Reasonable questions Winsor, except that you forget that the man Blair,
along with most of his Government, might mean different things on
different days. For instance, the threat of attack "within" 45
minutes" might mean 45 years in the case of Iraq... the man uses words
to mean different things on different days.
Mike's answer is pretty well spot-on. No evidence from phone taps is
currently admissible in court as far as I understand it. There had
been moves to allow such evidence before the recent problems with the
Government's detention of people without charge, trial or published
evidence. Now it is a way out for them to be able to bring them to
court if they allow such evidence - gained from intercepted
communications. They need a way out as they are currently in breach of
all manner of common law (including habeas corpus) and human rights
law.
Chris
On 7 Feb 2005, at 2:18, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Please forgive this completely off topic query to the British members.
> I am rather fond of watching the Prime Ministers Questions on our CSPAN
> station. I need some translation. If you could enlighten me on a couple
> of terms which block my understanding of the arguments I would be very
> grateful.
>
> 1. "Anti-social behavior" which is not a crime in this country and just
> a matter of rudeness.I am sure it is a euphemism for something else.
>
> 2. "Intercepted evidence" which seems to be an issue the handling of
> terrorist trials.
>
> Any translation would be appreciated.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|