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.
|