Recording 'Phone Conversations

[Duck n Dive]

Hey Wolfie, you're always one for PC & conspiracy stuff.....


So news today is the head of the met has been recording 'phone conversations.

Everyone is tut, tutting and the news/papers seem to be saying that he "might" have broken the law and what a naughty and untrustworthy chap he is!

Now as many of my readers know I'm not a great supporter of authority as I often feels it's abused.....

In this case though I'm wondering what/why the stories....

1. It's perfectly legal (I believe) to tape you're own conversations without telling the other person as long as you are doing this for personal use. If you wish to share the tape with a third party you must have the other person's permission.

2. My opinion would be that if I was head of met I might well find it prudent to record the many and varied 'phone conversations to

a] be sure of my facts/recollections
b] would I trust politicians in particular to "recollect" clearly later.

(how often have you heard "that's not my recollection of events etc??)

3. Just who has actually released this information (AND WHY??). Sir Ian is on holiday, and hardly likely to release it anyway.


For once I think the chap is being hard done by for some reason and that someone out there has an agenda???


:dunno:

 

[derek kelly]

My understanding is that it is illegal to tape any phone conversation unless you inform the other person that the call is being recorded.

 

[Wolfie]

thought the same as derek

 

[Duck n Dive]

Sorry guys, but I believe you're both wrong... I read the act on line this morning..... the key seems to be that recording you;re own conversation is not "interception" - after all you're party to it. The act is concerned with interception where the recording is by a third party wihtout knowledge of either participant.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm


For "personal" calls either party can record without the others permisisons or notification providing they do not disclose the recording to annother - i.e. it still remains that only the two peeps who had the call know what was discussed...

You might also be interested in this (from the BBC news site):

Police are increasingly turning to Oyster travel cards to track criminals' movements, according to new figures.


The smartcards, used by five million Londoners, record details of each bus, Tube or train journey made by the holder over the previous eight weeks.

In January, police requested journey information 61 times, compared with just seven times in the whole of 2004.

The Metropolitan Police said it was a "straightforward investigative tool" used on a case-by-case basis. In total, 229 of the 243 requests made by police to access records were granted, the figures disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act show.

 

[Duck n Dive]

An interesting bit is that one part of the act seems to be saying that interception of comms wholly within the UK can be carried out without warrant if it is:

section 3 (c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom

Provided for by this section:

(5) A warrant shall not be considered necessary on the ground falling within subsection (3)(c) unless the information which it is thought necessary to obtain is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.

 

[Duck n Dive]

This is from OFTEL:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone?

Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further information see the Home Office website where RIPA is posted.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me?
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording. [/font]

 

[Duck n Dive]

So that brings me back to the original question.......


There's no indication Sir Ian was doing otehr than making a record for his own use, for clarity, of his 'phone calls.

Who is releasing all this info on what he has done and why..... and why now??

 

[Coggy]

The Government doesn't like the thought of phone calls with its ministers being recorded. If there's no record, the recollections of the two parties can differ, and no-one will know who is right. If there's a record the Attorney General might be caught telling Porkies. But no lawyer would ever knowingly do that, hence the problem

 

[Mac166]

A few years ago, in a different life as a prison officer a very close colleague of mine was being shafted sideways by the establishment he worked at. He had been involved with the recapture of the Whitemoor breakout. During the court case things were going on which were never made public and I don't intend to either. Prior to the case coming to court he got a tx to a nick up north. Anyway he ended up off with stress. On his return to work on 'light' duties he was put onto the lifers wing. And got put off work again with stress. He had numerous meetings with personnell and the governor grades who eventually sacked him as a poor performer which is the prison service's way of getting rid of staff but that is another story.

During these meetings he had promises of help and support which never materialised. When he was sacked the POA refused to assist his case so he took out a private action against the prison. It was how amazing the personal interpertation of the meetings differed between him and the prison with certain members even denying ever talking to him in any way.

His saving grace was his dict-a-fone. He had secretly taped all his meetings. When these tapes were produced in court he won his case hands down. He is now living in Scotland as a car salesman with a prison service pension of about ?13000 pa. The only stipulation is he does not do a confrontational job. He retired at 35years old. Lucky chap.

I have had experiance of members of management giving an instruction for certain action in a situation, it's not surprising that those same managers either forget the instruction at a later date and blame the officer for mis-interpreting them or refuse to put the same instruction in writing when requested. I know of one who actually denied ever being at the situation until all the staff attending named them in their reports / statements .

Basically trust no-one and tape all when dealing with these people. If they have anything to hide then they shouldn't say it.

 

[ianrobbo1]

I taped all the "conversations" with my "ex" uke:
during the "conversations" I always mentioned I was taping the call, normally when she was in mid rant!! :} I then had the tapes transcribed and notarised, d34l I also kept all text messages from the bitch, most of which were pretty damming taken out of context!! LOL
needless to say I did use them as evidence of the lies, damn lies and mis-truths the bitch tried to convince the magistrate of, I ended up with no less than 7 court orders against her :bow:



all of which she totally ignored and the courts would not back the orders up, so she got away with anything she wanted

I really don't see the problem with this "top Cop" taping his conversations, we all know the majority of people in positions of power tend to have "selective" memories, and if it's on tape they tend not to want to lie so readily!! IMHO
and as has been pointed out already, why now?? and who is "snitching" and why??

 

[Duck n Dive]

Well.... it appears that it's the Independent Police Complaints Commision who have released this to the world........ they discovered it while investigating the recent shooting of that chappy on the underground for being "suspicious".


The chairman of this organisation is a govt. appointment (Mr Blunket recruited him).

While Sir Ian is on holiday the IPCC chairman has bene discussing the matter with the chair of the Met Police Auth. who in turn has discussed it with Met Deputy Commisioner and other senior officers - in other words those who report to Sir Ian.

What on earth are these guys going to be able to contribute????
They didn't take part in the phone call and didn't tape it........

Or was it to make it really, really clear that the govt don't like their conversations being taped!!??

Oh and who appoints the police authority??? - you got it - the Govt.

By the way this is the info on the current chairman of the police authority:

Labour Party
Constituency: Greenwich and Lewisham
Elected on 4 May 2000


GLA responsibilities

• Leader of the Labour Group
• Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority
• Member of the Business Management and Appointments Committee
• Member of the Standards Committee
• Member of the Audit and Inspection Committee
• Vice-Chair of the London Development Agency from 2000 to 2003
• Chair of the London Health Commission from 2002 to Dec 2004

Other roles

• Chair of the Greater London Labour Party
• Non-executive Director of Tilfen Land, a property development company
• Director of the Royal Artillery Museums Trust.
• Undertaking some work on behalf of the Improvement & Development Agency, in relation to Hull City Council

There's an awful smell of fish around don't you think??

And still no real clue as to why the fuss and why now....... other than it seems two govt. appointees to "independent" police monitering bodies are involved......