We can bug you but dont bug us.....

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by wet_blobby, Feb 6, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    Bit fcuking rich isn't it?


    I'd support this but I just know the laws will be widened to the extent where you can't curl one down without the government watching/listening you to and check your masterpiece isn't longer than the EU regulated 8.02 inches....woops should that be centimetres?

    Where's Guidio when you need him?
  2. While your curling one down WB give a mooney to the cctv.
  3. As I understand it, the scuffs want it admissible and the slimes don't. Personally, I'm with the slimes. I'd rather a few scallies go free than one terr be missed to avoid a compromise.

    Regarding the Big Brother society; we've nearly got it by other means. What's that? if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear? *@|**+=\^!>...!
  4. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I would have thought it made eminent sense to bug a suspected terrorist. I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that MPs put their vanity before the security of the nation.
  5. Only those with something to hide would worry about this

    Those that shout the most are usually those who need the exposure to promote their grubby clamber up the political scrambling net :pukel:
  6. Hmm, I think you've got two stories mixed up here.

    However I'd agree that it makes sense to gain all available forms of intelligence to identify and apprehend criminals of all flavours I'm wary of using intercept intelligence as evidence. My first concern would be around the understanding of the average legal beagle, and jury member, about the reliability of intercept. It's not some magic bullet, it's only one part of the jigsaw. My second concern is more prosaic, using intercept intelligence as evidence might allow the means of collection to be deduced, derived, implied or inferred and a means to combat the collection identified and implemented, so closing the door to future intercept opportunities using that method.

    Intelligence and evidence should be kept as distinct as possible, and cross contamination avoided.
  7. I think that was the line Hitler used too...or was it George Orwell?
  8. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I didn't comment on the use of intercepts as evidence. The primary use of intercepts should be as clues to further investigation such as where to look for conclusive forensics, and as a means to discover whether someone in ordinary examination is telling the truth. Use of intercepts as evidence should be decided on a case by case basis. The problem comes when the 'rights' of evil people are used to unravel or jeopardise the intelligence structure behind the interception operation.
  9. We have to fight terrorism anyway we can, sadly not always in the strict confines of the law.
    Surely the ends justify the means.
  10. Unfortunately as soon as you contaminate the evidence chain with intelligence (so to speak) you render that int liable to be raised by either the prosecution or the defence.

    I don't see this as a ''rights'' issue unless you're suggesting that suspected criminals of whatever flavour shouldn't be able to defend themselves using legal process. By exposing collection methods either intentionally or inadvertantly, we risk loss of that approach in future.
  11. I think Hitler phrased it; das *@|**+=\^!>...

    I agree with Seaweed. The way it works now actually works. Formalising it and making it effectively transparent will surely degrade the process.

    Is this another case of Noo Labliar tinkering with a successful system to the point its usefulness is destroyed?
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Last night for sad people there was a piece on TV about who bumped off the Earl of Shaftesbury. What nailed his wife apparently was a phone tap of a conversation with her sister. Seems to work OK in France. It is possible that in some cases the defence, confroonted with phone tap evidence, might see a guilty plea in a better light - as can happen sometimes with DNA or CCTV evidence. What matters is nailing criminals, not procedural niceties.
  13. What seaweed is suggesting would make it wholly transparent. He appears to be suggesting that it's not right as it is with a separation of intelligence and evidence.

    I think it's more a question of people who don't understand intercept thinking it's some kind of panacea.
  14. So you're suggesting that there is a segment of society for whom the British system of law shouldn't apply?

    Last time I looked we had this quaint notion of innocent until proven guilty, although I do recognise that parliament, ably assisted by the tabloid media, are doing their damnedest to degrade that.
  15. There really is only one way to deal with terrorists.....Terrorize them

Share This Page