Thursday
Dec152011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Norfolk Vice
Dec 15, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: other Suddenly, as if by magic, Norfolk Constabulary, asleep atop their haystacks, have been transformed into something out of Miami Vice. Tallbloke reports:
An Englishman’s home is his castle they say. Not when six detectives from the Metropolitan Police, the Norfolk Constabulary and the Computer Crime division arrive on your doorstep with a warrant to search it though.
I waved the first three in and bid them head through to the sitting room, where there was less of an chill near the woodburner. Then they kept coming, being introduced by the lead detective from Norfolk as they trooped in. I thought I’d been chosen to host the secret policemen’s ball or something.
Reader Comments (160)
Commercial spam above, Andrew.
"Your post was so wonderful that I decided to bookmark this site,"
[Thanks, now dealt with. BH]
dougieh: "they will be looking for ways to bring this arena back under their control & if that means blocking/moding they will go for it (hope i'm wrong & paranoid)"
Wish that were paranoia, Doug -- but free speech/opinion ain't that lucky. Worry on; you are in excellent (if somewhat despairing) company, and there are loose associations fighting to hold the freedom of the web in many places.
"If I had been among the first to download and blog the CG2 emails (because someone posted a link to them in comments on my blog) I would have expected a visit from plod at some point. Wouldn't you?"
Not really. Bob Ward, maybe.. :-)
Ok, there’s been some over-the-top comment here, but that’s to be expected. No doubt Monbiot will be sifting through the above thread, picking out quotes to prove that we’re all swivel-eyed conspiracy theorists - that’s his job, as he sees it. (As he himself admitted, he’s not competent to judge the science discussed in the CRU emails, so he has to make do with examining the motives of those who are).
In an ideal world, we’d all be sensible and await events before leaping to conclusions. But this isn’t an ideal world, it’s a blog, and a libertarian one. The argument that this was just the police doing their duty would be more convincing if, say, James Murdoch had had all his computers confiscated.
The price of liberty is eternal conspiracy theorising. Keep it up lads and lasses.
This is probably a bit late. I'm an expert in Police raids ( I work for the bad guys ).
I have never, ever, seen an ADSL modem be seized before. Is this a new trend?
I should point out that my basic income these days is helping defend bad guys who have been raided (incompetently)
I have often thought how I would conduct a raid. What I've seen so far in my career is rubbish.
Seizing the modem is one of my priorities. As is full internet tapping before and during the raid. They should also have a wireless access scan to see what other devices are connected.
As a defence expert, failure to do a belts and braces raid leaves open huge holes that can be explited by the defence.
BBD Dec 15, 2011 at 4:33 PM
If he had barred their entry, he would have been arrested and watched subsequent events , in handcuffs, from a police car without any further say in the matter.
Martin A
You are the last of many to say something like this.
Let's remember a few things:
- Why did the police raise a search warrant? This is utterly relevant
- No force of any kind was used
- Certainly if TB had refused the police entry, they would have arrested him. This goes for anyone obstructing the police when they are doing anything. It is not relevant
Let's move on, shall we?
The warrant (See CA for a picture) authorises the police to search in relation to an "indictable offence" . Can someone help here, precisely what indictable offence is actually under investigation?
Ah yes - "Move On"
Favourite phrase of the left whenever they get caught out doing something unpleasant.
Memories of good old Bill and the icky sticky little blue dress.
"Evenin' sir"
"Good evening constable, can I help you?"
"I'm afraid I'm 'ere regarding a most serious matter sir. Information has come to light that you may 'ave been diseminatin' opinions prejudicial to the thermal equilibrium of our children yet unborn - and contrary to the "Compulsory belief in the latest IPCC findings" section of the 2011 Climate Stability act. You do know that's an 'ate crime now don't you?"