You can now link direct to the exact point on the BBC iPlayer by sticking ?t=#m*s at the end of the URL, where # is the minute and • is the second – eg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w089d/BBC_London_News_17_11_2010/?t=11m46s

HAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !!!! ! ! !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!!

Article 19 said,

Under human rights law, any restrictions of free expression must be limited in scope. If there was only one illegal page, the law requires that only that page, rather than the entire website with its protected political speech, be removed.

Yes. It was arguably necessary for the content to be deleted / amended, but it was not proportionate at all to have the whole site taken down.

I say arguably necessary for two reasons:

1. I can see why some of the content on that page might be considered unlawful

2. but surely the inevitability of the Streisand Effect made the police action inadvisable.

That said,

1. did the police contact Fitwatch first? (my guess is they didn’t)

2. is there a mechanism whereby the host could take down a single page? (my guess is there isn’t)

Even the offending page contained legal advice and is not clearly a violation of any law.

It’s really that black and white, is it? So advising visitors to “Get rid of your clothes so mitigate the risk of being convicted for violent disorder”, or “lie to the authorities about being in any videos or photos” (I paraphrase, but fairly) absolutely isn’t perverting the course of justice?

The fact that information *might* be used to pervert the course of justice is not sufficient to ban its dissemination. A writer might need such information to write a story or a screenplay about such activities for instance, without endorsing them.

Anyway, great to see so many people reposting the ‘offending’ article. The I am Spartacus meme is proving amazingly effective: they can’t nick everyone, and they can’t take every site down.

The fact that information *might* be used to pervert the course of justice is not sufficient to ban its dissemination.

Providing specific advice to students worried about being arrested for violent disorder/criminal damage to destroy incriminating evidence is a pretty clear example, prima facie, of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Under human rights law, any restrictions of free expression must be limited in scope. If there was only one illegal page, the law requires that only that page, rather than the entire website with its protected political speech, be removed.

It’s the contract between Fitwatch and their ISP that’s relevant here. Most such contracts have a clause making the service conditional on the website not infringing the law. Since the site wasn’t close as a result of a court order, but because the ISP removed their services, it’s the contract, and not the HRA, that’s important.

ukliberty’s nuanced response seems about right to me.

Some of the liberal-left response to this still strikes me as somewhat self-serving in that people are claiming rights for protesters whose cause they support that I’m not at all sure they would claim for protesters whose cause they oppose.

I would love to pop over to a parallel universe where militant climate change deniers or anti-tax activists had smashed up the headquarters of the Green Party or the Equality Trust, and a far-right blog had published advice on how the guilty parties could avoid prosecution. My guess is that LC would be awash with comments denouncing this as an attempt to set above the law people guilty of an assault on democracy itself, and demanding that the police take action against that blog in order to maximise the chances of successful prosecutions.

(Note: no, I do not think student protesters are as bad as my imaginary extremists. I think the students’ cause is basically right, while my imaginary extremists’ causes are basically wrong. But in a democracy, the police shouldn’t be taking a view one way or the other.)

‘Some of the liberal-left response to this still strikes me as somewhat self-serving in that people are claiming rights for protesters whose cause they support that I’m not at all sure they would claim for protesters whose cause they oppose.’

I was quite clear that I thought the violent groups within the protest were total bell ends, and I’d have defended the same site if it was publishing the same information for the benefit of EDL or Islamist rioters.

Fair enough Shatterface; I wasn’t accusing you or any other particular individual of being inconsistent. I just think this sort of debate is always at risk of being skewed by the sympathies one has or doesn’t have for particular groups.

On this point, though:

“The fact that information *might* be used to pervert the course of justice is not sufficient to ban its dissemination. A writer might need such information to write a story or a screenplay about such activities for instance, without endorsing them.”

– doesn’t the intent of the people disseminating the information make a difference? Disseminating an article on theatrical make-up techniques to an A-Level Theatre Studies class seems fair enough, but passing it to a fugitive murderer with a post-it note attached saying “If you don’t want to get stopped at the airport, try the ‘Old Man’ on page 57; that usually works!” seems a bit different.

Regardless of whether we support the right of the site to say what it did or not, it remains the case that this appears to be a breach of the law, so the police have the duty to act (especially since it might potentially compromise investigations).

Whilst the police should have (and maybe would have – anyone know?) contacted FITwatch as first resort (if they could – do they have a contact address?), it is worth noting the webhost would be prosecuted in such a case, so logically should also be contacted at that time.

There are concerns about freedoms of expression here, but to be honest it is not the police’s job to worry about these. There job is to do with the law, and I am not sure in those terms they have done anything wrong. Of course, the law may well be wrong – not sure I would be able to disagree with that – but it is the law, and the police should have to act according to it.

Tim J, fair point but I remain a little uncomfortable with the police writing to the host and registrar demanding the site be taken down for a minimum of 12 months. It seems excessive.

G.O., thanks. As I wrote on the earlier thread, I like Fitwatch, I think they’ve done valuable work*, but here I think they crossed the line somewhat – it’s not merely “legal advice”, in my opinion, it is advice on how to avoid being caught, and that is wrong.

Take this to the extreme: would it be merely “legal advice” if I posted information for murderers on how to mitigate the risk of being caught and brought to justice?

(I’m sure this information is available elsewhere on the web, in libraries and on TV shows in some form, that is beside the point, and I’m not saying protesters are anything like murderers)

* I’m very uncomfortable with the police retaining photos and films of protesters and journalists, along with their personal details, who have done nothing wrong. Fitwatch and the NUJ have brought to light some pretty poor practice by the police – practice condoned by the government, of course. I can understand the need for video evidence should something criminal occur at a particular event – I do not understand the need to retain it for seven years, cross-referencing it etc if there has been no crime.

It should be said that not all the police are bad’uns; there was high praise for officers at Kingsnorth, for example, who had their collective reputation ruined by idiots who among other things arrested someone for “aggressively picking up litter” and confiscated boardgames, toilet rolls and clown costumes.

Watchman,

Whilst the police should have (and maybe would have – anyone know?) contacted FITwatch as first resort (if they could – do they have a contact address?)

There is an email address on the Contact Us page. I don’t know if they used it.

There are concerns about freedoms of expression here, but to be honest it is not the police’s job to worry about these. There job is to do with the law, and I am not sure in those terms they have done anything wrong

Freedom of expression is “to do with” the law. Now, the police might in this case have weighed “perverting the course of justice” against “freedom of expression” and found in favour of the former, but to imply that they need not consider it at all seems wrong.

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority …

Of course this is a qualified right, but that is not the point.

This is good news. The police would luv it to be Russia.

is redwatch still running ,it would be great to have been on that and fitwatch

a liberties group said its against human rights, O.K we’ll see if Fitwatch are prosectuted for trying to pervedrt teh course of justice telling people how to aviod arrest by destroying evidence agaisnt themselves then we can see if attacking the Tory HQ is a case of hate law, and saying how to cover up attacking the Tory HQ is a case of inciting hatred ,so its not against human rights to stop thats ort of freedom of speech