This was going quite well until the childish sideswipe at Michael Gove.

Gove was not decrying investigating wrongdoing, merely warning that heavy handed statutory regulation could limit freedom of speech. ….. a liberal position.

Gove rightly pointed out that phone hacking is already unlawful. As is Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

Gove was not decrying investigating wrongdoing, merely warning that heavy handed statutory regulation could limit freedom of speech. ….. a liberal position.

Quite. Just because journalists and the police have behaved disgustingly doesn’t mean we should extend the State’s power even further. There are already laws covering press and police behaviour and they should be enforced before inventing new ones.

Shatterface,

There are already laws covering press and police behaviour and they should be enforced before inventing new ones.

But they weren’t enforced, and this is really what the Leveson Inquiry is about. No-one who could have done something about wrongdoing – the perpetrators, line-managers, editors, newspaper proprietors, the PCC, the police, the ICO – did much if anything at all about the wrongdoing.

Leveson has stated many times that he is not interested limiting free speech any further than it is. What the Inquiry is trying to get to is finding out what went wrong – why wrongdoing was allowed to continue, why the enforcement systems didn’t work – and trying to work out how to improve it.

And this is why I think Gove’s comments seem ill-judged.

The obvious glaring answer as to why nothing was done about wrongdoing is massive endemic corruption, throughout the government, the media, and the police. A whole festering slew of criminality, bribes, favours for friends, blind eye’s turned – and for what?

The production of tabloid newspapers.

A whole den of backhanders and villainy created for the express purpose of churning out really crap newspapers. As Littlejohn might say, you couldn’t make it up.

Remember, hacking is an extremely rare crime. Don’t have nightmares

The production of tabloid newspapers.

This is the really amazing thing. The press weren’t driven to desperate measures to uncover a massive scandal or corruption, nor where police stepping outside the law to combat terrorism or organised crime, which we might condemn but at leat understand.

This massive abuse of power was in the pursuit of gossip.

Always amusing to see the usual tory trolls showing us they are pro criminal, and pro crime. Rather makes their claims to be for law and order rather hollow. If Gove and Boris one bus had any integrity they would resign having attacked these enquiries.

If there was any real justice in the world Murdoch, Blair, Cameron, Brooks, Coulson would all be hanging from a lamppost.

But as usual with tories crime pays.

Shatterface @6, quite.

@ 6 Shatterface

“This massive abuse of power was in the pursuit of gossip.”

It’s like anti-terror laws being used to snoop on parents who lie to get their kids into a better school. The tendency of people to immediately abuse the power given to them, regardless of how unnecessary the usage and how much trouble it could get them into, is rather terrifying.

It’s like anti-terror laws being used to snoop on parents who lie to get their kids into a better school. The tendency of people to immediately abuse the power given to them, regardless of how unnecessary the usage and how much trouble it could get them into, is rather terrifying.

This is why I’m afraid the enquiry might lead to tougher laws. Any egalistic move to prevent journalists from the pursuit of gossip will create a law to prevent the disclosure of genuine stories of public interest.

We need to destroy the market for prurient stories, and that begins with the State recognising we have a right to privacy from the State itself. Unless the State recognises a limit to its right to information you can’t expect the consumers of gossip rags to do the same.

What we really need is to a cultivate a public attutude where people are as likely to respond to intrusion with the words none of MY business as much as none of YOUR business.

@11

As a councillor I have to say that my experience with the police and council officers is that they are careful about how they use the powers given to them and are aware of the importance of balance. I know there are exceptions in local government. Consider, though, that plenty of the public demonstrate very illiberal attitudes as soon as something as simple as dog fouling is mentioned

What we are seeing revealed by Leveson is more to do with money and power, centred on the corrupting influence of Rupert Murdoch. One would have hoped Maxwell was enough to teach us a lesson, so shame on us.

@ Shatterface

Agreed, although I don’t know how you’d go about achieving these aims.

‘Chaise #9:

It’s like anti-terror laws being used to snoop on parents who lie to get their kids into a better school.

When has that happened (no smiley – serious question)?

Warning – I feel that I’m about to be forced to leap onto a hobbyhorse.

@ 14 Robin

http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/midlands-news/2011/10/09/birmingham-city-council-reduces-snooping-investigations-66331-29562478/

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/598004-anti-terror-laws-used-to-snoop-on-litter-louts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8868757/Councils-have-mounted-millions-of-snooping-operations-in-past-decade-finds-report.html

@9 Chaise

I’m sure you appreciate the irony that the abuses you describe were all tabloid “revelations”. One wonders what small germ of truth the hype was based upon.

@ 16 Cylux

From what I know, misuse of Ripa was fairly common. Although no doubt the tabloids hyped it into things like Is The Council Spying on YOUR Bin? and “I’m Not a Terrorist!” Says Mum.

@Chaise #16:

From what I know, misuse of Ripa was fairly common.

RIPA didn’t give any powers to Councils; it provides a framework of internal authorisation for the use of existing powers to ensure that they are used legally and proportionately; and provide protection from claims for actions authorised within it.

So far as councils are concerned RIPA is not anti-terrorist legislation – certainly the safe-harbour that RIPA provides does not extend to any exercise of powers otherwise than for the prevention and detection of crime or the prevention of disorder.

“Misuse of RIPA” by councils, insofar as such a concept is actually comprehensible, is very rare indeed, so far as the OSC knows. Since the OSC inspects councils every two years and examines RIPA authorisations when it does so, it is in a better position to know than you, I or the TPA. Poole was noteworthy because rare.

@ 18 Robin

“RIPA didn’t give any powers to Councils; it provides a framework of internal authorisation for the use of existing powers to ensure that they are used legally and proportionately; and provide protection from claims for actions authorised within it.”

According to Wikipedia, RIPA authorizes councils to carry out all powers covered with the exception of intercepting communications and “intrusive surveillance”. How were councils authorised to do these things before RIPA?

“So far as councils are concerned RIPA is not anti-terrorist legislation – certainly the safe-harbour that RIPA provides does not extend to any exercise of powers otherwise than for the prevention and detection of crime or the prevention of disorder.”

Agreed, and the fact that RIPA is used against someone does not mean they’ve been accused of terrorism.

The problem is that RIPA covers controversial, PATRIOT-Act-style powers that were brought in under the spectre of terrorism. Concerns were raised at the time, and pro-RIPA politicians assured us that the powers would not be used trivially, but reserved for suspect terrorist, organised criminals and the like. And yet we have these powers – a necessary evil to prevent another 7/7! – being used to catch people who don’t clean up their own dog poo.

“Since the OSC inspects councils every two years and examines RIPA authorisations when it does so, it is in a better position to know than you, I or the TPA.”

Yes, but is it the OCS’s remit to examine the mis-selling of RIPA to the public, and if so has it done so?

“Poole was noteworthy because rare.”

It was noteworthy because it was especially egregious, which isn’t the same thing. Regardless, these powers should NOT be used for civil offences and crimes that result in a slap on the wrist. And they obviously have been put into the hands of people who can’t be trusted with them. Power corrupts.

They did not just collect gossip to sell newspapers. This was a Mafia like organisation, with it’s tentacles reaching into almost every area. Politicians, police, public officials.

Sure a lot of gossip sold newspapers, but also to intimidate, and blackmail politicians and who knows what? We will never get to bottom of all that went on, but information was used to either make profit for Murdoch or advance his interests.

I have to laugh at all those tory journalists who kept saying that a free press meant that we had less corruption than other countries. We had a criminal crime family running the country. We were knee deep in corruption. It is only because Murdochs agenda fitted so well with the right wing that they let him get on with it. That is the Goves and the Boriss and the pin heads like Nick Ferrari had no problem with it.

@19 I suspect the Gossip was the means of delivery. Gossip sold the propaganda rags like hot cakes. Still, it is rather indicative that the ‘free speech’ issue the tabloids fought tooth and nail in the courts over was the right to tell everyone that a footballer had been shagging about.

@Chaise #18:

According to Wikipedia, RIPA authorizes councils to carry out all powers covered with the exception of intercepting communications and “intrusive surveillance”. How were councils authorised to do these things before RIPA?

And Wikipedia would be wrong if it said that; but doesn’t.

Councils’ powers to carry out directed surveillance and acquire communications data (usually reverse lookups, before you get excited) were not affected by the Act; their powers, then as now, derived from other statutes.

It is correct that Councils cannot use the RIPA authorisation procedures to intercept communications of carry out intrusive surveillance. The first is because Councils have no powers to intercept communications, and indeed RIPA provides specifically that interception of communications is illegal. It’s section 1 of the Act! The second is because this is an infringement of privacy that would be very unlikely to be proportionate.

The problem is that RIPA covers controversial, PATRIOT-Act-style powers that were brought in under the spectre of terrorism.

Not for councils. For the security services. Only.

And yet we have these powers – a necessary evil to prevent another 7/7! – being used to catch people who don’t clean up their own dog poo.

No we don’t. The only anti-terrorist powers granted by the Act are those which allow security services to intercept communications, with various ancillary powers in relation to encrypted communications. As you’ll note from the Wiklipedia article Part III of the Act was the controversial part and that does not and never did extend to councils.

I am not aware of MI5 ever tapping telephones, or hacking into email boxes, or decrypting communications, so as to catch people who don’t clean up their own dog poo. Are you?

Yes, but is it the OCS’s remit to examine the mis-selling of RIPA to the public, and if so has it done so?

It is no part of the OSC’s remit to police the activities of the tabloids and the TPA. If that wasn’t what you meant by mis-selling, then please explain what you do mean. Most of what most people think they know about RIPA in relation to local councils is wrong, and egregiously so. The TPA and tabloids are responsible for this.

“Poole was noteworthy because rare.”

It was noteworthy because it was especially egregious, which isn’t the same thing. Regardless, these powers should NOT be used for civil offences and crimes that result in a slap on the wrist. And they obviously have been put into the hands of people who can’t be trusted with them. Power corrupts.

The Poole case wasn’t the authorising officer’s finest hour, admittedly, and looking at the IPT decision I can’t see any possible defence of his/her position. The possible crime wasn’t considered other than ex post facto; the surveillance authorised couldn’t have provided the evidence required to prosecute the crime; the fact that the surveillance involved surveillance of children not involved in the crime wasn’t considered; to name but three defects. But it really doesn’t happen very often – according to the OSC. And, more importantly, the surveillance powers in question were not granted by the Act.

Again, the possible crime involved was fraud. It’s amazing to me that the general default position is that parents who perfectly legitimately move close to a good school so as to give their children more chance of getting into it are castigated as having committed a moral wrong by queue-jumping and using their money to buy their children opportunity; yet when a council thinks that a parent has lied about having done so, and investigates beyond asking the parent whether they are telling the truth it is accused of Stasi tactics.

What do you mean by a “civil offence”?

And what do you mean by “[these powers] obviously have been put into the hands of people who can’t be trusted with them”? Which powers? Which people? Do you realise how many prosecutions councils get through a year; how many RIPA authorisations are granted? And how many of those authorisations are questionable (which is not synonymous with “the TPA doesn’t like them”)?

If you repeal RIPA; or just prevent councils from being allowed to authorise within the Act; councils will still carry out the investigations they need to to carry out their statutory functions, and you will have less oversight over their actions.

[6] “This massive abuse of power was in the pursuit of gossip” – the abuse of power occurred because power brings with it certain accoutrements that one associates with fabulous wealth.

The digger calculated, correctly, from the very outset that a staple diet of sex and celebrity, while appealing to the lowest common dominator would hook the british public for decades thus enabling him to fulfill his crazed ambitions.

It took the likes of hillsborough to finally wake some sections of our society from it’s slumbers, although to be fair the ban on scum has lasted for 23 years (so far).

The pollution of the british press, and by extension those who play the diggers game has long been known about – dennis potter warned us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVrK38xI-A

20 “I suspect the Gossip was the means of delivery. ” Oh yes, or as I would put it, ‘The means of execution.’ Do as we say or we will ruin you.

Simon Hughes had his phone hacked into, and then a little call from some hood at the paper. He decides to fall on his sword, and give chapter and verse to the papers big wigs. Just as the leadership contest was about to get going.

These people are like 16th century witch burners. Judge, Jury, and executioner.

@ 22 Robin

You’re making it difficult to say this, what with claiming Wikipedia doesn’t say what it clearly does and with your insinuations about the TPA and all that, but (deep breath), yes, I take your point about the truly controversial powers, i.e. the ones we said would be used for terrorism etc., not being the ones that are being used by councils. Fair enough. Although I’m still not happy with councils having the power to stalk people, regardless of the original legislation responsible: if the crime justifies that level of investigation, I’d prefer it to be handled by the cops.

The digger calculated, correctly, from the very outset that a staple diet of sex and celebrity, while appealing to the lowest common dominator would hook the british public for decades thus enabling him to fulfill his crazed ambitions.

His crazed ambitions for what exactly? This is not a snark, but that makes him sound like a Bond villain after world domination or Sauron in Lord of the Rings. The “crazed ambitions” were evidently for building a bigger media empire – not just for the money, but for the pleasure of being bigger than other media empires. I have been thoroughly disgusted with politicians’ grovelling to Murdoch, and astonished how far his corruption reached, but to what ends? Simply to sell more media and perhaps make the world safer for his business?

[25] ‘The “crazed ambitions” were evidently for building a bigger media empire’ – no, not for building an empire, but for the lack of empathy or concern about the casualties strewn along the path to world domination.

The diggers dad was a media tycoon and I suspect young Roop was surrounded by lackeys and yes-men from day 1 – at any rate, there is something decidedly sociopathic about such relentless commitment to self-aggrandisement.
I mean it’s not as if the likes of SKY, the scum, or news of the screws have any inherent worth – so why spend a lifetime dedicated to pissing on people’s back?

Flowerpower: Except no one is proposing statutory regulation. Leveson has made clear that he is not going to go down that road. There is a risk, as Nick Davies said yesterday, that you might block off all unofficial contact with say the police when that is vital for journalists to be able to work, and there’s also a very slight risk that we might end up banning paying for stories altogether, when there is occasionally a public interest behind it, as in the sale of the expenses CDs.

Michael Gove deserves all the swiping he receives when he regularly dines with Murdoch. Conflict of interest doesn’t even begin to cover it.

@Chaise #25:

I’ll explain myself more fully in another post when I’ve time, but:

– Big Brother Watch is the TPA; it is this organisation more than any other which has misrepresented RIPA over the years, with stories which are regularly picked up by the tabloids;
– the Wikipedia article really doesn’t say that RIPA authorises Councils to carry out DS – I’ll explain later;

Note that DS has a pretty wide definition.

#15:

Look more carefully at these stories. Notice how the Telegraph story headline refers to Councils, but the story itself refers to all public authorities – including the police and security services. Much of the reporting on RIPA is inaccurate.

More later.

The swipe at Gove is richly deserved. It was this Government that set up the Leveson Inquiry. Gove is a Minister in that Government. As Millie Minor got Cameron to concede at Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, he and Gove officially support the Leveson Inquiry. Yet Gove made a speech that was overwhelmingly negative about the Inquiry and could be perceived as undermining the Inquiry. Gove, a Minister, really should not be making speeches that are negative about an Inquiry set up by the Government of which he is a member.

Gove gives the impression that he doesn’t think the Inquiry was necessary, by saying that there were already laws and rules about phone-hacking and bribery. He misses the point that these laws and rules were not applied. A perception had developed that the influence of some sections of the media was strong enough for the relevant institutions to back-off from enforcing the rules and laws. The perception had developed that the Police were unable to take any meaningful action when newspapers were interfering in criminal investigations. Leveson is not about inadequate rules and laws: it is about the inadequacy of existing institutions to enforce rules and laws. Gove, as a Minister, should not be missing the point so spectacularly and should not be “echoing News International’s concerns” (as that Guardian article puts it).

And here is Peter Oborne taking a swipe at Gove (and Boris Johnson).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/peter-oborne/9113596/Is-Rupert-Murdoch-a-fit-and-proper-person-to-run-a-company.html

@Chaise #various:

The Wikipedia page is admittedly not quite as clear as might be, although reference to the Talk page would help.

It is however important to refer to the Summary which states that:

“RIPA regulates the manner in which certain public bodies may conduct surveillance and access a person’s electronic communications.”

It then goes on to say that:

“The Act:

enables… “[a number of activities none of which are within a council's powers]

It then goes on to refer to the powers which are regulated – they are not referred to as being granted. The way the Act works is by providing a framework whereby senior officers within the Council (Head of Service level and above) consider the relevant issues – broadly lawfulness, necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion – in relation to exercise of the council’s pre-existing powers.

If they properly consider those factors, then any exercise of those powers within the authorisation will be lawful.

The framework permits the council to have reasonable assurance in advance that evidence obtained by use of its investiogatory powers will not be successfully challenged under articles 6 or 8 of the ECHR.

The TPA? As mentioned above, it is Big Brother Watch; Matthew Elliott leads both. Google Big Brother Watch.

Although I’m still not happy with councils having the power to stalk people

The Act is in rarely used by councils to authorise “stalking people”. As mentioned above, the definition of directed surveillance (DS) is very wide. It covers pre-planned (as opposed to by way of immediate reaction) covert watching that may disclose private information about a person.

Intrusive surveillance (ie audio/video bugging of residential premises or cars)cannot be authorised under the act.

Take an example:

You’re head of the Parks Service at your local council. A local park has a dog-fouling problem. The ward councillors are getting it in the neck from the local parents whose children can’t play in the park because of the health risk. The park is opened up each morning just after dawn by a mobile service, but the park ranger doesn’t arrive until 9am; by which time the dogs have been and done it and gone. Patrols by the ranger and council enforcement officers fail to identify the culprits(s). At a stormy meeting with local residents, you point out that your patrols have failed to spot any wrongdoing, but that you can’t have a permanent patrol in the park; the residents point out that, unsurprisingly, the culprits aren’t going to transgress if they know you’re watching. They ask why you don’t simply ask the park ranger to come in early a couple of mornings, sit in the park hut (where s/he’s not easily seen) and catch them at it.

That would be directed surveillance within RIPA. Would it be proportionate in your view?

It’s fair to say however that a significant proportion of DS authorisations are for under-age test purchases (alcohol, tobacco or knives).

@ 32 Robin Levett

“It then goes on to refer to the powers which are regulated – they are not referred to as being granted. The way the Act works is by providing a framework whereby senior officers within the Council (Head of Service level and above) consider the relevant issues – broadly lawfulness, necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion – in relation to exercise of the council’s pre-existing powers.

If they properly consider those factors, then any exercise of those powers within the authorisation will be lawful.”

@22 you told me that Wikipedia doesn’t say that councils can use these powers under RIPA. Now you’re explicitly admitting that it does.

“The TPA? As mentioned above, it is Big Brother Watch; Matthew Elliott leads both. Google Big Brother Watch.”

OK. I avoided sourcing directly from Big Brother Watch, though. My annoyance above (aside from the Wikipedia thing) was at the insinuation that I’d automatically back anything the TPA said, which would be odd given that I fucking hate them. And that goes for any organisation that hysterically invokes Orwell, too.

“The Act is in rarely used by councils to authorise “stalking people”.”

So? “Rarely” isn’t “never”; you currently seem to be agreeing that the councils have these powers; I object to that state of affairs.

Cars are rarely used to deliberately run people over, so does that mean we shouldn’t care when they ARE used that way?

“That would be directed surveillance within RIPA. Would it be proportionate in your view?”

Yes, but this is a straw man (see above).

@ 32 Robin Levett

“It then goes on to refer to the powers which are regulated – they are not referred to as being granted. The way the Act works is by providing a framework whereby senior officers within the Council (Head of Service level and above) consider the relevant issues – broadly lawfulness, necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion – in relation to exercise of the council’s pre-existing powers.

If they properly consider those factors, then any exercise of those powers within the authorisation will be lawful.”

@22 you told me that Wikipedia doesn’t say that councils can use these powers under RIPA. Now you’re explicitly admitting that it does.

“The TPA? As mentioned above, it is Big Brother Watch; Matthew Elliott leads both. Google Big Brother Watch.”

OK. I avoided sourcing directly from Big Brother Watch, though. My annoyance above (aside from the Wikipedia thing) was at the insinuation that I’d automatically back anything the TPA said, which would be odd given that I fucking hate them. And that goes for any organisation that hysterically invokes Orwell, too.

“The Act is in rarely used by councils to authorise “stalking people”.”

So? “Rarely” isn’t “never”; you currently seem to be agreeing that the councils have these powers; I object to that state of affairs.

Cars are rarely used to deliberately run people over, so does that mean we shouldn’t care when they ARE used that way?

“That would be directed surveillance within RIPA. Would it be proportionate in your view?”

No, but this is a straw man (see above).

Damn, this is going to be a double-post. Correct version starts the final sentence with “No”. Sorry about that.

@Chaise #34:

@22 you told me that Wikipedia doesn’t say that councils can use these powers under RIPA. Now you’re explicitly admitting that it does.

I think we’re misunderstanding each other. I understood you to be saying (#18) that Wikipedia said that the council’s powers to conduct surveillance etc derived from RIPA; if we are agreed that it does not, but simply that RIPA provides a framework for their authorisation and use, then the difference falls away.

OK. I avoided sourcing directly from Big Brother Watch, though. My annoyance above (aside from the Wikipedia thing) was at the insinuation that I’d automatically back anything the TPA said, which would be odd given that I fucking hate them.

To the contrary. I thought that you hadn’t realised how much of the negative coverage of RIPA derived from BBW/TPA propaganda. It seemed to me that once you understood that, you’d look at that coverage with a little more care, precisely because I thought you were no friend of them.

So? “Rarely” isn’t “never”; you currently seem to be agreeing that the councils have these powers [to "stalk" people]; I object to that state of affairs.

Councils have duties to enforce a huge range of regulatory and other offences. It is very rare that it would be necessary and proportionate to follow someone to obtain evidence to prosecute any of those offences; but those occasions do exist. Take flytipping; are you really saying that council officers shouldn’t be permitted to follow a van that’s collected waste unlawfully to see where its taken? Because that’s DS, if pre-planned.

No, but this is a straw man (see above).

Why is it not proportionate for the ranger to come in early and sit unobtrusively in the park hut? The objective is preventing anti-social behaviour rendering a park out of bounds for play by the local children.

@ 36 Robin

“I think we’re misunderstanding each other. I understood you to be saying (#18) that Wikipedia said that the council’s powers to conduct surveillance etc derived from RIPA; if we are agreed that it does not, but simply that RIPA provides a framework for their authorisation and use, then the difference falls away.”

Originally I assumed that they did derive from RIPA as RIPA specifically makes those allowances. If not, then fine – no objection to RIPA itself, but I still don’t like some of the powers.

“To the contrary. I thought that you hadn’t realised how much of the negative coverage of RIPA derived from BBW/TPA propaganda. It seemed to me that once you understood that, you’d look at that coverage with a little more care, precisely because I thought you were no friend of them.”

OK, fair enough.

“Councils have duties to enforce a huge range of regulatory and other offences. It is very rare that it would be necessary and proportionate to follow someone to obtain evidence to prosecute any of those offences; but those occasions do exist. Take flytipping; are you really saying that council officers shouldn’t be permitted to follow a van that’s collected waste unlawfully to see where its taken? Because that’s DS, if pre-planned.”

I am saying that. It’s about boundaries: your example above seems reasonable enough, but I’m not sure how to grant councils that power without also letting them stalk families to see if they’re conning their way into a school district (and if you can litigate for that dichotomy, I’m sure other unpleasant scenarios could be used instead).

Again, call the police, let them do it.

“Why is it not proportionate for the ranger to come in early and sit unobtrusively in the park hut? The objective is preventing anti-social behaviour rendering a park out of bounds for play by the local children.”

I’m an idiot: I corrected myself above when I was right the first time. The behaviour of the ranger WOULD be proportionate in this case. Following the guy home would be less so, following his kids around too would be right out.

@Chaise #’37:

I really don’t think we’re far apart, but just a couple of points:

I am saying that. It’s about boundaries: your example above seems reasonable enough, but I’m not sure how to grant councils that power without also letting them stalk families to see if they’re conning their way into a school district (and if you can litigate for that dichotomy, I’m sure other unpleasant scenarios could be used instead).

Again, call the police, let them do it.

You do it by imposing a requirement of necessity, proportionality and minimisation of collateral intrusion. The Poole case was neither necessary nor proportional and didn’t minimise (or even consider) collateral intrusion. In the circumsatcnes of the case, they weren’t allowed to do what they did.

The full decision is at:

http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Paton_v_Poole_Borough_Council.pdf

and shows that the authorisation was a bit of a car-crash…

As a result, if the Paton family hadn’t decided not to pursue this, Poole would have been in line to make a substantial payment for breach of their rights to privacy. That’s how you prevent councils overstepping the mark.

The problem with “letting the police do it” is that the police have other things to do than investigate crimes for which they have no prosecutorial role. “Letting the police do it” therefore means it’s not done.