British and Proud
09-01-2009, 07:42 PM
A Paltry £200 Fine For List Leaker! (http://unrepentantbritishnationalist.blogspot.com/2009/09/paltry-200-fine-for-list-leaker.html)
It was reported this afternoon that the only person found guilty of leaking the BNP's membership list has been fined a mere £200. The following extract is from The Telegraph:
Former BNP member fined £200 for releasing membership online
A former member of the British National Party, Matthew Single, was fined £200 after he admitted releasing membership details online.
Published: 10:59AM BST 01 Sep 2009
Single, 37, formerly of Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, admitted disclosing the names, addresses and occupations of some 12,000 members in a blog on the internet. The charges were dropped against his wife, Sadie Graham-Single.
Single, 30, was not at Nottingham Magistrates' Court on Tuesday. District Judge John Stobart also ordered Single to pay £100 towards the cost of the
Now I'm certainly no legal expert, but I'd have thought leaking confidential information of this nature would have been a transgression of the Data Protection Act. Seeing as Single released the data nearly a year after he and Sadie had been expelled from the party, it is obvious that not only did he now hold the information unlawfully, but he also failed to keep the information safe - in fact he willfully published it, and presumably with malicious intent!
Now I understand that the maximum penalty for misusing personal data is an unlimited fine so the imposition of what ultimately amounts to a £300 fine is pathetic and definitely not retribution for the anxiety and suffering this bastard has caused.
Let's not underestimate the suffering this man caused. The following is from The Independent:
More than 160 complaints were made to the police from BNP members across the country after they became victims of revenge attacks following the publication of the list last November.
.
.
.
Outside court, Detective Sergeant Chris Reynolds said he was "disappointed" with today's result.
He added: "It's taken a great deal of work to get the case to court.
"There was pretty serious stuff after what happened. People were fearful for their safety.
"There was an arson attack on a vehicle; there were daubings and malicious communications.
"White powder was also put through people's letterboxes purporting to be anthrax and there were daubings of swastikas on garage doors and on homes."
Does a £300 fine seem just, given the incidents reported above? I personally received a threatening letter and emails, none of which I reported.
Biased Judiciary
The Telegraph quoted the judge thus:
"What you put on the internet can never be taken from it and while there may be some members in this organisation who do not deserve to be protected by the law they should be able to expect that officers within the organisation will not abuse the information provided to them."
I'd be intrigued for him to elaborate on this. I wonder who it is he believes should not receive protection from the law, and why? People convicted of the most heinous vicious crimes are afforded police protection after their release - the murderers of James Bulger, for example. Does he really believe that some of us are not entitled to live in peace and safety because we hold heretical political beliefs? To me that is a frightening indictment of the state of our judiciary. The 'march through the institutions' promised by the crypto-communists was clearly achieved long ago.
Cocooned in his ivory tower
"It comes as no surprise to me that somebody to do with an organisation that prides itself on Britishness is in fact living off the British people on Job Seeker's Allowance and that is why the fine is so low as to be ridiculous.
Is Judge John Stobart not aware that we are in the midst of the most sever recession since the 1930s? Probably not. He is clearly cocooned in his own ivory tower, and that's why he doesn't appreciate the reasons why people like me - employed and with not a single criminal conviction - have joined the British National Party.
It was reported this afternoon that the only person found guilty of leaking the BNP's membership list has been fined a mere £200. The following extract is from The Telegraph:
Former BNP member fined £200 for releasing membership online
A former member of the British National Party, Matthew Single, was fined £200 after he admitted releasing membership details online.
Published: 10:59AM BST 01 Sep 2009
Single, 37, formerly of Brinsley, Nottinghamshire, admitted disclosing the names, addresses and occupations of some 12,000 members in a blog on the internet. The charges were dropped against his wife, Sadie Graham-Single.
Single, 30, was not at Nottingham Magistrates' Court on Tuesday. District Judge John Stobart also ordered Single to pay £100 towards the cost of the
Now I'm certainly no legal expert, but I'd have thought leaking confidential information of this nature would have been a transgression of the Data Protection Act. Seeing as Single released the data nearly a year after he and Sadie had been expelled from the party, it is obvious that not only did he now hold the information unlawfully, but he also failed to keep the information safe - in fact he willfully published it, and presumably with malicious intent!
Now I understand that the maximum penalty for misusing personal data is an unlimited fine so the imposition of what ultimately amounts to a £300 fine is pathetic and definitely not retribution for the anxiety and suffering this bastard has caused.
Let's not underestimate the suffering this man caused. The following is from The Independent:
More than 160 complaints were made to the police from BNP members across the country after they became victims of revenge attacks following the publication of the list last November.
.
.
.
Outside court, Detective Sergeant Chris Reynolds said he was "disappointed" with today's result.
He added: "It's taken a great deal of work to get the case to court.
"There was pretty serious stuff after what happened. People were fearful for their safety.
"There was an arson attack on a vehicle; there were daubings and malicious communications.
"White powder was also put through people's letterboxes purporting to be anthrax and there were daubings of swastikas on garage doors and on homes."
Does a £300 fine seem just, given the incidents reported above? I personally received a threatening letter and emails, none of which I reported.
Biased Judiciary
The Telegraph quoted the judge thus:
"What you put on the internet can never be taken from it and while there may be some members in this organisation who do not deserve to be protected by the law they should be able to expect that officers within the organisation will not abuse the information provided to them."
I'd be intrigued for him to elaborate on this. I wonder who it is he believes should not receive protection from the law, and why? People convicted of the most heinous vicious crimes are afforded police protection after their release - the murderers of James Bulger, for example. Does he really believe that some of us are not entitled to live in peace and safety because we hold heretical political beliefs? To me that is a frightening indictment of the state of our judiciary. The 'march through the institutions' promised by the crypto-communists was clearly achieved long ago.
Cocooned in his ivory tower
"It comes as no surprise to me that somebody to do with an organisation that prides itself on Britishness is in fact living off the British people on Job Seeker's Allowance and that is why the fine is so low as to be ridiculous.
Is Judge John Stobart not aware that we are in the midst of the most sever recession since the 1930s? Probably not. He is clearly cocooned in his own ivory tower, and that's why he doesn't appreciate the reasons why people like me - employed and with not a single criminal conviction - have joined the British National Party.