I wrote a story about Durnford's arrest at the request of Kenny Boy Buessler of Wood's Hole (so called scientists reporting on Pacific Ocean Radiation)
It was picked up by some big aggregators, some gave a link back to my site, but copied the article in whole and verbatim. Others just copied the article, as if they wrote it. Pretty annoying.
Some websites didn't steal the information, they launched on their own great research and reporting....I'll detail them below. But first, really important information.
Durnford was charged with Section 264, which was created in 1991 to specifically deal with Stalking.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/charges-laid-against-bc-man-who-called-for-death-of-ex-fukushima-researcher/article27136264/
Court records show he was charged under Section 264 of the Canadian
Criminal Code, which makes it illegal to engage in conduct that causes
someone to fear for their safety.
Dana is charged with the "Stalking" crime. 10 years in prison.
I think it mostly a ploy to
1) marginalize him
2) scare citizen scientists
3) trump up charges, to negotiate down to a lesser offense, maybe even
with an agreement to not youtube for 2 years (or else go to jail)
I say ploy, but this is very serious stuff. In fact we need to use it to TIPP it the other direction.
See my prior post for the full text of 264 and other sites that describe when it was created and why.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/11/dana-durnford-arrested-for-speaking-his.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stock here: This website purports to say that Dana created nukepro and the 61 page Death of the Pacific list......
http://allnewspipeline.com/Fukushima_Warrior_Arrested_Exposed.php
so they are incorrect on a few things, but the exposure is till good.
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/radionuclides-in-sediment-vs-seawater-and-in-plankton-marine-invertebrates-e-g-sea-stars/
A strange title for an article that shows in depth, how Ken Buessler of Woods Hole and Jay Cullen are both highly connected and funded by the nuclear industry.
They are getting a lot of governmental funding, and in the case of WHOI,
foreign partnerships-funding, including the University of Tokyo! Of
course, Jay Cullen’s funding source frequently “partners” with Cameco,
which co-owns a major, newly opened, uranium mine with TEPCO at Cigar
Lake. (See details at bottom of page). Remember TEPCO? TEPCO is
owner-operator of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. It is
worth noting that Ken Buessler’s dissertation focused on plutonium
testing. And, yet, his current focus appears to be on Cesium
Some of the Incredible Lies of Cullen are detailed in this post by Richard Wilcox, PhD in "activist Post" a great site I just discovered today.
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/02/captured-opposition-defends-nuclear.html
Listen…as Jay Cullen’s lies and deceptions are exposed by Dana
[Durnford], starting at 16 minutes into [the video linked below]. Jay
Cullen goes so far as to say that Fukushima had NO meltdowns, no
meltouts, no spent fuel pool fires and that radiation in the ocean is
1,000 times BELOW the ‘natural’ levels. In other words, Fukushima was a
non event, and nothing happened there; no radiation was released AT ALL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RobG --had this to say at ENENEWS
November 7, 2015 at 2:00 pm · Reply
West Aussie, let's take Dana Durnford, who as we all know was recently arrested.
Durnford uses the links provided on ENENews as his primary source of information, and the nuke brigade AND governments are well aware of this.
For a number of years now there's been a very sophisticated troll operation on ENENews. What I mean by that is that some posters don't appear to be trolls, but if you look at their posting history it's obvious that there's a hidden agenda going on.
Good propaganda is very subtle. It's not obvious. Which is why, for example, the UK Guardian newspaper still fools many people into thinking that it's on the left/liberal side of politics, when the reality is that the Guardian is a corporate controlled entity pumping out subliminal right wing crap. The entire MSM now does this.
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/800-corbyn-and-the-end-of-time-the-crisis-of-democracy.html
Your proposition that on boards like this "we are among the enemy at all time" is quite correct.
To counter the propaganda barrage I would say to genuine posters, keep posting; keep putting the truth out there.
We will beat these vermin eventually, and Dana's coming trial is going to be a crucial moment in this. His first court appearance is on 18th November.
Watch this space…
-----------------------------------------------------
and this interesting post
invisible ELEphant in the room
The more I think about Dana Durnford's case, the less sense it makes.
Why did Durnford choose to criticize Canadians when he lives in Canada?
If he would have gone after people that live in another country that
would have given him several layers of protection, legally and
logistically speaking.
Why did Durnford have to slander ANYONE?
He's got the overwhelming facts on his side in a slam-dunk case.
Slander helps nothing and it only puts you in danger. Slander makes you
look bad and it accomplishes nothing.
Why did Durnford have to resort to death threats or anything like that at all?
There was no reason for that whatsoever. Plus, it's a despicable thing
to do. Again, it makes you look bad and it accomplishes nothing..
Why didn't Durnford heed the warnings sent via YouTube?
When a bunch of his videos were taken down by YouTube several months
ago, Durnford should have seen that as a warning shot. This is a war
we're engaged in. If Durnford were leading a military with the strategy
he's used recently, he would have led his men to slaughter and total
defeat…just as he himself is on the verge of.
I think he has been his own worst enemy in many ways. He may have just cracked and lost touch with reality.
------------------------------------------
I replied
Are you implying that we should NOT criticize anyone in our own country?
Lots of people get YouTube videos taken down...are you implying that if one of us gets a YouTube video taken down that we should stand down our efforts and go cower in the corner?
Are you saying that Durnford's action scuttled our actions, put us at risk....we should be mad at him then, right? We should not support him, we should disown him.
Is that what you are implying? Because I don't agree with any of those
stock out.