Charles Clarke and paedophiles

[Yaman Akdeniz]

On 28 Jul 2000, at 15:06, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

> Um, I'm having slight trouble parsing that so I don't know if it's an
> attack on IWF or not.

Ooh please be puzzled but with my background probably that was a 
criticism of the IWF.

> > and medium specific solutions 
> > such as hotlines for reporting child pornography or the provisions 
> > of the RIP Bill will not be effective or will not address the real problem.
> 
> I hold no brief for the RIP Bill.
> 
> IWF's hotline has a specific purpose, and it is not one of preventing
> sexual abuse of children. IWF is also working on various issues (such as
> educational material) to attempt to protect children who are using the
> Internet. If children are aware of the dangers of chat lines - for example
> - they will be safer than if they are not.

Well maybe such an organisation strongly supported by the Government 
and the Home Office should have a wider role. It is easy to say "ooh 
that is not our duty" and "somebody else should deal with it". To be 
honest, I am surprised not to see such a wider interest with the 
organisations that are represented in the IWF board - NCH (John 
Carr), and ChildNet International (Nigel Williams).

It just confirms my original points and that of Quentin Campbell and 
does not answer Quentin's legitimate question:

"I am thus bound to ask why these organisations are devoting their 
efforts, and charitable funds, pursuing their "internet agenda" 
rather than addressing the terrible situation that exists on their 
own door step".  

> Nobody is pretending that this solves the basic problem of child abuse.
> That doesn't mean that it isn't beneficial.

Yes the IWF is beneficial for PR for protecting the ISPs from 
prosecution but no other known benefits.


Mr. Yaman Akdeniz,
Director, Cyber-Rights & Cyber-Liberties (UK)
Url: http://www.cyber-rights.org
E-mail: lawya@cyber-rights.org
Tel: +44 (0) 498 865116
PGP Fingerprint:
075A 1640 8F7A 0273 6C24  B9C3 551F A9F1 0397 F663