Two CF members arrested in Petawawa over Cpl Bloggins Facebook page

[DAA]

At the end of the day and if you really think about it........

The average Canadian doesn't connect with the term "Cpl Bloggins" but NOW they do.  So because of the popularity in the news, they will now seek this out and should it still be available, in some way shape or form, some may very well participate.  The audience just got bigger!

I don't in anyway support what that FB page was doing but the few times that I did scoped it, purely through curiousity, I couldn't help but think to myself and picture making a "slapping" motion and asking someone "Come here, come over here and walk into this."

It's sad that things like this happen and I feel for those affected.  Now bring on the executioner...........

 

[MeatheadMick]

Who could really "out" these pers instantaneously. 


Steubenville anyone?

To be fair though, the "Anonymous" hive mindset is very much in tune with Cpl Bloggins. They would be more likely to help Bloggins, than they would be to help the CF.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

At the end of the day and if you really think about it........

The average Canadian doesn't connect with the term "Cpl Bloggins" but NOW they do.  So because of the popularity in the news, they will now seek this out and should it still be available, in some way shape or form, some may very well participate.  The audience just got bigger!

I don't in anyway support what that FB page was doing but the few times that I did scoped it, purely through curiousity, I couldn't help but think to myself and picture making a "slapping" motion and asking someone "Come here, come over here and walk into this."

It's sad that things like this happen and I feel for those affected.  Now bring on the executioner...........

I feel it's important to note that one doesn't need to be serving or be familiar with 'Cpl Bloggins' in order to find the page (or specific aspects of it) extremely offensive.

When the topic first started here, I loosely paid attention for a little while, but then eventually went to check it out. I was not amused.

I took particular offense to the C word and reported it. (I believe this was about a week ago.) I wasn't satisfied with the options that Facebook provided for the reasons why I wanted to report the page/subject matter in the first place; therefore, I chose the one that best applied. Unfortunately, within 24hrs. Facebook responded informing me that there wasn't suitable cause for them to remove the page, but I'm happy things have obviously escalated and complaints are being taken more seriously. (I have since investigated ways to report the content to their new venue source as well.)

Perhaps more traffic is being drawn to the page, but that also means that perhaps more people are placing complaints and voicing that the behaviour/actions displayed by the mind(s) behind this ridiculous page are inexcusable.

 

[Tibbson]

Unless they boot him on some charge and then the RCMP take over and charge him with something else civie side.

Why assume he needs to be handed over to the RCMP?  If there are grounds for civilian charges the garrison MPs can lay them or if the CFNIS is involved they can lay them as well.  No need to involve the RCMP unless its a jurisdictional issue and the fact the accused are CF members makes it MP/CFNIS jurisdiction.

 

[Tibbson]

It's entirely possible.  But the problem is proving they were responsible for it.  Cyberspace and the Internet is virtual in nature.  There is nothing to stop anyone from creating a FB account using your name and then posting comments.  So, hypothetically, these people could sit back and say "Nope, wasn't me!" or my favourite "I decline to answer that question based on advice provided by legal counsel".  The onus is now on the CF to obtain sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.  Which, I can only assume would involve acquiring "internet account logs/access, etc" information from not just commercial "ISP service providers" but also from "Facebook" themselves.

On the internet, you can be whomever you want to be.  Unless of course you draw the attention of special interest groups like "Anonymous".

It was reported that the Justice Department worked with Facebook US to action the required warrants to get the access records.  Combine that with the analysis of the computers seized from the residence(s) and there is no way they could say "Nope, it wasn't me" if it really was. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

In a lovely display of irony some members of the bloggins gang seem upset that the news isn't covering the alleged threats, posting on funeral pages by someone "pretending" to be "bloggins" (which in itself is ironic), impersonating SNCOs and Officers and making fake accounts by someone they initially were making fun of.

They're upset at, get this, at being harassed  :'(  Someone suggested that the woman involved with the homophobia and individual harassment "brought it on herself". What an awesome mind set. 

I'm sure any CF member involved with this will get a 129 slap on the wrist and sent on their way without some serious career speed-wobbling  :nod:

 

[NavyShooter]

I think I was invited to the page by a buddy in the Combat Arms about 3 weeks ago...the first photo I saw was genuinely funny.  I think I 'liked' that photo, and maybe commented on it...then I started advancing through the photos, saw the comments, and oh..my...it was time to leave.   

I went back once more and was, well, dismayed. 

The vitriolic hatred that exuded from some of the posts was disturbing. 

I'm honestly hoping that some suitable punishment will come from this, but know first-hand that the wheels of justice turn slowly at times.

NS

 

[armyvern]

In a lovely display of irony some members of the bloggins gang seem upset that the news isn't covering the alleged threats, posting on funeral pages by someone "pretending" to be "bloggins" (which in itself is ironic), impersonating SNCOs and Officers and making fake accounts by someone they initially were making fun of.

They're upset at, get this, at being harassed  :'(  Someone suggested that the woman involved with the homophobia and individual harassment "brought it on herself". What an awesome mind set. 

I'm sure any CF member involved with this will get a 129 slap on the wrist and sent on their way without some serious career speed-wobbling  :nod:

I believe, if one actually checked, the other page that went up was called "Master Corporal Bloggins" *thus out-ranking him  , not posing as him ... and had some posts about "anti-bullying, stand up to bullies" etc.  I viewed it once and it resembled nothing as crass and hateful such as the "Corporal Bloggins" page did.

Now, Corporal Bloggins himself created untold numbers of "Corporal Bloggins" pages ...  have a print screen to the links for all of them --- as he posted them "in case this one goes down again".  :


Oh, and I know of at least one pers that Corporal Bloggins claimed that was an imposter posing as an officer ... who actually was is the Officer who posted asking for a removal of some content and an end to the harassment.

 

[RCDtpr]

It's entirely possible.  But the problem is proving they were responsible for it.  Cyberspace and the Internet is virtual in nature.  There is nothing to stop anyone from creating a FB account using your name and then posting comments.  So, hypothetically, these people could sit back and say "Nope, wasn't me!" or my favourite "I decline to answer that question based on advice provided by legal counsel".  The onus is now on the CF to obtain sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.  Which, I can only assume would involve acquiring "internet account logs/access, etc" information from not just commercial "ISP service providers" but also from "Facebook" themselves.

On the internet, you can be whomever you want to be.  Unless of course you draw the attention of special interest groups like "Anonymous".

This is why I stated he would be charged and probably convicted if it goes the way of Summary (yes I know the days of "march the guilty in" are gone....but let's be real here).  If he gets the opportunity to elect CM (which I assume he would as I'm sure it will be more than 1 count of 129) then it's a whole new ballgame.  Defence will work the angle that of regardless of ISP etc. it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fact the person sitting at the computer making the page etc etc.  Although I have left the RCD's and am now currently a police officer, I will admit my tech savvy is next to nothing and I am definitely not (nor do I ever expect to be) a member of the tech crimes unit.  Perhaps there are ways those guys have of determining who physically made the page, but from what I've been told, tech stuff is quite hard to prove in court.

If he is aquitted, found not guilty or whatnot, then any administrative action taken by the CF can, and should be grieved by him as it would be baseless at that point.

I'm not defending the guy, but as I stated, nothing he did is illegal outside of the CF.  The C word is offensive to some people, but that doesn't make it against the law nor does making fun of someone because of their weight, sexual orientation, gender etc etc.  There might be ground for civil cases.....but that's a whole other ballgame and I'm not very familiar with that side of the justice system.

Keep in mind, everything I've stated is going off of what I've read at face value....there very well could be more to this than has been released.  I'm curious to see how all of this is going to play out.

 

[armyvern]

This is why I stated he would be charged and probably convicted if it goes the way of Summary (yes I know the days of "march the guilty in" are gone....but let's be real here). ...

At the last ST that I attended, 3 charges were on the table. Dude walked in and pleaded guilty to the 3. When the Presiding Officer heard the statement of facts read to him, the MP report, and statements, he called for a phone interview with the MPs and it resulted in the PO finding him not guilty on 1 of the counts --- after the troop had pleaded guilty.

Times have changed. For real.

 

[DAA]

It was reported that the Justice Department worked with Facebook US to action the required warrants to get the access records.  Combine that with the analysis of the computers seized from the residence(s) and there is no way they could say "Nope, it wasn't me" if it really was.

Interesting, but I find this very hard to believe, especially given the short span of attention this page has drawn.  I am no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but I would purely "speculate" that such a thing would have to involve "CCC" indescretions, as NDA probably wouldn't cut it, for it to be taken seriously.  So the CF pursuing charges, would "have" to be under a section of the CCC.  Then if we just so happened to be the party initiating this and given that it crosses international borders, we would probably need to engage the Cdn DoJ, who in turn would send the request to the US DoJ for assistance.

I am truly surpirsed that FB would coughed up anything due to the liability issues involved.

But hopefully, what you propose, comes to fruition.  The intent behind my original post, was to bring forward the "hurdles" that would need to be jumped, inorder to get any tangible results.

 

[semper]

UGH! Really didn't expect my first post to be on this topic..

In a lovely display of irony some members of the bloggins gang seem upset that the news isn't covering the alleged threats, posting on funeral pages by someone "pretending" to be "bloggins" (which in itself is ironic), impersonating SNCOs and Officers and making fake accounts by someone they initially were making fun of.

They're upset at, get this, at being harassed  :'(  Someone suggested that the woman involved with the homophobia and individual harassment "brought it on herself". What an awesome mind set. 

I can't speak to what happened on Bloggins page or on the alleged impersonator's page. Like so many others, I left the Bloggins page when it became an example of people being horrible to each other and never bothered with the MCpl page.

That said, I am one of the people upset as to how the Mil Spouse (Ms. L-J), who first informed Ms. Bickford that her info was published publicly on the FB page, was treated by Ms. Bickford. She tweeted the info to her and Ms. Bickford's reaction - while perhaps she was in shock, scared or intimidated - was completely over the top. She immediately began tweeting random military related accounts that she was receiving death threats, demanding the woman be investigated, and later posting her personal info and husband's name and rank on Twitter, claiming that she was being harassed by Ms. L-J. It wasn't pretty to watch.

If Ms L-J wants to complain about being harassed or bullied by Ms Bickford, I'm certainly willing to stand in her corner. 

Both parties are in the wrong and I expect the Bloggins crew will be treated more harshly (as deserved), but no one is completely innocent in this mess... and I wish we had the courage to admit that and figure out where to move on from here. 

 

[Tibbson]

Interesting, but I find this very hard to believe, especially given the short span of attention this page has drawn.  I am no lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but I would purely "speculate" that such a thing would have to involve "CCC" indescretions, as NDA probably wouldn't cut it, for it to be taken seriously.  So the CF pursuing charges, would "have" to be under a section of the CCC.  Then if we just so happened to be the party initiating this and given that it crosses international borders, we would probably need to engage the Cdn DoJ, who in turn would send the request to the US DoJ for assistance.

I am truly surpirsed that FB would coughed up anything due to the liability issues involved.

But hopefully, what you propose, comes to fruition.  The intent behind my original post, was to bring forward the "hurdles" that would need to be jumped, inorder to get any tangible results.

Negative.  NDA is still a federal act with charges/punishments.  Civilian warrants, issued by Judges "downtown" get issued on investigations involving NDA offences all the time and once the warrant is issued in Canada it's just a matter of getting it endorsed in the US so that it can be executed in the US.  There is no need to get the Cdn DOJ and US DOJ involved most times because there is already various MOUs between Canada and the US as well as the SOFA if its required.  When more assistance is required it just gets staffed through the RCMP Liaison Officer at the Embassy in Washington and they facilitate what ever needs to be done. 

You are right though, Facebook wouldn't give up any info without some order to do so and since production orders are not recognized in the US a search warrant for the info would have been necessary.

 

[Strike]

I am truly surpirsed that FB would coughed up anything due to the liability issues involved.

I have a friend who works for FB and we've chatted about issues like this quite a bit.

Given the whole issue of internet bullying and how much it has been in the news in the past few years (as well as the suicides that have resulted) you'd be surprised how willing they are to help out ANY legitimate law enforcement agency when issues such as these arise.

 

[DAA]

Negative.  NDA is still a federal act with charges/punishments.  Civilian warrants, issued by Judges "downtown" get issued on investigations involving NDA offences all the time and once the warrant is issued in Canada it's just a matter of getting it endorsed in the US so that it can be executed in the US.  There is no need to get the Cdn DOJ and US DOJ involved most times because there is already various MOUs between Canada and the US as well as the SOFA if its required.  When more assistance is required it just gets staffed through the RCMP Liaison Officer at the Embassy in Washington and they facilitate what ever needs to be done. 

You are right though, Facebook wouldn't give up any info without some order to do so and since production orders are not recognized in the US a search warrant for the info would have been necessary.

Great info!  I didn't think much consideration or effort would have been given to "certain" NDA infractions, especially when crossing international boundaries.  Obviously, someone put some thought and effort into this.

 

[Deleted member 30710]

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2545422/

The two that were arrested were charged.

  The Department of National Defence said military police started to investigate allegations of “defamation and inappropriate comments” on a Facebook page titled “Cpl Bloggins” in early January. 

Charges were laid against two members on Jan. 22, the department added.

“They were arrested for defamatory libel under the National Defence Act pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and use of improper comments under the Military Code of Service Discipline,” the department said. “The identity of the two CAF members arrested is protected under the Privacy Act.”

DND said military police also launched a new, separate investigation earlier this month after receiving “a subsequent complaint of alleged defamation and inappropriate comments posted on another Facebook page, also titled ‘Cpl Bloggins.’”

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why assume he needs to be handed over to the RCMP?  If there are grounds for civilian charges the garrison MPs can lay them or if the CFNIS is involved they can lay them as well.  No need to involve the RCMP unless its a jurisdictional issue and the fact the accused are CF members makes it MP/CFNIS jurisdiction.

I didn't assume anything, nor do I need any lessons on jurisdiction.

In your haste to rebut, I believe you misread.

What I said was the the CAF should charge him, say, with a 129* for being a dick* and release him as an admin burden. Then once he left the gate as a civie, the RCMP (or some other civpol) could pick him up for, I don't know, uttering threats*, hate speech* perhaps. Then fire his ass into court to face those charges.


Caveat - * =  are to be used for simple examples, not legal ones.

 

[Strike]

“The identity of the two CAF members arrested is protected under the Privacy Act.”

News to me.  Usually, the only time names are held back is during certain assault cases when identifying the accused could potentially identify the victim.

Maybe they're more concerned about backlash against the accused or protecting them from ridicule, but that's certainly not an issue under the Privacy Act.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

News to me.  Usually, the only time names are held back is during certain assault cases when identifying the accused could potentially identify the victim.

Maybe they're more concerned about backlash against the accused or protecting them from ridicule, but that's certainly not an issue under the Privacy Act.

I don't imagine it'll be long before their names are out there. Everyone knows someone on base and someone knows the MSM.

 

[RCDtpr]

I didn't assume anything, nor do I need any lessons on jurisdiction.

In your haste to rebut, I believe you misread.

What I said was the the CAF should charge him, say, with a 129* for being a dick* and release him as an admin burden. Then once he left the gate as a civie, the RCMP (or some other civpol) could pick him up for, I don't know, uttering threats*, hate speech* perhaps. Then fire his *** into court to face those charges.


Caveat - * =  are to be used for simple examples, not legal ones.

As stated....nothing about that page is illegal outside the CF.