No worries! It is indeed excellent.

Ian:

That's what I think is the most likely explanation. But it's a complete overreaction. Most people these days are web-savvy enough to understand that if website A links to website B, it in no way implies that B endorses A (it may not even mean that A endorses B either). B doesn't control all the webservers in the world so how could it possibly keep oversight of all incoming links? And the law is an ass but I don't believe it's enough of an ass for there to be any sort of liability issues for the IWM, even if every neo-Nazi and holocaust denier on the planet linked to them. It's just one of those stupid policies that bureaucrats and lawyers come up with every now and then.

I know that they could have a statement about not endorsing sites that linked to them but people would assume that a site that linked to the IWM was one to trust.

People in a British academic trade union have got into trouble for lnking to a item on a site which also contained a speech by a KKK man.

By the way, I'd like to thank you for introducing me to the existence of Scott Palmer's "Dictatorship of the Air", which I finally shelled out for the other day, and which I think is brilliant.

Then it gets very hard for a civil service manager to naysay it.

The professional military historians amongst you may be unwilling to ignore such guff from an institution which you can ill afford to offend - but for the rest of us it's business as usual and I'll link away.

"No mention of US can be made in any mean, unless prior authorization is given"

..

I can't even find the right words for this (although stupish comes repeatly to mind)... And, ironically, I'll bet the only people willing to think and comply would be the ones they would probably give such an authorization. This is so... un-internet culture...