Downing Street gave a cautious welcome to the initiative after talks between the Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble, and Tony Blair at the Commons. Iain Smith’s website featured pictures of football violence and exchanges from hooligans all over Europe.. AMNESTY International announced yesterday that it is to send a mission to Northern Ireland to investigate and monitor human rights issues, including the continuing “punishment” attacks. The files were obtained from terrorist groups, including The Sons of Glendower in Wales, Direct Action in France, and the Anti Imperialist Cell, a German anarcho-terrorist group.A personnel assistant at Glasgow Caledonian University was suspended by his employers last year for using the Internet to incite hatred among football hooligans in the build-up to the World Cup. Police discovered anarchist cells circulating hundreds of computer files of seditious information. The site urged young Muslims to rise up and “defend” themselves.
In March 1995, anarchists were found to have been using the Internet to plan disruption in schools and attacks on multinational firms.

Abu Hamza al-Masri, the Muslim cleric who leads the London-based Supporters of Shariah, used the group’s website to advertise an “Islamic Camp” at a mosque in Finsbury Park over Christmas. In the first case filed under a new cyber-stalking law in California, Gary Dellapenta was arrested last month for allegedly impersonating a woman on the Internet and saying she fantasised about being raped Six men arrived at her apartment. The last 24 hours have been very hectic and over the next seven days I can’t see the pace dropping,” he said.Like the Prime Minister, however, he was careful to steer away from any subject which he thought was not strictly relevant to his immediate task – which, in Wilkinson’s case, is beating France next Wednesday.. You’ve already, by making the comment yourself, commented on the issue. I suggest you look at what I said.”Mr Blair said of Hoddle on Monday: “If he said what he is reported to have said, in the way he is reported to have said it, then I think that was very wrong.” But he also said: “Let us hear his explanation first.”The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said later that Mr Blair would have regrets if anything he had said had contributed to the FA’s decision, but that he stood by his opinions.Meanwhile Howard Wilkinson, England’s caretaker manager, made his first appearance since his appointment, saying he was “very shocked” to find himself in the job “My head’s spinning. “But given what you just said, will you accept for future reference, and on reflection, that there is a limit to the number of things politicians should poke their noses into?”Amid uproar, he went on: “Lecturing football associations on who they should sack is beyond that limit!”Mr Blair replied: “I really cannot believe that you are raising this. “We all thought Glenn Hoddle’s comments were outrageous and we all join in saying so,” said Mr Hague.

Mr Blair retorted that he could scarcely believe that the Tory leader was raising the point. “I am content to leave that, I think, to the FA,” said Mr Blair.
Mr Hague went on to question why Mr Blair had become involved in the controversy, when on Monday he criticised Hoddle’s reported comments about reincarnation and the disabled. The real battle, though, is to educate people to act responsibly.. THE ROW over the sacking of Glenn Hoddle as England football coach resurfaced in the House of Commons yesterday, when Tony Blair was accused of “poking his nose in”. During Prime Minister’s Question Time, William Hague, the Opposition leader, asked Mr Blair who the next England coach should be.

“The Internet sees censorship as damage, and routes around it,” said John Gilmore, a founder member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.Details from the anti-abortion website are almost certainly still out there somewhere, and anyone determined enough to find them will. “People should remember they are personally responsible for what they publish. Defamation and other laws do apply,” said Tim Pearson, chairman of the UK ISP Association said.But attempts to impose censorship externally – a sort of “prior restraint”, like that used in publishing – will fail. They ignored Nottingham’s legal posturings until it gave in: the Net had won.Nowadays, if you have something to say, or a picture to show off, finding space on the web costs almost nothing. Since September, “free” Internet service providers (ISPs) in the UK (users pay the cost of a local call for connection) have offered five megabytes of space free Free software makes creating a web page simple. When it barred three British journalists from publishing the report, they put it on the Net; when the council sought an injunction, activists overseas copied the page and displayed it.

And, as soon as a message is posted or a web page created, it will be copied and every word indexed by search engines around the Net. Wiping away data once it has been released to the network becomes an endless task.The problem worsens if you try to ban such publication, as Nottingham County Council did over a report criticising its handling of child-abuse cases. In June 1995 he settled out of court.Few would try to bring such a case now It is increasingly easy to cover one’s tracks in cyberspace. But at the same time, yesterday’s judgment on the anti-abortion website is part of a pattern in which people have discovered that, while speech may be free on the Net, the consequences can be expensive.
In the UK the first Net libel case was in 1994, when Phillip Hallam- Baker, a researcher at Cern (Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucleaire), on the Franco-Swiss border, was sued by Laurence Godfrey, a physicist based in London At issue were seven articles posted on the Net. It guarantees freedom of speech, except for obscenity, which means that not liking somebody’s views or dirty pictures is insufficient reason to prevent their showing them off. Regulation also crashes into the First Amendment to the US Constitution, still the principal driving force behind the Internet’s growth. THE IDEA of regulating the Net is recurrent but one which, as MPs heard this week, militates against the very nature of the network.