***...still pushing to do a daily post, but as is often still the case, did this one for an arvo, then just had to walk away from it for a coupla' days...still spent time on Twitter, TV news, etc, but that's a sortta' arms-length kinda' engagement, where-as, addressing this sortta' stuff below is deeply and intimately confronting and traumatic and can and does often take a real toll...anyhoos, onwards and upwards...***
Howdy dear availees in the USofA, the UK, the UAE, and the everywhere else...gunna' play a quick sortta' game with ya's today, in that I'm gunna start into the post and challenge y'all to figure out whoms it's all about...("whoms"?-Ed)...who/whom/whatevs, and the first clue is in the title of this 'ere post...and it's a descriptor that the 'whom' was again allegedly recently confronted with...("allegedly"?-Ed)...yeah, well, I didn't witness it directly myself, but I absolutely trust my 'sources'...("sources"?-Ed)...mate! are you gunna' contribute anything today, or just question everything I say?...("everything you say?"-Ed)......riiiight...anyhoos, I trust/believe what I've been told, and I have tried to check, but, as was also put to me, the person was confronted about their conduct but that confrontation/exchange has already been pulled from the (their) website involved...(so, clues in the title, confronted but removed, on their own website...gee, that does sound awfully familiar, any more clues?-Ed)...this person has a history of holding-forth on 'Social Media' websites, not just their own, and then also removing that material or having it removed and then returning to deny/redefine/distract/deflect, etc...
In this instance, recently there was a serious/violent assault, and this person had it up on their website almost immediately it happened, along with a photo of a bloodied 'accused', albeit with their face blurred...I've checked and this is still on the webpage (as of Friday 15th January 2021)...as explained to me, this person was actually witnessed at the scene, going from person to person trying to get info...(hang on, how did this person know to be there, what had happened, etc?-Ed)...well that's a question that a few people have been asking for sometime now, 'cos this person seems to have the happy knack of showing up at 'incidents' very shortly after the incident has occurred, be it car accidents, house fires, and in this case, a violent assault...(indeed, but how would this person know about this stuff ahead of any other reportage, and then be there, etc? how?-Ed)...well the 2 most likely/popular theories are that they have someone in the cops or ambos or whoevs whom calls them and gives them a heads-up...(yeahhh, possible I s'pose, but hardly likely is it?-Ed)...yeah, which is why the most likely explanation is that this person has a 'scanner' and monitors emergency bands for any juicy titbits...(is that even legal?-Ed)...good question...I thought that 'scanning' was illegal, but apparently that's not the case...this is a coupla' years old, but according to the SA Scan website...***
Contrary to widespread belief, scanning is perfectly legal. However, you
should not use information obtained from listening for commercial gain
or criminal activity. Monitoring phone conversations on your scanner
is also forbidden. Apart from that, you can pretty well scan as you
please, though discretion is advised when using scanners in public. For instance, being an 'ambulance chaser' and turning up at accident
scenes, hindering emergency services is an extremely foolish and
inappropriate thing to do. Genuine scanner enthusiasts don't want to
give politicians an excuse to ban or restrict the hobby, as has
occurred in other countries.
***..."being an 'ambulance chaser'...is an extremely foolish and inappropriate thing to do."...and that's the official position from the genuine enthusiasts...Language Warning:...'scanning' ain't illegal, it's actually quite good fun, but there's always the possibility that some idiot's gunna' fuck it up for everyone else...End Language Warning...(it's an interesting issue isn't it? I mean, whether or not a 'scanner' is involved here, has this person, by showing up at a crime scene and questioning people and then sticking it on their webpage, has that person potentially compromised the police investigation and/or any future charges?-Ed)...I further note that SAScan reckon that SAPol (police) and SA ambulances use an encrypted radio system, but that's well beyond my understanding, eg, can that still be 'scanned' with appropriate equipment?...I simply dunno'...
But this is all a bit of a distraction from the main point here, namely, that this person was confronted and challenged about their conduct...as I understand it, the phrase "ambulance chaser" was used to describe their actions in general, and specifically as it related to this incident...apparently it was quite a terse exchange, which is understandable given the intense nature of the subject matter and the 'challenger's' displeasure with the author, etc...whilst I do share concerns/displeasure with the 'ambulance chaser' aspect of this situation, the real issue for me is the censorship of the 'challenger', in that this exchange was almost immediately removed by the webpage person...(and this person has a habit of manipulating the debate/history with this sort of removal/censorship?-Ed)...indeed they do Ed, indeed they do, and they've done it to and/or about me a coupla' times now...(well given the info you've provided here-in, I'd have to say that the offending person is Josh Lynagh and his Facebook page, Limestone Coast Community News-Ed)...yeah, well, it was fairly obvious to anyone who's at all familiar with Josh's work, but spot on...Josh has apparently intimately involved himself in this assault incident, upto and including photo (s?) and questioning witnesses, etc, and when someone's been critical of his conduct, he's censored/removed that criticism...
Recently Josh yet again contacted me with his disingenuous faux-confusion and feigning ignorance and fake sympathy/empathy, etc, etc, about 1) the reality of his own repeated conduct, and 2) my statements about him, which are, as he well knows, reaction to that conduct...as explained above and again below, it ain't the first time he's tried to reconstruct history with his carefully self-exonerating version of events...he writes what he knows to be untrue or a heavily bastardised version of the truth, etc, and here's his latest effort, posted to 'Comments' on this 'ere blog (7th December 2020) after I had identified that he'd had nought to say about the extraordinarily corrupt conduct of the Mt Gambier City Council in evicting/destroying the Blue Lake Cafe and Aquifer Tours business...***
Hi Nick, I was planning on putting a post up over the weekend after TBW reported on it, but I've just been swamped lately. It's been a very busy few weeks, but things are starting to settle. I had several posts scheduled to post today, one of which was about the closure. I hope it's to your liking. Also in regards to me apparently pushing information on behalf of council, a former-councillor actually decided to confront me in McDonald's of all places a couple weeks ago because of the critical reporting I've been doing lately on council, the Hub and the multiple code of conduct breaches by elected members. I guess not everyone likes council being held accountable for their actions. Anywho, I hope you've been well. I can't say I've seen you in at least a year but I'll be sure to at least say hi if I do.
***...bollocks! the only people Josh has ever been "critical" of are those people who question him...he is routinely and regularly mocks his 'followers' with condescending statements like, 'didn't you read the post, hahaha'...Councillors abusing each other on Social Media is petite pomme-de-terre...(whaaa?-Ed)...small potatoes, it's small potatoes...whilst it might be personally indicative of what an abusive bully that Councillor is, eg, Ben Hood, and how his behaviour affects a handful of others, etc, compared to broader issues, eg, the Institutionalised Corruption evident in MGCC's conduct, Social Media spats are relatively insignificant stuff...(said he effectively engaging in a Social Media spat-Ed)...fair call, but the broader issues we're covering here-in are far more damning and critical than the medium involved...(yeah, I can see that-Ed)...I can't see where Josh has ever "held (Council) accountable for their actions", re-running stories from other media sources is not holding anyone to account...(if anything, it's the 'Commentors' who do all of the 'holding'/criticism, etc-Ed)...indeed, as they often do on many other Social Media webpages and media websites, etc...
I cannot/do not see where Josh has ever genuinely criticised MGCC for the extraordinary litany of deceits and manipulations and outright lies that Council has spewed onto Ratepayers regarding the Farcical Aquatic Recreation Centre, let alone 'held them to account' for any of it...and this seems like an appropriate place to remind or inform dear availees that Josh was a Councillor, a Mt Gambier City Councillor, from November 2014 to November 2018, and as such was/is one of the people directly responsible for and involved in the FARC deceits and manipulations and outright lies...(on LCCN and other websites Josh has repeatedly run the MGCC line about issues and/or defended Council's decisions/actions/inaction/whatevs, and even deliberately lied about issues where he knows the truth but denies or contradicts that truth-Ed)...yes, yes he has, and there below is a perfect example of how he operates in this context, ie, it's a fact 'cos it's from Council but it ain't Council's official decision'...(well that just doesn't make sense, that's one pig's arse that just ain't gunna' fly-Ed)...hasn't stopped him from trying, chocks away...
As definition of the reality of his own abuse and criticisms and quite deliberate manipulation of his 'followers' with carefully constructed disinformation, etc, here below is what Josh has had to say about me on occasion...I note that he has removed his statement, "He defames people", quite possibly removed after I identified that saying that as a statement of absolute fact rather than as opinion...(or better still, as a question 'has he/does he defame people with those comments?', etc-Ed)...well quite, as a statement of fact it is in and of itself 'defamation'...as a statement of fact, Josh has accused me of committing a crime, a crime I have not committed, as evidenced by the litany of official but definably vacuous Defamation Threats I've received, in writing, from the Crown Solicitor, the Lutherans and/or their lawyers Piper Alderman, lawyer Bill DeGaris, the Education Dept, etc, etc...(not to mention the dozen+ times that Magistrate Ian White threatened you with Contempt of Court-Ed)...well it's a bit different...(but it's absolutely relevant as a further quantifier as to the constant barrage of abuse, bullying, and threats you've been subjected to, across nearly 2 decades, and literally all due to your continuing advocacy/activism regarding the horrendous St Martins Lutheran School Child Abuse Cover-up-Ed)...fair and accurate call mate, it is indicative of a culture of persecution and cover-up, etc, as it does directly relate to the St Martins Cover-up...here's what Josh's had to say about me...***
***And here below is a classic piece of Lynaghism...as y'all can see, this screen shot was taken from the 'Growing Up In The Mount' page (Facebook?), and was provided to me several weeks after the "yesterday" exchange referred to (8th November 2017)...again, I did not witness the original exchange...(not least of all 'cos Lynagh contacted the page mediator and had it removed that very evening-Ed)...indeed he did, but I've spoken directly with the "someone posted" identified here-in, and with someone else who did see the discussion as it happened...***
***...(and aren't you the "someone...at a Council meeting"?-Ed)...yep...Josh was losing an argument about the Rail Station and Council's actions, etc, when he deliberately de-railed the discussion, pun fully intended, by trying to discredit his opponent... Josh accused that person of 'getting all their info from a certain blog'...(oo oo, say it's us, please say it's us-Ed)...of course it was us...and in this carefully reconstructed re-interpretation of the original exchange, Josh again deliberately misrepresents what I and this 'opponent' had repeatedly carefully explained to him before he even joined Council...(and that is?-Ed)...the exact reality of Council's genuine agenda for the Rail Lands...(which is?-Ed)...moving the Rail Easement to facilitate massive Commercial/Retail Development adjacent to the Centro/Lakes Plaza, right across the site, an agenda that by necessity sees the Old Station getting demolished...
In the original exchange Josh tried to discredit his 'challenger' by denigrating this 'ere blog, then claimed that I had called him a paedophile...(well that's not true, the closest you've gone with that is referring to the entire MGCC as being "Pro-Paedophile Corrupt", which they are-Ed)...indeed...so Josh deliberately sabotaged the discussion about the Rail Lands using 'Paedophile Corruption' as his tool, then used that same issue to have that exchange removed the same evening, then he's gone back onto GUITM early the next day with this deliberately deceitful dross...note how he uses ludicrous hyperbole about 'driving up the steps', absolute nonsense that he knows to be untrue, uses that to mock and discredit the statements of the person whom destroyed him the night before...(but it was/is a lie to say that Council had plans to renovate the Old Station building, it had sat there for years after the $$$millions spent on moving the Easement and the pond, etc-Ed)...yep...(and the recent partial exterior renovation appears to be a half-hearted stop-gap attempt to silence criticism on this issue, the inside is still an Asbestos-riddled mess, and Council has repeatedly and are still refusing to allow any 'Artist' tenants, or any tenants at all-Ed)...again, yep...I also note that the large Sound Shell and extensive covered plaza area of Council's original official 2011 $10m Parklands Concept Plan have not eventuated...(a 'Plan' that proves the Commercial/Retail Development 'conspiracy theory'-Ed)...yes it does Ed, in fact, several different versions of extensive development...
And Josh knows all of this 'cos he's had it carefully explained to him, more than once...but the real gem here is one I've seen Josh use several times, or slightly different versions there-of, and that's the closing paragraph...this is "completely correct" 'cos it comes "direct from Council", but it's "not the views of Council as a whole in any way, shape or form"...(ummm, it's true 'cos it comes from Council but it ain't what Council thinks? that doesn't even make sense-Ed)...no, no it doesn't...(and as written by a then serving Councillor?-Ed)...yep...(so, a serving Councillor claims his is the un-challengeable truth 'cos it comes straight from Council, but none of it is Council's official position?-Ed)...yep...(talk about having a bet each way, and in this case, on a race that doesn't even exist, apparently-Ed)...well that's a bit of a tortured metaphor, but I can see what you mean...(my metaphor is no more "tortured" than the statement itself contorts reason!-Ed)...fair call mate...and from ways back on 19th December 2019, here's some more of Josh's work...***
(part 1 of 2)
Note: I'm doing this as a public post because I have no other way to
contact you.
You clearly put a lot of your time and energy into this blog that people
largely don't take seriously which is a pity, because you're passionate
about a lot of issues that are important. You've seen the posts I've
made about allegations of sexual abuse and rape. You don't see anyone
else covering these things. I'm sure you saw the posts I made which
helped towards an appeal of a sentence of a convicted rapist from Penola
that actually put him behind bars.
Corruption is clearly not something anyone should be advocating, and
obviously I don't. The fact that you so often associate corruption with
me is something I find offensive, because you have no evidence of that.
You called me "complicit" in the cover-up because I ended up on the
council that you claim was involved in the cover-up in 2002. I was a
child when that happened. Clearly I wasn't involved. I know a lot of
people doubt what you've said about what happened there, but I don't.
All I know about it is what you've told me, and what a few other parents
have told me. Stories from both sides. But clearly this is something
that has seriously affected you, evidenced here by the majority of the
posts on this blog.
You can paint me as whatever you like. You have used a lot of colourful
words to describe me, and regularly insult me about things that happened
months or years prior. But the truth is you know very little about me.
You'll notice not once have I called you names, and this is the first
time I've written publicly about you in a very long time. I think you
let things consume you, and your methods of trying to fix them aren't
solving anything. I think we live in very different worlds.
(part 2 of 2) I'm sympathetic to the situation you've been put in, no parent should have to go through that - and I guess a lot of that has lead to what we see today with your posts, how it's clearly consuming you. I'm sure you can see that's not healthy. Credit where credit's due. You've always put your name to things and haven't been afraid to stand up publicly and do something about what you're passionate about. That's the opposite of cowardice. It's the ongoing commentary about me instead of talking to me personally that has spawned these comments. You've had opportunities to talk to me personally and you didn't. You've made no effort to contact me. I'm fairly sure I was the only candidate willing to talk to you back in 2014, because despite thinking some of your ideas were a bit odd, I could see you were passionate about some important things. I'll still even defend you to this day. Just tonight I had people at the supermarket ask me about you, and I said "well, honestly I think his intentions are good and it's clear he's passionate about the right things" - I'm not out trash-talking you everywhere. The wave of comments last night, yes, that was spawned by me. I made a post on my personal social media account directing people to the post, and some people made comments - not all of which I agree with. The "you touched my son" one - personally I found that to be quite disgusting. As a result, I won't be posting about you or your posts on social media anymore. You did say that nobody put their name to their comments, but I'd just like to point out that I did. Always have and always will. Call me a coward all you like, but I'm not hiding (and you know how to get in contact with me) You can take this comment however you like. I'm sure you'll be able to twist it and see it as disingenuous, or perhaps I'm trying to stop you from making your open letter post (I know you'll do that anyway, and it doesn't phase me) or you could see this as some set-up for something. That's up to you. But at the end of the day, I know you're a hurt man who has struggled to process things for a long time, and I'm sick of being a part of that. You don't know me, I don't know you. Surely your time could be better spent focusing on helping yourself, and I'm not going to take any of that time away from you.
***...so much goin' on here, and I ain't got the energy, so I'm just gunna' dot point it...1) not sure what he's saying about being responsible for gaoling a paedophile, etc...2) Josh has fully encouraged people to 'not believe me' with his constant statements about me 'defaming people' and my 'conspiracy theories', etc...3) "stories from both sides"...(sounds like Trump, "good people on both sides"-Ed)...Josh knows exactly what the St Martins Coverup is 'cos he's had it explained to him by at least 2 parents, myself included...this is massively 'passive aggressive' undermining of the reality as he knows it, there is no such thing as "both sides"...4) hasn't called me names? well what's 'defamatory conspiracy theorist'? through-out he belittles and discredits me, even the faux-concern stuff is gaslighting derogatory name-calling, eg, 'people don't take you seriously', "both sides", "seriously affected you", "consume you", "consuming you", "your ideas were a bit odd", "I'm sure you'll be able to twist it", "a hurt man who has struggled to process things", etc, it's all discrediting and derogatory language, often presented as faux-concern...
As Josh well knows my "methods" include spending years trying to get official bodies like SAPol and Child Protection and the Teachers Registration Board and Premiers Rann and Weatherill and Child Abuse Commissioner Ted Mullighan and local politicians like Rory McEwen and lawyers like Bill DeGaris and Tim Bourne, etc, etc, etc, to get any of these deeply complicit and often openly Pro-Paedophile Corrupt persons to address the gross abuses they know were committed against our children by "text-book grooming paedophile" teacher Glyn Dorling...(including you and other parents organising Child Protections involvement, and then literally forcing an albeit deeply corrupted pro-teacher debacle of a TRB Inquiry into Dorling, which itself precipitated a parent-generated Parliamentary Inquiry into the TRB-Ed)...and in the context where we parents have spent years lobbying and writing submissions and letters and providing documents, etc, etc, only to have been routinely deceived and betrayed and attacked by these persons, it's not my "methods" that's the issue, it's the Institutionalised Pro-Paedophile Corruption that we have been subjected to...(indeed, and it was only after a decade of this Institutionalised Corruption that you then finally resorted to creating this 'ere blog-Ed)...exactly...(to then be subjected to years of further abuse and harassment and threats and gross Pro-Paedophile Political and Judicial Persecution-Ed)...methodically subjected to one might say...
("I still even defend you to this day."...absolute bollocks, as proven by his own conduct, often on his own webpage-Ed)...indeed, repeatedly and publicly calling someone a 'defamatory conspiracy theorist' is a very strange way to "defend" them...you know exactly what you've done Josh and what you've said about me and how you've sought to discredit and denigrate me, etc...
But, angry and disappointed as I am, I'm more than prepared to put all of that to one side if it can in any way see a resolution to the St Martins Cover-up, and any of this other stuff...but the St Martins Cover-up is the big issue, and to that end, I and a coupla' other St Martins parents have discussed this and are prepared to meet you at a public cafe or wherevs that is 'neutral' and that suits you, and as soon as possible...bring whoevs you like for emotional/legal/whatevs support, you know that 'physically' you're perfectly safe 'cos that simply ain't an issue...we will sit down and calmly and quietly re-explain everything to you, and you can ask us to clarify anything you don't understand or have already misunderstood, etc, and you can record it all if you want and access whatevs documents, etc, etc, etc...
I am not looking for nor do I want nor am I offering an apology, ultimately it is not about me...what I want, what we want is for you to use your LCCN webpage to explain the facts about the St Martins Cover-up and address the misinformation you have already published or disseminated, eg, there is no "both sides", our children were abused and the teacher got-off scott free, and there-in lies the realities of the Pro-Paedophile Corruption that I repeatedly reference...there is no 'versions' of this reality, this is what happened...I know that you'll get this message, and you can respond here in Comments as you have previously, or just go to TMGI Facebook page and message me there...as I've said, my personal issues/animosity aside, and if you are genuine about Child Protection, etc, then you will meet with us and then act appropriately...we'll be waiting for you to contact us...
Tomorrow: More About The Fascism Of MGCC's 'Unreasonable Conduct' Policy
I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...
What an absolute load of shit.
ReplyDeleteHow hypocritical of you to lie about me online given your constant criticism of others for apparently doing the same about you.
You had every opportunity to fact-check this, to contact me, but instead you've gone and made up a complete bullshit story about me based on what, some gossip someone passed on to you? I wasn't at the scene, Nick. I was 100m down the road from it. I didn't "question witnesses" - I've never talked to a single witness here. I didn't approach a single person. I didn't talk to anyone there. What you've claimed here is a complete fabrication. Your theories about me having connections with emergency services are also completely false. I also don't have a scanner or any app that notifies me of incidents. A member of the public contacted me about it, and I was at a house right around the corner from it. Same goes with the house fire.
I haven't made a single negative comment about you in years, and you're still writing essays about me. Get a new hobby, Nick. Because making up fairytales online about people you don't have the guts to actually meet in person hasn't exactly worked in your favour so far.
Enjoy using this comment to fuel a four-part series about me. Surely there's bigger things to deal with in the world than someone on Facebook reporting news.
If you don't have the decency to contact me before lying about me online, then don't expect me to be reaching out to you to talk about what you want me to talk about.
I already offered to sit and talk with you, and you threw it back in my face. I made a genuine attempt to meet in person and hash out whatever issues exist, and you had zero interest in doing that.