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

[amateur51]

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

My, those goalposts must be heavy!

[Sydney Grew]

Thanks for your words of wisdom Mr. H.

. . . I think that "arrested" implies detention against a person's will (in this case by the police) . . .

But was it by the "police"? All we are told is of some male person who refused to identify himself beyond saying "call me 203654." In addition there must have been an unspecified number of associates who had the free run of certain rooms in the air-port terminal. The solicitors will presumably have asked for better proof of authority than "call me 203654".

Again, if any or all of that [Mr. Miranda's not being permitted the use of pen and paper] is true, serious breaches of procedure will clearly have occurred at the hands of the police and must be properly investigated.

In a similar case, some one was refused the use of a pen or pencil "because he might use it as a weapon"! Could Mr. 203654 have been frightened of Mr. Miranda's pencil?

I put the quotation marks around the "Sir" because I very much hope that in the light of these events Her Majesty will wish to reconsider, and revoke the evidently undeserved honour.

[Resurrection Man]

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).

I am delighted that you have come to your senses and recognise me for what I am...namely 'the more high profile source' and that you recommend that others should pay heed to what I say. Full marks !

[Resurrection Man]

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.

Where is that 'banging head against wall' emoticon when you need it?

How on earth can you say that 'terrorism' does not breach national security?

[Tony Halstead]

I put the quotation marks around the "Sir" because I very much hope that in the light of these events Her Majesty will wish to reconsider, and revoke the evidently undeserved honour

Aha!
Brilliant, Mr Grew!

[Pabmusic]

Where is that 'banging head against wall' emoticon when you need it?

How on earth can you say that 'terrorism' does not breach national security?

I don't say that. I actually say: "national security' encompasses 'terrorism'" (third sentence of the passage of mine that you quoted).

Here's the issue (and please try to follow the reasoning). "Terrorism" does not encompass all of national security - never did, never will. George Blake passing secrets to the Russians certainly breached national security, but it wasn't "terrorism". Neither was leaking the truth about the sinking of the Belgrano. Neither is anything that Assange has done. [continues ad inf.]

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives the police the power to detain anyone suspected of "preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism". Please note that it does not give the power to detain anyone suspected of being a threat to national security; it talks about terrorism. That being the case, the power is not available to detain someone who's suspected actions do not involve 'terrorism'. It is a statutory offence, so it has to be interpreted within the wording of the Act. You can't widen the power without new legislation.

Do you begin to see the point? You must interpret Miranda's actions, or the threat he posed, in terms only of 'terrorism' and not the wider issue of 'national security'.

Don't bang your head too hard, please.

[Resurrection Man]

I don't say that. I quote: "national security' encompasses 'terrorism' (third sentence of the passage of mine that you quoted).

Here's the issue (and please try to follow the reasoning). "Terrorism" does not encompass all of national security - never did, never will. George Blake passing secrets to the Russians certainly breached national security, but it wasn't "terrorism". Neither was leaking the truth about the sinking of the Belgrano. Neither is anything that Assange has done. [continues ad inf.]

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives the police the power to detain anyone suspected of "preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism". Please note that it does not give the power to detain anyone suspected of being a threat to national security; it talks about terrorism. That being the case, the power is not available to detain someone who's suspected action do not involve 'terrorism'. It is a statutory offence, so it has to be interpreted within the wording of the Act. You can't widen the power without new legislation.

Do you begin to see the point? You must interpret Miranda's actions, or the threat he posed, in terms only of 'terrorism' and not the wider issue of 'national security'.

Don't bang your head too hard, please.

Last word from me as it is pointless trying to get you to understand the definition of 'national security' but clearly the concept is very alien to you as you are having great difficulty in comprehending this term. Perhaps English is not your first language and so my apologies as that would explain it.

[Resurrection Man]

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

Well,ams, you are very welcome to sign up for one of my courses. However, I should warn you that there is a very high bar on the entrance criteria and I'm not sure that you would meet them. The course is also very expensive.

I am sure that if you are sufficiently motivated then a bit of research will show that your local LEA runs a perfectly adequate course on Media Comprehension and Analysis. My main concern though is that it might eat too much into your Tweeting time.

[Pabmusic]

Last word from me as it is pointless trying to get you to understand the definition of 'national security' but clearly the concept is very alien to you as you are having great difficulty in comprehending this term. Perhaps English is not your first language and so my apologies as that would explain it.

Well, it's a pity you're not prepared to argue in any way other than to state something and stick to it come what may. Let me leave you with this thought.

The issue is one specifically of terrorism (note the title of the Terrorism Act) not of national security. Without the Terrorism Act, the police would have had no power to detain Miranda. In order to be able exercise the power they were given by the Terrorism Act, they had to comply with this (from Schedule 7):

"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)".

And section 40(1)(b) says:

"...is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

That was the limit of their power. Note that they are not permitted to do this in respect of "national security" but only in connexion with "acts of terrorism".

Here's the Terrorism Act 2000. Please check it yourself:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents

And please try not to resort to personal attacks.

[ahinton]

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

ahinton to you.

I did indeed note what Richard Barrett wrote in #121 and indeed his other posts; what that has to do with anyone's alleged time-wasting, however, is entirely unclear. If there's any time-wasting going on in this thread at present, it would appear to have arisen from repeated instances of certain posters who, for reasons (if any) known only to themselves if indeed to anyone at all, choose to ignore certain simple straightforward truths and continue instead to claim that black is white.

[ahinton]

Where is that 'banging head against wall' emoticon when you need it?

I don't know, but some of us here might well have been looking in vain for it lately...

How on earth can you say that 'terrorism' does not breach national security?

He didn't; in fact, he was very clear about the fact that breaches of national security do not necessarily have to involve terrorism, whereas detention under Section 7 does. What's so hard to understand about that?

[ahinton]

Last word from me as it is pointless trying to get you to understand the definition of 'national security' but clearly the concept is very alien to you as you are having great difficulty in comprehending this term. Perhaps English is not your first language and so my apologies as that would explain it.

In that case, you might as well argue (albeit only with yourself) that English was not the first language of Lord Falconer and everyone else who drafted that Act.

[ahinton]

But was it by the "police"? All we are told is of some male person who refused to identify himself beyond saying "call me 203654." In addition there must have been an unspecified number of associates who had the free run of certain rooms in the air-port terminal. The solicitors will presumably have asked for better proof of authority than "call me 203654".

Pabmusic very kindly went to the trouble to provide a link to the Terrorism Act 2000 above.

The relevant section begins

Part I

Treatment of persons detained under section 41 or Schedule 7 Place of detention

1) The Secretary of State shall designate places at which persons may be detained under Schedule 7 or section 41.

(2) In this Schedule a reference to a police station includes a reference to any place which the Secretary of State has designated under sub-paragraph (1) as a place where a person may be detained under section 41.

(3) Where a person is detained under Schedule 7, he may be taken in the custody of an examining officer or of a person acting under an examining officer’s authority to and from any place where his attendance is required for the purpose of—(a) his examination under that Schedule, (b) establishing his nationality or citizenship, or (c) making arrangements for his admission to a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.

(4) A constable who arrests a person under section 41 shall take him as soon as is reasonably practicable to the police station which the constable considers the most appropriate.

(5) In this paragraph "examining officer" has the meaning given in Schedule 7 (see below).

(6) Where a person is arrested in one Part of the United Kingdom and all or part of his detention takes place in another Part, the provisions of this Schedule which apply to detention in a particular Part of the United Kingdom apply in relation to him while he is detained in that Part.


Schedule 7 begins

SCHEDULE 7 Port and Border Controls...

Sch. 2 Interpretation

(1) In this Schedule "examining officer" means any of the following—(a)a constable,(b)an immigration officer, and(c)a customs officer who is designated for the purpose of this Schedule by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.


It would therefore seem reasonable to conclude that the Act's use of the term "constable" is intended to denote "police officer", although an "examining officer" - i.e. one charged with entitlement to exercise the statutory powers granted under Section 7 in detaining a person or persons - can also be an immigration officer or Customs officer; it seems almost certain, however, that in this instance only a police officer or officers would have been entitled to detain and interrogate Mr Miranda so, to answer your question, if by chance the as yet unidentified male who allegedly referred to himself solely as "203654" was not a police officer, a further grave abuse of Section 7 will have occurred. That said, I think it somewhat unlikely that this person was other than a police officer on duty, but that does not of itself mean that he acted at all times in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Act.

In a similar case, some one was refused the use of a pen or pencil "because he might use it as a weapon"! Could Mr. 203654 have been frightened of Mr. Miranda's pencil?

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, there have been earlier cases of this kind of thing. A police officer frightened of a pencil or of its possible misuse by its possessor? Unlikely, I'd have thought! It's elf 'n' safety, though, innit!

I put the quotation marks around the "Sir" because I very much hope that in the light of these events Her Majesty will wish to reconsider, and revoke the evidently undeserved honour.

"Her Majesty" does not, as I'd assumed you'd already have known, make such decisions personally; when she does get involved in them (as has happened on occasion with, for example, Jack Lyons and Fred Goodwin), her responsibility extends merely to considering and rubber-stamping revocation recommendations made to her by those empowered to do so.

[Nick Armstrong]

I don't say that. I actually say: "national security' encompasses 'terrorism'" (third sentence of the passage of mine that you quoted).

"Terrorism" does not encompass all of national security - never did, never will. Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives the police the power to detain anyone suspected of "preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism". Please note that it does not give the power to detain anyone suspected of being a threat to national security; it talks about terrorism.

I haven't followed this whole thread but has it been noted that 'terrorism' for the purposes of the Act is defined in section 1:


Section 1: Terrorism: interpretation.

(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where -

(a) the action falls within subsection (2), [and]

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.


(2) Action falls within this subsection if it -

(a) involves serious violence against a person, [or]

(b) involves serious damage to property, [or]

(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, [or]

(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.


(I added the words in square brackets for clarity)

[amateur51]

Well,ams, you are very welcome to sign up for one of my courses. However, I should warn you that there is a very high bar on the entrance criteria and I'm not sure that you would meet them. The course is also very expensive.

I am sure that if you are sufficiently motivated then a bit of research will show that your local LEA runs a perfectly adequate course on Media Comprehension and Analysis. My main concern though is that it might eat too much into your Tweeting time.

Oh I gave up running courses like those in the 90s - interesting to hear there's still an audience though :winkeye: