This is more of a reprise of another post put up some time ago…a page I made to try and get people together to defeat the effects of trolling on the, now largely concluded, CSA debate on twitter.
The example I give there is more suited to a larger debate with multiple subsets of differing opinion. The McCann debate is much more simple, and has a more synonymous collective on both sides of it – whereas the CSA debate was cut-through with lots of different ‘factions’ in many respects.
Before I am accused of not knowing the full facts of the debate, please, I must already confess that I indeed do not.
Is this a barrier? Only if you, the concerned reader want it to be. I really don’t think I need to know much more than the dynamics of a decent debate.
You see, that’s the issue…a debate is a fracas when good decorum is missing. The answer is either to use a moderator – your modbot troll seems to be a good step forward – or just learn to evolve the debate as a collective; one that goes further than the mutual considerations you share at present.
Make no mistake, the McCann debate on twitter and facebook is dying. It is only propped-up by increasingly shrill attacks, rebukes, and arguments usually perpetuated by pro/anti trolls. If your debate doesn’t evolve, it will never be a place comfortable or useable for any but the most informed and hardy individuals
The troll classifications below, are really just to cover personalities, and give roles that some trolls feel comfortable with; trolls, especially organised ones, can take on any role.
It is not exhaustive, and it doesn’t cover sock-puppet accounts…neither does it try to say that all trolls are part of a team.
Know your troll:
A troll is a troll. They are sometimes just rattled individuals that find themselves being bullying or abusive – such people can be talked-down, or omitted from the debate, if their behaviour persists. Be kind to this variety of troll…they are usually very human and very frustrated.
Main varieties are:
*The GateKeeping Troll –
This variety of troll is not usually very pleasant. Sometimes a ‘real’ person, though usually part of a team; this variety is usually armed with a quiver of references which are shot at anyone ‘new’ to the debate – said newbie, once classified, is either welcomed or repelled by the troll…depending of course on the bias of the troll. Other ways to discourage the ‘casual observer’ are to pepper the newbie with accusations that they don’t know what they’re talking about; that they shouldn’t butt-in unless they know the facts, etc.
Easy to spot, easy to remove from the debate. Don’t gossip about them, don’t confront them – unless you believe they might change their ways – just freeze them out, and complain correctly if you think they are beyond redemption.
But be sure to take note, and move on.
*The Sleeper Troll –
This type is either psychotic, or are otherwise severely afflicted – usually, in my opinion, severely afflicted by chasing targets. This type will use you; they will find out everything they can about you via direct messaging, and use it to profile you. Your information will be noted, and will be pooled.
Slightly harder to spot, this troll will sidle up to you during debates, usually making gratuitous remarks using DM; with the more embedded trolls actually supporting you publically. What distinguishes them from real people, is the questions they ask, and the prompts they give you – ‘I share you share’, etc. Later tactics adopted by the trolls will be the ‘let me call you’ ploy to get further information. Later tactics may go so far as the troll actually ‘turning’ on you in public – accusing you of all sorts. I’ve had this latter, rarely, from real people before, so it’s not a definitive ‘tell’.
Easy to counteract, easy to stop their shenanigans…just don’t use DM’s as your personal diary. Don’t tell people your life story over the phone.
Make appropriate complaint to twitter, on the basis that the account is spreading hurtful rumours, etc, if you believe the account will not change.
*The Debate-Shifter –
This type of account is probably the most important to me, personally; although not much use for usual classification as it could just be a ‘useful fool’ that has been groomed and ‘turned’ by trolls. This one only has real clout when it has grown to gain lots of followers. This type of account has grown, sometimes patiently, for some time, and is used to get groups to target particular lines of research and/or people. Often, you will find that this kind of account had close links with known trolls that were already busted. This type can make your debate waste fruitless hours, and can cause havoc even in a tight fellowship. Ultimately, if this type of account is indeed a troll, then it can’t help but get itself isolated by a confused on-looker/debater sooner or later – if only due to the constant changes it has to make due to the dynamics of targeting abuse. Time will tell on this variety.
*The Controller –
Usually a debate-shifter – usually with an apparently charismatic demeanor…this variety seems to keep its own time-line clear of abuse to others, but has close-contact with most of the worst abusers. This account is likely to have the most amount of ‘socks, so take it down with targeted complaints to twitter support.
To get rid of, and nullify, the effects of trolls, just watch and wait. There’s no need for a stated collective opinion. Be an individual, and keep an eye out for agitators and other stirrers. You will notice that the usual trolls have gone a bit quiet of late, that’s because they know and understand the following better than the usual debater – a troll’s gotta troll .
Yup, it’s a simple as that, that one concept. A troll HAS to be a git, because that’s what trolls do…eventually, all trolls show their true colours, and all you have to do is be in a position to catch and record them trolling. All you need to see them, is a spotlight of sound logic.
Once you have enough definite information, then the choice is yours to pool the data with other souls, and/or make your knowledge public.
Meanwhile, learn to use twitter as the tool it can be – rather than the abuse-forum it can be subverted to, all too easily.
DON’T use the forum for telling people about your life…for that you need a diary, or some real friends you can confide in; if you’re on a forum to debate, then stick to why you went there.
Twitter allows you to have other accounts, so get a ‘personal’ account if you need to keep things separate – and use that one to make ‘friends’.
I have a few friends on social networks, all of them hard fought, and all of them proven trustworthy. I can’t think of better definitions.
YOU have time on your hands, the trolls do not.
I leave this post open for debate, and for further questions.
This perfectly illustrates, for me, that there is great danger with letting passion for a debate allowing the debater – good or bad – to ‘crank up’ said debate with backing from influential people, and by backing duff horses.
The Holly affair showed us, anyone with eyes, that a big deal can be manufactured by a bit of snow starting a massive avalanche. Why didn’t McKenzie et al see that too?
I personally put a lot of faith in Sabine and Mr Hemming, as I have an interest in the forced adoption debate; Sabine particularly, because she was an ‘enemy of my enemy’ – and showed a great deal of passion for the safety of kids in front of the european parliament; chillingly ironic though that may be in light of recent accounts.
Now, not only do I realise that the forced adoption debate is ‘rigged’ and riddled with too many angry, rather than heartbroken, parents – I also know now that a couple of my former heroes have shown themselves to be foolish in some of their assertions…if not blind when it came to watching out for very obvious and advertised pit-falls presented by the circling sharks and the truth-seekers alike.
Were they ignorant? I would say on the whole, no.
Does this discredit them? I would say, on the whole, yes…especially for an informed public looking for unassailable heroes, perhaps.
Does this mean they are ‘bad people’? That is a question for those who believe that there is no excuse to hurt, or watch the hurt, of some kids while trying to ‘save’ kids.
Originally posted on theneedleblog:
I’ve been accused, in the past, of political bias because around the time of the Iraq War (2003) I joined the Liberal Democrats. I went on to become a town councillor for a short while. I resigned from the party in 2010. However, anyone who has read The Needle regularly will know that these suggestions of bias are completely without foundation. I’ve been equally critical of individuals regardless of their politics and I’ll support anyone who is genuine about supporting survivors of child sexual abuse and better future child safeguarding.
Today I’m going to explain why I do not support the Liberal Democrat candidate for Birmingham Yardley John Hemming who has represented that constituency as MP since 2005. I’d particularly like Liberal Democrat supporters in Yardley to take note.
As you can see from the letterhead above John Hemming was a patron of the
View original 500 more words
edit – I need to make it clear that I am not pro or anti in the McCann debate, as it stands. The only reason I even ‘looked’ was to gain important data for the troll inquiry.
I do not, and will not, subscribe to a view; only that I believe abuse is abuse.
Particularly on twitter, the McCann ‘debate’ is riddled with abusive gatekeeping practices. At any second, once a person has presented any kind of ‘threat’, that person may find themselves hit from all sides with brick-filled handbags. Any strong opinion, or even previous lack of interest can bring insults and even quite creepy abuses like hate blog trolling.
At the very least, even if not trolled, a person can expect not a few entreaties to read this or that…this, usually by ‘genuine’ people, less apt to be carrying a brick.
Saying all that, analysis shows a definite ‘upswing’ in trolling happened at a specific time, not too long ago…strange.
This debate, for the public, has died a death long ago – apart from insistent resurgences from the red-tops that keep drawing the public’s eye to it, there is no real interest.
There is no proof that this couple killed their child – as such, any accusations levelled at them, are most likely aimed at the broken hearts of grieving parents.
I have ‘met’ many individuals that believe strongly for and against the ‘murder’ [edit – and/or coverup] hypothesis – but all of them are astounded by the level of bitterness and hostility now surrounding the fracas that used to be a debate…said debate once being screechy, but now being several levels above audible hearing.
This fracas has ensured that just about anyone with any sense, has stayed out of the mired embarrassment…convenient.
In fact, I have had no few people telling me that everything has gone REALLY bad, since a certain moustache-wielding reporter decided to wade into the debate, fresh from a stifling of a people’s voice, as it were. Since said event, lots of ‘new blood’ has come screeching to facebook and twitter.
If any concept-company (like, say a thinktank, or a newspaper newsroom) had nothing to sell, is it not reasonable to assume that said company would find, invest in, and then promote a product?
Further, is it not therefore reasonable to assume, that the ‘best’ way to promote such a product, is to raise interest in said product – using debate, etc?
If we change ‘company’ to ‘sacked-moustachioed-hack’,
… ‘product’ to ‘McCann Debate’,
…and ‘debate,etc’ to ‘abject trolling on both sides of debate’ –
…then the whole thing starts to look suss.
Important Further Question:
If said hack, as conjectured, did indeed march into the debate to gain credibility, to save face, or even – dare I say it – to earn money, then did said presence of said hack come before or after the death of Brenda Leyland?
If presence of said hack WAS before the death of the lady – whose name was sullied awfully by the red-tops – then if it is said that:
Hack+McCann debate=dead person
Then surely this is grounds for further investigation.
I have yet to release my full analysis of the McCann debate, and its attendant trolls, but this above should show the path investigations have led me.
Originally posted on theneedleblog:
From the excellent StopTheMythsForum
Apparently, Leicestershire Police and the CPS do not believe that inciting others to perpetrate violent acts on others is illegal.
Strange but true…
List of people who favorited the above post
• Maria Cunningham O Toole
• Iolanda Banu Viegas
• Sophie Louise-Morgan Roberts
• Ned N Martina Stokes
• Linda Theresa O Sullivan
View original 363 more words
You may be here for several reasons – tags or principles you support with your debate on Twitter, FaceBook, blogs, or commentary on blog, etc…
Please note, this page is not trying to make any similarities between a ‘real’ troll and a troll group.
Real trolls usually don’t get paid, don’t usually work in groups…
…and real trolls NEVER troll debates involved with helping to uncover abuses to kids.
You may be here to because you are simply bored.
I welcome you all – especially the invited.
Please read on.
NOTE – for the report on the troll situation over at the #McCann debate on twitter, please follow link here, when it is properly publicised – please do not expect any naming or shaming.
edit -To be perfectly clear…I am here to prepare information and evidence to take to the police, so that they can investigate and prosecute Team-Outlaw – what I believe to be an organised troll-group.
I want them properly investigated by the proper authorities; not only for the abuses they have visited, and indeed still ARE visiting, on me and others, but for the interference and confusion they have lent to entire debates – debates now concerning the coverups of child sex abuse by prominent persons; insodoing, I am hoping that, as stated in this page and elsewhere on this blog, that there will one day soon be a proper inquiry by official persons, to find a way to trace current trolls (and who pays them/why they do it),and to end the chance of troll teams causing such havoc again.
Please find here, the start of a thorough investigation into the activities of what is amounting to an organised trolling group on the internet – almost specifically, against prominent people, protests, and groups concerned with trying to expose coverups to child abuse. It is within the remit of the investigation, to unpick what constitutes the troll models of the abuse visited on CSA protests on twitter, what abuses they visited and on whom – and importantly, what links the CSA troll model has with later trolling of the McCann debate, and what links are shared with the groups that attacked Icke and Spivey.
With all data collected and collated, it is hoped that we can then follow the money, as it were, and find who these trolling ‘guns for hire’ are being employed by, and what for.
Less specifically, there is evidence all over many forums and debates that also amounts to organised trolling. Much of this activity seems to serve no other purpose than to boost sales for red-top papers…another area worthy of, and long-overdue for, rigorous analysis.
During investigations, I have tagged certain tweets and comments on twitter with #Trollwatch or #Trollinquiry – with such tagging helping me to offer a kind of debate on there.
Within the pages tagged #Trollinquiry on this blog, you will find evidence, not only for the presence of organised trolls, but also evidence that said organised trolls were actually engaged in trying to control the whole debates – in some cases succeeding in this aim.
The impact on affected people, protests and groups has been nothing short of explosive in most cases; the level of pernicious virulent attack, abuse and violation that has destroyed lives and reputations, going virtually unchecked, and has mounted for decades…going way back to the hillsborough disaster – probably tracing back to the Jersey incident of Haut De La Garenne and before….it has been collectively horrendous.
This level of abuse goes way beyond what your ‘normal’ troll would give out. A small slice of it has been documented and explained in other parts of this blog. With observation, patterns within the attacks can be observed and lines can be followed back for years now – part of the result of which has led to the series of pages on this blog under the tag #trollinquiry.
Please consider the following:
*Spivey and Icke – CSA protesters (#paedobritain, #Warriors, #No2abuse, etc) and ‘McCann debaters’ on twitter – for many real people, lives have been turned upside-down by what is proving to be the same group.
*For all the above-named groups/tags/debates/protests reporting and experiencing same-such issues of vicious trolling, a major concern is to expose child abuse and its coverup by officials/VIP’s over long decades. [edit – I need to make myself clear here: the McCann debate is a different kettle of fish in some ways, and is included due to crossovers and many similarities with the methods of attack used by the said troll team]
*Why would any self-respecting troll want to get into the debate about ending child-abuse in the first place, especially one that has such a strong collective opinion?
*Finally, any group wishing to expose abuse to kids is ‘untouchable’, surely? I mean to say, that such groups can be seen in much the same light as groups who would want to end the kicking of puppies…
…begging the question, “why the hell would anyone intervene in someone stopping someone else kicking puppies?”
With the above in mind, the #CSA protest on twitter – now having a common cause, is largely made up of quite level-headed people, is well defined, and has evolved to self-perpetuate a decentralised collective – is a perfect model for analysing abuse incidents by ANY person or group, as it is only as much as 3000 accounts deep, as it were…with the McCann debate on twitter being an even smaller model, about 80 maximum – after all, who the hell wants to throw their comments into the turmoil of the #McCann debate?
By extrapolating information and data from both incidents, we can then move on to find further patterns in other groups and even on other forums.
This is the aim of the troll inquiry I propose.
The ultimate aim of this inquiry, is to find out who the hell is running these troll groups…
…and stop them – hopefully with the added benefit starting a process that will prevent such interference again.
All this blog can do is lay the evidence on the table, but it is up to the reader to do what they can to help.
The explosive documents herein are virtually a handbook for the plague of a troll team I have seen rip through #Paedobritain, Icke’s The People’s Voice, and Spivey’s Blog, etc, etc…documents also that help describe the constant I call £.
Very good data…room for much extrapolation.
I do have to ‘dumb down’ the data in the documents to suit the McCann Debate model, and the other models mentioned above…which suggest that the troll team being hunted by adeybob Blog are little more than thugs trained by a thug-handler, with said handler having some knowledge of the procedures as outlined in the enclosed documents.
Follow the logic, and we’ll find the answer.
More of how I think this works will be revealed – clearly ;) – in Part 2 of the explanation of the formula on my twitter profile – to be published soon.
Originally posted on theneedleblog:
I tend to steer clear of this subject as I think it can be a little distracting. However, I’ve wanted to look at security service [Foreign & Domestic] involvement in the CSA internet ‘movement’ for a while now and I think Glenn Greenwald’s article, posted here in full, is a very good place to start.
HOW COVERT AGENTS INFILTRATE THE INTERNET TO MANIPULATE, DECEIVE, AND DESTROY REPUTATIONS by Glenn Greenwald
Originally from The Intercept
One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.
Over the last several weeks, I…
View original 1,410 more words
Be careful when commenting on blogs. Your IP address and such are usually given to the person who runs the blog.
Download and install TOR or follow the links at the bottom of an older post I wrote a little while ago.
Whatever you do, try to preserve some anonymity, or else you will likely become a target – especially given most of the subject matter in this page.
This is why I haven’t directly linked to some places.
(please forgive any mistakes or typo’s in this one…I just looked through and think I caught them all – I need to learn how to proof-read properly, and not rush publication.)
I hope you note the omission of the term ‘good’ in the title…it’s not there on purpose.
Any blog is a good one. Even the worst blogs provide some information – the better ones providing qualifications for any argument or accusation.
For anyone who has eyes and ears, all blogs are an expression of the inviolable right of the individual – please note the inclusion of the term ‘individual’ – to have a voice; as such, each blog is precious in its own way.
Whether they are well-researched and/or well-founded comment, or just downright incoherent – all blogs provide every individual (there’s that word again) a way to make indelible marks on the new history we currently call the interwebs. Right or wrong, crazed, or paved with inviolable references, the dance of prediction and comment flowing through blogs all around the world gives anyone who would watch, an extraordinary view of humanity in the making.
It is something I am sure, that will one day epitomise the freedom we all currently enjoy, despite a ‘war on terror’ perpetuated by our leaders and their blindness in the middle-east – which has leaked, deliberately so I think, into the ink that writes-off our freedoms, in bills and case-study…especially within the post-Leveson environment ‘afforded’ (for now) to the blogosphere; where the atmosphere, that should have been memorialised with all edifices of Murdoch being slapped on the face with the sole of a shoe, is instead now a supply ready to be slowly pinched-shut by legislation – or cut off at a moment’s notice by the bony fingers of anyone with more money than the average blogger.
One day, in a more mature information future, we will, I’m sure, enjoy the freedom of thought in a much more even and less bunkered way – and it is maybe then, that the at-present dangers presented to freedom on the internet will be remembered with some kind of nostalgia. The job of every free person now, is to preserve freedoms now, and to make sure that the nostalgia our kids experience in the future, is not a yearning for something lost to them.
With that said, there are some bad, and some ugly blogs. Indeed, some fall into both categories.
This is where I return to the term ‘individual’ – as I will again.
Once an individual gets together with another individual, they’re then collaborating to some degree. Collaboration can be good and bad – like any pivotal term.
All collaboration blogs, if seemingly inviolable in intent, present an impetus to the strength of the presentation of any argument or data. This is good for the blog.
This again is ok, because to the reader capable of critical thought, any argument or data can be verified; if it can’t be verified then it’s nothing but conjecture. If it is conjecture, then the discerning reader capable of critical thought will label it as according to the perception of the blogger, the overall blog, and any bias the blog may show.
In other words, bullshit walks…the trouble being, said BS is all too often a concept based on what the reader and judge ‘feels’. The ‘feelings’ of any average reader can normally be boiled-down to those of a casual observer, I’m afraid – lacking in any real attempt at effort to find evidence and references for themselves.
All of the dire conclusions a person could attribute to a given blog, or blogger(s), – collaborative or not – can be dismissed, though; all the reader has to do is to delve into the blog itself and work out bias, and why the blog is made in the first place.
Basically, for those who like a metaphor…If the person(s)/(blog/Blogger(s) IS inviolable in intent, then it follows that such a person is someone who is writing about or campaigning for, for instance, the end of, say, ‘kicking puppies’.
A later question asked by my blog will be, “why on earth would anyone go to any length to stop anyone from stopping someone from kicking puppies?”, but I digress.
For example, I present to you, a blog:
The Needleblog…something we can anatomise. Looking at the content, it has, by all accounts, almost totally dedicated its efforts to ending and exposing the hidden-until-recently world of CSA. Debates have existed for some time now, that have argued if child abuse has been covered-up by intervention by powerful forces, at present largely hidden. The common consensus now has it that all are now in some way in agreement of the direction and foundation of the greater debate – of whether all previously covered-up instances of child abuse should be investigated thoroughly…
Something The Needleblog has investigated all along.
Looking further into the prolific data The Needleblog has added to the general debate, it is clear also, that the blog has never had any axe to grind with any particular person or organisation – indeed it is remarkably unbiased. Closer examination of the content shows that this blog is also free of all instances of unattributed plagiarism – an important distinction.
Any instances of ‘naming’ has always been given a solid disclaimer, with the ‘named’ often succombing to a tide of good investigation by other parties anyway.
It should also be noted that the comments under the pages of The Needleblog are well-moderated, and offer the chance to debate all of the issues thrown up by its publication.
All indications are that The Needleblog is good example of a good blog, collaborative or not…one blogger of which is almost always open to pleasant dialogue and well-rounded debate on twitter.
Here we come to another blog-example – though please excuse me if I don’t name it. I am sorry if this may apparently have prejudiced the bias of my analysis, but I already know the results.
This example is written by the same person(s) that operate this twitter account; and here is a selection of comments, acquaintances, and communications to others. I am personally blocked from following this account, probably due to the fact that I helped to bring about the demise of its previous incarnations – evidenced here and here.
A particularly telling tweet here, is noted for future investigations involving the destruction of The People’s Voice by what is becoming apparent as an organised troll-team.
Looking through the content of the blog, it is riddled with accusations aimed at a narrow selection of people. Such accusations, on analysis, are foundless, usually backed-up by intense entreaties to the reader – said imploring often punctuated by screenshots of communications taken out of context – all culminating in a teetering tower of ‘evidence’ based almost solely on whatever associations each targeted person may have; on analysis, surely the clear outlines of attacks engineered only to victimise individuals.
Indeed, subjected to the same analysis as was above applied to The Neebleblog, for instance, the ‘bad blog‘ as it is turning out to be, has failed itself at almost the first hurdle.
The next thing we subject a potential bad-blog to, is the question of plagiarism. Having no wish, or need, to delve into this blog with any depth, I have seen much evidence of people accusing the blog of plagiarism. Most of the commentary has culminated in the removal or rewriting of said copied material, so I won’t pursue a double-negative.
As for contribution to debate, there seems to be none of any real substance. I can find no strong stance on anything that would be out of place with debates including crop-circles, control of the population via blood-type, and other pseudo-scientific arguments.
The only mention of ending abuse, for instance, seems to be in passing, and is prominent only by the continual wheedling of the blogger(s) for it, the abuse, to end against said blogger(s)…and as usual, evidenced always within an exclusively self-supporting framework of logic, and therefore not fit to be presented to any argument as anything but the most nebulous of accusations.
Next, to put the final nail in any evidence, that anything the blog in question has to say has an unbiased view, and has the ability to start and continue a debate, we only need look at the comments sections. None of them care to open up to a moderate view; with almost all the comments almost always being made by contributors who ‘share’ the views of the blog…particularly when contributing via comment towards evidenced acts of abuse.
And so ends my analysis of what I have shown to be a bad blog. I invite discussion in the comments below.
Now we come to another, and last, example – the ‘hate-blog‘…differentiated from other blogs by the very obvious focus of the publications, and by the complete lack of intelligent discussion. The average hate-blog has a parent in a bad blog somewhere – at another point, I will show clear, but usually hidden, associations between the two, matching parent to child correctly – and showing the reasoning behind why anyone would publish or share this sort of affront to our freedom.
As with the bad blog example above, little or no evidence is offered for verification of accusations or slurs against the intended victims – again, with big teetering stacks of very poor logic attempting, again and again, to appeal to the reader that said stacks are actually firm-founded.
Hate-blogs are a sham, and an affront to the freedoms and sensibilities of any self-respecting reader or writer.
I invite the reader to have a long hard look at this example of a hate blog. I ask the reader to, for themselves, try and make any commentary to it that will be met with any level of intelligence biased towards debate.
I have nothing more to say about hate blogs or bad blogs, but I will end my commentary of them by reminding readers that there is a well-oiled complaints procedure – particularly on twitter – that has the habit of suspending the accounts that circulate them.
As for the ‘individual’ blogger…if any blog fails to declare that it is written by more than one contributor, then that one fact alone lends much weight to the judgement of said blog as being ‘bent’…with at least the publishers of the usual hate blog having the balls to admit it.
Watch this space, and keep analysing the truth, as is presented to you by strangers.
In meantime, I again invite any and all debate in the comments section.
A petition to ‘Review the decision not to prosecute greville janner‘ on the site change.org
Thank you to ‘I Want The Truth‘ on twitter, for bringing this to my twitter timeline again.
I dont understand why this chap was not brought to book – being brought at least to the hallowed halls of our justice system via the back door of the courts.
If I don’t understand something, I chew it over…if I chew things over, they tend to impact on my time. When my time is impacted, I return to the original reason for chewing said cud over and again.
And I keep coming to this…
“Why on EARTH am I asking questions the CPS are paid vast sums of money to answer?”
Especially when I think back to the start of the re-growing of the tory pox on the ass of society again; I keep remembering that the majority of the beautiful experiment called Legal Aid was dismantled.
It was OUR experiment – our parents and grandparents paid for it and set it up for US, and it was nothing but a dream of good, harried people before that…it stopped us all being stepped on by money and/or hate oriented bullies.
With the question above, and the ask of another question, ‘how did this happen?’, then I reckon we’ll have an answer to everything soon enough.
Sign the petition – or one just like it, I imagine there are a few out there by now – and take a punt that at least by doing so, it may give us all a decent shot of at least finding another avenue to the answers.