Harry's Place

All very well, and I have not posted any links but there is a sense of schadenfreude about this story.

ah, blogspot have just taken the post on their site down … sure it’ll crop up elsewhere.

Since the information is on the internet, isn’t this closing the barn door after the horse has fled?

Fascists are protected by the law? Who knew?

Since the information is on the internet, isn’t this closing the barn door after the horse has fled?

Not necessarily. Making the information more difficult to find is right and proper. Just because there was a breach, that does not mean that it should become a free for all. That would make a mockery of the law, which is in place for very good reasons.

People have been known to be prosecuted for reading material David Shayler posted on the internet during his exile in France.

Was this material originally on computer, or was it on paper? As I understand it, the DPA only covers computerised data.

Notice the “public interest” exception; there are already laws prohibiting members of the BNP from working in the police or prison services, so this list could well assist anyone trying to enforce those laws, as well as anyone involved in litigation regarding racism etc.

I’m grateful this has been clarified. One query though – is there not a difference, in law, between U.R.Ls and H.T.M.L?

Notice the “public interest” exception; there are already laws prohibiting members of the BNP from working in the police or prison services, so this list could well assist anyone trying to enforce those laws

You enforce a law by breaking another law? How does that work? You are suggesting that the state should go through the list checking where those folk work?

Has the UK really got that bad? Blimey.

HTML is the mark-up language used in writing websites. A URL is a “uniform resource locator”, i.e. the string used to fetch a website (usually containing at least a protocol and a hostname, and usually a filename as well).

Police officers among BNP members listed on web

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/19/bnp-names-web-police-security

That wasn’t my query, Yusuf. I understand that a U.R.L. does not constitute, well, a link and posting of the potentially defamatory or private information. However, I said earlier that the list had not previously been pulled, so I did not feel I was seeking out information which threatened by legal action.

It has now. I see little reason for me to look it out again.

Of course, I would love to know what the Uck-U list thinks of this.

If there is a ban on BNP members being police officers, prison officers etc., but some are still members of the BNP, then there is clearly a problem enforcing the law.

However, how do you enforce the law? Without surveillance and breaches of privacy, it relies on folk telling the truth. On the one hand it is understandable, to an extent, why organs of the state may want to ban BNP members from their employ; however, ranged against that are clear privacy issues and the fact that the BNP is a legal political party.

And that’s not just whimsy. I recall seeing a couple of ac.uk email addresses.

“Was this material originally on computer, or was it on paper? As I understand it, the DPA only covers computerised data.”

That was the old DPA – the 1998 version. The latest version – updated by SI (I think) in 2006 covers paper records too. I think the wording is something like ‘relevant filing system’, but it’s been a long time since I had anything to do with it…

I just hope this does not cause a load of small minded “revenge” attacks, that will only entrench bnp members and add fuel to their cause and potentially members reasons for joining.
I have no love for the BNP and do not believe they are helpful in Britain today.
Sadly i see violence ahead, as i would imagine many members live in areas where they see “white Britain” badly eroded, thus equally will be surrounded by people who now will identify them as racist, and likely youths, stupid or small minded people who will target them

Saying this i do agree with Wikileaks cause in revealing data governments and organizations may wish to keep from public view, reading the Guantanamo operational guidance handbooks were most interesting as well as a disgrace to human rights

The European Court of Human Rights has held in its judgment in The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom (no.2) and the Observer and Guardian v. The United Kingdom that the state may not
punish people for publishing information already in public circulation, even though the initial leaker is punishable under law.
So if the government should attempt to punish people for reading the membership list online, it’s in for a very negative ruling from the ECTHR.
Since the HRA incorporates the court’s interpretation of Article 10, the mitigates the reach of the Data Protection Act to the latter imposes a disproportionate punishment for publication of publicly available information.

Wikileaks has a role in helping expose governmental and organisational corruption and malfeasance. I don’t think this is very good use of it though; this pertains to none of that. It’s simply letting itself be used in daft antics, and breaching the data protection of thousands of private individuals into the bargain.

Police officers among BNP members listed on web

So what it’s a legal political party, we also have Muslim police officers.

Is being a policeman whilst a member of the BNP not ok and a devout follower of mainstream Islam not? If so why?

stuffed up blockquotes…try again…

Police officers among BNP members listed on web

So what, it’s a legal political party*, we also have Muslim police officers.

Is being a policeman whilst a member of the BNP not OK and being a devout follower of mainstream Islam OK? If so why?

* for logically challenged idiots, no I am not, in any way, a supporter of the BNP

“So what, it’s a legal political party*, we also have Muslim police officers.”
what do muslims have to do with this? i don’t quite see why being an active bnp supporter stops you from being an officer or in the army etc though, If you were a Klansman as well then maybe, but im sure some bnp supporters are not the slightist bit racially minded.
saying that i would never vote for them, because with enough support i feel they might promote seggregation moreso, wasting my vote with the lib dems seems wiser, they are the only main stream ones who havnt had the oppertunity to mess up our own or others countries.

Is being a policeman whilst a member of the BNP not OK and being a devout follower of mainstream Islam OK? If so why?

I guess for advocates of ban on BNP members taking certain jobs, the argument is centered on homogeneity. Political parties focused on winning votes tend to reasonably monolithic. There are clear sets of principles, manifestos and policies that you sign up to when you join.

Those arguing for a ban on BNP members taking up certain jobs would say their clear support and advocacy of principles and policies that contravene the terms of their employment, or the values of their employer, mean it is impossible for them to be employed in these jobs.

Religion is somewhat more nebulous. Islam is not a monolithic religion, and its interpreted in varying ways. Followers may be devout or moderate. Although various holy books can be said to contravene the policies of employers, the relationship between a religious follower and their holy book is somewhat different from a party member and party policies. Of course, a very devout follower of a religion may fall more closely into the BNP category (as seen by supporters of the BNP ban), but then that’s centered on an interpretation of ‘devout’.

At this juncture I am in two minds about banning BNP members from certain employment. I can understand the reasoning, but there are some philosophical and practical problems with it too.

what do muslims have to do with this?

Precisely as much as do the Police – which was rather my point!

Its right to not allow links to the list of people who are innocent of any crime. They joined a political party. So what.

Contrast this with the names of the main pieces of shit involved with Baby P which for some reason are banned from publication while being widely circulated by e-mail.

Now, there are three people who’s human rights ought to be invaded until human rights no longer apply.

Contrast this with the names of the main pieces of shit involved with Baby P which for some reason are banned from publication while being widely circulated by e-mail.

I am not familiar with the case. Is it sub judice?

“sub judice” is a rule that prevents discussion IN PARLIAMENT of cases before the courts. It has no application to us.

Maven was referring to general publication.

I thought could concern generally public comments, and was wondering if the Baby P case was is sub judice (which may or may not affect reporting). I am unfamiliar with the case.

There may be other reasons why those names are not in circulation, possibly to prevent crimes on their person. People get hot under the collar about these things, so that seems sensible.

The ‘Baby P’ case is not sub judice in Parliament because the only thing yet to happen is the sentencing. The reason two of those convicted may not be identified is presumably to protect their daughter born after the arrest. I would assume that the court has made an order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Incidentally Nick Griffin on the Today programme managed to blame ‘the Labour government’ for the disclosure of the list, which is typical chutzpah when it could only have come from within the BNP and the Labour government has actually made it much more illegal for the list to be passed on once leaked.

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/2159948.church_leader_stupid_to_sign_up_to_the_bnp/

Indeed!

Interesting list. My bosses are having a field day at HQ.

“The impression I got when they joined was that it was just a very British, Christian organisation.”

Yeah, right. I bet when he went to the meetings they were all hard at work studying the Bible!

I’m a Roman Catholic. Should I be allowed to join the police? what if an abortion clinic is burned down? Can I be trusted to investigate. Would a member of the SWP treat property crime properly? What about Lib Dems who believe all criminals are essentially victims of property? Shouldnt they be banned from joining?

David, please delete my old comment and incorporate this one in your update:
Typing at night is not doing me any good.
I meant:
The European Court of Human Rights has held in its judgment in The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom (no.2) and the Observer and Guardian v. The United
Kingdom that the state may not
punish people for publishing information already in public circulation, even though the initial leaker is punishable under law.
So if the government should attempt to punish people for reading the membership list online, it’s in for a very negative ruling from the ECTHR.
Since the HRA incorporates the court’s interpretation of Article 10, the former mitigates the reach of the Data Protection Act insofar as it forbids the republication of information already available to the public.

It would be good if someone could merge the list with google maps!

“Interesting list. My bosses are having a field day at HQ.”

Out of curiosity, what professional interest do your bosses have in this?

“I’m a Roman Catholic. Should I be allowed to join the police?

Yes

what if an abortion clinic is burned down? Can I be trusted to investigate.

Yes, your professional training would prevail.

Would a member of the SWP treat property crime properly?

Just try nicking their wallets, and see how they react.

What about Lib Dems who believe all criminals are essentially victims of property? Shouldnt they be banned from joining?

Do they believe that?

So many houses to bug, so little time…

Ed,

I believe there is a longstanding ban on the POlice being politically active (certainly seems to predate labour, although such rules may change), I recall an Ex-Police officer joined the SPGB saying he couldn’t have joined while he was still serving (and we wouldn’t have had him while he was still serving). IIRC he later left and went and joined the BNP…cock alone knows what was going through his head (I suppose this relates to Brett’s thread, since there can be no similarity between world socialists and fascists, but flakey people do flakey things).

What about Lib Dems who believe all criminals are essentially victims of property? Shouldnt they be banned from joining?

Should they be given special dispensation to sew faux leather patches on the elbows of their uniform? It is part of their cultural identity.

The fascists aren’t restricted by any etiquette about publicising “the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject”

Some funny stuff here, (and some mistakes) and some poor fucker aghast that Rachel Stevens is Jewish. He couldn’t believe it because “Surely not shes so good looking!”
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=229415

Anyone remember the interview with Fuhrer Nick Griffn on TV a few years ago where he was blatherig that the BBC was ‘controlled by Jews’? The interviewer pressed him to name these Jews, Griffin ummed and aahed, was pressed again and again for the names of these sinister BBC-controlling Jews and finally blurted “Well…Gaby Roslin and Vanessa Feltz”. Comedy gold.

So would a policeman be banned from being a member of the Lib Dems? Is being a member of a party count as being “politically active”?
If an SWP member would get annoyed about his wallet being stolen, I somehow doubt a BNP-supporting policeman wouldnt get upset or moved about a black woman being raped, or a young Asian boy beaten up.

Plenty of Labour and Tory supporters are racist, especially by the rather loose definition of the word currently employed. Someone’s views on race and immigration are not the bell-weather by whether someone is considered a good or bad person, even if some of this country’s more weak-minded citizens think so.

Fred West was noted for his progressive views on race, often defending black people against racists. Winston Churchill was “racist” by today’s definition. Likewise plenty of racist police officers do a good job.

I thought the reason (or one of the reasons) for anonymity in the Baby P case is that the CPS might still have another crack at obtaining murder convictions and they are worried about prejudicing any new trial.

Right, er, I should probably remove a certain link from my site…

Love the quote from the Torygraph:

“A BNP spokesman said that Nick Griffin, the party’s leader, has made a complaint to Dyfed Powys Police about the publication.

The spokesman said Mr Griffin alleges that publication of his members’ details violates both the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act, legislation HIS PARTY HAS SAID SHOULD BE REPEALED.”

Nick Griffins home phone number is on that list

I thought the reason (or one of the reasons) for anonymity in the Baby P case is that the CPS might still have another crack at obtaining murder convictions and they are worried about prejudicing any new trial.

But on the other hand, by publishing their names we can be spared the sickening details of a trial and have a public hang, drawn and quartering at Marble Arch, which could be a major attraction.

I favour using bolt cutters as nail clippers myself!

Do we become depraved ourselves if we wish only pain and suffering to these sub-humans or are there times when thinking in such terms is justified?

BTW – anyone got an answer whether it is illegal for BNP to have members from overseas and whether this is a breach of some law about funding of political parties by paying a membership fee?

Not that I’m advocating linking to the list, but what would the penalty be, assuming it was a breach of the DPA?

I was going to make a complaint about misuse of my data a while back but as far as I could see all that would happen is that the data commissioner would have a stern chat with the company involved so I didn’t bother.

David, I’m not 100% sure that the DPA applies in this case for a variety of reasons. I have been told there’s an injunction against publishing it, and I’m also sure that some of those listed could have a case of defamation: we have no idea if the list is accurate, some could have been signed up falsely, etc.

Thus linking to or publishing the list could count as defamation, which could get you sued, is likely to be in breach of a court order, which’d get you in contempt, and may also be a breach of the DPA.

The linking to thing counts I get from here:
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

Which seems to be a good basic guide and I’ve read more in depth advice.

Also, you’re wrong that sub judice only applies to parliament, it also applies to public discussion and publication, which is why the media frequently have to hold off talking about a case until the jury has returned a verdict. Parliament is very strict on enforcing it for obvious reasons, but it specifically does apply to blog discussions as well.

can any body tell me how to locate this list of bnp members
I can be emailed on
gyps1e1957@aol.com

Pointed a colleage who is an expert in information law and she suggests that “the BNP lists are sensitive data – political opinions… – explicit permission is needed for each and every use, so the ECHR let out wont work.”

@andy
Clearly the member list is sensitive information, and the leaker and likely the first publisher in the chain is punishable, but under Article 10 the government can’t indefinitely punish republication of information already available to the public.
Even though the case is not open or shut, the caselaw under ECHR imposes a proportionality requirement when the government seeks to punish publication of information. The premise is that once the infomation has become available to the public punishment is no longer a proportionate response to republication and therefore not necessary in a democratic society.
Under Article 10 an interference with freedom of expression must not only pursue a legitimate aim in the substantive sense — protection of privacy, reputation, morals or the rights of others — but the interference must also be proportionate and likely to attain the asserted aim.
So even though the information is sensitive, the caselaw under ECHR imposes a temperal limitation on how and where the government enforce the law.

Torrentsssss

http://www.smoothound.org is a good read I find.

The leaked BNP members list exposes white Christian racists who would never elect a non-white prime minister; who killed Princess Diana for having a Muslim boyfriend. In order to protect the racists, the BNP list disappeared from the Internet within hours. Anti-Muslims disinformation is available from thousands of websites for years. This only proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that webpage ban laws only work to protect the white Christian and Jewish American and European racist cowards who are not prepared to be named and shamed, and defend their covert abhorrent race hate and criminal acts on TV for the world. The print/air media, law makers, politicians, judges and the law enforcement agencies help protect the BNP cowards. Registered, legitimate and elected white Christian party and their government officials killed Jews in Germany!

“(d) that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing or procuring was justified as being in the public interest.”

Considering this article has “Law” as its keyword and that David T is actually a practising lawyer, I am absolutely staggered at his assertion; “sub judice” is a rule that prevents discussion IN PARLIAMENT of cases before the courts. It has no application to us.

Shame on you David for your ignorance.