You *are* being watched...
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Cynic on 26 Mar 2010 13:31 On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:24:32 +0000, Bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> So you think we should allow wrongdoing to take place? > Of course not, but your case won't be helped by mouthing off. How is politely refusing to answer a question or take a breath test "mouthing off"? -- Cynic
From: Bod on 26 Mar 2010 13:32 On 26/03/2010 17:31, Cynic wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:24:32 +0000, Bod<bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: > >>> So you think we should allow wrongdoing to take place? > >> Of course not, but your case won't be helped by mouthing off. > > How is politely refusing to answer a question or take a breath test > "mouthing off"? > > That's the key.....be polite. Bod
From: Graham Murray on 26 Mar 2010 13:35 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> writes: > But could it be reasonably argued in court that a police officer is > likely to use such information in the pursuit of terrorist activity? > > The relevant part of the section reads:- > > "A person commits an offence who— > > (a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who > is or has been— > > (i) a member of Her Majesty's forces, > > (ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or > > (iii) a constable, > > which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or > preparing an act of terrorism ..." But would it have to be argued? The definition only qualifies the information as 'of a kind likely to be useful...'. It does NOT state anything about the motive or intentions of the person soliciting the information, and in particular does not say the person eliciting the information is going to use it to commit or prepare to commit an act of terrorism. That the information would be of use to a terrorist is enough to meet the quoted conditions.
From: Brimstone on 26 Mar 2010 13:50 "Graham Murray" <newspost(a)gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message news:87r5n7j894.fsf(a)newton.gmurray.org.uk... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> writes: > >> But could it be reasonably argued in court that a police officer is >> likely to use such information in the pursuit of terrorist activity? >> >> The relevant part of the section reads:- >> >> "A person commits an offence who— >> >> (a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who >> is or has been— >> >> (i) a member of Her Majesty's forces, >> >> (ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or >> >> (iii) a constable, >> >> which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or >> preparing an act of terrorism ..." > > But would it have to be argued? The definition only qualifies the > information as 'of a kind likely to be useful...'. It does NOT state > anything about the motive or intentions of the person soliciting the > information, and in particular does not say the person eliciting the > information is going to use it to commit or prepare to commit an act of > terrorism. That the information would be of use to a terrorist is enough > to meet the quoted conditions. Hmm, an interesting question. If ever such a situation arises I might be tempted to put it to the test.
From: Rob on 26 Mar 2010 13:52
Ophelia wrote: || "Rob" <rsvptorob-newsREMOVE(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message || news:kLSdndSWS9FAdjHWnZ2dnUVZ8g6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... ||| Not true. In some circumstances it could be an offence to not ||| answer. Of course if he gets arrested for it, he may then refuse to ||| answer any subsequent questions. || || More detail, please? Here's one. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020030_en_6#pt4-ch2-pb2-l1g50 -- Rob |