Dole bludger fined for BNP leak
List leaker was party insider
A man has been fined £200, for data protection offences relating to publishing the British National Party's membership list last year.
Mathew Single, 37, of Church Lane, Brinsley, Nottinghamshire was fined by Nottingham magistrates after he admitted disclosing data without consent. Charges against his wife, 30-year old Sadi Graham-Single, were dropped.
Judge John Stobart said he was surprised to find the offences only merited a fine, not a more serious punishment.
But Stobart said he was less surprised to find Single was on benefits.
The judge said: "It came as a surprise to me, as it will to many members of the party, that to do something as foolish and as criminally dangerous as you did will only incur a financial penalty.
"It comes as no surprise to me that somebody to do with an organisation that prides itself on Britishness is in fact living off the British people on Job Seeker's Allowance, and that is why the fine is so low as to be ridiculous."
The list went online in November after it was sent to anti-fascist blog Lancaster Unity and caused immediate uproar.
Single must also contribute £100 to prosecution costs. He was previously deputy head of security at the BNP, where his wife was also a party official. The two were expelled, along with several others, for supposedly conspiring against leader Nick Griffin in 2007.
The two were arrested in December 2008 after the list leaked the previous month. The police investigation was aided by the Information Commissioner's Office, which is currently considering its response. ®
What about the people on the list who have never been members?
Or the people who now live at the addresses which members have since moved from?
What justification do you offer for those people?
I can recall the days we used to get some decent debate in here, nowadays it's "U R TEH PR1X0rZ3Z!!1 LOL SWARE WURDS DURP DURP"
He should have been jailed for a long time
The actions of this person have put many people in fear of their personal safety and well being, and there are documented cases of people having been directly injured as a result of this persons actions.
A sentence of 5 years, at a minimum, would have been much more appropriate.
criminals 206, the innocent 0
200 fine after the amount of people who lost there job and had their lives turned upside down? Yet again the UK lack of justice system show why criminals get the better end of the deal.