Just believe….


It’s truly a miracle.

Praise the Lord!

Aydin Coban’s identities

Anyone recognise any of these names? They are all meant to be Aydin Coban. It’s not a complete list.


MarcCamerons@hushmail.com, marccameronssss@yahoo.com





kelseyrain1, kelseyrain2, kelseyrain3, kelseyrain4, kelseyrain5 – all @yahoo.com


katiecollinsusa, shaecollins, austincollins – all @yahoo.com






















Dylan Polo

Austin Collins

Marc Camer

Tomas Coco Pops

Sietse Goossens

Sidnuh Merclans

Kelseeh Rayn

Jaydeh Germanuh

Brandns Fathr, Brandoons Father, Brandon Tay, brandonmylife

Kyle Hymen Norito

Lars Merckin

Kody Maxson

Martin Canton

Kaitlin Frye





Marcelinda McTomas

Olive Kubi

Mirandela Sintaford

Terliyam Hefter

Linda Aylim

Tedyubak Matkela

Secretdavee, Davey Sucret

Cody Cena

Pena Arianna, Arianna Pena Patterson

Mary Clifford

k000dy, k0dddy2

Ashley Canterr

Jordan Stolar

Megan McBrown

Gemmaduck Mackieearphones, Duckami Mahckie, Marc Mackieroni Gemmaro (Gemma Mackie = victim, I think)

And that’s not the entire list, but it will do for now. So…..any clues? Any recognition?

Apart from a couple, none of these register anywhere.


Hello – is Aydin here? Nope? But r0ra is in the room


It’s been a busy weekend, and to be honest I’m getting very confused. Just who is Aydin? Where is he?

Is he in the cutiielover chatlogs? Although these have been already published earlier in the blog, the names were redacted for certain reasons, so here are all the names in full. For newcomers who might be blissfully unaware, cutiielover is Amanda Todd.

BlogTV Conversation Log. Server Date: 12/5/2010 8:32:15 PM, Client Date: Sun Dec 5 19:26:25 GMT-0600 2010, Room: cutiielover Live, Checksum: 1314457

Welcome to blogTV’s chat:
– No nudity / sex / copyrighted materials
– Follow us on twitter: http://www.twitter.com/blogtv
– You must abide by the blogTv_Terms_of_use
– Need help? Read the blogTV Tips_&_tricks
Have fun!
pkyboy1: sexy
cutiielover: im not like that anymore.
boxfrog: sigh
crazeboy123: what were u like
cutiielover: a slut
crazeboy123: oh
kontiky: lol… i kinda like sluts
crazeboy123: wwhat made u change may I ask
kontiky: idk why
You have entered the cutiielover Live
show by cutiielover. cutiielover(14) is from Canada .Dundundunlol: she is a slut she still is 1
cutiielover: all my friends found my pic
Dundundunlol: she bated on cam to ppl
cutiielover: and sent my boobs out to everyone in my city.
Dundundunlol: other nite
kontiky: maybe because im a guy…
Dundundunlol: slut
ZapsThosePests: Hey Cutie, whats up?
crazeboy123: oh daaamn
Dundundunlol: still a slut
jakethai: are they still ur friend
cutiielover: no
jake9898: just because u like sex or mess around doesnt make u a slut… but yea… just gotta be careful who u trust
cutiielover: iim moving out of the counrty now.
jake9898: come to america!!!
kontiky: lol…no
crazeboy123: well you are super hot

BlogTV Conversation Log. Server Date: 12/18/2010 2:50:59 AM, Client Date: Sat Dec 18 01:44:58 GMT-0600 2010, Room: cutiielover Live, Checksum: 2209434

XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: tell
jason1996c: nope
RyanJanns: no u arent flat
MrPickleHead: we have the hottest girls here in canada
youneek: you are smexy, be serious?
abstractingthereal: flat? i don’t think so
steve16ca: TINY SUCKS NOW
milksnake: that looks nice😉
vspec: can’t tell with shirt on
vyruz: nice boobs
AmuroLite: by the time you hit 300, you’ll have a waiting room. usually being a tease helps though.
xxFxxAxxQxxUxx: so lets see something real sexy<<<<<
jason1996c: what size bra do u wear
SkylerX: with that shirt its hard to tell but i don’t think falt
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: 32b?
SkylerX: flat*
Carp3tMunch3r: put on something really esxay and tease us please
ZapsThosePests: next to the disk symbol is a another sysmbol you can use to switch rooms
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: i was close
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: lol
SkylerX: C is nice
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: -blames it on the dark shirt
jason1996c: C is perfect
abstractingthereal: 31g
steve16ca: only ops can switch rooms?
leftrightleft: i remember you coming in and just telling people to make you a tiny xD
youneek: 32 C is not small at all
jason1996c: nice
SkylerX: they match your undies
Carp3tMunch3r: lol
abstractingthereal: out of focus
scarlet_soul: can we see spome more of your cut eunderwear?
Carp3tMunch3r: shirt with no bra under?
scarlet_soul: *cute
Carp3tMunch3r: thats wuld be hot too
SkylerX: 11 more for waiting room
ZapsThosePests: 12 more then a waiting rom
cum-again: YA
RyanJanns: yeah
Redirtroad: yea
milksnake: sure
ZapsThosePests: ALWAYS
milksnake: 😀
scarlet_soul: yea
SkylerX: k, give us the link
steve16ca: what will she do???
jason1996c: ok
MrPickleHead: hell yeah
abstractingthereal: haha
youneek: then you wiil get a waiting room for sure
Shocked: yes!
abstractingthereal: www.
ZapsThosePests: but I am already subscribed
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: ^^ put it in your title
cutiielover: http://www.youtube.com/isabella100555

BlogTV Conversation Log. Server Date: 12/18/2010 3:06:54 AM, Client Date: Sat Dec 18 02:00:46 GMT-0600 2010, Room: cutiielover Live, Checksum: 2336076

cristian007: mod in the room
cum-again: FLAGGED 4 PILLOW
cum-again: LOL
scarlet_soul: we should check your hot ass :p
leftrightleft: are you going to show again when he/she gets on?
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: how is 151 chatters possible i thought it was 150 max
jesse95: means mod is in the room
cum-again: MOD
Carp3tMunch3r: u could pull down the front of your PJs as far down as you dare JUST done show any bush
KevinG95: she is shaved
youneek: whenever it’s 149, or 150, a “hidden” mod is in the room
youneek: 151*
Carp3tMunch3r: o my mistake, im used to working with carpet
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: how bout 151 tho
AmuroLite: prove it!
SkylerX: yeah blogtv mods are nazis
cum-again: IVE SEEN 152
leftrightleft: prove shaved
cristian007: show you shaved
Carp3tMunch3r: how far down can u pull your PJs???
ZapsThosePests: 151 or more confuses me
greentree2: blocked
KevinG95: would you pull down as far as you dare ?
Smiling_Buddha: 151 is possible wen an op or the b-caster goes into waiting room and returns
youneek: yah, 152 is two mods in room
cum-again: DON GET BANNED
youneek: you’re not shaved
leftrightleft: she has a bush
vyruz: show
drake4ever: need to rub and put mic next to hear
krazy_monkey: lower the cam a bit
AmuroLite: prove it, prove it.
scarlet_soul: there’s an ausi girl stripping on another channel lol
Carp3tMunch3r: 153 means all the mods r there cuz its superfriggin HOT
badboy-15: shes just sitting there
scarlet_soul: no mods
realbadboy: lets go to tinychat
drake4ever: no noise means shaved
jesse95: link?
SkylerX: i have a room you can use don’t get banned
scarlet_soul: they got 600 viewers
ZapsThosePests: let the stripper get banned
jesse95: dont you love it when guys say there’s a girl strippin and they dont link the f’n room
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: he had a boner
jakeskater: who?
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: lol
cristian007: show your shaved?????
youneek: not linking room is smart
youneek: more viewers = more chance of ban
badboy-15: ur going to make me blush aren’t u
cum-again: WHO GOT 600? LINK
scarlet_soul: that other girl has awesome tits :p
ZapsThosePests: haha, the one you told us about!!!
Carp3tMunch3r: i had a boner earlier
XoXLo0znMyFawknMindXoX: hayy dont be ashamed… it happens
Recognise any of the names? I’m told that cum-again is our old friend r0ra who keeps commenting nonsense on the blog, and ZapsThosePests is featured in the Daily Capper news.
But as if that’s not enough, some other kind person has supplied information regarding Dylan Polo (who is meant to be Aydin Coban and is found on Facebook as Dylan.Polo.98).
*His Name Is Polo, Also Known As Dylan Mess
*Said He Lives In Europe, In The Netherlands
*His Old Skype Was Intothedylan, And Another One Is Dylanmess1
*His Original Site Was Tinychat.com/Alphakennybuddy, And It Appears That He Reused That Name For One Of The Rooms On His New Site
*His Dad Owns Some Kind Of Hotel Company, So He’s Filthy Rich
*Has Been Said To Use 2 VPNS, And Uses Proxies
*The Site Name Starts With An O, Q, A Or C, Then It’s 4 Letters And Most Likely Ends With Chat
*It’s Europe Based And He Advertises On Some European Social Network Like FB
*He Uses Flashcoms Software For The Chat And Cams
*Has 500-700 People Spread Over Several Rooms At It’s Peak
*Users Can Make Their Own Rooms
*The Site Is Purple Green And White All Over
*There Have Been A Few Threads On 4chan’s /Soc/ And http://www.anonib.com About It With People Trying To Find The Site.
*He Most Likely Made It In November Of 2012
*These Are Screenshots Of The Site http://imgur.com/a/QnVJm

*If You Search “Polo” On http://www.anonib.com/ That Is Where I Found Most Of The Info.

Hmmm….there’s a lot happening. I had a panic attack when I couldn’t log on this morning, and my paranoia setting is high.
Over to you, r0ra – and please make a sensible comment for a change.

Amanda Todd – One step closer to the truth.


Sorry about the jpg. Just click on it.

As soon as one thing seems to get resolved, something else crops up that turns a lot of the story upside down again. There is a lot of grief in this – not just for the main participants, but for those other, more innocent victims of the witch hunts, the hatred, the suspicions. And for all those people from all across the world, all those genuine people, all those kids who have cried about this, it’s a terrible shame.

We have – and it saddens me to say this – been severely tricked.  I thought that  I would be jumping for joy as I learned that more and more of what I was saying was coming true, but instead I’m simply becoming more disheartened.

The details I have posted today are true. I will seek to evaluate them as clinically and as precisely as I possibly can. At first, I was just tempted to post the screen cap and leave it up to readers to make up their own minds. But, as usual, I will try to analyse what is behind all of this.

As you will see, the capture is from December 5th, 2010. That’s ten days after ‘cutieelover’ aka Amanda Todd joined BlogTV. What she did, or where she was prior to that, I don’t know at the moment. This is eighteen days before the police arrived on her doorstep on December 23rd.

Note that the BlogTV rules are absolutely clear. I have criticised BlogTV (now YouNow) for allowing things, but to give them credit, they were quite clear about the rules, and very quick to ban people who broke them. There is no real excuse for not knowing that nudity was frowned upon. As we know, cutiielover was banned twelve days later.

Amanda is quite well-known. It is possible that, from the commencement of her membership of BlogTV on November 26th, she could have received quite a following – reputations grow fast online.

Note: this may not be the full online conversation for December 5th. I originally thought that this might be the beginning of it all, but it is possible that there were earlier comments.

The first comment available is a cordial ‘sexy’. The second comment from cutieelover is – well, what? – poignant? Could that be the word? I don’t know. Or it could just be straightforward. Who can tell?

‘im not like that anymore’

What can anyone read into this? It sounds quite forlorn, like she’s realised something, and has decided to stop. On it’s own, it sounds like it’s a finality, but, sadly, we know that just a few days later she was flashing again, and that this behaviour continued on for quite some time. Can we deduce any period of time from this? Like I said – and I hope – her reputation might have simply grown in the previous two weeks, but I retain a slight idea that these are the words of someone who has been quite known for some time. But that is irrelevant, really.

It looks like one of her fans issues a ‘sigh’ of disappointment. Or of shared sadness?

I guess that the next comment is from someone new to the room: ‘what were u like’.  The answer is horrible.

‘a slut’

What in God’s name would make a girl say this? Here are some attempts to explain, but first let me say that it is significant and important. It points strongly towards why so many people used the word ‘slut’ to describe her – it’s the term she has applied to herself. It is actually Amanda herself who first uses the term to describe her own behaviour. People would have read these comments, and no doubt her friends would have heard her say it.

There are two reasons why she should have said this. The first is quite a cold-hearted suggestion; the second is gut-wrenchingly sad. I would prefer to choose the first. It kills me more to choose the second.

The first reason: Amanda is relatively proud of being seen as a slut. It’s a sort of show-off, attention-seeking phrase – ‘Look at me! I’m a slut! I’m not a mundane nobody, I’m someone who boys queue up to see! I’m the centre of attention, and that makes me feel important!’

Look at the news. We live in a society where sluttish behaviour makes you rich and famous. You know the names, I have no need to make a list. Reality TV praises the slut, denigrates the nice people. Look at the magazines aimed at later teens, read by 12-year-olds. In the UK, it’s ‘Nuts’ and ‘Zoo’. And those idiotic cretins who invented ‘slut walks’ – be proud that you look like a slut! Have they ANY idea what they are doing? (OK, reader, I’ll get down off my soap box)

Like so many words these days, slut has lost its meaning. It’s tossed around school playgrounds as easily as the old words like ‘fatty’ and ‘foureyes’. There is a distinct possibility that Amanda uses the term ‘slut’ as a badge of distinction.

The second reason: (this is appallingly sad) Amanda might have had such low self-esteem that she had become used to calling herself a slut. Why she would do this, I don’t know. From family background, I would guess the origin lay elsewhere. There are plenty of vile parents who will destroy their kids’ self-worth, but I don’t see that here. If anything, it might have been the opposite from her parents – they might have built her ego up to massive  proportions.

So why would she tag herself a slut? Did she go online, get naked, expect to get praise but get called a slut? Did she find that the only way to get the BlogTV viewers interested was to behave like a slut? It is extraordinary how dependent kids are on online feedback, and we know that Amanda was addicted to it.

Another, less probable but viable view is this: we know that Amanda possibly suffered from learning difficulties. She may well have had a huge sense that she was, in some way, a disappointment and failure. She had tried desperately to publicise herself online and elsewhere – singing, cheerleading – but it looks like the only thing she, as a person, felt that she truly excelled at, and that got her the attention, was to be a slut.

I must move on. The newbie answers a plaintive and shocked ‘oh’. Someone posts a picture.

‘lol….i kinda like sluts’ – seen as positive feedback?

The newbie asks her what made her change her mind.

‘idk why’ is Kon*** basically answering his own statement two lines above.

Another person enters the room.

Dun*** writes: ‘she is a slut she still is 1’. How is that meant? How is that taken? A joke? An insult? Horrifyingly aggressive male words? Or teen nonsense?

And then we have it:

‘all my friends found my pic’

Not ‘I’ve been stalked’. Not ‘I’ve been blackmailed’. All her friends found her pic. To me, this proves that the blackmail case is now closed. She said this to cover herself. There WAS a lot of stuff going on a la Peyton Ramsey, and it’s all very convoluted. But you can strike ‘blackmail’ and ‘stalker’ from the notebook for now.

I will leave it there for now. Tomorrow, there will be more about what really happened. It might take me time.

So – return to this blog – same Philip time, same Philip channel (that’s old skool Batman, just in case no-one knew).






Amanda’s last appearance as cutiielover


Today’s post is the one which has caused me most problems, and the most consternation. Will it cause major trouble, or will it just become yet another piece of Amanda Todd flotsam, floating on the sea of information surrounding the case? Does anyone really care any more?

I have to stop thinking and just get on with it. I had no idea how to approach this. For me, it is quite a key moment, as this photo initiates, probably, a much deeper investigation. As regular readers know, I have, at times, been lost in the forest – wandering off along cul-de-sacs, getting lost, turning back along paths I’ve already trodden more than once. But occasionally I have come upon glades of clarity – certain information shining light on many of the problems.

An honest and trustworthy source sent me this photo, and I will explain what it shows, just in case anyone wonders.

This is the last appearance of Amanda Todd as cutiielover. At almost exactly the same time as Amanda flashed, she was reported, hence the ‘Inappropriate content’ box in the middle. However, those of you following the story will know that Amanda went to great lengths to return as ‘Announcing Amanda’ very soon afterwards.

Note that she had 191 viewers at the time. This is significant. In Amanda’s video, we are led to believe that the ‘photo’ was perhaps the result of quite an intimate one-to-one webcam chat with a trusted friend. This, of course, shows that to be completely untrue. Amanda was aware that she had 191 viewers – it would have been obvious to her, as she would have seen this exact same screen in front of her. So, to a certain extent, it could have been any one of these 191 viewers who passed her video clip to a porn site. Or it could have been any other person on the planet – this video clip could have been sent around from 191 viewers, through various chatroom sites, to phones and laptops everywhere, before ending up where it did. Remember – Amanda was seen as a celebrity in the Capper world.

However, it is likely that the person who spread the video around was in the room at the time. You will see that names have been covered up. It is highly likely that those names are known. There is even a chance that those names might actually see this and know that they have been found out. The names have been blacked out for the time being, and I am not telling you who they are. However, I think I can safely tell you that Kody Maxson is nowhere near this – if people persist in believing that drivel, then so be it, but it is totally wrong. The story that Kody Maxson coerced/enticed/flattered Amanda into flashing is THE most ridiculous part of this case. It has let a lot of people off the hook. At a later point in the blog, I will investigate this further.

You will also see a few comments – like ‘JUST DO IT’. We can imagine the scene. Amanda has appeared. She is well-known and, as far as we know, relatively new to the BlogTV set up. Already, 191 viewers have crowded into the room. Some of them will be heros, some of them blackmailers, some of them will simply be there for the fun of it. Amanda flirts with her audience. Now, at the moment, I have to state things that are mostly rumour for the time being.

It is rumoured that this Amanda appearance was a two-way thing, in that she played to the audience, and was fully aware of the game she was playing. But, without concrete evidence of that, I will only continue with a kinder version.

So – Amanda is in a room with 191 viewers, most of them being a mixture of stupid kids, rabid Cappers, maybe a few perverts. They egg her on – ‘JUST DO IT’ and so on. And she does it. People have seen the entire scene at cameracaptures. She laughs. It’s just a game.

Surely, people can see that this is light years away from the story we are meant to believe. The media would have you think that, at minimum, everything was the equivalent of a one-off Snapchat type of sexting photo. It was what Amanda wanted us to believe. The media does allow a certain leeway. Somewhere in the middle ground, the media would like it to be a story of one small video, maybe one or two, that were created by a naive, innocent young girl who was tricked, cajoled, coerced by some Devil figure. And, of course, a few of the online news breakers have actually shown more details about Amanda’s BlogTV escapades and more, but the general public doesn’t really want to think about all that.

But what this shows is that, on December 17th 2010, Amanda was a willing participant in what was, essentially, an online piece of tomfoolery. I won’t go on too much here, but later in the blog I will describe what I believe actually happened around this time in more detail.

Now look at more detail in the photo. Amanda clearly admits to being 14. I have to admit to being wrong in the past. I had assumed that Amanda might have lied about her age, as she did in so many other places, but here it is clear that she didn’t. That, obviously, means that people should have been aware that she was a minor, and morality should have dictated that people responded accordingly. Some people – in fact, a lot of people – did, hence the reporting and the ban from BlogTV. But for the rest, remember that the BlogTV situation is feral. There is no concept of decency for them.

But here we enter into a dichotomy. At one extreme, the authorities and fervent – how shall I put it? – uninformed people have cried ‘child pornography’. Yet within the melee of nonsense surrounding the case, more people have stated that flashing is, really, an innocent pastime undertaken by naive young girls. So what do we believe here?

Here’s how I put it. The vast majority of people think that child pornography is just that – a level of sexual content in pictures involving children that can be seen as disturbing and evil. It conjures up all our worst nightmares. But flashing is seen just as a harmless activity which, in 99% of cases, it is. The thousands of kids swapping flashing pictures don’t see it as child pornography. It’s become almost a part of growing up. Of Amanda’s audience, many would have seen all of this as just a laugh, all part of the game. The fact that Amanda was 14 was irrelevant – some of the spectators would have been in the same age group. Only a few would have seen the dangers for Amanda, and only a few, if any, would fulfill the criteria of being a pedophile, old-man pervert predator. I will go into more detail later in the blog.

The details show that Amanda is from Canada. It wouldn’t have been difficult to trace her. As we know, her online presence was huge. We can also see the dates of Amanda’s entry into the BlogTV world – November 26th, 2010. Now, surely, this completely destroys the myth that Amanda was 12 and in 7th grade. That is simply not true, but has become part of the mythology. I think I can confidently state that she was 14, at the tail end of being 13, when all this began. The December 18th date is false. That is the date in a different time zone. This all happened on December 17th, Canada time. Shockingly close to the police raid of December 23rd.

Now, what is more interesting is that you can see the half-covered stills from two other archived videos of Amanda – entitled ‘ill be’ and ‘bored’. What does this tell us? It tells us that Amanda’s appearances were archived. She would have not known, perhaps, that she was being capped (I find it hard to believe) but she would have been totally aware that her videos were archived. This complicates matters. Any person could have returned to Amanda’s profile at any point and seen the archives. I don’t know what happened after the ban – I asume that her records were erased. But it shows just how public Amanda was.

Now, this photo really puts the cat amongst the pigeons, and I will have to think hard and dig deeper to work out what happened.

Here is an assumption that I need to clarify: I now assume that this appearance was the one that kicked off all the fuss. We have an absolutely certain date – December 17th, 2010. I assume that this appearance was the one that was passed around her school. I have no data concerning the flash episode where she has her friend with her, but I think it’s obvious that it is around he same time.

So where does this put the blackmailing story? According to Amanda, she flashed once, and it was a year later that the stalker turned up. That is now, clearly, utter nonsense. After December 17th 2010, things must have moved rapidly. It doesn’t make sense. Did a ‘blackmailer’ get his act together almost instantaneously? It’s possible. Within seconds of Amanda’s flash, the picture could have been anywhere, and we all know how quickly things spread. But still, according to reports, Amanda also had time to be banned and then re-appear as ‘Announcing Amanda’, so that would have added a day or two to things. And then the cops arrived on December 23rd.

Amanda’s lies cloud the issue. I hate speculation, but I must admit my gut feelings have, in the past, been very close to the reality of the situation. My gut feeling is that Amanda got caught out about her flashing, and simply panicked and said she was blackmailed.

What I find more confusing is why she continued, and things got worse. This post has gone on a bit too long, and I need to think and find out more details.

Thank you to my source for giving me this information. For my two readers, I hope this wasn’t too much of an anti-climax. I will now revisit the Amanda story – it seems like it’s the millionth time I’ve done so. And by the way – you won’t find any of this online, so there’s no point looking.

I look forward to receiving any comments and any more information that anyone out there can provide. This post hasn’t covered many things today. More will be clarified in later posts.

Please go on to this link for the next instalment:








This blog is currently closed until something new crops up, which means ‘probably permanently’. Yes, I know I’ve said that before – three or four times perhaps – but each time there have been things that have drawn me out of retirement like the Aydin Coban fiasco or oddities like the Amanda Todd music tribute.

The main reason for the closure is simply that I have lost interest. My heart’s not in it. There was a time that something like the Thorn Sextortion Report might have prompted me to write more, but instead all it evokes is a sense of ennui mixed with frustration – ennui because of the tediousness of it all (reading exactly the same stuff over and over again) and frustration because, really, we all know that you can’t beat stupidity. Sending noodz could be made a capital offence and people will still be dumb enough to do it.

I would have liked to have written more about solutions, to have been more positive, but basically what I have learned is that there isn’t any cunning plan that works. I’ve watched as authorities have turned instances of sexting into ‘distribution of child porn’, turning 13-year-olds into criminals. What has that done? It’s made kids even more scared to risk owning up to their mistakes, and thus even more open to exploitation. In the latest NSPCC report, children are fully aware of the dangers yet they still get carried away – not being coerced by evil villains, but by others who they momentarily trust completely.

“This guy I met online would listen to all my problems and make me feel good about myself. I honestly thought he cared about me, so I did some sexual stuff over camera for him. As soon as I did, he turned really nasty and started threatening me because he wanted me to do and send more. He’s really scaring me so I regret ever talking to him now. I need help, but I’m terrified about telling my parents because they always told me not to talk to strangers online. I’m finding the situation really difficult to cope with, so I’ve started self-harming.”

Pandora’s box has been opened. Kids are being given access to the Internet – ‘history’s largest sewer’ – from birth. The days of being worried that your kid might find a copy of Playboy or get a thrill from a lingerie catalogue are long-gone – hard-core porn is just a screen away. So unless the world turns Amish, the situation is here to stay.

All doom and gloom? No.

The media likes to give us shock-horror statistics. Every kid’s a suicide risk, every kid is in danger, epidemics, contagion. However, it’s never as bad as it seems. It’s one reason why this blog has become boring – there isn’t enough to maintain that headline-gathering clickbait so loved by online attention-seekers. Sure, there are perverts and predators of the worst kind, but there have always been perverts and predators. The Internet just allows us to think that they are everywhere. Read the suicide-circus information – the lists of tragedies is actually tiny, repeating the same names over and over again. Amanda Todd, Megan Meier, Tyler Clementi, plus a few more. Spread out over years. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t care, but there is a huge tendency for people to start getting bored with endless iterations of misery, and kids lose interest in hearing the same thing all the time.

So can I give any advice?

I’ve kind of distilled my way of thinking. It’s useless going on about parenting. The Philip Larkin poem sums it up.

Expect lawmakers and authorities to help? Not a chance unless you want every kid sent to juvie or your child judged as being in the same league as molesters and perverts after a dim-witted dick pic.

The Internet providers? Only interested in money and advertising revenue.

So it comes down yet again to two things.

Education from an early age. When I started this blog, I thought that 13 was a good start. After all, you can only join Facebook at that age. How naive that appears. Now, I would say primary school age – maybe even as low as six years old. There should be at least an hour a week, not just teaching kids about online technology but offering a place where they can discuss any problems they have – if they’ve seen upsetting things or been bullied – along with discussions about how they are doing in Minecraft. Every school should have at least one qualified Internet counsellor (preferably every teacher should have a basic knowledge of how to deal with Internet problems).  This isn’t about endless lecturing of the perils of online life – kids just turn off from all that. It’s about having proper education and a place to go to get advice. And forget about inviting the cops in to talk about it, making it even more terrifying for kids who might be in trouble. School authorities need to have Internet experts who can get involved to provide solutions in the worst cases – not overblown clueless SWAT teams petrifying a couple of kids who have just been stupid.

ChildLine. It’s quite sad to see that the Internet has become the cause of and the answer to all life’s problems. Kids are more likely to put their problems in a blog or in a YouTube confession than to talk to other people. One young girl who threw herself under a train had a blog about her anorexia with 40,000 followers. Do a quick search on YouTube to see how many ‘My suicide story’ ones there are. Unfortunately – in the UK at least – organisations like the Samaritans, ChildLine and the NSPCC are still charity-based. They need to be supported so that they can provide the type of help needed in the 21st century. And I’ll state strongly – support ONLY proven organisations with a track-record of having the correct expertise.

Oh – and just one more thing. Don’t ever, ever, threaten confiscation of Internet access. Kids would rather be tortured than lose their phones.

So that’s it for now. Take care.

Amanda Todd – still exploited

I’ve written about this video before.

What amazes me is not just the gullibility of the viewers (take that for granted) but how/why Carol Todd allows this video to a) exist and b) be used for commercial purposes and income.

Does it really amaze me at this point? No, not really. Ever since the story erupted, Amanda has provided income for everyone from Chia Videos to MeezyMurderFace, and publicity for people from Elise Estrada to Evander Holyfield. And please don’t kid yourself – Amanda’s name is attached for publicity masquerading as sympathy.

As we know, this video is from 12th January 2011 which in itself should come as a shock because it’s three weeks after the cops ‘kicked in the door’ to warn Amanda to keep away from webcam performances.

Anyways – the original is here. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/mandaa-shyy

And it’s not worth asking yourself why, at about 9 minutes in, Amanda should complain about moderators.


Research from the UK


Interesting to see the ranking of problems

  1. Physical health 36%
  2. Family problems 34%
  3. Illicit drug use 29%
  4. Bereavement 28%
  5. Exam pressure 27%
  6. Excessive drinking 26%
  7. Social isolation 25%
  8. Bullying 22%
  9. Child abuse/neglect 15%
  10. Suicide of family/friend 13%

Is it possible to draw any conclusions? Is there a deadly combination? Is this just a UK thing?

I’m surprised to see physical health so high (acne and asthma), but I’m content that family problem is in second place, as I have always stated that it appears to be one of the most important factors.

Exam pressure is significant, but bullying is relatively low. Of course, I’m chuffed that drug use and drinking features, as Carol Todd said that it wasn’t worth worrying about.

Amanda Todd would have had the family problems, drug use, drinking, possible social isolation (though that seems to be part of the myth), and the bullying. However, I think that Amanda’s case is so extreme as to be unique – there’s no other story quite like Amanda’s.

Of 145 cases, 8 had experienced cyberbullying, which kind of undermines all the hullabaloo about it. Face to face bullying seems to be more prevalent.

Of course, I still find it staggering that the male suicides are 70% of the total. That’s 7 boys for every 3 girls. More than double the amount of girls. However, what is more staggering is that in virtually every media piece, one would think it’s girls that are dropping like flies. It’s extraordinary how suicide reporting nearly always seeks to water down the male problems, usually ending up with the ‘Oh it’s not so serious because more girls attempt suicide and that’s what is bad’. Seriously – try it out for yourselves when doing research.

Note the quote from the Guardian article – ‘ leading to a ‘final straw’ factor such as an exam or relationship breakdown’. It looks like Amanda’s final straw was a relationship breakdown.

I’m not sure that any real conclusions can be drawn from the information because we don’t know the combinations involved and as usual, statistics can be misleading. For instance, if family problems are only present in 34% of suicides, that means that being in a non-problematical family is twice as dangerous.

Anyways. It makes for an interesting read, and it’s encouraging that academics are at last trying to look at the entirety of the suicide problem. Having said that, I would have liked to have seen if there was any effect of poverty/low income in the family.

Additional information.



Having looked more closely, it would appear that there are no clear indicators.

The only standout figure is the 70% male number. This is a figure which carries on through the entire suicide rates for all ages and is, really, the only figure that can’t be argued away.

The LGBT aspect is unclear. If the lowest estimate of 1.5% of people being gay is taken, then the 3% problem rate shown in the statistics shows a disproportionate amount. Taking a more accepted rate of from 6% to 10%, then it doesn’t represent a huge factor.

The self-harm aspect is surely obvious.

What about the rest? No single factor stands out. For every story that shows a history of problems, there’s another one that comes out of nowhere.

There is a conclusion that it is all a cumulative thing. That’s not exactly rocket science, but it in no way covers the whole situation.

Is any of this relevant to the Amanda Todd story? If we take the myth version, then it’s straightforward – a mistake, a horrendous trail of events and circumstances, a tragic conclusion. However, in our hearts we know there was much, much more to it and without the whole truth being put out there nothing will be learned. I’ll say it again – the Amanda Todd story is unique. None of the factors affecting Amanda’s development were unique – taken on their own, each event is not unheard of, though, of course, the webcam activity put a modern spin on it. What is unique about Amanda is the whole story. My own conclusion is that perhaps there was nothing that could have saved her except for major intervention along the lines of 24-hour rehab, but hindsight is always too late.

Some time ago, I left a comment on a thread about suicide saying that the issue is so complex that we will never really understand it. A person tracked me down (I’m still not sure how) and sent me an email.


Are you the Philip Rose who commented on the Guardian article about Robin William’s suicide? If you’re the one, just wanted to say how much I appreciated your words describing the whole suicide and it being such a complex thing.

My dad committed suicide almost 10 years ago and it’s almost impossible to explain to someone who has NO idea how difficult it is to explain why he did it. Part of me(when I was a kid) knew he was going to do it, but thought it was all over and he was 61 and was all alright and then he did it. He was happy and just fine, but but but…So as you and the article said there is no real explanation and it is much more complex than how it is perceived.

If you are that Philip Rose, thank you. If not, thank you again for your time.


Well, at least one person appreciates me.
In the meantime, I have decided to add links to a couple of charities at the top of this blog. I deleted a list of contact numbers because most people can use search engines.
If you want to donate, my strong advice is to donate to charities with a proven record and a long history. In England, my preference is for the Samaritans and ChildLine.