Charged for failing to comply with a Section 49 Notice (RIPA Part 3)

[David Hansen]

On 22 May 2008 at 14:39, Nicholas Bohm wrote:

> It's not an abuse of process in the legal sense,

I don't recall RIP being touted as being retrospective, though it is 
quite pososble that the rascals in Westminster and the officals who 
pull their strings failed to mention this. In the absence of that it 
seems to me that this outrageous law can only apply to things stolen 
after the First of October 2007, but I am often wrong.






-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents 
me   
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54