I wanted to point out that I think that anybody (in any situation not just this one) can't be really realistic unless they have all the facts on this case and are very familiar with the specific issues - the one who does know all this for sure, in this case, is Tom A. and he appears to be confident the issue will be resolved in some form. I see no reason to doubt what he has said. Anyway how could you know this for sure: 'Although there is prima facie evidence that an offence has been committed under Section 3 of the Computer Misuse Act establishing that in court is a different matter.' You don't know the full situation in this case, you don't know what evidence was presented and how conclusive it was - I know there's criticism of IT law enforcement world-wide but with the absence of the above mentioned information your statement is somewhat of a general speculation (I don't mean to offend it just appears so to me).As for the Metropolitan Police being referred to as the 'Police Constabulary of London' issue:Apart from being Bulgarian I am also a Londoner and I can confirm what Chock has already said - its just a 'fancy' way to refer to the London Metropolitan Police. Its a little old fashioned (although this could also be 'legal speak') but in my opinion is a little more flattering and official than simply referring to them as the 'MET' - also the 'met' (unless you specifically say the London Met Police) could be a number of things. For example London Metropolitan University is referred to as the 'MET' sometimes (the London Met to be precise) - I know because I graduated and post graduated from here (funny enough IT Law was part of my studies). Could also be the 'MET' Office - weather forecasts and meteorological conditions.Anyway I really don't think its worth nit-picking over what precisely to call the London Police Authorities.

As far as I am aware the facts are :

1. AVSIM was hacked
2. Evidence was collected in the USA
3. Evidence pointed to the accused in the UK
4. AVSIM has made a complaint to the Metropolitan Police in the UK
5. AVSIM tried to negotiate with the accused (presumably seeking recompense) and "We are now doing as we promised this person we would do; ratcheting this up to the next, criminal, level"
6. The Metropolitan Police will have to decide whether to proceed and submit a report to the CPS
7. The CPS will have to decide if there is a reasonable prospect of success and if it's in the public interest
8. The UK courts ruled that the Pentagon hacker could be tried in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act he should be extradited to the USA to stand trial because that's where the evidence and witnesses are
9. It will have to be shown that the evidence is admissible under UK rules
10. A witness will have to present that evidence to a UK Court
11. That witness will have to stand up in court and be cross-examined under oath
12. The defence will contest the evidence
13. The jury will have to accept the evidence beyond reasonable doubt

I suggest there is enough there to raise doubt about a conviction.My point is that the police force in London is the Metroplitan Police and isn't the Police Constabulary of London. AVSIM said it had a reason for using that term but hasn't said what it was. My original point was that its use reduced the credibility of AVSIM's statement - AVSIM really ought to know the correct name of the organisation it submitted the complaint to.EDITA news item from the BBChttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8244028.stm

for goodness sakes, Tom's post wasn't a legal document...it was a note on a webpage. :(

How anyone could glean enough information from Tom's purposefully obscure post to draw any kind conclusions about the outcome of the complaint is laughable.Making detailed lists, evaluating reasonable doubt, and analysing the verbiage used to describe the London police? All without having the first clue what evidence exists? Really?A crime was commited, the victim has filed a formal complaint with the appropriate authority, and evidence has been provided. The matter is now in the hands of the police. The end.What's next, an analysis of the likelihood of conviction for Michael Jackson's doctor? Please...

As far as I am aware the facts are :

[*]AVSIM was hackedMGH, you really have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or the specifics of what is occurring this week in the UK. And if you really think that I am going to reveal any details just to satisfy your arm chair, and sophomoric attempt to analysis our probability of success in this, then you really do not know anything about the law, libel or the consequences of inept reporting on such things. Putting it bluntly, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYWHERE NEAR ALL the facts. Let's leave it at that. The full story will emerge in time. Between now and then, please give AVSIM, and me, the benefit of the doubt. In my real world job, I don't get paid the amount of money I do to be stupid. And that is all I am going to say on this subject until resolution (or not) takes place.

Thank you, Tom. Seriously, Thank You!

What purpose did the obscuration achieve? Either this was reported to the Metropolitan Police or it wasn't.

Please, give it up - geez

Between now and then, please give AVSIM, and me, the benefit of the doubt.

:( :( two thumbs up tom! two thumbs up! :( :o --

What purpose did the obscuration achieve? Either this was reported to the Metropolitan Police or it wasn't.

Sigh.

I know you boys are baying for blood, but let's still keep in mind 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Oh dear, I do seem to have upset AVSIM by suggesting that the circumstances of this case make it less likely that a conviction will be achieved than in many other cases. The facts that I listed are are perfectly valid considerations. I'll ignore the comments about libel etc. Nothing I posted was libellous or in contempt of court.AVSIM used the phrase Police Constabulary of London in its front page at 0040h on 8 September. At 1840 hr on the same day AVSIM said that obsuration of the fact was the intent. However, by 1724 hr on the same same day the BBC was already telling to the world that AVSIM had told it the evidence had been submitted to the Southwark Division of the Metropolitan Police which was acting on behalf of another constabularry - what a difference a few hours makes!

Oh dear, I do seem to have upset AVSIM by suggesting that the circumstances of this case make it less likely that a conviction will be achieved than in many other cases. The facts that I listed are are perfectly valid considerations. I'll ignore the comments about libel etc. Nothing I posted was libellous or in contempt of court.AVSIM used the phrase Police Constabulary of London in its front page at 0040h on 8 September. At 1840 hr on the same day AVSIM said that obsuration of the fact was the intent. However, by 1724 hr on the same same day the BBC was already telling to the world that AVSIM had told it the evidence had been submitted to the Southwark Division of the Metropolitan Police which was acting on behalf of another constabularry - what a difference a few hours makes!

All you have said is speculation. You have no access to any real facts regarding this case, therefore all you can do is speculate. I do not see the further point of you arguing on this issue. You seem to be arguing now for arguments sake and twisting what little info has been provided publicly.You haven't upset us (we don't get upset so easily) - however your persistent attempts to pass off your personal speculations and views, regarding this case, as facts have been a little too much.

Oh dear, I do seem to have upset AVSIM by suggesting that the circumstances of this case make it less likely that a conviction will be achieved than in many other cases. The facts that I listed are are perfectly valid considerations. I'll ignore the comments about libel etc. Nothing I posted was libellous or in contempt of court.AVSIM used the phrase Police Constabulary of London in its front page at 0040h on 8 September. At 1840 hr on the same day AVSIM said that obsuration of the fact was the intent. However, by 1724 hr on the same same day the BBC was already telling to the world that AVSIM had told it the evidence had been submitted to the Southwark Division of the Metropolitan Police which was acting on behalf of another constabularry - what a difference a few hours makes!

at 1233 hr of Sept 10 Zevious Zoquis had a good laugh.

...and we sometimes wonder why the AVSIM organization holds information such as this close to the vest. Just like the rumor and discussion over a new sim or addon, we have instant subject matter experts weighing in on the topics. This in and of itself isn't too bad, but when the discussions turn a little heated, it almost always overtakes any productive discussions. I wonder if it's in AVSIM's continued interest to keep us abreast of the situation, or just let it play out in the legal systems and give us a synopsis in the end (*even though that isn't owed to us either). -Greg

Avsim hack was obviously an inside job. Even Tom implied himself in a roundabout way from day one! The guy who was so trusted to 'Upgrade' his site, somehow screwed it up with all the access passwords and other info he needed - given to him by Mr. Allensworth himself. Sounds really weird. It wouldn't surprise me if not one prosecution results after all this, and in the end, this was just a giant red herring! A smoking gun without a bullet!

...and we sometimes wonder why the AVSIM organization holds information such as this close to the vest. Just like the rumor and discussion over a new sim or addon, we have instant subject matter experts weighing in on the topics. This in and of itself isn't too bad, but when the discussions turn a little heated, it almost always overtakes any productive discussions. I wonder if it's in AVSIM's continued interest to keep us abreast of the situation, or just let it play out in the legal systems and give us a synopsis in the end (*even though that isn't owed to us either). -Greg

At the risk of being told I don't know what I am talking about, the next stage will be the police passing a file to the CPS if it's decided the the evidence justifies it. That fact will become public. The following stage will be the CPS deciding whether to prosecute. If it does. someone will be charged and his name will become public. At that stage the contempt of court law kicks-in to limit comment. After that there will be a trial which can be reported impartially.