The Observer's disgraceful attack on Clive Feather
Peter Ceresole
If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what you
think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
Observer.
I have sent the following email to the editor, Will Hutton, who used to be
a colleague of mine on Panorama and who used to be a decent journalist.
********************************
Dear Will:
As you can see, I am a user of Demon Internet. I am writing to say that I
am ashamed to be a in the same business as any person associated with that
piece of sleazy yellow journalism about Clive Feather. It was written to
convey the impression that Clive was personally involved in the business of
pushing child pornography on the Internet. I know that weasel words were
used to avoid libel charges, but I know lousy journalism when I see it, and
this was terrible stuff.
There's a rational debate to be had about this complicated subject, but
this wasn't it. As you certainly know, Demon carry every newsgroup offered
by their suppliers, numbering about 15,000. Any Internet user can access
these newsgroups via any access provider, using public news servers in any
country, whether or not they are carried by Demon.
The clear impression given by your article was that Clive Feather was a
pornographer masquerading as a respectable member of society. This wasn't
an accident- it was an intentional hatchet job by your journalists,
sanctioned by you. It is also a lie, and unless you are all far less
competent and intelligent than I know you to be, a deliberate one.
I am very sad to say that I am ashamed to have thought of you as a friend
and colleague.
Yours
Peter
*******************************
Hutton's email adress is edi...@observer.co.uk
--
Peter
Tony Game
Ref: Peter Ceresole on Sun, 25 Aug 1996 :-
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
>
>It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what you
>think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
>Observer.
>
>I have sent the following email to the editor, Will Hutton, who used to be
>a colleague of mine on Panorama and who used to be a decent journalist.
Thanks for the email address, Peter. I shall be using it!
I have seldom been so disgusted by anything in any newspaper (I don't
see the comics.) For it to have appeared in the Observer that I have
taken for forty years, is devastating. I may have to change but by god
it will be a sad day.
--
Greetings, Tony. [ As long liveth the merry man (they say) ]
Felixstowe, Suffolk, UK. [ As doth the sorry man, and longer by a day. ]
PGP KeyID 0x9D55B429 | 3D 86 63 0F A3 5A 8A 9F 29 F1 E9 4C F4 70 E8 E8
Dave Taylor
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius
A truely obnoxious bit of reporting by the Observer. I will never buy
it again.
Should I also boycott the Observer?
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Net Nanny Mail Monitor |
| Testing, Testing, Testing |
| Why is the establishment wound up by mere fucking words?|
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Alan Watts
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
>
>It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what you
>think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
>Observer.
>
>I have sent the following email to the editor, Will Hutton, who used to be
>a colleague of mine on Panorama and who used to be a decent journalist.
I too was appalled by the article and have done as you have suggested.
However, it is now clear that we are in the grip of a full blown moral
panic, and rational thought has gone out of the window.
There is worse to come.
Rob Watts.
Paul Terry
In article <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk>, sent to demon.service,
Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
>
>It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what you
>think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
>Observer.
Thanks for the post - it made me go out and buy The Observer. I don't
think I shall again, somehow. Another 'Sunday' descends into the gutter.
The News of the World couldn't better it for sensationalism, shallowness
and confusion.
--
Paul Terry (Email: pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk)
Shaw Carruthers
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
I am in a deep state of shock and truly appalled by today's Observer
front page. I would never have thought that a paper with such a
historic liberal tradition could sink so low.
I have already emailed a letter of protest to the editor. I used to
know him when he was in short pants, when he worked in the city before
he joined the BBC. I find it incredible that he is responsible for
this outrage.
--
Shaw Carruthers - sh...@cix.compulink.co.uk
London SW14 7JW UK
This is not a sig( with homage to Magritte).
Tim
I haven't seen the article yet - by the time I got it, my local newsagent
had closed.
Tony Game <acg...@babbs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: I have seldom been so disgusted by anything in any newspaper (I don't
: see the comics.) For it to have appeared in the Observer that I have
: taken for forty years, is devastating. I may have to change but by god
: it will be a sad day.
I got a copy a week ago, and it did seem somewhat like a tabloid with worse
cross-wind handling ability...
--
____ /\/| _ _ ___ ---- ??? Sw??tm?n, Keele University, England ----
/ __ \/\/_| || ||__ \ http://www.keele.ac.uk/socs/ks27/people/tim.html
/ / _` | |_ .. _|/ / "... whaddya mean, my signature's illegible?"
| | (_| | |_ _|_|
\ \__,_| |_||_| (_)
\____/
Simon Atkinson
In article: <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk> pe...@cara.demon.co.uk
(Peter Ceresole) writes:
:>
:> If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a
:> personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
:> It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what
:> think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
:> Observer.
I must admit that I cannot bring myself to buy the Obs. Anyone care to
post a precis?
--
Simon Atkinson
si...@raunds.demon.co.uk
Paul McCombes
In article <3r$jkDAxO...@musonix.demon.co.uk>, Paul Terry
<pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk> writes>Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
>>
>>It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what you
>>think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
>>Observer.
>
>think I shall again, somehow. Another 'Sunday' descends into the gutter.
>The News of the World couldn't better it for sensationalism, shallowness
>and confusion.
>
disgrace. Either the writers were incompetent or deliberately malicious.
Either way, never again.
--
Paul
"Psychologists doubted this explanation however. They pointed
out that people's perception of acceleration was not quite
good enough to account for their ability at shagging flies."
Dave Taylor
d...@dtaylor.demon.co.uk (Dave Taylor) wrote:
>Should I also boycott the Observer?
oops!!
Should I also boycott the Guardian ?
Gary Cooper
In article <100178...@raunds.demon.co.uk>
si...@raunds.demon.co.uk "Simon Atkinson" writes:
>
> I must admit that I cannot bring myself to buy the Obs. Anyone care to
> post a precis?
Yes, likewise - always hated the rag, myself and I'm damned
if I'll buy a copy now.
--
Gary Cooper
David Johnson
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
>It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what you
>think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
>Observer.
Could not agree more !
I have mailed the Observer as follows:
Dear Sir
I, as a regular internet user, am sick and tired of the misinformation
published about the internet.. Your recent article regarding Clive
Feather and Johan Helsingius displayed a total ignorance of the way
the internet actually works and is misleading tp your readers.
The problems regarding content available on the internet are real and
require serious and knowledgeable debate. Sadly this is totally
lacking in your publication.
yours faithfully
David Johnson
Tony Game
Ref: Peter Ceresole on Sun, 25 Aug 1996 :-
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
Would it not be a sound idea for someone to collect and mail to the
editor the various responses to Peter's letter? I have written to him as
a reader of forty years standing, explaining something of the truth, and
saying that I believe myself entitled to an explanation of the outrage.
Someone mentioned "News of the World." This article could have appeared
in that monstrosity forty years back under the heading "This Evil Man."
Richard Lamont
In article <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
> If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
> personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
I don't take the Observer, but this prompted me to go out and buy a
copy for the first time in years. It will be as long again before I
buy another.
The hatchet job on Clive Feather was quite repulsive, and was
reminiscent of the Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell's 1984. Why
pick on him for God's sake?
Clive, this may be the worst day in your life. You have many friends
out here, and (as other follow-ups indicate) our thoughts are with
you during this crisis.
I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
--
Richard Lamont
ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk
http://www.stonix.demon.co.uk/
Paul McCombes
In article <100178...@raunds.demon.co.uk>, Simon Atkinson
<si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I must admit that I cannot bring myself to buy the Obs. Anyone care to
>post a precis?
>
is stopping them (big type)
Beside a photo of Clive: The school governor who sells photos of child
rape.
Text: Clive Feather is a director of demon internet which for 14GBP
provides paedophiles with access to thousands of photographs of children
being sexually abused.
and so on
Beside a Photo of Johan: The internet middleman who handles 90% of all
child pornography.
Text: Johan Helsingius is the man police experts charge with being at
the hub of 90% of child pornography on the internet.
and so on.
The long article on page 19 continues on this vein for most of a page,
with a special guest appearence by DCI French.
Roger Smith
In article <3r$jkDAxO...@musonix.demon.co.uk>
pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk "Paul Terry" writes:
> In article <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk>, sent to demon.service,
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> >If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
> >personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
> >
> >It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism. Read it, and see what you
> >think. If you are disgusted by it as I am, then do write or mail the
> >Observer.
>
> Thanks for the post - it made me go out and buy The Observer. I don't
> think I shall again, somehow. Another 'Sunday' descends into the gutter.
> The News of the World couldn't better it for sensationalism, shallowness
> and confusion.
>
> --
> Paul Terry (Email: pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk)
>
These quotes mirror my opinions and actions - what the hell are the editors
playing at?
Regards,
--
Roger Smith
Gary Cooper
In article <Y1WBNbAc...@mccombes.demon.co.uk>
Pa...@mccombes.demon.co.uk "Paul McCombes" writes:
> Headline: The pedlars of child abuse: We know who they are. Yet no one
> is stopping them (big type)
>
> Beside a photo of Clive: The school governor who sells photos of child
> rape.
<rest snipped>
Thanks for posting that. Hard though it is to believe, it seems
the Observer has got even worse - that was sub-News of the Screws.
One for the Press Complaints Commission, I'd suggest.
Interesting to see that doyen of "New Labour", Hutton revealing
himself as a Stalinist. Not interesting that he *is* one, of
course - just that he's dull-witted enough to let it show.
--
Gary Cooper
Neil Barker
In article: <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk> pe...@cara.demon.co.uk
>
> If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a
> disgraceful personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan
> Helsingius.
>
> It was a terrible piece of yellow journalism.
I couldn't agree more.
Like Peter, I too work in journalism (I'm a press-photographer for a
regional daily). When I read crap like that in the Observer, I'm utterly
ashamed to say that I work in journalism.
Clive - I do sincerely hope that you intend taking action against the
Observer for this article, possibly libelling you in several places.
I quote,
"Clive Feather, a 35 year old school governor and family man and
Johan Helsingius, a Helsinki-based computer 'remailer' are key
links in the International Paedophile chain"
This is crap in the extreme - neither Clive or Johan are *personally*
involved in paedophile activity, as this reads.
I wonder - does the Observer also intend to implicate the Chairman of
British Telecom as a paedophile, because paedophiles use telephones ?
No, I think not.
Quite frankly, I'm disgusted and shall be emailing the Observer with my
views and also sending the paper back to them, with a request for a
refund of my 1 UKP. I have no intention of ever buying it again.
I have in front of me, a copy of the Press Complaints Commission's code
of practise for journalists. Whilst it is too long to quote here in its
entirity, I reproduce the first two sections :-
1. Accuracy
-----------
i) Newspapers and periodicals should take care not to publish
innacurate, misleading or distorted material.
ii) Whenever it is recognised that a significant innacuracy, misleading
statement or distorted report has been published, it should be
corrected promptly and with due prominence.
iii) An apology should be published whenever appropriate.
iv) A newspaper or periodical should always report fairly and accurately
the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a
party.
2. Opportunity to reply
-----------------------
A fair opportunity for reply to innacuracies should be given to
individuals or organisations when reasonably called for.
The address of the PCC is :-
PCC
1 Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8AE
Tel : 0171 353 1248
Fax : 0171 353 8355
Having mentioned this, though, I feel that this is should be more
subject to legal action, not just an adjudication by the PCC.
It is a fault of our legal system, that private individuals often cannot
afford to take legal action against large companies, such as newspapers.
In this case, I'd have though that Demon should be prepared to fight
this one, on Clive's behalf.
--
Neil Barker.
Richard Lamont
In article <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk>,
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) writes:
> If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
> personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
It was a very nasty and malicious article. However, it did raise one
point which AFAIK has not been discussed so far: the combination of
anonymous remailers and uncensored news servers, and the way this
combination allows a lack of *both* prior restraint *and*
accountability.
When people object (as I do) to censorship, they generally mean prior
restraint. Calling people to account for what they publish after the
event is IMHO much more legitimate. Given the choice, accountability
is the more acceptable of the two, as it is less open to abuse by a
government that wants to suppress political dissent.
The Observer claimed that 90% of the child porn on Usenet comes
through anonymous remailers, such as anon.penet.fi. If this is true,
it raises the possibility of a solution which could satisfy both
camps.
Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
(evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
This solution answers our concerns about unwarranted censorship, and
simultaneously achieves the declared government/police objective more
effectively than their own proposal.
This also fits in with the notion that only the originator of a posting
can/should be responsible for it, which supports the case for ISPs
having common carrier status.
Keith Edkins
Neil Barker wrote:
>
> I wonder - does the Observer also intend to implicate the Chairman of
> British Telecom as a paedophile, because paedophiles use telephones ?
>
Or, indeed, that the Editor of the Observer is a key link in the 'sleazy
phone sex business' because his paper runs adverts for a few 'dating'
chatlines?
I think not too.
Keith Edkins
John McGinlay
In article <4vpqvv$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
> I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
> chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
> convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
> unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
--
John McGinlay (giving his full support to Clive and to Demon)
Malcolm McMahon
>Text: Clive Feather is a director of demon internet which for 14GBP
>provides paedophiles with access to thousands of photographs of children
>being sexually abused.
>
>and so on
>
>Beside a Photo of Johan: The internet middleman who handles 90% of all
>child pornography.
>
>Text: Johan Helsingius is the man police experts charge with being at
>the hub of 90% of child pornography on the internet.
>
That's _got_ to be an actionable libel on Johan. We all know
anon.penet.fi effectively blocks substantial binary files.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm
Tony Game
Ref: Richard Lamont on Sun, 25 Aug 1996 :-
>The Observer claimed that 90% of the child porn on Usenet comes
>through anonymous remailers, such as anon.penet.fi. If this is true,
>it raises the possibility of a solution which could satisfy both
>camps.
It is not true. anon.penet.fi does not allow the sending of pictorial
material which was the subject of the article. anon.penet.fi has the
highest standards. It was originally set up to enable people to post
anonymously into disability newsgroups. It has a specialist number which
is widely published for use by the Samaritans.
>Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
>not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
>(evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
>banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
>the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
One cannot pay any attention to the statements of ignorant policemen. I
well remember when one such ordered the confiscation of large numbers of
copies of 'The Decameron' on the grounds that it was pornographic.
Police funds devoted to illogical and blinkered political nonsense
should be redirected towards stopping active paedophiles from
practising. Arguably the most deplorable fact about recent atrocities in
this country, in France, and in Belgium, has been the almost incredible
incompetence of the police. Their true fears are more likely to be that
the internet might expose this state of affairs.
Mike Granby
In an earlier article pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> I have sent the following email to the editor, Will Hutton,
> who used to be a colleague of mine on Panorama and who used
> to be a decent journalist.
The same Will Hutton, no doubt, who will be acting as eminence gris
to our next Prime Minister. As if it wasn't bad enough already...
--
Mike Granby
Paradigm Controls Limited
Lee Miles
In article <4vq6cq$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
> It was a very nasty and malicious article. However, it did raise one
> point which AFAIK has not been discussed so far: the combination of
> anonymous remailers and uncensored news servers, and the way this
> combination allows a lack of *both* prior restraint *and*
> accountability.
>
> The Observer claimed that 90% of the child porn on Usenet comes
> through anonymous remailers, such as anon.penet.fi. If this is true,
> it raises the possibility of a solution which could satisfy both
> camps.
The Observer's claim, in keeping with the entire article, is a complete
load of bullshit.
Remailers such as anon.penet.fi do not allow users to post to newsgroups
in the binaries hierarchy.
The vast majority of other remailers also enforce a limit on the size of
messages, typically < 64K, which I assume is insufficient for the material
we are discussing.
A recent thread in alt.privacy.anon-server on the subject of posting
binaries anonymously attracted a comment by Julf, the operator of
anon.penet.fi. In it he commented that binary postings purportedly to
have originated from anon, have simply had their from: header changed.
If the Observer had done its homework (i.e. looked at the NNTP posting
host) it would have realized this was the case.
But, of course, why let little things like truth and accuracy get in
the way of a "great" story?
--
Lee Miles
Simon Atkinson
In article: <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> John McGinlay
<Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> writes:
:>
:> In article <4vpqvv$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
:> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
:>
:> > I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
:> > chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
:> > convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
:> > unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
:>
:> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be
willing
:> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
<AOL> Me Too </AOL>
I would wait for a scalable news server if I knew they were all busy
fighting the sort of scum put out by the Observer.
Good Luck Clive - sue the bastards to hell and back.
--
Simon Atkinson
si...@raunds.demon.co.uk
Neil Barker
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be
> willing to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yup.
--
Neil Barker.
Malcolm McMahon
On 25 Aug 1996 18:35:06 GMT, ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk (Richard
Lamont) wrote:
>
>The Observer claimed that 90% of the child porn on Usenet comes
>through anonymous remailers, such as anon.penet.fi. If this is true,
>it raises the possibility of a solution which could satisfy both
>camps.
>
Well I haven't looked at the child porn groups but given there's quite
a tight limit on the size of posts through penet (specifically to
discourage binaries) I seriously doubt it.
>Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
>not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
>(evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
>banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
>the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
>
There is, IMHO, an important role for anonymous remailers. In
particular on groups like sexual abuse recovery groups it allows
people to discuss stuff they wouldn't dare discuss without the
protection of anonymity. There's also the use of anonymisers by people
living in oppressive political regimes.
I think maybe Julf should make a statement that the he _will_ reveal
true addresses in child pornography cases. The trouble is if he did
that repressive regimes would fake child pornography posts to uncover
the identity of anonymous critics.
An alternative might be for Julf to tighten his system to detect
standard binaries formats and reject them. Non standard formats are
not important because an unknown format wouldn't be an effective
broadcast.
Big Ears.
Richard Lamont wrote:
> Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
> not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
> (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
> banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
> the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
>
> This solution answers our concerns about unwarranted censorship, and
> simultaneously achieves the declared government/police objective more
> effectively than their own proposal.
Waste of time.
The real issue is the anti-child porn / child sexual abuse material squads
within the British police are cash starved just like every other part of the
British Police.
Your November 1996 tax cuts should be spent on NHS, Fire Service, Police,
Education, etc. etc. etc.
The specialist police want these newsgroups to continue thus enabling them
to track down the producers and the distributors of the nasty material.
Sweeping the shit under the carpet and then falsely proclaiming "Look
everything looks clean and tidy" will not prevent the smell filling the air.
Trouble is some people haven't got a clue and the Tory Party Conference is
less than 2 months away - a random coincidence of course.
If any adult wants to stop the filth then urge your MP to give the police
the essential funds they need to do a first class job - don't give away NHS,
Fire and Police funds to the public, especially the very wealthy, in the
form of tax bribes.
Big Ears.
Simon Atkinson
In article: <Y1WBNbAc...@mccombes.demon.co.uk> Paul McCombes
<Pa...@mccombes.demon.co.uk> writes:
:>
:> In article <100178...@raunds.demon.co.uk>, Simon Atkinson
:> <si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> writes
:> >
:> >I must admit that I cannot bring myself to buy the Obs. Anyone care
to
:> >post a precis?
:> Headline: The pedlars of child abuse: We know who they are. Yet no
:> is stopping them (big type)
:>
:> Beside a photo of Clive: The school governor who sells photos of
child
:> rape.
:> Text: Clive Feather is a director of demon internet which for 14GBP
:> provides paedophiles with access to thousands of photographs of
children
:> being sexually abused.
:>
:> and so on
:>
:> Beside a Photo of Johan: The internet middleman who handles 90% of
all
:> child pornography.
:>
:> Text: Johan Helsingius is the man police experts charge with being at
:> the hub of 90% of child pornography on the internet.
:> and so on.
:>
:> The long article on page 19 continues on this vein for most of a
page,
:> with a special guest appearence by DCI French.
Thanks for that Paul. It's good to see our morality being defended in
the press. As I said in an article yesterday - this IS the thin end of
the wedge. There is now an obvious media campaign to cut down (and
possibly) prohibit the use of the internet. The Goverment are getting
worried about free speech?
I also hope that Clive (at the very least) gets a public apology - in
the same sized print.
I could understand it if it was about Giles eating babies - at least he
looks the part :-) (feeble attempt at humour in a sad situation).
--
Simon Atkinson
si...@raunds.demon.co.uk
Gary Cooper
In article <549313...@nbarker.demon.co.uk>
Ne...@nbarker.demon.co.uk "Neil Barker" writes:
Yes. And I say that as a self-confessed journalist who is
*disgusted* by this mendacious claptrap beacuse he is proud
of what his trade *can* do at its best.
And I'd add another thought. It might be worth Demon's customers
collectively getting counsel's opinion on whether the Observer
has libelled *all* of us. I haven't seen the article - but if
some of the versions of what the fool Hutton has allowed to appear
in print are true, we might *just* have a case for sinking him and
his rag. It'd be worth looking into, at any rate.
--
Gary Cooper
Phil Payne
> Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
> not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
> (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
> banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
> the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
a) Cut off where and how? Since posting access is global, such a cutoff
would have to be globally agreed. Demon is not the only route for
posts into alt.binaries.something.nasty, is it?
b) How do you detect an anonymous remailer? At present, they're blatant.
If their powers were restricted, they would be redesigned to spoof
random apparent sources.
--
Phil Payne
(ph...@sievers.com, despite what the bounces say. If I don't
reply, your message is probably still stuck on a Demon punt.)
Phone: +44 385302803 Fax: +44 1536723021 CIS: 100012,1660
Neil Barker
In article: <322083a5...@news.demon.co.uk>
mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
> That's _got_ to be an actionable libel on Johan. We all know
> anon.penet.fi effectively blocks substantial binary files.
Indeed. From the helpfile from anon.penet :-
---------------------------------------------------------------
8.2) Available newsgroups
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Anon.penet.fi has all the newsgroups and can post to all the newsgroups
that aren't local to your area. The only world-wide newsgroups
anon.penet.fi cannot post to are the moderated newsgroups, the ones that
have voted not to receive anonymous articles (there are only 5), and
binary newsgroups (because of the volume).
------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest that get's forwarded to edi...@observer.co.uk, too....
--
Neil Barker.
Tony Game
Ref: John McGinlay on Sun, 25 Aug 1996 :-
>> I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
>> chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
>> convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
>> unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
>
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yes.
Bernard Peek
> Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
> not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
> (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
> banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
> the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
There's no way to identify anonymous remailers, it would even be
possible to set up one at a Demon address using KA9Q. It would be
possible to filter out post from specified remailers, such as
anon.penet.fi but there are some newsgroups where there are legitimate
reasons for anonymous postings.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
(Now resuming the search for cognoscenti.)
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
jon m
Richard Lamont (ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: The Observer claimed that 90% of the child porn on Usenet comes
: through anonymous remailers, such as anon.penet.fi. If this is true,
: it raises the possibility of a solution which could satisfy both
: camps.
: Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
: not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
: (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
: banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
: the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
This has already been done by anon.penet.fi and is another reason why
the article was totally wrong.
Posting can not be made to any Binary groups either.
Simon Thornton
In article <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk>,
John McGinlay <Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yup.
Simon.
Peter McDermott
Alan Drayson
In article <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk>
pe...@cara.demon.co.uk "Peter Ceresole" writes:
> If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
> personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
<Great letter snipped>
I have sent the following letter to the Observer:
Dear Sir,
The sexual abuse of children is a great evil, and one rightly abhorred by
nearly everyone. It does not however follow that any conduct purporting to
be in opposition to this evil is therefore right, and the article in The
Observer of 25th August is an illustration of this. It is a disgraceful
piece of tendentious journalism of a kind I would have been sorry to see
in one of the more hysterical tabloids, and I would not have expected The
Observer, a newspaper with an honourable liberal tradition, to stoop so low.
There is a need for an informed public debate about the responsibility an
internet service provider has for the content of what is supplied, but
your shameful personal attack on Mr Feather does nothing to advance it.
I think at some level you must have been aware of that, hence the
accompanying COMMENT piece which declared all counterargument inadmissible
and implied that anyone who disagrees with you is in favour of paedophilia.
I am happy to acknowledge that I obtain my internet connection from Demon,
but if I worked for The Observer I would be keeping quiet about it today.
Yours faithfully,
--
Alan Drayson Forfar, Scotland
Peter Jones
In article <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk>
Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk "John McGinlay" writes:
> In article <4vpqvv$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
> > I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
> > chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
> > convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
> > unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
>
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
>
Seems like a good idea to me.
--
Peter Jones
Douggie Green
Sounds good to me.
--
Douggie
Andrew Payne
>Text: Johan Helsingius is the man police experts charge with being at
Becoming rather an oxymoron, that.
>with a special guest appearence by DCI French.
Do I have an over-suspicious mind? Not an attempt to break Demon's
resolve?
FWIW I am writing to the PCC, assuming it doesn't compromise any
action taken by anyone else.
Andrew.
br...@zing.demon.co.uk
Richard Lamont
In article <841009...@sievers.com>,
Phil Payne <Ph...@sievers.com> writes:
> In article <4vq6cq$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
>> not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
>> (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
>> banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
>> the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
>
> would have to be globally agreed. Demon is not the only route for
> posts into alt.binaries.something.nasty, is it?
No, but the objective would be to stop posts already in a.b.s.n getting
onto Demon's servers if they came from a remailer.
> b) How do you detect an anonymous remailer? At present, they're blatant.
> If their powers were restricted, they would be redesigned to spoof
> random apparent sources.
By looking for f...@known.remailer.addresses in the header.
Not watertight, agreed, but perhaps worthwhile nevertheless.
I don't think Johan is into cracking, and I suspect he would not try
to push stuff from his box into news servers that didn't want it.
Michael F Gordon
In <841004...@atreyu.demon.co.uk> Lee Miles <l...@atreyu.demon.co.uk> writes:
>If the Observer had done its homework (i.e. looked at the NNTP posting
>host) it would have realized this was the case.
>But, of course, why let little things like truth and accuracy get in
>the way of a "great" story?
So, does anyone know if either Demon or any of the individuals mentioned
are going to take legal action? I'd love to see the purveyors of this
sort of disgusting yellow journalism sued into the ground and would be
quite happy to make a contribution towards their court costs if they
decide to do so. If there's any justice, the Observer will get hit
for damages so hard that they'll fire the people responsible - if I
were on the jury, I'd certainly be considering six, possibly seven,
figure awards for defamation and damage to business.
Michael Gordon
--
Politicians are like nappies, both should be changed regularly
and for the same reason - graffito on a wall in Yeovil.
Simon Khan
>
> > If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be
> > willing to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
>
>
> --
> Neil Barker.
Yep.
Is it just possible that the Observer is running this so as to draw
attention away from calls for curbs on press freedom? I have no real
idea what goes on in the lobbies but this looks like the result of some
shady deal. It could be staright from a political drama.
Dylan Harris
John McGinlay <Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yes...
Dylan Harris
John Wright
On Sun, 25 Aug 96 19:30:54 GMT, John McGinlay wrote:
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
>
>--
>John McGinlay (giving his full support to Clive and to Demon)
<aol> me too </aol>
--
John Wright
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so - Ix (Ford Prefect)
Fingerprint = D3 80 D9 38 F8 C9 D9 86 6B F1 DC F5 56 DF BC 82
Roger Smith
> In article <4vpqvv$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
> > I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
> > chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
> > convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
> > unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
>
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
>
> --
> John McGinlay (giving his full support to Clive and to Demon)
>
Yes. And I think that Johan could use some support as well.
Regards,
--
Roger Smith
Thomas Lee
>If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Sure. If Clive decides to sue, I'll contribute. And a bit more than a
bottle of Champagne.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee (email: t...@psp.co.uk, web: http://www.psp.demon.co.uk/tfl.htm)
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and Certified Trainer
PS Partnership - A Microsoft Solution Provider
Ph: +44 1628 850 077 Fax: +44 1628 850 143
Nobby Bates
On Sun, 25 Aug 1996 09:46:07 +0100, pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter
Ceresole) wrote:
snipped a lot of good stuff
Whilst I have been vociferous at times re the service provided by
Demon I cannot stand by and let so called quality newspapers get away
with the rubbish printed this Sunday.
Thanks for the email address of the editor...... it has been used.
Nobby
Work: NBa...@Tyco.Geis.com
Home: No...@Noblet.Demon.co.uk
The Nit Nurse
|> Richard Lamont (ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
|>
|> : The Observer claimed that 90% of the child porn on Usenet comes
|> : through anonymous remailers, such as anon.penet.fi. If this is true,
|> : it raises the possibility of a solution which could satisfy both
|> : camps.
It's not. anon.penet.fi doesn't accept binaries.
|> : Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
|> : not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers?
And how would they achieve this given that many anon remailers are based
in countries where porn is not illegal?
Dave Taylor
John McGinlay <Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Sure would, the proprosed broad brush censorship is one of the most
worrying issues around today.
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Net Nanny Mail Monitor |
| Testing, Testing, Testing |
| Why is the establishment wound up by mere fucking words?|
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Graham
Neil Barker (Ne...@nbarker.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: It is a fault of our legal system, that private individuals often cannot
: afford to take legal action against large companies, such as newspapers.
: In this case, I'd have though that Demon should be prepared to fight
: this one, on Clive's behalf.
Well, yeah, since it involves Demon as much as Clive. It also involves all
of us, since we've now been branded paedos.
There's a hell of a lot of people on here; I wonder how much more Demon'd
be able to spend on a lawsuit if we all paid an extra month's subscription,
on the condition we got an extra month of access should Demon succeed? A
bit like one of these loans that only gets repaid if the case is won and
the opponent pays up. Of course, should Demon lose, we'd lose the money,
but it'd only be a tenner each.
Craig Graham
Simon Atkinson (si...@raunds.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I would wait for a scalable news server if I knew they were all busy
: fighting the sort of scum put out by the Observer.
:
: Good Luck Clive - sue the bastards to hell and back.
As well as declaring war on a company, which appears to be quite
commonplace to a sensationalist newspaper, I wonder if the
Observer quite realises that it's also declared war on all that
company's customers?
Ian Preece
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be
> willing to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
<METOO> Count me in, for what I can manage. </METOO>
As a Demon user, I've been labelled, if not libelled, by the Observer
article, so I'd be happy to see them smacked down, hard. (In the strictly
legal sense, of course...:-)
--
regards,
IanP (Broke, but defiant...)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Preece ia...@darktower.com
Poole, Dorset, UK http://www.darktower.com/darktower/
I.T. Project Specialist Ideas for Hire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Graham
Richard Lamont (ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
: (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
: banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
: the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
to a news system would defeat that purpose, and to prevent posting
from them to a specific set of groups would simply have the translational
effect of removing those groups; posts would simply be diverted to other
groups.
I'm bloody sure that all remailers have a clause to the extent that any
blatantly illegal traffic like child porn- evidence of blatantly illegal
acts- can not hide behind the name of the remailer operator, and as such
people like Johan will responsibly take a judgement on all posts brought
to their attention by the authorities and have the option to give out
the real email address of the poster.
Does anyone have Johan's email address to ask his confirmation on this?
It'd be silly to have loads of people email him at once.
Jim Moody
In article <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter Ceresole
<pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
>
year when someone got up in the audience and asked an unanswered
question about the paper's alleged longstanding links with MI5 or MI6, I
can't remember which. Would the security services have any reason to
start this particular hare? Just wondering.
--
Jim
David G. Bell
In article <841014...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk "Bernard Peek" writes:
> In article <4vq6cq$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
> > Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
> > not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
> > (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
> > banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
> > the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
>
> There's no way to identify anonymous remailers, it would even be
> possible to set up one at a Demon address using KA9Q. It would be
> possible to filter out post from specified remailers, such as
> anon.penet.fi but there are some newsgroups where there are legitimate
> reasons for anonymous postings.
And, while Julf may be feeling a bit sick of the Scientologists efforts
to use the police and courts to force information out of him, the worst
he can be accused of is forcing the investigators to make their
allegations in court. The danger here is in the reaction of the British
courts. If they should rule that posting through an anon service is
primae facie evidence of illegal content, then the law is an ass, but an
ISP would have no choice. The evidence is that Julf provides anonymity,
but not protection against due legal process.
I think we should all support anon.penet.fi as an example of a
responsibly-operated anonymous remailer.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Brian Lewis
<snip>
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be
> willing to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yup.
--
Brian Lewis (EMail at: br...@btext.demon.co.uk)
Sam Clarke
In article <AE45D15F...@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter Ceresole
<pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>If you have seen this Sunday's Observer, you will have seen a disgraceful
>personal attack on Clive Feather (and Demon) and on Johan Helsingius.
>
>
Editor:
Dear Sir,
The following may be considered for publication.
Rarely have I read such hysterical nonsense as your article on child
pornography and the Internet (Observer August 25, 1996).
Aside from the technical errors, that images can be transmitted through
anon.penet.fi, you ascribe to Demon Internet a responsibility far beyond
its purpose.
Would you expect a newsagent to snip articles from every issue of your
newspaper which he feared might offend the majority of his customers? Of
course not!
Demon Internet fulfills the role of Internet newsagent - a 'common
carrier' in the manner of the Royal Mail and British Telecom, neither of
which is liable for obscene material delivered or transmitted via their
delivery networks.
To label Clive Feather and Johan Helingius as 'pedlars of child abuse'
is both a gross distortion and shoddy journalism.
The content of the Internet is a reflection of society where good, as in
normal life, far outweighs the bad.
While in no way supporting child pornography, it's presence must be put
in perspective, something your article makes no attempt at.
This is not to minimise the obscenity of child, or for that matter
adult, pornography. These are issues which need to be addressed, but not
in the manner of Sunday's banner headlines.
Of greater concern is the unstated purpose behind the villification of
the Internet as a pornographic medium.
The real issue, and one which would be better investigated, is one of
governmental control.
The Internet is the last bastion of free speech, an area where views and
opinions can be discussed openly world-wide without interference or fear
of state or societal retribution and it is under threat.
What politicians cannot control, they fear. What they fear, they attempt
to control.
If any question is posed by the availability of pornography on the
Internet it has more to do with the value of freedom over oppression
than the fractional postings of a few perverted individuals.
--
Sam Clarke
--
Sam Clarke
Bruce Stephens
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Lamont <ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk> writes:
> The Observer claimed that 90% of the child porn on Usenet comes
> through anonymous remailers, such as anon.penet.fi. If this is true,
> it raises the possibility of a solution which could satisfy both
> camps.
> Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
> not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
> (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
> banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull,
> until the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear
> instead.
This assumes, of course, that the target is child pornography. I
suspect it isn't: the oddly paternalistic Conservative government
wants to remove the ordinary pornography---stuff you can buy in
newsagents all over continental Europe---and evades debate by
mentioning child pornography.
I'm not in favour of child pornography, or much of what's freely
available in newsagents throughout continental Europe for that matter,
but surely the UK should be able to discuss the merits or otherwise of
censorship of adult materials in an adult way?
--
Bruce Stephens | email: B.Ste...@math.ruu.nl
Utrecht University | telephone: +31 30 2534630
Department of Mathematics | telefax: +31 30 2518394
P.O. Box 80010, 3508 TA Utrecht |
The Netherlands |
K.N.Cowans
On the 26-Aug-96 12:26:50, Craig Graham wrote the following:
>Simon Atkinson (si...@raunds.demon.co.uk) wrote:
What I would like to see is someone from the Observer get up enough courage to
post a message to one of Demons groups explaining the grounds for this so
called piece of journalism.
Just think, we can then all reply to that post, all 60000 or so of us :)
Bye
Kevin
--
EMail knco...@cityscape.co.uk / ke...@kncowans.demon.co.uk
PGP FingerPrint A2 FD E7 28 DC DB A0 67 D2 75 2F 39 7B 38 C2 77
Time Sent 26-Aug-96 16:05:26 (UK)
--
Gary Cooper
In article <966.681...@cityscape.co.uk>
knco...@cityscape.co.uk "K.N.Cowans" writes:
<words snipped to save space>
>
> What I would like to see is someone from the Observer get up enough courage to
> post a message to one of Demons groups explaining the grounds for this so
> called piece of journalism.
>
> Just think, we can then all reply to that post, all 60000 or so of us :)
Which, in comparison with the Observer's miserable circulation, is
a very impressive number.
--
Gary Cooper
Craig Graham
John McGinlay (Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
: to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Ditto. I've posted my idea of it elsewhere in this thread.
It's up to someone at Demon though to organise it, since the interest
seems to be there. As I said, we're involved, but it's useless to
start running around like headless chickens.
Bob Unitt
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
>> I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
>> chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
>> convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
>> unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
>
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Count me in...
--
Bob Unitt
Tim C
Gary Cooper <Coo...@wordshop.demon.co.uk> said
>In article <549313...@nbarker.demon.co.uk>
> Ne...@nbarker.demon.co.uk "Neil Barker" writes:
>
>> In article: <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> John McGinlay
>> <Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> > If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be
>> > willing to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yes, me too.
>
>And I'd add another thought. It might be worth Demon's customers
>collectively getting counsel's opinion on whether the Observer
>has libelled *all* of us. I haven't seen the article - but if
>some of the versions of what the fool Hutton has allowed to appear
>in print are true, we might *just* have a case for sinking him and
>his rag. It'd be worth looking into, at any rate.
And yes to this too.
I, because of the article, have the feeling anybody seeing I am with
Demon will automatically assume, totally wrongly, the worst of me and
mine. I use my email address on all advertising, letters and brochures I
produce for my business which is a small hotel. I rely on a good image
and reputation to attract clientčle in a very competitive market. This
scurrilous slur on Demon and *all* their subscribers, having now been
tarred with this sleazy brush, I fear, will have a long term, damaging
effect.
The editor of the Observer *and* any contributors to the article have to
be brought to task and at the very least a retraction of the article and
very loud public apology to me/us as Demon subscriber/s and to Demon
Internet Ltd.
TC
--
TC
Mike Tomlinson
In article <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk>, John McGinlay
<Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> writes
>
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yes. Count me in.
It seems that this situation may be one exception to the
'don't post me-too replies' rule.
--
Mike Tomlinson
Cat Toy (n): anything not nailed down.
Michael Ashton
In <840988...@rs32.demon.co.uk> Roger Smith <Ro...@rs32.demon.co.uk> writes:
>These quotes mirror my opinions and actions - what the hell are the editors
>playing at?
Make a point of mailing them, edi...@observer.co.uk. Mail them and make your
opinions crystal clear.
--
"Arousing me, now, with a sense of desire"
"Possessing my soul 'till my body's on fire"
Michael Ashton
In <8h7d2KA$RLIy...@babbs.demon.co.uk> Tony Game <acg...@babbs.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Arguably the most deplorable fact about recent atrocities in this country,
>in France, and in Belgium, has been the almost incredible incompetence of
>the police.
In fact, they turned out to be involved. It's possible that DCI French
is also a pedophiliac, like some of his colleagues, and appeared in a picture
in one the aforementioned groups and wants to ban them quickly before someone
notices. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that this were the case, of course.
Bill Bedford
Simon Khan <si...@redlodge.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Is it just possible that the Observer is running this so as to draw
> attention away from calls for curbs on press freedom? I have no real
> idea what goes on in the lobbies but this looks like the result of some
> shady deal. It could be staright from a political drama.
Or part a threat against Demon in the wake of CI French's letter?
I presume that Demon's private responce would have be similar to their
public statment.
--
Bill Bedford bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list auto...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Pete Rodger
In article <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk>, John McGinlay
<Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> writes
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Count me in.
--
Pete
Thomas Lee
In article <wM9SSDA8...@hay-isle.demon.co.uk>, Tim C <tim@hay-
isle.demon.co.uk> writes
>I use my email address on all advertising, letters and brochures I
>produce for my business which is a small hotel. I rely on a good image
>and reputation to attract clientčle in a very competitive market.
You should consider getting mail forwarding. Then you could be anything
you like, eg hay-isle.co.uk (assuming it wasn't taken).
Patrick Gosling
In article <4vromu$o...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
Michael F Gordon <m...@ee.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>So, does anyone know if either Demon or any of the individuals mentioned
>are going to take legal action? I'd love to see the purveyors of this
>sort of disgusting yellow journalism sued into the ground and would be
>quite happy to make a contribution towards their court costs if they
>decide to do so. If there's any justice, the Observer will get hit
>for damages so hard that they'll fire the people responsible - if I
>were on the jury, I'd certainly be considering six, possibly seven,
>figure awards for defamation and damage to business.
Quite apart from the individuals and companies directly libelled in
that article, there is also the question of the less direct libel
against demon customers.
If I put my "mr. innocent and naive member of the public" hat on,
I have difficulty finding a way of reading the front page article
without drawing the conclusion that demon customers become demon
customers in order to view child pornography.
>> PLEASE NOTE I'M NOT MAKING THAT IMPLICATION - READ THE ABOVE AGAIN <<
I would imagine that this will be noticeably detrimental to businesses
that have advertisements and calling-cards that mention demon email
addresses.
I'm not quite sure how one goes about what I believe are called
"class-action suits" in the US, in this country ...
-patrick
Craig Graham
Gary Cooper (Coo...@wordshop.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: collectively getting counsel's opinion on whether the Observer
: has libelled *all* of us. I haven't seen the article - but if
: some of the versions of what the fool Hutton has allowed to appear
: in print are true, we might *just* have a case for sinking him and
We need a copy of the article on here, to discuss. I don't know though
where that stands copyright-wise if this gets to court.
Maybe if someone types it in, it'd be a better idea to send individual
emails out rather than do a full newsgroup distribution- I dunno.
Any legal people here? I mean, it's about us, we should have a right
to read it!
Tony Game
Ref: Bruce Stephens on Mon, 26 Aug 1996 :-
>This assumes, of course, that the target is child pornography. I
>suspect it isn't:
As do I. The target I believe is almost certainly freedom of speech on
the internet. An anonymous whistle blower might expose 'affairs of
state' that practically all modern governments would do anything to have
kept under cover. The sad events in Belgium will be used ruthlessly to
close this possibility.
--
Greetings, Tony. [The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.]
Felixstowe, Suffolk, UK.
PGP KeyID 0x9D55B429 | 3D 86 63 0F A3 5A 8A 9F 29 F1 E9 4C F4 70 E8 E8
Tony Game
Ref: Craig Graham on Mon, 26 Aug 1996 :-
>I'm bloody sure that all remailers have a clause to the extent that any
>blatantly illegal traffic like child porn- evidence of blatantly illegal
>acts- can not hide behind the name of the remailer operator, and as such
>people like Johan will responsibly take a judgement on all posts brought
>to their attention by the authorities and have the option to give out
>the real email address of the poster.
I believe this is possible with penet remailer. However nothing is
easier than for governments of repressive regimes to fake a message
purporting to come from a user whose identification they wish to demand.
This whole subject is fraught with difficulties and there are no easy
answers. What is essential in my view is that the freedom of the
internet is preserved. Most governments will wish to have this destroyed
and will advance all sorts of arguments that don't stand up to proper
examination to achieve this.
--
Greetings, Tony. [ As long liveth the merry man (they say) ]
Felixstowe, Suffolk, UK. [ As doth the sorry man, and longer by a day. ]
Simon Gray
~ Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
~ not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
~ (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
~ banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
~ the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
You answer your own question immediately after asking it !!
--
[]=- Simon Gray, in Birmingham, EU <*>
// _-=__-=
_/|] ) ___ \ Now Netscape 2 Enhanced:
(_) \___/_(___)_| http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/
@ @
David Male
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
>> I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
>> chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
>> convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
>> unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
>
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
>
Perhaps PrivateEye might like to contribute some
advice/expertise/experience in this matter and settle a few old scores?
I have e:mailed Observer and Grauniad - the first time I have felt the
need to in over 35 years.
What ever happened to the Manchester Guardian we all bought *two* copies
of for a while to keep it solvent?
--
David Male You lot start coding
Abberley Systems I'll go and see what they want
WR6 6BX (UK) (anon)
Phil Payne
In article <960826123...@blksheep.demon.co.uk>
cr...@blksheep.demon.co.uk "Craig Graham" writes:
> We need a copy of the article on here, to discuss. I don't know though
> where that stands copyright-wise if this gets to court.
>
> Maybe if someone types it in, it'd be a better idea to send individual
> emails out rather than do a full newsgroup distribution- I dunno.
>
> Any legal people here? I mean, it's about us, we should have a right
> to read it!
I don't have time to do the legwork. But if someone else does, I'll happily
post it under my name. I think, under the circumstances, that this would count
as "fair use" and The Observer can hardly complain that it hasn't received full
credit for its article.
--
Phil Payne
(ph...@sievers.com, despite what the bounces say. If I don't
reply, your message is probably still stuck on a Demon punt.)
Phone: +44 385302803 Fax: +44 1536723021 CIS: 100012,1660
Nick Humphries
This Observer article SURELY breaks the rules of slander and libel. Is Demon
going to take any legal action?
Paul McCombes <Pa...@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <100178...@raunds.demon.co.uk>, Simon Atkinson
><si...@raunds.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I must admit that I cannot bring myself to buy the Obs. Anyone care to
>>post a precis?
>>
>Headline: The pedlars of child abuse: We know who they are. Yet no one
>is stopping them (big type)
>Beside a photo of Clive: The school governor who sells photos of child
>rape.
>Text: Clive Feather is a director of demon internet which for 14GBP
>provides paedophiles with access to thousands of photographs of children
>being sexually abused.
>and so on
>Beside a Photo of Johan: The internet middleman who handles 90% of all
>child pornography.
>Text: Johan Helsingius is the man police experts charge with being at
>the hub of 90% of child pornography on the internet.
>and so on.
>The long article on page 19 continues on this vein for most of a page,
>with a special guest appearence by DCI French.
>--
>Paul
> "Psychologists doubted this explanation however. They pointed
> out that people's perception of acceleration was not quite
> good enough to account for their ability at shagging flies."
>
Nick Humphries, ni...@the-den.demon.co.uk, at your service
If the Truth is Out There, what's In Here?
Tony Game
Ref: Craig Graham on Mon, 26 Aug 1996 :-
>We need a copy of the article on here, to discuss. I don't know though
>where that stands copyright-wise if this gets to court.
>
>Maybe if someone types it in, it'd be a better idea to send individual
>emails out rather than do a full newsgroup distribution- I dunno.
It's far too long to type. I don't know if anyone could scan it. The
photographs of the two people traduced obviously couldn't appear.
Tony Game
Ref: Neil Barker on Sun, 25 Aug 1996 :-
>The address of the PCC is :-
>
>PCC
>1 Salisbury Square
>London
>EC4Y 8AE
>
>Tel : 0171 353 1248
>Fax : 0171 353 8355
>
>
>Having mentioned this, though, I feel that this is should be more
>subject to legal action, not just an adjudication by the PCC.
While I agree with you that more than the PCC ought to be involved I
thought that it could do no harm to send them a complaint. Accordingly I
sent off the following fax today. Thanks for the number, Neil. Perhaps
others with fax modems might wish to use them in a good cause?
<--Fax begin-->
Dear Sir or Madam,
I draw your attention to the headline and articles in 'The Observer' of
Sunday 25th August. They purport to deal with the question of
pornography on the internet.
Your code of practise would appear to have been broken in several
respects. There is a calculated attempt to defame two people of good
reputation without any attempt having been made to establish the facts.
There appears to have been no attempt to verify statements made, and the
suggestions and accusations are scurrilous and misleading. This is
either exceedingly bad journalism or a deliberate attempt to deceive.
I expect that you will wish to examine the headline and the whole series
of articles.
<--Fax end-->
Malcolm McMahon
>
>Does anyone have Johan's email address to ask his confirmation on this?
>It'd be silly to have loads of people email him at once.
How about ad...@anon.penet.fi?
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
I was born weird: This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
the result of childhood trauma. | liberty bell.
---------------------------------+----------------------------------
Malcolm
Paul Terry
In article <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk>, sent to demon.service,
John McGinlay <Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> writes
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yes, absolutely.
--
Paul Terry (Email: pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk)
David G. Bell
In article <3220b6e9...@news-proxy.paracon.co.uk>
mi...@paracon.co.uk "Mike Granby" writes:
>
> In an earlier article pe...@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
>
> > I have sent the following email to the editor, Will Hutton,
> > who used to be a colleague of mine on Panorama and who used
> > to be a decent journalist.
>
> The same Will Hutton, no doubt, who will be acting as eminence gris
> to our next Prime Minister. As if it wasn't bad enough already...
Yeah, and I was quite impressed by that book of his....
I suppose he has more power now, and power does tend to corrupt....
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
David Hough
In article <549313...@nbarker.demon.co.uk>
Neil Barker <Ne...@nbarker.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article: <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> John McGinlay
>
> > If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be
> > willing to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
>
>
Definitely. If you got all subscribers to chip in then another tenner
each would produce a large fighting fund.......
Dave
--
da...@llondel.demon.co.uk
Any advice above is worth what I paid for it.
Tony Lambord
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <841001...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk>, John McGinlay
><Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> writes
>>If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
>> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
>Sure. If Clive decides to sue, I'll contribute. And a bit more than a
>bottle of Champagne.
I could chip in with the glasses?
(yeah, me too)
Tony.
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
> In article <4vq6cq$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
> > Rather than removing the newsgroups on CI Stephen French's list, why
> > not just prevent input to them from anonymous remailers? This would
> > (evidently) cut off 90% of the child porn permanently. By contrast,
> > banning a list of newsgroups would only cause a momentary lull, until
> > the pervs moved their stuff into alt.fluffy.cuddly.teddy.bear instead.
>
> a) Cut off where and how? Since posting access is global, such a cutoff
> would have to be globally agreed. Demon is not the only route for
> posts into alt.binaries.something.nasty, is it?
>
> b) How do you detect an anonymous remailer? At present, they're blatant.
> If their powers were restricted, they would be redesigned to spoof
> random apparent sources.
I think you've rather missed the point: anonymous remailers, such as
anon.penet.fi, inject the news articles *directly* because they happen to
run a news server --- the anonymized article is put onto Usenet locally
(in Julf's case, in Finland). AFAIK, all the anonymizers that permit
Usenet posting work the same way.
Incidentally, it was because of the cost of the bandwidth for Julf's feed
(outward, mostly) that anon.penet.fi had to stop accepting postings to
binary groups --- up until about two years ago, this was possible. Since
Julf did the whole business out of pure altruism, not being paid anything
for providing the service, he was quite within his rights to cut out the
binary groups and thus save his costs for international connectivity.
So Richard's suggestion could be implemented, but it would require the
administrators of such anonymizers to alter the rejection grounds. They
could arrange for postings to be rejected for some of those groups at the
beginning of the French letter (or even for the article to be forwarded,
without anonymization, to Interpol :-)
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
Tony Blair's New Labour: The Windows'95 of Political Parties
(c/w Plug'n'Pray and a pretence of offering object-orientation)
John Wright
On Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:51:34 +0100, Tony Game wrote:
>Ref: Bruce Stephens on Mon, 26 Aug 1996 :-
>
>>This assumes, of course, that the target is child pornography. I
>>suspect it isn't:
>
>As do I. The target I believe is almost certainly freedom of speech on
>the internet. An anonymous whistle blower might expose 'affairs of
>state' that practically all modern governments would do anything to have
>kept under cover. The sad events in Belgium will be used ruthlessly to
>close this possibility.
Including the corrupt involvement of the Police in Belgium, dare I say
pot kettle black....
--
John Wright
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so - Ix (Ford Prefect)
Fingerprint = D3 80 D9 38 F8 C9 D9 86 6B F1 DC F5 56 DF BC 82
Andrew Cheshire
John McGinlay <Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yes, me too.
--
Andrew Cheshire, Axiomatic Software
an...@axiomati.demon.co.uk (CIS: 100273,1543)
http://ourworld.compuserve.com:80/homepages/axiomatic/
"i forgive you molesworth for those uncouth words"
John Robinson
John McGinlay <Jo...@mcgwin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4vpqvv$9...@stonix.demon.co.uk>
> ric...@stonix.demon.co.uk "Richard Lamont" writes:
>
>> I hope that Demon will fund a libel action, irrespective of the
>> chances of winning it, if only to demonstrate the courage of its
>> convictions and 'pour encourager les autres' in our increasingly
>> unpleasant and dishonest mass media.
>
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Count me in!
--
John "The Beard" Robinson jo...@thebeard.demon.co.uk
"Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs.
Very sad life. Probably have very sad death. But at least there is
symmetry."
Andy D
>What ever happened to the Manchester Guardian we all bought *two* copies
>of for a while to keep it solvent?
Well this whole thing has just left me speechless. Will Hutton has
been touted as a possible Chancellor under a Blair government. I'd
love to see his Budget. We'd get a leprechaun and pixie tax.
Schizophrenics would pay extra council tax for the voices in their
heads. The man is either incompetent in the role of editor or has
absolutely no integrity.
If you'd have asked me last week, I'd have told you that I think he's
one of the best possible choices for Chancellor. I religiously read
his economic comment pieces when he wrote for the Guardian. 'The
State We're In' is a thoughtful and cogent exposition of Britain's
problems and possible solutions. The 'article' in Sunday's Observer
is a cretinous flush of a toilet somewhere in the Weekly World News
offices. Please tell me that he was on holiday when this disgusting
sensationalist piece of trash was approved for publication.
I can't even begin to point out the factual errors and
misrepresentations in the article. I'd have to reproduce virtually
the entire thing. Others have made the points more eloquently than I
could, just suffice to say that samar...@anon.penet.fi will be
surprised to learn that all the people they help and counsel are
actually child molesters.
I notice this thread is crossposted to uk.media. Here's a tip for any
journalists reading, just in case they miss this one out in journalism
school. Don't print lies. You can of course print propoganda, but be
prepared for your readers to adjust their opinion of you accordingly.
--
an...@troas.demon.co.uk
----------------------
Matthew Malthouse
snail mail may be old fashioned, but usually carries more weight (figuratively
speaking). The address is: The Editor, The Observer, 119, Farringdon Road,
London. EC1R 3ER.
Matthew.
(Not commenting other wise, look at the sig <shame>)
__\/__
/ ^ ^ \
(\| (o)(o) |/)
------------------------oOOOo--oo--oOOOo----------------------------
"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."
mailto:matthew....@guardian.co.uk
The opinions expressed are not those of the Guardian Media Group
-----------------------------------Oooo.----------------------------
.oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
Tim C
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> said
>In article <wM9SSDA8...@hay-isle.demon.co.uk>, Tim C <tim@hay-
>isle.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I use my email address on all advertising, letters and brochures I
>>produce for my business which is a small hotel. I rely on a good image
>>and reputation to attract clientčle in a very competitive market.
>
>You should consider getting mail forwarding. Then you could be anything
>you like, eg hay-isle.co.uk (assuming it wasn't taken).
>
Well I could, but that is a bit like diving for cover or, even worse,
would look like desertion. I do think (even with their faults!!) Demon
Internet Ltd need all the support they can rightfully expect from their
subscribers at the moment.
TC
--
TC
Chris Hutchings
> If Demon do decide upon this course of action, I for one would be willing
> to contribute to a 'fighting fund'. Any others?
Yes ok.
--
Chris Hutchings
ch...@chhu.demon.co.uk
Craig Graham
David G. Bell (db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: allegations in court. The danger here is in the reaction of the British
: courts. If they should rule that posting through an anon service is
: primae facie evidence of illegal content, then the law is an ass, but an
: ISP would have no choice. The evidence is that Julf provides anonymity,
Should they do that, it'd be quite easy to supply messages from anon.penet
in the *recovery groups.
Peter Ceresole
In article <841074274s...@horizon.co.uk>,
Richard Ashton <anti...@horizon.co.uk> wrote:
>} Sure. If Clive decides to sue, I'll contribute. And a bit more than a
>} bottle of Champagne.
>}
>
>Count me in on this too.
Me too.
--
Peter
Neil Barker
In article: <32212483...@news.demon.co.uk> me...@merp.demon.co.uk
(Andrew Payne) writes:
> FWIW I am writing to the PCC, assuming it doesn't compromise any
> action taken by anyone else.
So anyone outside journalism knows how the PCC works, they *will*
investigate complaints made against newspapers, but once the complaint
looks like going to legal action, they will not go further.
--
Neil Barker.
Gary Cooper
In article <960826213...@blksheep.demon.co.uk>
cr...@blksheep.demon.co.uk "Craig Graham" writes:
And very many from support groups, such as alt.support.depression.
--
Gary Cooper