manxchatterbox Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Yesterday, John Houghton asked in Tynwald how many warrents for interception had been issued in contravention of the relevant legilsation and how many people did that apply to? john Shimmin ducked the question and didn't give any figures. So, other than the case about the PC from whom the whom the questions originated, there must be others because otherwise John shimmin would have said "none". Today I heard the CM say giving information might lead to trouble in court. Probably too right, with people taking cases like the PC, and going to Strasbourg Court of Human Rights with the IOM administration in the dock. Sounds like there might be quite a few cases and those that have authorised them when they shouldn't are running around looking for a way out without being blamed. What does anyone else think?? P.s - don't forget walls have ears and so do pigs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 walls have ears That's why I never buy their sausages!!!!! Seriously though - it's well out of order if the police/authories have been tapping peoples conversations illegaly - I imagine after a bit of a fuss - it will go the same way as the bugging at Police HQ (ie - nowhere!) Surely Manx Telecom will have this information - I presume the police/autorites will have had to approach them to commission the actual "tap"?? Are MT bound by a confidentiality agreement, or could the courts / Tynwald ask them to hand over details of all intercepted communications and who had actually authorised them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 They'd be bored stiff if they were listening to my phone conversations. "What time are we going out?" "did you see such and such on the telly?" "Are you coming over for tea?" zzzzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I can't think off anything that is serious enough to justify Phone / E-mail / Fax Interceptions in the Isle of Man atm. It's just another abuse of power so the Police can make their job easier and the power boys to stay one step ahead, in my view. I'm sure that they'll keep shtum on this or else there'll be more poo hitting the fan. Seems strange that the same CM who signed the form for the PC to have is phone tapped would have been the same one who would have signed the form for FCMR's. Now that sounds a bit naughty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 For the benefit of those of us that don't read the local newspapers or listen to the news, what's this all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Ans, I think* the newish C.M. ("ned" has gone btw) was asked a question on Manx Radio that he chose not to answer directly. The Question was in regard to the leagality of warrents issued for the interception of communications between 2 or more innocent persons. I can't see why anyone would not give a direct answer to a direct question unless they were troubled by the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 I agree with jim - particularly with regards to just the numbers of interceptions there might have been that don't comply. - as they won't say it must be presumed that there are a number (more than one i.e. the Grayling one) - so there must be plently of brown stuff in someones pants, whilst they contemplate disclosure about having condoned intercepts that don't meet the relevant criteria (i.e. a threat to "national security"-whatever that is with regards to the IOM??? or in respect of a serious crime (something which could lead to a prison sentance of 3 years or more).. From how I understand it, its a civil servant who makes a recommendation based on what the AG says to the CM or the Minister for Home Affairs and then the warrant to intercept is supposed to be issued. (who knows if there have been intercepts before the warrant issue date??) Who thinks there should be an investigation into the AG's impartiality? Does the AG's office act in the best interests of justice and the taxpayer? (i.e. how many times during the term of the current AG has he/the office "got it wrong" with advice / cases brought ? Who has examples???? As I read what was in the paper / in Tynwald Govt ministers can get free legal advice from the AG - yet MHK's who aren't in the "club" have to go elsewhere and pay an Advocate (if they can get one to act). Seems from what I've heard is that the AG's office / IOM senior judiciary is a "clique" in that the majority were / originated articles with a Dickensian law firm?? True or not?? A head count please?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kewnet Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 Did anybody else go to the Jurby Airshow this year ? The Office of Home Affairs were giving away those little stick on bugs with the googly eyes.... how ironic, the office of home affairs giving out bugs !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.