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

[ahinton]

What continue to bother me in this case is the continued assertions (if true) that no mention was made of terrorism, terrorist activity or plans and the like when this particular detention facility is supposedly in place solely for the purpose of trying to deal with or investigate the possibilities of terrorism; presumably only Miranda and his lawyer are in a position to assert whether or not the conduct Miranda's detention eschewed all referece to terrorism and, if that is indeed the truth of the matter, the detention would appear to be a clear case of a colossal foul-up.

[amateur51]

What continue to bother me in this case is the continued assertions (if true) that no mention was made of terrorism, terrorist activity or plans and the like when this particular detention facility is supposedly in place solely for the purpose of trying to deal with or investigate the possibilities of terrorism; presumably only Miranda and his lawyer are in a position to assert whether or not the conduct Miranda's detention eschewed all referece to terrorism and, if that is indeed the truth of the matter, the detention would appear to be a clear case of a colossal foul-up.

This section 7 - what's it all about?

A useful primer :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23757133

In particular, I'd bring your attention to the following from David Anderson QC, the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation:

"According to his [Anderson's] most recent review, he found schedule 7 was used on 61,145 people in 2012-13 - 12% down on the previous year, and 30% down on 2009-10.

The majority of those examinations lasted less than 15 minutes, and the Home Office says more than 97% of examinations last less than an hour

There were only 24 terrorism-related arrests after schedule 7 examinations in 2011-12 - 0.03% of those examined."

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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.

I'll go along with this but with the minor alteration of changing 'did' to 'was suspected of having'. Seems like the most likely explanation. Because he was 'gay' (risable) and other explanations seem less likely.

We'll hear more later, I'm sure.

[teamsaint]

The police do have a habit of indulging intimidatory behaviour.
Its not just bad luck or mistake. It happens a lot.

[Resurrection Man]

The police do have a habit of indulging intimidatory behaviour.
Its not just bad luck or mistake. It happens a lot.

You've been either watching too many episodes of Spiral or reading too many of Am51's posts !

[teamsaint]

You've been either watching too many episodes of Spiral or reading too many of Am51's posts !

I call it talking to my mate and a bunch of others who were minding their own business coming home on flight from Leeds when the OB decided to start behaving like idiots.....but, perhaps regional airports are full of terrorist nutters too !!!

[Resurrection Man]

I call it talking to my mate and a bunch of others who were minding their own business coming home on flight from Leeds when the OB decided to start behaving like idiots.....but, perhaps regional airports are full of terrorist nutters too !!!

You said 'It happens a lot' but appear to have based this statement on one incident (where you were not present and so have to rely on possibly biased or prejudiced account). Stretching things a bit, aren't you?

[ahinton]

To return to the topic, I have done many things that are "wrong" (as, I imagine, have quite a few others both here and elsewhere) but, under the present régime, I consider that I ought almost certainly to have much to fear even if I hadn't; accordingly, I invite those in authority to confiscate my passport, rescind my citizenship and exercise due deportation arrangements (not that the last of these would stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being successful to the extent that any other country would have me). "What? You're a composer? Give me a bona fide terrorist any day in preference!"

[Resurrection Man]

Blimey that's a rather nihilistic approach, sunshine

Not really, mate. Just paraphrasing your snide attacks against the police that you keep slipping in. A bit too quick to condemn but rarely (ever?) to praise.

[Resurrection Man]

What's "alternative" about it? It's the official line taken by a political establishment which has been caught lying so many times one loses count.

It's alternative to the blinkered 'de facto' viewpoint adopted by so many on this forum.

[teamsaint]

You said 'It happens a lot' but appear to have based this statement on one incident (where you were not present and so have to rely on possibly biased or prejudiced account). Stretching things a bit, aren't you?

No. Read the papers, RM . The bits you dont like as well as those you do !
Have a nice day .

[amateur51]

Not really, mate. Just paraphrasing your snide attacks against the police that you keep slipping in. A bit too quick to condemn but rarely (ever?) to praise.

I don't suppose you've ever been held against your will in an upstairs gay club at 01:00 by police officers pursuing a licensing infringement, listening to the frightened married men who didn't want their families to find out where they'd been; or been involved in a sit-down strike in Covent Garden because a friend had been arrested for wearing a silly hat in Trafalgar Square on a Gay Pride march; or sat up all night on lesbian & gay telephone service taking calls from gay men arrested for cottaging and trying to find them an out-of-hours emergency solicitor?

And that's on top of being policed by the Met, a police force identified as being 'institutionally racist' by the Macpherson Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence or ... I could go on.

There are tens of thousands of good women and men who police our communities in UK and like most people, I am grateful that they do.

But anyone who thinks that the police always act with propriety is either very naive or deluded.

[amateur51]

It's alternative to the blinkered 'de facto' viewpoint adopted by so many on this forum.

Why are you contributing to this thread in such a destructive and dysfunctional way? You're off-topic to boot.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the fallacy in the "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" trope so often used by the powers that be in defence of their security services activities that this case [Miranda] clearly demonstrates is that there is no 'fact' that you have done nothing wrong merely an assertion [and try proving it!] and critically, it all depends upon who is making the assertion ....

if it is just Joe Dope of this parish then good luck mate, the plod in SB and the Security Services do not give a fig about you, your rights, your standing nor your privacy

.... recall Snowden leaked, not because of what was done, but because the boss of NSA was habitually lying to Congress about it .... recall the Metropolitan Police Service and the Lawrence case, west Yorks plod &Hillsborough, SOCA and hacking, Yates &c ...

if the Security Services have done nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear from a much fuller and more transparent public accountability than the current pantomime

[amateur51]

Great piece by Simon Jenkins, former editor of Murdoch's Times so not to be dismissed as a Guardian liberal

Just a taster ...

"There is no conceivable way copies of the Snowden revelations seized this week at Heathrow could aid terrorism or "threaten the security of the British state" – as charged today by Mark Pritchard, an MP on the parliamentary committee on national security strategy. When the supposed monitors of the secret services merely parrot their jargon against press freedom, we should know this regime is not up to its job"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/innocent-fear-david-miranda