3 ms·
Indeed. Probably has something to do with the fact that they quietly (and not so quietly, in some cases) took an axe to the judiciary a few years back. It coul
by madaxe_again 11y ago
Indeed. Probably has something to do with the fact that they quietly (and not so quietly, in some cases) took an axe to the judiciary a few years back.
It could also be argued that if someone is a terror suspect, then there may be an immediate risk, but to know so they must have more access, so it is therefore urgent that they do. This is the kind of Kafkaesque circular logic I'm increasingly coming to expect from the state.
- DanBC 11y agoOh, the urgency I'm talking about is children being raped by gangs of men. This is a much more common use of police intelligence needing urgent access to phone records than terrorism. As you say, with terrorism there's not the immediate need and there's usually a bunch more information.
- pjc50 11y agoHow is the inquiry into the Rotherham non-investigation going, anyway?
- jessaustin 11y agoWhy pick out that case?
- DanBC 11y agoIN that case the police didn't need any special surveillance powers. They were being approached by children who said "I am being repeatedly gang raped by men who have groomed me with money and drugs, and who are now selling me as a child prostitute"; and by sexual health clinics who were providing abortions and STI services to children; and by teachers; and by social workers. Those police did nothing with that information. It's a reasonable point: Why do they want these extra powers when they've failed to protect so many vulnerable children?