Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
All records for the deployment from July 2003 -Feb 2004 have been "lost". Senior officer day books also seem to have disappeared. We know boxes of #spycops documents relating to Kennedy were unlawfully destroyed: https://policeconduct.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Op_Hibiscus_Final_report_for_publication.pdf …
Perry is paying a lot of attention to the fact that MK was pulled out of his #spycops role in late 2009. That is SIX YEARS after he first started having sex with women he was spying on. Shutting the door after the horse had bolted does not really cover it.
The Judge also points out that MK went back to @JustLisa2010 during the period when he was being extracted. Did EN31 know that he was?
Perry - "As far as I am concerned, no"
Again, there seems to be no actual evidence for why he thinks that.
Now we are looking at Article 14: Was there sexist discrimination in what the police did?
Perry seems to think that this is about "consensual sexual relationships" which is disgusting and insulting defence of serving police officers committing sexual assault. #spycops
Thankfully Judges having none of it.
It doesn't really matter how you break it down, whether you define it as the totality of the operations or just the NPOIU, the fact is there were many many male #spycops who had sex and only really evidence of one female officer who did.
Perry can't answer that.
He instead claims a "more fundamental point" is that there are stereotypical assumptions being made about male and female sexuality.
Judge: I am not interested in assumptions, I am interested in evidence, and the evidence here is very clear. #spycops
Police appeal to case law (Monica v UPP) where the CPS refuse to prosecute Jim Boyling for rape. Interesting double think, they say that #spycops sexual relationships fundamentally undermined autonomy and consent, but also rely on the idea that they were not a criminal offence.
Just in case you missed the point, in amongst Perry's legal arguments, let's say it loud again: WE DID NOT CONSENT #SpyCopspic.twitter.com/sfyneQP00r
In summary the @metpoliceuk case seems to be that sexist discrimination by #spycops is not important and the Tribunal should decline to make a ruling on. Perry makes it clear that if the Tribunal does decide to make a ruling, he has no justification to offer for why it took place
Perry now addressing concepts of "Necessary and Proportionate" - He thinks the key point is that there are various "legitimate purposes" for deploying these powers set out under RIPA. Of course these rules changed in 2013 because of the horrifying revelations about #spycops abuse
Perry says the question is: Is there a law regulating #spycops?
Does it provide adequate information about the circumstances in which public authorities are likely to use these powers? and does it indicate the scope of the discretion they are given to do that?
He says all of these materials did exist and were "readily accessible" and the law provided indication as to the conditions in which public authorities might deploy #spcyops, as well as regulations on granting and renewal of authorisations.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
