Police Scotland fingered for breaching RIPA code 'multiple' times Police Scotland’s covert investigations unit has been accused of committing "multiple breaches" of a new code intended to guard against unlawful spying on journalists. The Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data code was introduced in March as a safeguard against the surveillance of journalists and their sources …
Sadly this surprises me as much as finding out that water is wet.
The day the police have been shown to follow rules like this religiously, is the day I knock off the nearest bobby's hat, sprinkle a little bit of salt on it (and perhaps garnish it with a sprig of parsley), and proceed to chow down on the bloody thing...
"Nice to see the SNP's brownshirts are doing their job."
Please expand - Anonymous Coward - as Police Scotland report to the Scottish Police Authority - a non-political quango (set up by legislation passed by Tory, Liberal, Labour, SNP, Green and SSP in the Scottish Parliament) that is not under the direct control of the Scottish Parliament let alone the Scottish Government let alone the SNP?
Please explain while winning 50% of the vote the SNP had 89% of the seats.
I'm no fan of 1st past the post as it distorts the electorate's intention and would prefer to see proportional representation. 89% is very close to a one party state.
Since when have quangos been non political ?
Who do you think does the appointing ?
Good article in The Scotsman Here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-laying-bare-scotland-s-quango-state-1-3690186
Westminster elections are First Past the Post - and with 50.1% of the vote SNP took 56 out of 59 Westminster seats in Scotland (which is 95% not 89%).
But blaming the SNP for UK Westminster election rules seems bizarre.
Holyrood elections (which are the ones of relevance to the day-to-day governance of Scotland) are a combined First Past the Post system and a form of Proportional Representation (known as Additional Member System) - which means it is difficult (though not impossible) for any one party to hold an overall majority of seats; so sorry, no one party state results, despite the rantings of the swivel eyed zoomer Unionists and their lackey running dog press.
Here's an explanation of the electoral system in Scotland (complete with worked examples) if you are really that interested: http://wingsoverscotland.com/ams-for-lazy-people/
And yes, the Quango system needs fixed - yet another problem mess inherited from the incompetent Labour unionists. Funny how they said it was the dog's bollocks when they were running the show, but now that the boot is on the other foot...
Neither set of elections involve FPTP, they are not in France which does have FPTP, ie candidates are elected with 50%+1 of the vote in the first or second round of voting. Designed for the 4th and 5th Republics
Westminster elections are done on plurality, where the candidate in the constituency with the most votes wins. Could be 1 vote, could be by 1 vote. If there were only two candidates then one would by definition have 50% plus (outside of a dead heat), but very few Westminster elections (as opposed to LA ones) involve so few. More typical to have 4 or more, especially in a byelection.
Holyrood is most definitely not a combination of FPTP and PR, it is AMS, where candidates are elected in constituencies and then the regional votes (not national) are adjusted so that the result more fairly reflects the overall vote. It takes quite extreme voting patterns to get to an overall majority and it was assumed that this was never going to happen after the first two coalitions and then a minority government but the current SG had an overall majority, and on current polls that will continue after next years election. It has worked pretty well so far, with a few independents, greens, trots etc elected. I'd prefer if the party didn't get to agree the lists.
"Careful consideration has also had to be given to the fact that criminal investigations and legal proceedings are invariably active and we are not yet in a position to consider the impact or potential wider consequences of naming."
One of the consequences of naming might be that improperly obtained evidence might be disallowed. Another, wider, consequence might be that there would be a strong disincentive to bypass due process in the future.
If tainted evidence is being hawked round surely any and all defence lawyers have a responsibility to object to all 'evidence' until is it proved to be from a corruption free source? Until then corruption appears to be added to claims of 'missing competence' such as leaving road accident victims to die before taking action on reports.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
