Why does Koptalk's Oldham pretend his young friend is his brother?

by Rupert Insider

delboy-and-rodney63.jpgugly-picture10-cropped.jpgugly-picture9bigger-cropped.jpg

Yesterday, I noted Oldham’s odd remark about Steve MacNeish that “I treat him as a brother because that’s how I see him”. So I did some figuring.

Even if Oldham’s mother is now married to Andrew MacNeish or is his informal partner, neither of which Oldham has claimed, Steve is not Oldham’s half-brother or step-brother unless his mother was Steve’s biological mother 4 years before she was widowed by the death of Oldham’s father .

Oldham’s father was Robert Arthur Fred Oldham.

Duncan Oldham has many times publicly claimed his father committed suicide in 1993. He also claimed emotively that the death of his father widowed his mother.

Oldham was about 19 or 20 at the time.

In 1999, Oldham said his surname was “Wadkin” when he was a kid, because his parents had split up.

Given Oldham’s statement that his mother was widowed by his father’s death it suggests that she was still formerly married to him but may also have been in an informal partnership with a Wadkin, unless that partnership had broken up by 1993. (But see the postscript that suggests that Wadkin may have been his mother’s maiden name).

But why would Oldham change his surname to Wadkin when he was a kid, if he was still in a meaningful relationship with his father? And he may have been because he also claims that money he got when he was 20 as a result of his father’s death financed the purchase of his first luxury car.

Steven MacNeish was born in 1989. He was 4 when Oldham’s father died. Oldham says Steve’s father is Andrew MacNeish.

I am not aware of any statement by Oldham that his mother married him. Nor any statement that she is Steve’s biological mother. His name is not Wadkin.

Oldham says he lives across the street from his mother. But we have never seen any evidence that there is more than one house involved. All the evidence we have seen suggests that he lives with his mother.

So what is the relationship between the 32 year old Oldham and the 17 year old (just now turned 18) Steve MacNeish?

On the surface it seems to be an intense and exclusive friendship on both sides between the emotionally needy and insecure older man and the passive, undemonstrative youth whose main role is to act as a listener and approver.

Neither of them have other close friends. Oldham said yesterday that they both spend all their working hours together 7 days a week on KopTalk. He claimed this time last year that Steve slept in the KopTalk hut.  Shortly after Steve began signing his name as “Steve Oldham” – at least for a time.

Oldham needs the relationship more than Steve. He admits Steve asks for nothing. But Oldham constantly harps on it, defines it, exaggerates it and tries to secure it with gifts – or at least the promise of gifts. He claims that he will take care of Steve and has already got him a place of his own and is supervising some courses for him. He said he has set him up for life. He said he will give Steve KopTalk and all related sites.

So how and where did it all begin?

Oldham said he moved from Scarborough, Yorkshire to his current address in Wallsend in March 2002. Steve was 12 then going on 13.

Yet Oldham said yesterday that Steve began working on KopTalk when he was 9 – and the archives show that Steve was put in charge of the KopTalk Kids feature when he was 10 in 1999. Is it possible that Oldham met Steve on the net? Obviously he was trying to encourage kids to join Koptalk by the very fact he had a specialist kids service – one now run by his 14 yr old daughter which also features his 8 year old son. And we know that some complainants state that he ripped off their young brothers for membership fees or sold items.

In 1999 when Steve started on KopTalk Oldham was 25. He had been married 1 year. In the previous two years 1998 and 1997 he had been advertising in Usenet groups for fit young lads and military cadets to join him (in the 1998 ad in which he disguised himself as a 25 yr old girl) or join him and his girlfriend in (in the first 1997 ad) . In both ads he invited them to perform in sex-videos he wanted to make with his cam. The first ad did not mention money the second did – it would cost the punter £10 or more.

As we all know, video cams have been a prominent part of his relationship with Steve for at least a year.

We don’t know when Oldham split from his wife. We do know that about a year ago, 2006, he complained that he did not have custody of his kids. Steve was 16 then, and “ran away” for a time.

It is extraordinary that thousands of people have been left with the impression that Steve is Oldham’s brother or half-brother. And until now, Oldham has never cared to deny it or clarify the situation.

Why would Oldham want to create that impression or allow it to grow? It seems it would have been so much simpler to have written a sentence explaining it or correcting false impressions. Its the normal, natural thing to do. After all its not as though he is shy about writing about his family and himself.

I suppose the obvious answer is that he wants people to have that impression. Why?

And after so long why did he feel the need to hint at a confession yesterday when Steve has reached an age when he has significant more legal rights.

When he says he treats Steve as a brother – that does not ring true either. Brothers don’t talk like that, they don’t act like that.

So what does Steve’s father have to say about it all?

Well, nothing now because Oldham has fixed Steve up with his own place. Oldham is Daddy now. But Andrew MacNeish has been featured on KopTalk before. Several years ago, when Oldham was first making friends with Steve, he gave Andrew a “KopTalk approved advertisment” on KopTalk – a whole page to advertise his get-rich-quick-pyramid- selling scheme. HERE

Andrew MacNeish put in another appearance early last year. Oldham said he was the person who put together the KopTalk hut and he was said to be the man featured in a staged photograph as one of the staff of KopTalk working on a computer. Oldham claimed that the hut was financed by his mother’s credit card. And Andrew is said to have appeared this year in the video of the Barcelona trip.

Oldham has created the mystery about his relationship with his friend Steve by his incomplete and apparently contradictory statements. Nobody asked for the statements. Most would prefer he kept his family life and his personal relationships to himself.

It seems to be part of his effort to turn KopTalk into a cult based on himself. He wants the members to see him as an all-knowing daddy – a benign dictator handing out treats. As we saw yesterday, he claims a relationship with Steve in which Oldham plays the role of generous, selfless patron to the equally selfless Steve – the two of them existing only to serve their KopTalk family. Was that supposed to be evidence of his credentials as the daddy of a cult and Steve’s credentials as his heir apparent and/or to divert attention from the realities of his relationship with Steve?

Whatever his real intentions – and I can think of several possibilities – he should not expect the public to accept a pig in a poke from him. If he wants to go public on any subject, the public has the right to respond.

It may be that readers will be able to fill in some of the blanks or explain some of the apparent contradictions . If so I will amend this post. Perhaps Oldham would like to take the opportunity we always give him to respond on these pages.

He won’t be able to ban questioners or commentators on here but will get a wider readership than on KopTalk.

Postcript.

1. Someone has written in to suggest he may have been called Wadkin if that was his mother’s maiden name and that she may have been so embittered towards his father that she required her son to change his name and Oldham would then have changed it back when he was older. Possible, I suppose, but no evidence for any of that. I do know he confirmed he was Wadkin when challenged on the net by someone who knew him by that name. It might be simpler if Oldham was not a person who claims to have changed his name by deed poll to Mr. Man Untd, or who operated an illegal business on the net as Del Johnson or who uses several different pseudonyms virtually every day in his fake “Insider” business on KopTalk.

 

 

Advertisements

19 Responses to “Why does Koptalk's Oldham pretend his young friend is his brother?”

  1. B Zanetti Says:

    So, Steve’s real daddy is another sheister – looks like there’s a whole nest of vermin over there in Wallsend.

    I was just reading the ‘Steve 18th Appreciation thread’ – how many of those sycophantic replies are from Dunk posting under psuedonyms? For instance ‘Ping’ (Registered: 03/13/06
    , posts 8) writes:

    “At a time where I find customer service to be pretty much non existant with most organisations these days, the manner in which you deal with any of my queries or silly admin problems is first class and the effort that you put into the site is there for everyone to see – true gent.

    Happy birthday”

    Piss off Dunk you muggy blob!

    Then my favourite, Gavin (Registered: 06/02/03, posts 27) asks:

    “Wher are u both off to tonight then?”

    ….oooh, the tension! Where are lardman and blobbin off to celebrate? The pie shop? No! The local massage parlour for a brass rubbing? No! Tell us Dunk, please it’s too exciting, we need to know!!!!

    Over to the blobmaster…

    Dunk: “Nowhere. We can’t abandon the site during the transfer window”

    Now this (if it is true) is a massive testament to the work of the blog. Dunk is afraid to leave the site. Did he force Steve into staying in on his 18th birthday to monitor Kraptalk? I fucking hope so cos that fat forging fuck doesn’t deserve any better.

    HAHAHA – fat bastards, stay and rot in your Wallsend Kraptalk portakabin prison!

  2. B Zanetti Says:

    Errata: Ping’s post tally is 8 – I followed that with close bracket so a smiley appeared – doh!

  3. Toby Says:

    My theory is that Duncan Oldham portrays Steve MacNeish in a position which he wants other Koptalk ‘family’ members to aspire to.

    By towing the line, turning a blind eye, doing what you’re told without questioning it and providing a cover for the scams any other member could possibly one day hold that esteemed position, or so he wants them to believe.

  4. Tubby Says:

    Steve likes to swallow.

  5. vincent (melbourne) Says:

    where’s “you lot are sad” now? …..probably taking the videos of the bithday night in the shed.

  6. scousenproud Says:

    steve turning 18 also becomes fair game now. can anyone look into what benefits he is recieving? im sure the people down the dole would be interested about a young fella going to la manga and athens whilst not out looking for a job.

  7. silent but deadly Says:

    I enjoy this site, but I have to say this entry speculating about who is related to who, and who met where, seems unnecessary and a little voyeuristic.

    The aim of this website is to stop this guy scamming Liverpool fans. This post does nothing towards that.

  8. rupertinsider Says:

    silent but deadly

    All the personal facts in the post were placed in the public domain by Oldham for his own purposes. He provides a number of dots and invites people to connect them in the way that suits him. But the dots are not complete and they can be connected in different ways as the post shows.

    Oldham uses Steve to create and send fake certificates of authenticity, to sell fake memorabilia, to tout tickets, to double dip in PayPal accounts, to charm complainers into letting the double payment stand, to moderate and ban paying members.

    Steve is aware that he is being used this way. He enjoys all the material benefits of the scams. He participates in the mocking of critics. Neither he nor Oldham have tried to deny the impression they are brothers.

    I don’t understand how someone can want to expose KopTalk and its scams and not want to point out Steve’s role and the deception involved in the image they present of their relationship. Steve’s silence on the subject is tacit approval of Oldham’s claims.

  9. Jamie5Times Says:

    i’m finding the twists and turns in oldham’s life very very very strange. almost like a soap opera. there’s a character on the liverpool fora who goes by the name of l4lad (or used to. i’m not aware of the situation now), who was a bit similar to oldham in that he would post up crap which appeared to be a string of lies. none of us have found out how much of the stuff he posted up was true and i doubt we ever will but it’s safe to say that the lad isn’t a popular figure amongst the supporters.

    oldham’s track record and oversized web of lies outstrips that of l4lad and as for the “friendship” he has with steve, i’m not one to judge but in the eyes of the public mainstream that kind of thing is tolerated in some quarters but in others it’s called paedophilia if you consider that he’s had the rat on his books for a fair few years.

    do you have any idea how many more twists and turns in the scandal that is koptalk there will be?

  10. Ian Says:

    Jamie that’s a bit harsh comparing Richie(L4Lad) to Oldham. No he isn’t the brightest spark, and yes he’s been banned from a lot of sites but he’s never been on the take moneywise , his allegations against some of the LFC website owners while disgraceful, and did cause a lot of trouble they weren’t for monetary gain. Quite what he was thinking when he made these claims is anyone’s guess, but making money from it was far from the motivating factor.
    I think he’s been posting on the blog as flagpole corner I could be mistaken so apologies to the FC who posts on here if I’m wrong.
    Richie, (FC) if that’s you don’t fuck this blog up don’t say anything stupid, people have worked very hard on this blog and don’t need it fucked up by someone who permanently puts his foot in his mouth like you did on TLW.
    Like I say I don’t think anyone should compare Richie to Oldham I think that’s a little uncalled for, he’s certainly as daft as Oldham but he’s nowhere near as sly, manipulative or just plain evil as him.
    As an afterthought Richie was also the one who set up the Hillsborough petition, he went about it in the wrong manner I admit but you couldn’t see Oldham doing something like that could you?

  11. Flagpole Corner Says:

    before i go onto my point about this article i’ll just clear this up.

    jamie, what the fuck lad? you’re on the abstracts nearly every day and you know that anything said about me or any of the other lads on there isn’t hushed up cos if someone thinks any of us are pricks then we’re not goin to deny em their freedom of speech but that’s your call and yer sound by me lad.

    let’s clear up this allegations shout now. i was shown a list of people allocated tickets for the final. i can’t say who showed me it because it was an unprofessional act on their part and out of character for them.

    scanning down the list there’s a section that lists how people were allocated tickets so if it was for a club director it was a certain number, fan cards was another, local media had one, etc. the ones with N/A next to them meant that there was some really strange reason why they had N/A next to em. anyway it was surnames and fancards and there were a few on there who were running LFC forums (ones i’m on and have been for a while) with N/A on em so i was thinkin “what’s that about?”, further down the list there was the name “mackin” which made me think “what the fuck” so what did i do? engage typing fingers before me brain and thought that all the ones with N/A on the list were on the sly.

    found out this afternoon that there was a reason why they had N/A by the names and it was because some jobsworth hadn’t input the allocation code so my face is pretty red now. so i apologise to anyone i wrongly accused and hope to sort the mess out asap.

    now as for comparing me to that fat geordie twat? strangely i can see where yer comin from there mate. yeah we do both post a lot of shite on the net and make money from online transactoins but the difference is mate, i run a credible site that’s free to join and post on and the t-shirts i sell are printed personally by meself so there’s no chance of me bein “on the take”.

    as for the hillsborough petition, i can see oldham settin one up but chargin everyone to sign or read it. i set it up cos my cousin died at hillsborough and oen of me uncles can’t even go to the match any more cos of it and i want some sort of closure for him and for me auntie and uncle who lost their son so pointlessly.

    anyway back to the mr “I treat him as a brother because that’s how I see him”. brotherly love’s known as incest up there in the shithole so i reckon that he’s already got his brown wings.

    nice one insider. another job well done.

    rich (flagpole)

  12. scousenproud Says:

    flagpole and whoever, take the drama elsewhere. no one gives a shit. end of

  13. silent but deadly Says:

    Rupert – I am not debating the need to point out Steve’s role in Koptalk, just the need to dig into all the family backgrounds quite so much.

    Seems tacky and I don’t see the need or the relevance.

  14. Tubby Says:

    @silent but deadly

    Dunk lines his family and steve up in front of his kraptalk facade and passes them off as part of his kon – whether it’s to do his dirty work or act as victims in his sympathy fantasies. In my view they are fair game.

  15. silent but deadly Says:

    Sure, but I don’t really need to know whether he actually is his brother, or when, why or if his old man killed himself, who is mother is married to and when they got married etc etc etc

    There’s also a fairly unpleasant insinuation with regard to how he met Steve in the post, which tarnishes the points that are trying to be made.

    As you say – anyone who works for the site deserves to be exposed. There have been plenty of posts about how does what in the Koptalk empire. This rehashes them and makes tacky assumptions and inferences based on little or no evidence.

    It offers nothing in terms of the ultimate goal of this blog – which I assume is to get Koptalk shut down. If I were coming to this site for the first time, it would do nothing to put me off Koptalk. Rather it would make wonder what point the author was trying to make, and what their goal was.

  16. rupertinsider Says:

    When all this over I think one of the interesting findings may very well be that to a large extent KopTalk is a family con – involving his mother, his wife, his children and these other characters like Steve and Lauren and Katie and Andrew MacNeish, who are of doubtful relationships but have been been co-opted into his “family”.

    Oldham has also tried to involve his father many times in his many appeals for sympathy and in his claims that his father’s former colleagues in the police advise him and maintain a watch on the blog.

    Oldham repeatedly says – as he did the other day – he could not carry it on without Steve (and his family). I think that is true not only in the sense that they provide free and state-subsidised labour, but also in the sense that he needs them to run interference from the authorities by deflecting his direct responsibility and acting as alibis for his lies.

    They are a family who use the net to elicit money from strangers for false insider information about LFC, for pornography and for unregistered charities – the largest of which was for one of their own – a so-called cousin, Lauren. She was already under the care of the health services and her home was already being remodeled by a public service. Yet he saw her sickness as an opportunity to raise money by slapping on the claim that she was a LFC supporter and adding the phrase YNWA. He begged for money for her care, for the remodeling of her home and for removing her parents mortgage. We are talking big money. And he has never provided and accounting for this illegal appeal. He went from declared poverty to declared riches during it. Steve was one of the beneficiaries of these new riches wherever they came from.

    Think about the degree of active cooperation his “family” gave in that matter alone – and I include the Lauren family. Without their cooperation – though his mother – the appeal and the lack of accounting would not have been possible.

    I’ve seen one old report that his father and mother and wife had bad reputations in Scarborough when it came to business. I did not include that information but I do now because, come to think of it, it is relevant to the credibility of a guy who uses his fathers’ death, his mother’s widow status, his wife’s miscarriage, alleged threats of rape against his young daughter and anything else he can get his hands on, such as his generosity in looking after his half brother Steve whom he depicts as a vulnerable simpleton, to generate sympathy and trust among the public whom he bilks for money for false “exclusive” information and unregistered self-serving charities.

    I know more about him, his family and background but revealed only what was needed to make the point. Everything I revealed in the post had already been revealed by him. However tacky it may be he thought it relevant to gain the confidence of his marks.

    The point – again – is that he made an editorial boasting about how he uses Steve – first to develop Koptalk Kids, then as a kind of innocent front man and charmer. He talks about him to illustrate his claim that they both hard-working do-gooders, and to generate sympathy and admiration for Oldham’s family values and to soften any criticism there may be about the site or his activities.

    Astonishignly, for reasons known only to himself – at this point – he raised the question for the first time that they may not be brothers after all – not in the normal sense of the word. To examine that, I had to examine what is known and unknown about their relationship.

    We all know that Oldham’s used football and other forums to recruit for male sex partners for himself and as participants in sex videos, and we know he makes reoccurring out-of-context references to child sex. The blog has many references to the documentary proof. Its only a matter of months since he launched a pornographic site for football fans and linked to it from KopTalk.

    That is tacky, too, but then again his site is tacky. How do you deal with tackiness without describing it?

    One often hears of people regretting that they missed obvious signs – they did not want to deal with them. Oldham’s site is administered by children and vulnerable “adults”. He recruits children as members. He takes money from them. He corresponds with them and has access to them on his forums. Would you be happy if they were your children?

    Everything I wrote was relevant to the analysis and to the purposes of the blog.

  17. silentbutdeadly Says:

    Think I’ve made it pretty clear I disgree with the last sentence so I’ll not harp on about it.

    I think Rupert, maybe you should have a think about quality over quantity from time to time.

    I’ll leave it at that. As as I said, I don’t disagree with the stated aims of the blog and am hopeful the outcome is what everyone wants – Koptalk shuts down and he disappears.

  18. rupertinsider Says:

    I think Rupert, maybe you should have a think about quality over quantity from time to time.

    Why should I?

    Its a blog not a forum for one line witticisms.

    We aim for quantity and quality.

    Many of our pieces, as that one, are prompted by questions or suggestions from blog contributors. Many are written at the request of KT members and other contributors who send in screen-shots and ask us to comment. Its important to them if not to you.

    The blog is not for the entertainment of the convinced or of ex-KT members – although they are welcome to add their voices. Its has practical functions. One of them is to counter Oldham’s propaganda – which comes in quantity not quality and repeats and repeats.

    The blog is aimed at the public who may be considering becoming members of KT, and at various commercial and public institutions interested in watching him and his site and possibly taking action, and at current KT members.

  19. silent but deadly Says:

    Because you dilute the message when you things are posted that aren’t relevant to the stated aims. I am not sure how the post I am commenting on would prevent anyone joining Koptalk – it might though make them question the purpose of the blog.

    I don’t want to argue. As you say, its not me that needs to be convinced as I have never been a member of Koptalk.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: