I'll give you my passwords if you investigate police corruption, accused missile systems leaker told cops A former BAE Systems engineer accused of failing to hand over his device passwords to Merseyside Police vowed not to give them up until a watchdog investigated his allegations that police workers had perverted the course of justice, the Old Bailey heard. In a letter read to the court, Simon Finch is said to have told Detective …
So if the accused is now loopy are they still going to punish him for refusing to obey?
Was the accused mental health assessed before and during employment so as to be deemed fit to understand the implications of signing the the offical secrets act?
As to his issue with the police, one would think it reasonable that criminal investigations are processed in the order they are received, if this whole issue is down to desperation brought about because of claimed criminal behaviour of the police then surely that should have investigated first?
If the police involvement indeed preceded any breaking of the offical secrets act was the accused mental health assessed before the police decided to put the pressure on?
At the very least, the prior issue with the police needs to be bottomed out, as it will play a part in sentencing him for his actions. He likely will be locked up and the key thrown away, but it will likely play a part in how far they throw it. And if the police are at fault, then they need to be taken to task for that, and held to account for pulling the trigger... and I've read enough issues with the police to not take them at their word any more. That video of the policeman telling that bloke that he would make something up, still sticks in my mind https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52338058
If he even got as far as being considered for a position that involved signing the Official Secrets Act then he should have undergone either an enhanced security check or enhanced developed vetting. This is not a simple background check on PNC plus recent employment but covers:
successful completion of the Baseline Personnel Security Standard
completion, by the individual, of a DV security questionnaire
a check of both spent and unspent criminal records
a check of credit and financial history with a credit reference agency
a check of Security Service (MI5) records
a full review of personal finances
a detailed interview conducted by a trained Investigating Officer
the full review of personal finances will include an assessment of an individual’s assets, liabilities, income and expenditure both on an individual basis and taking into account the joint position with a spouse or partner.
further enquiries, including interviews with referees conducted by a trained Investigating Officer
checks may extend to third parties included on the security questionnaire - parents, friends and so on.
Unfortunately it takes a really long time to complete both ESC and EDV and for the report to be sent to the relevant parties (MI5, Police, BAe etc) so it is likely that he started employment with only partial clearance (clean bill by MI5 and no PNC history) and they would still be awaiting the third party interviews, which might have shown that he was not fit for employment in that role.
As another poster has said, everyone is covered by the Official Secrets Act [1]. "Signing" is just acknowledging that you have had the provisions of the Act drawn to your attention. Almost all jobs involving contact with protectively marked official information will also involve "signing" during induction. What macjules describes is Developed Vetting (that's what the DV stands for) which is appropriate for jobs where much more highly classified material (military intelligence, for example) is involved.
[1] Everyone in the UK jurisdiction, obvs.
I have had tens of thousands of passwords for hundreds of accounts on various services almost all of which I am locked out of because I can't remember them.
Ignorance of the law is no legal defence, but knowing the law and forgetting a password should be.
RIPA is IMHO too powerful a tool to allow the police alone to decide to use.
This given that it could be said that this tool was put in place so police do not have to actually do the work of finding evidence.
Previously when evidence was in written format the police would still have to find the documents and extract evidence to obtain proof of criminal acts, RIPA IMHO promotes the idea that the police do not need any evidence or even to get are their behinds to obtain a conviction. Which I think acts to remove justice given that the police rather than courts are determing guilt.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
That's exactly why we need to replace passwords with something else, but not an obvious biometric either - it's far too easy to grab a corpse's finger to unlock their phone on TV.
How about an erect todger? It would imply you are at least relaxed enough with your surroundings that you're unlikely to be in a police cell - unless you're a shameless exhibitionist, in which case you need the opposite.
"Honestly officer, I swear this doesn't happen often - oh well, I can't unlock the phone now..."
Paris, as that might be their secret weapon ->
This post has been deleted by its author
Like pepper spray, batons and fire arms?
I too would like to be able to walk the streets without having to be armed but it could be said that since the police are no longer visibly present and the many reports of the public carrying weapons then it is becoming increasingly prudent.
As to the number of deranged on the streets, this has increased in my opinion due to "care in the community", where they emptied and shut down the asylums to save the cost of keeping dangerous nutters off the streets.
The whole idea of not carrying weapons in public was IMHO based upon the premise that the pollice would prevent said waepons being use against the defenseless.
It cannot be said that the police are winning the war on weapons in public even after their own arming and wearing body armor. Perhaps a rethink of policy in light to the goverment changes that have resulted in the environment being altered from one where the majority were safe to where only the minority are, is required.
Is it just the "mentally deranged people" carrying dangerous weapons that you have no sympathy for? What about those who carry dangerous weapons in public while mentally healthy? Is that any better?
If anything I would have more sympathy for those struggling with mental health, however I would also point out that mental health difficulties do not automatically signal a propensity for violence.
His excuse for carrying weapons was due to his perceived failure of the police to take his reports of homophobic assaults seriously. So this is a man who has been caught carrying weapons while in fear of his safety.
While the complexities of mental health and safety on our streets are legion, this case certainly warrants a lot of thought and consideration for the various aspects.
It most certainly shouldn't elicit a blanket statement about people with mental health difficulties, past or present, and a call for them to be locked up with the presence of past or present mental health difficulties as the determining factor, which you have suggested.
Previous coverage of this trial on the Register noted that the accused reported to the police that he is not gay. Under UK law, can a straight man (referring to this case) be treated as a victim of a homophobic assault? Is this the basis for his feeling that his reports were not treated seriously?
(I believe that a homophobic assault would be treated as a hate crime, which attracts more severe sentencing. Should I be corrected on this?)
As noted elsewhere in the comments, being in fear of one's safety is not considered a defence in the UK for carrying an offensive weapon.
The accused clearly has mental health issues. Whatever the outcome of the trial, I hope that as a result of it he is able to receive appropriate treatment for them.
It is the perpetrator's motivations that determine that
Intention of the attacker is what's important here
Worryingly, something qualifies as a "hate crime" if the victim perceives it as such. But I suppose we can take it that they have to be a member of a victimized group.
... as long as this testimony isn't false. Which would be less likely if the Police are not corrupt. Except they now have the power to commit crime without being accountable, while joe public is now a criminal if they exercise their right to remain silent when asked for their password.
Or so some in power want us to believe.
@"Let's just be honest, what kind of twat carries nunchaku?" people who flay rice?
The weapon derives from a period and country where swords were restricted to the gentry, the UK equivelent of say a scythe would also be a weapon if you said you were carrying it for the purposes of attack or defense.
The current knife laws changed the system where intent was required for it to become a weapon, intentionally I believe as the police were unable to deal with the number of people carrying knives and valid excuses for do doing so.
Again another attack on the law so the police can be judge jury and executioner and avoid having to actually prove anything before sending people to prision.
"The weapon derives from a period and country where swords were restricted to the gentry, the UK equivelent of say a scythe would also be a weapon if you said you were carrying it for the purposes of attack or defense."
Modern equivalents might include tools of trade such as tap wrenches, blow torches or, my favourite, the chain saw - as proposed by one of my sensei.
This post has been deleted by its author
what kind of twat carries a knife in public?
Anyone with a reason for needing a knife about his person - such as a farmer. For a farmer, a pocket knife is an essential tool. Sizes vary (oohh arhh), but even an average sized one would be capable of inflicting serious injury if misused.
So stop calling me a twat !
> what kind of twat carries nunchaku?
Oi don't be like that! They're great for entertainment value.
They were all the rage in the 80s but I don't recall seeing a single demonstration where the nunchakista didn't end up hurting himself sooner rather than later.
Conversely, in an actual fight they don't inflict any serious damage and are super easy to grab and dispose of in whichever orifice you find most convenient.
> what kind of twat carries nunchaku?
Oi don't be like that! They're great for entertainment value.
They were all the rage in the 80s
Not with the British Board of Film Censors (the BBFC). The head hocho of that august organisation was seriously down on nunchuks, and ninjas too -- we in the UK were presented with something called the Teenage HERO Mutant Turtles movie. The Turtle character that normally used nunchuks was mostly edited out of the action scenes and only appeared during a comedy skit where he wielded a string of sausages.
Kung-fu movies with Bruce Lee and others where nunchuks were used were also cut to shreds for commercial release on DVD and the like.
What I read:
So war company hires a guy that is gay, no problem.
Guy gets attacked multiple times, reports it to police, but they do the same, apparently.
Guy goes crazy and sells data to bad people because the world is bad to him.
Guy is willing to admit his crime, if the police will admit their crimes against him.
Police say - he's crazy, lets just lock him up till it goes away.
World continues as normal, brutality and bombs away...... :/
Personally I am concerned about the mental health nurse telling police he boasted about knowing the passwords.
The accused party would expect a degree of patient confidentiality from a medical professional - nurse should only have been assessing for mental issues that were relevant, NOT passing on uncorroborated potentially incriminating "evidence" (assuming nurse is being truthful)
If this guy is nuts as people suspect, and was previously diagnosed with mental health issues, why was he still working on classified material? I'm sure if it's a national security issue, there's some way around having him work on that kind of material. Or maybe his employer wasn't paying attention. Which is more of a concern than him not giving his passwords.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
