RE: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance bill under fire"
phil.m.clarke@bt.com Mon, 14 February 2000 12:49 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05987 for <raven-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:49:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA17852; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:39:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA17822 for <raven@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:39:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from marvin.axion.bt.co.uk (marvin.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.16.82]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA05452 for <raven@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:40:43 -0500 (EST)
From: phil.m.clarke@bt.com
Received: from cbtlipnt01.btlabs.bt.co.uk by marvin (local) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:44:26 +0000
Received: by cbtlipnt01.btlabs.bt.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1VRKAKXK>; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:45:38 -0000
Message-ID: <5104D4DBC598D211B5FE0000F8FE7EB20476FA19@mbtlipnt02.btlabs.bt.co.uk>
To: raven@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance bill under fire"
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:45:39 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: raven-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: raven-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Raven Discussion List <raven.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: raven@ietf.org
> Presumably the right to silence, which still exists in the U.K., overrides the powers supposedly granted to the police by this bill? the right to silence is still there, but since the Criminal Justice Act (1994, and strongly opposed at the time) the police caution now goes: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." The stock reply is usually "I have nothing to say until I have consulted my solicitor" and to ask the officer to record this reply. This gives you a reasonable counter-argument when, in court, something like "the defendant did not tell this to the investigating police but relies on it now, & in doing so has hampered invesigations" is used to imply motives for your silence. (disclaimer: this is not legal advice) Phil _______________________________________________ raven mailing list raven@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven
- [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance bill … Caspar Bowden
- Re: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Richard Payne
- Re: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Matthew Saroff
- Re: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… chefren
- RE: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Caspar Bowden
- RE: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… janne.haikonen
- RE: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Fred Baker
- Re: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Fred Baker
- Re: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Ed Stone
- RE: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Caspar Bowden
- RE: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… phil.m.clarke
- Re: [Raven] BBC Online 10/2/2000: "Surveillance b… Ge' Weijers