Alder Hey kids object of LFC site publicity stunt

by Rupert Insider

I have sent the following letter to the Press Officer of the Alder Hey Hospital.

____________________________________________________

Dear Sir:

I want to draw your attention to a publicity stunt which involves a Christmas appeal for Alder Hey.

The aim is to promote Koptalk.com and its sole owner Duncan Oldham.

One of the objectives of the stunt is to take photos of a presentation of gifts to the children and get them published in the Liverpool Post and Echo and Koptalk.

I think the parents would object to Duncan Oldham having contact with their children, let alone taking photographs.

For a full background with all the supporting references please visit a blog that monitors Oldham’s activities. This link will take you to an article about the proposed Alder Hey stunt.

You might also want to check with Ian Cotton, Head of Press at Liverpool Football Club who has written a letter to the blog denying Oldham’s false claims to have had contact with LFC.

In addition to the arguments in the article there are other reasons why Oldham is not a fit person, or his site a fit business, to be involved with the children in the care of Alder Hey.

For many years he has appeared to be preoccupied on his site with the subject of child rape. Several years ago he claimed on his site that his 8 year old daughter was raped at school. This seems to have been a lie to disorient his critics. He used the technique of accusing critics of attacking his children several times since then up to and including one of his “editorials” two days ago. He has also accused them of doctoring photos of his children – some of the many he has placed on the internet.

He has used his photos of his young children and details of their life for years to promote his site and to deflect his critics.

Recently he said on a internet broadcast from his site, in a lecture to his 16 year old step-brother, that he empathises with the rape of underage girls because when you reach his age (32) they ignore you.

Even more recently he broadcasts a podcast in which he had instructed the same step brother to act as the straight man in a joke in which Oldham said he is so sick he sleeps with the 12 year friends of his daugher (whom he named in the joke and who is the same girl he once claimed had been raped).

He uses photos of his young daughter to publicise a book entitled “Anfield Exposed”. He has been collecting deposits on advance orders for up to three years and admitted recently he has not written a word of it.

Some time ago he organised an appeal for a sick girl name Lauren whom he claimed was his cousin. He asked for donation to be sent to his own account or to his mother’s account. He has provided no public accounting. Many, if not most, contributors did not receive a receipt. Shortly after the appeal he boasted of buying several new expensive audio visual items for himself.

He also extended the appeal for money to pay the mortgage on the parents of Lauren. Several contributors to the blog have written that they contributed substantial amounts and now feel cheated. This matter has been reported to the Charity Commissioner who recommend that it be reported to the police.

In his appeals and all his commercial activites Oldham favours payments in cash or non-negotiable and non-traceable instruments such as bank drafts and vouchers – as in the case of this Alder Hey appeal.

Oldham has been investigated by Trading Standards officers for potential illegal trading practices.

He has a long history of false representations and outright lies about his relations with LFC.

He and his site are the only one specialising on LFC that tries to break the Liverpool-based boycott of the SUN newspaper and his site does not support the Hillsborough Justice Campaign representing the families of the 96 dead Liverpool boys and men.

Oldham claims to consort with “underworld friends” including an “insane Liverpool hitman” and has made public threats of injury and death against the writers of this blog.

All the above matters have been detailed and supported in the blog.

Oldham has no standing in the City of Liverpool. He comes from Scarborough, Yorkshire and lives in Wallsend, Tyne-and-Wear from where he operates his one-man site. On his site he characterises Liverpool kids as “scallies” not to be trusted.

His full contact details and what we know of him can be found on the blog under the item 5. Shop Oldham in the tool bar.

By his own admission he is not allowed unrestricted access to his own two children who are cared for by his estranged wife in Scarborough.

His stock defence when exposed is to claim that his critics are former banned members of his site or “rivals”.

Our blog does not take any revenues. Nor are we rivals. We are not a football site. We are a specialised blog that monitors Oldham and his site. None of us have had any dealings with Oldham or have ever been banned from his site. Indeed, most of the members of his site have left since the blog began in the summer – hence his publicity stunt to find new members.

As someone who was a patient of Alder Hey several times when I was young, I believe that if the parents of the children were aware of Oldham’s history they would object to him, his family employees under his control or other helpers from his site visiting their sick children to promote his site or to take photos which may then find themselves on the internet.

I will publish this letter on the blog.

Thank you for your attention.

Rupert

__________________________________

If you would like to write your own letter you will find all the contact details here:

http://www.alderhey.com/RLCH/contact_us.asp

You can select to whom you address the email. I selected Press Office. You can also send a letter to the Managing Director by snail mail or telephone the hospital.

There is also a section for fundraising. I have copied the letter to them.

http://www.alderhey.com/RLCH/fundraising.asp

_____________________________________________________________

SUN-loving scab site tries to re-write history

by Rupert Insider

On 1st December I posted an article on here entitled SUN “not sorry”. Boycott continues except on Koptalk

It was about the latest Kelvin Mackenzie admission that he was insincere when he had previously said he was sorry.

I noted that much of the day had already passed without comment from Duncan Oldham the sole owner of Koptalk. He was too busy making fart jokes about the name of the new Anfield stadium and discussing the relative merits of Pizza Hut and Dominos in his site’s Shoutbox.

It took him another whole day to figure out how he was going to handle it in one of his snarling editorials (no link provided to deny him revenue earning traffic. To see a copy go to Comments at the bottom of this page).

This was one of his opening paragraphs:

“If you make such a cock-up in life and upset so many people – especially the Hillsborough families – whether you believe you’re right or wrong, surely you simply remain silent (if you refuse to apologise) for the benefit of those who will be affected by the disaster until the day they die. The fact that he continues to speak in such a manner shows zero respect for the families and others. There are few people in society that I can think of that act in such a way.”

Oh the irony!

Apart from Kelvin MacKenzie, I can think of only one other who has refused to apologise for his attempt to break the boycott of the S*n. But maybe that’s because he really isn’t sorry – just like Mackenzie.

Whenever he tries to defend himself he always tries to imply that criticism is based on his wearing a S*n promotional hat. It’s much more serious than that. But even in that incident he lies. Usenet records show that he knew about and discussed the boycott of the S*n long before he wore its promotional hat. Yet he says again today that he didn’t know. And it was some months after he wore the hat that he brazenly published the photograph of the incident on Koptalk.

Much more serious was his unusual refusal to promote the Hillsborough Justice Campaign on his site.

Nor is this ancient history. A few months ago, he pompously lectured his readers on the merit of his site being “neutral” on the issue and how it would not feature either the Hillsborough Justice Campaign or Michael Shields campaign because they were about “politics” and the people involved difficult to deal with.

He set himself up then and previously as spokesperson for all those who don’t support the boycott of the S*n.

He did try to make a distinction at that time between the policy of his site and his own personal beliefs and practices.

But he is the sole owner and beneficiary of his site. It is a one-man site. On that site, he frequently claims “Dunk knows best” , it’s his site, he repeatedly reminds us, and anyone who does not agree with how he runs it can “fuck off”.

He slipped up again at that time when he told us that he personally takes two copies of the S*n daily. When we pointed the contradiction he tried to cover by saying – well it was not so bad because he didn’t actually pay for the two – he bribed the paper boy to give him the second copy free. And when that went down like a lead balloon he cranked up his PR and produced a video showing a mock S*n burning ceremony.

His site is the only one about LFC that features stories lifted from the S*n. This is sometimes in the form of brief BBC summaries of what the papers say, but more often takes the form of stolen stories from the S*n which he tries to pass off as original or even “exclusive” Koptalk stories.

His usual technique is to alter the S*n headline and some of the copy and then have it placed on News Now as a Koptalk story. Because his site is the only one that breaks the boycott and carries the S*n crap (even News Now does not take feeds from the S*n) he benefits from the curiosity factor

He gets thousand of hits from his S*n stories on News Now and benefits directly from the advertising revenues this brings. It also gives him an opportunity to entrap vistors into paying for membership on his site on the grounds that he will provide them with similar “exclusive news directly from Anfield”.

Even more scurrilous was his attempts to sell dirt about LFC players to the S*n especially about Robbie Fowler and Steve McMananman.

And then there are his banner headlines advertising the S*n.

He ran them for over a fortnight earlier this month before we published a report on them. He then waited for two days to measure the reaction. When more than ten LFC-related sites condemned him, he made a weak statement to the effect that he didn’t know they were there and he took them off. Its difficult to understand how a one-man site which boasts about its 24 x 7 moderation of its content failed to notice the S*n banner headlines.

Taking them off, as he did, showed he had the ability to pick and choose which of the Fastclik ads were shown, despite what he said then and now. And several contributors to this and other sites, including the owners and webmasters, published excerpts from the Fastclick contract showing that site owners have complete discretion in which ads are shown.

Anyway that was all academic because after a few days of abstinence from S*n money, he started displaying the banner ads again on Koptalk. In the face of renewed protests he said that they earned only the equivalent of 13 cents so what was all the fuss about?

In his latest defence he says the the S*n ads don’t earn any revenue at all.

He would have us believe that he, the most money-grubbing of all site owners, is apparently the only one who runs advertisements for the S*n as a public service – something he won’t do for the Hillsborough Justice Campaign.

Attached below is one of his many banner headlines for the S*n. Click on it if you want to see how big it was when it appeared on Koptalk.

It also gives you an idea how big a liar Duncan Oldham is.

Charity-collecting tout now hacks into users accounts

You’ll remember earlier in the week when we posted the screenshots and text from Johnny H’s last post on Koptalk. After being a member for over three years, in which time he’d posted information he’d been party to relating to potential transfer deals and so on, he felt it was time to move on. Except it wasn’t his last post after all.

His post was well written but wasn’t particularly nasty towards Duncan Oldham. (Duncan Oldham is the owner of Koptalk.coN, and a confirmed ticket tout, and internet conman). Compared to some we’ve seen it was quite polite. Dunk had done well out of Johnny over those three years, no doubt at all. People stayed because of information from people like Johnny. No doubt those people told their own friends about this kind of information and more members would be enticed in. That’s in no way an attack on Johnny or any of the others who would share this information with fellow forum members. They didn’t know at the time just what sort of person they were helping. They’d never really thought about how much money Oldham was making. The £30 memberships stack up though – Oldham should be grateful.

He isn’t though is he? He is never grateful for anything. He exploits everyone, always has done.

He banned Johnny. Then Johnny clicked the wrong bookmark in his browser, and instead of the message saying “You’re banned” (or “You’ve banned yourself” probably) he found he was back inside Koptalk. He had a look around, and had a look for his last post. It was gone, but there was something very worrying there in the list of posts.

A post in his name, after he’d already left.

Someone had hacked into his account.

#41232 – Yesterday at 09:38 AM
Re: I am in shock…. [Re: Taffy]
Johnny H
Gold Member
****

Registered: 09/07/03
Posts: 793
Loc: Liverpool
We have to remember that we have so many injured players at the moment. Things could have been different.

Johnny never wrote those words.

Johnny never had “Liverpool” as his location. His avatar had been changed.

The number of posts against this user name was 793, one more than it had been when he made his last post.

He didn’t make this post. So who had?

There’s two possibilities that I can see. Either someone not a part of Koptalk had hacked into the software that is used by Koptalk, exposing a security hole that will no doubt have a huge impact on the sales of that product. Or someone from Koptalk had used one of the options included in the software to make the post instead.

Johnny’s account has been hacked. And in the absence of any evidence on any website related to the forum software Oldham uses, it’s pretty much a safe bet that Koptalk had been the ones doing the hacking.

Their initial decision had been to ban Johnny. Then they opened up the account and made this post. Hoping that nobody had noticed that one of the last remaining “big hitters” had left in disgust.

That is going to cause outrage amongst any decent person – you just don’t do this. Not unless you are instinctively corrupt. And we’ve seen this summer how Dunk’s instincts work.

Some members raised concerns on the site. Members who’d been aware of the revelations we’d been making here, members who knew that Oldham was dodgy. Members who knew that he wouldn’t answer them openly and honestly, and who knew they were likely to “ban themselves” by asking questions. Well done to them for asking, because even if they raise suspicions from just one previously unaware member they’ve done a good thing.

#42602 – Today at 03:29 PM
Re: I am in shock…. [Re: Johnny H]
Desertscouser
Honorary Member
**
Registered: 20/09/06
Posts: 9827

Originally Posted By: Johnny H
We have to remember that we have so many injured players at the moment. Things could have been different.

Hold on.

Johnny H has left koptalk for good.(Another top poster leaves)

Has someone hacked into his account?!!
- – - – - – - – - – - – - -
#42631 – Today at 03:47 PM Re: I am in shock…. [Re: Desertscouser]
nonni19
Gold Member
***

Registered: 03/07/04
Posts: 969
Loc: Iceland

Yeah, did you have a change of heart Johnny?
- – - – - – - – - – - – - -
#42654 – Today at 04:05 PM
Re: I am in shock…. [Re: nonni19]
Disco1999
Honorary Member
***
Registered: 17/05/04
Posts: 7301
Loc: Bristol

Originally Posted By: nonni19
Yeah, did you have a change of heart Johnny?

Don’t think so mate.

I think he’s worried his account has been hacked.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Those posts lasted longer than normal – perhaps Dunk was away shopping for kits at the Toon Army Megastore. Perhaps Steve was at the dog track again. Perhaps Katie was chatting to Rich Tea on MSN, the pair of them distracted from their main job of policing the mess Dunk made. Whatever it was, they lasted a while. And were seen by a lot of users.

“Desert Scouser” was banned for his post as soon as the fat thieving conman had seen it. He was later emailed, as he revealed on est1892. The email is from Koptalk “support”…

With reference to your post on the site this morning regarding another member and their account security.

We noticed that someone claiming to be this person was posting last night so we naturally pulled that username with immediate effect as that former member asked for their account to be closed.

We have seen no other examples of anyone ‘hacking’ anyone’s account and we don’t know if this was a genuine case or not, especially as the former member hasn’t reported this to us. Incase the account had been compromised we chose to delete it immediately along with any individual posts incase they were not made by that member.

With regards your own account. While we appreciate your assistance with this matter, there are proper channels to bring this kind of thing to our attention.

If someone was using someone elses account and they hadn’t been noticed, by posting this openly you could have scared such an offender away where as if you had come to us direct we may have been able to monitor them and where they were logging in from.

As you are concerned about the security of your account, would you like us to close yours for you to allay any fears you may have?

Thanks for raising the issue.

Bullshit from top to bottom. Duncan – you’ve been caught. Again. Add “hacker” to the list of crimes and dodgy scams that we’ve exposed you for. This particular one was exposed thanks to Johnny H, Desertscouser and others.

Let’s go through your “explanation” again. Remember Oldham, very few people are as thick as you. We don’t fall for stuff you’ll fall for. We don’t love you, so we aren’t blind to what you do. We see it straight away. Maybe Katie saw those posts straight away, but family or not, maybe she’s started to see through you as well? Anyway, let’s start with this – “We noticed that someone claiming to be this person was posting last night so we naturally pulled that username with immediate effect as that former member asked for their account to be closed.” I think you’ll find that Johnny H didn’t ask for his account to be closed. He left, with a parting message that he probably wishes had been worded more strongly now, but he left. Then you banned him, before opening his account up again and hacking in as him. As far as I know there was one post, but you are implying that there were numerous posts.

Then this – “We have seen no other examples of anyone ‘hacking’ anyone’s account and we don’t know if this was a genuine case or not, especially as the former member hasn’t reported this to us.” The former member wouldn’t have known though would he? How could he report it? You claim that he’d asked you to close his account. So how would he have known about someone else using his account? Unless someone told him, he could only know by logging in himself. And if he was logging in himself, how could you then have “noticed that someone claiming to be this person was posting”? How? If Johnny H is locked out and his account is closed then he’s not going to be able to see anyone hacking in. If he’s not locked out and so he’s logged in, well how can you be sure it wasn’t him posting? You can’t. You’ve lied. Again.

Your lie about Johnny asking for the account to be closed doesn’t fit does it? Nor does this: “Incase the account had been compromised we chose to delete it immediately along with any individual posts incase they were not made by that member.” Ah – delete the evidence hey? I wonder if your hosts would be in possession of any back-ups of your MySQL database, the one that contains all those posts. You see that post will have had an IP Address recorded against it. Hacking is a crime, an offence. If the police are told about this (including your dealings with hackers in the summer to get at Steve’s Hotmail account without his permission for £50) then they could inspect that database. And then they could find the IP address. And from there, they could find out who was using that IP address at that time.

Of course, if you weren’t the one doing the hacking, and you had nothing to hide, you won’t have actually “deleted” the post as such. (The software generally just hides the posts – so that post is probably still available to look at and can be recalled by someone with ADMIN access to the forum). If you had nothing to hide, and you were worried that your site had seen its security compromised, I think you’ll have taken a note of that IP address. Or addresses, if there were numerous posts as you claim. So – did you take a note of the IP Address(es) used? Do they match anyone else’s? Of course they do – either “Dunk” or “ST3″.

Time for another injection of brown stuff: “With regards your own account. While we appreciate your assistance with this matter, there are proper channels to bring this kind of thing to our attention.” Proper channels being what exactly? Let’s assume you mean that desertscouser should have reported this through a PM. Sorry, they don’t work any more. Through a “support ticket”. What would you have done? You’ve just told us that as soon as you saw this other person posting as Johnny H that you deleted the posts. Then you contradict yourself, as all compulsive-but-stupid liars do: “If someone was using someone elses account and they hadn’t been noticed, by posting this openly you could have scared such an offender away where as if you had come to us direct we may have been able to monitor them and where they were logging in from.” Why delete their posts? You could hide them instead. Why not leave it open anyway, just in case? You could still “monitor” them. Except “them” was you. You are the hacker. You did it to try and pretend Johnny had never left. You’d hoped nobody would notice. And if it wasn’t you, let us know the IP address. We can check it out for you.

More importantly, now that it’s established that “someone” was using Johnny H’s account, don’t you think it should be announced on your site? You don’t need to go into too much detail, just point at that Johnny H has chosen to leave Koptalk and someone hacked in as him. Tell the readers that that post wasn’t by him. Tell them you are sorry and that you will do your best to find out how someone could have hacked in. One or two might believe you. Most will already know, from here and elsewhere. Maybe you’ll tell them about this method of getting into someone else’s account, something pointed by “Hansi” on est1892 -

From UBBCentral’s documentation:
Quote: Member Information Tab
From this tab, you can view and edit the basic user details, such as display name, email address and member title. Additionally, using the buttons below, you can delete the user, email the user’s password to him/her, or become the user – which is especially helpful for troubleshooting problems a user is experiencing.

So which was it then Duncan? You pretending to be Johnny H, or some as-yet-undocumented security hole in the software you use? I know which one I think it is.

Just a reminder – if you are still a Koptalk member – do not pledge any money to this charity appeal being run by Duncan Oldham. If the above doesn’t convince you that he’s a liar and a conman, then ask him whether Lauren, his disabled cousin, ever got that money you pledged. Ask him to show some kind of evidence, after all thousands of pounds were donated. That was his last charity scam and he can’t prove anything. He was flashing the money quite openly at the time though, boasting of his new TVs and the rest.

We’ve set up a page at Just Giving. We don’t touch the money at all – you give to “Just Giving” and they give straight to Alder Hey. Their admin fees are low and if you are based in the UK they can claim an extra 28% on top of your donation. I’ve been taking notes of Dunk’s Alder Hey collection and will post on it in more detail today or tomorrow, all being well. If you do want to donate to Alder Hey, don’t do it through Dunk – do it here – http://www.justgiving.com/notdunk. Thanks to those who got the ball rolling for us too, I do appreciate it.

Whatever you do – don’t trust Dunk. If you are concerned about what happened to your donations to the “Lauren Appeal” then please contact the Charities Commission. And if you think it’s not worth bothering and someone else will write, think again.

And if you work at Alder Hey – please warn them. And warn them in advance of the excuses Duncan will try to give them. Ask them to raise the issue of the Lauren collection with him if he does contact them (he’s claiming he’ll be contacting them tomorrow). I really don’t think they can condone his collection in light of the apparent theft of all that money donated for Lauren.