Thought Police in action.

Stupid, dim, woman and her group of bag carriers.

"Oh, I know, let's go to a foreign country and try and cause some problems by grossly offending a subset of the population".

She wonders why she was banned from the UK? Come over to Texas and stand outside one of the mega-churches on any given sunday with placards, handing out leaflets saying that 'Jesus was gay' and see what happens............I can tell you, it wouldn't end well.
 
Sam the Bam: The way 18USC2511(2)(d) is written, as long as the party making the intercept is a party to the call it is legal as long as the interception is not for the purposes of committing a crime. An example of the "one party consent" would be if you asked me if you could record a call I was making and I give consent. I am the one part of the conversation that is aware of the recording, again, as long as it isn't for the purposes of committing a crime.
I have never read the legislation but, I know that my wife asked her inhouse corporate lawyers the question - to cover her arrse. She was told by them that in a one party state she could record anything as she was one party and could consent to herself recording herself and others. However, the problem arises when having offices out of state where one party consent is not permitted and all parties have to be informed - the wife has a California office and cannot record anything over the phone with them. She and her staff record verbal warnings, disciplinaries and terminations just in case a wrongful dismissal suit is bought against the bank.
 
Heartily agree abut 1984, its a book everyone should read more then once, especially the younger generation. My son was so taken with it and his further readings on Orwell that I bought my lad a set of framed Orwell quotes for Christmas and he has them pride of place on his room.
I read 1984 in 1984 ,and it was boring, 365 pages just divided into days of the week and a map of the underground at the back.
 
I read 1984 in 1984 ,and it was boring, 365 pages just divided into days of the week and a map of the underground at the back.
Obviously not the 1984 that I, and many others, have read.

Edited add; I've got the sequels from 1985 until 2010, published by HMSO and Banner.
 
Last edited:
Stupid, dim, woman and her group of bag carriers.

"Oh, I know, let's go to a foreign country and try and cause some problems by grossly offending a subset of the population".

She wonders why she was banned from the UK? Come over to Texas and stand outside one of the mega-churches on any given sunday with placards, handing out leaflets saying that 'Jesus was gay' and see what happens............I can tell you, it wouldn't end well.
Quite, all those gay preachers will be offended
 
Sam the Bam: The way 18USC2511(2)(d) is written, as long as the party making the intercept is a party to the call it is legal as long as the interception is not for the purposes of committing a crime. An example of the "one party consent" would be if you asked me if you could record a call I was making and I give consent. I am the one part of the conversation that is aware of the recording, again, as long as it isn't for the purposes of committing a crime.
Fair enough, although you haven't cited the whole of the act. Also with a little bit more digging on your part you're going to find that this isn't a simple as made out. There are a couple of other acts that will trip up LEO's who believe that they are acting within the law when doing this.
 
I really do think our young people will be the ones leading the kickback against it all, as you get older opinions and views change. Everyone is a bit right on and like to rail against the man when they're young but once you have a mortgage and kids then your views change. Mine certainly did. They will be the same, they will start to question things and then impart to their kids. My kids are either gone from the house or will be in a few years and I really do think the younger generation get much maligned and are really a hell of a lot smarter than a lot of us in our middle aged years give them credit for. They are certainly a lot more savvy than I was at their age, back then the news was Trevor McDonald telling you what happened followed by a slightly funny story like a water skiing squirrel or something. Now they are bombarded from all sides and yet I still see lots of analysing whats being said and coming to their own conclusions. And sticking to them too. If someone told me twenty years ago that in 2019 Police Officers would be calling up people and telling them to "check their thinking" I would have found that beyond belief. In another twenty or thirty what are we going to be able to be arrested or questioned for ??

Last summer I caught my then sixteen year old son reading 1984, I asked him why. He said it was because his English teacher told him it was a book he could not recommend. He loved it. I think we can trust the youngsters to step up.
I really do hope you are right. Thing is though mate, get them young enough and all that and with the backing of government. The Tories seem to be backing a lot of this stuff at the moment, imagine what it would be like under the present Labour Party if they win the next election.
 
I have never read the legislation but, I know that my wife asked her inhouse corporate lawyers the question - to cover her arrse. She was told by them that in a one party state she could record anything as she was one party and could consent to herself recording herself and others. However, the problem arises when having offices out of state where one party consent is not permitted and all parties have to be informed - the wife has a California office and cannot record anything over the phone with them. She and her staff record verbal warnings, disciplinaries and terminations just in case a wrongful dismissal suit is bought against the bank.
Aye she can consent to herself being recorded, however she must get the consent of the party she is calling.

Wish I had a dollar for every court case where evidence has been inadmissible because the letter of the law wasn't followed.
 
I really do hope you are right. Thing is though mate, get them young enough and all that and with the backing of government. The Tories seem to be backing a lot of this stuff at the moment, imagine what it would be like under the present Labour Party if they win the next election.
You don't have to imagine, just look at Venezuela, huge oil reserves, the Marxist establishment live in the lap of luxury, and yet the proles are advised to eat their pets to keep alive

Why do you Labour hate white van man over here, they despise the working class, the whole idea of people working hard for a living and not being dependent on the state is sheer heresy to them
 
It seems slightly ironic to me that in a thread about the thought police I'm being castigated for making a small joke about the RA. Proof that we all have our selective intolerances, but are not happy to have the intolerances of others imposed upon us.
I agree. I made a joke, you made a joke.
We both (all) know that a Gunner never deliberately layed a gun to cause a drop short. We always tried our damned hardest to be as accurate as possible.


But shit happens.
 
Fair enough, although you haven't cited the whole of the act. Also with a little bit more digging on your part you're going to find that this isn't a simple as made out. There are a couple of other acts that will trip up LEO's who believe that they are acting within the law when doing this.
(2)(c) actually covers LEOs, it's what allows them to tape undercover conversations for instance. Pretty much every dispatch records incoming calls including non-911 and there isn't an advisement that you are being recorded because one side of the party already knows. The One Party exception for LEOs would be for instance, if you had a victim who claimed someone was trying to blackmail them. The victim can agree for you to record a conversation of them and the possible blackmailer. The victim is the one party with knowledge of the interception. Is it better to get a warrant? Yes, in the same way Homicide investigators will get one for the victim's premise so there's no question about what is found.
 
I have never read the legislation but, I know that my wife asked her inhouse corporate lawyers the question - to cover her arrse. She was told by them that in a one party state she could record anything as she was one party and could consent to herself recording herself and others. However, the problem arises when having offices out of state where one party consent is not permitted and all parties have to be informed - the wife has a California office and cannot record anything over the phone with them. She and her staff record verbal warnings, disciplinaries and terminations just in case a wrongful dismissal suit is bought against the bank.
Yeah, states can add more restrictive laws but not more lenient ones. 2511 has a lot of parts and sub-parts.
 
(2)(c) actually covers LEOs, it's what allows them to tape undercover conversations for instance. Pretty much every dispatch records incoming calls including non-911 and there isn't an advisement that you are being recorded because one side of the party already knows. The One Party exception for LEOs would be for instance, if you had a victim who claimed someone was trying to blackmail them. The victim can agree for you to record a conversation of them and the possible blackmailer. The victim is the one party with knowledge of the interception. Is it better to get a warrant? Yes, in the same way Homicide investigators will get one for the victim's premise so there's no question about what is found.
You know I never thought of that before, in regards to the UK. All control room telephone and radio traffic used to be recorded before the days of politely informing the punter that they may be recorded for training purposes. And, I know of incidences when the recording has been used in evidence with no issues. However, if you want to drop a listen order on a mobile, landline or premises you need a warrant.
 
911 calls are a whole different ball game as they are considered a public record.
 
Back to the OP, I think where the officer went wrong is if he used the phrase about seeing if the poster was "thinking right". If that was the phrase used it does bring images "1984" to mind.
 

Latest Threads

Top