Maybe I was, but why didn't you send a PM in the first place?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
FAO Bozza
- Thread starter The Wookiee
- Start date
I would have thought that if the Police wanted details of someone's internet use they would probably go straight to the ISP.
Bear in mind that even if he wanted to, the only information Bozza could give is whatever details you gave when registering and IP addresses. The latter of which is of course not necessarily linked to an individual.
Bear in mind that even if he wanted to, the only information Bozza could give is whatever details you gave when registering and IP addresses. The latter of which is of course not necessarily linked to an individual.
For the record I'm happy with Wookie PMing me the details, and I'm grateful he did.
I'm less happy that an event from last night where it seems no-one told anyone that I share NSC user details, has been twisted into quite a barbed accusation that I do.
Garage_Doors
Originally the Swankers
Same here, would have no problem with police wanting to search my home at any time, might be a bit unhappy if i had left the washing up in the sink. but other than that.
Would not have an issue with it.
Strictly speaking even though it was the spoken word, once it was written down and made into a record by posting it on here it would come under libel, not slander.
But carry on.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
If some tw*t on here owned up to throwing a rock of the railway bridge, or some other stupid action, I for one would hope this site as a whole, and Bozza as the administrator would do everything they can to help the police in their investigations.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,501
Not for a second. Terrorism offences have their own statutes which would apply.
It's just ordinary, everyday stuff. If you get nicked for an indictable offence, the police have the power to search any premises occupied or controlled by you, if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting there may be evidence there of that offence, or a connected or similar offence.
Say you were nicked on suspicion of stealing something. The police could legitimately, and without any sort of warrant being required, search your home address, any business or other premises you control, any lock ups etc, with a view to locating the stolen item, or other stolen items.
Other examples: if you'd been sending someone threatening emails or trading fraudulently on eBay: they would be considering searching your place to find and seize your computer equipment perhaps. If you were arrested for a drug offence other than the most basic and minimal level of possession, you could expect your home to be visited too.
It very much depends on the offence to be honest and whether an additional search is proportionate: if you were suspected of nicking a Mars Bar from Tesco, they're hardly going to find additional evidence by going to your house. But if there was a suggestion you'd been on the take from your employer, or burgling houses, or handling knocked off gear, you can fully expect the police to be around and searching your premises as soon as you're in custody.
I doubt they have the right to ask for the details of everyone, regardless, so if they asked for that I'd assume Bozza would say no, not without a court order or some legal reasoning. If however, someone was showing off how they beat the shit out of an opposing fan, I'd hope Bozza would give the details to the police without even being asked.
I didn't know that. So what exactly is the point of a warrant, if you don't need one?
Join up and ask them!
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,501
The power I referred to above (Section 18 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as I can tell you're all interested to know) only applies once people have been arrested.
So, for example, if you had intelligence that a particular house was being used for drug dealing, but you didn't have enough evidence to arrest the occupant at that point, you'd apply to the court for a warrant, the magistrate will issue it if they feel there are sufficient grounds, then the ROZZERS go round, search the house and deal with whatever they find.
I assume you'd just arrest them on suspicion. Are you saying that you need less evidence to obtain a warrant than you do to arrest someone? It seems people can be arrested for looking wrong.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,501
As far as I'm aware the Looking Wrong (Working Class) Act 1841 was repealed in the mid 1980s
Staly
Well-known member
Section 29 of the data Protection Act allows (not requires) a data controller (ie this site's admin) to provide personal data to the Police (or many other official bodies) for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime. It would need the Police to provide a written request stating that the information was needed for that purpose, but the individual concerned would not need to be consulted or give consent.
From experience, most data controllers will comply with such a request if presented, provided it's about a specific offence and a specific individual, and not a fishing exercise (which the Police often try to get away with). Not saying of course that this has any relevance at all (given that Bozza has said it hasn't happened) other than to balance all the posts about warrants and isps not handing over details unless forced. It happens all the time, on a weekly basis in the organisations I am familiar with.
bristolseagull
Well-known member
What? I can't begin to imagine circumstances where I would refuse the police a polite request to look around my house. I am 48 by the way.
Nottseagull
Well-known member
As far as I'm aware the Looking Wrong (Working Class) Act 1841 was repealed in the mid 1980s
Indeed, that repeal was the direct cause of the shell suit.