Sunday, September 05, 2010

there's a catch...

Am I right in understanding the legal comments in the NYT piece to mean that the only way to get the police to disgorge whether or not your phone was monitored is to sue the Screws and serve a notice on the Yard for disclosure of relevant documents?

It seems that the primary barrier to getting an actual list together is that you have to sue the paper (or the police), and you can't sue the paper unless you have good cause to think you were spied upon. The police, for their part, have been managing the row down by only telling some of the people on the list that they were spied on. Unless you have some other evidence that you were spied on, you can't force the police to tell you if you're on the list.

All clear so far? Frankly, the 2,978 names weighted by the number of calls to each would be a truly classic document of our society.

1 comment:

Lord Blagger said...

That's what happens when you elect a fascist group of politicians like NuLabour.

FOI? Joke. For example, why should the attendence of Lords and MPs from 3 months ago be a state secret? After all, what have they to hide?

Quite a lot actually. Like taking money for expenses and doing no work.

For example, one Gordon Brown. Drawing a salary whilst not doing his work as a MP. It's a state secret.

Just what do you expect on the phone side? Information given out? Nope, they are above the law.

Tax havens? MPs have their own little tax haven?

Special arrangements with the IR? Of course. We can't have MPs paying the wrong tax and then having to pay it back.

That's for the little people

kostenloser Counter