It appears that Scotland Yard wants a piece of me

Status
Not open for further replies.

jdomaha

New member
Oct 6, 2007
731
14
0
Omaha
pysih.com
From my hosting company:

Hello, we have been recently contacted by the Metropolitan Police Service, New Scotland Yard. They have not been able to contact you, and I cannot give out our clients personal information unless it is publicly available, so I told them I would forward their message on to you. I also told them I would give you their email contact information: Kevin.Williams3@met.police.uk Their message as follows:

<<L 09-04-21 SMR ********.doc>>

Dear Sirs,

Please read the attached letter as a matter of urgency and telephone me on +44 20 7230 7183. If I am not at my phone please leave a contact number and I will return to you.

Yours faithfully,

Sara Royan
for Director

Directorate of Legal Services
Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
London
United Kingdom

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
attached message:

21st April 2009

URGENT: By email and post

Dear Sirs

Re: Baby P: Breach of Court Order (Contempt of Court)

I write further to my letter dated 4th March 2009 (copy attached). As you are aware, I am currently advising the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis with regard to legal issues concerning various publications following the conclusion of the Baby P trial in the United Kingdom in November 2008, a high profile trial following the death of a child. The child's mother and two others were found guilty of causing/allowing the death of the child.

My letter formally put you on notice that a Court Order was in existence forbidding the publication of the names, addresses and any particulars calculated to lead to the identification of Baby P’s mother and her boyfriend, Baby P’s name or any image of his face that was used in the criminal trial.
The rationale for the Order was to protect the privacy of Baby P’s siblings and to ensure that any future court proceedings were not prejudiced. The Order was made by the Trial Judge, His Honour Judge Kramer QC on 14/11/08 pursuant to s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

However, despite this warning, it has come to my attention that certain information in breach of the Order is readily ascertainable on:

Steven Barker, Jason Owen and Tracey Connolly | People You'll See In Hell

In particular, there are, to date, three postings of great concern. They are:

Charmian dated April 16 2009 12.27am
Laraine dated April 17 6.32am
TRC dated April 20 11.19am

In addition, there is a great deal of user generated content on this site which refers expressly to the names of each person covered by the Court Order, and photographs of them have been uploaded.

You should be aware that the Order binds the media and, as publication on the Internet in breach of this Order is, ipso facto, a contempt of court, it appears that the actions of "Charmian", “Laraine”, “TRC” and the Host Company amount to an offence. The issue of Internet dissemination of material in contempt of court is, of course, taken very seriously.

I therefore again ask that you take immediate and active steps to delete the three above-mentioned posts and to disable the posts containing the information covered by the Order.

In addition, as this breach of the Court Order is so serious, please identify the three people who made the above-mentioned postings and identify the person who created the site. Please also preserve the details of the blogs.

Finally, I would ask you to telephone me on + 44 20 7230 7183 to discuss this matter.

Yours faithfully

Sara Royan
for Director

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I believe basically what they are trying to say, is that there is currently a trial going on about this in the UK, and if anyone on the jury saw the content on your site it could possible taint the jury. They are asking you to please take the content down.

I'm obviously in the US. They're obviously in the UK.

I would imagine that I'm covered under the 1st Amendment here. This is important information that the public should have. However, I have nothing but the utmost respect for Scotland Yard and don't necessarily want to start a fight.

Advice?
 


Whoa. I just checked my mail again and came across something from Hushmail. This is the general gist of the e-mail:

I have a contact who is attending the Central Criminal Court almost everyday and relaying the information back to me.

The press are aware of this case and the press gallery has been full everyday. A gagging order is still in place though and this secondary trial is unable to be reported by the UK media until over.

There's some underhanded shit going on in this trial, and someone's sending the details in to me. Whoa.
 
It depends on if you ever plan on visiting the UK or even the EU.

The UK's practice has been to file contempt of court charges against publishers, including bloggers, that violate court orders. They also send C&D notices to Google to demand the removal of links in these cases.

Talk with a lawyer.
 
Ok to start I live in the UK and this case has serious touched a nerve over here. People want to fucking kill these people, by publishing their information you are threatening their lives.

This is not underhand it is just the police protecting suspects a completely normal thing, which I am sure your police must do over the pond too.
 
The case finished awhile ago, they have a court order for no names to be released(is what i gather from the emails) so if you want to commit contempt of court leave the info there, if not, take it down.

I'm not sure of the legalities as you are american. If you want to leave it up, i would talk to a lawyer as this isn't just some C&D. This case got a lot of attention in the uk and people have been getting fucked over everywhere.
 
Ok to start I live in the UK and this case has serious touched a nerve over here. People want to fucking kill these people, by publishing their information you are threatening their lives.

This is not underhand it is just the police protecting suspects a completely normal thing, which I am sure your police must do over the pond too.

I understand that. There's quite a bit more that's involved, however, behind the scenes - at least according to this information that I've been getting sent in to me.

And of course I don't want any innocent to be hurt. Unfortunately, the info is already out there, and it's easy to find if you know where to look. I believe they are more worried about ... uh ... future trials.
 
Oh wow, I just read the story.

Those people need to be fed to angry bears. 14 years in prison? What a fucking joke.
 
Best advice ..take it down, yes it available elsewhere but if some yob kills them and says they found the info on your site..extradition treaty ..they can pull you out of US and ship you to UK for trial for a long technical aiding and abetting thing...odds are they wont grab you for just publishing but still ... grab legal advice of your own if you want to pursue...help grab a free consultation...then call her up and take the stuff down!
 
Remind them that America seceded from Britain, and you do not accept their legal authority. Tell them that Barack Obama is your lawyer and your legal team is the United States Government.
 
Tell them to contact your personal attorney:

Chuck_norris.jpg
 
police protecting suspects...
Well, maybe the Brit propensity to lock down reportage from the courts is for the "protection" of a suspect and maybe it isn't. That's one of the reasons the American justice system is supposed to be run "above board" and in a transparent fashion. It prevents the accused/suspects from getting railroaded by a secret court system/ high-powered accusers(used to work that why to a degree, anyways; before Don Siegelman).

That being said, I'd pull that info and consult some quality legal representation before putting it back up. Most here know about Google's habit of shooting first & saying to fuck with asking any questions. Piss off one little American or the English court? Wonder who they'd side with?
Derr Google is the same gang that turned over the democracy dissidents to the Chinese gov't, right?
"Do no evil" my ass.
 
Best advice ..take it down, yes it available elsewhere but if some yob kills them and says they found the info on your site..extradition treaty ..they can pull you out of US and ship you to UK for trial for a long technical aiding and abetting thing...odds are they wont grab you for just publishing but still ... grab legal advice of your own if you want to pursue...help grab a free consultation...then call her up and take the stuff down!

I agree with this. Especially since I know the site isn't a big money maker, since the OP posted a thread asking how to monetize it. If it was making a shitload then maybe I'd care more about asserting my rights or whatever.
 
wow....just read the story, unfortunately, we have plenty of our own crap here too...I dare say the administrators, really messed up. No words con properly phrase it, none and any of us with kids will feel a heart tug after reading that article.
 
you're an American and this should be covered by 1st Amendment rights... however, if they really get pissy, they could come after you and try to extradite you... you can try to fight extradition, but that's going to cost you a lot of money...

basically it comes down to how much can you make from this as opposed to how much you can potentially lose by fighting it... if one is greater than the other, there's your answer... potential jail time is pretty high up in the loss department, so I'd recommend you take it down...

most of the time I comply with removal requests, simply because it's much easier to remove something than to fight it, especially if that something isn't really making much money... although, it's different if I have something that's banking...
 
So you're in the US, and your host is in the US, and UK police are trying to come after you for violating a court order made in the UK? I have a hard time seeing how they have ANY legal basis for doing so. That's almost like a country in which pornography is illegal, contacting a US based host of a porn site requesting that it be taken down since it violates something in that country's legal process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.