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

[amateur51]

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.

Nigel Garage must be absolutely thrilled :biggrin:

[ahinton]

Who empowered our governments to act like this?

Presumably no one, as will become clear as a consequence of an official investigation of the case if the authorities who detained Mr Miranda acted other than in accordance with Section 7.

Why do people defend the indefensible?

I have no idea; you might be better asking those who try to do so, of which sadly there seem to be one or two gathered together around these parts...

[ahinton]

Nigel Garage must be absolutely thrilled :biggrin:

I somehow doubt that David Cummerbund will be especially amused either...

[amateur51]

I somehow doubt that David Cummerbund will be espacially amused either...

Are you from Morningside, Morag? :winkeye:

[ahinton]

Are you from Morningside, Morag? :winkeye:

No, not so; I was trying to refer to Mr Cummerbund being spaced out over it (said he, lying through his teeth)!

You'll have had your tea...

[amateur51]

No, not so; I was trying to refer to Mr Cummerbund being spaced out over it (said he, lying through his teeth)!

You'll have had your tea...

Nice one

[teamsaint]

Presumably no one, as will become clear as a consequence of an official investigation of the case if the authorities who detained Mr Miranda acted other than in accordance with Section 7.


I have no idea; you might be better asking those who try to do so, of which sadly there seem to be one or two gathered together around these parts...

No time AH. I have to do week three of my "Rhetoric by post" course.

the intervals during the Proms are good for that.

[Frances_iom]

May was worse than usual - a totally useless politician whose only function is to appease the Tory rightwing loons - she pointblank refused to say when she learnt of the intended detention - obviously Miranda was on a flight watch list and there was more than sufficient time for our supposedly independent police to contact the USA authorities pre detention - maybe the publicity of this will break some of the D-notices that appear to be muzzling UK media re the Snowdon revelations.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The whole thing is mysterious.
two particular mysteries.

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

We usually only have one government at a time, but I think any action will be against the police for wrongful detention (in the sense merely that they used the wrong chunk of law) rather than the government,
and
maybe it is defensible?! I suspect it might be but we'll see. Pleading ECHR at this stage looks a little feeble.

[ahinton]

We usually only have one government at a time, but I think any action will be against the police for wrongful detention (in the sense merely that they used the wrong chunk of law) rather than the government,
and
maybe it is defensible?! I suspect it might be but we'll see. Pleading ECHR at this stage looks a little feeble.

If the police are the ones that have abused Section 7 (assuming that it has indeed been abused) then so be it; with this I do agree with you, apart from the fact that "using the wrong chunk of the law" would not be the issue as much as misappropriating the right one. That said, government's actions on this don't look very favourable to it all. Using ECHR is as credible as anything else here, however, if the actions of the police or whomsoever are found to be in breach of Human Rights law as well as other laws.

[Pabmusic]

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.

You've missed a trick, I'm afraid, as Falconer wasn't only a QC. He was Lord Chancellor, the highest legal appointment in the land.

[Richard Barrett]

You've missed a trick, I'm afraid, as Falconer wasn't only a QC. He was Lord Chancellor, the highest legal appointment in the land.

I knew that of course; I didn't mention it because it was a political appointment.

[Pabmusic]

I knew that of course; I didn't mention it because it was a political appointment.

Well, so it was.

[Pabmusic]

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.

You are right, we don't actually know whether any aspect of national security was or might have been breached. But breaches of national security are irrelevant when considering the lawfulness of the use of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, where the police have powers to stop a person only "in order to determine whether he is somebody who is preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism." It is you who seem to be attempting to widen the definition to include non-terrorist behaviour.

[Sydney Grew]

Oh please! Can you get your facts right . . . Miranda had a solicitor present.

I think it is indeed important to get the facts right on this point - the whole facts and nothing but the facts. Otherwise it is just the gestapo all over again is it not?

1) Mr. Miranda was arrested - let's not mince words, "detained" means "arrested" - at the air-port and initially held for three hours without any one being told about it. (Gestapo technique 1.)

reference: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...etained-uk-nsa

2) After the first three hours a person tele-phoned Mr. Greenwald, saying that he was a "security official at Heathrow airport." This bashful brute refused to give his name but would identify himself only by a reference number: 203654. (Gestapo technique 2: if arrested one has no right to know who is doing the arresting.) Even now I wonder whether Mr. Miranda's lawyers have been told who "Mr. 203654" really is. Will any one ever know?

reference: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...etained-uk-nsa

3) Mr. Greenwald "immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials. Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian's lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David."

reference: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...etained-uk-nsa

(So now Mr. Miranda had been without a solicitor for eight hours; three plus five equals eight, right?)

4) The Guardian's lawyer was able to speak with Mr. Miranda immediately upon his release, and told me that, while a bit distressed from the ordeal, he was in very good spirits and quite defiant.

reference: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...etained-uk-nsa

(It is not clear from that whether Mr. Miranda had a solicitor present even during the final hour of the nine hours. Certainly not for the first eight hours - but see point 7 below.)

5) Before allowing him to go, they seized numerous possessions of his, including his laptop, his cellphone, various video game consoles, DVDs, USB sticks, and other materials. They did not say when they would return any of it, or even if they ever would.

reference: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...etained-uk-nsa

(By what right? we ask. Or do the latter-day gestapo not need rights? Remember the expropriations?)

6) Mr. Greenwald concludes: "This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It's bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It's worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. The UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples."

reference: http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...etained-uk-nsa

("The U.K. puppets" is a good phrase but I think "debased brutes" would be apter, because puppets do not have responsibility.)

7) Gwendolen Morgan, a solicitor at Bindmans who is representing Mr Miranda in challenging the legality of his detention, said: "It is incorrect that Mr Miranda was offered his choice of legal representation. When we were told by The Guardian [of the detention], Gavin Kendall from our legal department was sent to Heathrow. He was persistently blocked by officials for a long period from gaining access to the room where the questioning was taking place. The detention lasted nine hours, the legal limit of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. Gavin finally gained access only during the last hour."

Mr Kendall said that Mr Miranda’s request for a pen or pencil to write down details of the questions he was asked was repeatedly refused. He says he was also unclear about just who was questioning him.

reference: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8777216.html

(Gestapo through and through.)

8) Here is a photo-graph of the shadowy "Sir" Jeremy Heywood - I see he wears spectacles - remind you of any one?:

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8777217.ece/ALTERNATES/w220/minister-pa.jpg