Snuff's not enough

Hi, my name's Alvin and I work with Steve - the guy who did yesterday's post. I'm kind of assistant moderator, although in actual fact we're supposed to have a flat structure round here. But Steve still insists it's my title because he hired me and he has been doing this job longer than me... bla bla bla. You guessed it, he's a bit of an asshole.

Anyway, Steve's had to take some time off, sadly. He became a bit freaked out yesterday by someone who wanted to contribute to the 'people's blog'. You might remember, it was that guy who wanted to examine the mind and the daily ritual of a serial killer. I have to say that I have read some of what 'snuff-boy' sent in and it's pretty heavy. You need a strong stomach to wade through it.

Anyway, this 'Son of Lamb' as he calls himself started hassling Steve because his 'snuff' blog hadn't appeared on the site like immediately! He wrote a few comments in response to Steve's post - they were initially harmless enough. But when Steve didn't respond, snuff-boy's comments gradually became more and more agitated, and then nasty and aggressive, and eventually quite scary. Most of them had to be deleted, because despite Ned's views on free speech, no responsible web owner could possibly publish them.

Now, we at boho don't know quite where this guy is coming from. He could be an inspired contributor who thought that a fictionalised serial killer blog might be a departure from the usual blog genre - which in a way it is. Or he's a bit of a bullshitter who is trying to wind people up, just having a laugh - there are a lot of people like that rattling around the blogosphere. Or he actually takes himself seriously and in his horrible, addled mind thinks that people might really warm to his 'acts of mercy' (as he describes them) with as much ease as they warmed to Belle de Jour's soft porn.

So, whilst we are trying to work out what this guy's all about, Steve is at home with an 'old mate' who is a black belt in megendo, and he's popping valium like there's no tomorrow, and trying to cheer himself up by watching daytime TV on Dave channel and Sky One! Somehow, I think that poor old Steve has decided that the whole moderating malarkey is not quite for him anymore. Let's face it Steve, it involves some tough decisions, and you have to be prepared to stand up for your beliefs! And sometimes, Steve, there are some really, really nasty people out there and they will take exception to being 'moderated'. It can be quite unpleasant.

Anyway, whilst certain other people check out this 'Son of Lamb' and - yawn yawn - trace his IP address, and talk to the police, I have decided to take a long hard look at how we are going to develop the 'people's blog'. Okay, so Steve did not really say much about the political contributions - even though there were quite a few - he must have seen them. Now call me old fashioned but politics counts for a large proportion of what makes up the blogosphere. And when you ask yourself the question: Where should that blogosphere really be trying to make a difference? Do you answer: Solving climate change, or, relating the exploits of bourgeous whores who just haven't enough Jimmy Choo shoes? I, for one, think I know the answer to that one!

So tonight I will be reading through the blog contributions that Steve sadly overlooked. I won't be having nightmares about climate change - as he did when he read about the 'Son of Lamb' (poor diddums). But that does not mean that I won't take any contribution seriously. No, in fact climate change scares me shitless. But, by tomorrow, I hope that, midnight oil permitting, I'll be able to provide a list of political people's blogs that I, or rather, we at boho will be considering for inclusion. Then you'll all know the kind of thing that'll get published from hereon in... and the kind of thing that (most definitely) won't!
So folks (as Steve might call you)... here's to a new, less self-indulgent, less 'metrosexual' blogosphere! Let us all go forward and make the internet our own!
By Alvin Siftey, Chief Moderator.

Gordon Brown versus The Royal Bank of Scotland.

Gordon Brown is ready to prove that the Iron Chancellor has become the Iron Prime Minister. He will look the board of The Royal Bank of Scotland in the eye. He will emphasize unequivocally what history has taught him - That in circumstances such as these, when a Prime Minister must show the voters who governs Britain, he will do no more and no less than what a Conservative Government would do: Get down on his hands and knees and...

More on this breaking news story later this evening...

Sex, drugs and moderation

Hi, I am the moderator of this site. You can call me Steve, just Steve, as I am not going to give you my surname. That might simply lead to hate mail from people whose comments I deleted for breaking ‘community rules’. It might lead to hate mail for all sorts of other reasons as well. I should know - I receive a lot of hate mail. It’s quite disturbing really. But I try not to think about it.

Anyway, we handed this blog over to the ‘people’ yesterday. By ‘people’, of course we mean to the readers, you guys. The first slot was taken by Old Etonian prig, Hugh Juggs. When I say ‘prig’ I don’t want to seem partisan. I would call anyone a prig who expressed attitudes like the ones that he did.

Anyway, ‘the experiment’ (as Ned is calling it) was an enormous success. We have been quite literally inundated by readers wanting to give their two pennyworth. I tell you, it’s going to start sounding like ‘speakers corner’ around here before long. Although of course, I accept that the allusion is not perfect, as we are not literally putting people onto soapboxes. Anyway, who uses soapboxes nowadays, eh?

I’ll give you a bit of a run down today on what came in, and then, over the coming months and weeks we will be publishing some of the better contributions - you know, kind of like alternating with our guest bloggers and, of course, the big man himself, Ned Ludd (who, the way I see it, contributes very little to this site nowadays.)

So readers, this is your site now. Not mine, not the people who actually put in an honest day’s work. Not the people who do it day in day out. But yours! And, what the hell, that is what I call democracy! Or is it demagogy? Doesn’t really matter, does it? They’re probably the same thing - at least nowadays they are!!

So, anyway, kicking off… there were a lot of contributions from people who thought that Hugh Juggs was just a smutty pseudonym. And as a result we had people with names like, Hugh Janus, Mike Hunt, Mike Hunterts, Isla Vashit, John Cox-Ukker, and the supposedly oriental, Stin-Kee Cok! Great guys, I love a laugh too. Sadly these ‘blogs’ tended to be incoherent rants about the state of modern Britain and were a bit cliché ridden – and yes, we have all heard the terms New Lie-bour and ZanuLabour! They’ve been on the blogosphere for years.

More interesting, what I can only describe as a sex blog. It was inspired in part, I assume, by that of the escort, Belle de Jour. And it’s about a lovely lady who imagines herself to be in an extramarital love affair with the new president of the EU, Herman Van Rompuy. The housewife, who is bored with her hum-drum, suburban existence, apparently finds solace in the arms of this ‘Belgian Stallion’ and has a variety of encounters with him, including a ‘whipped cream weekend’ in his modest Brussels apartment. Full marks for imagination!

We also had something slightly more troubling: A serial killer blog – a description of a day in the life, or rather days in the life of a mass murderer. Let’s hope that this is one of those ‘thought experiment’ blogs, where the writer only ‘imagines’ certain scenarios (that never actually happened). God, I really trust that this is the case, because this guy is really fucked in the head, he’s really sick, and I’d hate to think that he was actually out there, on the loose. I read his piece last night and I couldn’t get to sleep afterwards.

Anyway, this is all that I have the time or space for right now. More later. Ned tells me that he wants to feature at least a couple of ‘people’s blogs’ in the next week. So we are going to be busy doing some screening over the next few days and will let you know what we come up with. In the meantime, keep commenting folks. We cannot all be bloggers, at least not all of the time. And as they say, the lion will lie down with the lamb. Or whatever it is they say.

And one final thing: Go easy on the hate mail, folks. Some of it can be quite vicious, and remember that I have feelings too. And please, if you are the guy who sent in the serial killer post, I can assure you that I was in no way being critical just now. I am no judge of my fellow man and I say 'each to his own' and all that. All that I was saying earlier was that what you sent in seriously scared the fuck out of me. But it’s ok, it’s cool. This is a relaxed environment we’ve established round here.
By Moderator, Steve. Anonymity is OK - No names, means no hate!

Democracy in action

We are trying something new today - something we hope might ultimately might encourage more contributors to the blogosphere. We received a request from a reader, asking whether he could cross to the other side of tracks and turn blogger for a day. His argument is that there is effectively no difference between the people who post (especially in the case of our guest bloggers) and those who comment. It is all opinion, it is all public. There's not a cigarette paper between them.

I think that this is a bit of an exaggeration as most (successful) bloggers have some kind of form, and have had to build up a critical mass in order to compete with the mainstream press and to gain traction. And even the minor ones do a bit more than just glorified commentary (presumably).

But, we thought the suggestion worth a try. Anything's worth a try. We have decided to allow our reader / commenter to post his own blog, whilst we, the regular bloggers will for today become the readers / commenters. Lord Trencherman, currently out on bail, is included. His wife is sadly not. If this works we might roll it out further. We also agreed not to censor the post unless it was libelous or racist (or irritating or boring.)



"Hello there, every day there's some article or other about David Cameron and Old Etonians dominating the Conservative opposition. Yes, after all these years the toffs are still playing all the best tunes. And to think, we all assumed that the 'closed shops' and the old school ties and the private members 'clubs' had been swept away by Maggie and Tony.

Well I can tell you now, it's a load of bull (and I do not mean Bullingdon). I'm a member of neither the Groucho nor the Soho House. And nor would I want to be. But were I to walk in to either of them right now and said, let me in, I want a drink, they would tell me where to go. If I told them that I was an OE (Old Etonian) like Dave Cameron, they would probably tell me where the fuck to go (though Cameron did work for Carlton media, once... so not a perfect example).

Sorry to be a pain, I would say. If my name were Simon Cowell or Alan Yentob, then it would be, "Ooh, yes. How are you today, sir (bow, bow, scrape scrape)? Can I take your coat, then lick your boots clean and polish your cheesy john thomas with my tongue, before finally slipping this dog-eared script that every other media company has rejected into your back passage so that you might at least spend a few seedy moments fingering it.. ?"

And what if say any of the three main political parties were dominated by members of the Soho Club - or to make it even less 'meritocratic' - the children of Soho Club members? This is not an unlikely prospect, as the children of media celebs have an uncanny (and some would say, untalented, knack of finding their own places in the media spotlight.) And would everyone go around saying, "Do you see the number of ex-media people cramming onto the commons benches? Isn't it terrible and elitist?" I don't think so, because it is the media that asks such questions.

So when people bang on about old school tie, why not tell them where to stick it. There will always be establishments and mafias and clubs. It's not only the toffs wot do this 'being clubbable' lark.

And one last thing: I was talking to a friend whose son is at Eton and he tells me that it has become terribly vulgar, full of the children of new money. It's no longer landed gentry, hasn't been for a long time. Macmillan and Hurd of course were both scholars - that makes them oiks, I suppose. But it is far, far worse nowadays. There are boys whose fathers are estate agents and DJs. How wretched! Charlie (the son) says that a new boy whose father owns a chain of restaurants (can you believe it?) was overheard the other day talking about the family villa in Marbella. Apparently he was also spotted wearing a monogrammed shirt!

So next time you hear that Mr Cameron has appointed another OE to his front bench, remember there's every reason to believe that he is as vulgar as those ghastly types who appear on Strictly Come Dancing and X-Factor nowadays!"
By reader and commenter Hugh Juggs

Intel. A chip off the old Bloc

My handler told me: no names. My post, the first 'intelligence blog' to appear on the web - to the best of my knowledge - won't mention pseudonyms, pet-names, pen-names or code names. I told 'Z' - not my handler's code-name, just a smokescreen - that I am more interested in what the people do than what they’re called. And 'Z' said, I can't mention what they do either.

So what is it we get up to in our 'community'? Though of course I can't say explicitly, I can hint: We follow you. We follow you, just as you follow us. How do we know you follow us? Because we see you every day, scanning, searching, logging on to certain sites – I’m not talking just intelligence websites, but also affiliates sites. We know how you think. We even know how you will think before you think. How so? Yes, how so?.

It’s what you people refer to as 'conspiracy theory'.

Right now the intelligence community is concerned that the conspiracy theory we know and love is losing traction, is out of control. Why? What do I mean by out of control? I will phrase it in a way that is not what you’d call prosaic, not literal: I say, too many conspiracy theories spoil the broth. And I hear you say, prosaic? What this guy's just given us is a mixed metaphor - pure and simple.

Perhaps. But it is a mixed metaphor that I have wanted to deploy for some time. And why? Because I know that it will distract you, just for one moment, from what I'm leading to. Have you got that? Probably not... but then again, you might've... if you happen to be that person whose IP address (starting 134.135...) vanished from my monitor just 0.93 seconds ago! Don't worry, we can trace your IP, even after its vanished!

We invented conspiracy theories and we invented them to make you afraid. You don't realise this, you probably cannot accept it, and never will. But it's true. We’ve always wanted you to think that nothing controversial happens unless a powerful organisation makes it happen. Unless a covert governmental agency planned it that way. And you have always bought the notion. But one day, my friends, you ran too far with them, these theories, and you made them your own. Now that can't be right, can it? They are not your theories, they are ours. We created them. So hey guys could you please just give us back our darned theories? (That's tongue in cheek, in case you were unaware.)

Or don't you guys just f- get it? You see, if you can get your heads round 'information overload', why can't you get them round 'conspiracy overload'? Who the hell will believe conspiracies any more if for every famous death, there are ten thousand theories? Next year, there will be a hundred thousand theories for some guy who's one tenth as big. And maybe, one day, there’ll be millions for just your average Joe. No one will believe the theories any more. They'll be meaningless. And where's the point in that?

So, cool your jets. Cut the theories. If you want anyone to believe in anything ever again, then stop dicking around with all this, 'my belief's as good as the next guy's' shit. Some things are true and some things are not - except when we insinuate that they are. And if you keep on spreading too many theories, then maybe we'll find who you are, we'll track your IP addresses, because we’re starting to think that the only reason you'd possibly want people to stop believing in them (by spreading so many theories of your own) is because you are the enemy. The real enemy. The enemy of a community that does theories good and proper.

You see this is the point: The silicon chip, the internet, the web, they were never meant to be about democratizing things like knowledge and truth... or conspiracy theories for that matter. And that's because it's no longer a case nowadays of, ye shall know truth and the truth shall set ye free. It's, ye shall know what you need to know, so that technology can set you free. But you have to learn how to use technology first. And that, as we all know, is a discipline. Right, disciples? Right.

Think about that. Because, we do. We think about it. Every day.

And ask yourself one last question - assuming that you have read this far: What did I mean earlier when I talked about my handler? Maybe, just maybe, I am the handler not the handled? And how do you know that anyone ever really told me what I could or could not say? After all, I have said quite a lot, have I not? But then, of course, that's your problem to answer, not mine.

Yours abidingly and faithfully, Colonel Kurtz (And if you want to believe that's my real name then be my guest. In actual fact, it really is. Francis F. stole it from me, not the other way round!)

PS. A friend of mine tells me this: Next year, a butterfly will flap its wings in the Brazilian rain forest and there’ll be a million theories as to why it did. But, in reality there is only one theory that's correct, guys. Only one. Think on it.

On this occasion our 'intelligence blogger' very kindly agreed to provide us with his real name on account of the fact that the Disney trademark had expired. However we are not convinced that it is out of trademark and are therefore witholding it

Pull the other cracker

Another concerned believer, who also wisely pre-screens the content of his Christmas crackers, sadly found this joke and sent it in:

Q: What would Jesus have said had he known of the wars that would be fought in his name?
A: Which bit of 'turn the other cheek' don’t they get?

Come on guys. I like a spot of blaspheming as much as the next man, but let's remember that this is the season of goodwill!

D'you buy? Money, sex and climate change.

So, 'K' is allowed to blog again. I can't discuss my friends and for now at least I can't even point you to my entry in wikipedia, precisely because it gives a genuine indication of who I am - and who I know. The lawyers won't even let me 'cross-reference' it.

And why? Because people could add the false information (the allusions, the pseudonyms) to the true information (the wiki entries, the real names - even first names!), and, bang, two plus minus-two equals foreplay.

The lawyers think that, through a process of deduction, readers will discover which powerful people are currently telling lies to the British public, and which rich and famous people have lost their shirts in that mirage we call Dubai. And we can't have people knowing that, can we, darlings? Well, you know what I think about Dubai? I say, what do you think happens when you try building pyramids in the sand? You end up with riddles.

So what this all means is that I can talk sex, but only blindfolded and I can talk money, but not when it's hidden in numbered bank accounts. And if there is a hint of 'attribution' the legal guys will come down on us like a ton of injunctions!

So instead I have decided to discuss something that is oh so terribly close to 'K's' heart. And that is climate change! I've been doing my bit to save the planet for near on twenty years. My good friends Bob Geldof and Silvio Berlusconi introduced me... oh dear, better not mention them. They're lovely guys. But I am now so terrified of lawyers that I dare not name real people, even in such a positive light!

But as I was saying, I have been a passionate advocate of the green agenda for twenty years. I have attended countless celebrity parties, rock concerts, television fund raising events, proving beyond any doubt my total commitment to the cause. I have argued with politicians, I have shouted at environmental vandals (You know who you are boys). And I will carry on marching, whenever I have to, in order to prove what should be obvious to everyone: Climate change is the single biggest issue threatening this planet.

So you might be able to stop 'K' talking about the powerful, you can stop her discussing the rich and famous, but you will never ever stop her talking about global warming. Because at the end of the day, all that really counts in this life is passion, all that really counts is feeling and emotion and the urge to shout and tell everybody to sit up and take note. And if you have that passion, darlings, and you are ready to shout and shout and shout about global warming, then you are on your way to conquering the world. Like me! Darlings!
By guest blogger, K!

Wiki Wakey

Friend of mine, the editor of a famous etiquette book asked me the other day why I'd left my own editing job. I told him I'd grown tired of being the 'custodian of information', in an encyclopedia supposedly 'written by the people'.

He said he thought that was the whole point. Without guys like me, how could it function? All you'd have is a free for all that no one would take seriously.

Then why bother with all this 'people' crap if ultimately the whole thing is controlled by individuals who'd otherwise be spending their time producing the old fashioned kind of encyclopedias?

It's a compromise, isn't it? Between the people and the custodians?

Not really, I said. Then I produced an example of the kind of thing I come across when I edit. Someone had added to the page on UK Nuclear Power the following comment: The government is relaxed about Monty Burns building the UK's next generation of power stations. Most people know that Montgomery Burns is the dodgy power plant operator from the Simpsons. So that helpful addition cannot be true of course. And it has to go.

I explained I'd been strangely reluctant to delete it though. It's not the stuff of encyclopedias, evidently, but it did reflect public sentiment (in some quarters at least) that the government strategy had not been properly thought through. So what the hell is this 'people's encyclopedia' supposed to be or to achieve, if the end product is what it would have been if I had just written the encyclopedia myself?

Surely not an encyclopedia of public sentiment, he said? Surely that is exactly what the wider internet is all about? There's loads of public sentiment out there. Millions of blogs etc.

And I told him that he was probably right, but that I wished that institutions - be they governmental, media, commercial, whatever - would just stop using this idiotic word: People's. No it's not the people's anything. It's just as f-ing hierarchical as any other 'great undertaking' by a great institution.

He asked what next? I said I was doing some preliminary work on a survey seeking to identify the periods in history when art has been most easy to forge. I added that there'd never been a better time to forge art than right now. All you need is bric-a-brac, tat, debris, shit and the odd dead animal. You could copy most of the crap out there right now.

Leaving aside the cynicism, he said, it sounds to me like you mean the kind of art that could be produced 'by the people', he said, rather triumphantly... and simple enough to be accessible to the people.

It's of little benefit to the people financially though, I replied. Which might be the point.
By guest blogger, Vince White

Christmas Crackers

This was sent to me by a troubled Christian who routinely checks his crackers for profanation:
First Man : What do you think Christ would say if he saw the commercial exploitation of the religion that bears his name?
Second Man: Where are my bloody royalties?

Is this what Christmas has come to? Even the crackers play Judas?

Mens Rea

Hi, my name is Jonah and I just got out of jail. The reason I wanted to have my say today was because of something I read in an English paper recently. It was about a man who killed his wife and it’s a bit – just a little bit - like what happened to me.

Here goes: Husband and wife are sleeping in their motor home. They are tormented by a bunch of bad-ass teenagers making a racket outside. Police are nowhere to be seen, surprise surprise. Then the man dreams that the teenagers have broken in to the motor home and he is laying into one of them. But what he’s actually doing is he’s attacking his Missus. He wakes up and finds her dead.

So far, so good. He is arrested, charged and tried. But they let him go because he had a sleep disorder. It means that he kind of loses it, and loses himself in his dreams – not all the time, but some of the time. You see he didn’t mean to kill the Missus, and he couldn’t know that he was killing her either. As far as he was concerned, he was actually killing one of these teenagers. Fortunately he couldn’t be guilty of killing any of the teenagers, because there were no dead teenagers. Got that?

Anyway, I might sound like I’m not taking this totally seriously. But believe you me, I really am. And this is because I too had a little dream a few years ago. This one involved an antelope. Yep, an African antelope. I was roaming this game reserve one moment, and the next moment I was hacking at the thing with a very large machete. And I was slicing and slicing and slicing him until he was just like so many pieces of salami.

So far, so good. But this time, the cop guy turns up and when I told him that I was having a dream about being attacked by an antelope and I was only defending myself, you know what he said? Yes, sir, but how does that explain the fact that last night you slaughtered your neighbour and his entire family and you sliced up their dogs into lots of tiny little pieces? And, you know what? I couldn’t answer that and I had a really bad lawyer and so went to jail.

So my point is this: the law is a bit of a tart really. Doesn’t always do what you expect it to do. And it’s not what you know but who you know that counts. It’s not what happens, but the lawyer you happen to get that’s important - like so much in life. Mind you, life, like the law is full of all sorts of great surprises. My friend Jonno dreamt that he was murdering his wife and when he woke up, he discovered an intruder lying dead in the hall way! And he went to jail.

So I’m not sure which it is better to be nowadays: Good in your head and bad in what you do or bad in your head and good in what you do. I suppose, if I knew that I’d be running the darned country.
Posted by Jonah Wicki, of no fixed employment nor abode

More leaked emails emerge – this time it’s Swine Flu!

It still has not been established whether these emails were leaked by an insider or a computer hacker. Whilst authentication of the items is pending, we clearly have had to change or truncate individual names and cut some references. These and departmental titles will be revealed in subsequent releases when the email source is corroborated.

From: Siegfried P Date: November 5 2009 15.36:12
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
Forecasts were wide of the mark, I’m afraid. Came in significantly lower than expected. And those who did catch it, far less severely than originally thought.

From: Hamish R Date: November 5 2009 16.34:22
To: Siegfried P Subject: Flu Pandemic
The projections were as useful as the ones they knocked out for AIDS, CJD, SARS, Bird Flu etc etc. Ditto credit derivatives, climate change, same old story. Hope this isn’t going be another case of throwing good money after bad. How far did they actually get with the stockpiling malarkey? Picture can’t be that bad, can it?

From: Siegfried P Date: November 5 2009 17.45:23
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
Hard to say. Apparently there's enough for a fair proportion of the population.

From: Hamish R Date: November 6 2009 10.34:23
To: Siegfried P Subject: Flu Pandemic
Siegfried, what proportion exactly? As in the proportion we’re committed to, not what proportion that's arrived?

From: Siegfried P Date: November 6 2009 11.12:34
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
You’ve read the papers? Perhaps 80% of the population. Roughly. Probably.

From: Hamish R Date: November 6 2009 14.45:12
To: Siegfried P Subject: Flu Pandemic
80%? And that is what we actually have now? So, how much will that cost?

From: Siegfried P Date: November 6 2009 15.02:54
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
If only I knew!

From: Hamish R Date: November 6 2009 15.21:45
To: Siegfried P Subject: Flu Pandemic
Dear Siegfried, isn't it your job to know? Anyway, whatever it is, it’s going to be a pretty penny, isn't it? The Minister knows all about this, I assume - the new figures, I mean?

From: Siegfried P Date: November 6 2009 15.28:32
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
Oh, yes. He is definitely in the loop. No hiding it from him. He misses nothing

From: Hamish R Date: November 6 2009 16.21:02
To: Siegfried P Subject: Flu Pandemic
Quite. For the time being, we’ll sit on this. It isn’t going to help anyone that the outbreak is milder than feared. Our role is to make people fear, eh Perkins?
Better delete this entire email thread as well. Don’t want our advance knowledge of the whole screw up to be misinterpreted at some point in the future, do we?

From: Siegfried P Date: November 6 2009 17.12:32
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
No. There will be no smoking guns in this department. And shall I even delete the email that says delete the emails?

From: Hamish R Date: November 6 2009 17.32:41
To: Siegfried P Subject: Flu Pandemic
That’s a daft question Perkins. It’s like a lawyer asking, “Do I go for the injunction or the super injunction? Smarten up!

From: Siegfried P Date: November 6 2009 17.45:11
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
Yes, sir. Of course. Consider it done.

From: Hamish R Date: November 7 2009 17.51:34
To: Siegfried P Subject: Flu Pandemic
One last question: Don’t suppose this flu drug we’ve stockpiled can be used for anything else? You know, as was the case with Viagra? Just so that this whole fiasco won’t have proven a total waste?

From: Siegfried P Date: November 7 2009 17.57:03
To: Hamish R Subject: Flu Pandemic
Don’t quite know sir. Quite possibly. Not sure whether it would be exactly like it was with Viagra. But, will look into it.

Super ego, super ID, super injunction.

The internet is fast becoming a world of avatars, 'sock-puppets' and fakes. The material world has mutated into an electronic one over recent decades. And as a result, our day to day grasp of reality is now predicated upon our faith in the intangible electron. How can we really know that anyone is who they say they are nowadays?

Hi, I began on that rather dour note with my tongue placed firmly in my cheek! As you might know, the 'glamour model' who did yesterday's piece poked fun at boring old lawyers. And here I am, a boring old lawyer, offering you my take on the internet. (And I don't mean take in a pecuniary sense!) But the point is, I'm not actually so boring when you think about what I have to say.

And what I have to say is this: internet identity fraud is becoming a big, big issue. It has quite literally become an issue for this website, although because of a super-injunction issued last night, I cannot refer specifically to why that is. But believe me, it is.

Now, whilst I must remain silent in that respect, I can however consider a contingent issue that is not - to the best of my knowledge - the subject of any injunctions. This is the use of fake IDs and web names in the ‘comments’ sections of this and other blog sites.

It all seems like a lot of fun at the time, doesn't it readers? Popping up on different websites, posting comments under pseudonyms? You know the sort of thing: "Comment by David Cam-moron... Climate change deniers are no better than the Catholic church that crucified Galileo..." or "Comment by Maggot Thatcher... NuLiebour will never ever be trusted again and will be booted into the gutter in 2010..." We don't even need to give silly fake names, if we don't want to. I, for example, could pretend to be plain 'Gordon Brown' as I log on to Tractor Drivers Monthly, and make comments like, "Nothing gives me more pleasure than driving my tractor stark bollock naked over the hills and valleys of Buckinghamshire."

You see, the internet is fast turning into a new Wild West where anything goes. I, you or anyone else can go onto the BBC, Sky or Guardian websites and sign in as whoever we want to be (assuming someone has not taken the names we wish to assign ourselves). And it might seem very amusing at the outset, but it can cause a lot of upset, a lot of anguish and pain to the parties involved. In fact only yesterday there was a case where a number of prominent 'Daily Mail' journalists were supposedly posting foul mouthed claptrap under their 'real names' on numerous blogsites. One of them admitted getting turned on by stained underwear and another claimed regularly to enjoy shoving small, furry rodents into a place where the sun don't shine! Now that can't be right, can it readers?

Do we want a world where we no longer trust anything anyone writes? Where people, pretending to be someone or something that they're not, make allegations that they know won't generally be traced back to them? It might seem funny now readers. But one day when someone is attacking you or something that you believe in, and when your name, or that of someone you admire, is taken in vain, then you might not be laughing anymore. Oh no! You won't find it funny when someone pretending to be you says they enjoy the aroma of their partner's poo, or that they like to masterbate whilst watching old repeats of Frasier or The Vicar of Dibley!

So here is what I think people like me will be able to bring to the table in the future. We all know what copyright law and patent law are. Why not work at developing identity law that can grapple with the integrity of internet IDs? No more silly names, no more silly allegations. Because even you, you sock puppet, even you, you fake George Osborne, you fake Polly Toynbee, you fake Andrew Neil with all your 'weird little hobbies', if you carry on using those names and you are not those people that you say you are, then you will find that the only thing stuffed where the sun don't shine is the legal documentation that I serve on you, matey boy!

Anyway, these are my ruminations on where I think the internet and internet law might be heading. I really think that these changes are going to be needed. All that we lawyers now need to do is consolidate the technical expertise. And finally, I hope that this wasn't as boring as our 'glamour model' Kayla suggested it would be. Who knows, even she might find something of interest in my brief, painless, and, simply written, discourse on internet fakery!
This post was brought to you by Ferdie Doberman, Litigation Partner.