Re: @Matt Bryant - Graham Marsden @Matt Bryant - Graham Marsden @Matt Bryant - ....cobblers.
".....Stephen Lawrence case....." LOL, so, knowing you can't win the argument on the current case in point, you divert off to what you assume is safer ground, and make a new smear against the police. I assume that's because you also realise you had lost the current argument. LMAO!
"....35 Notification of authorisations for intrusive surveillance....." Which is the section of the Act dealing with intrusive interception, which means the actual message contents, whereas this case was with regards to metadata. Under the DRIP amendments, metadata does not require a warrant. If you had bothered to do some research you might have found this article (http://www.dailydot.com/news/plebgate-sun-operation-alice-ripa/) which explains the difference quite neatly. Enjoy!
".....and move the goalposts all you like...." You mean like whiningly introducing the Stephen Lawrence case when you have lost the argument?
"....but this is an absolute, legal requirement that there must be a *written record* made of the authorisation...." For a different form of interception. Try again!
".....So I have done exactly what you asked....." No, you haven't, you have just misunderstood the law again, probably due to your childish, overwhelming and unreasoning hatred of the police. Quite illuminating. Did they take your toys away?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
