Posted by Nigel Brooks on 07/11/06 21:48

"Tony Morgan" <tonymorgan@rhylonlinenospam.com> wrote in message
news:nDv6x6Ahx+sEFwPT@zen54488.zen.co.uk...
> In message <4hi636F1ruvjiU1@individual.net>, Nigel Brooks
> <nbrooks@msn.com> writes
>>There is far more of a privacy interest in communications conducted by
>>telephone than there is in a face to face confrontation.
>>
> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with Anne's intent.
> Please Nigel - stop blowing smoke !!!

>>The whole point of my post is that the legality of a covert consensual
>>recording depends entirely on the jurisdiction you are in and there is no
>>blanket authorization or prohibition.
>
> Firstly, I should remind you that Anne's proposition is not consensual -
> that is the whole issue.


Rubbish - She is a party to the conversation and is the one who is
consenting to the recording. You only need one party to consent. You are
confused about the definition of what constitutes a consensual recording -
it doesn't need every party to consent - only one......

> Further, jurisdiction is not an issue Nigel - Anne lives in the UK - so
> why start babbling on about jurisdiction?

What specific UK law prohibits an individual from recording their
conversations with others covertly? If there were such a law - every
television show which utilizes the hidden camera technique would be subject
to prosecution. The fact is that if the person doing the recording is a
party to the conversation - it's legal.

Nigel Brooks

[Back to original message]