Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill

[Jimmy_Green]

And your expertise in this area is...?

A penchant for Bacofoil millinery.

 

[Filthy_contract]

A penchant for Bacofoil millinery.

Other, cheaper, brands available.

 

[Poppycock]

Try rubbing some of this on, you irritating cünt.

View attachment 512457

Irritating? You're a bit out of date fella - I'm a full blown pox now

It'll take more than a squirt of your stump cream to get rid of me

 

[par avion]

I wonder how they’ll off him? I reckon the candle stick.

Cluedo walt.

 

[lokiuk]

Could Poppycock be having a ‘night out’ like this chap?
He has criticised the state after all

Depends, if he said "Not all white people are racist" on social media, a visit from the police would not be unexpected

 

[Kinch]

Thank-you all for your input, confirming what I already knew

There's not a single argument for the bill that's been put forward that I couldn't piss all over. Obviously that's not changed the outcome today but I still take some comfort in that fact.

Putting the intended statute into context it is, at the more acceptable end, merely taking advantage of and attaching a humint element to today's technology and the range of laws that are generally accepted but difficult to implement. For example, the Quality Care Commission responsible among other things for ensuring that vulnerable people in care are look after correctly, will be able to deploy covert human resources with the authority of the person empowered to take that action within the Care Commission structure. Similar individuals will be so empower in almost all government agencies.

At the sharper end it will provide legal certainty to those individuals who infiltrate terror organizations in order to report on planned attacks for example. In the past, this has left those individuals open to charges ranging from conspiracy to murder precisely because they have to participate to some degree in processes that enable them to carry out their mission. This does not mean pulling the trigger or pressing the button, but it may mean providing support in some respect. The alternative is that gaining information becomes impossible other than by technical means that, without human intervention, are difficult in the least. I do not believe that anyone is being authorised to kill.

What is a little more concerning is that the wording of the new laws (much of which I suspect will not be revealed on national security grounds) will be used in the defence of those who may have overstepped their brief in the past. That is quite clever and will undoubtedly be used as a defence. But again, what is the alternative - continued argument about who did what to whom all settled at the level of the individual instead of at the level of control and command in both Whitehall and Westminster? Time for all of us to move on............and let the bad guys worry about the implications.

 

[Charles1948]

What is a little more concerning is that the wording of the new laws (much of which I suspect will not be revealed on national security grounds)

Kinch, when you say that much of the wording of the new laws will not be revealed on national security grounds, how does that work out legally, in court.

I mean, suppose you are taken into court, accused of breaking the law. You have a solicitor to represent you. Your solicitor asks the court: "Exactly what law is my client accused of breaking?"

The court replies: "That cannot be revealed, on national security grounds".

What happens next?

 

[Kinch]

Kinch, when you say that much of the wording of the new laws will not be revealed on national security grounds, how does that work out legally, in court.

I mean, suppose you are taken into court, accused of breaking the law. You have a solicitor to represent you. Your solicitor asks the court: "Exactly what law is my client accused of breaking?"

The court replies: "That cannot be revealed, on national security grounds".

What happens next?

If you look up justice.gov.uk and find 'part 82' of the law on court procedures you will find the rules for CMP (Closed Material Procedures). This involves "...the Court appointing a specially vetted counsel to communicate the interests of a party without risking the exposure of sensitive national security details."

It is as you might imagine, hughley controversial and it is recognized that it risks the denial of justice. There is quite a bit of concern about it, but I can assure you it exists.

 

[Andy Farman]

As I recall RIPA 2000 gave birth to the CHIS. I think EU law insisted the UK follow the same ‘surveillance’ rules we imposed on Germany post WWII, so we created RIPA 2000. Would you agree the UK should ditch RIPA 2000 now that is no longer a member of the EU? We could return to the good old days when there were no regulations to hinder information gathering and the exploitation of others. Those were the days - that was when immunity really meant something.

These are the same surveillance laws as used to track and kidnap yellow shirt protesters, of course.

You really should put more thought into what you hail as being all good about the warm and fuzzy feeling EU

 

[Andy Farman]

Depends, if he said "Not all white people are racist" on social media, a visit from the police would not be unexpected

How do we know this is not some manipulation of that great Chinese reality TV favourite, adored by Dr Who nerds everywhere, 'Be Davros for a day'?

 

[Andy Farman]

Ah yes, the wonderful free press that exposes all wrong doings without bias or prejudice, combined with the completely unhindered by malign state actors democracy Britain enjoys are a joy to behold and give me the greatest of confidence in our system of government and the rule of law.

Don't get me started on the judiciary and hard working old bill - it genuinely tears me up with I think of their integrity and due diligence

View attachment 512232

I suggest a long holiday in NK, Nigeria, China, Iran, UAE...
Set you straight on what a police state is.

 

[Andy Farman]

The same candlestick Wallace used on his girlfriends hubby? (Allegedly)

 

[Boumer]

This covers the routine and very boring situation of participating informants, which is standard law enforcement tactics, techiniques and proceedures.

Sorry, it is in all likelihood not giving Tarquin a licence to kill (which fails to differentiate between officer, CHIS and participating informant anyway); it is about the officer inserted into a bank robbery plan to be the driver, being able to legally participate into conspiracy to rob.

If anyone wants to have a debate with me about the definition of Rape (either under the 1956 SOA or the later 2003 version) quite happy to do that (if we want to talk 'spycops'). Do read up and have a good understanding of consent (for a chuckle read R v Bree, from memory).

My opinion might not be that which you expect (but then this is ARRSE, so why let logic and reason and reading what people post get in the way of other people's attempt at thinking - it's often like watching piss-heads windmilling whilst they think they are Jackie Chan).

There seems to be an outreagously ill-informed and resistent to planet Earth logic sort on ARRSE these days, I expect it on the Brexit and Trump threads - but this is becoming a classic of the species also.

Still another thread for me to come and marvel at, and here I don't even have to say "wind the window up FFS" to eliminate hearing drivel as I drive past whilst watching the show.

 

[Drlligaf]

My opinion might not be that which you expect (but then this is ARRSE, so why let logic and reason and reading what people post get in the way of other people's attempt at thinking - it's often like watching piss-heads windmilling whilst they think they are Jackie Chan).

Still another thread for me to come and marvel at, and here I don't even have to say "wind the window up FFS" to eliminate hearing drivel as I drive past whilst watching the show.

Those bits earned the funny.

 

[Drlligaf]

I suggest a long holiday in NK, Nigeria, China, Iran, UAE...
Set you straight on what a police state is.

May I add Singapore to your list? However the redeeming features are a high standard of living and low crime rate, but otherwise definitely Big Brother is watching you, always.

 

[Boumer]

Those bits earned the funny.

Do I spy another who knows the truth of 'The Public Order Window' on the van?!

 

[Andy Farman]

May I add Singapore to your list? However the redeeming features are a high standard of living and low crime rate, but otherwise definitely Big Brother is watching you, always.

I was quite impressed with Singapore, so much so that I would offer him a years supply of chewing gum if he chose to emigrate there

 

[Andy Farman]

This covers the routine and very boring situation of participating informants, which is standard law enforcement tactics, techiniques and proceedures.

Sorry, it is in all likelihood not giving Tarquin a licence to kill (which fails to differentiate between officer, CHIS and participating informant anyway); it is about the officer inserted into a bank robbery plan to be the driver, being able to legally participate into conspiracy to rob.

If anyone wants to have a debate with me about the definition of Rape (either under the 1956 SOA or the later 2003 version) quite happy to do that (if we want to talk 'spycops'). Do read up and have a good understanding of consent (for a chuckle read R v Bree, from memory).

My opinion might not be that which you expect (but then this is ARRSE, so why let logic and reason and reading what people post get in the way of other people's attempt at thinking - it's often like watching piss-heads windmilling whilst they think they are Jackie Chan).

There seems to be an outreagously ill-informed and resistent to planet Earth logic sort on ARRSE these days, I expect it on the Brexit and Trump threads - but this is becoming a classic of the species also.

Still another thread for me to come and marvel at, and here I don't even have to say "wind the window up FFS" to eliminate hearing drivel as I drive past whilst watching the show.

I worked with Mark Kennedy on team (MS) for two years before he ''transferred to City Plod''. Good worker, very keen. Never saw how his omitting to mention his being an undercover cop is somehow worse than a female lying about being on the pill or lying about being raped. You get no time for either of the last.

 

[Boumer]

I fail to see how one can stretch free and informed consent to sleeping with someone having been utterly deceived as to their identity?*

Lying about being on the pill would may constitute an offence at s4 of the Sexual Offences Act

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Lying about being raped is a staight up pervert the course of justice.

Consent is justifiably quite important in terms of the issue of the regulation of sexual behaviour.

I get that he was very keen, shame about all the convictions rendered unsafe by him.

Hence why we should have laws, and UCOs or CHIS should act within what the authorising officer has set down as their use and conduct.

*I cannot remember anymore, but I am sure there is a stated case about someone who slept with a man who entered their room believing it was the husband/boyfriend and it wasn't, and this invalidated the consent. I stand to be corrected, as I haven't read PNLD for a while!

That said, it may have been one of those stupid "You are the late turn DC at Sandford CID and someone is asking advice, is this.....?" questions on the exam.

 

[BarcelonaAnalPark]

I fail to see how one can stretch free and informed consent to sleeping with someone having been utterly deceived as to their identity?*

Lying about being on the pill would may constitute an offence at s4 of the Sexual Offences Act

Sexual Offences Act 2003

An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts, and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Lying about being raped is a staight up pervert the course of justice.

Consent is justifiably quite important in terms of the issue of the regulation of sexual behaviour.

I get that he was very keen, shame about all the convictions rendered unsafe by him.

Hence why we should have laws, and UCOs or CHIS should act within what the authorising officer has set down as their use and conduct.

*I cannot remember anymore, but I am sure there is a stated case about someone who slept with a man who entered their room believing it was the husband/boyfriend and it wasn't, and this invalidated the consent. I stand to be corrected, as I haven't read PNLD for a while!

That said, it may have been one of those stupid "You are the late turn DC at Sandford CID and someone is asking advice, is this.....?" questions on the exam.

No, there was some ratboy burglar who raped a woman in bed with her boyfriend.