Thomas Dalton wrote: On the face of it, yes. However, when, presumably on the basis on an anonymous complaint, they pass forward a URL to the ISPs who use their services, without performing anything approaching "due diligence", that demonstrates to me that not only do they operate in a cultural and political vacuum, but also that they take on trust any and every report made to them. That cannot be objectively correct, and they were rightly pilloried for it. If they have had advice and training from CEOP, either they've ignored it or that advice they've received is flawed. It's difficult to blame the ISPs for this, because they take the IWF reports on trust, and rightly so, to avoid forcibly-imposed regulation, and also to avoid liability under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby_v._CompuServe whereby knowledge is fixed if they actually make the decision themselves. Not so much that the whole encyclopedia was blocked, more that the collateral effect as a result of blocking vandalism was that a bottleneck handful of re-routed proxy IP addresses was blocked; however, there was no block on the image page itself, and anyone who knows the basics of the http: protocol could work round it; and, of course, it only applied to en:wiki. All in all, people should stick to things they understand, be it basket-weaving, medieval history, or drainage.

David Gerard wrote: I think we came out of it not covered in excrement: result! I think we got our response exactly right, despite the difficulties of explaining the technicalities to a non-technical audience.