BNP List of the named and shamed

[microbite]

Does anyone know where to find it on the internet? Would be interesting to see.....

[mockney piers]

Here's the story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/18/bnp_loses_list/

[mockney piers]

If you look around you'll find it.

[Ant]

Much as I dislike the BNP, I'm uneasy about what's been done here. The people on that list have as much right to privacy as you or I. There are children on there - imagine how they're feeling in the playground today.

More in the Graun: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2008/nov/19/bnp-privacy

edited to add: Of course there is a certain element of what goes around coming around, what with all that redwatch nonsense.

[microbite]

I thought it was funny myself, now all those closet racists have been exposed!

[mockney piers]

I guess as long as it remains a legal political entity then you're right Ant.

Mind you I can understand a frustrated angry person voting BNP as a way to protest or send a signal to the political mainstream, but membership?

It does make my blood run a little cold *shudders*

[microbite]

Didn't know children were entitled to vote......and if their names appear on an electoral list, then what were their parents on?

[Ant]

It's not an electoral list, it's a list of people who hold (presumably paid) membership of the BNP. Which, as Mockers points out, does raise it beyond the level of frustrated and misguided protest voters.

[mockney piers]

There are quiet a few in the local area. Publishing something like this may 'name and shame' but as we know from the Sun's N&S campaigns, all it actually does is encourage vigilantism.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Indeed Ant

Although should the BNP actually get any power I'm not sure a right to privacy will be at the top of their priorities. But for now I don't think this list going public does any good at all

[Brendan]

What about the legality of publishing something like this though? Is private information held by an organisation (regardless of how tasteless its ideas are.) protected or not?

[Jeremy]

I think there were 2 in ED, and a few more in Camberwell and Peckham.

Although I'm also a little uneasy about all this, I don't have too much sympathy. And on the plus side, it may make potential members think twice about joining this vile organisation.

[cdonline]

Once I've stopped smiling, it is probably wrong to bring these people's details into the public arena, though the sound of poop hitting the fan is pretty deafening.

Whoever did it has probably done more to bring down the BNP and surely that's a good thing.

Edited to ask, can the BNP be brought to book for not protecting the data they held?

[Moos]

It's hard to feel sympathy, but surely we all believe that we have an intrinsic right to join any club we like and have any belief we like? I'm with Voltaire on this one.

BNP members might not extend those rights to others, but should we besmirch our own principles to their level?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Notwithstanding the phrase "club" which suggests something cosy and benign, these addresses just shouldn't be in the public domain

If you take something like this forum, would we be happy if our addresses were in the public domain - and in theory and by comparison we have nothing to hide

I would argue wether the BNP should be legal or not, but they are - and their addresses should not be out there

[Moos]

No, I would not be happy if our addressses were in the public domain. The 'if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide' argument is the step towards continually having to prove by law that you are doing nothing wrong which erodes our civil liberties. But I am leading the argument towards ID cards, and going off topic.

Although 'club' is not a phrase, it seems an adequate word for an organisation with members.

I think you've put your finger on the right place there - if we don't agree that an organisation should be legal, we can make that argument. But while it is, we must support its right to the same existence and privacy laws that protect us all. If not, whom would you have make the distinctions? I find the thought of it rather unpleasant.

[Brendan]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The 'if you are doing nothing

> wrong, you have nothing to hide' argument is the

> step towards continually having to prove by law

> that you are doing nothing wrong which erodes our

> civil liberties.

Not just erodes. Completely obliterates. It negates the concept of innocent until proven guilty which is a fundamental principle of British law.

[Moos]

To be fair to 'Mac' (hee hee) I think that is what he was saying, too. I wasn't intending to imply in my post that I was countering an argument of his.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I agree with the "nothing wrong bizzo"....if someone says "Do you want to be filmed squillions of times during your lifetime on CCTV as blah blah...offer to follow them 24/7 with a Camcorder as see how they like it up the tuckers:))

[SeanMacGabhann]

Yep, Moos you got me right. I'm dead against ID cards and the constant CCTV monitoring.

Another thing about this list - it wouldn't take much for someone malicious to add some names of people who aren't members - next thing you know, teh neighbours pay a visit tothe wrong person

It's all wrong basically

[*Bob*]

This is an outrage.

If I want to watch online videos of a midget spanking a monkey with an electrified table-tennis bat, then my right to privacy must be protected. It's not like I'm doing anything wrong of nuffin.

[Moos]

The monkey might not agree. And the table-tennis bat would probably be a bit cheesed off, too.

[mockney piers]

Is that a reference to my adding Sean BcGabhann to the list?..doh, caught red-handed!!

I've a weird feeling that political party membership is in the public domain if you look for it anyway isn't it as all political parties need to be completely transparent in their funding?

Is it just the shoving it on the internet that's a bit naughty here?

[*Bob*]

On the one hand of course, this kind of public 'outing' of members of fringe groups (which many will find repugnant) is a worrying occurrence which goes against the very civil liberties which many of of us take for granted. "I defend to the death.." and all that jazz. It's the thin end of the wedge - and a surefire descent down a slippery slope from which there may be no turning back.

On the other hand, I tend to think... f@ck 'em.

[Brendan]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>I've a weird feeling that political party

> membership is in the public domain if you look for

> it anyway isn't it as all political parties need

> to be completely transparent in their funding?

That was essentially my initial question. Is this information legally confidential in the first place?

The legality of the intention behind publicising it may come up though.