Re: Sun: 63 comments still showing - one of them even accusing McCanns and Martin Brunt over Brenda Leyland's death

by BarryTheHatchet 18.05.16 18:08

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Verdi wrote:I've just remembered another item to add to the The Sun's track record.

Apparently, The Sun was responsible for Gerry McCann being invited as guest of honour at the National Police Federation Annual Bravery Awards in July 2007. He (Gerry McCann) received a standing ovation ?

I agree verdi I have posted in the past that IP addresses could be gathered. Maybe a combination of things and maybe they are genuinely allowing comments to give people a chance to use their right to freedom of speech but it pays to be wary imo.
Didn't Cristobell say that she was collecting IP addresses from her blog to give to a journalist?

She said she would let the press "trawl through them". Then she denied it and said she was hopeless with numbers and didn't even know what an IP address was. The creature couldn't lie straight in bed.

by plebgate 18.05.16 18:10

Is that even allowed - data protection and all that?

by BarryTheHatchet 18.05.16 18:12

No, it would be in breach of the Data Protection Act and quite possibly the Computer Misuse Act as well.

by plebgate 18.05.16 18:32

Thanks for info. BTH. Good to know these things.

by Realist 18.05.16 18:46

BarryTheHatchet wrote:

Didn't Cristobell say that she was collecting IP addresses from her blog to give to a journalist?
She said she would let the press "trawl through them". Then she denied it and said she was hopeless with numbers and didn't even know what an IP address was. The creature couldn't lie straight in bed.

I normally try to speak as I find and I have to state that I always found Cristobell to be polite in my odd exchanges with her. Okay, she had some whacky theories, but hey, don't we all. Lets have it right, if we didn't, we wouldn't be here arguing our own particular train of thoughts.

by Guest 18.05.16 18:54

Realist wrote: Okay, she had some whacky theories, but hey, don't we all.

No... but theories that can be backed up with known facts though...

And if you want to stay out of trouble that's the only way to go.

They can't do you for asking fair questions.

And there are LOTS of fair questions as yet unanswered.

by Columbo 18.05.16 20:15

BlueBag wrote:
They can't do you for asking fair questions.

And there are LOTS of fair questions as yet unanswered.

48 of them I can think of for starters winkwink

by Verdi 18.05.16 20:22

melisande wrote:Troll bait? My concern is that, if in the (looking unlikely) event that the McCann's ended up in court over the disappearance of Madeleine, then these accusatory comments including those on social media would be used as their defence for not getting a fair trial. They could have a strong legal argument 'trolls' whipped up a world wide anti McCann feeling with their false accusations. It could well be in their favour for CR to ignore what is being said publically at this stage. I hope I am wrong.

My thoughts precisely melisande. It's been said so many times that the likes of this forum (no names in particular mentioned ;-) has benefited the McCanns by destroying any chance of a court appearance. Total nonsense in my opinion - the McCanns themselves did that starting on the night of 3rd May 2007 and continued to this day. GM called it the wider agenda.

I think I can say with absolute confidence - they will never ever appear before a court of law as suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. I hope I'm wrong but somehow I doubt it.

by Verdi 18.05.16 20:32

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Verdi wrote:I've just remembered another item to add to the The Sun's track record.

Apparently, The Sun was responsible for Gerry McCann being invited as guest of honour at the National Police Federation Annual Bravery Awards in July 2007. He (Gerry McCann) received a standing ovation ?

I agree verdi I have posted in the past that IP addresses could be gathered. Maybe a combination of things and maybe they are genuinely allowing comments to give people a chance to use their right to freedom of speech but it pays to be wary imo.
Didn't Cristobell say that she was collecting IP addresses from her blog to give to a journalist?

YES ! Aided and abetted by her commander in chief troll buster - the producer of the still untold story of Madeleine McCann. As plebgate suggests, it pays to be wary.

by Verdi 18.05.16 20:46

Realist wrote:
BarryTheHatchet wrote:

Didn't Cristobell say that she was collecting IP addresses from her blog to give to a journalist?
She said she would let the press "trawl through them". Then she denied it and said she was hopeless with numbers and didn't even know what an IP address was. The creature couldn't lie straight in bed.
I normally try to speak as I find and I have to state that I always found Cristobell to be polite in my odd exchanges with her. Okay, she had some whacky theories, but hey, don't we all. Lets have it right, if we didn't, we wouldn't be here arguing our own particular train of thoughts.

I've encountered quite a few of the same school. If you say what they want to hear you're A-okay but say something they don't want to hear and woe betide - the end is nigh.

Funny thing is, they of the same school always flock together like birds of a feather. In truth I think they are a minority fringe group who feed off each other.

by BarryTheHatchet 19.05.16 7:26

Realist wrote:
BarryTheHatchet wrote:

Didn't Cristobell say that she was collecting IP addresses from her blog to give to a journalist?
She said she would let the press "trawl through them". Then she denied it and said she was hopeless with numbers and didn't even know what an IP address was. The creature couldn't lie straight in bed.
I normally try to speak as I find and I have to state that I always found Cristobell to be polite in my odd exchanges with her. Okay, she had some whacky theories, but hey, don't we all. Lets have it right, if we didn't, we wouldn't be here arguing our own particular train of thoughts.

Whacky theories are fine. Allowing vitriolic comments to be posted on your blog - or as I suspect, writing them yourself - is not.
She's been caught out in a number of questionable things she's said and then twisted round and tried to deny them. You can always tell because she starts LOLing and ROFLing all over the place, and going all girly and giggly. It does not fool me.

by Guest 19.05.16 8:06

BarryTheHatchet wrote:

Whacky theories are fine.

Not really.

They are just ammunition for the "look at those nutters" people.

Reasoned theories backed by some kind of actual evidence is the only way forward.

As I said there's plenty of scope there.

by Realist 19.05.16 11:53

BarryTheHatchet wrote:

Whacky theories are fine. Allowing vitriolic comments to be posted on your blog - or as I suspect, writing them yourself - is not.
She's been caught out in a number of questionable things she's said and then twisted round and tried to deny them. You can always tell because she starts LOLing and ROFLing all over the place, and going all girly and giggly. It does not fool me.

I don't follow blogs, tweets, facebook etc. Barry. I was only commenting on how I found her to be on this forum. I didn't have many exchanges with her, but in those instances where I did, I found her to be polite, although not necessarily logical big grin

by Verdi 19.05.16 12:24

Realist wrote:
BarryTheHatchet wrote:

Whacky theories are fine. Allowing vitriolic comments to be posted on your blog - or as I suspect, writing them yourself - is not.
She's been caught out in a number of questionable things she's said and then twisted round and tried to deny them. You can always tell because she starts LOLing and ROFLing all over the place, and going all girly and giggly. It does not fool me.
I don't follow blogs, tweets, facebook etc. Barry. I was only commenting on how I found her to be on this forum. I didn't have many exchanges with her, but in those instances where I did, I found her to be polite, although not necessarily logical

User name 'Cristobell' had already left this forum when you joined Realist.

by Realist 19.05.16 13:11

Verdi wrote:

User name 'Cristobell' had already left this forum when you joined Realist.

Ladyinred might think otherwise, Verdi

by pennylane 19.05.16 13:45

Columbo wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
They can't do you for asking fair questions.

And there are LOTS of fair questions as yet unanswered.

48 of them I can think of for starters

Gerry did finally answer one question when put on the spot.... 'why he and Kate refused to attend a reconstruction.' He shrugged and said words to the effect of 'what good would it do a year later.'

I guess little Maddie, still missing nine years on will never know! sad

by **Hobs** 19.05.16 14:40

It is no biggie having your IP address noted, every site you go to will see your IP address.
It doesn't reveal your name and address and even if you do use a whois site it names the provider not the actual person.
In my line of work i have access to seeing IP addresses and blocking them if said member is a problem.
Also VPN's are often used to mask an IP as are mask my IP sites.
The IP you see may not be the actual IP of the persons computer.

The police would get the IP addresses and then need a warrant to get the identity of the IP address owner from the relevant company, all well and good if they are using their own original IP and not using any number of VPN or masked IP's.

if you visit an online streaming radio station, the admin of that site can see your IP number, if you sign a guest book ditto, or a shoutbox ( you can leave messages for the site such as requests or comments again your IP is visible to the admin.
This is so people who are a problem can have said IP blocked, preventing them from listening or posting. However the troublemaker usually just gets a new IP and the shoutbox owner gets the hint and deletes the shoutbox resulting in less drama .

I hope this helps reassure those of you concerned about being traced.
If needs be you can go to any IP hider site such as mask my IP and d/l the programme which will let you hide your IP.

As for me, i am perfectly happy to be identified which is why i use my real name and pic on my blog and use my real name on Peter Hyatt's Blog.
I make it easy there as i use the same avatar as i use here, i stick with hobs here as it was too much bother changing to my real name and confusing to members when i have a different name but the same avatar.

I also like to make it easy for my fans (cooeeeee, you know who you are) to find me and grumble and whinge, otherwise they get a headache from agitating their brain cell when they can't find me. big grin

by **Jill Havern** 19.05.16 17:25

Hobs wrote:The police would get the IP addresses and then need a warrant to get the identity of the IP address owner from the relevant company, all well and good if they are using their own original IP and not using any number of VPN or masked IP's.

Interesting...so the police can trace someone from their IP address then.

Can they also trace a withheld phone number?

by willowthewisp 19.05.16 18:00

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Hobs wrote:The police would get the IP addresses and then need a warrant to get the identity of the IP address owner from the relevant company, all well and good if they are using their own original IP and not using any number of VPN or masked IP's.
Interesting...so the police can trace someone from their IP address then.

Get'emGoncalo, The Police can track an IP address and they possibly do so if your after the Truth? The UK Police were unable to discover the IP addresses that hurled abuse to @Sweepface during the deliberate campaign to out Mrs Brenda Leyland,eh Martin,"her address is not a secret any more" in the "Public Interest" on behalf of Sky News Corporation,Rupert Murdoch?

by Cmaryholmes 19.05.16 18:15

We volunteer so much info about ourselves that when the powers that be want to know something about us, it is already there at their fingertips. East Germany used to have the Stasi, now it's Google. I don't believe for a minute that we have any rights over our own information, unless we can afford very expensive lawyers.

by BarryTheHatchet 19.05.16 21:47

Yes, the police can trace a person's identity from an IP address, but it's quite a convoluted process and not undertaken lightly.
Most home users have an IP address that is allocated to them by their ISP. It will be what is called a "dynamic" address, meaning that it changes over time. ISPs have a pool of addresses that are allocated out. If you disconnect for any reason, then reconnect, you just get allocated the next available address in the pool, which probably won't be the same one as you already had. The numbers won't be vastly different though as all the available numbers in the pool are within the same range.
The ISP is obliged to keep logs of which subscriber is allocated which number at any given time. The police would have to obtain a warrant (UK) or subpoena (US) to have the ISP access the logs, to get the details of the subscriber. As most ISPs require you to register with an address and bank details, some even do credit checks too, it's relatively easy to do a trace from there on.
People have been traced and prosecuted in quite a few high profile cases so although it can be difficult (especially over international borders or with PAYG dongles) it's certainly not impossible.
However Hutton threatening to pass on IPs to hacks is, IMO, an empty threat. Journalists wouldn't have the authority to trace individuals through their ISPs and if they were found to be doing that then they would be guilty of a serious criminal offence.
An early case was a solicitor, Bruce Hyman, who sent fraudulent e-mails to try and influence a court case he was involved in. He tried to hide by using a public ISP at an internet café in Tottenham Court Road, thinking that he would be anonymous. Unfortunately when the emails were traced back to the café and the dates and times checked, there he was on CCTV, sat at a computer, typing away. He got 12 months fo perverting the course of justice, had to pay £3000 compensation, lost the case and was disbarred sin die as a barrister.

by Realist 20.05.16 10:19

BarryTheHatchet wrote:
An early case was a solicitor, Bruce Hyman, who sent fraudulent e-mails to try and influence a court case he was involved in. He tried to hide by using a public ISP at an internet café in Tottenham Court Road, thinking that he would be anonymous. Unfortunately when the emails were traced back to the café and the dates and times checked, there he was on CCTV, sat at a computer, typing away. He got 12 months fo perverting the course of justice, had to pay £3000 compensation, lost the case and was disbarred sin die as a barrister.

Was he a solicitor, or was he a barrister, Barry? There are and have been for a number of yrs. cases where solicitors have 'dual advocacy' which entitles them to represent clients in both Mags. and Crown Cts. but I don't think the aforementioned entitles them to be classified as barristers.

by Amy Dean 20.05.16 14:49

All the links I've found about him call him a barrister.

by BarryTheHatchet 20.05.16 14:57

Yes, a barrister. And as far as I know, the only one to ever be jailed in the 800 year history of barristers.

by willowthewisp 20.05.16 14:59

Hi BarrytheHatchit,that must have been some Court case to have taken such a risk to "Pervert the Course of Justice"hope your watching closely Clarence?

Sun: 63 comments still showing - one of them even accusing McCanns and Martin Brunt over Brenda Leyland's death