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

[amateur51]

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

Bravo! :ok:

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who helped introduce the bill in the House of Lords, said that the act makes clear that police can only detain someone to assess whether they are involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism.

Falconer told the Guardian: "I am very clear that this does not apply, either on its terms or in its spirit, to Mr Miranda."

Falconer cited in detail the Terrorism Act 2000, which was passed as the government moved to crack down on dissident Irish republican terrorists in the wake of the 1998 Good Friday agreement, to show that there was no legal basis for the detention of Miranda. He said that schedule 7 of the act allows police to detain someone even when they have no grounds for suspicion. But he added that police can only stop an individual to determine whether they are involved in commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism.

Falconer said: "What schedule 7 allows an examining officer to do is to question somebody in order to determine whether he is somebody who is preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism. Plainly Mr Miranda is not such a person."

The second paragraph of schedule 7 of the act says: "An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)." This refers to paragraph 40 earlier in the act which defines a terrorist at (b) as a person who "is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

Falconer said that the provision in schedule 7, which allows the police to stop an individual even if there are no grounds for suspicion, is not designed for the likes of Miranda. He said: "What that provision is intended to allow is random searches where you've got a group of people, maybe everybody who is coming in from Northern Ireland on that ferry, where what you are going to do is search people. But there the examining officer, although he does not have grounds for suspecting any individual, has a perfectly good basis for doing random searches. Or he might think it is sensible to examine every third person because it is relevant or this is a way of getting to the truth.

"But that section plainly doesn't apply here. What is happening is they are targeting Miranda because they believe that he may have information that has been obtained from [the US whistleblower Edward] Snowden. The reason that doesn't fall within schedule 7 is because: even assuming that they think there is material which has been obtained in breach of the Officials Secrets Act, the action of Miranda or anybody he is acting with could not be described as somebody concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. You could not reasonably believe, if you were the state, that Miranda is commissioning or assisting somebody to commission terrorism, to prepare terrorism or to instigate terrorism."

the graun reporting Lord Falconer who introduced The Act as Lord Chancellor

[Pabmusic]

the graun reporting Lord Falconer who introduced The Act as Lord Chancellor

Splendid stuff, CDJ. When the first Official Secrets Act was introduced (1911?) it was to stop activities that were not in the national interest. I think the modern legislation says something similar. But the danger - and the way it has often been used (the Belgrano?) - has been to stop activities that are embarrassing to the government.

It seems as though the Terrorism Act 2000 is similarly useful.

[ahinton]

the graun reporting Lord Falconer who introduced The Act as Lord Chancellor

Many thanks for this. As it is now clear that the PM himself put pressure on The Guardian over aspects of this case and, as you, Lord Falconer and many others rightly observe, that case has not been shown to relate in any way to the commission of or assistance with terrorism or the preparataion or instigation of terrorism, it will be a grave matter indeed if anyone responsible for, or determined to condone, this or any similar instance abuse of Section 7 succeeds in getting away with it; we'll certainly all have plenty to fear at all times whatever we may or may not have done wrong at any time if that happens.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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/commentis...-david-miranda

A pity Simon Jenkins has become involved. But since when has he become an expert on security matters? And how does he know the seized documents pose no security threat? Do you believe these claims just because (a) they're in the Guardian and (b) they're written by Simon Jenkins?

And just why did the Guardian editor agree to the destruction of that computer? If the computer was clean, he'd have held his ground. And isn't it strange how the Guardian bleated THEFT over the ClimateGate e-mails, and is silent on the issue of theft in this Snowden affair?

[amateur51]

A pity Simon Jenkins has become involved. But since when has he become an expert on security matters? And how does he know the seized documents pose know security threat? Do you believe these claims just because (a) they're in the Guardian and (b) they're written by Simon Jenkins?

And just why did the Guardian editor agree to the destruction of that computer? If the computer was clean, he'd have held his ground. And isn't it strange how the Guardian bleated THEFT over the ClimateGate e-mails, and is silent on the issue of theft in this Snowden affair?

Strange how you have many questions about the Guardian and its involvement in this but you haven't been on its website where you'd find a video by Alan Rusbridger explaining why he ordered the destruction of the hard drives etc.

Or is it that you just don't want to do the hard-lifting?

See? I can that too - irritating isn't it?!

[ahinton]

A pity Simon Jenkins has become involved.

Inconvenient for you, perhaps, but that is not necessarily synonymous with "a pity" for the rest of us here.

But since when has he become an expert on security matters?

Since when have you?

And how does he know the seized documents pose know[sic] security threat?

Whether or not he does, this is not the issue at stake here. Abuse of Section 7, if it has indeed occurred, is not about whether or not documents pose a security threat per se but about whether the detainee was detained on the grounds of suspected commission of, or involvement in or support for or procurement of acts of terrorism; it therefore seems logical that, as such detention is justifiable under the terms of that Section only if those documents evidenced any of those terrorism-related things, alllegsations of terrorist involvement would have had to form the fundamental basis for the interrogation of Mr Miranda instead of being omitted therefrom altogether, as appears to have been the case.

More will presumably emerge not only when the results of any official investigations of possible abuse of Section 7 are published but also as a direct consequnece of the revelation of findings of the legal action now being quite understandably threatened by Mr Miranda himself.

Do you believe these claims just because (a) they're in the Guardian and (b) they're written by Simon Jenkins?

Speaking for myself, it matters not a jot in which newspaper which journalist publishes them; all that matters is whether or not and to what extent they may be true and that, if they are, they should be placed in the public domain and dealt with accordingly. What does also matter, however, is David Cameron's rôle in this issue vis-à-vis The Guardian...

And just why did the Guardian editor agree to the destruction of that computer? If the computer was clean, he'd have held his ground. And isn't it strange how the Guardian bleated THEFT over the ClimateGate e-mails, and is silent on the issue of theft in this Snowden affair?

Am51's already answered this; since reading his response, have you yet done the homework that he implies might be helpful that you do?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Amateur51
Reading the Guardian editor's statement reminds me of Billy Bunter (on a bad day) claiming he didn't do it.

[amateur51]

Amateur51
Reading the Guardian editor's statement reminds me of Billy Bunter (on a bad day) claiming he didn't do it.

Not need to get sarcy just because he's more articulate than you are A_I_C

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Hinton,

I'm no security expert (in three posts on this thread I've made such claim). nor are you. Nor is Simon Jenkins. The difference is that I'm not writing on security matters in a national newspaper. The pity of Simon Jenkins' article is that it tarnishes his image needlessly.

[amateur51]

Hinton,

I'm no security expert (in three posts on this thread I've made such claim). nor are you. Nor is Simon Jenkins. The difference is that I'm not writing on security matters in a national newspaper. The pity of Simon Jenkins' article is that it tarnishes his image needlessly.

Say you.

And you're a self-confessed non-expert.

So his opinion and yours differ.

He's been the editor of a national newspaper so presumably has some expertise in the area of being pressurised by official bodies like the police. You don't.

I know whose opinion I prefer.

[ahinton]

Hinton

ahinton to you...

I'm no security expert (in three posts on this thread I've made such claim). nor are you. Nor is Simon Jenkins. The difference is that I'm not writing on security matters in a national newspaper. The pity of Simon Jenkins' article is that it tarnishes his image needlessly.

For you, perhaps. Thank you for admitting to being other than an expert in security matters. I have not claimed to be one either. What you omit to do, however, is reveal whether you can tell - and appreciate - the difference between the facts of whether any aspect of national security might have risked being breached by reason of files in Mr Miranda's alleged possession when he was detained and whether an abuse of the provision of Section 7 might have occurred, with especial reference to the apparent absence of specific interrogation of Mr Miranda on terrorist issues in strict accordance with those provisions.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Hinton
Since I'm no security expert, and neither are you, neither of us can tell whether any aspect of national security might have risked being breached by reason of files in Mr Miranda's alleged possession when he was detained.

[amateur51]

Hinton
Since I'm no security expert, and neither are you, neither of us can tell whether any aspect of national security might have risked being breached by reason of files in Mr Miranda's alleged possession when he was detained.

Well Lord Falconer, the architect of the Act, says that section 7 clearly does not apply to Mr Miranda (see message # 62) and of the three of you, I guess he should know

[Richard Barrett]

Since I'm no security expert, and neither are you

Lord Falconer, however, presumably is; and as quoted by Calum he has this to say if you recall:

" What schedule 7 allows an examining officer to do is to question somebody in order to determine whether he is somebody who is preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism. Plainly Mr Miranda is not such a person. [...] What is happening is they are targeting Miranda because they believe that he may have information that has been obtained from [the US whistleblower Edward] Snowden. The reason that doesn't fall within schedule 7 is because: even assuming that they think there is material which has been obtained in breach of the Officials Secrets Act, the action of Miranda or anybody he is acting with could not be described as somebody concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. You could not reasonably believe, if you were the state, that Miranda is commissioning or assisting somebody to commission terrorism, to prepare terrorism or to instigate terrorism." (my emphasis)

In other words, someone involved in drafting that legislation is very clear that he regards the authorities here as having overstepped the mark, and that the reasons for their having done so are exactly the kind of things I and others have been suggesting.

Next question?