Crime and criminals

[SteveH]

Not sure if this is correct, but just read "if a post comes from abroad, they cannot follow up on it" France for example is not geared up for it?. if so this leaves a large loophole in the system.

[Ian]

Not sure if this is correct, but just read "if a post comes from abroad, they cannot follow up on it" France for example is not geared up for it?. if so this leaves a large loophole in the system.

It depends where, but in Europe they certainly can, since what matters is the source. It's common for some trolls to use TOR or another VPN to mask their origins, but the NSA has deliberately exposed flaws in TOR which make it simple to reveal the originators. The other factor is that the originating ISP is usually in the UK, so they can be found. 

[SteveH]

Not sure if this is correct, but just read "if a post comes from abroad, they cannot follow up on it" France for example is not geared up for it?. if so this leaves a large loophole in the system.

This is the quote I was referring to....

"Just one small question: how on earth is this ever going to be enforceable in a medium which completely ignores national boundaries? I now live permanently in France; so if I were minded to do so I could presumably utter the foulest abuse and the most blood-curdling threats against anyone I pleased in complete safety, because I can't see that the French courts would exactly fall over themselves to enforce a UK magistrates' court conviction in absentia under the Malicious Communications Act. In fact I'm not even sure that there'd be a mechanism for doing it."

[Ian]

I can't see that the French courts would exactly fall over themselves to enforce a UK magistrates' court conviction in absentia under the Malicious Communications Act.

Because the UK courts could use other legislation.  If it was considered ABH, for instance, extradition is a possibility. This problem is Europe-wide, so it won't be long before the EC starts formulating law about it as well. And there'll always be someone who claims to live in Bulgaria, or on the moon, and say it can't affect them, but the fact is that the vast majority of trolls in the UK live in the UK.  Interestingly, the only really safe place would be sailing an ocean. Then you'd only have pirates to worry about.   

[SteveH]

  Ian,  Think I'll just stick to the 3T's forum, I know my limitations.

[DaveR]

This is an interesting recent case:

"A council which spent over £200,000 trying and failing to identify a blogger making allegedly libellous remarks has abandoned its legal action."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-28143035

[Yorkie]

The real point is that the Council DID get the infomation.  Why it cost them so much I don't know, probably employed Solicitors.

I managed to get the information within one week and the only cost was my time, a few scans and a few emails to Twitter.
 ZXZ

[DaveR]

The real point is that the Council DID get the infomation.  Why it cost them so much I don't know, probably employed Solicitors.

I managed to get the information within one week and the only cost was my time, a few scans and a few emails to Twitter.
 ZXZ

That's an amazing achievement, Yorkie. This Council had to use specialist solicitors to get a US Court to issue a Subpoena against Twitter to force them to release this information, but you did it all yourself within one week. 

[SteveH]

Who, what, why: What laws currently cover trolling?

Internet trolls could face two years in jail under new laws. But how does the British legal system currently police online abuse.
In England and Wales, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 covers comments that cause "distress or anxiety". Similar legislation applies in Northern Ireland. Sean Duffy was jailed under the act for 18 weeks in 2011 after he made "grossly offensive" comments about children who had killed themselves. Then there's the Communications Act 2003 which applies across the United Kingdom. It covers threats but often overlaps with the 1988 act, McAleenan says. It was used to jail a man who posted offensive messages aimed at the families of Jade Goody and John Paul Massey, a Liverpool boy mauled to death by a dog.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29686865

[Yorkie]

The real point is that the Council DID get the infomation.  Why it cost them so much I don't know, probably employed Solicitors.

I managed to get the information within one week and the only cost was my time, a few scans and a few emails to Twitter.
 ZXZ

That's an amazing achievement, Yorkie. This Council had to use specialist solicitors to get a US Court to issue a Subpoena against Twitter to force them to release this information, but you did it all yourself within one week. 

Actually my Son started me on the right track, but otherwise it was very simple.  As you seem to disbelieve, I will be delighted to show you why it was done and how it was done.  One does not have to be a computer buff, whizzkid, Internet Guru or IT Expert, just have to use the facilities that Twitter supply free of charge and is available to all its users.

The Council's Solicitors obviously didn't know about the simple approach and thus ran up large costs.

To add to what I have said, the hardest part was filling in the Twitter form!

[DaveR]

Can Twitter give me another user’s information?
Per our Privacy Policy, Twitter does not release user information except as required by valid legal process.

https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169998-reporting-abusive-behavior

[Yorkie]

Well there we are then!  Either in my case they made an exception or have changed their guidelines.  The one document I had to fax that fulfilled their legal requirement was a copy of my Passport to prove my name and photograph.

It is lovely to be believed, which they obviously did!

 

[DaveR]

Either in my case they made an exception or have changed their guidelines.

That must have been it. ZXZ

[DaveR]

John Allen guilty of 26 charges of child abuse
Nov 26, 2014 13:02 By Elwyn Roberts


John Allen, the former head of children's homes in North Wales, has today been convicted of 26 of the 40 charges of historic sex abuse against him.

The jury at Mold Crown Court, returned to court this afternoon almost exactly a week since they retired and returned 26 guilty verdicts and two not guilty verdicts.

The jury has now been asked to return tomorrow morning to continue their deliberations on 12 remaining charges.

Allen was convicted of 21 charges of indecent assault, one charge of indecency with a child, two counts of an illegal sex act and two charges of attempting the illegal act.

He was cleared of two charges of an illegal sex act.

The judge Mr Justice Openshaw asked the jury if they wanted to continue their deliberations today or start again in the morning, and agreed that the case should be adjourned until tomorrow.

Defendant John Ernest Allen,73, had during the seven week trial faced 40 charges of indecent assault and other sexual offences upon 20 children, 19 boys and one girl, between 1968 and 1991.

The defendant, of Foxglove Avenue in Needham Market near Ipswich, Suffolk, denied all charges.

He was the owner and manager of the Bryn Alyn Community, a lucrative company that ran several children’s homes at the time when h e was aged in his 30s and 40s.

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/john-allen-guilty-26-charges-8178541

[Mr Tunnock]

An appeal by a Conwy husband and wife to cut the amount of money they must pay back and hang on to their marital home was rejected by a judge.
 A married couple who used fraud to fuel their successful careers as property developers have failed to stop the state seizing £448,000 worth of their assets - including their home.

Michael John Creamer and Anita Creamer, both 50, made a fortune by buying and doing up a string of houses over a 12-year period.

But they lied to mortgage companies about their income and circumstances in order to obtain the loans on which their business was built.

The couple, of Penmaen Road in Conwy, were both convicted of conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud at Mold Crown Court in December 2011.

Mrs Creamer was sentenced to two years in jail and Mr Creamer, who was also convicted of offences relating to credit card fraud, was given four years and two months.

The pair were also hit with confiscation orders, designed to allow the state to claw back the benefit they gained from their illegal activity.

Mr Creamer was ordered to pay  £219,000 and Mrs Creamer £229,000 - a total of more than £440,000.

Today they asked Lord Justice Davis, Mr Justice Simon and Mr Justice Holgate, sitting at London's Criminal Appeal Court, to reduce the amount they must pay back.

The court heard that the assets the confiscation order was based on were the couple's matrimonial home and another property that remained from their portfolio.

The couple argued today that the matrimonial home was only in one of their names and ought not to have been counted as an asset available to both of them.

It was also said that the other house ought not to have been counted as their property, as it was held in trust for their children.

But Lord Justice Davis refused their application saying they were two years out of time to appeal the orders, and in any case had consented to them being made.

The couple's lawyers claimed that ignorance of the law had caused them to consent to the orders and that fresh evidence was now available.

Rejecting their appeals, however, Lord Justice Davis said there was evidence that the "purported trust" in relation to one of the houses "was a sham or became a sham".

He also said that the pair had had a chance to put forward any evidence at an earlier stage and would not be allowed to do so now.

"Enough is enough here," the appeal judge concluded.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/michael-anita-creamer-couple-who-8454041