Re: IWF

[Ken in MD <seahawkman2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jon in MI wrote: >>I really enjoyed this, Ken.  Plain
old common sense.  That will make a great complaint
letter for when the hard evidence arrives and we
attack they asses.<<

Thanks.  Things kind of clicked when I compared the
IWF mission statement with what Stephens was saying
publicly even before Pete was questioned by police.

>My suggestion to them would be "don't say a fucking
thing about any case under investigation until it is
officially resolved."<

keets wrote: >>That may be what Stephens thought he
was doing, but his tone and subject matter made it
sound like he thought Pete was guilty.<<

And he had no business implying this or making any
comments about a specific case, no matter what Pete
admitted.  No where in the IWF remit does it say they
will comment publicly when it is fully evident that a
confidential police source has been leaked, a police
investigation is underway, and an apparent subject of
the investigation has not been arrested, charged,
tried, or found guilty.

I wrote the secretariat of the IWF, which is seeking
comments on its remit and governance, based on my IWF
post yesterday.  I pointed out that Stephens actions
contradicted their stated desire to help consumers
report illegal content because their treatment of
Townshend undermines confidence that the IWF will
treat reportees fairly. I ended the letter with:

"I understand that the IWF makes the disclaimer that
its board members do not speak for the organisation.
But I would urge you to incorporate into your
governance that should board members speak publicly
about any case under investigation before it is
officially resolved, their removal from the board
should be seriously considered." 

If you're wondering why I would write now when I was
urging caution earlier, its because I focused on the
impropriety of their vice-chair making such comments
so early on.  I did not argue that Pete's reporting to
them makes him innocent.  If I had been able to find
any published comments from them saying they'd never
received reports from Pete I would have really laid
into them. 

I would urge anyone with interest in this, especially
if you're in the UK, to take the IWF up on its request
for comments on what its mission is and how it should
go about it.  See the bottom of this page:
http://www.iwf.org.uk/news/archive/latest_news.epl

>>Sounds Government funded.<<

It is a private watchdog group with some government
oversight but apparently little government funding. 
Don't quote me on that but I think that most of their
funding actually comes from the UK's internet service
providers and telecom companies. With those companies
making millions on porn how effective can the IWF be? 

I have no reason to doubt that IWF is serious about
its mission and has done alot of good to the extent
that it can.  But they goofed big time on this one and
they should be called to task for it!

Ken in MD
"You could learn a lot from a life like mine."
Keith Moon
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com