Reply to post: @Matt Bryant - Re: Graham Marsden @Matt Bryant - Graham Marsden @Matt Bryant - ....cobblers.

@Matt Bryant - Re: Graham Marsden @Matt Bryant - Graham Marsden @Matt Bryant - ....cobblers.

Snip of a lot of blather where Matt accuses me of nit-picking whilst, erm, picking nits, I'll just address the (few) salient points:

> no doubt do deter other policemen from dishonesty.

Yes, just like the investigation into the Stephen Lawrence case have deterred police officers from Institutional Racism or the finger wagging following various deaths due to excessive force by the Police stopped the death of Ian Tomlinson or... (I'd mention other examples, but Matt's blinkers won't let him see them, so there's no point in wasting my time)

> which is your nit-picking way of avoiding admitting you cannot provide any law broken by the Met in this case

No, Matt, it's pointing out that you seem to have little clue about what you're talking about.

> I have no idea, not being party to the Police's authorization system [...] Firstly, you need to show that there is actually a legal requirement for the Met to record such authorizations - if not, just like all other organisations, they are not going to try double-guessing every possible data retention requirement. Secondly, you also need to show that, even if there was a requirement to record such authorizations, that there was a secondary requirement to make that information publically available upon request.

Ye gods, Matt, did you actually *BOTHER* to read the original article? Let me quote it for you to save you time:

"the police refused to respond, claiming that because they didn't bother keeping records of how often they used RIPA powers [...] given that the RIPA powers it uses for rifling through innocent people's communications metadata must, legally, be “authorised” by a constable of superintendent rank"

And, to save you even more time, let me quote from the RIPA itself:

* * * * *

35 Notification of authorisations for intrusive surveillance.

(1)Where a person grants or cancels a [F1police, SOCA, [F2Revenue and CustomsF2]][F3F1or OFT] authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance, he shall give notice that he has done so to an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner.

(2)A notice given for the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a)must be given in writing as soon as reasonably practicable after the grant or, as the case may be, cancellation of the authorisation to which it relates;

(b)must be given in accordance with any such arrangements made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Chief Surveillance Commissioner as are for the time being in force; and

(c)must specify such matters as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe.

(4)Where a notice for the purposes of subsection (1) of the grant of an authorisation has been received by an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner, he shall, as soon as practicable—

(a)scrutinise the authorisation; and

(b)in a case where notice has been given in accordance with subsection (3)(a), decide whether or not to approve the authorisation.

* * * * *

Now you can whine and weasel and nit-pick and move the goalposts all you like (and I'm sure you will) but this is an absolute, legal requirement that there must be a *written record* made of the authorisation and that it must be passed on to an ordinary Surveillance Commissioner yet the Police have said that they *DID NOT* keep such records which is in clear breach of the law.

So I have done exactly what you asked, will you accept this, or will you just try to dodge the issue and make yourself look even more of a fool?

PS

> I have a problem with willful self-deception.

ROFL! I'm sorry, I would have liked to reply more in this discussion, but another Irony Detector has just exploded...

As always, feel free to declare victory (which is, of course, in no way self-deception!)