by Rupert Insider
A couple of day’s ago, Duncan Oldham published a rambling paranoid rant which he labeled “Anti-KT”. He even linked to it from the front page of Koptalk. You can read it in its entirety on this blog HERE.
In it he referred to his critics as convicts, clowns and teenagers and banned former members. So obviously he was not talking about us.
He also said they had tried to blackmail him by offering to stop their criticism in exchange for cash.
The rant itself was evidence of how much the nasty critics were getting to him. But just in case the point was missed he explained in heart-rending terms how it was hurting kids and a sick cousin, Lauren, whose bed sore was big enough for even one of his super-sized fists. He never did explain why criticism of his scams was an attack on them.
He also said Koptalk has thousands of members, even more than last year, when he said it had 6,000. A thread was opened so the multitude could express their support for their suffering Jeremiah.
Only 11 (eleven) did.
They were: barryp, DidisSillyRun, Grewster, natz_182, johninashed, redtothebone, farhad1985, Dave69, chrispy, rtw, Joelkeeper
Even if we assume that none of these were the false aliases he created a few weeks ago for his “competition” or any of the others he is know to have in stock, its not a lot is it?
And when you look at the content of their posts their support was hardly unconditional.
We know there are a lot more blog supporters than 11 (eleven) on KT and we have noticed others who have been using sarcasm to very good effect, leading the loon on into thinking they are his supporters while they expose his contradictions.
Look at chrispy’s and bigfooty’s comments for example. Could anyone be sure that they are not having him on?
May 15 07:29 AM
Dunk, why haven’t you approached the old bill over these blackmail attempts?
May 15 08:12 AM
I wouldn’t waste their time. It’s kids stuff. My old man was old bill for 33
years so I’ve enough contacts who are aware of it all
May 15 08:30 AM
It’s clearly not kids stuff if it is impacting on people around you like you
In any kind of libel action the onus is on the author to prove their claims,
so if you took them to court they’d have to prove what they claim is true.
May 15 08:43 AM
I aint wasting a penny of my wonga on anyone. I rise above it and so do the
people that are close to me. I just like to keep my members and friends
informed of how I feel
He “rises above it” by putting it on the front page of his site, and coming back repeatedly to it in ever more bizzare rants, making podcasts directed at his critics and threatening them with his “underworld friends”, “a hitman” and “the police”.
He also removes the PM, email and other ways in which his members can communicate directly with each other. And he never identifies his critics or gives an address where his members can read the criticisms for themselves and make up their own minds and he deletes any post that does and bans the poster.
And notice his return to the “police” theme which he started over a year ago? He says his Dad’s mates know all about his critics.
If he has reported the blackmailing blaggards to the police it won’t cost him a penny to bring them to justice. So why does he excuse his lack of action by saying he won’t spend a penny on it? Perhaps its because his Dad’s mates are getting a bit long in the tooth. Or maybe they were annoyed when some of them visited Oldham’s house in Scarborough unannounced on “other business” and found radios he was selling on the internet tuned to private police channels. Oldham himself confessed to this on a Usenet group.
And in so far as he refers to civil action – suits for slander and defamation or whatever – bigfooty is not entirely right.
Its true the burden would be on the nasty critics to prove that their statements were true or fair comment on a person who describes himself as an “A-list” internet personality.
But why should that be a problem? I don’t know who these critics are, but as I understand it, their criticisms are based on Oldham’s own words and actions in the public domain and as reported by those who have had dealings with him.
bigfooty may also have (deliberately?) missed the point that if Oldham does sue, the blaggards would have the right to Discovery.
In other words the right to haul Oldham to the courthouse, put him on oath and demand answers to a lot of relevant questions. He would have to produce records. These would include the Koptalk books and membership list, the Lauren appeal fund, his bank accounts and his invoices and receipts, the names of the people he refers to as “Insiders” at Anfield, proof of his claimed meeting with executives and players, the names of his underworld friends and hitman, the sources of his income including any from the DSS, proof of the properties he says he has bought and an explanation of where he got the money to buy them. He would also have to explain how much he still owes creditors who secured county court judgments and why he stopped paying the ₤15 a month the court allowed him when he lied about being unemployed due to disability arising from “anxiety and depression”.
And Oldham would not object to that would he? He has nothing to hide does he?
And they would have the right to know the names of the police officers – those he says are members of Koptalk and those he says are watching his critics for him.
In fact, the blaggards already have the right to approach the police and demand to know if what Oldham says about their involvement is true and on what legal basis? My guess is that the blaggards will do that now that the loon has given them an opening.
And after Discovery, if he is still inclined to proceed, the blaggards have the right to cross-examine him in the witness box with a charge of perjury hanging over his head if he should lie, as he usually does when cornered.
I am confident that not one person who is at arms-length from him would step forward to vouch for any of the lies and scams Oldham has conducted on Koptalk over nine years. But I notice he has locked the “support” thread on KT now. The low numbers are embarrassing and in his rampant paranoia he can’t be sure that some of those signing up are not pulling his leg. And he doesn’t like being pinned down on why he does not report the critics to the police or sue them.
He has sued and threatened to sue many times before. He has sued business partners, he has threatened to sue the owners of other websites and unemployed and sick writers in order to silence his critics. But he won’t sue the critics he’s talking about now. He won’t even sue us! Makes you think dunnit?
He wasn’t always so shy of the courts. In a couple of days, in Part 2, I’ll publish the legal advice Oldham used to dispense freely on the net, and his technique for using legal threats to pressure companies into paying him off. He says he did it a lot – used the threat of court action to blag stuff.
(Thanks to Outside Insider for the research)