If someone writes a libelous comment then fair go, but many anon bloggers don't so its simple tell no one easy!

ECR blogged on this very case a week ago...

http://eastcliffrichard.blo...

Incidentally, you need to adjust the time for this blog (I posted the above comment at 17:31, NOT 12:31)...

Much talk discussion about this elsewhere:

Media Standards Trust:
http://www.mediastandardstr...

As I said in a comment on that piece by Martin Moore, it is a great pity that The Times have revealed Night Jack's identity.

People take online pseudonyms in blogs etc for a variety of reasons. The majority, in my experience, feel a kind of empowerment: they can engage in a public debate, or question issues they find important without the fear of retribution/mockery on the personal or professional level.

True, not every blogger has altruistic motivations, and hiding behind a false identity does give some people the freedom to write utter rubbish.

But Night Jack was clearly not one of those. It didn't take much to work that out, and there are plenty of others tirelessly trying to shed light on the darkest corners of civic and public life through their blogging.

Yet the action taken by The Times will put some people off taking the brave step of writing about wrongs.

Look. How would you feel if Coroners and magistrates and judges started anonymous blogging ?

The copper is unfit to have ever taken a constable oath.

To hold office he takes on oath to act without fear (anonymity is a concession to fear .. alright for the ordinary person prepared to forego the weight identity leads to opinion. But a constable is never off duty. He is not entitled to anonymity. He should be serving life for undermining the Queen as sole fount of justice.

The Judge should have given judgment on that basis.

The modern police have been selected for lack of moral fibre and for malleability. Not surprisingly they want their high pay, early retirement and overgenerous pensions. But they want public opinion to fight their battles for them. To that end we see anonymous blogs like David Copperfield bleating on.

The Home Office "Key competencies" for officers are unlawful. "Respect for diversity" is in breach of the oath of office "To act without fear or favour, malice or ill will". No fear no favour. Means being blind to diversity.

So the man truly obeying his oath would refuse the Home Office course. Refuse the indoctrination as unlawful. But what we get is anonymous vermin cops attending indoctrination and then bleating away hoping the public will get the Home Office off their backs for them. Ooooh the paper work, oooh the targets, ooooh the soft sentencing, oooh the public don't appreciate us.

Vote with yer feet, stand and fight but don't yield to keep the "job" and then anonymously backstab on the internet eh ?

Throbbers.

Not only tell no one but be very, very paranoid.

Thanks for the link Peter. I'll check the clock on the server later.