I have purposely held back from posting anything on this site, in regard to the very recent ‘Nick,’ or Carl Beech trial and subsequent conviction, but I have, however, been watching very carefully the reactions in certain corners of the internet.
Twitter especially, has as expected, been positively brimming with activity over this case, with two distinct and very prominent echo chambers emerging, at odds with each other, the #ibelievenick stalwarts, and the other side, who have celebrated the guilty verdict (and 18-year sentence) with a glee that borders on the obscene.
For posterity, I have saved a few of the more prominent examples from both camps, and as was to be expected, those who been the most vocal in voicing their disbelief and faux horror at what they claim was a ‘stitch-up’, and ‘travesty of justice’, have historically, also been very supportive of almost every crackpot claim that has emerged on the internet over the last decade.
Their main focus of attention, however, is of course their shared belief in the alleged ‘wickedness in high places’ that needs exposing at every opportunity.
They are relentless in their pursuit of ‘justice’, and it would appear to the casual observer, that they have little interest in anything, apart from exposing child abuse and paedophilia they claim exists in every level of British Society.
But that is not strictly accurate, if one was to step back and look at the bigger picture, as most of these people, if the truth is told, have very little interest in seeking justice for genuine survivors of child abuse, nor do they care about instances of child abuse and sexual exploitation that is happening right now, throughout the length of this country.
They only cases they are interested in, are those that involve ‘Prominent People’, especially politicians and those in the public eye.
I have yet to see one of these online ‘activists’ post a single syllable in condemnation of the grooming and rape gangs that have been operating in this country, mostly under the radar for decades, and which have virtually destroyed the lives of thousands of girls, some of who, were just 11 years of age.
Nor do they show any support towards genuine survivors of child abuse, many of whom have suffered at the hands of paedophiles who are serving long prison sentences, and if what I have been witnessing is an indication, they are more inclined to attack rather than show support, to any CSA survivor, who has not named anyone on their list of approved ‘Targets’.
The Journalist Eileen Fairweather pretty much sums up what a growing number of people believe may be the reason for this.
As to Mrs Fairweather’s observation above, it should be noted that this site, was among the first to call out Mr. Beechs claims as being horseshit, and was also among the first, if not the first site that expressed doubts about the claims of Christopher Fay, and was roundly attacked by the Needleblog, and other outlets who had hosted and promoted Fay’s ludicrous claims as being ‘credible and true’.
Which begs the question as to why the Needleblog, after lying dormant for many, many months has suddenly re-emerged, (albeit without any input from Gojam) specifically to report on the Beech conviction.
It is also my belief that there are indeed groups online, which have been assembled and funded for one purpose, which is to throw up a smoke screen, and to create as much white noise as possible, to silence, distract, discredit, instil fear and cause complete chaos among genuine CSA survivors, targeting them singly or in groups.
A number of these agitators also pose as survivors of child abuse themselves, but let me reassure you, I am in contact with a number of survivors, some of whom I converse with on a daily basis, and they are appalled at the behaviour of these people, and have themselves been targeted and attacked by them, simply for voicing even the slightest doubt about the claims of Carl Beech, or Melanie Shaw, or Esther Baker or those of the Hampstead Satanic Ritual Abuse believers and pushers.
What I have outlined above was to be expected, however, and should come as no surprise to see any or all of the above, continuing the same way, day in, day out.
For the foreseeable future.
My only advice would be, is to totally ignore it, and hope that legislation is introduced at some point, which will make these people answerable for their claims, as well as their online behaviour, via the courts.
That being said, I will now venture a personal opinion (which is also what any or all of the above should be viewed as) of those on the ‘other side,’ many of whom appear to be commenting in a professional or a well-informed (legal) capacity, and who also co-exist within their own Twitter echo chamber, where they share each others opinions, and articles they have written, with each other.
There are four or possibly five of those, who should be considered as having a vested interest in all of this, (I am not going to name names here, as I have no desire, nor the appetite to be hauled into my local police station yet again, to defend myself against any more vexatious claims that I, or anyone who has commented here, is ‘harassing’ them) and who have published thousands upon thousands of words about the Carl Beech case, via Tweets and articles both prior to, and following Carl Beech’s conviction.
Some of these have also claimed that they are in part, responsible for the conviction of Carl Beech, which is complete nonsense, as Beech’s claims began to unravel very quickly following a BBC Panorama programme, and the due diligence shown by the Northumbria Police who thoroughly investigated the anomalies that were highlighted.
Another thing that should be considered, is that lurking right in the middle of these professional commentators, in plain sight of everyone who has been following this story, is someone who appears to have been welcomed with open arms, and viewed as a ‘credible’ source in regard to false allegations of child abuse.
He has also been very busy in his attempts to wipe every trace of his previous, and altogether vile persona from the internet, and will attack anybody who has drawn attention to it.
Fortunately, there are those who have been saving and archiving all of his past activity, and posting it back online as fast as it’s being removed.
For some reason, known only to himself, he seems to have re-invented himself as what could be described as a righteous zealot, who devotes all his time to exposing online ‘trolls,’ and those who make (what he believes are) false allegations – so would it be at all fair to ask why that would be the case?