Harry's Place

I have never understood why ISP’s have said they can’t block certain sites like child porn.

Its easy to remove domain names from DNS servers (so you can’t look then up by name such as http://www.hurryupharry.org is done) You can filter for banned IP addresses (what a lookup of http://www.huuryupharry.org uses as the raw address of the web server)

Its also possible to prevent someone from using a proxy server (to disguise who you are and where you are going) by removing them from being accessed by you.

We have various services that filter you from ‘bad’ sites and who log banned e-mail spammers. So, its possible the ISP’s could do more (Internet Service Providers).

Yes, we do have the dilemma of freedom because the Govt could instruct ISP’s to ban political websites. We could have the situation where MPAC UK could be banned because of the hate found there but BNP allowed because they are a political party.

I am all in favour of a Govt learning of a website that promotes terrorism and hate and asking ISP’s to log who has had access. Wouldn’t you like to know where Bakri is broadcasting his hate to and who is watching?

This is truly awful… Start with the Nanny state; then advance to the nascent ‘Stamp on your Head’ state.

Andy Burnham can’t truly believe in this policy.. surely.. Can he?? Is he really some brainwashed career goon of the now rudderless Socialist cause, tutored with a well aimed strobelight and a champagne enema? (the moron’s got his eyebrows at beermat level too).

I used to be left wing.. this has gone too far. In absolute terms this is utterly, utterly wrong in every way.

Maven, you are a twat of the highest order. Who are you to decide what is ‘bad’?

I get my news, real news, not government propaganda – from the internet. Places like this, and Guido, and The Devil’s Kitchen, or Burning our Money. What Burnham wants is control, control over what you can read, what you are allowed to know. So he’ll start with terrorist websites (remember that today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s freedom fighter) and then, flushed with power, he’ll turn on all of the above named purveyors of alternative news.

I could probably come up with a list of a hundred things that you consider ‘bad’ that I disagree with, but I’m not about to stop you having those views, or looking at websites that confirm your prejudices. Andy Burnham will.

One day they will decide to build an incinerator, or a mobile phone mast, or even a runway, at the bottom of your garden. Then you will form a protest group, raise a petition, perhaps even start a website to support your cause.

Then Andy Burnham will use new his new legislation to shut you down! Permanently.

Wake up man. Google Wikileaks and see what they are doing to stop totalitarian governments from denying people their freedom of speech. Andy Burnham wants them shut down to.

Sometimes I really do despair.

HP being associated with the likes of “Guido”, “The Devil’s Kitchen”, and “Burning our Money”? Dear oh dear oh dear. I didn’t realise HP was another bastion of right-wing fuckwittery

Kool Aid, I am in no way associating HP with any other blogs of whatever political persuasion. Thanks to the freedoms we have (at the moment) I take my news from many sources, including HP. Maybe I should have included a few ‘leftie nutter’ blogs for balance. What HP and all of the other writers provide is an alternative veiwpoint to that offered by the print and broadcast media, and as such I find them all invaluable, even if I sometimes disagree with their content.

Maven’s automatic acceptance that there may be merit in Burnham’s prattle is the thin end of the wedge. Burnham will happily shut down this site using exactly the same laws that he would use to remove BNP sites.

Maven, you are a twat of the highest order. Who are you to decide what is ‘bad’?

I have decided that web sites that glorify paedophilia and which show pictures of children and babies being abused is bad.

I have decided. Am I a ‘twat’ for coming to that conclusion?

I think a website that tells its Islamic followers to go out and kill Jews is bad. I have made that decision. Is that acceptable, or do you think we should allow it?

If there is a website that tells you how to kidnap and torture someone then I have decided we should ban it?

This analogy of ‘thin end of the wedge” assumes that a child pornography is on the same ‘wedge’ as “How to cook a Turkey”. Its NOT. Its on its own wedge called “Nasty things we need to protect children from”.

Shock! Horror! HP discovers the State is not a neutral organ, above society, but is in fact an organ of class rule….

Don’t get me wrong – I am powerfully, tribally Labour but this is a stupid idea from someone – Andy Burnham – who I am increasingly coming to regard as a piece of thick but good looking eye candy.

It’s not new either. Labour made similar proposals in 1995 or 1996 which then sank without trace when one shadow who was a bit stupid (Chris Smith) was replaced by one (Jack Cunningham) who was lazy but had brains and who realised that the first amendment to the US Constitution (as well as practicality) meant it was going nowhere.

This idea might not die off. But even if enacted it will never work. Because the small matter of linking in content means that any ‘U’ site could become ‘18′ in an instant.

Councils are already using ‘anti-terror’ powers to spy on families to see if they live in the correct catchment areas for schools s there’s no way the State should be trusted with these powers.

They are trying to establish their own version of Australia’s proposed ‘Great Firewall Reaf’:

http://www.efa.org.an/censorship/mandatory-blocking-timeline/

Australia has already reached the point where one internet user has been fined and branded as a paedo for possessing the Simpson’s catroon parody most of us here have seen ourself on YouTube. Australian courts have designated it child-pornography. That The Simpsons belongs to Rupert Murdock’s Fox raises the question of just how far the Stare will abuse its powers to defend corporate interests.

We should remember that current campaigns against video games and public drinking have been spearheaded by the MP Keith Vaz, a religious fanatic who lead a march in suport of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie (and whose religion would see alcohol banned outright).

How long do you think a site which stands up against religious bullying would last against the Government’s proposed laws against ‘religious hatred’?

Maven: are there really any websites out there that ‘tells you how to kidnap and torture someone’, or have you been reading the Daily Mail again?

I know of one particular site that contains vast amounts of filthy language, nudity, scenes of terrorist acts, horrific car crashes, and even shows children doing extremely dangerous stunts that appear to result in them suffering actual physical injury. It’s called You Tube. Surely that should be top of your list.

As is usual in this debate, the talk of banning extreme sites arises. Banning per se is the problem, simply saying these things should be banned is an easy and comforting thought, but are you making sure you feel good rather than actually doing any good? Terrorist incitement and paedophilia are already crimes covered by most countries laws, (if they are not covered by a country’s laws then I don’t particularily want to visit that country). You can lose sight of the fact that any attempt to show crimes on a website are an avenue of investigation, no matter how difficult they make it to track them down. The publishers of these sites already know they are committing a crime or indulging in behaviour that is taboo and obnoxious to the majority of their fellow people, that is why identifying the owners of these sites is usually made diffucult by them. It is a comforting thought that we could ban these things out-right never to be seen again. But I think you have to be some kind of fool to think that it is easily possible in the real world.

Unless of course you realise you don’t need to sweat to use a fine grain approach, and think it would be far better to end up reducing the web to something that is nothing better than a goverment monitored two-way version of teletext?

Anyone can have a wank at whatever image it wants: it doesn’t need the Internet to supply images. Anyone can have a fascist wank at whatever image it wants, it doesn’t need the BNP or the Jihadists to supply it. Anyone can intimidate courageous animal researchers and call them Paedos, send them used Tampex, and raise dosh from the punters for ‘animal rights’ on a massive scale without the Internet.

Er not.

There are surely limit cases.

Libel certainly needs ‘looking at’ – but to provent ‘libel tourism’ exploiting our already draconian libel laws.

And the talks with Obama, together with Australia’s new powers suggest that is sites written in English which will be hit first: I might be missing something but English isn’t the language of choice among Jihadis.

“…a piece of thick but good looking eye candy.”

Good looking…?

Yet another reason why Labour are not fit to govern anymore.

Btw private sector web site content categorisation and filtering is of course already here and in use at library public access PCs, home and company networks across the country. Fwiw
You can check the rating of your favourite sites here… http://mtas.surfcontrol.com/mtas/MTAS.asp
Example ratings:
David Duke: http://www.davidduke.com : intolerance & hate
British national party : http://www.bnp.org.uk : politics
British national front : http://www.natfront.com : intolerance & hate
Obviously it’s not infallible but it could be a useful stop on the UCU how not to link approvingly to a screaming nazi website flowchart and prevent a lot of unpleasantness.

Mavin, you realize that if you actually want a censorship system to succeed in blocking hate sites, the LAST thing you want to do is use the same system to block any kind of pornography. You may think “child porn” but don’t forget that American law defines any remotely sexy picture of anyone under 18 as child porn.

Having backward Islamists fighting your system is nothing compared to having the collective libido of all of the teens, ephebophiles (people who like teenagers) and pedophiles fighting your system. Any technology that pits itself against human libido is doomed. A way to completely defeat it WILL be found if people’s wanks depend on it.

This seems especially wrong headed; especially given the UK government’s draconian – ‘We know what’s best for you’ – tendencies. And it’s not just Labour; the Conservatives are nearly as bad when they are in power.

Rather have a positive entirely voluntary rating system, and leave it to individuals and companies to subscribe to it.

If someone shows pedophilia or indulges in incitement; prosecute them under existing legislation.

If someone shows pedophilia or indulges in incitement; prosecute them under existing legislation.

Exactly. And if existing legislation isn’t being implemented properly, find out the reasons instead of introducing new legislation that almost certainly won’t be implemented properly either, thus rendering it utterly pointless.

There was lots of handwringing after Dunblane, but the inquiry demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the massacre happened because existing legislation wasn’t being followed. If it had been, Thomas Hamilton would never have been allowed to own his arsenal. Rightly, the chief constable of the area resigned after these findings – and there the matter should have ended. But instead, we got a ridiculously draconian overreaction that did nothing to prevent firearms circulating in criminal hands, but which criminalised or threatened to criminalise perfectly law-abiding citizens (and destroying our Olympic target pistol shooting hopes in the process: apparently we were quite promising once upon a time).

Rather have a positive entirely voluntary rating system, and leave it to individuals and companies to subscribe to it.

Absolutely – and if it finds favour with parents, it’ll catch on. If it doesn’t, it won’t. And shouldn’t.

British film censorship is currently optional in cinemas but compulsory for video releases – another side-effect of a so-called moral panic leading the then government (Thatcher’s second administration) to bring in a ridiculously draconian and far-reaching law (the 1984 Video Recordings Act) that’s still on the statute books despite its increasing irrelevance.

Although the British Board of Film Classification (formerly Censors) has significantly moved with the times, and now rarely cuts films unless they actually contain illegal material (unsimulated animal cruelty and child sexual activity), the fact that distributors have to pay them a hefty fee for the “privilege” of BBFC vetting means that small-scale outfits have higher operating costs in Britain than their counterparts abroad – especially now that the BBFC charges for DVD commentaries. The upshot of that is that many such commentaries simply aren’t included on the British version, and those who care about such things are free to import them (perfectly legally) – thus undermining the entire point of the VRA.

The solution is simple: make BBFC classification voluntary, but with penalties, pretty much as it operates in the US. There, you’re free to distribute what you like, but if you don’t seek MPAA (BBFC equivalent) approval, major chains won’t stock your product and major newspapers and magazines won’t take your advertising. But tiny fringe distributors outfits won’t care about this (they couldn’t afford those ad rates anyway), so everyone benefits – including concerned parents.

The fact is that criminals, whether they be fraudsters, illicit pornographers or terrorists, will always be one step ahead of the state in matters of technology. That doesn’t mean the authorities should not seek to counter criminal activity, but to presume a nation state can implement a system of control over the Internet is the height of delusional arrogance. Burnham will not be able to filter or censor the Internet, but in his attempts he may infringe the civil liberties of ordinary people while criminals will continue to pursue their activities virtually unhindered.

I must say it’s so nice to see HP commenters so much in general agreement here – the reliably batty Maven excepted, of course.

This is symptomatic of this government’s increasingly bizarre quasi-religious belief in technological panaceas – see also the ridiculous money-burning NHS computer schemes – with seemingly zero understanding of the chaos and complexity of the information systems they are trying to meddle with. As someone who’s worked in the NHS computer system myself, I can confirm that the government’s understanding of how these things work is stupid to the point of surrealism.

On the matter of Dunblane the Tory government of the day ignored the recommendations of the Lord Cullen inquiry that that they had appointed and introduced even more draconian gun laws. The legislation’s done diddly squat for public safety, hand gun crime has since soared. Indeed, since the time of the first Word war, perhaps perversely, in Britain there is an almost perfect inverse correlation between ever increasingly draconian gun laws and the incidence of gun crime.

Meantime, in order to ‘win’ the Olympic bid, the government had to agree to pass a temporary exemption to allow let the Olympic pistol shooting events take place in the UK.

Back to internet censorship…this sort of initiative is as wrong headed, but rather considerably more malign.

I notice that nobody has alluded to the dead hand of the EU here.

Let’s not forget their (and the UN’s) involvement in the Danish Cartoon Affair, assorted anti-shari’ah campaigns on the continent, the Lionheart affair, dotty Gramscian Marianne Mikko and more besides…

3 massive cockweasels: Keith Vaz, Andy Burnham and Captain Euro.

And the biggest of the bunch Denis ‘feast for all the xenophobic and isolationist forces in British politics’ Macshane, cockweasel extraordinaire and faithful EU phallus fellator.

I think that the correct approach is as follows:-

1. For ISPs and computer software designers to co-operate in cataloguing websites, so that websites have to apply for a rating to be included in the permitted sites for children.

2. For governments and ISP companies to do more to close down those websites that are clearly providing illegal content.

What we don’t want is for governments to start policing the whole of the internet.

I am particularly concerned about the libel issue. We know how Team McCann have used the libel laws. We know that the UK media is completely gagged on the subject of Madeleine’s McCann’s non-abduction.

I think there needs to be some qualified privilege for blogs operating in a semi-private manner and don’t commit gross and malicious libel (e.g. acting out of revenge or spite rather in what they perceive to be the public interest or acting in a way that seeks to give the discussion the same prominence as news items). This is a difficult area but I think something can be worked out. There is a difference between a claim made about the McCann case made on the BBC News website and one made in an ordinary members-only forum.

If we are saying the McCann lawyers can trawl the blogs for libel pay offs – can they trawl the pubs of the country listening out for similar comments?

Oh and assorted attempts to rendition holocaust deniers…

1. For ISPs and computer software designers to co-operate in cataloguing websites, so that websites have to apply for a rating to be included in the permitted sites for children.

But why field? This is treating the symptom not the disease…cf. http://www.islamway.com, which within minutes of the Israeli clampdown issued a hate supplication and following it up with a link to a jihadist article proclaiming the conditions perfect for retaliatory jihad…but how can banning access to them erase the hate-filled ideologies that inspire them? Same with paedophilia…

When one voice is -banned- because it speaks things that even one person finds offensive, then the world has lost something.

Should sites that condone and promote pedophilia be banned? No. Is Pedophilia bad? Hell yes it is – but if the proprietors of that site are not breaking the law by posting images or actively engaged in the acts themselves, then there is no law broken. In fact, these sites can be used effectively by law enforcement to track these people.

Banning these things only drives them further underground, out of the reach of law enforcement. I would rather have jihadists and pedophiles out in the open so that they can be watched rather than at secret meetings in mosques where they cannot.

Banning these things only drives them further underground, out of the reach of law enforcement.

That was exactly the argument made by the police after the News of the World told them that they were planning to name-and-shame paedophiles in the paper (summer 2000, I think). The NoW ignored them, but the police were proved absolutely right – to avoid the attentions of vigilante mobs, many paedophiles who’d been tracked perfectly successfully for years simply disappeared off the radar.

No surprise that Andy Burnham is a fan of increased Government control and crackdowns – the man is a wonk who has spent his entire working life politicking for New Labour:

1994-1997: Researcher for Tessa Jowell
Aug 97-Dec 97: Parliamentary Officer for the NHS Confederation
1997-1998: Administrator for The Football Taskforce (NL’s laughable attempt to “shape the future” of British football)
1998-2001: Special Advisor to Secretary of State for Cultuire, Media and Sport.
2001: Elected as MP for the very safe Labour seat of Leigh, Lancs.

Like many of his colleagues, he hasn’t any experience of real life outside of the Westminster bubble. No wonder he comes out with such rubbish.

Words

I am instinctively in favour of website age ratings, although I cannot for the life of me see how they could be enforced.

But this Government has its own agenda, as, being a government, it will and must have. Specifically, it wants to restrict political comment to its tame hired help in the old mainstream media, the people with whom it shared seminar rooms, bars, houses, joints (as they were then called) and beds back in their halcyon days.

So do as they never did, and just say no.

The point is not the sites promoting paedophilia. It is those that accuse people of being paedophiles, notably the recent case of the ALF scum who used this accusation against people associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences. Do you not accept that they have to reigned in?

“reined”

Falsely accusing someone of paedophilia is already a crime – it’s called “libel”.

I don’t know if the web is such a great way of spreading politically motivated paedophilla rumours really. Afaict the animal rights idiots were mostly using direct mail and lamppost flyers.

I am instinctively in favour of website age ratings, although I cannot for the life of me see how they could be enforced.

Oh, come on! You’re the leader of a political party – surely you can do better than this hand-wringing limp-wristedness?

In your case the remedy is simple – when the British People’s Alliance have swept to power in the next election, you simply ban all websites aside from your own, and restrict comments to your own comments boxes. And then continue to apply the censorship system you already apply, and the problem is solved.

It’s Christmas not April 1.

I’m not Jewish. Two of my father’s sibs married Jewish people (Marxists, progressive, above the more revolting ‘bourgeois’ prejudices: they did have their good points). I’ve probably visited the most repulsive sites on the Net taking a good look at those who – ah, dislike the soiling of racial purity. Know your enemy, that’s the thing. I like them in the open where I can see them. My family is now doubly ’soiled’ with marriage to non-white people. Those who’d closet us with a canister of Zyklon B – if you have led a sheltered life, do not be under the slightest illusion that there are not those who would do just that – aren’t going to go away because Neu Arbeit pulls the plug and I fail to recall the seminal role of the Internet in the victories of the Third Reich. Frankie Howerd voice takes over: See them heil! Watch them hittle! Should a doctor not be consulted about that distressing affliction to the right arm immortalized by Dr Strangelove? Taking the piss is the most effective antidote, online and off-

I don’t know much about the tracking of Net activity but I’d have thought it something the intelligence services are capable of and so the fact that Nazis and jihadis alike are stupid enough to spew themselves all over the Web is an absolute godsend to identifying them.

I’m a feminist who writes about, among other things, the more deformed sorts of male psychopathology. I have learned a lot from BDSM sites. You may argue that the free world does not end because I or anyone else can no longer research the head-sets of those who act out fantasies of the total submission and degradation of females. Not least, I have learned that they are very often self-aware and draw a clear line between fantasy and RL. So-o-o…So we may not see the sites of those who are actually saner than those who draw no such line, the more extreme members of a certain world-religion, for instance? Those who are clear theirs is a fantasy world cause more ‘harm’ than those who aim their lunacy at young British Muslim women, those who would actually punish women by whipping? Or New Labour would censor equally the devout? The BDSM-ers are honest about the sexual component to their conduct. Just what is ‘harm’, or for that matter ‘libel’, that which causes the most hysteria, for instance arguing that there are male members of all major religions who are sexually twisted and not similarly honest?

Just thinking aloud here, Mr Burnham. There is no reason to trust New Labour I guess is the basic point, not the slightest reason to believe it understands the words ‘free country’, has so much as 0.01% of a libertarian instinct.

Michael, I did say that I was against them on balance. But you can’t expect anyone stupid enough to support the Iraq War to be able to read to the end.

“HP discovers the State is not a neutral organ, above society, but is in fact an organ of class rule…”

Since trot sites are certainly not going to be banned, and Marxist academics not goin to be fired, I think we can safely assume the State is more Marxist than, say, Nationalists – who may well be worried about being banned.

”
Falsely accusing someone of paedophilia is already a crime – it’s called “libel”.”

The person doing the accusing has to have some merit, or status in the community, the village idiot can’t really slander anyone. Pseudonymous commentary on the internet, people with monikers like “fionn”, have as much societal power as the village idiot.

Michael, I did say that I was against them on balance. But you can’t expect anyone stupid enough to support the Iraq War to be able to read to the end.

Can you not? That’s useful to know – I’ll bear it in mind next time I get into a conversation with an Iraq war supporter.

Other idiots are happy enough taking the village idiot at face value. If the internet shows us one thing it’s that there’s no shortage of idiots ready and willing to parrot some other idiots idiocy.
Maybe some sort of critical thinking lessons in schools could eventually limit the idiot supply?

Other idiots are happy enough taking the village idiot at face value. If the internet shows us one thing it’s that there’s no shortage of idiots ready and willing to parrot some other idiots idiocy.

This is the problem. If you know that someone’s a crank, it’s easy enough to treat them as such – which is why I confidently predict that David Lindsay is most unlikely ever to find himself on the receiving end of a libel writ. But if a rumour appears on a popular blog and is widely disseminated, it becomes accepted as “fact” even if none of the individual circulators can in any way be described as reliable sources.

Wow; if it weren’t so funny, this would be contemptible. It’s like watching Dr Who and seeing Britain thinking that it’s the center of the universe.

If the CPC can’t keep the PRC effectively walled off with all the totalitarian powers at their sidposal, how the frack this this retard think he’s going to do it ? And in PRC access to VPN is limited because not so easy to may payements outside the country; I’ll look forward to selling VPN access to censored Brits for 5 bucks a month – Paypal will do just fine.

It’s interesting that this loser has as low an opinion of Obama as I have though; fortunately, over here we have a constitution to protect us from this kind of thing. Maybe, something like this might be enough for enough of you to demand one of your own. Oh, sorry, I forgot – you’ve got that EU thingy. Let’s see how much protection that gives you from this; anybody ?

” “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now….”

That he makes this point at all, is very revealing about his underlying motivation. It is a good thing that there are spaces that governments can not reach. A healthy society is one which places restrictions on the scope and reach of the cloying, stifling, presence of government.

Of course, Burnham would regard this as offensive, that anyone could object to any increase in his power.

As for the protection of children, that is the job of parents and guardians. If they want to avail themselves of child-safety portals or other utilities, that is a matter for them. Just as it is their decision whether to let their children read their copy of Ulysses.

We need to get back to the old fashioned idea that the government has no right to interfere with folk who have committed no crimes.

Thank you, Ysabel Howard, you said it better than i ever could.
Such a tempting populist measure, net censorship, for any political party feeling the need for a motherhood and apple pie issue; i’m sure their testing the waters on this one.

I’m a feminist who writes about, among other things, the more deformed sorts of male psychopathology.

Irony aside; men hold no monopoly in deformed psychpathology!

Thanks from me too, Ysabel Howard, that was a letter I would like to have written.

In his threatening remarks about censorship, Andy Burnham talks mainly about children, which is fine, but he leaves the other areas of censorship omimnously unspecified. I had an immediate feeling of ‘panic’ about everything else that could be censored – those Russians I encountered on HP who manage to evade the claws of Putin, thanks to the internet.. If Berlusconi had a tenth of a chance, he would eliminate Beppe Grillo’s blog. (I think he is known outside of Italy -?)

Isn’t there already enough censorship on the internet? Paedophilia is already illegal, so what’s the fuss about? Internet offers the police the occasion to track them down. Much of youtube is censored already.

Beppe Grillo has been banned completely from appearing on TV. He says the truth, names names and deeds, attacks the fairly large number of parliamentarians who have been condemned for their crimes but are carrying on as usual, thanks to parliamentary immunity. Many popular political satirists were banned from TV in Italy. Some came back under the brief Prodi government, but they have modified their tones. This is inexcusable censorship. For it to be applied also to the internet would bring us that much closer to the feeling of living under Pukey Putin.

Marcus asked us to give a harm rating to sites we visit regularly.
I would give a harm rating to all the sites I visit, but certaunly not with a view to censhorship.

Shakespeare sites harm that author (which means harming us) by not really writing about him.

Most of the sites I look up for info on composers and poets have such poor material, that they are damaging both to the artists and to culture in general. If Burnham paid more attention to this sort of thing, if he really were a minister of culture, encouraging the offer of sites with real substance in them, this would be the best way of opposing the bad stuff. Ministers of culture are beginning to resemble Soviet cutural commissars.

HP is a favourite site of mine and the best of a bad bunch. (Please remember, I like to joke). It belongs within a context of the greatest importance: the opposition to mentalities that are trapped in mindless ideolgies and violence. I’ve always known about the dangers that threaten our world, but have become more acutely aware of them thanks to HP.

HP is a fast moving blog, and despite its great critical faculties, also provides people with the chance to get their rocks off. I wouldn’t want to change it. But ideally I’d like to see it associated with another site which:

- identifies the fascistoid phenomena, not only in your particular enemies, but also in our society as a whole.
- studies these phenomena in depth, eg. taking an SWP newspaper and analysing its language very thoroughly.
- sees in BNP members not only the shits they are, but a distorted mind, distorted by social mechanisms and to pay attention to the circumstances which foster them
- ie.studies their causes, how and why they arise.
- tries to do something about it. This is difficult. I’m working, reading,thinking about it.

If I were younger and cleverer I would try to create such a companion website. But I hardly have the strength to complete preparations for my own website, on which, in any case, every word will speak against hidebound personality structures. I’ll advertise HP there and bring over some of the arguments.

“Falsely accusing someone of paedophilia is already a crime – it’s called “libel”.”

Wrong – Libel is a civic action/ I think you mean criminal libel, and that would work if the CPS were to prosecute the BNP etc. sites.

On the subject of criminal libel, the BBFC initially refused to grant the anti-Salman Rushdie film International Guerrillas a certificate on those grounds.

The ban was lifted when Rushdie himself said that he’d seen the film, thought it was drivel, and that banning it would give it a stature it patently didn’t deserve – and since he was the only person capable of bringing a libel suit, the justification for the ban shrivelled instantly.

The duly opened in British cinemas and sank like a stone, despite a somewhat optimistic marketing campaign – which is exactly what Rushdie hoped would happen.

The UK Libel Laws have taken another step into the abyss and could signal the end of Free Speech. A UK based media club, The Groucho Club which is owned by a billion pound corporation ‘Graphite Capital’ have launched a one of kind High Court action for a pre publishing test case for libel against Tyrone D Murphy, the author of an exposé book about the club. The book has not been completed yet and the case seems to be based on what could be written and not what has been written. http://www.g-book.co.uk is the book web site

What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet. This action is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists