Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

Yes.

475403CD-54BF-43AD-9CDF-92E015C7F0B0.jpeg

It says her account was hacked but surely that could mean anything. As I said before, accounts are hacked to obtain information. The hackers don’t normally advertise their hacking by using the hacked account to post. That’s my point. Has anyone actually claimed that these posts were written by hackers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

No, but neither has she apologised for their inappropriateness, whether posted by her or a hacker. 

It seems on here that people are doubting that those posts could have been written by anyone except her. My point is that it’s an argument based on supposition. Thanks for clarifying above. It would appear not then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

Read the red lined bit. She tries to claim what was being shared (here I assume) was photoshopped which then alerted her to posts she suggests she had not made. She is clearly denying making those posts. 

84564FCA-1BC7-4C33-A986-AA56877800FF.jpeg

Yes, I saw that last night but to be honest I didn’t understand what screenshots or photoshopping she was referring to. So, is this the evidence that people are basing their assumptions on? You seem to think it’s conclusive? I’m just tying to understand it with only seeing posts on here to work it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

She is conclusively a liar. Yes. 

She argued back and blocked those who confronted about her inappropriate tweets. Then she deleted her account, opened a new one, suggesting that she was hard done by then the next morning comes out with this ludicrous story that she was hacked. Need we say more  🤷🏻‍♀️

Edited by FookADoodleDoo
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FookADoodleDoo said:

She argued back and blocked those who confronted her by comment about her inappropriate tweets. Need we say more 🤷🏻‍♀️

But didn't deny she had posted the inappropriate  tweets.  To be fair Rox has a point.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

See the redline emphasis below. She very clearly suggests she thought the clips she saw or was sent were photoshopped (ie, she suggests they weren’t quotes she’d made as she didn’t recognized them), and that she then accessed her account to discover she was hacked (ie, found tweets she allegedly had not made as she suggests they were new to her). 

89EBC837-9A81-4DDA-BF65-6FCF0BA6C83A.jpeg

Do we know what clips she is referring to? 

There are three scenarios 

Someone has hacked her account.  She should apologise for the inappropriate  tweets.

Someone has hacked her account and posted inappropriate tweets.  She should apologise for any hurt caused by the inappropriate tweets, but they were not her work.

Nobody hacked her account.  She should apologise for the inappropriate tweets.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

But didn't deny she had posted the inappropriate  tweets.  To be fair Rox has a point.  

If she was going to admit (and apologise) for writing those tweets (JM passing, CoMin guilty for not mandating masks, and memorial for covid deaths) it would have been this morning. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 747-400 said:

If she was going to admit (and apologise) for writing those tweets (JM passing, CoMin guilty for not mandating masks, and memorial for covid deaths) it would have been this morning. 

Quite, just giving the benefit of the doubt.  But she hasn't denied it either.  

Edited by Gladys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Roxanne said:

Yes, I saw that last night but to be honest I didn’t understand what screenshots or photoshopping she was referring to. So, is this the evidence that people are basing their assumptions on? You seem to think it’s conclusive? I’m just tying to understand it with only seeing posts on here to work it out. 

The majority of the evidence is based on those who were reading the tweets as they took place yesterday evening. The conclusion is conclusive because we could see it with our own eyes. It was a thread of comments. Some of a normal nature linked to the odd controversial. The controversial backfired on her massively, she tried to retaliate, blocked those who disagreed and the next morning came up with some bogus story that she was hacked. This is all because she knows she crossed the line when it came to her making an allegation about receiving leaked data from someone at Manx Care & being highly disrespectful by point scoring via using the sad passing of the AG by claiming that he had covid & more or less died at the hands of our government. Her reasoning behind her claiming to have inside knowledge was merely innocent & probably to make a point that she is still in the know and ‘not wrong’ because she gets told the info ie: I’m still relevant.  She clearly freaked out from the back lash from those who were commenting within her thread. 

Edited by FookADoodleDoo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

  But she hasn't denied it either.  

Very true.

Appears from earlier posts Rachel has a new Twitter account and to rebuild all her professional connections must be a PITA.

On the other hand, all the ”other” followers (IoM followers for covid and politics) are simply and conveniently lost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The only thing that really bothers me about all this is the admission that she gets info about the Covid status of hospital admissions. I’d be horrified if my health status and data was being breached by some sympathetic mole at Nobles. Cultists will sometimes do anything for their cult leaders.

Manx Care are actively looking into that claim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one observation, which may or may not have any validity. It has been noted that her original account was taken down (yesterday), seemingly by Dr G, citing the account had been hacked. Since then, many posters have claimed she has 'since' set up a new account. The only thing I would say here is, looking at the 'new' account was opened in Nov 21, so a good while before the passing of the AG and the unfortunate controversy post his passing.

I'm not really going anywhere with this, its purely an observation as the timelines don't correlate for some reason.

Edited by Tricky
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...