Where do I begin today?

Firstly, maybe I should apologise. My annoyance has crept into a lot of what I have written recently, and, as usual, my allowing my annoyance to show annoys me!

It’s difficult. If I go down the route of giving a decent response, most people switch off. Regular readers will know that at times I tend to give too many options – if this, then why that, and if that, then perhaps this – in order to at least give a fair and balanced interpretation. However, people don’t like that approach. They want everything in black and white – Amanda Todd good, the rest of the world bad.

But I get so angry with the stupidity of it all – the poor reporting, the knee-jerk reactions, the hypocrisy. And it goes on and on.

Let’s move on with a new bandwagon piece of tripe written by Raffi Cavoukian and Sandy Garossino – grief vampires:


For goodness sake, at least have the decency to get some of the facts right. It’s just pure laziness.

‘Amanda Todd took her life in 2012 at the age of 16 after being relentlessly blackmailed by a ruthless predator.’

(LOL. The original was changed to 15. Oh well. Maybe they read my post.)

Oh really? 16? Relentlessly blackmailed? These hackneyed phrases have most people’s eyes rolling upwards these days. Not so long ago it was ‘relentlessly bullied’. And we’re back to ‘ruthless predator’. Nothing like exaggeration to get people agitated. However, it’s counter-productive these days. When people have seen all this repeated over and over again, it loses its impact. And when most people have a much clearer view of the whole story, only a few fervent supporters continue to believe it.

So where do Raffi and Sandy go with all this? Almost immediately, they destroy their own shock tactics.

‘The sexual extortion of children ….. new menace. Online sexual blackmail of children and youth has reached a staggering pace. British authorities estimate thousands of UK children and teens have been targeted, and seven suicides like Amanda’s have been attributed to the phenomenon.’

A staggering pace? Thousands of UK children? And yet, when there are suicides every ten seconds, there are hundreds of teen suicides, only seven suicides have been attributed. In years.  But note that they don’t quote these instances, yet we probably know who they are talking about. Factually, the ONLY case of suicide linked to anything remotely close to the Todd case is Daniel Perry, and nobody gave much of a fuck about that because he was a he.

It goes on. Twelve reported cases of extortion. Not exactly staggering, given just how many kids are online. And that’s not in a week. It’s over years.

Will the lulz never stop? Who is this Cobin guy? I thought he was Coban. But never mind. I’ll be stopping over in ‘Dam soon to check out a few details.  Charged in connection with Amanda? Oh Lord, what a joke. Take my word for it (proof will be provided later) – there is no connection with Amanda. It’s all hype and hullabaloo. Can you see why I kind of get annoyed by all this crap?

This article is so badly constructed, it’s makes my teeth grind. ‘Reports indicate Cobin had as many as 100 other blackmail victims, including 10 in Canada.’ I think that might be true. But it’s convenient to up the numbers – 100 sounds much better than ‘quite a few’. And it is convenient to not include the fact that Aydin Coban went online as a young girl and was more likely to be extorting grown men. And it is, of course, convenient to include Amanda amongst the alleged victims in Canada. That makes for even more hullabaloo.

‘technologically adept’. Give me a break. If he was technologically adept, he would never have been caught.

‘Police have documented many cases of rape or even murder stemming from anonymous contact with youth on social media. ‘ Oh come on! What constitutes ‘many’? Yet more outrageous claims. How many is many? What gets me here is that statistics show that over 80% of victims of child abuse of any sort are victims of their own family or close friends. Cyril Smith? Jimmy Savile? Half the Catholic priesthood? All this type of meaningless clickbait reporting detracts from what really goes on.

Coquitlam RCMP? Holey moley, guacamole. Possibly the worst police force in history.

‘While Coquitlam RCMP framed the arrest of a suspect in the Todd case as a victory, their investigation appears remarkably anomalous. For reasons we don’t yet know, the Coquitlam RCMP departed from the tried and true practice of taking over the complainant’s social media accounts and engaging the perpetrator’

Mmmmm…..not wise to criticise the police, really. OK – the RCMP are, for want of a better phrase, pooing themselves. The charges that they laid are erroneous, and the Press conference was all a sham. The one tiny suggestion that the guy in Holland was part of the Todd story mushroomed into yet another myth – one that the RCMP leapt upon before checking their facts. They will be looking even more dumb when they realise that this has nothing to do with Amanda, and they based their ‘victory’ on one Dutch guess.

‘the Coquitlam RCMP departed from the tried and true practice of taking over the complainant’s social media accounts and engaging the perpetrator’ I am shaking my head in disbelief. ‘tried and true practice’ – in what book of fiction did they see that?

There WAS no perpetrator. At the point that Amanda got her fingers burned, there WAS no blackmail. In Amanda’s own words – verified by Norm and in the dumb ‘Sextortion’ documentary – it was no big deal. How are the police going to deal with that?

The article continues with ridiculous comments and accusations.

‘in the winter of 2010/11, when the Coquitlam RCMP learned a predator was blackmailing Amanda Todd’ – they didn’t learn that at all. What they DID learn was that Amanda was plastering herself over the Interweb and for her it was ‘no big deal’. The idea of a blackmailer was a hastily concocted story to excuse the actions. Oh good Lord – I’ve explained this enough times!

‘While Amanda was advised to get off social media’ – she sure was. And did she get off? Nope. Did Carol and Norm stop her? Nope. Just what were the cops meant to do? Hang around in every chatroom on BlogTV, Dialogoo, Omegle, waiting for the viewers to report for questioning?

‘When Amanda’s blackmailer returned in the spring of 2011 to threaten her again’ – sorry, what was that? Mmmmm….the story goes that the blackmailing began in December 2010, and that the blackmailer returned a year later. But we know that the story is fiction. The story changed to one that states the blackmailer – the one and only blackmailer, the one guy, the publisher of that one photo – returned a few times. Strange that he should be able to return so many times to a girl who was petrified to go online. And of course – blow me, how many more times – wasn’t the supposed threat to do with releasing the one photo – the one photo that had already been shown to half the planet? That’s a pretty empty threat.

‘Indeed, the file was not elevated to major crime status until Amanda took her own life and her video achieved international prominence. ‘ Ha ha and a hearty ha ha. And another ha ha just for good measure. In the police conference, which I tore apart as being feeble hardly a week ago, the woman police officer clearly stated that it had been a MAJOR investigation from December 2010 onwards – something I said was a load of crap, and yet another lie. At least Sandy and Raffi agree here – nothing was done until the aftermath of the video.

But Raffi and Sandy – beware you don’t antagonise the RCMP too much. This case is different in that there was no predator – if the cops tell the truth about what they found, there’ll be trouble.

Last lols.


I mean, seriously, will kids who are ashamed of what they got caught doing report it to the police? Would Amanda have gone to the cops and said and said ‘Oh dear, I’ve been wanking and stripping online and now I’m in trouble’ I think not.

Laters, dudes! xx

2 thoughts on “ffs

  1. “These hackneyed phrases have most people’s eyes rolling upwards these days.”

    Most? That’s doubtful. A very small handful would be more accurate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s