.
I do not support or condone paedophilia.
Simple isn't it? You asked a question, and I answered.
As I said earlier, I tend to at least try and answer the questions you pose
Manners innit!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're not a Garda, and I'm not charged with any crime. So you don't get to draw inferences on the things I haven't said.

Funnily enough, I can.
It's precisely how inference works.
It's forming an opinion based on the evidence at hand, or in your particular case the lack of it.
The difference between a Garda and I?
A Garda can seek to have a court rely on inference implied by silence.
But we aren't in court are we?
We are playing semantics whilst you endlessly waffle and avoid answering whether or not you support a victims advocate doxxing a child.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you worked out how the Gardai checked the 160k images and worked out the age of each person in the photo in 2 or 3 days?

No onto concentrating on what you have said.
Are you now claiming despite you being the one who originally posted the report that Drew Harris confirmed there was no Child Porn present?
Yes or no will do.
As it will for the query outstanding as to whether or not you support doxxing a child.
Very straightforward, but given your comprehension issues I'm happy to offer any clarification you might need.

This story https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/25/asia/korea-telegram-sex-crime-verdict-intl-hnk/index.html
Illustrates the harm that sexual image abuse causes.
It's abhorrent.
That you think copyright infringement is on a par with that is fairly ridiculous.
It's not even on the same planet.

irishproduce

Since it has been established that there was no CP in the dump even though the pushy rights groups tried to use that to collar the dump.
And gardai have confirmed no one has made a complaint. What are the desperate rights groups going to do. They are so desperate for a complaint.

AndrewJRenko

banie01 wrote: »

It's not hiding Andrew, it's called a qualifying statement.
Apparently you support the doxxing of a child, your effort to dodge the question everytime it's raised lend credence to that belief.
Fairly basic English TBH.


Of course, disavowal follows.
I do not support or condone paedophilia.
Simple isn't it? You asked a question, and I answered.
As I said earlier, I tend to at least try and answer the questions you pose
Manners innit!



Funnily enough, I can.
It's precisely how inference works.
It's forming an opinion based on the evidence at hand, or in your particular case the lack of it.
The difference between a Garda and I?
A Garda can seek to have a court rely on inference implied by silence.
But we aren't in court are we?
We are playing semantics whilst you endlessly waffle and avoid answering whether or not you support a victims advocate doxxing a child.



No onto concentrating on what you have said.
Are you now claiming despite you being the one who originally posted the report that Drew Harris confirmed there was no Child Porn present?
Yes or no will do.
As it will for the query outstanding as to whether or not you support doxxing a child.
Very straightforward, but given your comprehension issues I'm happy to offer any clarification you might need.

This story https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/25/asia/korea-telegram-sex-crime-verdict-intl-hnk/index.html
Illustrates the harm that sexual image abuse causes.
It's abhorrent.
That you think copyright infringement is on a par with that is fairly ridiculous.
It's not even on the same planet.

Your apparent support for necrophilia is abhorrent. I don't know how you have the neck to show your face around here when you are clearly support screwing around with corpses.

Once again, you have to go making up stuff that I didn't say so that you have something to argue with, about something being on a par with something else. Is that what they call strawmanning?

And why haven't you answered the question about how Drew examined 160k photos in 3 days and worked out the ages of all those in the photos? I thought you were the guy who answered all questions, right?

banie01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your apparent support for necrophilia is abhorrent. I don't know how you have the neck to show your face around here when you are clearly support screwing around with corpses.

Once again, you have to go making up stuff that I didn't say so that you have something to argue with, about something being on a par with something else. Is that what they call strawmanning?

And why haven't you answered the question about how Drew examined 160k photos in 3 days and worked out the ages of all those in the photos? I thought you were the guy who answered all questions, right?

Had we discussed necrophilia?
Had you repeatedly asked me for my opinion on it?
Did I repeatedly deflect , rather than answer a question on that predilection?
No, I didn't .
Hence there was no apparent inference or support on my part for that particular philia.
But just to head off any further misunderstanding on your part.

No I don't support sexual contact with dead folk.

What's your opinion of Linda doxxing a child?

What lie are you adding to your count this time?

160000 images in 3 days!
How long did the victims alliance wait subsequent to breaking this story to actually hand over the cache then?
How long did it take Linda and co to find the CP material when they looked?
Given that material was apparently contained in a folder labelled "minors" it no doubt narrowed the search.
Wouldn't you think?

As for the Gardaí and their speed in checking.
Automated file comparison tools to eliminate duplicates and then checking the results.

So are you or are you not claiming that the Gardaí have lied regarding the cache not containing the CP material claimed?
Try being definite, it would save people making their own minds up based on your lack of answers.

Any comment on the actual image abuse story linked and how it compares to copyright infringement?

MrMusician18

So the long and the short of it is that this story was absolute bollocks?

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

So the long and the short of it is that this story was absolute bollocks?

No, don't think there was many bollocks..it was mainly ladies apparently..

knucklehead6

MrMusician18 wrote: »

So the long and the short of it is that this story was absolute bollocks?

That, and half the thread is taken up with banie and Andrew arguing.

I just scroll past their posts now, cos they’re just repeating the same stuff again and again and again and again and again and again and ag.......

Oh you get the picture.

banie01

knucklehead6 wrote: »

That, and half the thread is taken up with banie and Andrew arguing.

I just scroll past their posts now, cos they’re just repeating the same stuff again and again and again and again and again and again and ag.......

Oh you get the picture.

Can't say you are too far wrong tbh.
I'm sorry for my part in it, but his BS, white knighting and evasion do a massive disservice to actual victims and should not be left stand unchallenged.

hynesie08

irishproduce wrote: »

Since it has been established that there was no CP in the dump even though the pushy rights groups tried to use that to collar the dump.
And gardai have confirmed no one has made a complaint. What are the desperate rights groups going to do. They are so desperate for a complaint.

They're taking a civil case, and of course there's a gofundme for the costs.......

There's always an angle.....

AndrewJRenko

banie01 wrote: »

Had we discussed necrophilia?
Had you repeatedly asked me for my opinion on it?
Did I repeatedly deflect , rather than answer a question on that predilection?
No, I didn't .
Hence there was no apparent inference or support on my part for that particular philia.
But just to head off any further misunderstanding on your part.

No I don't support sexual contact with dead folk.

What's your opinion of Linda doxxing a child?

What lie are you adding to your count this time?

160000 images in 3 days!
How long did the victims alliance wait subsequent to breaking this story to actually hand over the cache then?
How long did it take Linda and co to find the CP material when they looked?
Given that material was apparently contained in a folder labelled "minors" it no doubt narrowed the search.
Wouldn't you think?

As for the Gardaí and their speed in checking.
Automated file comparison tools to eliminate duplicates and then checking the results.

So are you or are you not claiming that the Gardaí have lied regarding the cache not containing the CP material claimed?
Try being definite, it would save people making their own minds up based on your lack of answers.

Any comment on the actual image abuse story linked and how it compares to copyright infringement?

Once again, your post seems to have only the most tenuous grip on reality.

The fact remains, that we haven't been discussion the NZ situation. You've been banging on about it, and getting all excited about strange fantasies around IP address tracking. I've explained repeatedly that I know very little about it. I saw one Twitter thread, with one tweet deleted. That's as far as my knowledge goes.

So no, I'm not going to comment on it.

Is there some new rule around here that everyone has to comment on every possible aspect of every issue?

This would be a good time for you to wind your neck in, stop your weak and futile attempts at bullying and browbeating, and give the question mark button on your keyboard a break before it disintegrates.

You still didn't answer the question about the Garda, btw. 160k images, let's be generous and say 100k after deduping. How do you review and confirm the ages of the people in 100k images in 2 or 3 days please? The confirming of ages is a key point, as you've ignored that issue to date.

Necro

Mod:

AndrewJRenko, don't post in this thread again

seamus

Looking at what's going on this morning, they have been badly let down by their naivety.

Anyone who came forward to the Gardai to make a complaint, had no proof. They made a complaint their their image had been made public, but had nothing to back up the complaint except a dead link - an archive that had been deleted.

Likewise the links that they sent on had mostly been deleted by the time the Gardai looked at them. This is where the discrepancy between their claimed 250,000 images and the Gardai's 10,000 has come from.

I don't don't doubt the veracity of these complaints. I have no reason to. But it's the age-old of problem of, "If there's no evidence, there's no crime". It's like complaining that somebody stole your pie and ate it but nobody saw them do it. Even if you're not making it up, nobody can be convicted without proof.

I don't see any particular grift here, they're just frustrated. They expected that;

1. The links would remain live long enough for Gardai to access them
2. Gardai would access them promptly
3. Gardai would contact all of the individuals in the thousands of photos to ascertain the nature of them
4. That complaints made without proof would still be robustly investigated

All of which are very unreasonable, very naive assumptions to make. In their defence, the Gardai told them not to download the archives or look at them, to just send them on. But equally that was a ridiculous suggestion for the Garda to have made.

Now you have a few gobsh1tes claiming that it's clearly a Garda cover-up because the Gardai were involved in distributing the images. It's more a combination of incompetence and naivety that's fvcked it up.

Padre_Pio

seamus wrote: »

Now you have a few gobsh1tes claiming that it's clearly a Garda cover-up because the Gardai were involved in distributing the images. It's more a combination of incompetence and naivety that's fvcked it up.

And all this free publicity driving punters to OnlyFans pages:rolleyes:

B.A._Baracus

I don't get why some woman would put herself out there for all to see on onlyfans.

Like I get that some can make mega money - some tho. Most won't. It's saturated. So you're putting all these pics and vids out there for what, a couple of euro a month if you are lucky?

Gatling

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I don't get why some woman would put herself out there for all to see on onlyfans.

Like I get that some can make mega money - some tho. Most won't. It's saturated. So you're putting all these pics and vids out there for what, a couple of euro a month if you are lucky?

Because it's the belief that you can become rich and famous one girl here gave an interview saying she went from Minimum wage to 70k a 6 Month's or so and all she has to do is post videos and images ,
As you said the place is saturated but to keep themselves making money and attracting new subscribers they will have to go further and further to Keep them coming back ands that's before they end up having to meet up for cash Jobs .

It's a slippery slope

banie01

seamus wrote: »

Looking at what's going on this morning, they have been badly let down by their naivety.


1. The links would remain live long enough for Gardai to access them
2. Gardai would access them promptly
3. Gardai would contact all of the individuals in the thousands of photos to ascertain the nature of them
4. That complaints made without proof would still be robustly investigated

All of which are very unreasonable, very naive assumptions to make. In their defence, the Gardai told them not to download the archives or look at them, to just send them on. But equally that was a ridiculous suggestion for the Garda to have made.

Now you have a few gobsh1tes claiming that it's clearly a Garda cover-up because the Gardai were involved in distributing the images. It's more a combination of incompetence and naivety that's fvcked it up.

That's a great summary of the state of play currently.
I'd probably add a caveat that no press release should have been issued whatsoever until the files, links and evidence were confirmed as assessed and evidenced by the Gardaí.

A moral panic kicked off before any actual substantive investigation or review could be carried out.

That gave a headstart to anyone seeking to take down files.
I don't believe that it is totally an issue of links going dead though.
The mega.nz file for instance is a torrent, only way it could have been viewed and assessed by victims alliance was by downloading the file.
The same with anything on discord that was viewed, discord doesn't cache files it downloads directly to the recipient.

The Gardaí no doubt wanted to ensure that in Victims Alliance to review files they didn't actually break the law by downloading or sharing CP in their effort.

This highlights a serious issue with vigilantism.
Identifying potentially illegal material and reporting to the authorities is a far more appropriate way of ensuring justice for victims.
Making a declaration, and delaying handover of material is naive.
A cooperative approach to report the material with help from the Women's and sexual abuse orgs would also have gone quite a long way towards ensuring Garda accountability around the report, the material submitted and Victim support.

The one other thing I'd really add is that a victim centred approach is needed for all such instances.
Identification, support and then even more support for those victims.
Report, ensure transparency and accountability for the process and ensure that Gardaí and all support services ensure that those identified, even if not victims of criminal behaviour.
Are made aware of the material and supported in their dealing with it.

sasta le

So if I see a attractive 20 year olds photo in a slutty/sultry/raunchy pose from Facebook or Instagram...what law is broken?

Sardonicat

sasta le wrote: »

So if I see a attractive 20 year olds photo in a slutty pose from Facebook or Instagram...what law is broken?

A slutty pose?