two charged over leaking bnp membership list

[Larry O'Hara]

Strangely enough the Court appear to have found themselves constrained by the law ... which prescribes a maximum penalty of a fine for the offence charged ...

Not strange at all--the charges brought were deliberately paltry, in order to facilitate the shabby deal that transpired. Contrast (for example) with the GANDALF case, where people were jailed for a non-existent conspiracy for the simple fact of publishing details of direct actions. Of course, apologists for the establishment like yourself can be guaranteed to come up with any number of excuses to let the handlers of Graham & Single off the hook--only doing your job after all. Evening all!

 

[detective-boy]

Of course, apologists for the establishment like yourself can be guaranteed to come up with any number of excuses to let the handlers of Graham & Single off the hook--only doing your job after all. Evening all!

All I did was state the law. Why do you rush to assume that I support the decision? Or even the fact that such a serious breach of the Data Protection Act is an offence punishable only by a fine?

 

[Pickman's model]

All I did was state the law. Why do you rush to assume that I support the decision?

you are, after all, an apologist for the establishment.

 

[butchersapron]

Strangely enough the Court appear to have found themselves constrained by the law ... which prescribes a maximum penalty of a fine for the offence charged ...

Strangley enough you appear not to have understood my post. Have another look and this time pay careful attention to the first part of the line you choose to reply to. Spot anything?

- given this should have been contempt proceedings and a jail term people are going to be asking 'what's going on?'

 

[detective-boy]

Spot anything?

Yes. You stated that it should be a contempt charge (but didn't explain the basis for that statement).

However it wasn't a contempt charge. It was a DPA offence, with a fine as a maximum penalty. I answered on the basis of what had actually happened as opposed to what butchersapron thought.

(Though God knows what the fucking Court think they were doing, sentencing the defendant on the basis of the charge in front of them as opposed to what some internet warrior thinks should have been there ... )

 

[butchersapron]

Ah right, you chose to ignore the substantive part of my post (larry managed to pick up on it, i wonder why you were unable to?) and just post a banal truism that really had no bearing on my post. My you're a helpful little beaver aren't you?

 

[detective-boy]

Ah right, you chose to ignore the substantive part of my post ...

No. I chose to ignore some random claim that so far as I am aware could not have been substantiated on the facts. If you'd have posted "It should have been a charge of rape" it would have made as much sense and I'd have ignored that too.

(and I noticed "Larry" didn't make any reference to your suggested "contempt" charge, so I assumed he didn't know what you were chatting about either...)

 

[butchersapron]

What next, are you going to tell us that someone charged with murder can only be punished by penalties prescribed for that offence?

And no, larry did pick up directly on my point about paltry charges being brought. You're managing to miss whole lot in your rush to point out the stunningly obvious aren't you? Go on, have another look at his post.

 

[detective-boy]

Go on, have another look at his post.

No, no mention of the contempt charge there at all ...

 

[butchersapron]

Ok, here it is bite size chunks for you.

a) My post was about the choice of charge brought, not the penalty imposed.
b) You talked about the penalty imposed
c) Larry talked about the choice of charge brought.

Do you see the difference?

 

[TylerD]

My understanding was that these people were BNP supporters who had fallen out with the leadership. Is there any evidence that they are not racists, like the leadership?

I mean, I would like to know whether or not to sympathise!

I understand the two people in question had been party employees, which would make it pretty unlikely that they are non-racist!

However, rumours are rife in those circles that at least one of those people was a Searchlight or MI5 infiltrator. If the woman who has been arrested is who I think it is, she had allegedly been an animal rights activist with apparent leftie leanings in the Brighton area before suddenly popping up as a BNP councillor in the Midlands. This gossip has appeared on UAF blogs in the past.

But then again most BNPers who come into conflict with Griffin et al seem to end up being accused of being "reds", whether they are or not.

All of which probably makes you none the wiser. But unless it can be proven that they are infiltrators who are working for a greater good, you can safely assume that they are as racist as any other BNP staffer would be.

Edit: oops, I'm well behind events on this one, as the defendants were named on Tuesday. Sadie Graham is indeed the woman I had in mind above.

 

[detective-boy]

Do you see the difference?

Yes. I know all that. But the charge you suggested could have been laid was contempt. You have not provided any basis for that suggestion and it does not appear a possible charge from the facts as I know them. So I ignored it.

I see you are still failing to expand on the basis you think such a charge could have been laid. Or what other, more serious charges you believe were made out by the facts.

 

[butchersapron]

So you ignored the actual point i was making in favour of posting a bland pontless truism pointing out that people can only be punished for the offences that they've been charged with. Well, thanks for that.

At the time of the leak, the membership list was the subject of a court injunction barring it from being published - Single and Graham were party to that agreement as part of their then ongoing court case with the BNP. You plainly know nothing of this.

 

[detective-boy]

At the time of the leak, the membership list was the subject of a court injunction barring it from being published - Single and Graham were party to that agreement as part of their then ongoing court case with the BNP. You plainly know nothing of this.

In that case it would be a matter for the party obtaining the injunction to have the case relisted at the civil court granting it and for them to seek that Court to penalise for contempt.

It would not be a criminal charge that could have been pursued.

So maybe you'd like to speculate why the BNP (or whoever it was that obtained the injunction) didn't pursue some alternative remedy instead of your pointless and fact-free conspiracy theories about the ICO, the police and / or the CPS seeking to protect them.

 

[Pickman's model]

i would have thought that now it's been proved in a criminal case single did it - ie beyond all reasonable doubt - the lower civil test of balance of probabilities has already been met and a civil case would therefore be more about penalty than anything else.

 

[detective-boy]

i would have thought that now it's been proved in a criminal case single did it - ie beyond all reasonable doubt - the lower civil test of balance of probabilities has already been met and a civil case would therefore be more about penalty than anything else.

Undoubtedly, if the facts are the same, which would be likely. (This is the sort of case where my suggestion that a criminal conviction should automatically be accompanied by a (rebuttable) civil finding of liability, minimising the hassle for the victim and allowing them to move directly to a hearing on quantum and enforcement action.