alt.lawyers

>
> Recently there has been a fuss in the USA about recording
> Police Officers breaking the same laws they enforce on others.
> A high court has ruled strongly that Government agents
> in the performance of their duties have no reasonable
> expectation of privacy. The value of such recordings to
> obtain better performance of government agents is compelling.
> I have been making that same argument about
> Child Protection caseworkers for quite some time.

Speed camera operatives in Kent were caught speeding by a local radio
presenter - ironically, upon a challenge by the head of the Kent &
Medway Camera Partnership following complaints from the public. He
then went on to catch their Chairman speeding. Unfortunately they
tried to exert police pressure to stop him and he lost his job as a
result. The BBC of all people caved in and covered up the antics of
the camera men. It's long overdue that the public used the very
technology that the government has chosen to invade their lives so
frequently, to collect evidfence if they feel someone is abusing their
power or breaking the law in some way. The recording of a
conversation between members of the public and a social services team
interviewing them, is perfectly lawful. The onus on whether a person
representing a public body chooses to say something they shouldn't to
another person or to behave in a certain way rests with them, if
they're recorded, then all the better. Let's use the expression that
the police and MP's often use, if a person has nothing to hide - why
should they care? I have chosen not comment on the specific case
mentioned in other postings.

Turk182