BIG Brother Has arrived--NOW

livvy wrote: No I consider it right that phone calls can't be tapped without a court order.

But if it was legal, the same way that cameras are legal, and it could help to reduce crime and catch terrorists, surely it would be a good thing? And nobody would be discriminated against, and they would only be able to review the calls in the case of a charge being brought?

Come on, surely you can see that it would be a great way of catching crooks.

livvy wrote: Because it's not allowed in law without a court order, cameras are.

So if they changed the law to allow wiretapping the entire population for the purpose outlined, you wouldn't consider that to be an invasion of privacy?

livvy wrote: I disagree, one is more invasive than the other. One selects a group on the grounds of religion as well which is not on, the other doesn't.

OK, why not wiretap everybody, and leave the conversations stored somewhere? Then if any crime is committed, they can just refer to the conversations that were wiretapped.

livvy wrote: The cameras show where you need to look. You think the Police don't look at the assosciates of terrorists now ? It is not the same as wiretapping which is far more invasive, that is a form of surveillance. Watching every car go by is not and can already be done, if you had the number of people required to do it. Cameras just give you the means to do it without requiring all the people.

Yes, anybody who was ever met by a terrorist, even the guy who sells him his cigarettes.

Watching every movement a car makes is pretty invasive. And if they just wiretap every Muslim household and don't listen to the recordings until they need to refer to something, surely that's no more invasive?

Do you have a personal opinion on warning other motorists about speedtraps Livvy ?

In all the time ( & places) we have discussed this, you've never expressed one.

You know I'm on the side of the warners ( being one myself), and think the police should stop being stupid and get on with other things.

B 7 VP wrote:  Nigel, this is ONE persons opinion of the interpretation of what the CPS WANT the Lords to say.I disagree--.

I asked for you to give details because your link couldn't possibly be what you were talking about, BECAUSE  IT DOESN'T SUPPORT WHAT YOU SAID in your earlier thread.


We are now then clearly talking about the same case "DPP v Glendinning".
What I posted was not  "what the CPS want the lords to say" it's from the high court ruling itself

The CPS want the Lords to go further & say that the prosecution don't even need to show that a vehicle was speeding (or likley to) before the warning was given by the person committing the alleged obstruction. (Which is the reason that the CPS appeal was dismissed at the High Court, NOT because the Police can't prosecute headlight flashers.)

If you've read the high court ruling, how on earth can you or the ABD come to the resolute conclusion (that you did earlier in the other thread)

B 7 VP wrote: ...which means it is now case law, and YOU cannot be prosecuted for doing a headlight warning.....

Read the ruling for yourself & tell me still that it means

B 7 VP wrote: YOU cannot be prosecuted for doing a headlight warning

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/ Admin/2005/2333.html


OR
Does it infact mean what I said ? 
It doesn't require a change in the law, things like waving with your thumb down out of the window could possibly be taken to be obstruction already if it's judged the intent is to get people to slow in order to avoid a prosecution. Read the ruling.




Edited by livvy

John.

Livvy gave his answer to this in a pm to me, which Livvy has kindly agreed to me posting in open forum.

I posted it on the orginal thread where we were discussing this, but I'll copy & paste it to here, in case you missed it.

Nigel

The case I'm thinking about was an appeal by the CPS at the High Court on  13/10/2005

It was in regards to a initial conviction of obstruction against Charles Glendinning (a lorry driver) at South Somerset Magistrates Court. He appealed at Tauton Crown Court & won his appeal , the CPS appealed against the Crown Courts decision.

The CPS's appeal at the high court was dismissed, but my point is why it was dismissed. The reasons for dismissal can't lead you to deduce that it is OK for people to warn others of speed traps. The reason for dismissal was simply because  the prosecution failed to  show sufficient evidence.

In this case Mr Glendinning wasn't flashing his headlights, it was alleged he was using hand signals to warn those in the outside lane closing on him that there was a speed trap ahead.

The judgement ruled that the prosecution had failed to show that there was any offence of speeding occuring prior to is hand signals or likely to occur. From reading the judgement if the prosecution had shown either of those things (evidence of an offence occuring or likelyhood of it) then the prosecution would have succeeded.

One of the stated cases they used in this ruling was the conviction of a AA patrolman in 1910 for warning others (Betts v Stevens). In that case the Police officer gave an opinion that a vehicle was speeding prior to the  measured area & that it wasn't speeding through the measured as a result of the warning from the AA patrolman. In effect there was evidence of speeding (although it wasn't sufficient to prosecute because it was only opinion & we know that there then has to be corroborative evidence to convict) but there was no chance to gain the corroborative evidence because of the AA patrolmans obstructive actions in frustrating that gaining of corroborative evidence.

So from the ruling we can say that provided the Police show that there was an offence occuring (even if they don't have enough evidence to convict for it (i.e. an opinion is formed)) or that one was likely to occur then that is sufficient to prove the offence part.

The points to prove are that
1) The constable was acting lawfully in the execution of his duty (He was in the case)
2) The obstruction was intended to obstruct the constable in that execution of his duty (the court was satisfied that Mr Glendinning was doing that)
3) There was an obstruction of the constable (The high court wasn't satisfied of that for the reasons I outlined - i.e that there was no evidence that could have been affected by his given signals, either being driven in excess of the speed limit or likely to do so)

livvy wrote: B 7 VP wrote:  PS---the Association of British Drivers WERE correct in their magazine report. Can you give us details of the ruling, or is it tip top secret & just for the ABD inner circle ?

I thought he had, in the link in his post !

B 7 VP wrote:  PS---the Association of British Drivers WERE correct in their magazine report.

Can you give us details of the ruling, or is it tip top secret & just for the ABD inner circle ?

 

 

 

 

Edited by livvy

For once I agree with you 

I think that some of us spend a bit too much time on here!