Saturday, December 20, 2008

If you have nothing to hide...

... you have nothing to fear. Unless, of course, a corrupt copper has access to a database containing your information, in which case you need to fear extortion and blackmail.
A London policeman who attempted to blackmail sex offenders and drug dealers has been jailed for six years.

PC Amerdeep Singh Johal, 29, was arrested by anti-corruption cops from Scotland Yard in July 2007. Johal was employed in checking names and address on the police database, called Crimint, on behalf of beat cops.

He abused the role to contact 11 convicted offenders and threaten to spill the beans on their crimes unless he was given "hush money". Johal requested between £29,000 and £31,000 for his silence, threatening to tell work colleagues or neighbours of convicted sex offenders about their crimes. In one instance Johal demanded £89,000 as a "goodwill gesture".

Nice. And only six years? I tend to think that public servants who abuse their powers of access should be given double the normal sentence, at least. Actually, fuck it: lock them up and then throw away the key, pour encourager les autres.

These cases come around with frightening regularity and yet there are still morons who would be happy to see everyone in the country logged onto a database.

As Harry Haddock points out,
No database state. Elected police chiefs. Vote LPUK.

Or, of course, you can keep on repeating that mantra: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Hey, maybe one day, you'll believe it.

You fucking moron.

13 comments:

TheFatBigot said...

The depressing thing is that six years probably is twice the going rate these days.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." is one of those supposedly incontrovertible arguments used regularly by authoritarians. It's up there with "If you disagree with this, you wish to see children harmed" and "If you oppose restrictions on civil liberties, you are happy to see people killed by terrorists" (that one, copywright Peter Hain).

Straw Men 'r' them.

wonderfulforhisage said...

On a point of order Mr Kitchen, isn't the point here that the victims did have something to hide?

Joe said...

But if they've done their time according to the law of the land then they should be left alone and not have some cunt in a uniform trying to blackmail them.

Will said...

What Joe said.

John A said...

"Johal requested between £29,000 and £31,000 for his silence, threatening to tell work colleagues or neighbours of convicted sex offenders about their crimes."

For once, our US nannies beat your UK nannies: over here, we not only have such records, but publicly accessible "sex offenders" registries (one recent addition - a 5-year-old who "inappropriatey touched" classmates) from which it is almost as impossible to be deleted as our "no-fly" files ("I don't care if you are the pilot, the name John Smith is on the no-fly list").

Joe said...

John A: one recent addition - a 5-year-old who "inappropriatey touched" classmates.

Considering most five-year-olds are asexual*, how can there be inappropriate touching? It brings to mind the old adage, "it takes a dirty mind"

* Thinking #3 here
a·sex·u·al (ā-sěk'shōō-əl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.

Alan Douglas said...

My letter printed in the Times and Daily Telegraph last week :

We are frequently told if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear.

Not so. I fear having to prove I have nothing to hide.

Alan Douglas

Chalcedon said...

Apparently there a lot of convicts who are coppers. I also think electing judges would be a good move!

Adrian Peirson said...

This is how the Establishment proposes getting rid of Dissenters, You can be put on the Offenders register for having images stored on your PC, not just kiddie porn, I mean anything the Establishment considers extreme porn, like S&M activities./
The Register does not differentiate.
This way the Mob can take care of political dissent
Very slippery slope.

Look at Project Ore.

http://adrianpeirson.spaces.live.com/

Anonymous said...

I't worse than that, Adrian Pierson. "Possessing (or making) *indecent* images of minors" includes a mass of material that is no-way pornographic, but that somebody might be excited by. It's defined and prosecuted like thought crime, but characterised as "child abuse" by definition, even if no chidren could possibly have been harmed by it.

Verity said...

"... threatening to tell work colleagues ...".

What is a "work colleague"?

Jabba the Cat said...

What is the difference between the shakedown by this street cop and the shakedown perpetrated by the high ranking asian officers in recent months?