Re: Re: Plus Net Binary News Servers SUCK bigtime.

[Paul Cummins]

In article >,
(PlusNet Support Team) wrote:

> We only carry newsgroups from the 'official' ISC listing

What 'official' listing.

Does ISC own usenet?

What does ISC have to do with the UK.* hierarchy?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

[PlusNet Support Team]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>What 'official' listing.
>
>Does ISC own usenet?
>
>What does ISC have to do with the UK.* hierarchy?

I put 'official' in quotes because it isn't really official (Obviously
there is no such thing!). The ISC active list is however the same list
is as used by many other ISPs to provide a standardised list of groups
and the list itself does include uk.* groups.

ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/active

Regards,

Ian
--
| Ian Wild Unmetered & ADSL solutions
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet Technologies Ltd. @ http://www.plus.net
+ ------- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -------

[Roderick Stewart]

In article >, Jonathan
Buzzard wrote:
> Of course if you actually know that the material carried in the said
> groups contains pornographic material of children, which you can only
> have done by looking at it, then you are also breaking the law and
> are liable to end up on the sex offenders register.

Clearly, it's a minefield, full of rules and regulations written by
people who haven't a clue how the technology works. The particular
aspect of this that I was trying to emphasise is that a newsgroup
cannot really be said to "contain" anything in the usual sense.
Messages are always passing through, so that what is carried on the
hard disk on one day will be quite different on another day, or even at
a different hour. It thus has more of the characteristics of a
communication channel than a storage medium, the use of a hard disk
simply being a technological detail. It could be argued that electronic
memory "contains" information in the same dubious way.

The question that needs to be settled, if there are any legal experts
capable of understanding all the ramifications, is how long an
automatically managed temporary store (which is really only a dumb
electronic component) has to keep data before it can be regarded as a
container of it, rather than a conduit.

Rod.

[F F Skitty]

"Mugwump" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Jonathan
> Buzzard said......
>
> <snip>
>
> > The allegation is that
> > PlusNet have in their possession hard disk that contain pornographic
> > material. I am surprised they have not had a knock on the door from
> > the police with a search warrant demanding to know which of their
> > customers has been downloading from the said groups.
> >
> But that is an allegation that can be raised against any service
> provider providing Usenet at any time. Unfortunately illegal stuff does
> not stay in well defined newsgroups.
>
> If you did a trawl of every disk of every UK service provider you would
> probably find that each one has paedo stuff on it somewhere, not
> necessarily identified by the group that is normally associated with
> this stuff.
>
> As you say this law is blunt, and probably wrt Usenet is unworkable.
> --
....

I'm sure the post office is also in possession of loads of illegal stuff at
any one time, as are courier services.

It seems to me that it would be impossible under the Law to hold any
"communication" organisation responsible for what passes through its
systems.

(However various news providers can and do refuse to carry specific ng's
that are intended for paedo's. But if there was a lot of that "censorship",
I can only assume that the rest of us would get more of them hogging other
ng's. Perhaps it's better for police etc to try and keep these people in
fewer places..?)

[PlusNet Support Team]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:56:04 -0000, Mugwump > wrote:

>But that is an allegation that can be raised against any service
>provider providing Usenet at any time. Unfortunately illegal stuff does
>not stay in well defined newsgroups.

Right, well... I think there is nothing more to do here than replicate
a post made today to our customers and point out that the groups
mentioned earlier in this thread are NOT available on our service.

"Over recent months, we have been working in partnership with the
Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) to help make the Internet a safer
place. The IWF concentrates in combating child abuse images online.

As a result of this consultation, the IWF have provided us with a list
of publicly available newsgroups, which have been highlighted as being
cause for concern. We have now taken action to ensure that these
newsgroups are not available via our service.

We believe the work of the IWF is very important and will continue to
offer our full support and co-operation to them in the future. Further
information about the role of the IWF, and what to do if you are
concerned about any online content, can be found at their website:
http://www.iwf.org.uk "

With Regards,

Ian
--
| Ian Wild Unmetered & ADSL solutions
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet Technologies Ltd. @ http://www.plus.net
+ ------- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -------

[Amigo Entertainments]

"Mugwump" > wrote in message
...
"The majority of the major ISPs carry binaries."

In the UK?
I'd check your crystal ball again and look at the ACTUAL binaries groups
they are carrying.

[Amigo Entertainments]

"PlusNet Support Team" > wrote in message

So you would agree that it would not be proper or legal to offer NG's that
"Contain images of child abuse, anywhere in the world"

As per the IWF frontpage

If this is so then please take a look through some of the erotica.teen
groups you are offering and tell me if you think the content therein is
legal.

Better still - don't bother, as one of your customers Ive already taken the
time to report you with examples from your news server with headers.

Any ISP holding this kind of filth and basically selling it - and any
individual that promotes it (yourself included) rank pretty near plantlife.

I suggest the reason you make it available is you enjoy pulling your pud
over it.

[Amigo Entertainments]

"Jonathan Buzzard" > spoke the truth in message:

"It is one thing for the Royal Mail to handle envelopes containing illegal
material, it would be entirely another for them to set up post boxes
specially marked for you to put such material in."

Totally agree. I further put it that plusnet make this material and groups
available as a feature to sell their services. Nice to share an isp with
peados and weirdos.
Perhaps your business customers would share the same view?

[Jonathan Buzzard]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:04:30 +0000, PlusNet Support Team wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:56:04 -0000, Mugwump > wrote:
>
>>But that is an allegation that can be raised against any service
>>provider providing Usenet at any time. Unfortunately illegal stuff does
>>not stay in well defined newsgroups.
>
> Right, well... I think there is nothing more to do here than replicate
> a post made today to our customers and point out that the groups
> mentioned earlier in this thread are NOT available on our service.

Indeed, when I checked in my newsreader it did not appear to carry
the groups mentioned. However it did not take long to find at a number
of other groups that are still cause for concern. It may be that the
list of groups Leafnode is showing me is out of date however.


JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

[PlusNet Support Team]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:21:07 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:


>I suggest the reason you make it available is you enjoy pulling your pud
>over it.

LOL - How I love getting paid to read such well considered trolling.

As has already been said, we are members of the IWF, on organisation
who I think you will agree have been, so far, the most effective UK
organisation at dealing with matters in this area. Feel free to liaise
with them in relation to any specific content you feel we should not
be carrying and I'm sure that we can sort this out on an amicable and
professional level.

I do think that singling out one provider for criticism in this area
is unfair and as far as I am concerned there isn't very much more we
can say in this thread - I think the actions taken demonstrate that
your original assertion is incorrect. If you want to discuss the
legalities and principles of Usenet publishing though I would be happy
to pick that up on monday, provided you can remain rational and avoid
stooping to the level you just did.

Night,

Ian
--
| Ian Wild Unmetered & ADSL solutions
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet Technologies Ltd. @ http://www.plus.net
+ ------- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -------

[PlusNet Support Team]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:24:36 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:


>Totally agree. I further put it that plusnet make this material and groups
>available as a feature to sell their services. Nice to share an isp with
>peados and weirdos.
>Perhaps your business customers would share the same view?

I am going home now, but are you saying that "Experience thousands of
newsgroups with our dedicated Usenet service" is an advert to come and
download pornography from our service?

Do all other ISPs offer this without mentioning it on their website?

Catch ya Monday....

Regards,

Ian
--
| Ian Wild Unmetered & ADSL solutions
| Customer Support for Home & Business
| PlusNet Technologies Ltd. @ http://www.plus.net
+ ------- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -------

[F F Skitty]

"Amigo Entertainments" > wrote in message
...
> So let me see, If I choose to snort cocain and plusnet only deliver it
they
> are acting lawfully???
>

(Electronic coke?!? Worthy concept...)

But, I like the cut of your giblets! Great argument:

"If I snort cocaine and a bag of it arrives by post, Royal Mail *has*
committed a crime! And so has my postie!"


Actually not. They have to KNOWINGLY SUPPLY. *Both* words need to be valid.

Is connecting and supplying the same? Is BT "supplying" you with porn if
someone faxes you a picture of a couple bonking? What then - ban faxing?

If ISP's dropped all "warez" newsgroups would you then prosecute them all
for someone posting a "cracked" commercial drawing program in a personal art
sharing newsgroup?

Or should we all simply go back to living in caves because any development
is open to abuse?

I certainly don't let my kids anywhere near usenet or p2p or IRC, and any
email goes through me. No, it isn't nice, sometimes.

Hey, it's not a perfect world, but police *are* better off spending more
time going after the actual perpetrators - rather than the
services/opportunities/technology which they abuse.

[·.¸¸.·´¯`Wango´¯`·.¸¸.·]

"Amigo Entertainments" > wrote in message
...

-snip-
Nice to share an isp with
> peados and weirdos.
> Perhaps your business customers would share the same view?
>
Perhaps they would as in my experience, many of the paedo's I've seen caught
were downloading from their business accounts in the first place.

Wango

[Amigo Entertainments]

Phil Thompson wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:06:33 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments"
> > wrote:
"good coming from "Organization: Customer of PlusNet"

****wit - if I were not how could I state the facts. Consider working for
nasa - you must have taken up space in class
--
begin Paul Cumming funny man.exe

[Amigo Entertainments]

Phil Thompson wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:24:33 +0000, Amigo Entertainments
> > wrote:
>
>>begin Paul Cumming funny man.exe
>
> what is this silly line of text on your post for ?

You struggling for something to do today...........
--
begin Paul Cumming funny man.exe

[·.¸¸.·´¯`Wango´¯`·.¸¸.·]

"Amigo Entertainments" > wrote in message
...
-snip-
> I suggest the reason you make it available is you enjoy pulling your pud
> over it.
>
Don't talk ****e ya prat.
It's almost impossible to maintain total filtering and monitoring of all
groups and contents contained within.
ISP's should remove what is known to be illegal and work with their users
and similar to help identify any groups that may have slipped through the
net.
I'd be interested in knowing what your contribution to stopping child abuse
on the net is.

Wango

[Amigo Entertainments]

"PlusNet Support Team" > wrote in "Do all other ISPs offer
this without mentioning it on their website?"
No. most have removed the offending newsgroups - you have not. The fact that
it has been highlighted to you here publicly, and that you are defending it
sends out a loud and clear message about where plusnet stands on it. Perhaps
you may one day come accross pictures of your own kids on their, eh?

Thank you for confiriming this and that you are happy to sell illegal porn
dressed up as a 'usenet service'.

[Amigo Entertainments]

"Or should we all simply go back to living in caves because any development
is open to abuse?"

There is NO defence for child abuse. What plusnet are doing here is plumbing
CLEARLY LABELED NG'S into homes and businesses and defending that. Not
turning a blind eye to a technology that is being abused - but plumbing a
clearly labelled set of disturbing and illegal contentented news groups into
the home.

That is supply. I'm sure if we take drugs as an anaology then supply is
usually more serious than posession, although in the case of illegal images
this tends to be much narrower.

[Phil Thompson]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:16:50 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:

> into
>the home.

they don't push it into the home, you go and collect it. They don't
supply it either, they transit it. Are BT responsible for everything
said over their phone lines ?

Phil

[Pete Smith]

In article >, says...
>
> "PlusNet Support Team" > wrote in "Do all other ISPs offer
> this without mentioning it on their website?"
> No. most have removed the offending newsgroups - you have not. The fact that
> it has been highlighted to you here publicly, and that you are defending it
> sends out a loud and clear message about where plusnet stands on it. Perhaps
> you may one day come accross pictures of your own kids on their, eh?
>
> Thank you for confiriming this and that you are happy to sell illegal porn
> dressed up as a 'usenet service'.

Then seeing as you feel so strongly about it Jik, why don't you give up your
Force 9 subscription? You do realise that you're connecting via Plus.net
don't you?

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

[Bob { Goddard }]

Amigo Entertainments wrote:

> Mr Cummings please quit from adding that binary executable to your tag or
> I will list your name, address and phone number here.

****wit, there is no binary attachment. You're using a broken
news reader.


--
http://www.mailtrap.org.uk/

[Phil Thompson]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:01:18 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:

>Seems to be a lot of support for this kind of material here - which is more
>than a minor concern.

there is a lot of support here for freedom of speech and open access
to the internet. If you want to be nannied go to AOL.

I know there's a sewer out there, so I don't look into manholes.
I also try to avoid cities.

Phil

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:06:33 UTC, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:

>
> "PlusNet Support Team" > wrote in message "provided you
> can remain rational and avoid
> > stooping to the level you just did. "
>
> Which is quite rich from a pedler of child porn.....

So when are you closing your Force 9 account?

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...

[Paul Cummins]

In article >,
(Bob Eager) wrote:

> > Which is quite rich from a pedler of child porn.....
>
> So when are you closing your Force 9 account?

A little aftert plus.net process my abuse complaint, I hope.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:02:57 UTC, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:

> Mr Cummings please quit from adding that binary executable to your tag or I
> will list your name, address and phone number here.

There isn't ooe. You are reading news with a broken newsreader that just
thinks there is...

--
Bob Eager
rde at tavi.co.uk
PC Server 325*4; PS/2s 9585, 8595, 9595*2, 8580*3,
P70...

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:07:30 +0000, Bob { Goddard }
> wrote:

>Amigo Entertainments wrote:
>
>> Mr Cummings please quit from adding that binary executable to your tag or
>> I will list your name, address and phone number here.
>
>****wit, there is no binary attachment. You're using a broken
>news reader.

He is - it's called Outlook Express. Quite ironic really...

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Bob { Goddard }]

Amigo Entertainments wrote:

>
> "Bob { Goddard }" "****wit, there is no binary attachment. You're using a
> broken news reader."
>
> You've paid for yours and call me a ****wit. Right, whatever......

Paid?!?!? What the hell are you on about.

--
http://www.mailtrap.org.uk/

[Phil Thompson]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:33:38 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:

>You've paid for yours and call me a ****wit. Right, whatever......

if you're going to use a free one at least have the sense to choose a
decent free one.

[Phil Thompson]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 08:06:33 -0000, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:

>Which is quite rich from a pedler of child porn.....

good coming from "Organization: Customer of PlusNet"

[Phil Thompson]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:24:33 +0000, Amigo Entertainments
> wrote:

>begin Paul Cumming funny man.exe

what is this silly line of text on your post for ?

[Phil Thompson]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:38:59 +0000, Amigo Entertainments
> wrote:

>You struggling for something to do today..

haven't you got a disco to go to

[Alexander Mann]

Amigo Entertainments wrote:

> "PlusNet Support Team" > wrote in "Do all other ISPs offer
> this without mentioning it on their website?"
> No. most have removed the offending newsgroups - you have not.

I don't think it's good enough for an ISP to say "oh yeah, that is child
porn but, hey, it's usenet" but I'm not sure that's what PlusNet have
said.

Also, you mentioned one group about teens but teenagers aren't all
underage so I don't see why any NG about porn and teenagers should be
removed automatically.

[Paul Cummins]

In article >,
(Alexander Mann) wrote:

> Also, you mentioned one group about teens but teenagers aren't all
> underage so I don't see why any NG about porn and teenagers should be
> removed automatically.

And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject is
14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet the
photo could still be of a teen.

Sam Fox first appeared in the Sun on her 16th Birthday. This means that
the photographs must have been taken when she was underage...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

[Bob Eager]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:29:17 UTC, Phil Thompson
> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:24:33 +0000, Amigo Entertainments
> > wrote:
>
> >begin Paul Cumming funny man.exe
>
> what is this silly line of text on your post for ?

He's a child...it amuses him...
--
Bob Eager
begin by not using Outlook Express...

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:34 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article >,
(Alexander Mann) wrote:
>
>> Also, you mentioned one group about teens but teenagers aren't all
>> underage so I don't see why any NG about porn and teenagers should be
>> removed automatically.
>
>And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject is
>14, 15, 16 or 17.

Intuition.

>Sam Fox first appeared in the Sun on her 16th Birthday. This means that
>the photographs must have been taken when she was underage...

Bizarrely enough, its not illegal to take photos of people.

[Phil Thompson]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:22:08 +0000, Alexander Mann
> wrote:

>Also, you mentioned one group about teens but teenagers aren't all
>underage so I don't see why any NG about porn and teenagers should be
>removed automatically.

indeed, New Labour lowered the ago of homosexual consent to 16 so such
things have a Blair stamp of approval :-)

[Jonathan Buzzard]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:34:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article >,
> (Alexander Mann) wrote:
>
>> Also, you mentioned one group about teens but teenagers aren't all
>> underage so I don't see why any NG about porn and teenagers should be
>> removed automatically.
>
> And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject is
> 14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet the
> photo could still be of a teen.

Well a group entitled alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by definition
contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you can describe
16 as being early teans and anything before that is illegal.

Further more a group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pussy.firsthair is
also by definition going to contain illegal material. It does not
take a genius to realize that the average age that girls first get
pubic hair is much less than 16, even when we figure in a couple
of standard deviations into the mix.

>
> Sam Fox first appeared in the Sun on her 16th Birthday. This means that
> the photographs must have been taken when she was underage...

That is utter rubbish. Thirty seconds googling tells you that she first
appeared on 22/2/1983, and two more clicks tells you that her date of
birth is 15/4/1966. That means that she was 16 years and 10 months
old when she first appeared in the Sun.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

[Paul Cummins]

In article >,
(Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

> > And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject
> > is 14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet
> > the photo could still be of a teen.
>
> Well a group entitled
> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
> or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by
> definition contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you
> can describe 16 as being early teans

Lets see now...

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

16+ gives 4 years of teenage after 16th birthday, but only 3 years
before. IF we consider the early/late split to be 16 years and 6 months,
then there could legally be 'early' teans (sic) in the groups you cite.
If they existed. They do not.

CLUE: computers are precise machines that will not find things that are
misspelled by a single character.


Furthermore, how do you know the content, of the two groups that do most
closely resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content
of the groups? Consider your answer carefully...

> and anything before that is illegal.

In the UK, yes. Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
pictures in the UK. Again, be careful before you answer.


> Further more a group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pussy.firsthair is
> also by definition going to contain illegal material. It does not
> take a genius to realize that the average age that girls first get
> pubic hair is much less than 16, even when we figure in a couple
> of standard deviations into the mix.

Why would a picture of cats growing hair be illegal? And what do kittens
have to do with teenage girls? Last time I looked bestiality was illegal
but erotic pictures of animals were not. Whatever turns you on, I say.

I can assure you I am no apologist for paedophilia, but a 15 yr old girl
posing for 'dirty' pics taken by her 15 yr old boyfriend is not
something that the law is likely to concern itself with. Now if you can
tell me that these groups contain very young teens being abused, then I
will agree with your concerns. But at that point, you will be contacting
the police, and stop pontificating here.

So, to close, the relevant questions are:

1) How do you know the content, of the two groups that do most closely
resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content of the
groups? Consider your answer carefully...

2) Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal pictures in
the UK? Again, be careful before you answer...

I wonder, under the circumstances, whether I should consider a PACE
caution at this stage...?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

[Roderick Stewart]

In article >, Jonathan Buzzard
wrote:
> > And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject is
> > 14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet the
> > photo could still be of a teen.
>
> Well a group entitled alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
> or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by definition
> contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you can describe
> 16 as being early teans and anything before that is illegal.

Newsgroups do not "by definition" contain anything at all. They are public
noticeboards, available to the entire planet, wherein anybody can post
pretty much anything without anybody else stopping them. There are no
guarantees whatsoever as to the provenance of anything in a newsgroup, or
the accuracy of any description given thereof, and as the "content" is only
transitory, even if you could be sure of something on one particular day,
it could be gone the next. You cannot therefore assume anything from the
title of a newsgroup, and it would be impossible to block any particular
type of material simply by blocking access to selected newsgroups by name.
Suggesting that this would be possible is the sort of naive argument that
we sometimes hear from polititians that have no concept of how the internet
works, but I would expect people here to be better informed.

Rod.

[G Crozier]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:12:28 +0000, Anonymous > wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:21:07 -0000, in article
>, "Amigo Entertainments"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>If this is so then please take a look through some of the erotica.teen
>>groups you are offering and tell me if you think the content therein is
>>legal.
>>
>>Better still - don't bother, as one of your customers Ive already taken the
>>time to report you with examples from your news server with headers.
>>
>
>I wouldn't be so quick to publicly admit that you've been accessing
>child porn newsgroups!
It is not the accessing that is illegal its the downloading of images
that is illegal you can even download headers providing content isn't
downloaded
>BTW I don't think erotica.teen (note the word TEEN) qualifies as child
>porn. If they're over 16, it's perfectly legal, buddy!
Correct but honestly there are some bloody prats about most news
servers situated outside of the UK carry these groups I subscribe to
one that carries them not for that reason but because the F2S server
carries pitiful content .
TALK ABOUT BEING NARROW MINDED .
Grant .

[G Crozier]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:16:42 +0000, Anonymous > wrote:
>True, but the actual images would have to have been downloaded by the
>OP for them to KNOW that it is child porn. The headers alone aren't
>going to prove much.
>That was the point I was trying to make.
I think that guy is right in one respect because I think it is now
illegal for UK ISP's to even carry these groups so Plus could be in
deep trouble. Unfortunately I do not have any time at all for grassers
and all this aggravation regarding child abuse on the net is very
discriminating against the internet and its subscribers . My point
being last night " Friday" I watched a program called " the way we
where"in the program ITV showed four young boys climbing into a bed
naked from the waste down I actually recorded the program because I
record all programs that I like to watch which are transmitted byITN C
4 and C5 so I can zip through the blasted adds so am I guilty of
unintentionally having images of naked children in my possession
!!!!!!!! ???. If this can be shown in TV programs and in the adds why
is it so wrong for images like this to be available on the net for
gods sake ? how many adds have you seen showing naked and semi naked
children in them ?in fact you sometimes see them in newspapers and on
billboards .
Its time the police stopped all this "operation ore" nonsense and
concentrated on catching real criminals .
Grant .

[Jonathan Buzzard]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:55:00 +0000, Paul Cummins wrote:

> In article >,
> (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>
>> > And how are you exepcted to tell from a picture whether the subject
>> > is 14, 15, 16 or 17. two of those ages are legal in any event, yet
>> > the photo could still be of a teen.
>>
>> Well a group entitled
>> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.firsthair
>> or alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.early-teans.hardcore would by
>> definition contain illegal material. There is no way on earth that you
>> can describe 16 as being early teans
>
> Lets see now...
>
> 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
>
> 16+ gives 4 years of teenage after 16th birthday, but only 3 years
> before. IF we consider the early/late split to be 16 years and 6 months,
> then there could legally be 'early' teans (sic) in the groups you cite.
> If they existed. They do not.

Which conveniently ignores the mid teens. Someone who is 16 cannot
reasonably be described as being in their early teens.

>
> Furthermore, how do you know the content, of the two groups that do most
> closely resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content
> of the groups? Consider your answer carefully...

No I have not examined the contents of the said groups for obvious
reasons.

>> and anything before that is illegal.
>
> In the UK, yes. Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
> pictures in the UK. Again, be careful before you answer.

I am not certain, but the names of the groups are highly suggestive
that they are carrying illegal material.

>
>> Further more a group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pussy.firsthair is
>> also by definition going to contain illegal material. It does not
>> take a genius to realize that the average age that girls first get
>> pubic hair is much less than 16, even when we figure in a couple
>> of standard deviations into the mix.
>
> Why would a picture of cats growing hair be illegal? And what do kittens
> have to do with teenage girls? Last time I looked bestiality was illegal
> but erotic pictures of animals were not. Whatever turns you on, I say.
>
> I can assure you I am no apologist for paedophilia, but a 15 yr old girl
> posing for 'dirty' pics taken by her 15 yr old boyfriend is not
> something that the law is likely to concern itself with.

The law however does concern itself with it.

> Now if you can
> tell me that these groups contain very young teens being abused, then I
> will agree with your concerns. But at that point, you will be contacting
> the police, and stop pontificating here.

There is no requirement for abuse for the material to be illegal.

> So, to close, the relevant questions are:
>
> 1) How do you know the content, of the two groups that do most closely
> resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the content of the
> groups? Consider your answer carefully...

I don't.

> 2) Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal pictures in
> the UK? Again, be careful before you answer...

I don't.

> I wonder, under the circumstances, whether I should consider a PACE
> caution at this stage...?

No need, I have not looked at the groups in question

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jonathan (at) buzzard.me.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 1661-832195

[Paul Cummins]

In article >,
(Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

> > 1) How do you know the content, of the two groups that do most
> > closely resemble those names, is illegal? Have you examined the
> > content of the groups? Consider your answer carefully...
>
> I don't.
>
> > 2) Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
> > pictures in the UK? Again, be careful before you answer...
>
> I don't.

Then stop whining about it. If you don't know an offence has been
committed, you are libelling the usenet provider by suggesting they are
and they do.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

[Roderick Stewart]

In article >, Jonathan Buzzard
wrote:
> > Are you certain that nay UK provider is offering illegal
> > pictures in the UK. Again, be careful before you answer.
>
> I am not certain, but the names of the groups are highly suggestive
> that they are carrying illegal material.

I didn't think any UK internet provider, or indeed any internet provider
anywhere, was offering any pictures at all, of anything. Whatever is carried
by these newsgroups (whose temporary content seems to be the subject of
speculation based on their titles), it will have been placed there by
internet *users*, not the service providers.

Rod.

[·.??.·?¯`Wango?¯`·.??.·]

"Jonathan Buzzard" > wrote in message
.. .
-snip-
There is no way on earth that you can describe
> 16 as being early teans and anything before that is illegal.
>
-snip-
The minimum age allowed under current UK law is 18 as far as I can recall
-snip-

Wango

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:47:07 GMT, G Crozier >
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:16:42 +0000, Anonymous > wrote:
>>True, but the actual images would have to have been downloaded by the
>>OP for them to KNOW that it is child porn. The headers alone aren't
>>going to prove much.
>>That was the point I was trying to make.
>I think that guy is right in one respect because I think it is now
>illegal for UK ISP's to even carry these groups so Plus could be in
>deep trouble.

You're wrong on that one.

> Unfortunately I do not have any time at all for grassers
>and all this aggravation regarding child abuse on the net is very
>discriminating against the internet and its subscribers .

What complete and utter balderdash.

Not that it is clear what you mean by "discriminating against the
internet and its customers"

>being last night " Friday" I watched a program called " the way we
>where"in the program ITV showed four young boys climbing into a bed
>naked from the waste down I actually recorded the program because I
>record all programs that I like to watch which are transmitted byITN C
>4 and C5 so I can zip through the blasted adds so am I guilty of
>unintentionally having images of naked children in my possession
>!!!!!!!! ???.

Probably, but so what?

>If this can be shown in TV programs and in the adds why
>is it so wrong for images like this to be available on the net for
>gods sake ?

It is all dependent on the circumstances and apparent reasons. It is
normally quite clear from the overall content of a web site whether
the images are "innocent" or are there for sexual reasons.

And similarly with a newsgroup. Not that you are likely to get many
photos of naked or near naked children in groups not dedicated to
sexual matters.

> how many adds have you seen showing naked and semi naked
>children in them ?in fact you sometimes see them in newspapers and on
>billboards .

Very very few.


>Its time the police stopped all this "operation ore" nonsense and
>concentrated on catching real criminals .

In the opinions of the VAST majority of reasonable people, those that
things like Operation Ore are aimed at are amongst the most serious
criminals there are.

Murder is *maybe* more serious than paedophilia.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
HARDWARE: n. The part you kick.

To reply by email, my address is aDOTjDOTheneyATbtinternetDOTcom

[Paul Cummins]

In article >,
(·.??.·?¯`Wango?¯`·.??.·) wrote:

> The minimum age allowed under current UK law is 18 as far as I can
> recall

You;d best have the Sun, the Mirror and the Star prosecuted then. All of
them have shown pictures of topless girls under the age of 18.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

begin Who gives a **** about Outlook Express anyway.exe

[Alive & Kicking]

PlusNet Support Team wrote:

Completely academic if you are buying streams or hosting the news yourself.
Most of your binaries content is illegal and as YOU are delivering it the
buck stops with YOU.

Most other ISP's removed them a long time ago. Depends on if you want to be
seen as a porn supplier or a family isp.

[Alive & Kicking]

In fact lets be specific about the material plusnet carry

alt.binaries.erotica.preteen
alt.binaries.erotica.preteens
alt.binaries.erotica.teen.female

I could rattle off a dozen more - most of these offering indecent
photographs of children.

Dress it up any way you like plusnet - you peddle porn to sell accounts.