"If you've done nothing wrong" & section 7

[Guest]

On Sunday David Miranda, the Brazilian partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has written stories about revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US Government, was held at Heathrow Airport under the UK Terrorism Act. He was released without charge after nine hours.

Glenn Greenwald told the BBC: “They never asked him about a single question at all about terrorism or anything relating to a terrorist organisation. They spent the entire day asking about the reporting I was doing and other Guardian journalists were doing on the NSA stories.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23752733

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to detain anyone at the UK’s borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification.

Schedule 7 has a become a blunt legal instrument that the UK government can use to intimidate people who it doesn’t agree with. Clearly it is time for the Government to review how it uses Schedule 7.

"If you have you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" is a cry heard here from time to time by those who seek to support measures such a Section 7. I think that David Miranda's experience shows that this is just too simple a world-view.

There is now an e-petitiion to Theresa May inviting her to undertake a review of how Section 7 is being used. If you would like to sign it, please visit :

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ukhomeoffice-theresa-may-review-the-use-of-schedule-7-of-terrorism-act?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=31629&alert_id=NFMzWgKCMO_OXgrUlrmym

Thank you :biggrin:

[ahinton]

On Sunday David Miranda, the Brazilian partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has written stories about revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US Government, was held at Heathrow Airport under the UK Terrorism Act. He was released without charge after nine hours.

Glenn Greenwald told the BBC: “They never asked him about a single question at all about terrorism or anything relating to a terrorist organisation. They spent the entire day asking about the reporting I was doing and other Guardian journalists were doing on the NSA stories.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23752733

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to detain anyone at the UK’s borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification.

Schedule 7 has a become a blunt legal instrument that the UK government can use to intimidate people who it doesn’t agree with. Clearly it is time for the Government to review how it uses Schedule 7.

"If you have you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" is a cry heard here from time to time by those who seek to support measures such a Section 7. I think that David Miranda's experience shows that this is just too simple a world-view.

There is now an e-petitiion to Theresa May inviting her to undertake a review of how Section 7 is being used. If you would like to sign it, please visit :

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ukhomeoffice-theresa-may-review-the-use-of-schedule-7-of-terrorism-act?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=31629&alert_id=NFMzWgKCMO_OXgrUlrmym

Thank you :biggrin:

This incident has already caused a good deal of flack and will surely be heavily investigated; I just hope that the findings of such investigations are correctly and fully reported and anyone found to have done what they shouldn't be treated accordingly; perhaps the one good thing to have emergd from it so far is to cause even more attention to be directed at the Snowden affair.

[Richard Barrett]

"If you have you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" is a cry heard here from time to time by those who seek to support measures such a Section 7. I think that David Miranda's experience shows that this is just too simple a world-view.

I wonder if some of "those" would wish to comment on this; unless of course they're of the opinion that Mr Miranda is already beyond the pale for associating with a known troublemaker (and for that matter being gay).

[Pabmusic]

'If you have you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear' is often the justification for depriving any of us of rights. It is commonly used in the UK, where there is no clear, separate constitution as other countries have. The British way has always been to argue that our freedoms are what is left over when we've obeyed the law. In general, this has amounted to high standards of 'freedom' without the constraint of a clear constitution - it works well enough so why quibble?

But there have been moments - the period following the Napoleonic Wars, for instance, that included the Peterloo Massacre, when Wellington's government introduced many repressive laws to control these uppity workers. And also today.

Take some examples. 'Stop and search' was introduced originally with good intentions - I have no doubt of that - controlling a worrying new urban youth culture in which drugs were very prominent. But the powers were wide and were applied by individual officers often in a racist way. Black youths were stopped and searched simply because they were black - sometimes as a means of intimidation, but usually (I suspect) simply because black youths became the sort of people you stopped. One result was the Brixton Riots of the early 80s. Here's an old (2002) article that has an interesting graph showing the extent to which it was used against black people between 1997-2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2246331.stm

And 'stop and search' is still criticised today:

http://www.hmic.gov.uk/news/releases-2013/0202013-HMIC-finds-the-police-use-of-stop-and-search-powers-is-too-often-ineffective/

But just try to argue that it should be scrapped, even though it didn't exist for half my lifetime. We can't do without it.

Then there's the right to silence. Remember that? In 1995 Michael Howard got part of his clothing twisted over the fact that some criminals couldn't be convicted because they just replied "no comment" in interviews and thus didn't provide the police with the evidence of their obvious guilt. After all, when they'd been arrested, they were told "You don't have to say anything, but anything you do do say will be taken down and may be given in evidence" (the answer of course is "trousers"). And defence counsel and the judge would make the point that "it's not for the defendant to prove his innocence. If he wishes he can just sit there and ask the prosecution to prove his guilt". Terrible! Howard didn't like it, so we are now lumbered with the verbose caution that says "if you fail to mention now anything you later rely on in court" that fact will be pointed out to the jury. I can clearly recall that critics at the time were told that "if the person hasn't done anything, they'll have nothing to fear". The irony is, of course, that the right to silence couldn't actually be abolished without ignoring Article 6 of the ECHR (which we had drafted in the first place), so all the fuss concerned the inference that a jury can draw from exercising the right. But it's now a little easier to convict people because of it, and no subsequent government has proposed changes.

And that is important, because most of these pieces of 'sledgehammer' legislation are not repealed for years. The Terrorism Act 2000 that was behind this latest incident certainly won't be for a long time (what PM would want to be seen as getting rid of anti-terrorist provisions?) and so will remain. But how is it used? According to the Daily Mail, 180,000 people had been stopped under the provisions by February 2009, but only 255 arrested. We remember 83-year-old Walter Wolfgang being ejected from the Labour Party Conference in 2005 for shouting "Nonsense!" during a speech. He was detained and questioned under the Terrorism Act.

But, if you haven't done anything wrong ... we'll keep searching till we find something?. Shame.

[Richard Barrett]

Thanks for that.

There's a strange contradiction here, it seems to me, in the thinking of many on the right, that while on the one hand they get indignant over the intrusion of the "nanny state" into many areas of human life, on the other hand they absolutely trust that same state to know what's good for everyone when it comes to matters like the one under scrutiny here.

This blog post seems to me to put this contradiction in particularly strong focus: In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.

[Frances_iom]

It gets more bizarre - http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...nger-reporters - those I have met with connections to US and UK signals intelligence were extremely bright - this story suggests the unthinking vengeful actions of an embarrassed politician (few of whom have ever held down a real job) - utterly stupid.

[Richard Tarleton]

But there have been moments - the period following the Napoleonic Wars, for instance, that included the Peterloo Massacre, when Wellington's government introduced many repressive laws to control these uppity workers. And also today.

Pedant's Corner - Liverpool's, actually, Pabs - (PM 1812-1827) - Wellington only entered it (as Master of Ordnance) in Dec 1818.
But back on thread, a shocking story.

Shame

quite

[Pabmusic]

Pedant's Corner - Liverpool's, actually, Pabs - (PM 1812-1827) - Wellington only entered it (as Master of Ordnance) in Dec 1818.
But back on thread, a shocking story. quite

Duly noted.

[Nick Armstrong]

we are now lumbered with the verbose caution that says "if you fail to mention now anything you later rely on in court" that fact will be pointed out to the jury. I can clearly recall that critics at the time were told that "if the person hasn't done anything, they'll have nothing to fear".

If one looks at the actual wording (the word "will" doesn't appear, pabs), it's always seemed to me perfectly sensible:

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.


It may not be the most elegant phrase ever turned in English, but otherwise I don't have much of a problem with it. It just says that the failure to mention straight away something relied on later may be relevant. Which it may. No?

[Resurrection Man]

There is, of course, an entirely different and equally valid explanation and that is that Miranda did have in his possession documents and information that could be of use to a terrorist.

And therein lies the difference between us. I am perfectly happy to accept that it might have been an abuse of the Act. But none of you are going to agree that my interpretation is equally valid.

To further this line of reasoning, one can pose hypothetical questions such as 'Would you agree that if he had been carrying such documents then it was right to detain him' but I know from past experience that the standard response from many of you...too many to name but I can if you insist...is that 'I won't answer a hypothetical question' which frankly is a cop-out and at a stroke undermines all your well-meaning platitudes and concern for your fellow-man.

[Pabmusic]

If one looks at the actual wording (the word "will" doesn't appear, pabs), it's always seemed to me perfectly sensible:

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.


It may not be the most elegant phrase ever turned in English, but otherwise I don't have much of a problem with it. It just says that the failure to mention straight away something relied on later may be relevant. Which it may. No?

I concede the point, Cali - a bad paraphrase. But look at this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/new-police-caution-loses-23-words-and-gains-in-clarity-1570533.html

It was going to be "You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial". Whew!

[Nick Armstrong]

There is, of course, an entirely different and equally valid explanation and that is that Miranda did have in his possession documents and information that could be of use to a terrorist.

And therein lies the difference between us. I am perfectly happy to accept that it might have been an abuse of the Act. But none of you are going to agree that my interpretation is equally valid.

I am... I don't feel I can comment on the 'David Miranda' case because I'm nowhere near knowing enough of the facts to judge if it was an abuse or not. It may well have been, but equally it may not. How can we pronounce on that?

[Pabmusic]

There is, of course, an entirely different and equally valid explanation and that is that Miranda did have in his possession documents and information that could be of use to a terrorist.

And therein lies the difference between us. I am perfectly happy to accept that it might have been an abuse of the Act. But none of you are going to agree that my interpretation is equally valid.

To further this line of reasoning, one can pose hypothetical questions such as 'Would you agree that if he had been carrying such documents then it was right to detain him' but I know from past experience that the standard response from many of you...too many to name but I can if you insist...is that 'I won't answer a hypothetical question' which frankly is a cop-out and at a stroke undermines all your well-meaning platitudes and concern for your fellow-man.

Anything could be so, of course, but that does not make all possibilities equally likely. We have been told of no allegation that the man was carrying terrorist equipment, and he was released without arrest (which suggests he wasn't). In the light of those facts, and until there is more evidence of what happened, your interpretation that he may have been cannot be 'equally valid', since his release is more consistent with his having had no terrorist equipment.

[Resurrection Man]

I am... I don't feel I can comment on the 'David Miranda' case because I'm nowhere near knowing enough of the facts to judge if it was an abuse or not. It may well have been, but equally it may not. How can we pronounce on that?

Precisely my point, Cali. (I wasn't thinking of you, BTW !)

Now anyone of the usual suspects willing to accept that my explanation is equally as valid.

[Resurrection Man]

Anything could be so, of course, but that does not make all possibilities equally likely. We have been told of no allegation that the man was carrying terrorist equipment, and he was released without arrest (which suggests he wasn't). In the light of those facts, and until there is more evidence of what happened, your interpretation that he may have been cannot be 'equally valid'.

Yes, it can. Why should you expect to be 'told' of any allegation ? Who is to say that there was insufficient evidence to arrest but some nevertheless ? Your 'facts' are groundless and based on wishful thinking, I would suggest.