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

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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?

This is Lord Falconers opinion.

He says: "Plainly Mr Miranda is not such a person." How so?

Scotland Yard's legal opinion is that their actions were legally sound.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625

[Richard Barrett]

This is Lord Falconers opinion.

Indeed it is, but Lord Falconer's opinion might just be regarded as a little more authoritative than yours or mine given that he is a QC and was involved in drafting that very legislation.

[amateur51]

This is Lord Falconers opinion.

He says: "Plainly Mr Miranda is not such a person." How so?

Scotland Yard's legal opinion is that their actions were legally sound.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625

Apparently we have an impasse between two legal experts. Aside from having considerable knowledge of the legislation in question, Lord Falconer has no axe to grind as far as I can see. The Scotland Yard opinion would be bound to support Scotland Yard's action, no?

What you and I and anyone else on here thinks is neither here nor there, I'd say

[amateur51]

Indeed it is, but Lord Falconer's opinion might just be regarded as a little more authoritative than yours or mine given that he is a QC and was involved in drafting that very legislation.

Oh that won't butter any of A_I_C's parsnips, I fear

[DracoM]

Teresa May's floundering, evasive and disingenuous interview on WATO, in which she virtually passed the buck to the police or the Cabinet Sec or anyone else she could, was shabbily distasteful in the extreme.



And her constant reiteration of the 'the pleece' - why does she so mispronounce it every time she speaks?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Indeed it is, but Lord Falconer's opinion might just be regarded as a little more authoritative than yours or mine given that he is a QC and was involved in drafting that very legislation.

It may, but then legal opinions are usually taken from QCs. I'll pass on the 'My QC's better than your QC' prattling.

Amateur51
"What you and I and anyone else on here thinks is neither here nor there, I'd say "
The penny drops.

[amateur51]

Teresa May's floundering, evasive and disingenuous interview on WATO, in which she virtually passed the buck to the police or the Cabinet Sec or anyone else she could, was shabbily distasteful in the extreme.

Poor Theresa May - Martha Kearney was well briefed and very assertive, as she should have been, while Mrs May just waffled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01fjj38

[amateur51]

It may, but then legal opinions are usually taken from QCs. I'll pass on the 'My QC's better than your QC' prattling.

Amateur51
"What you and I and anyone else on here thinks is neither here nor there, I'd say "
The penny drops.

You are utterly priceless

[ahinton]

Hinton

ahinton to you...

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

Repetition; we had each already established that neither of us is or pretends to be a security expert.

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.

As I stated, the question here in respect of possible abuse of Section 7 is not specifically whether any aspect of national security might allegedly have been breached (or that there was any suspicion of such a breach) but that, as Lord Falconer's observations make clear, the specific terms under which that Section can be used and for whose purpose they exist relate solely and wholly to the commission, encouragement or procurement of or incitement to acts of terrorism; if none of these were even mentioned during the course of Mr Miranda's intgerrogation while detained, a breach of that Section would appear to have occured and should be duly investigated and will likely also be exposed as a consequence of any litigation that Mr Miranda might instigate.

[ahinton]

It may, but then legal opinions are usually taken from QCs. I'll pass on the 'My QC's better than your QC' prattling.

That's just as well, since there hasn't been any - but are you seriously seeking to suggest that Lord Falconer has insufficient knowledge or understganding of the provisions of that legislation even though, as Richard Barrett correctly reminds us, he was involved in drafting it? What's been quoted from him has been for the purpose of illuatrating the reason why these particular provisions under that Section were drafted and then ratified, so that what officialdom may or may not do and under what circumstances is laid down clearly and is not difficult for most of us to understand.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

To repeat, I'll pass on the 'My QC's better than your QC' prattling (see#77). We'll get to the police's operational use or misuse of section 7 when Miranda decides to pursue the case, or not.

Wasn't May tremendous on WatO!

[ahinton]

To repeat

You seem to be doing rather a lot of that.

I'll pass on the 'My QC's better than your QC' prattling (see#77)

That's also the second time of passing and is as unnecessary as the first, particularly as Lord Falconer seems to be the only QC so far mentioned and his authority on the contents of Section 7 and their intended purpose is in any case not to be doubted other than by anyone who thinks that his remarks on them are either the outcome of poor memory or downright lies.

We'll get to the police's operational use or misuse of section 7 when Miranda decides to pursue the case, or not.

As I stated, the matter will need to be subjected to an official investigation in its own right in addition to what will get revealed during the course of Miranda's litigation.

[amateur51]

To repeat, I'll pass on the 'My QC's better than your QC' prattling (see#77). We'll get to the police's operational use or misuse of section 7 when Miranda decides to pursue the case, or not.

Wasn't May tremendous on WatO!

Truly dreadful.

Looks like Miranda has taken that decision

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/david-miranda-detention-glenn-greenwald

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has said it was very unusual for someone to be held for the full nine hours, as Miranda was, and he wanted to "get to the bottom" of what had happened.

He said he had asked the Home Office and Scotland Yard for a full briefing.

[teamsaint]

The whole thing is mysterious.
two particular mysteries.

1. Who empowered our governments to act like this?
2. Why do people defend the indefensible?

[ahinton]

Truly dreadful.

Looks like Miranda has taken that decision

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/david-miranda-detention-glenn-greenwald

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has said it was very unusual for someone to be held for the full nine hours, as Miranda was, and he wanted to "get to the bottom" of what had happened.

He said he had asked the Home Office and Scotland Yard for a full briefing.

Indeed - and his lawyers' letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe includes a paragraph to the effect that Mr Miranda was detained by police for almost nine hours in a secure area at Heathrow airport and that this was an unlawful "deprivation of liberty" under article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights, from which it appears clear that this law, which can effectively override British ones, is likely to be invoked as part of Mr Miranda's case.