At 09.36 on the morning of Saturday 9th April 2005 Truth Activists raided the newswire of Indymedia UK (IMCUK) and overwhelmed it with articles and graphics demanding that Indymedia UK cease its ongoing censorship policy. The group, [legion] is the front line of a growing discontent at IMCUK's refusal to give space to such issues at September 11th, The Bilderberg Group and Freemasonry.

By the time Indymedia UK had been alerted to the action and managed to prevent them posting to the newswire at 17.04 only four non-[legion] articles had been published, three pages of newswire articles had been posted which can be seen here:

www.indymedia.org.uk/en/viewallposts2235.html

www.indymedia.org.uk/en/viewallposts2236.html

www.indymedia.org.uk/en/viewallposts2237.html

Confidential correspondence, leaked to [legion] by an Indymedia UK insider, revealed that the IMCUK administrators struggled to take control of the stuation and that certain administrators showed signs of panic. This inside source also revealed that the long denied policy of IP address bans is practiced by Indymedia UK and that it was implemented as the only means of dealing with the activists. Records also suggest that IP logs may be kept though this cannot currently be proven.

Once the IMC admininistrators had implimented the denied IP address ban on the activists they took the protest to IMC sites around the world including several US sites, Argentina, Brasil, Italy, South Africa and several sites in Australia and the International IMC site. Postings were also made on the Netherlands site but inside information suggests that a certain IMCNL administrator was complicit in the UK firefight.

When asked about Indymedia UK speculation that further actions are likely a [legion] activist refused to comment. The activist stated that the action was not against Indymedia as an organisation, merely their peculiar relationship with the truth stating that whilst they continued to deny certainties which have been proven how could they be trusted with delivering the truth. The activist also pointed out that Indymedia administrators immediately blamed Tony Gosling, who has been a target for intimidation for some time, for the action but stated categorically that Tony Gosling had not been involved and that he had actually stated beforehand that he thought less direct tactics were favourable.

The activist also questioned why, when IMCs in the US had specific sections for it, any article which speculated that the official truth about September 11th might be a lie was invariably censored and would be ridiculed by IMCUK administrators and trolls alike. They questioned how this could be reconciled with the US position on 9/11 and how newly formed 9/11 Truth Groups in the UK ought to receive the recognition that they do in the US instead of being dismissed as mere 'conspiracy theorists' in the time honoured means of winning an argument without any evidence.

Curiously, perhaps as a sop to the protestors, but more likely as a gesture to international observers, one article regarding September 11th remains on the newswire - however, it ought to be pointed out that virtually identical articles by the same author have all been hidden in the past and this has all the hallmarks of an act of cosmetic damage control and evokes memories of the Farnborough DSEi articles which appeared, disappeared and reappered in a very suspiscious manner and resulted in an action which nobody attended - see here(bottom of the page) - the visibity of this article makes the eyes water and it is currenltly visible although it was not until long after the action failed to materialise. It is evident from the comments (unless they have been deleted - if so the article can be seen archived here) that the article had been censored.

As a footnote to this action it should be pointed out that despite statements to Indymedia UK, one of their administrators, known as 'poon', followed up [legion] statements on IMCs around the world blaming Tony Gosling and making libelous statements about him which cannot be published for legal reasons.

Further statements have been made via the IMCUK process lists which have been totally ignored. This demonstrates two things. The process list mechanism is not tailored for the use of non-IMC administrators. And that attemting to communicate by means of them is almost certainly a waste of time.