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

[Resurrection Man]

Ah, the Guardian and the Independent. Such paragons of unbiased reporting. They redefine 'spin'.

[Tony Halstead]

None of those Guardian or Independent links work except the last one, Mr Grew.
I've tried 3 different browsers without success.
By the way, why do you write 'Sir' ( Jeremy Heywood)? He is either a knight or he isn't...

[Frances_iom]

remove the trailing ] from his quoted link - ie copy + paste the link then edit out the %5D at the end

[An_Inspector_Calls]

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.

Rather it is you who seems to be suffering from misapprehension here, because I've never made any such attempt.

[Mr Pee]

Ah, the Guardian and the Independent. Such paragons of unbiased reporting. They redefine 'spin'.

Thumbs up emoticon.

[Nick Armstrong]

remind you of any one?

No... Does he remind you of any one?

And shouldn't that be "any-one"?

[Tony Halstead]

No... Does he remind you of any one?

And shouldn't that be "any-one"?

Martyn Brabbins?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=908&q=martyn+brabbins&oq=marftyn+brabbins&gs_l=img.12...1760.4933.0.6648.16.6.0.10.0.0.164.603.4j2.6.0....0...1ac.1.25.img..12.4.372.hBAC7WTQ_4o#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=QAExsCO1q-_46M%3A%3BsHI9ayHeH4myTM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fputneymusic.org.uk%252FFiles%252FImage%252FMartynBrabbins.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fputneymusic.org.uk%252Fspeakers.php%253Fid%253D63%3B306%3B277

[Pabmusic]

Rather it is you who seems to be suffering from misapprehension here, because I've never made any such attempt.

Sorry, I may be living in a parallel universe. I was so sure that your statement that "neither of us can tell whether any aspect of national security might have risked being breached" suggested that you considered that a breach of "any aspect of national security" was important to this discussion. Clearly you don't think it is, after all.

I was simply pointing out that the breach of "any aspect of national security" was in fact irrelevant to a discussion of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which specifies "preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism".

[amateur51]

Ah, the Guardian and the Independent. Such paragons of unbiased reporting. They redefine 'spin'.

Oh dear - and so early in the day. Why are you so negative. Who do you 'gather' the news from? Who satisfies your lofty standards? Which parts of this are you choosing to debate?

I don't expect an immediate reply as the radio phone-in programmes will be on air now and he'll be busy

[amateur51]

Thanks for that detailed account, Sydney

[ahinton]

Rather it is you who seems to be suffering from misapprehension here, because I've never made any such attempt.

That's simply not correct. One more than one occasion you have sought to raise the question of whether Mr Miranda's detention arose from any kind of breach of national security that might have taken place and you have correctly noted that neither you nor I are security experts so are not in a position to say one way or the other; when this has been countered with a gentle reminder the provisions of Section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are not about that but relate instead specifically to commission, procurement, incitement et al of terrorism, you have attempted to ignore this and return to your argument about potential or actual breaches of national security. Just re-read your posts about this and others' responses to them and then tell us that you cannot see that this is the case, if indeed you still cannot do so.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Pabmusic, you are living in a parallel universe. The discussion about 'whether or not any aspect of national security might have been breached' was relevant only to whether or not use of section 7 was appropriate. The phrase 'any aspect of national security' seem to me to be within the term 'preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism'.

[Resurrection Man]

....
I was simply pointing out that the breach of "any aspect of national security" was in fact irrelevant to a discussion of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which specifies "preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism".

Well that statement says it all! Suggest you do a bit of reading around to see that national security and terrorism are inextricably linked. Or are you fixated on the use of the word 'any' in which case putting it in bold or italics would make your intentions clearer and save any misunderstanding.

[Resurrection Man]

Oh dear - and so early in the day. Why are you so negative. Who do you 'gather' the news from? Who satisfies your lofty standards? Which parts of this are you choosing to debate?

I don't expect an immediate reply as the radio phone-in programmes will be on air now and he'll be busy

As I keep on saying, I keep an open mind on these matters (unlike the many closed minds prevalent in this thread and elsewhere on similar topics). I will read around across a wide range of sources .....and not simply quote the Guardian or the Independent as being on an unquestionable pedestal as far as accuracy and impartiality are concerned.

Anyway, haven't you got a Tweet or two to send to Essential Classics? I am sure they will appreciate your insights.

[amateur51]

As I keep on saying, I keep an open mind on these matters (unlike the many closed minds prevalent in this thread and elsewhere on similar topics). I will read around across a wide range of sources .....and not simply quote the Guardian or the Independent as being on an unquestionable pedestal as far as accuracy and impartiality are concerned.

Why don't you share some of these other sources with us here so that we may join you on the road to enlightenment?