Exaro started several years ago wanting to attract the business community for a paywall internet site, on the premise they would pay for serious journalism. Quite a number appeared to express doubts on this business plan of Watts, and in retrospect they appear correct. Exaro have largely abandoned this model in favour of a paedphile tabloid approach, selling stories on to 3rd parties
So far pickings have been slim and losses continually mounting. Booth must be considering his position, and Watts his equity investment, if Booth closes shop to limit any further loss of cash. It's against that background Exaro operate
The HP situation has upped the stakes with HP's own media efforts, and being dispassionate about it, with some success. Several media sources appeared less than supportive of exaro, and I suspect the public, less than wholly convinced on some claims.
That's not my personal comment on 'Nick' who I have no real knowledge of, just my take on what I've seen in the media.
One similarity between 'Nick' and 'Baker' is that both had apparently tried to pursue a prosecution before, and failed. In Baker's case not that long ago. Then both have an introduction to Exaro and their stories seemingly enhanced, by media coverage and then allegedly, and more importantly, their content.
Unfortunately I do have some knowledge of Baker,and I find some of her account difficult to believe in the light of that knowledge.
My knowledge of 'nick' like most I suspect is limited to what I've heard or read.The allegations nobody I think would deny are of an extreme and shocking nature, and i dare say for some difficult to accommodate, but if found correct should and i hope will be prosecuted accordingly.
For those who openly, unequivocally support 'Nick' with no reservations, I have no problem with that.We all need support. I cannot do that because I simply don't have a belief without evidence, and so far i have heard little regarding the case in question.For the record my previous knowledge of HP isn't positive. But this isn't the stuff of justice, nor should it be.
It's understandably an emotive subject, especially for those who have suffered abuse.
You can however support someone without necessarily convening a Star Chamber on the accused, before even charges or trial takes place.Without instantly denouncing legitimate questions or concerns as 'trolling' or apologising as happens all to frequently with some.For those that do you will tar all of us with the same brush of those who refuse any opposition however reasonable, however moderate or sober and end up polarising and alienating all but the small band of faithful Inquisitors, blind to everything but their own group needs
Chances are that inevitably for many reasons, some are not going to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing like the truth on both sides. It would take one major incident to be found less than credible, to seriously damage public perception. That's what the small clique risk for the majority.That is what the stakes have been upped too, and in that regard I agree with M Scott
That of course isn't allowed because he is seen to be an apologist by some, yet shouldn't we concentrate on what's said rather than rigidly looking solely at who is saying it ?
For those whose business is primarily money, I believe in the interests of justice and fairness, complainants/victims, should approach the appropriate authorities, not news agencies.Far too many opportunities exists for contamination
Being a survivor doesn't necessarily make you a nice person. Indeed looking at the vitriol of the current survivor war waged by Wilmer-Baker, that is certainly true.
As far as HP goes I don't know the truth of the matter, but I hope that whatever it is, it prevails, and justice is done and seen to be done.