DEADLINE FRIDAY: Responding to draft CoP RIP Pt.I Ch.II (was RE: ZDNet UK 26/10/2001: "Home Office admits data retention plans")

[Roger Hird]

In article <001001c16150$25da3560$0200a8c0@aki>,
   Caspar Bowden <cb@fipr.org> wrote:
> There is no statutory basis for introducing such distinctions in a CoP

Really?  A CoP's guidance isn't it?  And to be used by judges in
interpreting the statute?  

It isn't statute and relying on it is more risky than relying on statute -
but safer than ignoring it's guidance, surely?


RogerH

-- 
Roger Hird
roger.hird@argonet.co.uk

Running Voyager 2.07 and RISCOS 4.02 on an Acorn StrongARM RiscPC