[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) fucks Pete right up the ass.. ....again.
> I particularly enjoyed his feeble attempt at exonerating "their
> spokesman" (gee, I thought it was the head of the IWF...wasn't it?)
> with the following statement:
Mark Stephens of the IWF was the "spokesman." Other reports have listed
him as a "board member."
Interesting that now the IWF is saying that Mr. Stephens had "no way of
knowing" whether Pete contacted them. Back when the story broke, the
firming Pete's attempts to contact them. From January 2003:
"For it's part, the IWF says it had no choice but to
deny any prior contact with Townshend: "Because of the
provisions of the Data Protection Act, we are unable
to comment or disclose information about the personal
details of individuals who make reports to us unless
they give their permission."
> Ummm, he could have asked?
> Or, ummmm, he could have not unequivocally *denied* being contacted
> by Mr. Townshend.
> Or, he could have simply said....."I don't know. I'll get back to you
> on that."
Exactly. Some "spokesman." The guy fucked up, plain & simple. Now
they're trying to spin it to make it look like he wasn't at fault.
Obviously, the IWF has made up its mind about Pete & holds a serious
grudge against him for dragging them into it in the first place. You
really can't blame Pete. The IWF left him hanging. They seemed to be
convicting Pete as soon as the story broke. From January 2003:
An internet watchdog said Townshend's visit to the
website was "incredibly foolhardy, naive and
Mark Stephens, of the Internet Watch Foundation, said:
"It is wrong-headed, misguided and illegal to look at,
download, or pay to download this material.
"If you do so, you are likely to go to prison."
So, there you have it. The IWF was dubious of Pete's claims of innocence
right from the start. And they're obviously still dubious.
- SCHRADE in Akron
The Council For Secular Humanism