foxy lady Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 They'd also be nicked for secretly tape recording people. What makes you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 What makes you think that? To my knowledge it is illegal to record people without their consent. The "some calls may be recorded" message we often hear is because of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barpen Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 To my knowledge it is illegal to record people without their consent. The "some calls may be recorded" message we often hear is because of this. The reason they tell you calls are being recorded is to deter folk from lying. There is no point making a false declaration and then claiming it was taken down wrong if the evidence is on tape. There is nothing to prevent you recording in the street. There have been several cases where folk stopped by the police have recorded the event on mobile phones and used it as part of a complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 As the cost of wearable technology falls ( and is reduced in size ), within a few years there will be many people recording their everyday lives, don't be surprised if an MP or someone in public office produces a video to support their version of events in a controversial situation. Of course the MP must remember to switch off the recording device when visiting his mistress/lover otherwise there will be another Max Mosley situation. But then the mistress/lover must ensure her recording device is switched on... ...gets complicated doesn't it. That's exactly what Andrew Mitchel did, secretly recorded his interview with police...that's what stitched them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The average joe may have been reported for effing and jeffing at the Police. 'Thrasher' Mitchell lost his job. The lying Police Officer was punished by the courts. With extra weighting because he in a position of responsibility. It wasn't the ex-minister who got justice - it was Joe Public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Can't ever see the police wearing body cams, it would mess up their illegal stop and search policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The reason they tell you calls are being recorded is to deter folk from lying. There is no point making a false declaration and then claiming it was taken down wrong if the evidence is on tape. There is nothing to prevent you recording in the street. There have been several cases where folk stopped by the police have recorded the event on mobile phones and used it as part of a complaint. Not sure if the the law stretches to recording a meeting outside the public realm surreptitiously. As for helmet cams I can't see the unelected guardian of our rights Chakribati allowing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Only the BBC sticks with more factual reporting, I still like their approach. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25682652 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Makes you wonder how many normal people have been fitted up in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salsafan Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I thought the whole episode was a case of something like this, unless I was mistaken. Police office A stopped a MP from cycling in front of the Downing Street. Something very simple and casual. Then MP cursed or swore or other, but not at the policeman himself directly or personally. But another police officer took the matter into his own hands, or misinterpreted the situation, and actually passed on the story as one that the MP swore at the police officer and reported this to another MP. Basically dobbing on the MP behind his back and reported him to his management. Then the PM got hold of this and obviously tried to get the MP to apologise or other, but then the newspaper got hold of this or other, and somehow this whole thing blew into a big thing. Now the MP is also angry at the situation and also cursed or other and assumed that the police officer A was the person at fault, but not realising that it was a police officer B. Then the Police officer A is now suing the MP for libel. Police officer A is now apologising for his part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.