[Sussex] RIPA

Geoffrey J Teale gteale at cmedresearch.com
Mon Jun 12 11:50:41 UTC 2006


Andrew,

Before I start, I just want to reiterate that my comments are meant to
be helpful advice, not a personal assault.   I apologise whole heartedly
if you find what I say upsetting.   What I want is for you, someone who 
obviously cares a lot about the issue, to do the most effective things 
you can to change the law for the better.

Andrew Guard wrote:
---- %< -------
 > I don't know about you but you but you have a interesting idea what
 > libel is. What did I write what was libelous towards Nic James Ferrier.
I didn't suggest that at all.    I was suggesting you libeled the
authors of the document and the authors of the legislation.  In the case
of the former you made statements about them (in particular their
intent) and then openly admitted that those statements where made in
ignorance of the content of the document.  That's what frustrated me.

While my idea of what libel is may be "interesting" to you I guarantee
you that it is an informed one.  You made defamatory statements about 
the people who wrote the document you were referring to and admitted to 
not having read the document.  If they had the inclination to sue (which 
I am sure they would not do in this instance) you would have a hard time 
defending yourself.

 > Also it isn't proposed legislation, it already law which was passed in
 > 2000.

A fair point and one you make several times.  However the testing of law
in courts shapes the law.   Legislation is not the be-all and end-all of
the legal system the precedent set down in courts makes up  a very large
portion of how law is applied.  Your statements that "the law is already
passed" have no practical meaning.  Law is not static - have you
noticed anyone being hanged for wool smugling recently?  Campaining can 
result in two positive outcomes:

  * You can influence popular opinion
  * You can influence the opinion of people with power

The first case is of primary interest to MP's  - the people who propose 
new legislation (which often supercedes or modifies existing 
legislation), and is a factor in the decisions judges make - but more 
importantly is a primary factor in the decisions jurors make.

The second case can have obvious results - if you convince your MP that 
the RIP act is a bad thing then he/she can directly raise the issue in 
the house and/or propose repealing the act, modifying it or superceding it.

 > I take it didn't fully understand what was written by me as would
 > understand that did read the act and understand it ie  "Not going to
 > read it as no matter what it says it just dumb!", you might not think
 > RIP Act is dumb but would disagree with you every time.

I didn't make any statements about the RIP act, I am not an expert on 
it, nor have I read it.  I only made statements about your approach to 
dealing with it.  My point was:

  * There is legislation you don't like
  * You're mouthing off about it and making statements about the people
responsible for it, and a current consultation document.  
  * You would be better placed trying to arm yourself with all the 
evidence and try to make a reasoned argument against the act to get the 
law changed.

 > That document which is on the home office is nothing for any
 > importance. RIP Act is already law.  It isn't a paper on changing the
 > law and there are no plains I know off to do such thing ether. What it
 > is thought is the home office wanting people to do the legal work for
 > them for free. They want to know of any problems they might have with
 > the law before they have to go to court.  It the home office doing its
 > home work, they have get a bloody noise before with law like RIP ie.
 > terrorism act in which parts off the act where found to be illegal and
 > over turned in case law.

Not again!  How do you know this is their intent? 

 > Personally I will not help them, I want them to make mistakes so the
 > RIP would have problems.  Do not be a fool and help them keep this law
 > on the books!  By not making mistakes in law!  Let them make mistakes
 > so we and get it over turned.

You want them to make mistakes?  You want people to suffer under bad 
legislation until it becomes untenable?  You don't perhaps think a 
opportunity to express your opinion on the law to the home office is 
worthwhile?

Unless you are actively planning a revolt you're basically advocating 
"give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves"?   Have you ever 
heard the Edmund Bruke quote, "All that is required for evil to triumph 
is for good men to do nothing"?

 > Why get touch with an MP now, did that when it matted with MP's before
 > it came law in 2000!  That when they voted upon it becoming law in
 > 2000.  The home office doesn't need to ask MP's to vote upon it as
 > already law.  The home office is going to active section 3 of RIP act.

See above.  If you care, you campaign.  I have little or no respect for 
people who moan about the law but are not prepared to engage in the 
process.

Well done for writing to your MP in 2000  - do it again, and again, 
don't give up.  This is my key point  - the law doesn't stop evolving 
and generally things change in favour of the group that makes the most 
noise.  Why does the EU have laws about where Champagne or Sherry has to 
come from to be given that name?  Simple: the people who cared made a fuss.

 > Would like to tell us these searches you did as you might be able
 > explain that interesting comment.

Eh?  It's simple, common practice.  When you apply for jobs companies 
routinely do background checks, formally or informally.  Many, many 
people will search google by name and e-mail address to see if they can 
find any further evidence about people they are considering employing.

Of course these searches cannot be the deciding factor in the process, 
but they do give a general impression and will inform the questions that 
are asked.

 > Now talk about libel?  Putting my charter in question.
 >
 > To make it blunt to everyone about RIP act:-
 > 1) it was voted by MP's in 2000.
 > 2) it became law in 2000.
 > 3) home office wants to now activate section 3.  To do this they do
 > not need to ask MP's, they have already voted upon it in 2000.
 > 4) I did lot of complaining during 1999-2000.  When it mattered, game
 > over.
 > 5) Sadly I do not know Rose Tyler or the Doctor so can not go back to
 > 2000 again and do more campaigning that I did then with MP's.

I reiterate, one more time in case it hasn't sunk in.  The law does not 
stop changing.  The passing of an act is only the beginning.

 > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000023.htm
 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

Yes, yes.. but do you understand what I was saying?  You made defamatory 
remarks about the members of the government and the employees of the 
home office.  In the case of the home office employees you went so far 
as to admit that you hadn't even carried out basic research on the 
subject you were talking about to establish that the points you made 
were true.    You've now followed up with a comment in this e-mail that 
implies you want the home office to make mistakes and slip-up.  So we have:

Defamation (implication of stupidity and intent to harm the public interest)
No proof of truth (and admission that research was not evident)
Malice (as described above)

Care to explain to me where my understanding of libel is askew? 

 > This e-mail was brought to you by the year 2000 ;)

:-) 

-- 
G. J. Teale
Software Engineering Team Leader

Cmed Group Ltd.
Holmwood, Broadlands Business Campus,
Langhurstwood Road, Horsham, RH12 4QP, United Kingdom

T +44(0)1403 755 071
F +44(0)1403 755 051
M +44(0)7914 850 491
E gteale at cmedresearch.com 
W www.cmedresearch.com
__________________________________________________________

Driven by technology. Guided by experience.
__________________________________________________________





More information about the Sussex mailing list