Police drop case against admin over animal rights comments Police have dropped their controversial six-month investigation of a Sheffield IT worker who had a minor role administering the activist website Indymedia UK. The man was arrested at his home in February as part of an probe by Kent Police's domestic extremism unit. Officers were seeking the identity of an Indymedia UK user …
So if I say I hope someone goes and pokes El Gordy in his good eye, and I close my eyes tight and really truly believe, and someone does it, I'm accountable? Screw that, if I'm going to do the time, I'd want to be damn sure I got the satisfaction from the crime! C'mere ya tubby popeye-lookin' bastard!
Paris - she knows all about doing the time.... and AC because, well, Gordy has a distinct weight advantage over me....
The Kent police have gender relations second to none, being able to accommodate all acceptable persuasions within their broad church. Unfortunately its church's conceptions of nulls and digits are very much literally rooted, and not virtual. Hence they will naturally have been incredulous of the statement "no server logs".
Hey,
Sounds like a good plan to put protesters in jail...
1) You go to a protest.
2) You get beaten up by Met/City finest.
3) After months of telling that there was no CCTV in the City, that there were not there and haven't done anything, the cops finally admit they might have a rotten apple (which still hidden after a few months really make the whole basket stinks but that's another story).
4) By protesting you "encourage" the offence and you clearly believe that the cop won't be able to behave...
So YOU will be prosecuted
I don't agree (with scaredy cats) that this story is all about Britain becoming a police state..
It's wrong to put someone's home address on the web with the expectation that they will suffer bricks through their window. It should be illegal. If there is not specific law banning it, police can use ancient laws that prohibit aiding/abetting, or commissioning/supporting an act of violence.
It's a shame though that it takes a judge being at risk of harassment for the polis to take action. The law sho9uld be the same for everyone.
When this govt have finally manage to potentially criminalise the entire population (except themselves of course) they'll presumably have the power over us all they've been creeping towards for years.
None of which would matter a damn if police officers and the tame judiciary weren't fully up for it. Don't any of them have a conscience any more, or has it completely degenerated into "I was only following orders"?
And they wonder why hugely increasing numbers of the population wouldn't piss on a police officer if they were on fire...
What say such stuff is hosted in far away places, I guess they would spend a great deal of money traveling round the world to raid server farms.
I guess it could be a holiday club for plod, find something a bit questionable in the far east, and go for a raiding holiday.
I wonder if he will get his DNA removed from the data base?
This post has been deleted by its author
This is about the treatment of the admin not about the forum post. His only 'crime' was to have as customer a site that contained dissenting or critical voices. That is why this borders police state treatment. He had no control over the content, not even as a moderator. It's akin to blaming a mechanic or the off licence for encouraging or assisting a customer's drunk driving.
"Officers were seeking the identity of an Indymedia UK user who had posted the home address of Mr Justice Neil Butterfield and an invitation to 'tell him what you think'."
Well that's just terrible, citizens being encouraged to conduct free and open dialog with their peers in government. What is the world coming to?
"It's wrong to put someone's home address on the web with the expectation that they will suffer bricks through their window."
What if their address is uploaded by someone with the intention of informing the community - is that OK?
Sorry, but intention relating to upload of data doesn't necessarily dictate use of uploaded data. You can post with malicious intent and only have good things come of it, you can post with good intent and only have bad things come of it.
"It's a shame though that it takes a judge being at risk of harassment for the polis to take action."
The reason that happens is because we live in a state where being rich, powerful, or working for the state afford some kind of protection. Everyone else gets fuck all without a fight.
"It's wrong to put someone's home address on the web with the expectation that they will suffer bricks through their window. It should be illegal. If there is not specific law banning it, police can use ancient laws that prohibit aiding/abetting, or commissioning/supporting an act of violence."
He did not throw the brick you imagined.
He did not even post the address on the board.
He did not even run the board.
He ran a server which others ran the board.
There was no brick, no act of violence, no aiding/abetting, even the people who did run the board removed the comment posted by some anonymous person. Everything past "someone posted a judges address" is in the imaginary realm.
I for one think the judge is entitled to his privacy, but the rozzer simply arrested the admin without proper cause, and they are clearly out of control.
Hate2Register wrote:
"I don't agree (with scaredy cats) that this story is all about Britain becoming a police state.."
So if the BBC shows some Al Qaeda types on their news reports, the police should be entitled to go round to the Director General's house at 7am and arrest him? If someone robs a bank and makes a getaway in a Mondeo, the police should arrest the CEO of Ford UK?
Hate2Register? Fail2Register, more like. If you don't want people doing naughty things, arrest the people actually doing those things, not someone with some peripheral connection to the deed who had nothing to do with it being carried out.
Or is your point that "unpatriotic voices should not be encouraged"? You'd have your police state right there with that kind of thinking.
The users of the server were cheeky to publish the name and address of the Judge, especially given the offenders probably caused criminal damage, however he is a public figure, so does not deserve to have his name and address kept secret, especially since this information is probably already in the public domain. Fraudulent, EU 'Napoleonic Law' has no lawful place in this country!
The Admin should sue the Police for harassment and costs, given they had no case against him, and some of the so called laws used against him are unlawful!
I personally regard most violent animal rights protesters as hypocritical thugs; animals don't have rights, just compassion, ownership, and self-interest, from humans; ultimately humans generally matter more than lower animals. Possible mitigations for defending animals, when proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, are that, human survival will be compromised, property will be affected without permission, or that pointless cruelty will occur.
Cruelty can be very subjective concerning lower animals, we are omnivores, and predators, by nature, despite the dogma of Vegetarians and Vegans *, so need to use lower animals to preserve human life, so must not be deceived by the comforting anthropomorphisms of lower animals, by Disney, and other purveyors of animal fictions, otherwise we become hypocritical parodies of ourselves.
* Recent scientific research has proven that we still need to eat some meat for optimum human health; non-animal food sources cannot provide all we require, that is why we evolved to be omnivores, rather than herbivores, even some wild Apes we thought were herbivores turn out to also be 'cruel' predators!
Boy have you got the wrong end of THIS stick.
What you've just told everybody, in essence, is that once a crime has been committed you think it's OK to arrest and question anybody, anybody at all, that you think might have possibly committed the crime, even if there's no evidence. "I think that guy did it, he looks shifty. Let's arrest him and impound everything he owns."
What's that sound? Oh, it's the sound of habeas corpus flushing down the toilet.
If someone wants to tell Butterfield what they think about his work, his work address is legitimate public knowledge. It's disingenuous to pretend that publishing his home address is anything other than threatening behaviour, given what sort of activities the knuckle-dragging cretins of the animal rights movement are known for.
Here's a clue from the other side of the pond from the DCI:
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - William Colby, Director of Central Intelligence, 1973-1976, as quoted by Dave Mcgowan in Derailing Democracy.
How is "encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed" different from the standard "conspiracy" charge? In this case it looks like the police in question took it too far but there does have to be some sort of responsibillity taken for what is published by any publishing comany, I accept that running an ISP makes this more difficult as there is generally more to monitor, but you really can't allow extremists to publish whatever they want and say it's too difficult to monitor so we didn't bother. Of course, this has to be tempered with the rights to freedom of speech.
It's a tough feelings kidney, whichever way you slice it...
Sam Liddicott Posted on Friday 4th September 2009 @ 15:58 GMT:
"Did he get his "raided" computers back, or are they kept as a punishment to him and his kind?
The Register needs to report on these kinds of details."
Also of great interest to the self employed will be the effect on his work, and I suspect that he cannot bring any action for recovery of lost turnover.
This guy knowingly gave his services and resources to help Indymedia. Even if he could pretend he didn't know what type of moronic activities Indymedia readers and posters get up to, he is still responsible as admin for what gets posted there. If I posted a judge's address here with the intent of letting animal rights scum take a crack at him, and the Reg didn't remove it, then the Reg would be the ones getting a visit from the coppers to get my address. If the Reg were obstructive then they too would be arrested. This idiot knew exactly what he was doing, I hope his kit is never returned, and that the actual owner makes him pay for it, if only so he thinks twice about doing it again. And I really hope you morons trying to be all hip and cool by bleating on about "police states" have the chance to travel and see some of the real police states in the world, then you might realise how easy you have it here. Cretins.
RE: lukewarmdog
"....Clearly you're not a lawyer because owning a server doesn't make you responsible for the content on the webpages it hosts....." No, but being obstructive of a Police investigation is an arrestable offence. If the Police suspect someone is intent on committing a crime, and you refuse to provide information that would help them in their inquiries, then you are liable to be arrested and charged with obstruction or - if they can prove it - complicity or aiding and abetting. I'm guessing you wouldn't be screaming half as loudly if this was an admin for a fascist site or a paedo ring, but then you and your ilk always seem to think the law doesn't apply to you and your politically-trendy groups.
RE: Steen Hive
"....Indeed. It would be terrible if Indymedia started posting the addresses of Zionist shills in the forlorn hope someone would find them with a clue bat....." Really? So you think anyone that has a political or religeous belief that doesn't conincide with your very obviously limited set should be the target of violence? I'm betting that's because you deep down know you've already lost the debate or why else would you feel the need to resort to violence? And you expect these "Zionist shills" to be attacked if their information was published because you also know that the side you associate with has a history of resorting to violence, initmidation and even murder of their own. Well, I'm sure that's helped convince people that you have a reasonable argument to listen to - not!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
