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

[Richard Barrett]

Who do you 'gather' the news from?

A person who uses his/her intelligence will be able to disentangle facts from "spin" in the reporting of journalists. It seems to me that "spin" is seen at its most insidious in editorial decisions as to whether to report at all on a given event or topic. Out of interest I just took a look at the online Telegraph, to find no reference on the front page to David Miranda's detention ("move on, people, nothing to see here"), the most prominent place on the page being devoted to goings-on in a "reality"-TV series in which ambitious young business people are pitted against one another in a contest to see who can be the most ruthless moneymaker. That is what I call "spin".

[Resurrection Man]

A person who uses his/her intelligence will be able to disentangle facts from "spin" in the reporting of journalists. It seems to me that "spin" is seen at its most insidious in editorial decisions as to whether to report at all on a given event or topic. Out of interest I just took a look at the online Telegraph, to find no reference on the front page to David Miranda's detention ("move on, people, nothing to see here"), the most prominent place on the page being devoted to goings-on in a "reality"-TV series in which ambitious young business people are pitted against one another in a contest to see who can be the most ruthless moneymaker. That is what I call "spin".

Given that in another thread, Dave2002 cogently argued about web pages being created to reflect the interests on the reader ................

[ahinton]

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.)

Good point; I think that "arrested" implies detention against a person's will (in this case by the police) and it therefore seems reasonable to use the term to describe what happened to Mr Miranda; we may well dioscover more about that if he includes in his lawsuit the factor of "wrongful arrest".

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?

This ought to be revealed as part of the outcome of an offical inquiry into the events on that day but, even if that's covered up there, it is unlikely that litigation will not result in reveling his/her identity.

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."

If that is indeed the case, it would seem almost certain that abuse of Section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 occurred and that this may not even have been the sole procedural breach on that occasion.

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.

(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.)

The question arises not only as to the point or points at which he was permitted legal representation but also when he was able to secure legal representation of his choice.

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.

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

In cases of breach of Section 7, the police do have rights to do this kind of thing, but anything so confiscated must be returned within 7 days unless it is determined that it has legitimate value as evidence in a court case against the detainee; however, such circumstances would presume the need for the detainee be "arrested" in the more conventional sense, detained in police custody and then charged with specific offences. That this did not happen suggests that the police knew well that they had abused the provisions of Section 7 during their detemtion of Mr Miranda but were nevertheless determined to compound this misdemeanour by seizing items that they had no obvious right to confiscate because no Section 7 breach had occurred.

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."

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

Agreed; it would be difficult to argue with any of this.

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.

Again, if any or all of that is true, serious breaches of procedure will clearly have occurred at the hands of the police and must be properly investigated.

the shadowy "Sir" Jeremy Heywood

When Jeremy Heywood, who was indeed knighted last year, was made Head of Domestic Policy and Strategy at the Cabinet Office following Gordon Brown's replacement of Tony Blair as UK Prime Minister in 2007, the political commentator Peter Oborne described him "a perfect manifestation of everything that has gone so very wrong with the British civil service over the past 15 years”

Send in the clowns?

[ahinton]

A person who uses his/her intelligence will be able to disentangle facts from "spin" in the reporting of journalists. It seems to me that "spin" is seen at its most insidious in editorial decisions as to whether to report at all on a given event or topic. Out of interest I just took a look at the online Telegraph, to find no reference on the front page to David Miranda's detention ("move on, people, nothing to see here"), the most prominent place on the page being devoted to goings-on in a "reality"-TV series in which ambitious young business people are pitted against one another in a contest to see who can be the most ruthless moneymaker. That is what I call "spin".

I'd call it something a good deal less polite than that! - but your point is nevertheless well made.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Hinton

The term "any aspect of national security might have risked being breached by reason of files in Mr Miranda's alleged possession " was first coined by you (#72), not me. What was in Miranda's possession? I haven't a clue, and (here we go again) neither do you. There may have been material that breached national security, there may have been material relevant to the 'commissioning, procurement, incitement' of terrorism, or just a copy of Beano. I'm not the person calling the shots on this. Trying to construe what's in his possession as he goes through Heathrow is up to the police. Trying to reconstruct what happened at Heathrow is also futile.

It seems the Guardian wants to conduct the trial of Miranda in public? And does Grew want the trial here?

[teamsaint]

we should read all sources very carefully, with regard to how and why the story (?!) is there, how it has been written presented etc.
The more high profile the source, the more observant we should be, since those with (all sorts of) power target them first.

This is how I read RM's posts !! (sagelyknowingsmiley).

[Richard Barrett]

Given that in another thread, Dave2002 cogently argued about web pages being created to reflect the interests on the reader ................

Exactly. So no doubt we can assume that Telegraph readers would be more interested in reality TV than in a possible misuse of anti-terrorism law. Bread and circuses.

[ahinton]

Given that in another thread, Dave2002 cogently argued about web pages being created to reflect the interests on the reader ................

Where's the rest of that sentence? Did you do what I once heard Philip Glass accused of doing, namely run out of a lack of ideas?

[Pabmusic]

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.

No - I was right after all. You are trying to widen the meaning of 'terrorism'. Yes 'national security' encompasses 'terrorism', but it doesn't work the other way about. 'Terrorism' does not mean any breach of national security - that's why the Terrorism Act doesn't allow police to detain people for a potential breach of national security. No-one, not even you, seems to suggest that Miranda was "preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism", so It would seem that there was no justification for detaining him.

You really aren't allowed to detain someone so that you can conduct a fishing trip to find any 'breach of national security' that might have occurred. That's why I said it's irrelevant. The Act clearly allows detention only to investigate terrorism.

[ahinton]

Hinton

ahinton to you.

The term "any aspect of national security might have risked being breached by reason of files in Mr Miranda's alleged possession " was first coined by you (#72), not me. What was in Miranda's possession? I haven't a clue, and (here we go again) neither do you. There may have been material that breached national security, there may have been material relevant to the 'commissioning, procurement, incitement' of terrorism, or just a copy of Beano.

It is pretty clear what kinds of item were confiscated, but unless it had been established beyond doubt during Mr Miranda's detention that they contained "material relevant to the 'commissioning, procurement, incitement' of terrorism", his detention under Section 7 would have been unlawful; the fact that it would not have been possible to ascertain this during his detention appears to be beyond doubt and it further appears that no such evidence would become apparent (even present) until the confiscated material had been examined, which did not happen during Mr Miranda's detention.

I'm not the person calling the shots on this. Trying to construe what's in his possession as he goes through Heathrow is up to the police.

That's true. However, "trying to construe" something in such circumstances is not enough to justify what occurred. Not only that, it appears that no mention was made of "'commissioning, procurement, incitement' of terrorism" during Mr Miranda's detention, which further raises suspicion as to procedural breaches on the part of the police.

Trying to reconstruct what happened at Heathrow is also futile.

What a defeatist stgatement! Try telling that to Mr Miranda's lawyers!

It seems the Guardian wants to conduct the trial of Miranda in public? And does Grew want the trial here?

I cannot speak for what either The Guardian or Mr Grew might want but what I do say again is that there needs to be a proper official inquiry into this incident with its findings published in full as well as litigation on the part of Mr Miranda who, apparently, is not the only person to have been subjected to possible Section 7 breaches.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Barrett
At 10:20 the Telegraph online leads (i.e. most prominent) with "Record fall in top GCSE grades after dramatic toughening up of exams ".

[ahinton]

Barrett
At 10:20 the Telegraph online leads (i.e. most prominent) with "Record fall in top GCSE grades after dramatic toughening up of exams ".

Mr Barrett to you.

Would you care to illustrate the direct connection between this educational report and the matters under discussion here?

[Richard Barrett]

Barrett
At 10:20 the Telegraph online leads (i.e. most prominent) with "Record fall in top GCSE grades after dramatic toughening up of exams ".

Calls
I would say the most prominent item is the photo that goes with the story about The Apprentice, but, however that might be, the Miranda story has disappeared completely from view.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Hinto, note what Barrett claimed in #121 and stop wasting everyone's time.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Barrett
The most obvious omission is surely not the Miranda affair but events in Syria.