|
||||
|
16 June 2016: At 08:29 AM 6/16/2014, you wrote: Hi John, Six years ago, a friend of mine was the victim of a conman, some details of which were reported in the Bristol Evening Post. This was an unusually cruel deception and aggravated by intense and aggressive stalking, including death threats left at her door and a serious arson attack the property, whose clear purpose was extortion. The matter was eventually taken to the High Court (UK) to stop contact and prevent the dissemination of the private video that was used to pressurise the victim. Subsequently, the Evening Post (and other journalists) who were in receipt of the material subsequently voluntarily removed all details when requested in view of the fact that the material was not in the public interest and clearly part of a deliberate program of intimidation. Unfortunately, six years later, the details of the Bristol Evening post report were passed onto you (see http://cryptome.org/2014/06/video-report-axed.htm). It still includes names of the victims, reporters who were gulled into cooperation, and location information (Leigh Woods). One cannot shrug off the trauma of such focussed intimidation, of course, and seeing these details republished re-opens wounds. The original intimidation is carried on by proxy even when republished in the interests of free speech. So we hope that you will see this as balanced against the need to protect the victim by further redacting names and addresses or completely removing material that has, as far as we are aware, no public interest. In any case, we would be interested in knowing your stance on the matter. Thanks, Steve _____ Dear Steve, Check the latest version. Names have been removed. A person involved contacted us about removal, and later thanked us for doing so. Nothing of the current posting was objected to by the person. However, we note that we never delete but do re-move [see below]. This is because of the vagaries of disputes which not even courts can resolve satisfactorily, indeed, are usually wrong due to overly narrow legal pretention fed by vainglorious lawyers -- which applies equally well to journalism, priesthood, revolutionaries, women, men, all the privileged arbiters of right and wrong. We prefer to pretend to not to be an arbiter, instead let it all hang out on the pretentious presumption that all parties are working hard for their interests. Please do send us material needing hanging out. We do not vet nor behave responsibly, in fact, will baldly lie to you on behalf of righteousness. We will add our exchange to the file. Thanks for the material. Regards, John _____ 11 June 2016: Thanks John Fab indeed - shucks! Trouble is the page with the names doesn't seem to appear on the searches. This woman has been bullying me for around eight years, I'm an anti semite, homophobe, mysoginist, mentaly ill bringing the union into disrepute, she's been fabricating cases against me inside the journalists' union here. very wealthy - this is reputation management lawyers and strategic communications firms as she is very very ambitious - lying and manipulative But if that's the best you can do so be it. megga respect and here's three docs for your archive - not exactly ALL secret - but praps the best work the revelation stuff T _____ At 01:13 08/06/2014, John Young wrote: Not an email, a phone message pleading for removal, lady with a British accent, couldn't understand the name. Acknowledged US law permitted publication. So a favor being asked. We probably were social engineered, perhaps after the lady was advised a threat would be counterproductive. Had we been threatened by a lawyer, not a chance, we love to fuck with lawyers, relish publishing their takedown notices, which are unadulterated advertising. For your fabulous work, donate to yourself, often and generously. Best regards, John _____ 7 June 2016: At 18:23 07/06/2014, John Young wrote: It's here, by what we term re-moval, not deletion which we don't do. May lead to endless re-movals to instigate Streisand Effect: http://cryptome.org/2014/06/video-report-axed-2.htm Feel free to distribute the URL. John _____ 6 June 2014 Legal bid to stop video being seen
A sends a report which has been removed: Legal bid to stop video being seen By Viccy Mathias - Bristol Evening Post - Thursday, July 10, 2008 http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Legal-bid-stop-video-seen/story-11273963- detail/story.html Cryptome: Names removed by personal request for privacy after this report was published today. The persons named in the report are not the issue, the issue is a journalist (not the one in the suit) being threatened for mirroring the full report. A Bristol-based journalist has launched a legal action against a man she claims is a former lover. A High Court writ issued by freelance writer xxxxxxx xxxx, of xxxxx xxxxx, says she fears former Western Daily Press reporter xxxxx xxxxxxx will publish an intimate video made while they were having an affair. Ms xxxx claims Mr xxxxxxx has “harassed” her by email, letter and text message since their alleged relationship deteriorated, and she is concerned that he will publish the video or images from the tape on the internet or to third parties. Her solicitors say this would equate to a breach of her human rights. She is seeking an injunction against Mr xxxxxxx, of xxxxxxx, to prevent him harassing her or making the video public. Mr xxxxxxx was not available for comment when the Post tried to contact him last night.
|
