IIRC there was something from the Information Commissioner a few years ago saying that CCTV shouldn't have audio recording. But I would assume that applied primarily to private/commercial CCTV systems, one would hope high security places like Downing Street would actually record audio.

Do you actually understand what defamatory means in the legal sense?





It is, however, an uncontested fact that he had an altercation with the police and that he swore at them. And this is where we come back to defamatory.





Nobody is making out that suing newspapers is a revolutionary step. Or that they are free to repeat libel. The crux of the matter is what constitutes libel. People do sue papers and lose, something you seem to be unaware of. And those people often have expensive lawyers who were happy to take their fee regardless of the chances of success.

You're talking about the high security entrance to the highest profile terrorist target in the country through which very few people have a genuine need of access (its not like its open to the public as a museum etc) and those that do have to identify themselves.



I am rather hoping that they don't just rely on those three very blurry, non-audio cameras who's footage Mitchell's supporters have been able to obtain to date in order to cover all security events on Downing Street.



Look back several pages on this thread and you'll find me singing from the same hymn sheet time and again - the footage obtained is so vague as to be almost unusable and even Ch4's Dispatches program (who seem to be Mitchells public mouthpiece) admit that its inconclusive - can you imagine a terrorist attack on those gates and the police having to rely on those images, no neither can I.



As for public rights & recording - is Downing Street a public right of way or private land ?

I will vouch for that.

"All things bright and beautiful..."

Yes, I studied it, amongst other Torts at University.







Not quite, he said he swore in their presence, not directly at them.









I never suggested otherwise.



You seem to be suggesting that it is cut and dried that Mitchell has no case. This is obviously not correct, as demonstrated by 1) the fact we are having this discussion and 2) the fact Mitchell's lawyers have begun action.

When we were there in the Summer I could have sworn they wore body cams on the Downing Street gates.

I never thought it would be possible to smell bullsh[ii[/it over an internet messageboard. Well you learn something new every day.

Nothing to contribute to the discussion then? Didn't think so.

No denials then? Didn't think so. While you're on it why don't you see if Wikipedia has an entry for "worst liar ever".

Deny what? I studied Tort law at university. This is a fact.



Don't give a monkeys if you don't believe me to be honest. You are a strange individual.

I think this had run its course. Time to lock while some posters still have some dignity left...