Phorm & “Implied Consent” V Police…

September 23, 2008

“Implied Consent” is a wonderful new term that is being used increasingly these days. It really means, well, `they didn’t say no`. It is NOT THE SAME THING as ACTUAL CONSENT in ANY way.

Hardly surprising, the police have dropped the investigation into BTs illegal PHORM trials where they spied on THOUSANDS of people in the UK, in the interests of making yet more money. The reason they gave? Because they are  arguing that there was `implied consent` from customers and it would be a waste of public money.

Really. `Implied Consent`. Is that the same as when a rape victim doesn’t say no, or at least, not audibly. Or is it just so long as they are not aware of what is happening, asleep, let’s say. Is that OK?  Is it then OK to walk out of a retail store without paying, as long as there was `no intent`??  I call BULLSHIT. It’s a prime example of how these groups all collude with one another. Make a bit of a stir, pretend to investigate it, and then leave it a while, just quietly drop it and hope noone notices or cares anymore…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: