Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill Options

[cp8759]

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills...0188/200188.pdf

I see the rationale for the bill, but the list of relevant authorities seems a bit concerning:

Any police force: Why does this extend to the noddy forces like the parks police? Surely only territorial forces, BTP, CNC & maybe MOD police should get this?
Any of Her Majesty’s forces: surely, at most, the service police need this. Why should this extend to any member of the armed forces?
The Ministry of Justice: WTF?
The Financial Conduct Authority: Cos you really need to show you're willing to snort coke to get on the inside of an investment scam or ponzi scheme?
The Competition and Markets Authority: WTF?

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

Got to get ready for the expected riots haven't they They won't abuse human rights though so it's OK its only law breaking in a minor and focused way

IMO not prosecuting as not in the public interest should be enough.

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 6 Oct 2020 - 10:35

[cp8759]

IMO not prosecuting as not in the public interest should be enough.

I would never want to rely on the discretion of a Crown prosecutor not to prosecute me. You might get a prosecutor who's an a-hole, and you have no recourse if his judgments of the public interest is different to yours.

[PASTMYBEST]

IMO not prosecuting as not in the public interest should be enough.

I would never want to rely on the discretion of a Crown prosecutor not to prosecute me. You might get a prosecutor who's an a-hole, and you have no recourse if his judgments of the public interest is different to yours.

We are not talking about you or I though it's the security forces ( when did the police acquire that title) and i can see some times when undercover their behavior would need to be other than pristine From a member of the public point of view i would rather at least have these acts open to scrutiny than a carte blanche exemption be given

[cp8759]

We are not talking about you or I though it's the security forces ( when did the police acquire that title) and i can see some times when undercover their behavior would need to be other than pristine From a member of the public point of view i would rather at least have these acts open to scrutiny than a carte blanche exemption be given

No idea where you've got "security forces" from, that wording does not appear in the bill. Presumably the exemption will remain open to challenge via a judicial review, and the protections of the HRA remain. My greater concern is that far too many agencies seem to have these blanket powers. I struggle to envisage any scenario where a member of the armed forces who is not a member of the service police would need such an exemption.

[Fredd]

I struggle to envisage any scenario where a member of the armed forces who is not a member of the service police would need such an exemption.

It's not exactly unknown for members of the armed forces to have been used in covert surveillance roles to investigate terrorist activities. Perhaps some of the more notorious examples were a bit before your time. 😁

[TMC Towcester]

Why would any 'regular' law-abiding citizen be in the slightest bit bothered by this? I'm not. Tin foil hats anyone?

[cp8759]

Why would any 'regular' law-abiding citizen be in the slightest bit bothered by this? I'm not. Tin foil hats anyone?

Oh you're quite right, after all undercover officers have never abused their role, have they?

I struggle to envisage any scenario where a member of the armed forces who is not a member of the service police would need such an exemption.

It's not exactly unknown for members of the armed forces to have been used in covert surveillance roles to investigate terrorist activities. Perhaps some of the more notorious examples were a bit before your time. 😁

Sure, so you'd expect there to be a provision for special forces and the service police, the current provision just seems overly broad.

[PASTMYBEST]

Why would any 'regular' law-abiding citizen be in the slightest bit bothered by this? I'm not. Tin foil hats anyone?

Oh you're quite right, after all undercover officers have never abused their role, have they?

I struggle to envisage any scenario where a member of the armed forces who is not a member of the service police would need such an exemption.

It's not exactly unknown for members of the armed forces to have been used in covert surveillance roles to investigate terrorist activities. Perhaps some of the more notorious examples were a bit before your time. 😁

Sure, so you'd expect there to be a provision for special forces and the service police, the current provision just seems overly broad.

,

the current provision just seems overly broad.

That's for sure Perhaps there is a thought that the police did not have enough protection during the 1970's miners strike

[Fredd]

I struggle to envisage any scenario where a member of the armed forces who is not a member of the service police would need such an exemption.

It's not exactly unknown for members of the armed forces to have been used in covert surveillance roles to investigate terrorist activities. Perhaps some of the more notorious examples were a bit before your time. 😁

Sure, so you'd expect there to be a provision for special forces and the service police, the current provision just seems overly broad.

Well you're the one who said you struggled to envisage "any scenario" where any member of the armed forces not in their police services would need these exemptions. And I don't see why it's overly broad when it only applies to those engaged in those specific covert surveillance activities.

[oldstoat]

Why would any 'regular' law-abiding citizen be in the slightest bit bothered by this? I'm not. Tin foil hats anyone?

Oh you're quite right, after all undercover officers have never abused their role, have they?

I struggle to envisage any scenario where a member of the armed forces who is not a member of the service police would need such an exemption.

It's not exactly unknown for members of the armed forces to have been used in covert surveillance roles to investigate terrorist activities. Perhaps some of the more notorious examples were a bit before your time. 😁

Sure, so you'd expect there to be a provision for special forces and the service police, the current provision just seems overly broad.

Re the abuse of roles. If you are an undercover officer and a person falls in love with you, and then years later the lover turns out to be an undercover officer, I can only imagine that the poor supposed victim, will scream blue murder etc etc. Typical looney left always want to portray themselves as victims. "oh I would not have fallen in love/had a child with them, blah blah etc, had I known they were an undercover officer".

Well sorry but what is an officer to do?