Asking here may be a good start:

 http://georgesxchalkboard.blogspot.com/

When a document was published here a week back or so detailing methods that groups can use to help minimise the consequences of infiltration, it was immediately hidden!!!

When a comment detailed a current infiltration by the same BBC responsible for lying over WMD in Iraq, and faking the order of video footage to make the miners look violent during the miners strike, that comment was IMMEDIATELY HIDDEN.

The above article has only been promoted to the formal news list because of those that are interested and watching. When possible, those that censor this Indymedia hide anything that hurts the methods of the government, or those agents that work for it. When the story is already widely available, and publicity here cannot hurt further, the story is promoted to give the impression of being against such acts by the state.

"When a document was published here a week back or so detailing methods that groups can use to help minimise the consequences of infiltration, it was immediately hidden!!! "

That's a lie. It was not immediately hidden as can be seen from the fact that it attracted many comments. The document contained no news and was simply a repost of some personal rant about 'wreakers' rather than infiltration as such. Predictably for such a document, it was followed by a series of highly disruptive comments before being hidden as falling outside of the editorial guidelines.

The issues raised by the document are obviously important ones but you can't expect to have any kind of useful or constructive discussion about infiltration and disruptive behavior on a forum that allows anonymous posting. These issues are best discussed in face to face situations in workshops and gatherings where you are dealing with real people not cyber-masks.

"When a comment detailed a current infiltration by the same BBC responsible for lying over WMD in Iraq, and faking the order of video footage to make the miners look violent during the miners strike, that comment was IMMEDIATELY HIDDEN. "

I don't know what comment you are referring to but that it hardly news. The BBC were widely exposed in this well documented example and you can find the incident referred to in many books. So what else was in this comment or was it hidden simply because it was a comment on a hidden article?

"The above article has only been promoted to the formal news list because of those that are interested and watching. When possible, those that censor this Indymedia hide anything that hurts the methods of the government, or those agents that work for it. When the story is already widely available, and publicity here cannot hurt further, the story is promoted to give the impression of being against such acts by the state."

Really? You don't think that perhaps it has been promoted because it actually meets the editorial guidelines and is directly relevant to both the indymedia UK network and those who use the sites and the lists?

Twilight (which ever one of many this may be), censorship is the act of changing a message, including the change of deletion (complete elimination of the message), between the sender and the receiver. Indymedia UK is not engaged in censorship as you well know. Rather than deleting posts which breech the editorial guidelines, they are maintained are are visible to anyone who wishes to check. This is a deliberate policy which aims to retain the integrity of the newswire service while remaining accountable and transparent.

The Internet is granting astonishing new capabilities to the middlemen, in addition to making the older ways of pre-processing information even easier, and we should not label those all as censorship.

Fortunately, there is a simple criterion we can apply. Do both the sender and the receiver agree to use this information middleman? If so, then no censorship is occurring.

Newspapers often receive a press release, but they may process, digest, and editorialise on the basis of that press release, they rarely simply run the press release directly. Nobody would expect anything different.

Indymedia doesn't ever change the text of contributions and doesn't even prevent publication of things that fall outside of it's editorial guidelines. It does however reserve the right to choose what is displayed on the newswire displayed on it's front page. It doesn't hid this fact and spells it out on the editorial guidelines page where everyone using the site can see what to expect.

Further site, Indymedia has open and publicly archived mailing lists in which the processes are transparent accountable.

So, anyone using the term censorship should really get real and look at some real examples of political censorship before wasting peoples time on here.

I wouldn't bother wasting yer epithelials with Mr T. Do a search here and you'll quickly see my point.

Check these pages:
 http://security.resist.ca/personal/
 http://security.resist.ca/personal/informants.shtml

Activism 101: Security Culture Basics
 http://www.gnn.tv/B12503