Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Thydney

I understand what you're saying. I was taking it to the extreme. My point was although it's done it's not legal and as such they don't have the legal right to do it as you first said.

Originally Posted by Ray

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

Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas

But then again a lot of jobs are only succesful due to some rule bending.

Originally Posted by Thydney

I understand what you're saying. I was taking it to the extreme. My point was although it's done it's not legal and as such they don't have the legal right to do it as you first said.

Originally Posted by Thydney

But that would be illegal something I never witnessed