verbal abuse from ANPR PC

bod1467

bazster wrote: »

It is a criminal offence (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to record a telephone conversation without the other party's knowledge and then disclose the content of that recording to a third party.

Only the bold part forms the criminal offence. There's nothing stopping someone recording a conversation and then disclosing a transcript.

halibut2209

bazster wrote: »

It is a criminal offence (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to record a telephone conversation without the other party's knowledge and then disclose the content of that recording to a third party.

So how come the police can publish audio recordings of 999 calls? The few times I've called 999, they've never said the call is being recorded.

TDA

bod1467 wrote: »

Only the bold part forms the criminal offence. There's nothing stopping someone recording a conversation and then disclosing a transcript.

I am not familiar with the Act, but would not disclosing a transcript constitute disclosing the 'content' of the recording...

bazster

Captain_Krunch wrote: »

True but at the end of the conversation you can inform them that you have recorded the call.

You'd still have recorded it without their knowledge or consent and you'd still be committing an offence by disclosing it to a third party without their consent.

Captain_Krunch wrote: »

Im sure a lot of the PPCs record conversations. Do they inform you at the start of a phone call that you're being recorded?

Two wrongs make a right, huh, even if one of the wrongs is only being guessed at? In any case, from a practical point of view, I've never heard of a PPC recording a 'phone conversation and then parading the evidence of their offence on YouTube, as the OP has been advised. Even PPC's aren't that stupid.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Very true. It is also a criminal offence to exceed the speed limit. Personally, I take my chance with the latter and would do so with the former.

:beer:

Personally I wouldn't encourage anyone to speed or to commit any criminal offence. And if someone did commit an offence I'd advise them that it would be very unwise to publish evidence of it on YouTube.

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

Only the bold part forms the criminal offence. There's nothing stopping someone recording a conversation and then disclosing a transcript.

The Act makes it an offence to disclose the content of a recording. Whether that covers a transcript, well, you can argue the toss over it with a judge if you like.

bazster

halibut2209 wrote: »

So how come the police can publish audio recordings of 999 calls? The few times I've called 999, they've never said the call is being recorded.

So you are suggesting it's not an offence? And the notion that there might be exemptions for certain authorities in certain circumstances has completely eluded you?

I'd suggest you read the Act before passing such an opinion:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

halibut2209

I suggested no such thing. I asked a question. No need to be an @rse about it.

Guest101

Anyone point out what section prevents recording?

DCodd

Guest101 wrote: »

Anyone point out what section prevents recording?

THere is nothing to prevent you from recording telephone conversations. As long as one party to the call knows the call is being recorded then it is legal. That doesn't allow you disclose the content of that recording to a third party.

AFAIK a High Court can give permission for a transcript to be given as evidence but I believe it is extremely rare.