> Actually, it was neither.
Strangely enough, the BBC refers to i stolen. The police has been informed and is investigating. Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.
> In fact, *not* revealing it would be a crime!
Hardly, there is no legal requirement to publish ones personal communication, unless there is a court order.
> There is quite clear evidence [...]
I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts, instead of half-baked assertion.
> evade the requirements of the FOIA
Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?
> that is a felonious activity, to conceal your knowledge of it is the crime of misprision.
The FOIA is a law pertaining the legal rights of a person in relation to a public authority. I am intrigued, where you derive the legal framework from for judging a person working there. Enlighten me, by pointing out the name of the passed law, and the section.
Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators, which in turn would make not publishing it not a crime. The right against self-incrimination is fairly well established.