Breaking News: GCHQ Intel Share Ruled Unlawful

[Citizen No2]

Just in:

GCHQ intelligence sharing 'was unlawful', tribunal rules

The sharing of intelligence by UK agency GCHQ prior to December was unlawful, a tribunal has ruled.


The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) said the intelligence sharing regime between the agency and the US's National Security Agency did not comply with human rights law until recently.

It is the first time the tribunal has ruled against an intelligence agency in its 15-year history.

The IPT said there was a lack of transparency.

Campaign groups Privacy International and Liberty were among those who made the initial complaint.

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451


They also added that they were very naughty boys' and mustn't do it again.




Regards.

[sigma6]

Interesting, stating it's unlawful, lays the grounds for charges against them in a court of equity... Notice no mention of it's illegality?... which begs the question most everyone ignores, what is the difference again between legal and lawful? Can anyone see the game being played here?... But well done that someone has moved forward, and prepared a properly worded complaint, that forced their hand and got this result... This is part of the learning, awakening process I believe... the journey of a thousand miles begins with steps such as these... Will be interesting to see what the follow up will be... ;-) (I wonder if anyone has considered anything past this significant result) They have put it on the table...

[lucidity]

Interesting, stating it's unlawful, lays the grounds for charges against them in a court of equity... Notice no mention of it's illegality?... which begs the question most everyone ignores, what is the difference again between legal and lawful? Can anyone see the game being played here?... But well done that someone has moved forward, and prepared a properly worded complaint, that forced their hand and got this result... This is part of the learning, awakening process I believe... the journey of a thousand miles begins with steps such as these... Will be interesting to see what the follow up will be... ;-) (I wonder if anyone has considered anything past this significant result) They have put it on the table...

Hi Sigma,

Good post. My compliments !

Two questions:

1. What _is_ the difference between 'illegal' and 'unlawful' ?
2. What follow up do you think could or should follow this ?

be happy :-)

lucidity

[Citizen No2]

If something is unlawful, it means it is against the law, but not necessarily a criminal act; it can be a civil wrong, such as trademark infringement, for which the wrongdoer may be sued, but will unlikely face criminal prosecution.

Illegal describes an act that is unlawful and also a criminal act, such as drug trafficking.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law, illegal. Illegal is defined as forbidden by law, unlawful. Semantically, there is a slight difference. It seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorised.

Regards.

[sigma6]

Interesting, stating it's unlawful, lays the grounds for charges against them in a court of equity... Notice no mention of it's illegality?... which begs the question most everyone ignores, what is the difference again between legal and lawful? Can anyone see the game being played here?... But well done that someone has moved forward, and prepared a properly worded complaint, that forced their hand and got this result... This is part of the learning, awakening process I believe... the journey of a thousand miles begins with steps such as these... Will be interesting to see what the follow up will be... ;-) (I wonder if anyone has considered anything past this significant result) They have put it on the table...

Hi Sigma,

Good post. My compliments !

Two questions:

1. What _is_ the difference between 'illegal' and 'unlawful' ?
2. What follow up do you think could or should follow this ?

be happy :-)

lucidity

my opinion: legal tends to be strictly commercial, contract based, a technicality... lawful always contains an aspect of morality... Put simply, in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" - the idea of extracting a pound of flesh was a legal contract... the reason why he couldn't proceed was for lawful reasons...

The follow up should be an equitable claim, an attack on their morality, a breach of trust which would involve a true and proper redress, there are strict rules to this (unlike criminal) sometime it is 3 or 4 times what they gained... On the other hand criminal charges, because they are only commercial, end up doing nothing but paying out funds based on what is essentially a 'negotiated settlement' (if you are lucky) which ends up being nothing more than a token, the "cost of doing business" for the defendant... i.e. don't get a criminal lawyer get a trust lawyer...

Notice how the only thing you see in the main stream media, news television, etc?... it's all a diversion away from what is lawful... (a different and more "hidden" venue of "law")

Criminal is statutory, so it has to be broken down... i.e. criminal pure statutory, or criminal damage to people, property or contracts... the contract part I believe is where they make the split... simple commercial contract and more moral issues, like fraud, breach of trust, etc... statutory can 'overlay' all these things, and is thus a distraction... What you want to know is if you are dealing with a technical issue like speeding over 6km or a moral issue, like ripping someone off by fraudulent misrepresentation for example (property damage)...

Another takeaway from all this explains why there is so much societal degeneration today, the contamination of religion, which was supposed to be, at the very least, the repository of moral value. The 'satanization' of movies, television, the sexualization of education, politics and children... debauchery as social status... etc, etc ad nauseum... because by crumbling of the moral foundation of society (the people who are the true government, if they ever woke up...) protects the morally corrupt institutions and corporations... A morally corrupt party cannot attack another morally corrupt institution for example... (unclean hands maxim) even though they are guilty and the punishment would be the most sound and resounding deterrent...

And so it goes...