Being recorded without my permission

cynicalshopper

"The question I asked was if it was legal to record someone without their permission"

It is not illegal to do it.

usefulmale

Flyonthewall wrote: »

That is very misleading and I imagine if ever someone went down the legal route that having done that would not work in your favour! It may be impossible to prove exactly what you meant but a description of the situation would certainly suggest you did not make it clear and therefore any Judge would be on their side, not yours.

Sorry fly, I've already put this in front of a judge. She was quite happy to give me the benefit of the doubt.

tomtontom

usefulmale wrote: »

Sorry fly, I've already put this in front of a judge. She was quite happy to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Case citation?

Flyonthewall

usefulmale wrote: »

Sorry fly, I've already put this in front of a judge. She was quite happy to give me the benefit of the doubt.

That's called luck and possibly charm.

You know it's misleading and you do it for that reason, it's why you called it a trick and stated people believe you're just taking notes when you know it not to be true.

If you have a very strong case something like that may be dismissed/overlooked. Not every Judge would do so and if you haven't a srong case then it's less likely they'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you did it again it's also even less likely!

It is still misleading and my previous posts still stands, a one off case of a nice Judge and bit of luck/charm doesn't disprove my post.

usefulmale

tomtontom wrote: »

Case citation?

Family court. More secrecy than MI6, unfortunately. Not saying every judge would accept it in every situation.

usefulmale

Flyonthewall wrote: »

That's called luck and possibly charm.

You know it's misleading and you do it for that reason, it's why you called it a trick and stated people believe you're just taking notes when you know it not to be true.

If you have a very strong case something like that may be dismissed/overlooked. Not every Judge would do so and if you haven't a srong case then it's less likely they'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you did it again it's also even less likely!

It is still misleading and my previous posts still stands, a one off case of a nice Judge and bit of luck/charm doesn't disprove my post.

I really loathe this saying but . . . 'If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear'.

I would only use this technique where the other side are known by me to lie and cheat. I am just adapting to their own standards.

p00hsticks

gwen80 wrote: »

They also keep an excel file (password protected) on former employees. They're more than slightly paranoid ....

I'd be upset if any file on employees, past or present, WASN'T password protected. I wouldn't see it as a sign of paranoia, just them taking steps to ensure they don't breach DPA regs.

Flyonthewall

usefulmale wrote: »

I really loathe this saying but . . . 'If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear'.

I would only use this technique where the other side are known by me to lie and cheat. I am just adapting to their own standards.

That doesn't make it right, that makes you as bad as them.