Unsubstantiated accusations
The AIMC have claimed that "we will hide or possibly delete comments that contain unsubstantiated accusations or rumour."
My understanding is that a number of these comments have been very serious allegations of other activity that Rob Gilchrist had been involved in.
I saw one of these comments before it was deleted when the story first broke, and I must say - it was serious, and very disturbing.
The allegation may or may not be true - but if these are true we should know about it - it should be made public.
My question is - has the AIMC made any effort to validate these accusations? I feel that those posting these things may not - due to social standing or a lack of power, or some other reason - have the ability to provide evidence for their claims. But surely the AIMC could make an effort to do so?
If these claims turn out - or have already turned out - false, then that's all good. But if not, somebody is protecting Rob Gilchrist, and over something that I find absolutely horrible.
Comments
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Is this to do with him (allegedly) feeding info on anti-fascists to neo-Nazi groups?
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Is it to do with the child porn that was found on his computer?
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Allegedly found. (-;
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Surely the sensible thing would be for an open discussion on this forum, so that damage control can be done. Every decision / campaign that Rob was involved in should now be revisited. Why is there such a reluctance to do this?
Are the police running this forum perhaps?
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
So WHY are "unsubstantiated accusations or rumour" relating to Rob Gilchrist, being deleted?
Surely now that he has been "outed" in the national media, he is a "person of interest" to all on this forum. We should all be actively seeking every snippet of info about him, so we know what sort of disaster he has been to us. Not delete stuff to protect him!
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
I think somebody should ask around some of the younger Animal Rights activist women about Rob.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Nice one, Ive seen this tactic used in many online discussions to some affect. Unfortunately the crap these agent provos are suggesting in the previous comments is based on a form of counterintuitive manipulation to promote a line of discussions that can only swamp activists in more time wasting exercises.
The lessons that I take from these events are a renewed dislike for the institution of the police which has sort to criminalise the legitimate activities of protestors and label their respective organisations as criminal organisations.
Do not be fooled by these people that are promoting this online lyching of Gilchrist, it is a diversion. The real issues here are the new laws being sort by the police to incarcerate members of what they call criminal organisations.
They are using the gang issue to promote this but I guarantee you right now that this legislation the police are trying to push through parliament will be FIRST used on activists, and MOSTLY used on activist groups.
Why? Because the Terrorism Suppression Act has failed the Special Investigation Group and the police, failed to give them the result they had sort after 4 years of intensive intelligence gathering, their first big operation - FAILED.
They want selected activists in jail, and they want certain activist groups outlawed as criminal organisations. Gangs are just a tool of diversion, they need the gangs to give them a constant supply of manageable work.
Time to wake up. Time not to waste our time chasing outed fools like Gilchrist. Leave Gilchrist to his own lot in Christchurch to sort, we have bigger problems looming than that weak-minded low-life fearful piece of servile human excriment.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
No the real problem here are the ones who seek to control the news. Who beleive they have some "rights" to delete what they see as wrong and bad.
This makes me sick to my very core. It stinks of more control and it comes as no surprise when you know who is "controling" indy these days. This is no longer a forum for discussion but a place where people are too frightened to speak out and lay it down as they see it. The People who run IDNY are control merchants. I am not saying that some of the stuff that has been hidden is not bad but mearly trying to say we are all adults.
This is clearly censorship.
I am concerned about the direction of Indymedia for sometime now. And this just conforms it. Indymedia is being controled by a few to suit the aims of a few. Once someone steps out of line they are rubbished. There have been many times in discussions lately I have been sickened but the comments others have made. Should I be able to hide what I dont like? I sure as fuck dont want that power.
But the real problem is a lack of knowledge and respect. People assume way too much in their lives.
I strongly believe this forum is dying slowly. It is just another place for bitching and moaning.
Rob is loving all this attention believe me.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
So again I ask: where is the damage control being SEEN to be done? Why are the AIMC bosses deleting posts that expose shit on Gilchrist that we would ALL damn sure like to know?
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
"I strongly believe this forum is dying slowly. It is just another place for bitching and moaning."
You can say that again.
Seriously, though, how is publishing unsubstantiated and possibly defamatory rumours about Rob eating babies (or whatever it is he's supposed to have done in addition to spying) helping anyone? Surely it's simply drawing attention away from the issue at hand. I know whose interests that would serve.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
why? because he has a 13 year old daughter who could be very affected by people are saying online. Don't know why this hasn't been mentioned though its what i've been told.
Jo P.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
I imagine the same allegations about him being a spy a few years ago would be deleted on Indy too.
Freedom of Speech.. yeah right.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Surely his "daughter" is going to get more flak from her daddy being a pig spy than that he was eating babies or whatever other crimes he has done. Come on censors, let the facts be seen!
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
"Come on censors, let the facts be seen"
Surely this is the problem - we don't know what the facts are. Isn't it more useful to have an evidence based discussion rather than have unsubstantiated defamatory accusations flying around.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
It was not kiddy porn on my computer. They were "art photos". Now the ones with me and the sheep I accept are a bit hard to explain.
regards Rob
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Video clip of the big cheese of the SIG, the unit who employed Gilchrist, waddling down the street drunk off his head.
http://tinyurl.com/aaronpascoe-pissed
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
the sub-heading did warn it could be disturbing...maybe it was more disturbing than the rick astley video that now plays under the title 'aaron pascoe drunken stupor'?
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
The Indymedia Collective doesn't have the resources to follow up on the validity of every allegation posted as a comment on Indymedia. It's not even possible since almost everything is anonymous.
I think if someone wants to make a serious allegation and expose something they think that everyone needs to know here on Indymedia, they should write an article about it, not post an ambiguous two line comment.
Wisdom for the Week: If something is worth doing it is worth doing well.
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Is that why the featured item on this issue was pulled?
http://indymedia.org.nz/feature/display/72017/index.php
and the comments box switched off
Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-947291905241301873
this will not slow us down, this will only make us work harder.
Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Usually any time the comments box is turned off is because of a massive spam attack. There aren't that many eds at the moment and usually we either do not have the time or the tech skills to deal with the massive amount of spam that comes this way on almost a daily basis. So the most effective way to deal with it is to turn off comments (which unfortunatly hides all posted comments as well as not accepting new comments) for an hour or so until the spam attack is over, I'm assuming this is what happened in this case.
Kerry
A-IMC Ed.
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Brevity is IMPORTANT. Why write a major epic article when you can say it in two lines?
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Brevity is IMPORTANT. Why write an epic article when two succinct lines will suffice to make a point?
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Don't be so silly Tyler. In a search for the harm done by a secret policeperson, ALL words are worth reading. Isn't that the whole point of allowing "comments" after articles?
So are you trying to get "brief comments" abolished?
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Don't be so silly Tyler. In a search for the harm done by a secret policeperson, ALL words are worth reading. Isn't that the whole point of allowing "comments" after articles?
So are you trying to get "brief comments" abolished?
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
big surprise,, look at what AIMC decided to keep quiet about Dow Chemical & New Plymouth!!! a major disaster!!!
AIMC has zero credibility.
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Mate, the reason you have so little support here is because you attack your allies, just as you have in the above post.
Nobody is going to help you if you are noxious.
Attacking supporters is a tactic Gilchrist used repeatedly.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
""""I think if someone wants to make a serious allegation and expose something they think that everyone needs to know here on Indymedia, they should write an article about it, not post an ambiguous two line comment."""
unless of course if it is about Helen Clarks personal chemical company disaster in New Plymouth
then we become professional USA censors
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
I think if anyone has anything potentially defamatory to say about Gilchrist (or anyone else) they should be allowed to do so here, but should have the guts to sign their name to it. I have no respect at all for Gilchrist but the guy does have a right to defend himself and to know who his accuser is.
Michael Morris
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
before i continue with unsubstantiated allegations, can anyone tell me if they recall rob ever being arrested? and if so, when/ what for?
(just trying to put together a summary)
cheers
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
He was arrested along with several others at a protest in Wellington in September 2000. He was tried and convicted in 2001, but the conviction was quashed on appeal.
If you're putting together a summary and you don't know this, perhaps you're the wrong person to be putting together a summary?
Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
You're right, we need professional Indymedia people doing everything. If just anyone can publish anything, gosh, that would run contrary to the whole spirit of things here.
Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
the right kind of person to do a summary my dears (and why should there be only one?) is someone big enough to ask a question if shes not sure of something.
actually i knew him very well, but not in 2001.
kisses
x.
Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Yes, I apologise for being rude. Would you also like a list of crimes he committed prior to 2001?
Re: Re: Re: Unsubstantiated accusations
Yes please.