Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Declan said:

You only have to look throughout this thread for how people (both extreme lockdowners and the let it run it's course-ers) are more keen on being proven right than trying to navigate through COVID with as little damage as possible. Any bit of data that helps them is latched upon. Before the hacking story emerges that was effectively what Rachel was accused of. And that might be what happened. 

I'm keeping an open mind. But on balance I think the hacker version is the least unlikely version. I just think it takes quite mental leap to think that a scientist and businessperson would jeapodise their business and reputation by releasing personal medical information (provided by what means?) to score a debating point on Twitter. I do think that their are malacious sadsacks on Twitter that would find a compromised password and get up to mischief to discredit her. 

It's not a cult-like faith in her - I don't know her and I'm broadly supportive of the post-Quayle government's approach to COVID. But I have noticed a concerted effort on here to discredit her. People who've liked the above post - the Voice of Reason and Offshoremanxman  - have been consistent in their criticism of her. Maybe they're allowing their antipathy towards her push them towards a conclusion that we just have the information for. 

 

So someone hacked her iCloud account (two factor authentication? I get several IOS alerts and an email and have to verify the login from my app if a new device or even a new browser on an existing device tries to access mine) and her Twitter account (pretty much the same applies) coincidentally on the day death was announced and used that along with a load of specific family details to post inappropriate tweets, reply to them (without any notifications popping up on her own devices) and block people whose answers the hacker thought the actual account owner wouldn’t like?

Wouldnt the purpose of the hack be to discredit her and so leave up the replies knocking the tweet, which was allegedly made to discredit her?

In the meantime, that being the short time since the death announcement, she thought someone had gone to the effort of making a photoshop of a tweet about that specific event that she hadn’t written and also fabricated a load of replies to it to send her? They had gone to the effort to find profile names and pics of people who often engage with her, pasted that all together with convincing time stamps? That photoshop had then posted to enough people that someone who presumably supports her saw it and sent it to her as a heads up?She then ignored it for a bit before being told again and realising she had been hacked - presumably having not logged into Twitter at all for a few hours.

OK then!! Yes that all makes perfect sense

Edited by Trevor535
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Sorry but you’re making stuff up. It’s not personal antipathy at all. My bullshit radar has been up on her from the start and now she’s proved she’s a bullshitter. It’s not personal at all. She set out to discredit certain people in government and now she is discrediting herself.

She is a liar. De facto. The whole story she has painted in the last few days concerning the hack is nothing but bullshit. The same bullshit she accused Ashford of producing. That’s it. 

Does your bullshit radar ever work in an inward direction?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Sorry but you’re making stuff up. It’s not personal antipathy at all. My bullshit radar has been up on her from the start and now she’s proved she’s a bullshitter. It’s not personal at all. She set out to discredit certain people in government and now she is discrediting herself.

She is a liar. De facto. The whole story she has painted in the last few days concerning the hack is nothing but bullshit. The same bullshit she accused Ashford of producing. That’s it. 

I wouldn’t want to be someone you had personal antipathy towards, then. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

Sorry but that’s the reality of the situation. She tried to take down Ashford personally by personally discrediting him. You live by the sword you die by the same sword if you chose to use exactly the same bullshit arguments to justify your own actions.

And those closest to him might I add under the most horrific circumstances 👍

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I think its time we moved on.

She did something stupid, but I question whether these ongoing ramblings are beneficial for the health of the individual(s) concerned.

Whilst admirable I question  if that same level of concern applies to David Ashford? Howard Quayle?  Their immediate families?

Edited by Trevor535
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

Sorry but that’s the reality of the situation. She tried to take down Ashford personally by personally discrediting him. You live by the sword you die by the same sword if you chose to use exactly the same bullshit arguments to justify your own actions.

Did she? He did a pretty good job of doing that himself when he read that spiteful letter to a press conference. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I kind of get the impression the goal is to push her over the edge. 

I wonder the same too.

Time's enough. There is no point in dragging this on, it happened and its consumed days of this thread. Plenty of other crap to talk about.

I think Dr G has overstepped, she's been arrogant but this is all getting very silly now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Declan said:

Did she? He did a pretty good job of doing that himself when he read that spiteful letter to a press conference. 

Precisely!

What is clear is that the campaign has always been against Rachel, not the other way.

Edited by NoTailT
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Declan said:

If the tweets are genuine then they've succeeded. 

Hopefully now rebuilding her twitter followers she will limit to her professional community.

Twitter seems to be a venting route for her and I am sure it isn’t doing any good for her mental health (or others).

I hope this is a new dawn for her. 

Edited by 747-400
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...