Talk:Operation Ore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Operation Ore is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


  • 'Townshend was caught up in the operation because he was doing research on the subject: Townshend was "caught up" in the operation because he had sought out (an offence under English law), paid for (an offence under English law) and viewed (his own words) child pornography. He did exactly the same things as Gary Glitter, yet his "motivation" appears to redeem the man. If research into "child abuse" included prowling the streets of London for underage prostitutes, would that similarly redeem the offender? 'I'll give you some slack for not understanding how Wikipedia works I do not need any slack from people whose sole purpose appears to be the minimisation of sexual offences against children where those sexual offences are committed by people they approve of, but where the same sexual offences can condemn other less attractive people to a life of "disgrace". I know how Wikipedia works. People who have a partisan approach to the facts use Wikipedia content polices so that Wikipedia presents the facts in whatever light suits their bias. Wiki-is-truth 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You're going to have to accept the criticism. If you don't want to be criticised for your low-quality, opinion-driven contributions to the encyclopedia, don't touch the edit button. It'll save you a lot of grief. Leave the encyclopedia-building to people who care about following Wikipedia's content poicies, which insist that our opinions as editors don't matter anywhere near as much as the statements made by the sources we use. This isn't the place for you to express your opinions, or for you to try and game the system by changing the wording to make someone sound more vile than our cited sources do. You simply can NOT claim that you "know how Wikipedia works" until you absorb and accept that fact. Again, I encourage you to read the policy pages I linked above. -/- Warren 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would accept the criticism if there were any. My "opinions" are entirely absent here - it is your opinions that are the problem. My cited sources? I haven't cited any sources, and nor have you - at least not reliable ones. It is entirely fine for Townshend to publish on his own website that he was committing crimes simply for "research purposes", but that does not make his self-opinion count as a valid reference that outweighs... say... the law. English law classes Townshend as a sex offender. People do not become sex offenders by dint of "research". There is a "legitimate reason" defence to child porn offences under English law, and Townshend was not able to avail himself of them. That means, no matter how loudly he or you protest, he has committed the offences. How about some sources? Minimisation: UK Home Office - Sex offenders typically deny both the full extent of their sexually deviant behaviour and the risk they pose of re-offending in the future (Nichols & Molinder, 1984). Breaking down denial is seen as an important pre requisite for change as offenders need to admit to their deviant behaviour in order for them to take responsibility for their offending. Without a clear understanding of what the offending behaviour involves the offender cannot develop the skills necessary to prevent re-offending. Townshend's criminal activity: Guardian article of 8 May 2003 quoting Scotland Yard: Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity. Please point out where my opinion comes into that, and where it says that Townshend was actually doing nothing wrong since it was for "research" purposes. Wiki-is-truth 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As to your opinions being stated here rather than mine, how about Almost every article you'll find on Operation Ore on, say, the BBC World News web site mentions Townshend, and the specific fact that he viewed a child porn web site for research purposes is brought up over and over again as an integral part of the subject(see above) in which Townshend's own minimisation of sexual offending is presented by you as "fact" when what it is in reality is a claim by Townshend that serves to present his offending behaviour in a less negative light, otherwise known as minimisation. Wiki-is-truth 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I must offer my apologies - I have belatedly realised that you think I object to the "for research" claim. I am quite happy to accept that Townshend claimed that he committed serious criminal offences for research. What I do not accept is that Townshend's should offered a "way out" of the severity of his behaviour by so doing. In particular, I do not accept that Wikipedia should perpetuate this let out, at least while Gary Glitter, who committed some of the same offences, is described here as a "disgraced English rock and pop singer and songwriter and a convicted paedophile". By virtue of the police's decision to offer Townshend a caution rather than press charges, and the unsurprising ignorance of journalists subsequently, Townshend has managed to avoid tags such this "disgraced" and "paedophile". That is normally called having double standards. 205.212.73.90 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, I thought I had signed in. Just in it is something else you are unable to realise, the comment by 205.212.73.90 was in fact Wiki-is-truth 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Townshend's case is much different to that of Gary Glitter. Police investigation found thousands of child porn pictures on Glitter's computer, but none on Townshend's at all. Since there was no evidence for prosecution, Townshend was not charged. Pkeets 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Townshend denies the seriousness of his wrongdoing

The police found no evidence that Townshend possessed indecent photographs of children. However, they offered him the option of being charged with an offence and going through with a court trial, OR accepting a caution, which - from the police's statement - appears to have been for the offence of inciting distribution of indecent photographs of children. The police statement read (Guardian, 8 May 2003): Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity. Townshend himself admitted paying for access to a child porn website.

However, Townshend was told by the police that Landslide was a child porn website. Looking at his public statements, it's clear he never denied accessing the site; however, he said he saw no child porn there. Reconstruction of the site appears to show this is because there was none.Pkeets 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Townshend was unable to rely on the legitimate reason defence, which might arguably have been available to a charge of inciting distribution. This means the only people Townshend could convince he was doing "Research" were himself and those ignorant of or too stupid to understand English law. If Townshend truly believed himself to be innocent of the charges, he should not have accepted a caution; the normal thing to do is opt for trial and trust in the jury. Quoting Townshend as saying he was doing research is acceptable; repeating it as if it were fact is not acceptable - it is not true, it is not supported by the sources (that is, sources other than Townshend's own mouth), and it is POV. I am not the one "gaming the system" here... Wiki-is-truth 04:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Check Townshend's public statements. He admitted accessing the Landslide website, but said he saw no child porn, consistent with current reconstructions that indicate there was likely none there.Pkeets 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Why is this category added: Category:Wrongful convictions. I didn't see anything about wrongful convictions in the article. --DanielCD 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The phrase "wrongful convictions" probably means "flawed convictions". But whether the people were actually guilty is not the issue here, legal process was undermined in this case, as is detailed in the article, and thats why that category is added. Jdcooper 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removals and controversy section

Why was the controversy section removed? Should we incorporate it into the article? No one seems to have worked on this for a long time. If no one objects I may decide to reinsert the controversy section and have a look at it. Skinnyweed 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be wise to get consensus to do so here, then reinsert it. Have the issues above been addressed? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Survivors Swindon as a reference is itself controversial

The "reference" to the Survivors Swindon site ([1]) is inappropriate; the page does not detail the story in any way whatsoever and contains no reliable reports. Wiki-is-truth 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'd like to fix a bad link in the References section of this page, but when I try to edit it, I just see something that might be Javascript. How do I get to the references to fix the link?

You have to go to where the reference is located in the text. Footnotes 1 and 2 are in the intro and 3 (which I suspect is the one you'd like to fix) is in Origins. I'd direct you to WP:FN for instructions on syntax, but you can see examples in the intro text. When you're ready to edit, edit the Origins section and place the correct reference between the <ref> </ref> tags. Hoof Hearted 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be the text you need:

<ref name="ORE">"[http://www.survivorsswindon.com/ore.htm OPERATION ORE: THE LARGEST UK PAEDOPHILE INVESTIGATION]", Survivors Swindon, URL accessed on 14 June 2006.</ref>

Hoof Hearted 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It was actually The Times article that had a bad link, but since I see the disagreement about the Swindon reference, I changed the one you've posted to the BBC News, which reported the same figures. Presumably that will be seen as more neutral and reliable. Pkeets 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading up a ways, I see the question about the Controversy section. From reading the references, this seems to be a serious challenge working its way through the courts, so the article has a very slanted POV without discussion of it. Therefore, I'm for retaining the Controversy section in the interest of neutrality. Pkeets 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading a bit more on this, I notice that media references are now saying Landslide "allegedly" advertised and sold child porn, since an independent expert's reconstruction of the site showed no child porn ads and very little of what might be questionable sites and legal action is in process. Does anyone have an opinion of whether the wording of this article should be changed to match? In other words, "alleged to sell child porn," etc. Pkeets 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to advertising and selling chilporn, matters are greatly complicated by the fact that Landslide was an Internet business. For a short period of time, Landslide operated a banner exchange, allowing anyone to submit a banner to the system. The banner system was taken down by Landslide as a consequence of abuse after deployment of a public vetting system failed, and the webbudy captures that US law enforcement took confirm the absence of banners reported by Duncan Campbell. Controversy materiallises from the fact that the evidence and claims by law enforcement were materially at odds, as US law enforcement claimed the banners never changed, an assertion disproven by third party site captures they had managed to make. The bulk of the indictments Landlside faced related to the transporting of child pornography in interstate commerce. All these points have considerable complexity. Landslide was a payment access gateway, it was confirmed at the Landslide trial that Landslide was not hosting child porn, nor did any such data pass through their servers, rather some webmasters provided illegal websites and cleared payments through Landlside.

[edit] Duncan Campbell Articles

I've added some references which have just been published this month in the "controversy" section. Ricky, please note that both articles have been written by Duncan Campbell the investigative journalist and not Duncan Campbell the Guardian reporter. The PC Pro article credits him clearly, and the Guardian article uses first person in disucssing the investigation. Pkeets 10:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For anyone looking for the Del Naja and Townshend info in the Campbell article, it's all the way at the bottom, boxed and in blue font. Pkeets (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DA-Notice reference

Please can someone tidy up my DA-Notice with the Guardian link reference 13. Whoever did it, thanks! http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,873721,00.html. The Orwellian thought police have started to remove this bit of history, and I'd like it to be documented. The two senior MP's are easily traced, at least one seems to have connections back to Hamilton Dunblane massacre "Controversy" section. The "Iraq" connection is clear. A Google search will soon reveal another (not surprising) name also connected with this controversy. The hypocrisy of this subject Margaret Hodge MP and Greville Janner MP http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199192/cmhansrd/1991-12-02/Debate-1.html should also be looked into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.192.178 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This reference does not mention the use of a DA-Notice at all. Provide some evidence or the whole section will be deleted. --Peter cohen 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)