Talk:Operation Ore

message: ::*'Townshend was caught up in the operation because he was doing research on the subject: Townshend was "caught up" in the operation because he had sought out (an offence under English law), paid for (an offence under English law) and viewed (his own words) child pornography. He did exactly the same things as Gary Glitter, yet his "motivation" appears to redeem the man. If research into "child abuse" included prowling the streets of London for underage prostitutes, would that similarly redeem the offender? 'I'll give you some slack for not understanding how Wikipedia works I do not need any slack from people whose sole purpose appears to be the minimisation of sexual offences against children where those sexual offences are committed by people they approve of, but where the same sexual offences can condemn other less attractive people to a life of "disgrace". I know how Wikipedia works. People who have a partisan approach to the facts use Wikipedia content polices so that Wikipedia presents the facts in whatever light suits their bias. Wiki-is-truth 11:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're going to have to accept the criticism.  If you don't want to be criticised for your low-quality, opinion-driven contributions to the encyclopedia, don't touch the edit button.  It'll save you a lot of grief.  Leave the encyclopedia-building to people who care about following Wikipedia's content poicies, which insist that our opinions as editors don't matter anywhere near as much as the statements made by the sources we use.  This isn't the place for you to express your opinions, or for you to try and game the system by changing the wording to make someone sound more vile than our cited sources do.  You simply can NOT claim that you "know how Wikipedia works" until you absorb and accept that fact.  Again, I encourage you to read the policy pages I linked above.   -/- Warren 13:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would accept the criticism if there were any. My "opinions" are entirely absent here - it is your opinions that are the problem. My cited sources? I haven't cited any sources, and nor have you - at least not reliable ones. It is entirely fine for Townshend to publish on his own website that he was committing crimes simply for "research purposes", but that does not make his self-opinion count as a valid reference that outweighs... say... the law. English law classes Townshend as a sex offender. People do not become sex offenders by dint of "research". There is a "legitimate reason" defence to child porn offences under English law, and Townshend was not able to avail himself of them. That means, no  matter how loudly he or you protest, he has committed the offences. How about some sources? Minimisation: UK Home Office - Sex offenders typically deny both the full extent of their sexually deviant behaviour and the risk they pose of re-offending in the future (Nichols & Molinder, 1984). Breaking down denial is seen as an important pre requisite for change as offenders need to admit to their deviant behaviour in order for them to take responsibility for their offending. Without a clear understanding of what the offending behaviour involves the offender cannot develop the skills necessary to prevent re-offending. Townshend's criminal activity: Guardian article of 8 May 2003 quoting Scotland Yard: Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity. Please point out where my opinion comes into that, and where it says that Townshend was actually doing nothing wrong since it was for "research" purposes. Wiki-is-truth 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As to your opinions being stated here rather than mine, how about Almost every article you'll find on Operation Ore on, say, the BBC World News web site mentions Townshend, and the specific fact that he viewed a child porn web site for research purposes is brought up over and over again as an integral part of the subject(see above) in which Townshend's own minimisation of sexual offending is presented by you as "fact" when what it is in reality is a claim by Townshend that serves to present his offending behaviour in a less negative light, otherwise known as minimisation. Wiki-is-truth 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I must offer my apologies - I have belatedly realised that you think I object to the "for research" claim. I am quite happy to accept that Townshend claimed that he committed serious criminal offences for research. What I do not accept is that Townshend's should offered a "way out" of the severity of his behaviour by so doing. In particular, I do not accept that Wikipedia should perpetuate this let out, at least while  Gary Glitter, who committed some of the same offences, is described here as a "disgraced English rock and pop singer and songwriter and a convicted paedophile". By virtue of the police's decision to offer Townshend a caution rather than press charges, and the unsurprising ignorance of journalists subsequently, Townshend has managed to avoid tags such this "disgraced" and "paedophile". That is normally called having double standards. 205.212.73.90 16:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of sources for a type of edit

message: The police found no evidence that Townshend possessed indecent photographs of children. However, they offered him the option of being charged with an offence and going through with a court trial, OR accepting a caution, which - from the police's statement - appears to have been for the offence of inciting distribution of indecent photographs of children. The police statement read (Guardian, 8 May 2003): Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity. 
Townshend himself admitted paying for access to a child porn website. 
However, Townshend was told by the police that Landslide was a child porn website.  Looking at his public statements, it's clear he never denied accessing the site; however, he said he saw no child porn there.  Reconstruction of the site appears to show this is because there was none.Pkeets 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Townshend denies the seriousness of his wrongdoing

message: Why is this category added: :Category:Wrongful convictions. I didn't see anything about wrongful convictions in the article. --DanielCD 16:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Why was the controversy section removed? Should we incorporate it into the article? No one seems to have worked on this for a long time. If no one objects I may decide to reinsert the controversy section and have a look at it. Skinnyweed 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it may be wise to get consensus to do so here, then reinsert it. Have the issues above been addressed? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals and controversy section 

message: The "reference" to the Survivors Swindon site () is inappropriate; the page does not detail the story in any way whatsoever and contains no reliable reports. Wiki-is-truth 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Survivors Swindon as a reference is itself controversial 

message: I'd like to fix a bad link in the References section of this page, but when I try to edit it, I just see something that might be Javascript.  How do I get to the references to fix the link?
:You have to go to where the reference is located in the text.  Footnotes 1 and 2 are in the intro and 3 (which I suspect is the one you'd like to fix) is in Origins.  I'd direct you to WP:FN for instructions on syntax, but you can see examples in the intro text.  When you're ready to edit, edit the Origins section and place the correct reference between the   tags.  Hoof Hearted 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be the text you need:
"OPERATION ORE: THE LARGEST UK PAEDOPHILE INVESTIGATION", Survivors Swindon, URL accessed on 14 June 2006.   Hoof Hearted 21:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I've added some references which have just been published this month in the "controversy" section.  Ricky, please note that both articles have been written by Duncan Campbell the investigative journalist and not Duncan Campbell the Guardian reporter.  The PC Pro article credits him clearly, and the Guardian article uses first person in disucssing the investigation. Pkeets 10:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duncan Campbell Articles 

message: transplanted from another page, where they aren't relevant, in case they might be useful here: 
#Welsh Affairs Committee - Fourth Report, British House of Commons 
# The MAPPA Guidance, National Probation Service for England and Wales, Circular 25/2003, 31 March 2003
Sssoul (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  possibly useful references? 

message: 76.108.156.73, your revisions make light of the references and indicate a vandal's point of view.  If you have some objection to the neutrality of wording in the article, then you need to follow procedure and discuss it here.  I'm reverting the wording to the more neutral version.Pkeets (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revisions 

message: Wikipedia is supposed to be based on proper secondary sources. While conspirational ramblings based on what one wants to see in a court ruling may be acceptable in some places, they are not here. Nevard (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re. recent court case 

message: I'm afraid that when I see a single purpose account using phrases such as "even a cursory read of the judgement shows" and "woefully inaccurate" then I hear those metaphorical alarm bells ringing. The line of argument may or may not have merit but, if it does, it needs sourcing to reliable sources that don't have obvious agenda. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the comment above - I noticed the reverting on this page, and the version preferred by User:TheManWithaFlan appears to me to be less in keeping with WP:NPOV (and what the sources actually say) than the other version, which I have restored. I have invited User:TheManWithaFlan to comment here and discuss his issues with it rather than continuing to revert. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

text: On closer inspection, I think TheManWithaFlan may have a point about the quotes being taken out of context. I've cut the information on this recent case down to the minimum necessary (along with the speculative words 'perhaps final') which should hopefully be more acceptable: . Robofish (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "pure speculation" quote is taken out of context- which I don't really feel is the case- then it is taken out of context in the Reg news story referenced too. Not that there aren't other quotations that could properly be included by reference to secondary sources "There is no real possibility that a reasonable jury, faced with the evidence we have considered, would not conclude that he was the person responsible for the transactions in issue. We have no doubt whatsoever as to the safety of his conviction." Nevard (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent revert 

message: I thought it wa about time to bring this article to WP:ANI. See the linked thread.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Administrators'  noticeboard/Incidents#Operation Ore]] 

message: A lot of the "origins" content seems to be duplicated from Operation Avalanche (child pornography crackdown); I don't think it is relevant to re-hash that article. I propose to cut most of the material back to a reasonable overview of what led up to Op Ore - unless anyone can come up with a reasonable suggestion for it to say :) --Errant  16:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avalanche duplication 

message: I'm not sure that an in-depth analysis of the O'Shea appeal is of significance; it is currently given a lot of weight in the article without decent secondary sourcing. Because the content is about a living person we must explicitly avoid sourcing content to court judgements (this is laid out in our sourcing policy). I'd recommend finding further secondary sourcing and cutting content back to the necessary detail. --Errant  11:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "Very recent". Yes, see WP:RECENTISM. I've removed mention of the case from the lead, and cut down the discussion of the case. We should not pick out our favourite highlights from primary sources such as this ruling. Fences&Windows 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Shea 

message: An IP user who inserted some very large claims about the significance of a recent case where a man won damages from the police after they prosecuted him against expert advice. I've had a look at the Telegraph and Register articles neither of which talk about significant implications for Operation Ore as a whole. In the absence of any evidence from a WP:Reliable source, then the claims seem to be propagandistic and their inclusion is contrary to WP:DUE.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More propaganda and recentism reverted. 

message: According to http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/operation_ore/ , the fraud appeal has been rejected. I think this verdict (with possibly a better ref) should be used to draw a line under that defence. Widefox (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraud 

message: It's been a while since I looked at the article, and I see that quite a bit of content has been cut in favor of the Operation Avalanche link. However, the article as now presented does not make it clear that the Landslide business offered management services to a large number of porn sites, and that very few were later found to be illegal. This means that most users of the gateway site had no idea that there were illegal offerings. In my opinion, this is the main cause of controversy in Operation Ore as opposed to Operation Avalanche, and it should be mentioned in this article. Since there appear to be a number of people interested in editing here, I'll put it up for discussion. If no one has discussion, I'll add something back in about it myself. Pkeets (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent editing 

message: Has the DA Notice reported on by the Scottish Herald newspaper that was used as the first stage of shutting down Operation Ore gone into the "Memory Hole"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.78.82 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to be a bit more specific about what you're asking. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DA Notice that first shutdown Op Ore 

message: I recently viewed a three part documentary on YouTube called The Hunt For Britain's Paedophiles. The documentary follows Scotland Yard's long, exhausting two year execution of "Operation Door Knock", which took place during the same time as Ore. So, for the improvement of this article and for my own piece of mind, I'm wondering if the two operations directly related? - Mdriver1981 (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know if. Anyone else?
I watched both documentaries. Judging from the computer equipment, Operation Door Knock was on definitely earlier than Operation Ore.
--217.248.124.23 (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Door Knock 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Operation Ore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081008004049/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article539974.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article539974.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified