I don't agree with the EDL's concerns. However, I'm concerned that someone could loose their job for supporting a political party. Free speech and all that.
A school received hatemail targeting its caretaker after he was wrongly identified as a fascist by opponents of the English Defence League, based on data stolen by an Islamist hacking group. The headmaster of the comprehensive school in Dorset, which The Register has agreed not to name, summoned the caretaker to his office …
Re: Evil Auditor
Yeah I agree. Employers should be able to sack their workers whenever they want. Never mind all those employment protection laws enacted over the last 100+ years. Lets get rid of the unions while we are at it. After all if employers can sack workers whenever they see fit then the unions no longer fulfill a purpose.
Thank you for your fantastic support for our new policies! rest assured that those dastardly trade unions will be put in their place so we can spend more time drinking pimms! and spending their money.
Tell me, do you mind if we cite your post as "A groundswell of support?" Mr Sarc?
...it's called the Human Rights Act. Often derided by the Daily Wail , but can be very useful in other cases. Try these for starters.
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
You're free to do or say whatever you want, but the state will intervene if you commit a crime. In this case I think the anti-EDF sentiment is likely more justified by their history of violent marches surrounded by a litany of other public order offences, including direct attacks on police. Wikipedia seems to list 19 in the last 16 months.
While I don't approve of vigilantes for the reasons highlighted by this article, the EDL is a particularly unpleasant organisation.
They aren't a political party, they are a street army. Formed from groups of organised football hooligans, and recruiting similar individuals. They would have done very well in the SA in the Germany of the early thirties.
Ok. I am a white, middle-class male. As a group, we are the richest, have best access and results in education, white middle-class men and women have the best access and outcomes in health-care. White middle-class males are massively disproportionately represented in A) the boards of companies B) politics C) science D) law E) banking... I could go on. Pretty much everywhere.
I am never turned away from establishments because of my colour. I am never not listened to because of my gender. I am never made to feel unwelcome because of my religion (or lack of it). These things still happen - ask a women, a black person, a disabled person or a Muslim (helps if you know some...).
Bottom of the pile? No. No we are not. Statistics prove things are still heavily weighted in our favour.
If you believe that we are at the bottom of the pile, it is because believing you're a victim of circumstance (rather than you're own inadequacy) is what makes you feel better about the crap bits in your life that you, yes, you, really should sort out.
The man said: "However given the nature of my employment with children allegations like this could have cost me my job and my family their home."
We used to believe in being innocent until proven guilty in this country. We used to believe in the rule of law. We used to believe in due process. All of these have been eroded so that all too often the innocent suffer along with the guilty. The man may be a numptie; there's no law against that. Even if he were a member of a perfectly legal - if objectionable - organisation that would be no reason for him to be in fear of loosing his job and home, either.
You admit that the guy is a bit of a numptie but you are perfectly willing to accept his word that it might have cost him his job? There is no suggestion from the school that his job was under threat. As far as you can tell from the article the headmaster was merely warning him that some violent nutters were making threats against his wife and his family.
But hey, why let facts stop a good old fashioned rant? You know, it used to be that people exercised a bit of common sense and gave others the benefit of the doubt before mouthing off....
Of just how dangreous this kind of crap can be when a bunch of mixed up, self-righteous, morons who are quite willing to fuck anyone over, get hold of a list of names.
Arseholes, the lot of them.
BTW "self-righteous morons" includes all the commentards who start banging on about how great such "membership" disclosures are.
... and free to be sacked as your employer sees fit?
NO, there are employment laws to protect people from such things. The law has been broken, not by the caretaker, but by the "Hacker" It is he/she that should face justice. In this case not hacker, but criminal. I'm sure his actions will have brought him to the attention of the security services. Remember just because you are paranoid does mean that they are not watching you.
Freedom of speech is paramount.
Yes, I *KNOW* the quote I have used it many times myself (as a quick search of my name and the phrase will demonstrate) although actually whilst it's generally now attributed to Voltaire, it's possible that he never said it, but it's a paraphrase of his beliefs see: http://www.classroomtools.com/voltaire.htm
I was not accusing you of threatening anyone, the point I was making was that in your post you put a question mark at the end seemingly querying why the opponents of the EDL should not be allowed to say what they want, however I think you would agree that sending threatening hate-mail goes beyond the right of freedom of speech.
Perhaps the people who down-voted me would like to change their votes now, or don't they agree with *MY* right to express an opinion because *they* misunderstood it?
But it looks like it's being sorted out. At least the school decided to ask him rather than simply fire him.
Also, people, please, there was no danger that he might "loose" his job. He might yet "lose" it for any number of reasons but "loosing" it is not an option. Internet spelling. Now that should be a sacking offence.
Clearly it was the anti EDL's intention by Emailing his employer that this man should be fired and thereby lose his employment and thereby a home for his family (hence 'on the street').
It would appear that you agree with this anti EDL tactic but myself I think it's callous, heartless, cruel and distinctly sinister.
In fact I would go as far as to label them Evil Bar Stewards of the highest order.
Given that his supposed 'crime' was to hold different political viewpoints than to maybe I guess er maybe yours?
What then would your 'punishment' be then for such a 'crime' ?
Life in prison ? Maybe a 're-education camp? Body parts chopped off?
Do tell I could do with a laugh.
A group of hackers who follow a religion which takes very badly any people saying (and drawing pictures depicting) their beliefs and holy-dudes, break security and obtain a document through illegal means which show members of a so-called **anti**-**fascist** organisation, also known for violently not liking very much people who live differently to them and who have different values.
This then leads to a poor bloke who clicked on a vaguely-labelled charitable web-link, the kind which hackers use to get people to buy anti-virus they don't need, and **he** lands with an accusation of having socially unacceptable political views!
This is a pretty 'ucked up world...
If he donated to EDL via a PayPal account, how come EDL have his address? Not to mention, why is such information on a server which is accessible by hacking the EDL website? Aren't you supposed to take care of personal information - DPA or something?
And I totally agree that the "support the troops" button should be investigated as fraud. Who downvoted that one?
That is, in fact, how electronic payments will continue to work until we finally figure out how to make them anonymous. So far, neither bank nor government seem keen on the idea. In fact, some force all such details to be retained for half a dozen years or more, like on behalf of the revenue service (the netherlands: seven years). That's as many years of liability for everyone who's paid electronically for that many years, assuming immediate and secure disposal after said term. Can you count on that? Would you?
The problem with even the most enlightened privacy regulations is and remains that it still forces you to trust the other guy will obligingly comply and be neat and tidy with your data, including protecting it from any and all ne'er-do-wells. I think perhaps a microsecond thought would make obvious this is not entirely realistic.
And because this is a lose once (one hack) equals losing many times (trying to mop up) type scenario, and that's without getting hit by the Streisand effect, it ought to be clear we need something better, and we need it soon. To improve our appaling privacy situation, anonymous electronic payments would be a good start.
nope, having experienced the electronic driving license farce first hand i do a bit of a double take every time i see a headline about the english dipshit league.
poor bloke, tricked into supporting facist dickheads then gets a load of abuse for it. at least his boss had the sense not to kick him out with a jerking knee.
bunch of bastards the EDL are, telling people to support the troops by donating to them, all they're likely to do for the troops is rile a few more muslim kids into going off to the middle east to learn to blow up squaddies. seen a few of them with swastika tatts and throwing up nazi salutes too, how about supporting the troops who got killed fighting those fuckers eh?
Perhaps Evil Auditor is one of our American cousins? In that (red) neck of the woods they enjoy a lot less legal protection in their employment. You can pretty much be sacked because your employer just doesn't like you and they don't have to go through the same level of process we do in this country to remove someone from post.
I remember being TUPE'd into an American company and they sent us copies of thier standard contract of employment and my legal advice was it didn't matter if I signed it or not because about 60% of it was illegal under UK law anyway.
Presumably you think that you should be free to quit your job at any time, for any reason (subject, perhaps, to some reasonable notice period.
Why shouldn't your employer be free to sack you at any time, for any reason (subject to a similar notice period)?
An employment contract, like any contract, should be voluntary on both sides. The government shouldn't intervene to force you to continue working for a particular company, but nor should it restrict your employer's freedom to terminate the contract. As soon as *either* party thinks the relationship isn't mutually beneficial, they should be free to break it off.
Employment laws seem to be predicated on the strange belief that everyone has a *right* to a job.
The welfare state renders employment laws redundant.
Not that I particularly like the UAF either, but there have been instances of EDL events ending up in violence without the UAF being involved (i.e. Oldham this year), not to mention the various times when there have been counterprotesters but the EDL violence has occured away from the actual protest. These are football hooligans we're talking about after all, not the respectable concerned citizens their press officer would have you believe. And this is even before you take into account the death threats against journalists who've covered their events.
Headline = "Hate mob’s terror reign"
Quote from article = "Police say there were no reports of any injuries to officers or members of the public and no damage reported."
Somewhat of a mismatch, I think.
Only once in the last year have the EDL managed a protest without a UAF counter protest, which was September 11 2010 in Oldham. The EDL again attacked a police car.
The normal pattern is that the EDL outnumber the UAF, such as on January 23 in Stoke-on-Trent when 1,500 EDL supporters turned up versus 300 UAF supporters. I guess that wasn't enough UAF supporters to care about because the EDL again attacked the police.
I refute this claim. I am an independent news photographer who has covered half a dozen or so events involving the EDL. I have to make this post anonymously as the morons will try and find out who I am, because in their eyes I'm the 'commy meeja'.
I can't speak for events at Bolton as I wasn't there, but ALL violence at Dudley, Bradford, Leicester, & Nuneaton was instigated and a direct result of drunk thugs aligned with the EDL.
I felt less at risk from attack covering the recent riots in London than I do covering EDL events. In fact, I can't think of another group, outside of football hooligans, that are as prepared to physically attack members of the press as the EDL are.
While the EDL constantly whine about 'free speech', the same organisation declares open season on the press and even have sections on their forums with pictures of reporters & news crews to be targeted for assault at their future demos. The EDL have a very strange idea of free speech that doesn't involve reporting of things like them attacking a restaurant full of women & children post Leicester demonstration.
Just have a read of some of the Facebook pages dedicated to the EDL, they say more about the 'movement' than I ever could.
youve got one group of nobs who wanna smash things up and cause trouble, closely followed by a second group of nobs who wanna smash things up and cause trouble on the grounds that they oppose the first group.
both groups are symptomatic of one thing: large pockets of poorly educated, impoverished, malnourished and above all bored teenagers who clearly have no job prospects whatsoever. Brought up as they were in some shithole town on the outskirts of Cuntsville. Filled with grim terraced houses that are more likely to see a visit from the debt collector than the postman in any given day.
So basically, "wasted potential group a" and "human misery group b" get together on the regular to slap eachother around while those of us in the civilised world fail to give a shit. I wish that last statement was just dark humour, but do any of us really care about these people, really? Evidently not. Otherwise we wouldn't let our government actively fuck them over, then complain when their brains short circuit and they think they be down wit tha fascism yo. Big it up.
"Otherwise we wouldn't let our government actively fuck them over"
If by that you're referring to the welfare trap, whereby millions of people are better off on benefits and having children than working, then I agree. Our government should be acting much more swiftly to withdraw handouts, and make work pay.
"However given the nature of my employment with children allegations like this could have cost me my job and my family their home."
What a great country we live in today. Your political beliefs will cost you your job. Remind me againl we didnt' like the authoritaian USSR because...?
Wretched hoel this country is becoming - all down to the poisonous PC Left and their meddling; and now even the so-called Conservativeparty has bought into the same anti-liberal nonsense. EQUALITY must trump liberty is seems. Well screw that.
The popular press is very slightly right of centre, as have been all the governments here since 1979. It's Tony Blair that attempted to extend the detention limit for terror suspects to 90 days and Tony Blair that essentially made all offences arrestable. "You're either with us or against us" is a refrain of the right, as demonstrated by George W Bush.
Political beliefs may cost you your job but in the general case that's nothing to do with either the left or the right. The mainstream looks poorly upon extreme political beliefs of either leaning and people tend to try to avoid controversy.
Unless you give the police an easy "shopping list" of suspects we all know they will do nothing.
Becuase that's police work 2.0
a) Get a list of addresses from somewhere
b) Lock up everyone on the list while you figure out which of many convoluted laws they can be accused of breaking
c) Everyone gets a raise
d) Streets safer? Not so much
"refute this claim. I am an independent news photographer who has covered half a dozen or so events involving the EDL. I have to make this post anonymously as the morons will try and find out who I am, because in their eyes I'm the 'commy meeja'."
Of course that means that all EDL are evil morons.
Do you think the same about Islamic terror means that all Muslims are terrorists?
"The hacker posted his haul - lists of hundreds of members and financial supporters of the far-right group"
I thought we'd done this one to death in the previous article.
I was prepared to accept that Chris Williams was just being careless, but his continued use of the term "far right" to refer to fascist groups suggests malice rather than incompetence.
You can hate fascist thugs, and you can hate Thatcherites, but don't suggest that their political philosophies are similar.
"far right" is a grossly misleading term. I expect it from the BBC and The Guardian, but not from El Reg.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019