tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712706263695364665.post8735955329784420882..comments2023-09-28T09:58:52.368+00:00Comments on Critical Faculty Dojo: Animal rights activists forced to hand over computer passwordsCFD Edhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14176957304124700156noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712706263695364665.post-40125771925519061262007-11-23T07:55:00.000+00:002007-11-23T07:55:00.000+00:00Surreptitious, According to the anonymous post at ...Surreptitious, According to the anonymous post at indymedia, Anonymous received the (not specifically stated but implied) section 49 notice on November the 3rd. It had, according to their report, been sent by Hampshire CPS.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Given that the CPS can effectively direct a police investigation to gather additional evidence, or clarify existing evidence it is not beyond the realms of possibility they may be writing/serving notice on behalf of the police. <BR/><BR/>Granted it is also not beyond the realms of possibility they may be ‘trying it on’. Anonymous is not clear, but there is the implication that they are referring to section 49 notices. <BR/><BR/>I am no particular fan of the Beeb and have frequently criticised their reporting, however I can see nothing in the post that substantially disagrees with the main thrust of the BBC report. Given that the Beeb almost certainly have contacts within the animal rights movement I doubt even they would have done a story solely on the strength of an anonymous posting.CFD Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14176957304124700156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712706263695364665.post-36265793547021920232007-11-22T17:19:00.000+00:002007-11-22T17:19:00.000+00:00The original lass's posting to indymedia. I think...The original lass's <A HREF="http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/385589.html" REL="nofollow">posting to indymedia</A>. I think the original Beeb article was a <A HREF="http://www.surreptitiousevil.com/2007/11/bbc-talks-security-bollocks.html" REL="nofollow">load of bollocks</A> spake by Mr Ward.<BR/><BR/>I do agree with you about (Part III at least) of the Act and that, if it does come to a S49 notice, then the police will issue it.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712706263695364665.post-85726042864832563362007-11-22T15:00:00.000+00:002007-11-22T15:00:00.000+00:00Surreptitious, I guess the BBC may have got it wro...Surreptitious, I guess the BBC may have got it wrong again. Do you have a reference to your source about the non issue? I would expect the Police would be the investigating body, so they would be the likely source of any eventual order.<BR/><BR/>In any event I was using the report to remind and highlight the threat the act now poses. <BR/><BR/>What amazes me is that the public just seems to mentally drift away from this sort of thing and protest/objection just seems to tail off, but that may be more an artefact of MSM reporting.CFD Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14176957304124700156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7712706263695364665.post-78756563471850820712007-11-22T11:47:00.000+00:002007-11-22T11:47:00.000+00:00Yes, noted and warned against endlessly both durin...Yes, noted and warned against endlessly both during the original passing of RIPA and during the more recent negotiations regarding the Code of Conduct for Part III. This is horrid legislation and the CoC does not make it either better or clearer.<BR/><BR/>But, at the moment, it appears that they have not been served a Section 49 notice and the CPS are not (and were not, even at its broadest, IIRC) a "Relevant Public Authority".<BR/><BR/>And, yes, the gagging orders make a bad law worse.Surreptitious Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15393411103584747731noreply@blogger.com