Trevor
Of course they have to apply RIPA in counter terrorism operations - it's the law and it applies to any and all surveillance operations. My point was that this law wasn't designed specifically with terrorism in mind, but rather for all surveillance operations. I can't see what the issue is in this particular case. Prior to RIPA, there were no controls on physical observation surveillance whatsoever - zilch! RIPA doesn't benefit the investigators in such cases any way - quite the opposite. It's there to
regulate the surveillance, not facilitate it. If you were to abolish RIPA, most public servants involved in investigation would jump for joy because, frankly, most of it is a pain in the arse.
You can read the whole Act here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/uk ... 00023_en_1
If you can be bothered to plough through it, you'll see that it doesn't mention terrorism. That's because it was enacted before the present terrorism concerns emerged. Prior to that, all the anti-terror stuff was introduced (mostly) in the Thatcher era to combat the IRA etc. All the recent stuff, the new and draconian "anti-terror laws", came about as a result of 9/11 and Blair cosying up to Bush.
Trevor - you have mentioned this before and you really have got the wrong end of the stick about RIPA. There are issues which should concern us with regard to RIPA concerning telephone tapping and data interception, but the case cited didn't involve any of these activities. It was about watching and photographing people where it is believed offences were being committed. The only effect RIPA has with regard to this is to impose obligations and restrictions on the observers - it gives them no powers or rights they didn't have before.
Stu
