Cop fights the law (of suspected paedophile images)
Airmax
Published: Today
A POLICE chief is risking jail by threatening to defy a court order to hand
back a mass of suspected paedophile images seized by cops.
Detectives held 87 computer hard drives and about 2,500 obscene pictures of
kids in a probe into a possible conspiracy to possess indecent photos.
They were taken from the home of a discredited computer expert, who
previously gave his opinion in court cases involving child porn.
But before Avon and Somerset Police had a chance to examine them, the
68-year-old obtained a High Court order stopping the officers in their
tracks.
Two senior judges declared the warrant and seizure of the property was
unlawful. They ordered police to return the hard drives - and banned any
examination of them before they are handed back.
Chief Constable Colin Port said the ruling goes against all common sense -
and may refuse.
That could leave him in contempt of court and in danger of an immediate
spell in custody.
Mr Port said: "Clearly, defying the court is a serious matter and one that
is not taken lightly.
Indecent
"However, I take the view of what would the public expect me to do? They
would expect me to stand up to it and I am now seeking legal advice and
considering my position.
"We are looking at every option not to return this material.
Advertisement
"We don't know what's on these hard drives, but it is highly likely they
contain indecent material going back to the 1990s. They were found with over
2,500 hard copies of child abuse images and they must have come from
somewhere.
"Common sense dictates to me that we shouldn't be returning indecent images
to anyone - yet I am prevented from even examining the material."
The wealthy former expert obtained notice of a Judicial Review which
effectively froze the police probe. The judges said their search of his home
in Nevill Holt, Leics, was aimed at recovering material their hi-tech crime
unit handed over - and that officers should not have widened their net.
The swoop came after he was convicted as a liar who exaggerated his
qualifications. He was given a six-month suspended jail term for making
false written statements and perjury.
j.c...@the-sun.co.uk
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2432170.ece
ken
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2432170.ece
Heard the one about the Judge who downloaded really nasty kiddie porn
paid for by credit card, and avoided serious charges and being put on
the SOR, as he was warned to delete the material before being visited
by inspector knacker?
k
F Murtz
should have examples of his subject or expertise on his computer. It
seems that his expertise is in question but he used to be used as an
expert by police. Also what makes the police not guilty of the same
offense when they have possession of the same drive. If these police are
experts and allowed to view illegal stuff why do they need outside experts
Big Les Wade
>
>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2432170.ece
Classic Sun lies, no doubt prompted by a deliberate police smear. No
mention that the disputed material was in fact evidence relating to
other cases and held under privilege. In fact, the story implies it is
the "wealthy expert's" private porn collection. Fucking lying cunts.
The real giveaway is that they don't name Bates, doubtless because the
Sun's legal adviser is well aware he would then sue for libel. There
couldn't be a clearer admission that the story is a lie.
--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
Richard Miller
<dsfd...@xfgxfbxb.biz.tw> writes
No we f***ing wouldn't. We would expect him to obey the law and not
abuse his force's powers to confiscate computers illegally.
>"We are looking at every option not to return this material.
>"We don't know what's on these hard drives,
In that case, wtf are you playing at?
> but it is highly likely they contain indecent material going back to
>the 1990s. They were found with over 2,500 hard copies of child abuse
>images and they must have come from somewhere.
>"Common sense dictates to me that we shouldn't be returning indecent
>images to anyone - yet I am prevented from even examining the material."
>The wealthy former expert obtained notice of a Judicial Review which
>effectively froze the police probe.
And believe me, it takes one hell of a serious abuse of police powers
before the Courts would even think of intervening like this. This must
have been the most gross, unforgivable breach of the law by the police.
--
Richard Miller
Webmanager_CritEst
> Airmax <dsfdf...@xfgxfbxb.biz.tw> posted
Jim at CEOP calls on Murdoch to assist, once more.
johnmids2006
at the following url:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/11/police_unlawful_warrants/
and the case report at:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/942.html
The fact of the matter is that if an expert witness is discredited, it
calls into question the weight to be given to their opinion. It does
not mean that they are no longer an expert.
If you read between the lines, it appears that the police were trying
to create a case to the effect that he was not an expert at all from
the start, but that he had set himself up as one with the intention of
gaining access to that sort of material by being handed it by the
police and others in connection with legal cases.
Quite honestly, if someone wants to be a fanciful fiction author, they
should send their ideas to publishers - not join the police.
Webmanager_CritEst
Webmanager_CritEst
>
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2432170.ece
Jim, shut him up ... it is a can of worms you cannot afford to open.
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:
> To: j.co...@the-sun.co.uk
>
> No,
>
> What you mean, is that the police will break the law, again ...
>
>
> NLOwww.critest.com
>
> ***
>
> WM
Jim Bates wins Judicial review!
http://forum.obu-investigators.com/viewtopic.php?t=1616
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
Avon & Somerset Chief Constable Colin Port 'ruling by decree'
category south west | policing | news report author Wednesday August
13, 2008 17:56author by Tony Gosling
Southwest One
The regional ITV and BBC newsrooms have been buzzing over the last two
months with threatening legal letters from lawyers Carter Ruck, all
paid for with public money and attempting to gag the press from
criticising Somerset County Council, Chief Constable Colin Port and
his wife Susan Barnes. Both are party to what must be the dodgyest PPP
privatisation contract ever signed in the UK. .......
http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/688736?comment_order=asc&include_comments=true&print_page=true
Quote:
Avon and Somerset Police cancel this weekend's Sunrise festival
category somerset | policing | news report author Friday May 30, 2008
14:21author by Tony Gosling Report this post to the editors
and probably bancrupting yet another of the south west's cultural
events
Today, Friday, there is no or little rain, so if the weekend's weather
is reasonably good too what on earth is our local fash enforcer Colin
Port's excuse for killing off another major cultural event in the
South West of England?
"South Somerset District Council's licensing team decided last night
to cancel the event" http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/display.var.2307...r.php
"The event which is held in Yeovil, was called off by Avon and
Somerset police after most of Somerset and surrounding counties were
hit by heavy rainfall this week." http://angryape.com/news/2008/05/30/sunrise-festival-ca...oding
Why is this the police's decision????
As I've said several times before Avon and Somerset police's Colin
Port is the biggest criminal in the county. Bristol and Somerset's
'Sheriff of Nottingham.'
Covering up the death of Republican Lawyer Rosemary Nelson; only
promoting people 'within his clique' and passing over the best
detectives for promotion; giving (privatising) SouthWest One which
includes all police civilian support services to his wife! what will
this bloody masonic vandal do next? He should be behind bars to
protect the public ....
Quote:
Further to the events surrounding a Tribunal claim against Avon &
Somerset Constabulary,
The victim has been forced to resign from this U.K Police Force for,
no other reason than, treatment received from Chief Officers.
Bobbywatch.co.uk has viewed a report written by the officers direct
Supervisor who, holds the rank of Police Sergeant and states:
" name withdrawn is a competant, keen officer that performs his duties
to a good standard with minimal supervision"
The officers Line manager, who holds the rank of Inspector has agreed
to attend any tribunal in order to give details of good character and
offer details of his knowledge surrounding the outstanding claim.
The Chief officer of the Avon & Somerset Police Force has been made
aware that this ex officer plans to continue a career with another
force and in response has stated to the victim that:
The Avon & Somerset Constabulary will provide on request form another
force, A written reference, Copies of the officers personal
development file and will not disclose any details relating to his
complaint against the force.
Sounds fair!
Until....
However, if the force has to attend court, we will disclose details of
the race discrimination & Constructive dismissal claim to future
employers.
wow.... Surely thats blackmail.
If this force is innocent of all allegations then, whats the problem?
If this force has a Policy to disclose details of tribunal claims
then, why offer to withhold disclosure, breach its own or maybe home
office policy?
http://www.bobbywatch.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=51.0
Quote:
Irish News 13/03/03
A former soldier and a police informant are among 10 suspects in the
murder of solicitor Rosemary Nelson, the Irish News has learned.
It is understood both men are serving jail terms for loyalist
paramilitary activity unrelated to the case, but have been identified
as suspects in the plot to kill the high-profile solicitor.
This weekend marks the fourth anniversary of the murder of the Lurgan
mother-of-three ...
... Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk Colin Port stepped down as head
of the investigation late last year.
And despite police pledges that the hunt for the killers has
continued, relatives of the murdered solicitor have expressed concerns
the investigation is effectively over.
http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/cases/rosemary/030313in.html
Rosemary Nelson was killed in a loyalist booby trap car bomb attack
outside her home in Lurgan, County Armagh, on 15 March 1999.
The murder was claimed by loyalist splinter group the Red Hand
Defenders but there have been allegations of security force collusion
because of Mrs Nelson's role as solicitor for the nationalist Garvaghy
Road Residents' Coalition and other high profile cases.
Norfolk Assistant Chief Constable Colin Port, who is heading the
investigation, made a renewed call for information about the murder in
a television broadcast throughout the UK on Wednesday night.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/904235.stm
Quote:
Belfast police covered up Protestant outlaws' role in 10 killings ...
... The published report did not identify by name any of the retired
Special Branch officers involved in collusion. A secret version of the
report that includes these names was delivered over the weekend to
Orde, Hain and a handful of other British officials ...
... Blair's secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Peter Hain, said
UVF veterans and former police officers both should stand trial for
crimes.
http://xuk.biz/UKLR/Landslide/jg_pdf/times_20070122.pdf
Quote:
The North's Police Ombudsman has published a damning report concluding
that senior police officers protected loyalist paramilitaries involved
in up to 15 murders between 1991 and 2003.
http://xuk.biz/UKLR/Landslide/jg_pdf/jim_gamble.htm
***
WM
MM
Just in case people visit ITV West in a vain hope to watch the Public
Service, Private Gain video, in which certain persons related to the
saga are mentioned, here is a link I found:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3537821647600003346
MM
Steve Walker
> By JOHN COLES
> Published: Today
> A POLICE chief is risking jail by threatening to defy a court order to
> hand back a mass of suspected paedophile images seized by cops.
" Chief Constable Colin Port said the ruling goes against all common
sense - and may refuse. That could leave him in contempt of court and in
danger of an immediate spell in custody.Mr Port said: "Clearly, defying the
court is a serious matter and one that is not taken lightly. "However, I
take the view of what would the public expect me to do? "
To appeal to the tabloid mob for support in defying a ruling of the High
Court is utterly disgraceful behaviour for a police officer. He should be
dismissed immediately.
Steve Walker
> Just in case people visit ITV West in a vain hope to watch the Public
> Service, Private Gain video, in which certain persons related to the
> saga are mentioned, here is a link I found:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3537821647600003346
>
Private Eye have covered this, it looks like a very poor business decision
Webmanager_CritEst
... perhaps they reached 'the chaos', in their little boat.
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
He may have few given few options.
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
WTF?
He may have been given few options.
WM
Big Les Wade
Webmanager_CritEst
> Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@critest.com> posted
>
>
>
> >He may have been given few options.
>
> By whom?
>
> --
> Les
> Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
> to be linked to serious offences.
Allow me to add a comment, from someone elsewhere, to what I have
already posted:
"There is more than a “tenuous” link to NI. Apart from Gamble’s former
employment, there is a little matter of Peter Hain. Northern Ireland
Secretary at the time the police ombudsman’s report indicated that
there was evidence of RUC Special Branch involvement in murder, Mr
Hain stated it would not be in the public interest to prosecute
anyone. A curious reaction. Back in 2004, there were rumours on the
internet of Hain being on the original list from Ore. This may or may
not be true. Those stories have now disappeared, along with other
allegations about New Labour cabinet ministers from early in Blair’s
regime.
In addition, Mr Port’s involvement in investigating a case which
implicated RUC Special Branch is interesting. Mr Port was, at the
time, Assistant CC in Norfolk. The same Norfolk where Carole Howlett
was Chief Constable. That is the same Carol Howlett who, prior to her
appointment as CC, was ACPO spokesperson on child abuse and the
internet, and spokesperson for the MET on Ore. She was pushed out of
her job a while ago for reasons which were never fully disclosed, but
appeared to have links with the Ruth Kelly affair and employment of
people on the SOR as a result of Ore.
I think there is a lot more to come out of this story yet. Whether it
will ever see the light of day is another matter."
*****
WM
Webmanager_CritEst
This latter occurred, during the bill stage, which led to the
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
WM
Big Les Wade
>Allow me to add a comment, from someone elsewhere, to what I have
>already posted:
>
>"There is more than a “tenuous” link to NI. Apart from Gamble’s former
>employment, there is a little matter of Peter Hain. Northern Ireland
>Secretary at the time the police ombudsman’s report indicated that
>there was evidence of RUC Special Branch involvement in murder, Mr
>Hain stated it would not be in the public interest to prosecute
>anyone. A curious reaction. Back in 2004, there were rumours on the
>internet of Hain being on the original list from Ore. This may or may
>not be true. Those stories have now disappeared, along with other
>allegations about New Labour cabinet ministers from early in Blair’s
>regime.
>
>In addition, Mr Port’s involvement in investigating a case which
>implicated RUC Special Branch is interesting. Mr Port was, at the
>time, Assistant CC in Norfolk. The same Norfolk where Carole Howlett
>was Chief Constable. That is the same Carol Howlett who, prior to her
>appointment as CC, was ACPO spokesperson on child abuse and the
>internet, and spokesperson for the MET on Ore. She was pushed out of
>her job a while ago for reasons which were never fully disclosed, but
>appeared to have links with the Ruth Kelly affair and employment of
>people on the SOR as a result of Ore.
>
I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are getting at. Stuff like "A
used to work with B who was once suspected of C who used to know some
people in D where A's mother used to go on holiday". It all sounds too
much like smear by association.
If somebody has a theory that these parties are somehow colluding in
wrongdoing, let's hear exactly what the theory claims about who is doing
what wrong to whom and why, and what the evidence is.
Webmanager_CritEst
> Webmanager_CritEst <webmana...@critest.com> posted
Sorry you cannot see the whole story, as yet, no one can. No need to
clarify, further, at this time. Too many lives at stake.
This is all being read by those who need to 'do the right thing'.
WM
MM
It really does sound as if there is an iceberg out there, waiting to
hit something unsurmountable, while we keep seeing only the tip.
MM
Jethro
wrote:
> In message <rrydnbaUI6CdxpPXnZ2dnUVZ8jqdn...@bt.com>, Airmax
> <dsfdf...@xfgxfbxb.biz.tw> writes
Jean Charles de Menezes may beg to differ ....
Cynic
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And believe me, it takes one hell of a serious abuse of police powers
>before the Courts would even think of intervening like this. This must
>have been the most gross, unforgivable breach of the law by the police.
It was. The seizure was from Jim Bates, until his recent conviction
for perjury, a highly respected computer forensic expert. His reason
for having HDDs containing illegal images is exactly the same as the
reason the police have them - to investigate a possible crime.
Jim had the misfortune to discover some extremely serious
irregularities in the methods the police used in their "Operation Ore"
investigations. He has very persuasive evidence that many Ore cases
were prosecuted on the basis of deliberate falsehoods and misleading
witness testimony from the police and prosecution experts, and that
much information that would have been useful to the defence was
withheld.
Since that time he has been vigourously pursued by the police. They
first charged him with perjury, and obtained a conviction - though the
judge did remark that his expertise and the validity of his expert
testimony in cases he was called as a witness is not in doubt.
Then they arrested and charged him with possession of indecent images
of children based on hard disk drives that had been willingly handed
to him by the police for him to forensically examine on behalf of a
suspect. They searched his home and seized *all* his computer
material, including of course evidence that he had amassed regarding
his allegations about the Operation Ore cases.
I am not a conspiricy theorist, but in this case I believe that the
police have followed a very clear agenda. They have to discredit him
so that his allegations are not taken seriously, and also needed a way
to get hold of the incriminating evidence that he held on them.
I cannot see that he has any hope of getting that evidence back
intact, and has been convicted of perjury, so perhaps the police have
succeeded whatever the outcome. I believe that the statement in the
OP may be a softening-up to justify the outcome - which will be that
Jim will get all his property back, but with the HDDs erased on the
grounds that it would be wrong to give back "child abuse images".
--
Cynic
Cynic
>It really does sound as if there is an iceberg out there, waiting to
>hit something unsurmountable, while we keep seeing only the tip.
Yup. I just hope that the right ship ends up being sunk.
--
Cynic
Janitor of Lunacy
I don't think there's a general exemption from the law for forensic experts,
and even more so when he is not engaged in a current investigation. I can
think of no lawful or rational reason for him to possess any such images,
although the actions of the police here do not appear to be clean-handed. Of
course, if he's got any sense, he will have encrypted backups held at a
different address, if he really does need these images. But I don't see how
he does need them.
Webmanager_CritEst
Your response confirms your lack of understanding of the case.
Investigations were ongoing, that is the whole point.
WM
Big Les Wade
>I don't think there's a general exemption from the law for forensic
>experts,
There is no exemption from the law, but the law itself contains
exemptions; for example the POCA 1978 s.1(4)(a) "legitimate reason"
defence. IIRC the legislation was amended a few years ago to extend
this exemption.
>and even more so when he is not engaged in a current investigation. I
>can think of no lawful or rational reason for him to possess any such
>images,
For example, to help an accused person construct a defence against a
POCA prosecution.
>although the actions of the police here do not appear to be
>clean-handed. Of course, if he's got any sense, he will have encrypted
>backups held at a different address, if he really does need these
>images. But I don't see how he does need them.
The point is not so much that he needs the images, than that the police
had no business taking the disks away. By doing so they have breached
privilege.
Cynic
<gh...@attic.info> wrote:
>I don't think there's a general exemption from the law for forensic experts,
Yes, there certainly is an exception for forensic experts who are
investigating a crime. Otherwise the crime could not be investigated!
>and even more so when he is not engaged in a current investigation.
He *was* investigating a current alleged crime. Moreover there is
also a good case for people who are regularly involved in such
investigations to have a databank of images. Images that are
circulated on the Internet often have changes made to them. A person
will download an image, edit or watermark it and upload it. By
keeping a databank of images, the timeline of such alterations can be
determined which greatly assists with determining the probity and
possible source of images on a new evidential drive. Also, new images
can be compared with older images to see whether they were taken in
the same location or of the same subjects. Clues in one photograph
may be insufficient to determine anything, but if taken together with
clues in other images may together be able to identify location,
victim and/or perpetrator.
> I can
>think of no lawful or rational reason for him to possess any such images,
>although the actions of the police here do not appear to be clean-handed. Of
>course, if he's got any sense, he will have encrypted backups held at a
>different address, if he really does need these images. But I don't see how
>he does need them.
It is *not* about illegal images at all. That is the police spin.
AFAIAA it is not even known whether the drive in question *contains*
such images. The suspicion is that the possible presence of illegal
images was used merely as the pretext for seizing the *real* target
material - which is evidence against the authorities. That evidence
is mostly server logs and similar, *not* illegal images!
--
Cynic
MM
wrote:
The Janitor may care to think of it like the MPs trying to suppress
the Freedom of Information Act in respect of themselves.
MM
Big Les Wade
> The suspicion is that the possible presence of illegal images was used
>merely as the pretext for seizing the *real* target material - which is
>evidence against the authorities.
Jesus. It's as corrupt as that? I never realised. I thought the raid and
seizure was just part of the persecution campaign against Bates.
He must have backups. Surely.
Jethro
> Janitor of Lunacy <gh...@attic.info> posted
>
> >I don't think there's a general exemption from the law for forensic
> >experts,
>
> There is no exemption from the law, but the law itself contains
> exemptions; for example the POCA 1978 s.1(4)(a) "legitimate reason"
> defence. IIRC the legislation was amended a few years ago to extend
> this exemption.
>
> >and even more so when he is not engaged in a current investigation. I
> >can think of no lawful or rational reason for him to possess any such
> >images,
>
> For example, to help an accused person construct a defence against a
> POCA prosecution.
>
> >although the actions of the police here do not appear to be
> >clean-handed. Of course, if he's got any sense, he will have encrypted
> >backups held at a different address, if he really does need these
> >images. But I don't see how he does need them.
>
> The point is not so much that he needs the images, than that the police
> had no business taking the disks away. By doing so they have breached
> privilege.
The concept of privilege no longer exists in UK law - RIPA trumps it.
Cynic
wrote:
>> The suspicion is that the possible presence of illegal images was used
>>merely as the pretext for seizing the *real* target material - which is
>>evidence against the authorities.
>Jesus. It's as corrupt as that? I never realised. I thought the raid and
>seizure was just part of the persecution campaign against Bates.
>He must have backups. Surely.
We will no doubt find out in due course.
--
Cynic