What saddens me more than the possible responses from the system is the manner and language used by "society" when they do not know the actual facts.
Just read the comments on the article as they are still available .

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

This is yet another interesting topic that raises so many questions. My take on this is, If that woman in the article was in fact a man the punishment would have probably been more severe. Granted, she has a child to consider but to be fined £500 only for this really is quite shocking. Had the man had the misfortune of actually being physically harmed would she have been punished even further? I wonder. Maybe he had and the police simply failed to do much about it since none of these vigilantes were investigated, or perhaps the media just failed to mention such investigations took place?

This begs the question though, If it goes against policy for most organizations for sharing this kind of information which can be a sack-able offence. Also, with laws in place that can bypass confidentiality (sarah's law) on the up side that if this information is disclosed anywhere else also runs the risk of conviction. Then why are the courts allowed to basically share the same offenders details and allow the media to then publicly publish this information freely? That same information can then be used via various "Youtubers" who can also report and share offenders details freely which may not even be filtered out should someone request to be forgotten via google.

The cynic in me thinks it'll be mostly indifference - "Well it wasn't us that did it and we haven't leaked any of your information and treat your information and data with complete professionalism and respect, now please unlock your PC and phone and let us have a look at what porn you've been watching"

I wonder what our PPU officers will say when we show them this.

Especially when requesting non-media presence when having conditions removed, which "some courts" stipulate.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

So I'm assuming nothing came of the vigilante group either? You know, the ones actively carrying out the attack? Can't see any mention of them.

I thought the same thing, it's okay to go to someone's house unexpectedly and unprovoked and make a load of threats seemingly.

[He] reached out to the council's customer services team to request a food parcel having being placed in emergency accommodation after his details were shared online. 

Yet another bad story coming after 1) Unnecessary disclosure 2) "Vigilante" (misled do-gooder) sharing details online 3) Assuming his conviction has led him to be in a position where he's having to apply for a food parcel 4) Punishment going far beyond the original offence.
Shameful shambles.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

On the other hand, good employment practice is not to ask disclosure questions unless you are offering them a job, as that establishes your legal right to the information. As awful as it sounds, when she explains what she did and why she did it, it might go in her favour.... 🤬

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

I agree that it is a nothing sentence, although the full implications may come later, when she tries to get another job.  A breach of data protection rules is saying to a future employer, that this person cannot be trusted with any sensitive information. She might get a chance to explain her reasons, or she may be filtered out, at the pre interview stage, just because she now has a conviction against her name.

It did say that a more serious charge was dropped, which could have resulted in prison. I'm guessing that just left a summary offence, which wouldn't get her any prison time. I daresay she could have crowdfunded much more than £500, but I doubt her vigilante contacts would have coughed up. They might well have urged others to donate, but they seem to have a very skewed view of social responsibility, and antisocial behaviour.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Yeah, I clocked this yesterday and was on the fence about posting it here.

Basically a nothing sentence too, it even stated that she was laughing as she left the court so she has absolutely no remorse about it and no doubt will have her supporters regardless. Even the judge reiterated the seriousness of her offence and, in their own words: "I would have locked her up" so why didn't you? £500 fine I'm sure she could just crowdfund that and some of the sweaty Facebook baldies will probably donate that within minutes for helping get "DEM FILFY PEEDOOS OFF THE STREETS".

Her comments and statements throughout show she is an absolute horror of a person and also trying to lean on a pregnancy as a single mother essentially being her get of jail card. There is a very clear show of intent of her part as well as a follow through She replied: 'I am so happy. He is bloody awful. Happy to have helped everyone.'

So I'm assuming nothing came of the vigilante group either? You know, the ones actively carrying out the attack? Can't see any mention of them.

Yeah, this got me worked up a bit! haha

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10702357/Council-worker-leaked-sex-offenders-address-paedophile-hunters-sent-mob-house.html

Something to think about, if you are requesting a food parcel from the local council. Another example of how private Whatsapp groups are becoming the method of choice for spreading hatred, rather than doing it publically on social media.

She has no previous convictions, just like most SO. But will the police visit her every 6 months and check her internet activity, to make sure she has not reoffended?  No, of course not!