Originally posted by MrMark
View Post
The original data are available by other means, and it's easy to ascertain that they are the original data. Although I despise racists and those who support them, I won't explain how to obtain them, or how to ascertain their veracity.
Having read most of these data, the thing that concerns me is the presence of so many children's identities on there. The fact that some fifteen-year-old child's parents have bought a family membership to the party doesn't mean that such a child is fair game for exposure. I don't know what fifteen-year-olds are like nowadays, but if they're being brought up in a household with strong views about the sanctity of the family and so on, they probably have to accept their parents' attitudes as a given, whether they wanted their names on the list or not.
In fact, many of the family membership entries have a note (presumably against the name of the family member who bought the family membership) indicating that they have been sent a "comps slip", apparently seeking more detailed information about their children for future reference ("Comps slip: names/ages family members"). Seedy, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that all the other parties do the same thing.
Of course, there are some youngsters with "Supporter YBNP" against their name, but that still isn't a good enough reason to expose them. I used to know quite a few people involved in the Anti-Nazi League and the Anti-Fascist Alliance; most of them were sensible, but I can imagine a few hotheads losing it with data like these.
There are also those who have left the party for whatever reason. "Joining UKIP" or "It's already too late" seem to be popular, although "Cheque bounced - membership revoked" is also in there. There's also "Membership suspended dd/mm/yy (police matter re. emails). Suspension lifted dd/mm/yy" (about six months later).
Oh, and that Police officer on Merseyside with the "discretion required" note against their name, that all the Press have mentioned? Every report I've seen suggests that it's a male officer, but that note is against a woman's name - so if it is a male officer, he might be able to clear himself by arguing that his wife bought family membership (their offspring is also on there) without his knowledge.
One more thing: there's a chap with "Double for Nick" after his name. Make of that what you will...
Comment