Devil: My job is to ensure standards of television programmes continue to spiral downwards. Chat-shows, game-shows, soap-operas — anything I can do to guarantee their continual awfulness.
[SIGNS PAPER]
Condemned Soul: What was that?
Devil: Just commissioned another 25 years of Jim’ll Fix It.
Condemned Soul: Oh, good. I like Jimmy Saville – he’s very good with children.

TV Hell introduction, 31st August 1992

The significance of the above will become clear in due course. But first, let me take you on a journey, which began one Friday evening when the very site you are reading, ceased to exist. Permission denied, it said. This being my own site, it seemed a little strange, to say the least. But logging in, I found the following email had been sent to postmaster:

From: _____@demon.net
Cc: legalnotice@demon.net
Subject: www.trshcity.demon.co.uk…
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000

Please note: The contents of this email may be legally privileged. They should not be copied or disseminated within or outside Thus Plc without prior authorisation from Legal Services. The recipient of this email may reply to Legal Services but should not cc other addressees.
___________________________________________________
Dear sir,

We have received an allegation that you have material on your website
http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk/ARTICLES/NEWSFORU.HTM
which our external solicitors believe to bear defamatory meaning and as such we have had to suspend access to your webpages.

The part in question is the transcript.

We cannot and do not make any judgement as to whether such material is defensible. However, the state of the law at the moment means that if we are put on notice that defamatory material is being published through our systems, Thus plc may be liable for damages, along with you, if it does not take action to prevent that material being published. Those damages could be substantial and we could both incur heavy legal expenses.

In addition, the current state of the law could leave Thus plc liable if it failed to take action and you disseminated any further material through our systems which was later found to be defamatory. While we do not necessarily agree with the current legal position we must accept it, and have therefore suspended access to your website.

Please reply to this email acknowledging that you understand the problem, that you have removed the material from your website and that you will not, in future, publish further material which could be considered defamatory of various (named) celebrities through Demon’s systems.

We attach below a suggested form of acknowledgement for your convenience.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

I acknowledge receipt of your email and confirm that I understand your explanation of the legal situation regarding material which is considered defamatory.

I confirm that I have removed the material from my website. I will not publish such material in future using my Demon service, and will not publish further material which could be considered defamatory of the celebrities which have been named on the site.

I look forward to hearing from you.
_______________
Paralegal
Thus Plc

The piece in question was a transcript of alleged outtakes from an edition of Have I Got News For You featuring Paul Merton and Jimmy Saville. This had been sent to me by a friend, and I’d posted it on the site, simply because I’d thought it was funny. I even added a disclaimer saying that I had no idea whether it was accurate, but this was no defence in the eyes of Demon.

To get my web-site restored, I removed the piece, and sent the form they requested back, and in due course, www.trshcity.demon.co.uk returned to service. However, I remained a more than a little peeved that Demon would pull the site and, in effect, pronounce me guilty, not only until proven innocent, but without even giving me any chance to prove my innocence. I wrote, pointing this out. Their reply follows.

Currently the situation regarding defamation in the UK is such that ISPs are liable for content held on its servers as soon as it is put on notice of such content and failure to remove that material could end up with us being sued as well as you.

As an ISP, the Defamation Act requires us to act responsibly by (a) removing the material from our servers and (b) making sure that similar material cannot not be published in the future. This requires us, in your case (having received a complaint), to notify you of this situation and seek some kind of acknowledgement regarding future
material, and also to remove the material from our servers, which is achieved by temporarily suspending your web site.

We do not take these decisions lightly and refer all cases to external solicitors (at cost to us) for a decision about whether the material bears a defamatory meaning.

We do not wish to make any judgement as to whether the material in question is indeed defamatory. We are in no position to make this decision ourselves, this is up to a Court to decide.

You may have heard of the Godfrey -v- Demon Internet case where Demon Internet were taken court over defamatory material held on its servers.

We would also like to have more information as to the precise nature of the alleged defamation. It is clearly wrong to claim that every single word in the transcript is defamatory, and without full details of the accusations being made against us, we are unable to accept that they are justified. We thus request details of the specific complaints received by you.

Our solicitors felt that most of the web page could be considered to bear defamatory meaning. Specifically, they felt that it was defamatory of Phil Hall, David Yelland, Jimmy Saville, Paul Merton and possibly Angus Deayton and Ian Hislop too.

With regard to the article, we would still like to publish it, and want to work with you in order to achieve this. We therefore offer the following possibilities for discussion, with the aim of hopefully reaching agreement on the matter.

1) The article already contains a disclaimer which states that we “make absolutely no claims as to the validity of the following”. This could be made more prominent and/or reworded.

I do not believe that this would make any difference if the material was found by a court to be defamatory. You should seek further legal advice regarding this.

2) If we are given details of the parts found offensive, they could be > removed from the piece.

We would suggest that you seek legal advice based on my comments above.

3) We can move the transcript from Demon to another server, and make the link on our site point to it there.

Unfortunately, this could also be considered defamatory as it still causes in effect, the publication of the defamatory material through your Demon service, even if it is hosted elsewhere.

But when looked into further, this seemed very debatable to me. The interconnectedness of the Net means that, if linking to a defamatory site is itself just as defamatory, then any one defamation renders virtually the entire Internet guilty! This is clearly nonsense, and indeed, Section 1(3) of the 1996 Defamation Act states that, “a person shall not be considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only involved…(e) as the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no effective control.“

As a result, in the case of Godfrey vs. Demon to which they referred, Justice Morland said “In my judgment the defendants were clearly not the publisher of the posting and incontrovertibly can avail themselves of Section 1(1)(a)”, relieving Demon of liability. As far as I could see, what caused Justice Morland to find against Demon, was their failure to take action after being notified of the alleged defamation. If the material in question hadn’t been held on their servers at all, it was hard to see how Demon could have been found liable for it.

So, while I could conceivably be sued, Demon would be perfectly safe. However, the chances of any suit were, I reckon, very slim: I doubt the people who read the piece here numbered more than a few hundred at most, as opposed to the millions who would find out about it during a court case. Far better just to send out some threatening letters, try and suppress it all quietly, and hope it goes away. In this light, it’s also interesting to note Demon’s unwillingness to tell me who had complained – I have a pretty good idea though, and I doubt very much it was Angus Deayton.

In this case, however, it backfired – their actions fired up my interest in a piece I’d otherwise have quickly forgotten about, and I started looking on the Net. First thing I found was, that if someone had been trying to suppress it, they’d been doing a pretty poor job. My very first search engine query, the very first page, and I was there, staring at the whole thing. Not just once, but five separate copies of it. They used to say that the Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it – I was beginning to understand the truth of that statement.

Picking around the sides of these, I did find a couple of interesting sites. One site said responsibility had been claimed by Some of the Corpses are Amusing, but I could find no actual evidence thereof. There was one piece in the Guardian about the transcript, citing un-named “sources” as saying it was a hoax – un-named equals no reliance in my book (the Guardian also had a very interesting interview with Saville). But there was absolutely no trace of, for example, Paul Merton saying, “it’s a hoax”, which would have nailed things shut, once and for all.

All the while, I continued, sporadically, to debate the possibilities with Demon, and work towards an edited version of the transcript. I can feel some sympathy for them, and I have to say they were friendly and polite, explaining the reasons for their qualms. But they were obviously erring strongly on the side of caution and even wanted material removed that was part of the broadcast! We finally came to an agreement, and the edited version may be found here. It’s not very funny though…

It’s hard to come to a compromise when they keep saying “Nyet”: if I’m not allowed to link to it, can I perhaps give people instructions on how they can find it? No, because of Hird v Wood in 1894 – the relevance of that in the Internet era is somewhat arguable. There was something deeply ironic about Demon defending the honour of TV presenters against totally unwarranted accusations of paedophilia, while their servers carried the likes of alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children.

Almost as interesting as the veracity or otherwise of the transcript, is looking into who would be behind a hoax, if such it actually is. A leading suspect must be Chris Morris, of Brass Eye fame – he announced Saville’s death on his radio show once, and got into a bit of bother for it. I’ve no idea whether the resulting law-suit was ever settled, but it does at least give Morris a motive, and his surreally excessive style of comedy would fit the transcript.

But there are perhaps two other candidates: the people in the sketch at the top of this piece, which I stumbled across in my tape collection only a few months ago. Who were these reprobates, expressing such a clear dislike for Jimmy Saville, seven years before all this allegedly happened? None other than Angus Deayton and Paul Merton…

[Here is the Demon approved, expurgated version]

One of the major sources of customers for TC is Ebay. Every week, we put 3-400 auctions up there, which not only bring in a good amount of cash, they also introduce a lot of potential clients to the awesome stock of beading supplies which is www.trashcity.com. This is because each of our auctions have a link to our website, allowing the users to see other items in which they might be interested, and assure themselves that we are not some dodgy fly-by-night operation. [Or at the very least, some dodgy fly-by-night operation with a spiffy web site] This seems natural and fair, and aids both us and our customers.

Ebay have, however, wised up, realising that anyone leaving their site might lead to them not getting their thirty pieces of silver, since they could – gasp! – buy things elsewhere! Naturally, this can’t be permitted. So, as of the end of the month, they will no longer allow us to link from items to external sites, although linking to Ebay subsidiaries such as half.com is still permitted! And – what a surprise – Ebay will shortly be offering their own storefronts to users; at a price, of course. Who will buy my lovely fresh air?!

Needless to say, this will make for a lot of work, since all of our auctions have to be altered, one at a time, to remove the offending link. Or at least, revise it, since Ebay – in what seems like a sop to defuse the loud protests from their users – will still continue sellers to link to their sites from the “About Me” page which each user has. Needless to say, this loophole allows a column of tanks to tap-dance their way through, and so our About Me page is virtually a clone of our home page at trashcity.com.

It remains to be seen how long Ebay will permit anything that hints at the possible existence of other places to buy and sell goods. They already seem to be realising the possibilities, and are imposing restrictions on the ‘About Me’ page. These are, however, making things even more complex, witness this quote on a discussion board from one Ebay staff member:

“For instance, you can say “click here to visit my website” from the About Me (not the Listing Page), but you can’t say “To view my other jewelry, please click here to visit my website.”“

The reasoning by which one is entirely permitted, yet the other is completely unacceptable, is unclear to me, but would appear to be as tortuous as a pretzel specially baked for a convention of contortionists.

Ebay make the legal claim to be no more than an intermediary, in much the same way as a newspaper takes no responsibility for trades done through its classified ads. I suspect this position cannot remain tenable, in the face of a continuing welter of restrictions and regulations: you can’t advertise this way, you can’t sell this product at all. A perfect example of the latter is their all-but-complete ban on a number of things which came into effect yesterday, including serial-killer items and Third Reich memorabilia. I couldn’t give a damn about sad Manson- or Gein-worshipping geeks, or a bunch of historo-retards who’ve not realised who won World War II – but it’s still pretty blatant censorship.

This change was, as you’ve probably guessed, in response to whinges from the usual sources (to whom I’m not going to give any more publicity), and to protect their precious markets in France, Germany, Austria, etc. where the sale of such things are forbidden. I note, with a deep sense of irony, that France and Austria currently have the two of the most popular extreme-right wing parties in Europe (Jorg Haider of the Freedom Party almost became Austria’s chancellor!), while Germany has perhaps the worst racial violence of any country in Western Europe.

It’s clear that attempts to doublethink the past into oblivion doesn’t work, and it’s equally obvious that Ebay’s caving-in to a vocal minority will have no positive effect. It’s nothing more than a purely mercenary decision made under the guise of morality, and deserves to be condemned as such.

Believe you’ve got an election coming up over there in Britain. Or at least, so I’ve heard, courtesy of the BBC web-site; that little item of news has not, so far, been deemed deserving of any coverage at all in any of the regular American media. Can’t say I’m sorry: Blair or Hague – what a delightful choice! Er, Hague is still leader of the Tories, isn’t he? Admittedly, was never sure on that point, even when I was living in Tulse Hill. At least British elections only last a month – here, the campaigning goes on for a year or more, and the post-vote lawsuits take almost as long. You’ve hardly brought in one president, before he heads out on the baby-kissing trail once again.

Another difference is well illustrated by the fact I was collapsing in a laughter at a phone-in radio show, where the presenter was outraged that the cost of gasoline (a.k.a. petrol) might go as high as $2/gallon! The horror! The horror! Even allowing for the fact that American gallons are smaller than British ones – because their pints are, at a mere 16 fl.oz. – this would certainly see riots in the UK, but only because, at that price, everyone would be rushing to fill up their tanks, baths, and every other container capable of holding fuel. There was even talk of a one-day fuel boycott, which I’m sure would work every bit as well as it did in Britain e.g. not at all, because even those people who took part just filled up in advance.

I don’t think refinery blockades would work either, simply because many Americans regard the ability to drive as a god-given right, and it is a necessity in Arizona due to the “somewhat limited” – I’m being very kind – public transport. Still, in a land where gas-guzzling cars are a staple [that advert in Robocop wasn’t much of an exaggeration], it was amusing to hear people saying things barely short of “they can take my Sports Utility Vehicle when they pry my cold, dead hands off the steering-wheel”. Think there must be some part of the American Constitution which enshrines the right to bear four-wheel drives and, clearly, no-one here remembers 1973.

On the other hand, there is at least a great deal of four-wheel drive suitable territory here, and unlike London, plenty of room to park anything bigger than a gnat’s arse. Even I have got used to driving a car you climb up into, to the extent that a “normal” (by British standards) car feels more like a go-cart. You also have to factor into gas mileage, the essential need for air-conditioning – 104 degrees is the forecast for today – which gobbles up so much fuel that certain steep slopes have a warning on them to turn off the A/C before beginning the ascent. Frankly, I’d rather run out of petrol and career hopelessly back down, than lose the cooling.

I can laugh, in part because I’m lucky to have a job that requires a daily commute of approximately 30 feet, from the bedroom to the office. And I’m pleased to report that Trash City – or the financially sound bit which sells beads, anyway – just had a banner week, with five grand in sales for the first time. We’re getting close to the point where Chris can quit her day job and work full-time on our plot to conquer the world through jewellery components. This is much-anticipated – not least by Chris herself, for obvious reasons, even if it’s a prospect I find more than a little scary. I am of a pessimistic persuasion, and so am certain that if we do go full-time, the bubble will immediately burst, and I’ll have to go work in McDonald’s. D’you want beads with that?

---

Well, everyone and their web-able mother are putting out previews of this summer’s movies. So why should we be any different? Here’s the TC guide to what we have to look forward to over the next four months (here in Phoenix, anyway – check local press for details, as they say). Be sure to check back at the end of August, when we’ll no doubt be terribly embarrassed by our selections. [And the links now go to the appropriate review. Christ, I can’t believe we were actually looking forward to Rollerball]

May

Sure thing: The Mummy Returns (May 4) – follow up to one of the most successful brainless popcorn consumption devices in recent years. Expect more of the same plus WWF’s The Rock (even if we knew he’d lose at Wrestlemania, since he’d be off doing promotion).

What we’re looking forward to: Shrek (May 18) – anything which takes pot-shots at Disney, with a villain strangely reminiscent of Michael Eisner, has to be worth seeing, even if Eddie Murphy’s sidekick schtick is not exactly breaking new ground.

Dodgy ground: A Knight’s Tale (May 11) – we’ve never been able to take medieval movies seriously since Holy Grail, and this looks pretentious as hell. And it has modern rock music behind the jousts! Sure it seemed like a good idea to someone.

Please bomb…please bomb: Pearl Harbor (May 25) – World War II didn’t star until 1942, after Ben Affleck sorted out his love-life. This desperately wants to be Titanic: a love story cunningly disguised behind an action-packed trailer. Let’s hope it doesn’t succeed.

June

What we’re looking forward to: Tomb Raider (June 15) – you expected perhaps something else? Angelina Jolie running around for 90 minutes, firing guns. Yes, we know all about computer game movies. I just don’t care. Will be there on the Friday for this one. Maybe Saturday too.

Dodgy ground: Evolution (June 8) – a bunch of goofy scientists save the world. David Duchovny has shown no ability to carry a movie without an “X” in the title. A lot will rely on the special effects here, which is thin ice for big success.

Please bomb…please bomb: Swordfish (June 8) – two of the less interesting X-Men (Jackson and Berry) team up with Travolta. It’s been fun watching Travolta’s overpaid and overhyped career explode in his face since Battlefield Earth, so fingers crossed this continues the trend.

July

Sure thing: Planet of the Apes (July 27) – as soon as we heard Tim Burton was on board, it was so obvious, in a smack your own forehead way. No doubt, this will look fabulous – however, will they be able to replicate the fabulous ending of the original?

What we’re looking forward to: Final Fantasy (July 11) – see previous qualms about computer games, yet there were moments in FF7 which were genuinely moving. If they can capture that spirit, and with undeniably jaw-dropping CGI, this could be the genuine groundbreaker of summer. Outside shot: just saw a trailer for Cats and Dogs which pits live-action kitties and pooches against each other, somewhere between Austin Powers and Mission Impossible. It looked fabulously crass and funny. Whether it can sustain it for ninety minutes, rather than ninety seconds…

Dodgy ground: Scary Movie 2 (July 4) – an idea which was initially fabulous, was already seriously running out of steam by the end of the first film. How many recent horror hits have there been for it to parody? I sense a departure into general movie parody territory: anyone remember Mafia!?

Please bomb…please bomb: Jurassic Park III (July 20) – enough with the dinosaurs already! What was once new and impressive has become nothing more than another studio franchise. They’re extinct: get over it. Though I can see how CGI dinosaurs would be better than having to deal with Demi Moore.

August

Sure thing: Rush Hour 2 (August 3) – this time, they’re in Hong Kong, so expect a lot of Chris Tucker-out-of-water gags. Otherwise, expect the same as last time – aimiable comedy, in which Jackie never gets out of second gear – and we cruise to another $100 million gross.

What we’re looking forward to: Rollerball (August 17) – while remaking classic films is often a recipe for disaster (Get Carter), this has potential, and the subject matter is even more fitting in these days of media conglomerates. From the director of Die Hard? Might just work.

Dodgy ground: American Pie 2 (August 10) – seems like the gross-out sex comedy has had its day, going by the grosses for the likes of Saving Silverman and Tomcats. It may not just be the apple-pie that gets screwed here, more like a few movie careers.

Please bomb…please bomb: Ghosts of Mars (August 24) – Carpenter’s career has been running on fumes for years. Since They Live, he’s batting 0-for-5; it’s a miracle any studio will touch him. He’s planning Vampires 2. Will someone please stop the man before he hurts others?

Five months in, and another landmark should arrive in the post here at some point over the next week, with the arrival of my first American credit cards. This is something I’ve unconsciously resisted, having been brought up with a Scottish Presbyterian upbringing view, that any kind of debt inevitably leads to immorality, an eternity in hell, and possibly even Papism. I managed to get through my student years without accumulating a single penny of debt and, even now, it’s something of a badge of honour that I have always paid off the entire balance on my credit card each month. Thus, the suggestion that I acquire more debt (ok – potential debt) is something I viewed with a jaundiced air.

However, the steady and inevitable loosening of my British ties makes it probably inevitable, assisted by my current credit card company giving the impression that I might as well be on the surface of the moon, as far as customer service goes. You and I may think we’re in the third millennium, but the Royal Bank of Scotland might as well be scratching away with ye olde quill pens, before popping their epistles onto a galleon, going by the speed of their customer service department. A simple query about my credit card, submitted by email, took almost a month to get a response – which arrived here in Scottsdale by snail-mail, written on papyrus. I am tempted to run up an enormous debt, safe in the knowledge that I would probably have died of old age before they actually noticed.

So, Chris is now apparently arranging credit for me. I’m not quite sure how she’s doing it, since I don’t have any actual income here at the moment, have only lived here for a short space of time, and effectively possess no credit record at all. Perhaps this is actually a good thing, and they treat no credit record as a totally clean one? The good thing is, this will actually be an American card with an American address – and will thus be usable by PayPal.

As regular readers will be aware, I’ve had a few recent clashes with them. I finally received an admission that their rejection of my credit card was not, contrary to all their previous claims, because I didn’t know my own address, but was because I was using a British credit-card in the United States. [My bank confirmed that PayPal never even attempted to verify my credit-card] I’ve now set up an international account with them, using my old Tulse Hill address, which it accepted quite happily. How long this will last, I don’t know – I expect a PayPal-sponsored SWAT team to come crashing through the door any morning now, and arrest me for fraud.

Even more ironically, while making such a fuss over the precise wording of the address on my credit card statement, thanks to our business PayPal sent us one of their debit cards, which we could cheerfully wave around all over the place. I refuse to use it on principle, figuring that this is too much like climbing into bed with the devil. When Satan comes a-calling, he brings an unlimited line of credit. There are those who reckon that the Mark of the Beast, as described in Revelations, is actually the barcodes you seen on almost every product nowadays. Personally, I reckon it’s more likely to be your PayPal login id.