Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Red tape 'deters police spying'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 July 2007
POLICE forces are mounting fewer surveillance operations against suspected criminals because of red tape, a watchdog warned yesterday.
Sir Christopher Rose, the chief surveillance commissioner, said he was "concerned" that law enforcement agencies were spying less often.

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), spying operations must be authorised by a judge. Som
e officers say the process is complicated and time-consuming, often holding up investigations.

In 2006-7, law enforcement agencies were given 19,651 "directed surveillance authorisations" for spying operations. That is down from 23,628 in 2005-6 and 25,518 in the previous year.

"I am concerned to learn that the reduction in use of these powers is due, in part, to a lack of investment by some law enforcement agencies in training their officers in RIPA awareness," Sir Christopher wrote in a report.

At the same time, he noted a "significant increase" in the use of surveillance powers by other public authorities, such as local councils.

Such bodies got permission for 12,494 surveillance operations in 2006-7, up from 6,924 the previous year.

Sir Christopher also found that there were 67 "unauthorised surveillance activities" last year. He said that most occurred because "those carrying out the covert procedures have not been told by their managers the terms of the authorisations".



The full article contains 223 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 July 2007 10:08 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Privacy laws
 
1

Guga II,

Rockall 17/07/2007 03:07:05

"At the same time, he noted a "significant increase" in the use of surveillance powers by other public authorities, such as local councils."

The Big Brother society is definitely with us when we now have local councils spying on people.

To make matters worse, these so-called law enforcement agencies want to avoid having to go before a judge to justify their spying. Basically, they want a free for all, and the ability to do as they please, regardless of the consequences..

It is an unfortunate fact that, given the levels of abuse of power, along with the high levels of incompetence, by the police, Special Branch and MI5, the ordinary man in the street needs protection from them.

If left to their own devices, this country would become a police state. There would not only be a Stasi/KGB type of operation with a huge database containing information on everyone, but there would be a far greater number of incidents wherein innocent, unarmed and defenceless people were shot seven times in the head, or gunned down for carrying a table leg.

It is bad enough that the police can, at the moment, gun down innocent and unarmed people, with impunity. Given their head, how many more would they either gun down or lock up without trial?

We need laws, and judges, to protect the people from the police, security forces and yahoo politicians.

2

Calgacus,

17/07/2007 08:21:56

"I am concerned to learn that the reduction in use of these powers is due, in part, to a lack of investment by some law enforcement agencies in training their officers in RIPA awareness," Sir Christopher wrote in a report.
What on earth does that mean?
Could it be that the judges are simply throwing out more and more surveillance requests as spurious? If so, then good on them.

3

FLUB,

Cowdenbeath 17/07/2007 10:14:24

I don't think I have ever seen such formulaic, adolescent 1970s leftie conspiracy theorist claptrap as that put out at #1.

So two incidents of mistaken shootings over the course of a decade are evidence of trigger happy Police putting the citizenry in danger of being gunned down indiscriminately?

Police officers are subject to the rule of law like anyone else, and the investigations, courts and judicial system do not conspire to wilfully exonerate.

The circumstances of the Menezes shooting are well documented, as a failure of intelligence, and the Harry Stanley shooting was not an example of being shot for carrying a table leg - it was self defence in which Officers believed, based on an apparently credible report, a man was carrying a sawn off shotgun concealed in a carrier bag, which he, when challenged, refused to drop and presented toward the officers in a shooting stance.

Is it your view that cops are to be required to allow themselves or hostages or members of the public to be shot or killed before challenging an armed offender?

What evidence do you have of abuse of power, and a high level of incompetence in law enforcement? You specify the police, Special Branch and MI5.

Special Branch is part of the Police service in this country, so you can't even get that right.

This libellous tosh is the sort of self indulgent frottage that gives lonely maladjusted bedroom revolutionaries a bad name!

Try getting out more. Oops, better not, some trigger happy plod might put three rapid in the back of your head!!!

4

Al,

17/07/2007 12:40:29

#3 I don't think I have ever seen such formulaic, adolescent etc etc.

You obviously haven't been following Guga's usual contributions to these pages. This offering was relatively mature in comparison.

5

Dragomir,

17/07/2007 14:21:18

The headline seems so obvious.... OF COURSE IT DETERS, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT ! ---- NO --- POLICE --- STATE ---


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.