I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes - see my answer upthread. If your house is burgled your house is examined. If you are defrauded, your correspondence and interactions with the fraudster - by whatever means - are examined. If you are raped, you will be examined in the most intimate manner in order to obtain forensic evidence. If you are attacked, photographs of your injuries are made available to the court and the jury. If the evidence is contained in your electronic correspondence then there is no good reason whatsoever why it should be exempt from investigation. What matters is whether it is evidence.
The issue you raise of an unwillingness to report a crime because of what it means for you is a valid one, though it does not just apply to sexual assault. Having to be physically examined, having to explain what happened to you - to the police, to prosecution counsel, to defence counsel, to a court, a jury, in open court - is not a pleasant process. You can feel judged; it can feel like a second violation; it can make it hard to put it behind you; it is hard to have what you say challenged; giving evidence is not necessarily a pleasant process.
There are ways of mitigating this: better training for the police, victim support services, not allowing the alleged rapist to cross-examine you etc.
But in the end if we want a proper justice system where crimes are properly investigated and we have a fair trial system then we cannot allow the victims' feelings to become the most important factor. That is to revert to a private system of justice more fitting to a barbaric uncivilised time.
The article you quoted says "Two women are planning a legal challenge to new forms that those reporting rape are required to sign allowing information to be seized from their phones, computers and smart watches."
What exactly is wrong with the police asking for access on a case-by-case basis when needed? Why do victims have to give blanket access upfront?
coming back to the original story I buy the fact that Farage's BREXIT `party' is over stated. to get the vote out you need an army of canvassers, agents and door knockers - once the campaign comes under broadcast rules, voters may forget, confuse BREXIT with UKIP or just not bother, he's got very little infrastructure, no councillors and therefore willbe lucky to get its vote out
Is there a significant difference, on average, in turnout between 'safe' seats...... seats where everyone assumes, from past experience, that the party which won last time will win this, .......and seats which might change hands?
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
I was similarly surprised a few months ago when, on reaching my 60th birthday, I discovered that I could get an OAP oyster card entitling me to free travel on all TfL bus and underground and most national rail services within the London fare zones. So now I commute for free - this is worth about £2,500 a year to me - the amount I would have to earn before tax to pay for the season ticket I used to buy.
It's very nice of the taxpayer to provide this to comfortably off people in their late middle age (60 is hardly old these days) but in public policy terms this is absurd.
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of wha other evidence may not have been brought to light.
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
Certainly it would be reasonable to look for that if there were reason to think it existed. But some of the reporting makes it sound almost as though complete disclosure of all personal information would be a necessary precondition of a police investigation.
I really don't think that's right. Fair enough for the police to have discretion to seek more information, and to decide not to investigate if a complainant hasn't been forthcoming. But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
I think it has been thought through and the conclusion was "Great, that'd be super awkward for Corbyn!"
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
I was similarly surprised a few months ago when, on reaching my 60th birthday, I discovered that I could get an OAP oyster card entitling me to free travel on all TfL bus and underground and most national rail services within the London fare zones. So now I commute for free - this is worth about £2,500 a year to me - the amount I would have to earn before tax to pay for the season ticket I used to buy.
It's very nice of the taxpayer to provide this to comfortably off people in their late middle age (60 is hardly old these days) but in public policy terms this is absurd.
We have a friend who uses her OAP Oyster card for all sorts of travel to cinemas, theatres etc from her home on the edge of, but just inside, London. Travelling in from just outside all we can get is free bus travel, and even with a Senior Railcard railfares are getting pricy.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
It's also worth remembering the context - rape cases have recently collapsed because it turned out that there was evidence effectively proving the innocence of the accused in the mobile phone records of the alleged victims.
In other words, anyone objecting to this is effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape.
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of wha other evidence may not have been brought to light.
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
Certainly it would be reasonable to look for that if there were reason to think it existed. But some of the reporting makes it sound almost as though complete disclosure of all personal information would be a necessary precondition of a police investigation.
I really don't think that's right. Fair enough for the police to have discretion to seek more information, and to decide not to investigate if a complainant hasn't been forthcoming. But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
You think it would have been "uncontentious" if in the past the police had refused to investigate offences if complainants had refused to give them access to their property to read all their private correspondence, financial records and so on?
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of wha other evidence may not have been brought to light.
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
Certainly it would be reasonable to look for that if there were reason to think it existed. But some of the reporting makes it sound almost as though complete disclosure of all personal information would be a necessary precondition of a police investigation.
I really don't think that's right. Fair enough for the police to have discretion to seek more information, and to decide not to investigate if a complainant hasn't been forthcoming. But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
To continue, I'm not familiar with the principles of disclosure in criminal trials, but in civil trials, the principle is clear:
A party to the case must disclose all evidence that is relevant to the case, whether stored on paper, or electronically, however embarrassing that disclosure might be to that party, or run the risk of being accused of perverting the course of justice.
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
I was similarly surprised a few months ago when, on reaching my 60th birthday, I discovered that I could get an OAP oyster card entitling me to free travel on all TfL bus and underground and most national rail services within the London fare zones. So now I commute for free - this is worth about £2,500 a year to me - the amount I would have to earn before tax to pay for the season ticket I used to buy.
It's very nice of the taxpayer to provide this to comfortably off people in their late middle age (60 is hardly old these days) but in public policy terms this is absurd.
And it costs Borough councils a fortune, and a rising cost each year, adding a not insignificant chunk to Londoners’ council tax.
Sensibly it should at least be aligned with state retirement age, but of course that is another vote losing proposition for any London mayor (who has little incentive in any case, since the GLA doesn’t foot the bill)
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of ..other evidence
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
That is not what the proposal is - hence my complaint about the poor reporting.
Actually, in an investigation you do look through all potentially relevant information to see whether there is something that is potentially or actually relevant to either the prosecution or the defence. That has always been the case.
What you don't do is seize someone's material, without a search warrant or other legal authority, to try and find something against someone.
If the material is potentially relevant to the defence case, then the prosecution are obliged to disclose it. It is not good enough for them to say that they haven't bothered to obtain it because it is too difficult because that suggests that the case has not been properly investigated and should never be before the jury.
What the CPS are saying is that, for a proper investigation to be conducted, it will or may be necessary to examine electronically held material. If that material is not made available then it may not be possible to do a proper investigation and that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence which would enable the CPS to say, on the basis of the current tests, that the case should go to trial. The CPS are making that clear right at the outset, which makes sense, so that (a) time and money is not wasted; and (b) the need for such material does not become an unpleasant surprise later on.
Imagine, for instance, that a man is charged with rape. His defence case states that the sex was consensual and that in the hours and days after the alleged crime there were many loving and intimate messages showing that what the victim is saying is untrue. How can a jury decide without reviewing those messages? If those had been reviewed during the investigation, rather than at a much later stage, after charging, after someone has incurred costs, shame, possible loss of job etc, them much time, cost and angst would have been saved - not to mention the possibility of someone losing their liberty unjustly.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
Proper disclosure of all relevant & potentially relevant evidence is absolutely essential to fair trials (not just in rape cases). Problems with this go to the heart of many miscarriages of justice, such as the Guildford 4, the Kiszko case etc. So much evidence is contained in social media that it is essential that it be examined & revealed, where necessary.
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
The Wilson strategy worked before, and being happy with a deal doesn't mean being discontent with Remain if that's what the public vote for.
I'm no lawyer, but just reading the headline on the BBC website did make me think, "Why wouldn't you hand over evidence? You want the guilty convicted don't you?".
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of wha other evidence may not have been brought to light.
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
Certainly it would be reasonable to look for that if there were reason to think it existed. But some of the reporting makes it sound almost as though complete disclosure of all personal information would be a necessary precondition of a police investigation.
I really don't think that's right. Fair enough for the police to have discretion to seek more information, and to decide not to investigate if a complainant hasn't been forthcoming. But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
You think it would have been "uncontentious" if in the past the police had refused to investigate offences if complainants had refused to give them access to their property to read all their private correspondence, financial records and so on?
Look up Clarence Harry Willcock on Google.
To take one example, if I run a business, and accuse an employee of embezzlement, it's absolutely right the police should have access to all the records I possess relating to the business, whether on paper, or stored electronically, whether those records embarrass me or not, in order to help establish the truth of what I'm alleging.
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
Doubtless this is the thinking behind their carefully calibrating the commitment as applying to any Tory Brexit deal?
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
It's also worth remembering the context - rape cases have recently collapsed because it turned out that there was evidence effectively proving the innocence of the accused in the mobile phone records of the alleged victims.
In other words, anyone objecting to this is effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape.
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of ..other evidence
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
Imagine, for instance, that a man is charged with rape. His defence case states that the sex was consensual and that in the hours and days after the alleged crime there were many loving and intimate messages showing that what the victim is saying is untrue. How can a jury decide without reviewing those messages? If those had been reviewed during the investigation, rather than at a much later stage, after charging, after someone has incurred costs, shame, possible loss of job etc, them much time, cost and angst would have been saved - not to mention the possibility of someone losing their liberty unjustly.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
That, or something very similar, happened a year or so ago.
That is not what the proposal is - hence my complaint about the poor reporting.
Actually, in an investigation you do look through all potentially relevant information to see whether there is something that is potentially or actually relevant to either the prosecution or the defence. That has always been the case.
What you don't do is seize someone's material, without a search warrant or other legal authority, to try and find something against someone.
If the material is potentially relevant to the defence case, then the prosecution are obliged to disclose it. It is not good enough for them to say that they haven't bothered to obtain it because it is too difficult because that suggests that the case has not been properly investigated and should never be before the jury.
What the CPS are saying is that, for a proper investigation to be conducted, it will or may be necessary to examine electronically held material. If that material is not made available then it may not be possible to do a proper investigation and that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence which would enable the CPS to say, on the basis of the current tests, that the case should go to trial. The CPS are making that clear right at the outset, which makes sense, so that (a) time and money is not wasted; and (b) the need for such material does not become an unpleasant surprise later on.
Imagine, for instance, that a man is charged with rape. His defence case states that the sex was consensual and that in the hours and days after the alleged crime there were many loving and intimate messages showing that what the victim is saying is untrue. How can a jury decide without reviewing those messages? If those had been reviewed during the investigation, rather than at a much later stage, after charging, after someone has incurred costs, shame, possible loss of job etc, them much time, cost and angst would have been saved - not to mention the possibility of someone losing their liberty unjustly.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
I thought the BBC article quite far and balanced in rehearsing the reasons for the policy, and the arguments for and against: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48086244
Given the past history of how examination of those who claim to have been the victim of rape has been carried out, the immediate reaction to the policy is not entirely irrational.... "Most complainants fully understand why disclosure of communications with the defendant is fair and reasonable, but what is not clear is why their past history (including any past sexual history) should be up for grabs..."
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of wha other evidence may not have been brought to light.
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
Certainly it would be reasonable to look for that if there were reason to think it existed. But some of the reporting makes it sound almost as though complete disclosure of all personal information would be a necessary precondition of a police investigation.
I really don't think that's right. Fair enough for the police to have discretion to seek more information, and to decide not to investigate if a complainant hasn't been forthcoming. But if it's a question of "Disclose all or we won't investigate," that's right out of order.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
You think it would have been "uncontentious" if in the past the police had refused to investigate offences if complainants had refused to give them access to their property to read all their private correspondence, financial records and so on?
Look up Clarence Harry Willcock on Google.
To take one example, if I run a business, and accuse an employee of embezzlement, it's absolutely right the police should have access to all the records I possess relating to the business, whether on paper, or stored electronically, whether those records embarrass me or not, in order to help establish the truth of what I'm alleging.
Sure. And all your paper records. And all your other emails, whether to do with business or not. And your social media posts. And all the letters you have ever written. And all the replies.
Do you not see there's something wrong with a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating any crime?
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
The problem is that, for rape specifically, evidence is hard to obtain. Objecting to evidence from mobile phones being obtained makes that problem worse, not better.
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
I felt the opposite. I felt that having to give the police licence to trawl through all your private electronic correspondence would represent such an invasion of privacy that it would deter many people from proceeding with a complaint.
Is it right that one should have to forfeit any right to privacy before reporting an alleged crime?
Yes, given the very serious consequences of getting it wrong.
At the risk of stating the obvious, juries should be convicting only if the evidence before them proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of wha other evidence may not have been brought to light.
It hasn't been traditional in this country to have police trawling through people's personal information in search of something that might be relevant.
.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
You think it would have been "uncontentious" if in the past the police had refused to investigate offences if complainants had refused to give them access to their property to read all their private correspondence, financial records and so on?
Look up Clarence Harry Willcock on Google.
To take one example, if I run a business, and accuse an employee of embezzlement, it's absolutely right the police should have access to all the records I possess relating to the business, whether on paper, or stored electronically, whether those records embarrass me or not, in order to help establish the truth of what I'm alleging.
Sure. And all your paper records. And all your other emails, whether to do with business or not. And your social media posts. And all the letters you have ever written. And all the replies.
Do you not see there's something wrong with a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating any crime?
I don't think it would be right for the police (or Defence) to demand information that could not be relevant to the case. But, I think it would be essential that they have access to information that could be relevant.
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
Conundrum.
Doubly so, since the only way that Labour get in before Brexit is by winning a general election that takes place before Brexit. And IMO they will need to offer the Ref in their manifesto in order to secure that win.
But that is just my opinion. I think the pivot to (effectively) Remain will net gain seats. What matters is whether Jezza & Co think it will.
The article you quoted says "Two women are planning a legal challenge to new forms that those reporting rape are required to sign allowing information to be seized from their phones, computers and smart watches."
What exactly is wrong with the police asking for access on a case-by-case basis when needed? Why do victims have to give blanket access upfront?
You need all the information at the start in order to determine lines of inquiry, in order to preserve the information properly so that there is a clear chain of evidence, to ensure that information is not deleted or lost or tampered with, so that potential witnesses can be interviewed when memories are fresh, so that forensic material can be obtained or checked before it becomes old or stale or vanishes etc.
Any competent investigator will make sure right at the very start of an investigation that they preserve the evidence. This is ABC stuff for any investigator. Trying to get it later or do this essential task later on is bad practice and makes the evidence potentially less valuable and more open to challenge.
Fundamentally, it is the investigator who is in charge of the case not the victim and an investigation should not be held up or hampered by having to seek the victim's consent.
A variation on the £350m for the NHS trap where opponents will use stats that show things to be worse than the public thought while not as bad as the original claim sounded?
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
It's also worth remembering the context - rape cases have recently collapsed because it turned out that there was evidence effectively proving the innocence of the accused in the mobile phone records of the alleged victims.
In other words, anyone objecting to this is effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape.
Didn't those cases fail because evidence that HAD been seen by police and prosecutors wasn't disclosed to the defence?
That is not what the proposal is - hence my complaint about the poor reporting.
Actually, in an investigation you do look through all potentially relevant information to see whether there is something that is potentially or actually relevant to either the prosecution or the defence. That has always been the case.
What you don't do is seize someone's material, without a search warrant or other legal authority, to try and find something against someone.
If the material is potentially relevant to the defence case, then the prosecution are obliged to disclose it. It is not good enough for them to say that they haven't bothered to obtain it because it is too difficult because that suggests that the case has not been properly investigated and should never be before the jury.
What the CPS are saying is that, for a proper investigation to be conducted, it will or may be necessary to examine electronically held material. If that material is not made available then it may not be possible to do a proper investigation and that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence which would enable the CPS to say, on the basis of the current tests, that the case should go to trial. The CPS are making that clear right at the outset, which makes sense, so that (a) time and money is not wasted; and (b) the need for such material does not become an unpleasant surprise later on.
Imagine, for instance, that a man is charged with rape. His defence case states that the sex was consensual and that in the hours and days after the alleged crime there were many loving and intimate messages showing that what the victim is saying is untrue. How can a jury decide without reviewing those messages? If those had been reviewed during the investigation, rather than at a much later stage, after charging, after someone has incurred costs, shame, possible loss of job etc, them much time, cost and angst would have been saved - not to mention the possibility of someone losing their liberty unjustly.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
Fair enough if you're saying the proposal has been inaccurately reported. But I've just read your original post again, and to be honest all I see is complaints about people who are concerned about this, and a statement that it's for the investigators to decide what's relevant.
I don't think it's ever been for the police to decide what personal information they have a right to see, and I don't think it should be.
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
Labour now only seems to back a referendum on a 'Tory Brexit Deal' if it is a Deal with Corbyn's input no referendum needed apparently
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
It's also worth remembering the context - rape cases have recently collapsed because it turned out that there was evidence effectively proving the innocence of the accused in the mobile phone records of the alleged victims.
In other words, anyone objecting to this is effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape.
Didn't those cases fail because evidence that HAD been seen by police and prosecutors wasn't disclosed to the defence?
Yes, which is why it's important that prosecutors can examine that evidence if it's relevant.
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
Conundrum.
Doubly so, since the only way that Labour get in before Brexit is by winning a general election that takes place before Brexit. And IMO they will need to offer the Ref in their manifesto in order to secure that win.
But that is just my opinion. I think the pivot to (effectively) Remain will net gain seats. What matters is whether Jezza & Co think it will.
I suspect that Corbyn & McDonell believe that strategically they need Brexit as remaining in EU would hamper the implementation of the socialist transformation of society. Brexit followed by a Corbyn majority government could be the sort of sequence that destroys a hitherto stable and prosperous democracy.
What the hell is Green playing at? Have the Tories lost the will to live?
This is a good example of why right of centre voters no longer see the Tories as right of centre. If being a Conservative means anything it should follow you believe in a low tax economy and look for solutions outside raising taxation to solve problems.
Raising National Insurance on older voters is better than raising income tax or inheritance tax to pay for social care or imposing a 'dementia tax' and social care has to be paid for somehow
That is not what the proposal is - hence my complaint about the poor reporting.
Actually, in an investigation you do look through all potentially relevant information to see whether there is something that is potentially or actually relevant to either the prosecution or the defence. That has always been the case.
What you don't do is seize someone's material, without a search warrant or other legal authority, to try and find something against someone.
If the material is potentially relevant to the defence case, then the prosecution are obliged to disclose it. It is not good enough for them to say that they haven't bothered to obtain it because it is too difficult because that suggests that the case has not been properly investigated and should never be before the jury.
What the CPS are saying is that, for a proper investigation to be conducted, it will or may be necessary to examine electronically held material. If that material is not made available then it may not be possible to do a proper investigation and that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence which would enable the CPS to say, on the basis of the current tests, that the case should go to trial. The CPS are making that clear right at the outset, which makes sense, so that (a) time and money is not wasted; and (b) the need for such material does not become an unpleasant surprise later on.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
I thought the BBC article quite far and balanced in rehearsing the reasons for the policy, and the arguments for and against: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48086244
Given the past history of how examination of those who claim to have been the victim of rape has been carried out, the immediate reaction to the policy is not entirely irrational.... "Most complainants fully understand why disclosure of communications with the defendant is fair and reasonable, but what is not clear is why their past history (including any past sexual history) should be up for grabs..."
It is surely possible that a prostitute may be the victim of rape. And if so she is entitled to see her attacker convicted.
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
The problem is that, for rape specifically, evidence is hard to obtain. Objecting to evidence from mobile phones being obtained makes that problem worse, not better.
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
Quite possible it's not a blanket demand. But I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, and the original article cited is behind a paywall. As I said, Cyclefree's original comment is that it's the investigators who should decide what's relevant - which, I think, would be rather meaningless if they didn't have access to all the information.
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
The problem is that, for rape specifically, evidence is hard to obtain. Objecting to evidence from mobile phones being obtained makes that problem worse, not better.
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
Quite possible it's not a blanket demand. But I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, and the original article cited is behind a paywall. As I said, Cyclefree's original comment is that it's the investigators who should decide what's relevant - which, I think, would be rather meaningless if they didn't have access to all the information.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
It's also worth remembering the context - rape cases have recently collapsed because it turned out that there was evidence effectively proving the innocence of the accused in the mobile phone records of the alleged victims.
In other words, anyone objecting to this is effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape.
Didn't those cases fail because evidence that HAD been seen by police and prosecutors wasn't disclosed to the defence?
Yes, which is why it's important that prosecutors can examine that evidence if it's relevant.
Right. Which they already can, because they did in those cases.
I don't understand the link you're trying to draw between consent given by the victim to investigators and failures in disclosure from the prosecution to the defence.
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
The problem is that, for rape specifically, evidence is hard to obtain. Objecting to evidence from mobile phones being obtained makes that problem worse, not better.
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
Quite possible it's not a blanket demand. But I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, and the original article cited is behind a paywall. As I said, Cyclefree's original comment is that it's the investigators who should decide what's relevant - which, I think, would be rather meaningless if they didn't have access to all the information.
If the police were investigating the case thoroughly, then yes, there might be very good reason to want the complainant to hand over their diaries.
I suppose the key is that the request should be reasonable and relevant - both with regard to content and timing.
What would be unfortunate is if the police ended up 'fishing'. That is not allowed when it comes to the accused and should surely be even less allowed with the alleged victim.
Hopefully their time is too valuable to be doing that.
It's only comparatively recently that people have begun storing potential evidence electronically.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
It's also worth remembering the context - rape cases have recently collapsed because it turned out that there was evidence effectively proving the innocence of the accused in the mobile phone records of the alleged victims.
In other words, anyone objecting to this is effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape.
Didn't those cases fail because evidence that HAD been seen by police and prosecutors wasn't disclosed to the defence?
Yes, which is why it's important that prosecutors can examine that evidence if it's relevant.
Right. Which they already can, because they did in those cases.
I don't understand the link you're trying to draw between consent given by the victim to investigators and failures in disclosure from the prosecution to the defence.
The point is that some people seem to be claiming that the police should not have access to evidence which might prove the innocence of the accused. The fact that these particular cases belatedly collapsed because of the failure of disclosure shows how important that access can be.
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
The problem is that, for rape specifically, evidence is hard to obtain. Objecting to evidence from mobile phones being obtained makes that problem worse, not better.
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
Quite possible it's not a blanket demand. But I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, and the original article cited is behind a paywall. As I said, Cyclefree's original comment is that it's the investigators who should decide what's relevant - which, I think, would be rather meaningless if they didn't have access to all the information.
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
The problem is that, for rape specifically, evidence is hard to obtain. Objecting to evidence from mobile phones being obtained makes that problem worse, not better.
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
Quite possible it's not a blanket demand. But I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, and the original article cited is behind a paywall. As I said, Cyclefree's original comment is that it's the investigators who should decide what's relevant - which, I think, would be rather meaningless if they didn't have access to all the information.
By the way, I'm not necessarily opposed to these new forms, I'm just not sure that Cyclefree and Richard are accurately characterising the issue. As I understand it, the police already can access this material with the victim's consent, and that's not changing- there's no new powers to access without the victim's consent. It's just a matter of how and when that consent is asked for.
If the police genuinely believe they need blanket access and without that the investigation can't continue, then they can explain that to the victim and let them make the decision. Fine, I have no problem with that. But if they're putting that ultimatum to the victim unnecessarily, then that's a) leading to a bigger breach of privacy than is necessary and b) going to result in fewer successful cases. It seems like there would be many cases where asking for more specific consent- e.g. for communications only since the victim first met the suspect- would be more appropriate.
Obviously, that means I'm "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape."
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
Labour now only seems to back a referendum on a 'Tory Brexit Deal' if it is a Deal with Corbyn's input no referendum needed apparently
But that’s the problem a Corbyn Brexit deal , Labour is more Remain now than in 2016 . Any deal simply won’t be acceptable to a large proportion of Labour voters .
Kezia Dugdale is taking up the role of as director of John Smith Centre. She will resign as MSP. She is a list MSP, so no by-election needed.
Former MSP Sarah Boyack is next in line. She is currently Head of Public Affairs Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. If she doesn't fancy coming back into active politics, the next person on the list is Leslie Hinds, a Cllr in Edinburgh until 2017 when she retired. Next is Jalal Chaudry. Then Cat Headley who has left Labour last month. So SLAB will make sure one between Boyack, Hinds or Chaudry will accept a (at least) 2 years job
Where does it say that the consent is limited to only part of the information on the mobile devide?
The Guardian links to the form itself, and it's quite clear that the consent covers ALL data on the phone - including that which might have been been deleted, and is recoverable.
What evidence may be used is limited to that which is judged (by the police and/or CPS) to be relevant to the case.
Again, given past history, I can quite understand why this might raise concerns which are not irrational.
It is not a simple issue, whichever side you are approaching it from.
Given that a no deal Brexit is now being portrayed as the only true Brexit then that should go on any ballot versus Remain .
If those wanting no deal want a proper mandate then let the public decide . I’m happy to take my chances as a Remainer .
Mays deal versus Remain would just look like a stitch up now and fuel the betrayal narratives . Leavers would more likely be more amenable to a second vote with no deal on the ballot .
There was a time I was willing to accept a softer Brexit but seeing as Labour have jumped on the stopping of freedom of movement I’m not interested in any deal they put together .
Either fully in the EU or fully out is the only thing that will now settle the issue .
That is not what the proposal is - hence my complaint about the poor reporting.
Actually, in an investigation you do look through all potentially relevant information to see whether there is something that is potentially or actually relevant to either the prosecution or the defence. That has always been the case.
What you don't do is seize someone's material, without a search warrant or other legal authority, to try and find something against someone.
If the material is potentially relevant to the defence case, then the prosecution are obliged to disclose it. It is not good enough for them to say that they haven't bothered to obtain it because it is too difficult because that suggests that the case has not been properly investigated and should never be before the jury.
What the CPS are saying is that, for a proper investigation to be conducted, it will or may be necessary to examine electronically held material. If that material is not made available then it may not be possible to do a proper investigation and that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence which would enable the CPS to say, on the basis of the current tests, that the case should go to trial. The CPS are making that clear right at the outset, which makes sense, so that (a) time and money is not wasted; and (b) the need for such material does not become an unpleasant surprise later on.
Imagine, for instance, that a man is charged with rape. His defence case states that the sex was consensual and that in the hours and days after the alleged crime there were many loving and intimate messages showing that what the victim is saying is untrue. How can a jury decide without reviewing those messages? If those had been reviewed during the investigation, rather than at a much later stage, after charging, after someone has incurred costs, shame, possible loss of job etc, them much time, cost and angst would have been saved - not to mention the possibility of someone losing their liberty unjustly.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
In the example you give the accused will have those messages on their phone so can provide them for their defence. The complainant's phone is not required.
This sounds like a trawl for any past instance of the complainant demonstrating the behaviour of a woman with loose morals to use a phrase that I had hoped was in the past, but seems now to be the standard that rape complainants are judged against in rape trials.
I thought the BBC article quite far and balanced in rehearsing the reasons for the policy, and the arguments for and against: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48086244
Given the past history of how examination of those who claim to have been the victim of rape has been carried out, the immediate reaction to the policy is not entirely irrational.... "Most complainants fully understand why disclosure of communications with the defendant is fair and reasonable, but what is not clear is why their past history (including any past sexual history) should be up for grabs..."
Past sexual history is not up for grabs. The rules on this have changed so that it is only in rare cases - and only if the judge makes the necessary ruling - that this can be adduced in evidence. The complaint seems to be that by seizing evidence on mobile phones the police could see information about previous sexual history and this is felt to be an invasion of privacy.
I understand that. But that material will not be shared with the defence unless it is potentially relevant. So the objection is to having it in the police's hands at all. And that is simply not a valid objection.
When I have had to investigate someone I have access to all their emails, amongst which will be really very personal ones indeed. Of course, this is uncomfortable for the employee. But that information is never revealed or used if irrelevant. That too is ABC stuff for professional investigators.
What's the difference between hard and soft Sindy? Don't they have a form of it now?
Devo max is often defined as control over everything except foreign policy and defence. That would be my definition of soft Sindy and it's definitely not what we have now.
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
Conundrum.
Doubly so, since the only way that Labour get in before Brexit is by winning a general election that takes place before Brexit. And IMO they will need to offer the Ref in their manifesto in order to secure that win.
But that is just my opinion. I think the pivot to (effectively) Remain will net gain seats. What matters is whether Jezza & Co think it will.
One must assume Jezza and Co are perfectly aware that it will net gain seats. It is unclear however whether that will make them pivot. It's getting a bit late for that manouevre anyway. For example, I've already voted by post in my locals and will be voting in the Euros any day now.
If you are strongly pro-Remain, it's difficult to vote for a Party that is equivocal about it.
Interesting header. Kippers of a certain age leaping on panels in order to bias the results in favour of their party of choice? Odd way to carry on.
I don't think it is a conscious strategy. It is just that blokes in their fifties naturally assume that they are in the right, they have a right to be heard and that everyone will automatically accept the rightness of what they are saying. It's reinforced by the way they tend to only listen to people similar to themselves. These are the people that angry at 'betrayal'.
That is not what the proposal is - hence my complaint about the poor reporting.
Actually, in an investigation you do look through all potentially relevant information to see whether there is something that is potentially or actually relevant to either the prosecution or the defence. That has always been the case.
What you don't do is seize someone's material, without a search warrant or other legal authority, to try and find something against someone.
If the material is potentially relevant to the defence case, then the prosecution are obliged to disclose it. It is not good enough for them to say that they haven't bothered to obtain it because it is too difficult because that suggests that the case has not been properly investigated and should never be before the jury.
What the CPS are saying is that, for a proper investigation to be conducted, it will or may be necessary to examine electronically held material. If that material is not made available then it may not be possible to do a proper investigation and that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence which would enable the CPS to say, on the basis of the current tests, that the case should go to trial. The CPS are making that clear right at the outset, which makes sense, so that (a) time and money is not wasted; and (b) the need for such material does not become an unpleasant surprise later on.
Imagine, for instance, that a man is charged with rape. His defence case states that the sex was consensual and that in the hours and days after the alleged crime there were many loving and intimate messages showing that what the victim is saying is untrue. How can a jury decide without reviewing those messages? If those had been reviewed during the investigation, rather than at a much later stage, after charging, after someone has incurred costs, shame, possible loss of job etc, them much time, cost and angst would have been saved - not to mention the possibility of someone losing their liberty unjustly.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
In the example you give the accused will have those messages on their phone so can provide them for their defence. The complainant's phone is not required.
This sounds like a trawl for any past instance of the complainant demonstrating the behaviour of a woman with loose morals to use a phrase that I had hoped was in the past, but seems now to be the standard that rape complainants are judged against in rape trials.
Er, what about messages sent to others? Also, an investigator would want to check that what is received is the same as what is sent?
You said I'd misunderstood, because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
How is the demand limited?
It is limited to matters relevant to the investigation.
Doesn't the form explicitly say the contrary? It describes how material is downloaded and reviewed, and only at that point is it split into categories, one of which is "not relevant". And that data is still retained.
In practice stuff like old conversation history may never really be read, but the point is you're still signing over consent for it to be downloaded, read and stored just like everything else.
The defence only gets disclosed data potentially significant to the offence. The police may be able to look at various areas to search for these, but it does not seem that is disclosible.
You said I'd misunderstood, because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
How is the demand limited?
It is limited to matters relevant to the investigation.
I already asked you where it said that the consent was limited, and you said "It doesn't. Why should it?"
Please don't waste people's time.
I am sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the consent and the use to which it is put.
You said I had misunderstood because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
Apparently you now agree that there is a blanket demand for access, but you are claiming I was mistaken because only relevant information would be used.
Actually, I checked the Scotland Act 1998. The next on the list should "deliver a certificate signed by or on behalf of the nominating officer of the registered party which submitted that regional list stating that the first choice may be returned as a regional member from that list."
which means SLAB can skip the one who defected and move to the next one if needed.
Kezia Dugdale is taking up the role of as director of John Smith Centre. She will resign as MSP. She is a list MSP, so no by-election needed.
Former MSP Sarah Boyack is next in line. She is currently Head of Public Affairs Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. If she doesn't fancy coming back into active politics, the next person on the list is Leslie Hinds, a Cllr in Edinburgh until 2017 when she retired. Next is Jalal Chaudry. Then Cat Headley who has left Labour last month. So SLAB will make sure one between Boyack, Hinds or Chaudry will accept a (at least) 2 years job
Interesting header. Kippers of a certain age leaping on panels in order to bias the results in favour of their party of choice? Odd way to carry on.
I don't think it is a conscious strategy. It is just that blokes in their fifties naturally assume that they are in the right, they have a right to be heard and that everyone will automatically accept the rightness of what they are saying. It's reinforced by the way they tend to only listen to people similar to themselves. These are the people that angry at 'betrayal'.
(I'm a bloke in my fifties by the way.)
I think it's more general than that - those fired up about an issue are more likely to respond and more likely to respond quickly.
You said I'd misunderstood, because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
How is the demand limited?
It is limited to matters relevant to the investigation.
I already asked you where it said that the consent was limited, and you said "It doesn't. Why should it?"
Please don't waste people's time.
I am sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the consent and the use to which it is put.
You said I had misunderstood because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
Apparently you now agree that there is a blanket demand for access, but you are claiming I was mistaken because only relevant information would be used.
Is that correct?
No it's not correct. There is a request for consent to access anything which might be relevant to the investigation.
Actually, I checked the Scotland Act 1998. The next on the list should "deliver a certificate signed by or on behalf of the nominating officer of the registered party which submitted that regional list stating that the first choice may be returned as a regional member from that list."
which means SLAB can skip the one who defected and move to the next one if needed.
Kezia Dugdale is taking up the role of as director of John Smith Centre. She will resign as MSP. She is a list MSP, so no by-election needed.
Former MSP Sarah Boyack is next in line. She is currently Head of Public Affairs Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. If she doesn't fancy coming back into active politics, the next person on the list is Leslie Hinds, a Cllr in Edinburgh until 2017 when she retired. Next is Jalal Chaudry. Then Cat Headley who has left Labour last month. So SLAB will make sure one between Boyack, Hinds or Chaudry will accept a (at least) 2 years job
Or just grab some poor bugger who turned up for the CLP jumble sale and pack them off to Holyrood.
The defence only gets disclosed data potentially significant to the offence. The police may be able to look at various areas to search for these, but it does not seem that is disclosible.
Correct. But the police get to look through the entirety of the data, which is what I said below.
The issues that arise from this are the police/CPS judgment of what is relevant, or 'potentially relevant', and what else they might search for and what use they might make of it. History does not inspire absolute confidence in their ability to carry out the process fairly.
Actually, I checked the Scotland Act 1998. The next on the list should "deliver a certificate signed by or on behalf of the nominating officer of the registered party which submitted that regional list stating that the first choice may be returned as a regional member from that list."
which means SLAB can skip the one who defected and move to the next one if needed.
Kezia Dugdale is taking up the role of as director of John Smith Centre. She will resign as MSP. She is a list MSP, so no by-election needed.
Former MSP Sarah Boyack is next in line. She is currently Head of Public Affairs Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. If she doesn't fancy coming back into active politics, the next person on the list is Leslie Hinds, a Cllr in Edinburgh until 2017 when she retired. Next is Jalal Chaudry. Then Cat Headley who has left Labour last month. So SLAB will make sure one between Boyack, Hinds or Chaudry will accept a (at least) 2 years job
Or just grab some poor bugger who turned up for the CLP jumble sale and pack them off to Holyrood.
Fair enough if you're saying the proposal has been inaccurately reported. But I've just read your original post again, and to be honest all I see is complaints about people who are concerned about this, and a statement that it's for the investigators to decide what's relevant.
I don't think it's ever been for the police to decide what personal information they have a right to see, and I don't think it should be.
My complaint is that the CPS and the police have been very poor about doing proper investigations and proper disclosure, the CPS are now, rightly, trying to update the rules to correct these problems and those who object are refusing to understand why proper investigation/disclosure is needed and why rights to privacy should not override this.
I don't think past sexual history is relevant and I understand the concerns women have about having to give over private information. But I don't think this should override the interests of justice. And those concerns can be mitigated. Bluntly, the interests of the victims are not the only ones to be considered here and I object to the way this difficult question is being approached by those who think that victims' interests should predominate.
There is also a separate - but equally important - issue about whether the police have the resources to examine this material properly. Often it is taken but not looked at. That too is an issue which is equally concerning.
What's the difference between hard and soft Sindy? Don't they have a form of it now?
Devo max is often defined as control over everything except foreign policy and defence. That would be my definition of soft Sindy and it's definitely not what we have now.
Quebec has it though and narrowly voted 51% to 49% to stay in Canada in 1995
What's the difference between hard and soft Sindy? Don't they have a form of it now?
Devo max is often defined as control over everything except foreign policy and defence. That would be my definition of soft Sindy and it's definitely not what we have now.
Quebec has it though and narrowly voted 51% to 49% to stay in Canada in 1995
I think the problem with a second vote on any deal for Labour is if in the surprise situation they get in before Brexit happens .
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
Labour now only seems to back a referendum on a 'Tory Brexit Deal' if it is a Deal with Corbyn's input no referendum needed apparently
But that’s the problem a Corbyn Brexit deal , Labour is more Remain now than in 2016 . Any deal simply won’t be acceptable to a large proportion of Labour voters .
Any EUref2 will not be acceptable to Labour Leave seats or Tory Leave marginals either
What's the difference between hard and soft Sindy? Don't they have a form of it now?
Devo max is often defined as control over everything except foreign policy and defence. That would be my definition of soft Sindy and it's definitely not what we have now.
Quebec has it though and narrowly voted 51% to 49% to stay in Canada in 1995
No second referendum there!
That was the 2nd referendum, the first was in 1980
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
I was similarly surprised a few months ago when, on reaching my 60th birthday, I discovered that I could get an OAP oyster card entitling me to free travel on all TfL bus and underground and most national rail services within the London fare zones. So now I commute for free - this is worth about £2,500 a year to me - the amount I would have to earn before tax to pay for the season ticket I used to buy.
It's very nice of the taxpayer to provide this to comfortably off people in their late middle age (60 is hardly old these days) but in public policy terms this is absurd.
And it costs Borough councils a fortune, and a rising cost each year, adding a not insignificant chunk to Londoners’ council tax.
Sensibly it should at least be aligned with state retirement age, but of course that is another vote losing proposition for any London mayor (who has little incentive in any case, since the GLA doesn’t foot the bill)
Well any change would not be popular with 60-66 year olds who already benefit (quite a small number in terms of the overall electorate I guess) but I wonder how many others would notice if it were aligned to retirement age? I don't think most people expect it - I certainly didn't know I would be eligible until a few weeks before my birthday.
You said I'd misunderstood, because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
How is the demand limited?
It is limited to matters relevant to the investigation.
I already asked you where it said that the consent was limited, and you said "It doesn't. Why should it?"
Please don't waste people's time.
I am sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the consent and the use to which it is put.
You said I had misunderstood because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
Apparently you now agree that there is a blanket demand for access, but you are claiming I was mistaken because only relevant information would be used.
Is that correct?
No it's not correct. There is a request for consent to access anything which might be relevant to the investigation.
We seem to be going round in circles.
I asked you initially where it said it said the consent was limited. You said "It doesn't. Why should it?"
Then you said the demand was limited. When I pointed out you'd said previously it wasn't, you replied "I am sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the consent and the use to which it is put."
So then I asked you whether you were saying the demand for access was unlimited, but the use was limited. And now you say again that the consent to access is limited after all.
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
I was similarly surprised a few months ago when, on reaching my 60th birthday, I discovered that I could get an OAP oyster card entitling me to free travel on all TfL bus and underground and most national rail services within the London fare zones. So now I commute for free - this is worth about £2,500 a year to me - the amount I would have to earn before tax to pay for the season ticket I used to buy.
It's very nice of the taxpayer to provide this to comfortably off people in their late middle age (60 is hardly old these days) but in public policy terms this is absurd.
No politician would dare take it away though. Howls of outrage and appeals to suffering from rationing and having paid for it all our lives. Your age group and above are fantastically grabby and whiny.
I suspect that Corbyn & McDonell believe that strategically they need Brexit as remaining in EU would hamper the implementation of the socialist transformation of society. Brexit followed by a Corbyn majority government could be the sort of sequence that destroys a hitherto stable and prosperous democracy.
I don't share your fear of socialism - I'm up for a dose - but the point is a good one.
For many people, one of the main benefits of EU membership, and one not mentioned as often as it should be IMO, is that it discourages and in some cases outlaws extreme policies of both left and right in member states.
Kezia Dugdale is taking up the role of as director of John Smith Centre. She will resign as MSP. She is a list MSP, so no by-election needed.
Former MSP Sarah Boyack is next in line. She is currently Head of Public Affairs Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. If she doesn't fancy coming back into active politics, the next person on the list is Leslie Hinds, a Cllr in Edinburgh until 2017 when she retired. Next is Jalal Chaudry. Then Cat Headley who has left Labour last month. So SLAB will make sure one between Boyack, Hinds or Chaudry will accept a (at least) 2 years job
John Smith's daughter, Sarah, is a news correspondent with the BBC, having been on Channel 4 until 2014.
That's rather like saying that - because sometimes accurate information has been obtained through torture - anyone arguing against torture is "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail."
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
The problem is that, for rape specifically, evidence is hard to obtain. Objecting to evidence from mobile phones being obtained makes that problem worse, not better.
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
Quite possible it's not a blanket demand. But I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise, and the original article cited is behind a paywall. As I said, Cyclefree's original comment is that it's the investigators who should decide what's relevant - which, I think, would be rather meaningless if they didn't have access to all the information.
Actually, the investigators need to review all the material when they are investigating. It is all very well saying that you don't need this. Having done thousands of investigations, I can assure you that at the start of any investigation you do not know exactly what you will need. That is why it is so essential to preserve as much as possible as early as possible. Then as you investigate you narrow down.
It is strictly the CPS which decides what is actually or potentially relevant to the defence once they have the defence case. But that is after someone has been charged.
You said I'd misunderstood, because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
How is the demand limited?
It is limited to matters relevant to the investigation.
I already asked you where it said that the consent was limited, and you said "It doesn't. Why should it?"
Please don't waste people's time.
I am sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the consent and the use to which it is put.
You said I had misunderstood because I referred to "a blanket demand for all your personal information".
Apparently you now agree that there is a blanket demand for access, but you are claiming I was mistaken because only relevant information would be used.
Is that correct?
No it's not correct. There is a request for consent to access anything which might be relevant to the investigation.
We seem to be going round in circles.
I asked you initially where it said it said the consent was limited. You said "It doesn't. Why should it?"
Then you said the demand was limited. When I pointed out you'd said previously it wasn't, you replied "I am sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the consent and the use to which it is put."
So then I asked you whether you were saying the demand for access was unlimited, but the use was limited. And now you say again that the consent to access is limited after all.
Idiot.
Yes, we are going round in circles, so I'll give up trying to help you further with English comprehension.
As an OAP who pays tax, I must say I was surprised, and of course pleased, to find a few years ago that I wouldn't have to buy a TV licence any more, and, if necessary, I wouldn't mind paying tax on the benefit. After all, I'd still be getting 80% of the benefit. Same applies to Winter Fuel allowance. Of course, if I was very close to the lower tax threshold I might think differently.
I was similarly surprised a few months ago when, on reaching my 60th birthday, I discovered that I could get an OAP oyster card entitling me to free travel on all TfL bus and underground and most national rail services within the London fare zones. So now I commute for free - this is worth about £2,500 a year to me - the amount I would have to earn before tax to pay for the season ticket I used to buy.
It's very nice of the taxpayer to provide this to comfortably off people in their late middle age (60 is hardly old these days) but in public policy terms this is absurd.
No politician would dare take it away though. Howls of outrage and appeals to suffering from rationing and having paid for it all our lives. Your age group and above are fantastically grabby and whiny.
Your age group would rather give free housing and benefits to asylum seekers who haven't paid a penny into the UK?
What's the difference between hard and soft Sindy? Don't they have a form of it now?
Devo max is often defined as control over everything except foreign policy and defence. That would be my definition of soft Sindy and it's definitely not what we have now.
Quebec has it though and narrowly voted 51% to 49% to stay in Canada in 1995
No second referendum there!
That was the 2nd referendum, the first was in 1980
Comments
What exactly is wrong with the police asking for access on a case-by-case basis when needed? Why do victims have to give blanket access upfront?
Let’s say they negotiate a deal they’re happy with or get a deal with the government .How do they campaign in the second vote given the vast majority of members and MPs together with their voters would rather just remain.
It would be bizarre to have the party trashing its own deal in favour of Remain. This aspect hasn’t really been thought through by either the media or those pushing to have this second vote on any deal.
It's very nice of the taxpayer to provide this to comfortably off people in their late middle age (60 is hardly old these days) but in public policy terms this is absurd.
If the potential evidence was on paper, this would not be contentious.
In other words, anyone objecting to this is effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape.
Look up Clarence Harry Willcock on Google.
A party to the case must disclose all evidence that is relevant to the case, whether stored on paper, or electronically, however embarrassing that disclosure might be to that party, or run the risk of being accused of perverting the course of justice.
Sensibly it should at least be aligned with state retirement age, but of course that is another vote losing proposition for any London mayor (who has little incentive in any case, since the GLA doesn’t foot the bill)
Actually, in an investigation you do look through all potentially relevant information to see whether there is something that is potentially or actually relevant to either the prosecution or the defence. That has always been the case.
What you don't do is seize someone's material, without a search warrant or other legal authority, to try and find something against someone.
If the material is potentially relevant to the defence case, then the prosecution are obliged to disclose it. It is not good enough for them to say that they haven't bothered to obtain it because it is too difficult because that suggests that the case has not been properly investigated and should never be before the jury.
What the CPS are saying is that, for a proper investigation to be conducted, it will or may be necessary to examine electronically held material. If that material is not made available then it may not be possible to do a proper investigation and that may well mean that there is insufficient evidence which would enable the CPS to say, on the basis of the current tests, that the case should go to trial. The CPS are making that clear right at the outset, which makes sense, so that (a) time and money is not wasted; and (b) the need for such material does not become an unpleasant surprise later on.
Imagine, for instance, that a man is charged with rape. His defence case states that the sex was consensual and that in the hours and days after the alleged crime there were many loving and intimate messages showing that what the victim is saying is untrue. How can a jury decide without reviewing those messages? If those had been reviewed during the investigation, rather than at a much later stage, after charging, after someone has incurred costs, shame, possible loss of job etc, them much time, cost and angst would have been saved - not to mention the possibility of someone losing their liberty unjustly.
All that is happening here is that the CPS are trying to make the disclosure rules fit for the age of social media and electronic interaction.
https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken-ebook/dp/B0753GBC5Z/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=secret+barrister&qid=1556536786&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Police requiring a victim of crime to, say, hand over their diaries?
https://twitter.com/DaveyLockhart/status/1122822080154820608
Doubtless this is the thinking behind their carefully calibrating the commitment as applying to any Tory Brexit deal?
Does it really not occur to you to wonder about those people who would have been wrongfully convicted - what would have happened if the mobile phone records hadn't happened to contain that evidence proving their innocence? Do you not see that the problem is that people are being convicted on inadequate evidence, rather than that the police have inadequate powers to obtain evidence?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48086244
Given the past history of how examination of those who claim to have been the victim of rape has been carried out, the immediate reaction to the policy is not entirely irrational....
"Most complainants fully understand why disclosure of communications with the defendant is fair and reasonable, but what is not clear is why their past history (including any past sexual history) should be up for grabs..."
Do you not see there's something wrong with a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating any crime?
Edit: Also, I think you've misunderstood. The proposal is not 'a blanket demand for all your personal information, as a precondition for investigating' the crime.
Doubly so, since the only way that Labour get in before Brexit is by winning a general election that takes place before Brexit. And IMO they will need to offer the Ref in their manifesto in order to secure that win.
But that is just my opinion. I think the pivot to (effectively) Remain will net gain seats. What matters is whether Jezza & Co think it will.
Any competent investigator will make sure right at the very start of an investigation that they preserve the evidence. This is ABC stuff for any investigator. Trying to get it later or do this essential task later on is bad practice and makes the evidence potentially less valuable and more open to challenge.
Fundamentally, it is the investigator who is in charge of the case not the victim and an investigation should not be held up or hampered by having to seek the victim's consent.
I don't think it's ever been for the police to decide what personal information they have a right to see, and I don't think it should be.
The idea that everything will be settled by June 30th is as stupid as the idea that things would be sorted in time to stop the EU election.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/29/new-police-disclosure-consent-forms-could-free-rape-suspects
I don't understand the link you're trying to draw between consent given by the victim to investigators and failures in disclosure from the prosecution to the defence.
What would be unfortunate is if the police ended up 'fishing'. That is not allowed when it comes to the accused and should surely be even less allowed with the alleged victim.
Hopefully their time is too valuable to be doing that.
How is the demand limited?
If the police genuinely believe they need blanket access and without that the investigation can't continue, then they can explain that to the victim and let them make the decision. Fine, I have no problem with that. But if they're putting that ultimatum to the victim unnecessarily, then that's a) leading to a bigger breach of privacy than is necessary and b) going to result in fewer successful cases. It seems like there would be many cases where asking for more specific consent- e.g. for communications only since the victim first met the suspect- would be more appropriate.
Obviously, that means I'm "effectively saying that innocent people should go to jail for rape."
https://twitter.com/Theuniondivvie/status/1122830675164508160
The idea of Tessy courageously grasping that particular nettle* is pretty hilarious, mind.
*probably thistle, it really hurts when you grasp them
Former MSP Sarah Boyack is next in line. She is currently Head of Public Affairs Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.
If she doesn't fancy coming back into active politics, the next person on the list is Leslie Hinds, a Cllr in Edinburgh until 2017 when she retired. Next is Jalal Chaudry. Then Cat Headley who has left Labour last month. So SLAB will make sure one between Boyack, Hinds or Chaudry will accept a (at least) 2 years job
What evidence may be used is limited to that which is judged (by the police and/or CPS) to be relevant to the case.
Again, given past history, I can quite understand why this might raise concerns which are not irrational.
It is not a simple issue, whichever side you are approaching it from.
Please don't waste people's time.
https://www.scribd.com/document/407922009/Npcc-Final-Consent-v1-2#fullscreen&from_embed
If those wanting no deal want a proper mandate then let the public decide . I’m happy to take my chances as a Remainer .
Mays deal versus Remain would just look like a stitch up now and fuel the betrayal narratives . Leavers would more likely be more amenable to a second vote with no deal on the ballot .
There was a time I was willing to accept a softer Brexit but seeing as Labour have jumped on the stopping of freedom of movement I’m not interested in any deal they put together .
Either fully in the EU or fully out is the only thing that will now settle the issue .
This sounds like a trawl for any past instance of the complainant demonstrating the behaviour of a woman with loose morals to use a phrase that I had hoped was in the past, but seems now to be the standard that rape complainants are judged against in rape trials.
I understand that. But that material will not be shared with the defence unless it is potentially relevant. So the objection is to having it in the police's hands at all. And that is simply not a valid objection.
When I have had to investigate someone I have access to all their emails, amongst which will be really very personal ones indeed. Of course, this is uncomfortable for the employee. But that information is never revealed or used if irrelevant. That too is ABC stuff for professional investigators.
If you are strongly pro-Remain, it's difficult to vote for a Party that is equivocal about it.
(I'm a bloke in my fifties by the way.)
In practice stuff like old conversation history may never really be read, but the point is you're still signing over consent for it to be downloaded, read and stored just like everything else.
https://counselofperfection.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-truth-laid-bare-mobile-phones-and.html?m=1
The defence only gets disclosed data potentially significant to the offence. The police may be able to look at various areas to search for these, but it does not seem that is disclosible.
Apparently you now agree that there is a blanket demand for access, but you are claiming I was mistaken because only relevant information would be used.
Is that correct?
The next on the list should "deliver a certificate signed by or on behalf of the nominating officer of the registered party which submitted that regional list stating that the first choice may be returned as a regional member from that list."
which means SLAB can skip the one who defected and move to the next one if needed.
But the police get to look through the entirety of the data, which is what I said below.
The issues that arise from this are the police/CPS judgment of what is relevant, or 'potentially relevant', and what else they might search for and what use they might make of it.
History does not inspire absolute confidence in their ability to carry out the process fairly.
I don't think past sexual history is relevant and I understand the concerns women have about having to give over private information. But I don't think this should override the interests of justice. And those concerns can be mitigated. Bluntly, the interests of the victims are not the only ones to be considered here and I object to the way this difficult question is being approached by those who think that victims' interests should predominate.
There is also a separate - but equally important - issue about whether the police have the resources to examine this material properly. Often it is taken but not looked at. That too is an issue which is equally concerning.
I asked you initially where it said it said the consent was limited. You said "It doesn't. Why should it?"
Then you said the demand was limited. When I pointed out you'd said previously it wasn't, you replied "I am sorry if you don't understand the distinction between the consent and the use to which it is put."
So then I asked you whether you were saying the demand for access was unlimited, but the use was limited. And now you say again that the consent to access is limited after all.
Idiot.
For many people, one of the main benefits of EU membership, and one not mentioned as often as it should be IMO, is that it discourages and in some cases outlaws extreme policies of both left and right in member states.
It is strictly the CPS which decides what is actually or potentially relevant to the defence once they have the defence case. But that is after someone has been charged.