The Wardman Wire

The Net is covered today with reports of two Beefeaters (Yeoman Warders of the Tower of London) who have been sacked for “harassment”, and one who has returned to duty because he was not found guilty. This follows initial reports on the suspensions back around November 2nd.

Let’s state the basic point first: harassment is serious and should be dealt with appropriately, and nothing I am saying here aims to undermine that. Subject to appeal, there are disciplinary charges here reported consistently across all outlets.

Rather, I am interested in the other charges in this case. Some things reported don’t add up, and a Police Caution is being reported where there is no evidence whatsoever of any offence actually having been committed involving Wikipedia.

It is not yet clear whether confusion down to mistakes in the Tower of London or misreporting in the press.

What were the Charges?

There were three elements to the harassment as reported:

“Defacement of Miss Cameron’s Wikipedia entry” (Independent)

During the investigation it emerged that one of the Warders, a 56-year-old, had defaced Miss Cameron’s entry on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, for which he received a police caution. The two sacked men have the right to appeal but the case against a third was not proven and he will return to work in due course.

“That notes were left in her locker” and “that her uniform was deliberately damaged” (Guardian)

The inevitable teasing by some of her colleagues turned nasty, and it emerged last month, when three men were suspended, that notes were left in her locker, although the allegation that her £1,400 hand-tailored uniform was deliberately damaged was denied by the tower

Further, one of the Warders – Bob Brown – is reported as being given a Police Caution under the Communications Act 2003 (Guardian):

A 56-year-old man has also received a police caution under the Communications Act 2003 for defacing Cameron’s Wikipedia entry, which earlier today carried a brief report of the bullying allegations.

The two sacked Yeoman Warders are former Grenadier Guardsman Mr Sanders-Crook, 44, and Bob Brown, 57.

I have not seen any reports questioning that notes were left in her locker (except perhaps in comments from the relatives of Sanders-Crook and Brown), but the Tower of London itself has denied that Miss Cameron’s uniform was defaced.

Questioning the Wikipedia Defacement Charge

The article on Wikipedia about Yeoman-Warder Cameron has been only since 2007, and has a small number of edits (for Wikipedia). There is only a single edit I can find which could be construed as abusive (”Moira Cameron” edited to “Moira ‘pussy licker’ Cameron”).

This edit occurred after the investigations into abuse began; in fact it was done after the suspensions of the two Yeoman-Warders had already been reported on the Wikipedia page. It also came from an IP address traced back to Venezuela.

So where does this defacement charge come from?

Questioning The Police Caution

Having established that Cameron’s Wikipedia entry has not been defaced – unless the Wikipedia edit history has itself been edited, which is very unlikely – then where did the Police Caution come from?

A Police Caution is an admission of guilt to an offence without the costs or benefits of going through a Court Hearing. Traditionally these have been presented as a quick way to clear up minor offences, and can function as an informal variety of plea-bargain (”If you’ll accept a caution for x, we can deal with this now”), though they are also an easy way for the police to obtain a “result” when there is insufficient evidence for a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service.

However, Police Cautions now remain on record until the “offender” is 100, and may come up under Enhanced CRB disclosure procedures, dependent upon the disclosure policy of each individual Police Force.

Once a Police Caution is accepted, it is almost impossible to have cancelled, even when the original charge turns out to be based on a false allegation.

The effect is that Bob Brown may never be able to work in a position covered by Enhanced CRB disclosure again, since Enhanced CRB checks can lead to decisions against individuals on the basis of untrue hearsay (example).

So, I’d be interested to know where this Police Caution came from.

And Finally

Casually Kicking the Defamation Dog in Passing

I should also note, in passing, that if anyone is upset by something written on Wikipedia which can be read by one person in … say … Timbuctoo, then they can come to Banana Republic Britain and sue both Wikipedia and the author for Defamation.

They can also read it twice from the same computer in Timbuctoo, and have that count as two offences.