BigDavyG

Ffs, the ads on the site are getting ridiculous now.
Since i mentioned tazers on this thread there's been an ad for "Tazer Injury Lawyers" at the bottom of the page

User Name

... and UK Customs still get to see what's in such mail ...

.

Angry White Pyjamas

Ah the old Chi strike.

One question: How many people have attempted to tackle someone with a knife let alone a firearm whilst unarmed? I dont give a monkeys how highly trained in whatever various martial arts someone is. The knife/firearms weilders have a distinct advantage especially if they know how to use them.

Thydney

They are usually clearly marked I can't remember the Act it's done under.

Thydney

Not exactly they get to see if there is anything that shouldn't be there ie drugs but not read it.

User Name

They get to see what's in plain sight - if the document looks like a terrorist manual, UK Customs will look at.

Thydney

Assuming that it not titled 'Bomb building for dummies' how would they tell without jeopardising due process?

User Name

By flicking through it?

.

Thydney

But thats my point they aren't allowed to do that

User Name

They will if they have reason/cause to look further. Public policy interest to check for suspicious items would trump other considerations. Hence why UK security services on occassion bug telephones (even public call boxes) without court approval, just approval/nod from the Home Secretary.


.

Thydney

You mean look without telling anyone. Ok till someone squeals and all the defendants get off because of a technicality.

Ray

Oh how quaint you still see adverts here .....

cutina

oooh i just noticed that i don't... is that a perk then??!

Ray

Yup ..for premium members...

User Name

Nope, that bit of the evidence could be deemed inadmissible ... this kind of thing goes on all the time with regard to UK security agencies engaged in bugging terror suspects without a warrant, that evidence is tainted, so it is not admitted, but that does not mean the court case is dismissed. The case is decided on the merits based on evidence admitted as evidence in the court proceeding. In Northern Ireland terror suspects are still found guilty without even a jury to hear the admissible evidence. The judge deciding the case most likely hears the inadmissible evidence even if the judge later decides he/she will not rely on that evidence in deciding guilt or innocence. Cases against terror suspects are hardly ever dismissed on a technicality. Please understand that I am not saying I agree with this kind of thing, I'm merely stating what I understand to be how it works in the UK.