[boomboomsubban]

>And also no reason to expect their procedures to be illegal either

Being illegal would be a good reason for going to jail, which is the question you asked.

[orcs]

But they're not illegal so the point is moot. Also illegality does not mean jail. The severity of an illegal action dictates that.

[boomboomsubban]

>But they're not illegal so the point is moot

They aren't? We both agreed that procedure could be a illegal, what reason do you have to assume this procedure is legal?

[orcs]

Oh dear.

'Could be' and 'are' are two different things.

Where's your actual evidence they are illegal? You don't have any.

What reason do you have to assume this procedure is illegal? Other than some kind of irrelevant association with the surveillance program of a different part of the government proving to be illegal.

I'll gladly accept the procedure is illegal provided with proof it is, so... over to you.

[boomboomsubban]

I'm not stating that the procedure is illegal. Having never read the procedural guide or the relevant law, I fully confess my ignorance on the subject.

You are stating that it is legal, and from my point of view your only reason is that the accused said they were following procedure. As following procedure doesn't show legality, why are you certain it is legal?

[orcs]

There's no accused person.

If it were illegal it wouldn't be in place, full stop. This is the crown prosecution service, what ever you may or may not think of them, their procedures have to be legal. If a procedure that is in place is challenged in a court and found by the court to be illegal then fine, it gets changed. But those following said procedure beforehand are not breaking the law and are acting in good faith.

But data retention isset in law (at the time under the 1998 act, and now the gdpr and 2018 act) and the cps follows those laws like everyone else must. Their procedures follow these laws.