The comments section of a post I wrote some time ago (Blogs and Parent Battles) has suddenly started to heat up.

A couple of years ago, I listened to a podcast (an episode of  101 Uses for Baby Wipes) in which the “daddy” who hosts the show about parenting issues, interviewed Karl Hindle.  Karl is a British father,  waging a campaign over custody of his daughter, who is with the mother in the States.  During the interview he let fly with all sorts of accusations against the US authorities, including some against particular officials. His general line is that the US State Department is “involved in international child abduction”

My original post was quite measured, saying that this podcasters should be careful about running accusations like that, particularly when they are naming individuals.

The Baby Wipes host replied in his next podcast - and was pretty snide about me .

In addition, I received more a more moderate comment from Karl himself, and some from supporters.  (see comments on the original post). It was a pretty good response to a blog post - get in there and comment politely, and get your supporters to do the same.

Karl has continued to run an online campaign, centered around his blog, and has won lots of support from people, both offline and online. He has also recently lost a court case in the States, and been ordered to pay child maintenance.

Now a long time has gone past and suddenly I’ve started to receive numerous comments from Angela Jackson, who recovered her own children from the states via a US court. Angela first left a message of support for Karl. Now she says that she is withdrawing support,

Angela does come across as wildly furious against Karl, and I have already deleted a few of her comments. I’m leaving enough to show that she’s changed her mind about Karl.

Then I got an comment from “Len Deighton” who might, I suppose be the author of the 1960s thrillers, or is more probably somebody using that name - there is one entry for Len Deighton on Technorati, and that is to favourite Karl’s Blog. I’ve deleted “Len’s” comment because it accuses Angela of bad faith, and this isn’t the place for that sort of accusation.

Angela has also sent me loads of documents. I’m not sure how relevant they all are - but she paints a picture of Karl from her point of view. Angela was just a “supporter” and the others  have been involved to varying degrees of support. Not all, it would seem, are happy with him. It seems - if the picture Angela paints is accurate - that some of them have been conferring and comparing notes. Other than that, I don’t know where the truth of this sad and possibly mad story lies.

But I will say this:

Karl has run a very good online campaign that has won him  moral and material support, including hospitality in the states, although in the end he has lost the court battle.  I don’t know if his accusations actually harmed his chances in court.  I suspect that they did not help.

But Just because somebody uses social media to further their aims, doesn’t mean to say that all social media people should assume that he or she is on the side of “good.” We are yet to hear from the mother in the case. She has a perfect right to silence and to get on with her family life. Not everyone has to be on facebook.

The original podcast I heard was sloppy, and one sided. It’s becoming clear that there aren’t just two sides to this case, but many, and it’s disintegrating into a multilateral slanging match.

I’m closing comments on this post, and the previous one. There are other places online where the arguments can continue.