Replies

"....For it's part, the IWF says it had no choice but to deny any prior contact with Townshend: "Because of the provisions of the Data Protection Act, we are unable to comment or disclose information about the personal details of individuals who make reports to us unless they give their permission...."

Isn't it convenient that they can hide behind this when it would clear someone. However it did not stop them from smearing Townshend in the first place. If they cannot comment, then why did they publicly say Townshend had NOT contacted them?

"I predicted many years ago that what has become the internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people.

"I have felt for a long time that is part of my duty, knowing what I know, to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.

"That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this. I do not. I do not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.

Pete Townshend