I have noticed in some current and older threads that someone has been accused or given the title â€œWaltâ€ without any evidence being put forward in open forum by the accuser. To this end I thought I open a thread about Walt Hunting and hopefully give a warning to those who for whatever reason throw out the accusations. There have been four occasions where I have, in conjunction with other members, started a Walt Hunt using Internet and other resources and where the initial contact came from RR. The first, which was successful involved a young lady who was walting it up in the chat room and leading on some of the younger male members. The evidence took a few weeks to assemble and included gaining access to her Bepo site and acquiring photographs. (She was a looker as it happens). The second which also proved to be successful was finalised by another member who had access to more â€œhands onâ€ information that me. My research provided evidence which although not absolutely conclusive certainly pointed to the accused having an inventive mind!! Once again my evidence took several days if not weeks to accumulate. The third involved a member who was given to pervy posts and claimed that he was an office bearer in an ex service persons organisation. His style of posting and some of his claims smacked of â€œWaltismâ€ so I started probing. The guy gave out, in open forum, the location of the branch of the organisation of which he claimed to hold office. One phone call confirmed that the guy was indeed who and what he claimed to be and certainly no â€œWaltâ€!! Other members who also were suspicious were very quickly informed of my findings to prevent any other misunderstandings. The fourth proved to be the most interesting. Another RR member posted the fact that the suspected Walt was claiming to be a SNCO involved in the training of young recruits and was given, on other websites, to offering to meet members for face to face violence. This fact seemed to me not the sort of behaviour that sould be expected of a SNCO of some yearâ€™s service so off I went to snoop. With a great deal of help from the other RR member we obtained access to other websites where the (supposed) SNCO was posting and his behaviour on these sites confirmed the RR members observations of the suspects behaviour and indeed whilst watching these (Footie) sites he was banned from one for posting controversial content!! Video footage, from the net, of this guy performing in a football supporters pub was found but all this proved was that the guy was a passionate footie supporter given to uttering challenges of violence and being controversial but did not prove that he was not a serving SNCO. The breakthrough came when after following up some wee snippets of information available in the public domain photos were found of the suspect in uniform at his place of work. The guy was exactly what he said he was, a Sergeant Instructor in a juniors training establishment and not a â€œWaltâ€ at all. It goes without saying that all this information was collated over a period of time and was looked at with an open mind. I hope the above shows that entitling someone a â€œWaltâ€ without searching for and providing definitive proof can be a dangerous path to follow. Pol.