A proper law

[Roland Perry]

In message <03031010181300.28713@bbzen.edsc.ulst.ac.uk>, Brian Beesley 
<BJ.Beesley@ulster.ac.uk> writes
>if the intellgence services are
>tapping phones already and can understand the conversation (i.e. it's not in
>an unpenetratable dialect or spoken in code words rather than "plain") then
>surely they are in a position to use that intelligence information to
>itercept any planned operation, catching the perpetrators (literally) red
>handed. So why does the phone tap intelligence need to be presented in court,
>let alone be allowed as evidence?

I'm not sure I agree that using phone taps as evidence is "good thing". 
However, there are many people involved in backroom activities (both 
organising and supporting the criminal activity) who are never going to 
be out on the streets and in a position to be caught red-handed.
-- 
Roland Perry