That surveillance bill thingymajig

[Zedder]

So given the actual story as posted above, who exactly should have got their act together?

I presume you're talking about the law makers.

[Zedder]

Tough. People get off on technicalities alll the time. The cops will just have to catch them again like usual, and it should be easier because they know who they are.

The good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. And it is much better for the country (the many) that we don't make it ok to change laws retrospectively.

Yep, under legal convention a retrospective law change doesn't change the actual effect of the law. This is in order to stop the law makers changing things to suit themselves and jeopardise the publics right to have faith in the certainty of law.

The lawmakers/cops made a mistake and they should start again.

[imdying]

So your anti-virus/security software is switched off then ... ???

They're a bit like locks on your front door mate, a little tickle here and there and open they go.

[Winston001]

The good of the many should outweigh the good of the few. And it is much better for the country (the many) that we don't make it ok to change laws retrospectively.

LOL you appreciate you've given the argument in favour of retrospective law change...?? Ie. the good of the many over-rides the good of the few.

In any case, constitutional lawyers (academic types) abhor retrospective law and I'm with them. It is frustrating for the police to have carried out surveillance believing they were lawfully entitled to do so. Still, this isn't the first time the Courts have limited police powers and its an ongoing process. A healthy process.

[imdying]

there are multiple serious meth and Class A drug cases that are hanging in the balance over this law change.

Well, that's the problem with living in a country full of pussys. If meth is as bad as we're led to believe by the media (I have never ever come across it, but then I don't roll with junkies), then it's good enough to shoot users/dealers on sight. That's a law I'll vote for.

[scumdog]

I'm saying the cops should have got their act together way back and combined it. I think they stuffed up and the Urewera incident is a prime example.

Are you trolling or just thick?

Or do you never bother to read the facts???

[Zedder]

Are you trolling or just thick?

Or do you never bother to read the facts???

I think you should read Winston's earlier clarity post or are you just being nasty as usual?

[scumdog]

I think you should read Winston's earlier clarity post or are you just being nasty as usual?

I'm being nasty as usual.

The cops didn't screw up

The Courts 'moved the goal-posts' AFTER the kick.


I think that's simple enough for now.

[Zedder]

I'm being nasty as usual.

The cops didn't screw up

The Courts 'moved the goal-posts' AFTER the kick.


I think that's simple enough for now.

Let me explain it slowly: If the cops did the job properly in the first place there would not have been a need to have the courts involved at all.

[scumdog]

Let me explain it slowly: If the cops did the job properly in the first place there would not have been a need to have the courts involved at all.

Are you an activist or something?

Let me also explain: The cops did everythign as they always did, they checked it was 'ok'.

But (insert reason here) the Courts were dragged into things and changed the rules.

Like went from: "There no law against it so it's OK" (what had been happening up until now)

To: "If it doesn't say in law you CAN do it - then it must be illegal"

Sort of like telling you out of the blue that walking backwards across the street is illegal because the law doesn't SAY you can - after you had been doing just that for yonks.
Kapeesh???

[Zedder]

Are you an activist or something?

Let me also explain: The cops did everythign as they always did, they checked it was 'ok'.

But (insert reason here) the Courts were dragged into things and changed the rules.

Like went from: "There no law against it so it's OK" (what had been happening up until now)

To: "If it doesn't say in law you CAN do it - then it must be illegal"

Sort of like telling you out of the blue that walking backwards across the street is illegal because the law doesn't SAY you can - after you had been doing just that for yonks.
Kapeesh???

How is it then police were warned by the Law Commission in 2007 that this type of evidence gathering was on shaky ground and they could rely on their interpretation of the Evidence Act to use it safely?

[scumdog]

How is it then police were warned by the Law Commission in 2007 that this type of evidence gathering was on shaky ground and they could rely on their interpretation of the Evidence Act to use it safely?

So they should have sat on their arses, 'just in case' the evidence obtained was not able to be used.??
They used all means that at the time were legal.

Had they done nothing or pussied around they wouldn't have been any further ahead - the way it was done was deemed correct AT THAT TIME.

[Zedder]

So they should have sat on their arses, 'just in case' the evidence obtained was not able to be used.??
They used all means that at the time were legal.

Had they done nothing or pussied around they wouldn't have been any further ahead - the way it was done was deemed correct AT THAT TIME.

They did have prior warning in the 1996 Aziz Choudry case where the Security Intelligence Service overstepped the mark.

Don't get me wrong, it must be frustrating to see scumbags walk free because of technicalities but as crazy as it sounds, even they have rights.

[mashman]

Is it this thursday that they have until to get the legislation through before the election? Because some people really aren't happy at the idea.

[Usarka]

LOL you appreciate you've given the argument in favour of retrospective law change...?? Ie. the good of the many over-rides the good of the few.

Doh and lol, but I think im still correct as I was meaning the few as in the victims of the crimes. (all crimes have victims don't they?)

Is it this thursday that they have until to get the legislation through before the election? Because some people really aren't happy at the idea.

Perfect timing for this with RWC distracting the media and therefore the sheep. Go the protest!