ACTION: Taking down Hoaxtead sites

Following yesterday’s successful removal of Abe/Drifloud’s Twitter account, we’ve been having many discussions about the best way to shut down some of the remaining Hoaxtead-pushing online accounts. Here’s a quick synopsis of what we’ve learned.

Part 1: Blogs

First on all our lists is Abrella’s new blog, which is pretty much the same as their old blog except for the part where they openly push their ambition to be the next David Wolfe.

The full name of Abrella’s blog is Hampsteadcoverup.com, and its IP address is 82.221.136.1.

It’s important to understand a few things before you attempt to have Abrella’s blog removed:

  • You have to contact the right people. For instance, Abrella’s blog uses a software called B2Evolution, but there’s no point in complaining to them about the blog. Rather, the best contact is the blog host; in this case, that would be the Iceland-based company, Orangewebsite.com. Their help desk can be found at abuse@orangewebsite.com.
  • Before lodging a complaint, it’s a good idea to have a look at the company’s terms of service. The TOS for Orangewebsite can be found here.
  • Note that one of the big selling points for Icelandic web hosting companies is that their country has very liberal freedom of speech laws. This is probably why Abrella (and Charlotte Ward Alton before them) chose Orangewebsite.com as their host.
  • Despite their dedication to freedom of speech, Icelandic hosting companies have very firm rules regarding child sex abuse and child sex abuse images.

Here’s an excerpt from Orange’s TOS that explains their position:

Content
Sites hosted on OrangeWebsite.com’s service(s) are regulated only by Icelandic Law. OrangeWebsite.com is not in a position to investigate and validate or invalidate the veracity of individual defamation claims, which is why we rely on the legal system and courts to determine whether or not material is indeed considered defamatory. In any case in which an Icelandic court order indicates material is defamatory, libelous, or slanderous in nature; we will comply and remove or disable access to the material in question.

Potential harm to minors is strictly forbidden, including but not limited to child pornography or content perceived to be child pornography (Lolita):

Any site found to host child pornography or linking to child pornography will be suspended immediately without notice.

‘Potential harm to minors’, therefore, is probably the best line of argument to pursue in any complaint about Abrella’s blog.

As well, it’s probably a good idea to include Mrs Justice Pauffley’s original judgement following the fact-finding hearings last March, as well as the court order prohibiting publication of the children’s names or their images.

Here are a couple of sample emails to help you craft your own. The first is from ‘Darius’:

Abrella-blog-Darius

We’ve highlighted a couple of important bits: the fact that the children reported that Abe tortured and sexually abused them (via forcing them to repeat stories of a highly sexual nature); and the fact that Abrella have posted “sensitive images and confidential police interviews featuring these vulnerable children’s faces, voices, names, and confidential police interviews, in which they speak in detail about extremely personal sexual matters (the children are aged 8 and 9)”.

Here’s another complaint letter, from Satanic Views:

I would like to report a site that is promoting child abuse, and is hosted on your servers.

The site is http://hampsteadcoverup.com

The children who are identified on the site have been subject to various forms of child abuse, and were taken into care, these children have been named, and various images, video and other humiliating details of the abused children have been displayed on the site. You can see the image of the two children when you first enter the site, the girl has bruising to her head, inflicted by the owner of the site.

The children are subject to various court orders trying to protect their identity, and the owner is a fugitive wanted by the UK police in relation to his torture of the children. The owner of the site is also using the site to wage an intense campaign of harassment and defamation against innocent teachers and parents in the Hampstead area of London.

Details of a High Court conclusion involving the owner of the site is here:

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed144003

Can you please consider closing this site down?

Both these letters are excellent, and we think could only be improved by the addition of the court order.

We’ll be adding our own voice to the complaints against Abrella’s blog, and we’ll keep you updated as things progress.

tear down

 

 

61 thoughts on “ACTION: Taking down Hoaxtead sites

  1. Not sure if this line of thought will be of any use, but…

    I was wondering if their blog/website could in itself be an obscene publication. It is full of graphic discriptions of child rape and murder. We are sure as far as we can be that these discriptions are false, a product of Abe’s mind, a fantasy, a work of fiction.

    I’m not really familiar with the obscene publications act, on looking online I did come across this,

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/03/text_talk_legal_status/

    Liked by 1 person

    • CM, the Obscene Publications Act is effectively obsolete. Probably half the publications from the last 50 years contain something that could technically get it banned under that act. It lost a lot of credibility over the whole ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ thing, when it was used quite perniciously as a weapon by the prudish minority – and ultimately failed (controversially banned for over 20 years, then ended up on the school curriculum!). There have been 6 high profile prosecutions in the last 40 years and 5 were unsuccessful. The act has long been consigned to the dustbin of social history, along with Victorian ‘values’ and Mary Whitehouse.

      That said, I’m sure we can add it to the arsenal of legislation that we dangle in the faces of web-hosting companies when trying to persuade them to comply with the law (along with the more ‘de rigueur’ Malicious Communications Act, Data Protection Act, Race & Religious Hatred Act etc.).

      Liked by 3 people

  2. Pingback: ACTION: Taking down Hoaxtead sites | Cross of Change Blog

  3. The main fact here is : the rights of the children to anonymity & the breach of their rights by publishing their images and videos.

    While Iceland may claim to allow free speech I’m pretty sure they would have their own laws regarding children’s privacy. Iceland is not a EU state but perhaps there is an Iceland MP who concentrates on minor’s rights who could be contacted to pressure the internet hosts.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. My major frustrations are Facebook and Google, who probably use moderators in Outer Mongolia to do all their moderation, and in most cases where the children P and Q are being featured, my referrals are rejected. When it comes to children’s privacy the internet sucks.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I agree and in light of the current UK drama over Google (who I hate) and there tax avoidance, they are a fucking hideous corporation that provide nothing no other search engine does but their arrogance is unbelievable. Surely there is a bloody politician in the UK who will take on Google. Facebook and the rest & their blatant breaches of privacy.

      Liked by 2 people

      • While I agree with you Sam, it’s not only Google that takes advantage of tax laws.
        Look at Microsoft, Vodafone, Starbucks etc.
        It’s an issue governments need to address.

        Liked by 2 people

        • The fact is, this era of giant multinational corporations has outgrown the old taxation and governance models. The whole thing requires a rethink, to ensure some corporate responsibility and accountability.

          Liked by 1 person

    • The confidentiality belongs to the client & they can use how they want. All communications between lawyer & client are privileged. However who are the clients? Abe, Ella & the children?. All the clients have to agree if communications are published but it’s extremely rare for a client to publish – just more evidence that Abe is a fucking nutcase.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. An attempt to refer the following site on Facebook to moderators was rejected this morning:

    I then attempted reason – my posting name (James Hind) in Facebook. It is an interesting conversation. Reason failed too.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. i’m boss eyed, i’m too tired to read, still fallout from the Fiona Fiasco, and another victim, but i found this on google, nice an child friendly language, so i thought i might understand it, and be able to pick the right ones. these are inalienable rights no matter where, a child lives, and i’m sure this came up last year, but probs worth to find the privacy right and any others that fit, and add them, another idea was, could simply put out an appeal to cybercrime experts, i’ve been added to alot of groups, on twitter, alot want to sell stuff, but you never know, someone may know another way to tackle ? jus ideas from my way tired brain, http://www.unicef.org/rightsite/files/uncrcchilldfriendlylanguage.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Pingback: ACTION: Taking down Hoaxtead videos | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

    • Yeah, that’s the website of the American freakshow that is Christine Ann Sands. We haven’t managed to get that one taken down yet but if it’s any consolation, she was arrested, fined, given a restraining order and, most satisfyingly of all, deported🙂


      (Meme courtesy of Big Earl)

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: ACTION: Tackling Hoaxtead on Facebook | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  9. Pingback: The internet as weapon: Free speech, hate speech, and the law | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.