Extent of police snooping on phone calls and emails revealed

Extent of police snooping on phone calls and emails revealed

Extent of police snooping on phone calls and emails revealed

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

HAMPSHIRE police are snooping on phone calls and emails 24 times every day, the Daily Echo can reveal.

The surveillance watchdog has raised the alarm over forces using powers to tap into communications data too often, warning privacy may be at risk.

It has launched an inquiry into whether there should be stricter curbs on the police and other law enforcement bodies – to ensure snooping is not an “automatic resort”.

Hampshire is among the forces using the powers frequently, a report to Parliament reveals, on a total of 8,818 occasions in 2013.

That works out as 735 times every month, across the district – almost 170 times every week.

Authorisation is granted to uncover the “who, when and where” of a communication, such as who owns the phone, or email address, or computer IP address.

Police also learn who that person was in contact with electronically – but not what was said in the communication.

Southampton City Council is also using snooping powers more often than most local authorities – 81 times last year, the third highest of any council.

Sir Anthony May, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, said public bodies had secured a total of 514,608 requests for communications data, last year.

His report concluded: “It seems to me to be a very large number. It has the feel of being too many.

“I have accordingly asked our inspectors to take a critical look at the constituents of this bulk to see if there might be a significant institutional over-use.”

But Detective Chief Superintendent Sara Glen, Hampshire’s head of CID, said: “These tactics are not used lightly and their use has to be clearly justified, and authority sought at a senior level in the pursuit of detection or prevention of serious criminality.

“These powers are carefully used and moderated, each case assessed on its own individual merit.”

Nationwide, most communications were tapped into to “prevent or detect crime, or prevent disorder”, followed by “emergency, to prevent death or injury”.

Southampton City Council said it was unable to comment on its use of the powers because its specialist legal officers were unavailable.

The annual report also revealed that Hampshire County Council tapped into data 12 times and Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service twice – the only fire authority to do so.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:59am Thu 10 Apr 14

Forest Resident says...

From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here! Forest Resident
  • Score: -15

12:09pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Ozmosis says...

Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data Ozmosis
  • Score: 25

12:55pm Thu 10 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

Ozmosis wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data
Agreed.

Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't!
[quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data[/p][/quote]Agreed. Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't! camerajuan
  • Score: 20

1:00pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Forest Resident says...

camerajuan wrote:
Ozmosis wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data
Agreed.

Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't!
You simply cannot maintain security or law and order without some aspect of intrusion though, it simply doesn't work both ways. The Police and security services have a very fine line to tread and will no doubt be criticised whatever they do and however many safeguards they have put in place.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data[/p][/quote]Agreed. Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't![/p][/quote]You simply cannot maintain security or law and order without some aspect of intrusion though, it simply doesn't work both ways. The Police and security services have a very fine line to tread and will no doubt be criticised whatever they do and however many safeguards they have put in place. Forest Resident
  • Score: -12

1:06pm Thu 10 Apr 14

good-gosh says...

camerajuan wrote:
Ozmosis wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data
Agreed.

Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't!
If I had a ham and egg sandwich in there from Monday then I wouldn't recommend opening it.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data[/p][/quote]Agreed. Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't![/p][/quote]If I had a ham and egg sandwich in there from Monday then I wouldn't recommend opening it. good-gosh
  • Score: 6

1:25pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
This is a complete fallacy. I presume you won't mind posting your medical records, credit card and bank statements and photographs of yourself on the toilet then, after all you've got nothing to hide right?

Having something to hide is not the same as having done something wrong. Don't forget that laws and norms are shifting. What you might see as perfectly fine behaviour today may very well not be tomorrow.

The "nothing to hide" argument is extremely dangerous and people that espouse it haven't the faintest idea how serious the threat to our privacy is.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]This is a complete fallacy. I presume you won't mind posting your medical records, credit card and bank statements and photographs of yourself on the toilet then, after all you've got nothing to hide right? Having something to hide is not the same as having done something wrong. Don't forget that laws and norms are shifting. What you might see as perfectly fine behaviour today may very well not be tomorrow. The "nothing to hide" argument is extremely dangerous and people that espouse it haven't the faintest idea how serious the threat to our privacy is. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -3

1:26pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

Forest Resident wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Ozmosis wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data
Agreed.

Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't!
You simply cannot maintain security or law and order without some aspect of intrusion though, it simply doesn't work both ways. The Police and security services have a very fine line to tread and will no doubt be criticised whatever they do and however many safeguards they have put in place.
If you look hard enough at ANYBODY, you'll find evidence of wrong-doing.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data[/p][/quote]Agreed. Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't![/p][/quote]You simply cannot maintain security or law and order without some aspect of intrusion though, it simply doesn't work both ways. The Police and security services have a very fine line to tread and will no doubt be criticised whatever they do and however many safeguards they have put in place.[/p][/quote]If you look hard enough at ANYBODY, you'll find evidence of wrong-doing. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: 7

1:43pm Thu 10 Apr 14

From the sidelines says...

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-Benjamin Franklin
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -Benjamin Franklin From the sidelines
  • Score: 24

3:04pm Thu 10 Apr 14

philiprhampton says...

If it keeps us safe then why not !
If it keeps us safe then why not ! philiprhampton
  • Score: -17

3:13pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Matt Probert says...

"Prevention of criminality", that phrase smacks of Victorian times when innocent children as young as ten were hanged because they were likely to be criminals when older.

WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, don't allow the hysterical claims of "terrorist suspect" cloud the facts that both nnocent people and political opponents are being silenced and harassed by this practice which contravenes both Magna Carter and the somewhat less popular ECHR.
"Prevention of criminality", that phrase smacks of Victorian times when innocent children as young as ten were hanged because they were likely to be criminals when older. WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, don't allow the hysterical claims of "terrorist suspect" cloud the facts that both nnocent people and political opponents are being silenced and harassed by this practice which contravenes both Magna Carter and the somewhat less popular ECHR. Matt Probert
  • Score: 13

3:20pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

philiprhampton wrote:
If it keeps us safe then why not !
Does it, though?
[quote][p][bold]philiprhampton[/bold] wrote: If it keeps us safe then why not ![/p][/quote]Does it, though? Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -1

3:31pm Thu 10 Apr 14

House Sparrow says...

I doubt very much that the access to data is done randomly. There will need to be reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed before authorization is given.
I doubt very much that the access to data is done randomly. There will need to be reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed before authorization is given. House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Thu 10 Apr 14

camerajuan says...

House Sparrow wrote:
I doubt very much that the access to data is done randomly. There will need to be reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed before authorization is given.
To an extent I agree with you, but I guarantee that if you have ever sent an email containing the words "council" "scandal" "explode" or "terrorism" (to name only 4, there must be dozens more) I guarantee your emails will have been looked at.

Their filter doesn't take context into account only content and definitely not history or likelihood.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: I doubt very much that the access to data is done randomly. There will need to be reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed before authorization is given.[/p][/quote]To an extent I agree with you, but I guarantee that if you have ever sent an email containing the words "council" "scandal" "explode" or "terrorism" (to name only 4, there must be dozens more) I guarantee your emails will have been looked at. Their filter doesn't take context into account only content and definitely not history or likelihood. camerajuan
  • Score: 5

5:36pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Ronnie G says...

So unless there was sufficient evidence in the first place to suggest of any major criminal activity was afoot on a serious scale then permission for the power to snoop should not be granted.
IF there was sufficient evidence provided by our Labour Council in Southampton, of any suspected major criminal activity, suspected terrorism, or there was an urgency due to a life or death situation occurring as a result of not gaining permission to snoop, then surely the council should hand their information over to Hampshire Constabulary as it's a matter for the police to deal with.
What's the odds the Southampton City Labour led Council have been playing Columbo as well as playing at being councillors.
And all for their political gain of course.
Lol! They can't even spend funds from our city's coffers in our best interests so I can't see that they have been snooping on residents to protect anyone but themselves....
So unless there was sufficient evidence in the first place to suggest of any major criminal activity was afoot on a serious scale then permission for the power to snoop should not be granted. IF there was sufficient evidence provided by our Labour Council in Southampton, of any suspected major criminal activity, suspected terrorism, or there was an urgency due to a life or death situation occurring as a result of not gaining permission to snoop, then surely the council should hand their information over to Hampshire Constabulary as it's a matter for the police to deal with. What's the odds the Southampton City Labour led Council have been playing Columbo as well as playing at being councillors. And all for their political gain of course. Lol! They can't even spend funds from our city's coffers in our best interests so I can't see that they have been snooping on residents to protect anyone but themselves.... Ronnie G
  • Score: 6

5:50pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Brock_and_Roll says...

From the sidelines wrote:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-Benjamin Franklin
Absolutely!

I would rather live in liberty with a marginally greater risk of being a victim of some atrocity or crime than live in the kind of "your papers please" kind of society that our grandafathers fought against and that Franklin railed against.

That said the police need the right to access data where there is evidence or suspicion of serious crime, and the courts have a duty to ensure these powers are not abused.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -Benjamin Franklin[/p][/quote]Absolutely! I would rather live in liberty with a marginally greater risk of being a victim of some atrocity or crime than live in the kind of "your papers please" kind of society that our grandafathers fought against and that Franklin railed against. That said the police need the right to access data where there is evidence or suspicion of serious crime, and the courts have a duty to ensure these powers are not abused. Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 6

7:05pm Thu 10 Apr 14

mi76 says...

The reality is a lot of crime is carried out via mobiles, web and email.

All of these will be sources of evidence.
The reality is a lot of crime is carried out via mobiles, web and email. All of these will be sources of evidence. mi76
  • Score: 5

7:15pm Thu 10 Apr 14

SouthamptonLegend says...

Charlie Bucket wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
This is a complete fallacy. I presume you won't mind posting your medical records, credit card and bank statements and photographs of yourself on the toilet then, after all you've got nothing to hide right?

Having something to hide is not the same as having done something wrong. Don't forget that laws and norms are shifting. What you might see as perfectly fine behaviour today may very well not be tomorrow.

The "nothing to hide" argument is extremely dangerous and people that espouse it haven't the faintest idea how serious the threat to our privacy is.
Ridiculous!

You do know that the government have access to anything they want, right? And they tap into EVERYONE'S phones and computers?? Or are you living in a fantasy world?! They know everything about you. Don't forget they "own" us, we are their property. Take a look at your birth certificate, you have your own stock number. If you think you're a free man who can do what he likes, think again...
[quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]This is a complete fallacy. I presume you won't mind posting your medical records, credit card and bank statements and photographs of yourself on the toilet then, after all you've got nothing to hide right? Having something to hide is not the same as having done something wrong. Don't forget that laws and norms are shifting. What you might see as perfectly fine behaviour today may very well not be tomorrow. The "nothing to hide" argument is extremely dangerous and people that espouse it haven't the faintest idea how serious the threat to our privacy is.[/p][/quote]Ridiculous! You do know that the government have access to anything they want, right? And they tap into EVERYONE'S phones and computers?? Or are you living in a fantasy world?! They know everything about you. Don't forget they "own" us, we are their property. Take a look at your birth certificate, you have your own stock number. If you think you're a free man who can do what he likes, think again... SouthamptonLegend
  • Score: 5

8:05pm Thu 10 Apr 14

lisa whitemore says...

I Can understand Police using this to get info on criminal activity but Southampton City Council?? Why would they need to use it especially as much as it's stated in report. Now That in itself I find very strange......
I Can understand Police using this to get info on criminal activity but Southampton City Council?? Why would they need to use it especially as much as it's stated in report. Now That in itself I find very strange...... lisa whitemore
  • Score: 4

8:43pm Thu 10 Apr 14

thesouth says...

camerajuan wrote:
Ozmosis wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data
Agreed.

Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't!
But it's not done 'just to have a look'- they don't randomly select people!!!!! Get a grip
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ozmosis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]Nothing to hide doesn't means it's okay for people to snoop on data[/p][/quote]Agreed. Say you get the train every day. On a Friday before the doors open when the train gets into Central Station the station staff ask to look through everyone's bags in Coach D "just in case" something dangerous is in someones bags. Would you be ok with it? I wouldn't![/p][/quote]But it's not done 'just to have a look'- they don't randomly select people!!!!! Get a grip thesouth
  • Score: 0

1:50am Fri 11 Apr 14

Highfielder says...

As far as I'm concerned the police should be able to monitor mobiles, landlines and e-mails if there is a reasonable suspicion that the target is a criminal or terrorist, It is purely because the police have such powers that a number of terrorist plots have not come to fruition, For that I am very glad.

Whenever someone uses a mobile in most shopping malls or a laptop in a Wifi zone commercial interests are monitoring the phones and computers but not the conversations or email content. They build up profiles and note what you purchase with cards, then you are targeted by advertisers. Additionally, it is almost impossible to go anywhere in urban environments, stores, banks, etc, without being filmed by CCTV. That is why I never use a mobile in public places (except in an emergency) nor my laptop in a Wifi zone.

We don't have as much privacy as we used to and the comparatively small number of intercepts by Hampshire Police are a drop in the ocean compared to commercial snooping. As to the Council snooping (if they do) that is an entirely different matter and needs public scrutiny.
As far as I'm concerned the police should be able to monitor mobiles, landlines and e-mails if there is a reasonable suspicion that the target is a criminal or terrorist, It is purely because the police have such powers that a number of terrorist plots have not come to fruition, For that I am very glad. Whenever someone uses a mobile in most shopping malls or a laptop in a Wifi zone commercial interests are monitoring the phones and computers but not the conversations or email content. They build up profiles and note what you purchase with cards, then you are targeted by advertisers. Additionally, it is almost impossible to go anywhere in urban environments, stores, banks, etc, without being filmed by CCTV. That is why I never use a mobile in public places (except in an emergency) nor my laptop in a Wifi zone. We don't have as much privacy as we used to and the comparatively small number of intercepts by Hampshire Police are a drop in the ocean compared to commercial snooping. As to the Council snooping (if they do) that is an entirely different matter and needs public scrutiny. Highfielder
  • Score: 1

7:47am Fri 11 Apr 14

Crazywolf says...

Hampshire is a big county, and probably has thousands of serious criminals within it. If the Police are targetting just a few of the more serious ones then they they are doing their job.

Some posters above seem to be suggesting they are snooping on us all, which they are not. This all needs to be put in to perspective.
Hampshire is a big county, and probably has thousands of serious criminals within it. If the Police are targetting just a few of the more serious ones then they they are doing their job. Some posters above seem to be suggesting they are snooping on us all, which they are not. This all needs to be put in to perspective. Crazywolf
  • Score: -1

7:50am Fri 11 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

House Sparrow wrote:
I doubt very much that the access to data is done randomly. There will need to be reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed before authorization is given.
I wouldn't be so sure. This is a classic "big data" situation, I'd put money on them mining it all for leads.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: I doubt very much that the access to data is done randomly. There will need to be reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed before authorization is given.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't be so sure. This is a classic "big data" situation, I'd put money on them mining it all for leads. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -5

7:52am Fri 11 Apr 14

Charlie Bucket says...

SouthamptonLegend wrote:
Charlie Bucket wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here!
This is a complete fallacy. I presume you won't mind posting your medical records, credit card and bank statements and photographs of yourself on the toilet then, after all you've got nothing to hide right?

Having something to hide is not the same as having done something wrong. Don't forget that laws and norms are shifting. What you might see as perfectly fine behaviour today may very well not be tomorrow.

The "nothing to hide" argument is extremely dangerous and people that espouse it haven't the faintest idea how serious the threat to our privacy is.
Ridiculous!

You do know that the government have access to anything they want, right? And they tap into EVERYONE'S phones and computers?? Or are you living in a fantasy world?! They know everything about you. Don't forget they "own" us, we are their property. Take a look at your birth certificate, you have your own stock number. If you think you're a free man who can do what he likes, think again...
Everyone's computers? Hyperbole. But anyway, no I don't live in a fantasy world, I probably know more about this than you. We differ in that I don't think it's ok for this to be happening, simply on the grounds that most of our privacy is already gone. Way to completely mis-read my post in order to act superior, though. Classy.
[quote][p][bold]SouthamptonLegend[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Charlie Bucket[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: From a policing perspective prevention is always better than cure. If the public have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. Move along please, nothing to see here![/p][/quote]This is a complete fallacy. I presume you won't mind posting your medical records, credit card and bank statements and photographs of yourself on the toilet then, after all you've got nothing to hide right? Having something to hide is not the same as having done something wrong. Don't forget that laws and norms are shifting. What you might see as perfectly fine behaviour today may very well not be tomorrow. The "nothing to hide" argument is extremely dangerous and people that espouse it haven't the faintest idea how serious the threat to our privacy is.[/p][/quote]Ridiculous! You do know that the government have access to anything they want, right? And they tap into EVERYONE'S phones and computers?? Or are you living in a fantasy world?! They know everything about you. Don't forget they "own" us, we are their property. Take a look at your birth certificate, you have your own stock number. If you think you're a free man who can do what he likes, think again...[/p][/quote]Everyone's computers? Hyperbole. But anyway, no I don't live in a fantasy world, I probably know more about this than you. We differ in that I don't think it's ok for this to be happening, simply on the grounds that most of our privacy is already gone. Way to completely mis-read my post in order to act superior, though. Classy. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -5

9:12am Fri 11 Apr 14

skeptik says...

No such thing should take place without a warrant issued by the judiciary. As a schoolboy we were led to believe the judiciary was the buffer between the state and it's desire to suppress it's people. It should also be noted that ACPO is a semi private company that should not and cannot be trusted.
No such thing should take place without a warrant issued by the judiciary. As a schoolboy we were led to believe the judiciary was the buffer between the state and it's desire to suppress it's people. It should also be noted that ACPO is a semi private company that should not and cannot be trusted. skeptik
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree