Reply to post: If Snufflepuff is correct

Scumbag who tweeted vulnerable adults' details is hauled into court

Alan Brown Silver badge

If Snufflepuff is correct

Then Surrey Police have seriously misrepresented the case to the court in order to cover up their incompetence (not unusual in my experience) AND the ICO has gone along with it (The ICO has a credulity issue, often resulting in cases taking many times longer to solve than they should because they keep believing what the officials tell them when there's evidence to the contrary and pretty much have to have that evidence rubbed in their faces.)

The outcome of a case like this (which appears to be 'someone's attempted to whistleblow and demanded action or he'd hand it to the media') might not be what the ICO and Surrey Police were expecting.

IE: In future cases someone might skip the whistleblowing stage and simply go straight to the media, explaining how it got circulated around unauthorised persons and those with no justification to possess it before falling into his hands.

One assumes there was a world class "public defender" appointed by the court and there's no way of appealing.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon