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

[An_Inspector_Calls]

In this case, what strikes me is not only the shifting of goalposts to which Richard Barrett drew such witty attention but the also increase in cavalier scoring of own goals by a tiny handful of those with their heads stuck firmly in the sand; never mind - perhaps we should try to learn to appreciate that goalpost moving and own goal scoring are quite remrkable achievements (however superfluous and tiresome) when those doing them have their heads in the sand...

That's repetition of 'tiny', 'sand', misspelling of remarkable and a missing question mark in one sentence! But apart from that please tell me where your high priest Barrett drew attention to shifting goalposts - missed that? Other than Barrett shifting the goalposts remarking on the Telegraph front page for some reason.

Still, must stop, starting to prattle like you.

(Now there's four sentences, so I expect a reply in the form:

That's repetition of 'tiny', 'sand', misspelling of remarkable and a missing question mark in one sentence!

But apart from that please tell me where your high priest Barrett drew attention to shifting goalposts - missed that?

Other than Barrett shifting the goalposts remarking on the Telegraph front page for some reason.

Still, must stop, starting to prattle like you.

)

[ahinton]

That's repetition of 'tiny', 'sand', misspelling of remarkable and a missing question mark in one sentence!

Repetition here is, I think, justifiable to the extent that it was intended to reflect your own (get the point?), apologies for the mistyping of "remarkable" and the question mark was appropriately absent because no actual question was being asked.

But apart from that please tell me where your high priest Barrett drew attention to shifting goalposts - missed that? Other than Barrett shifting the goalposts remarking on the Telegraph front page for some reason.

Ask yourself while taking due note of the fact that Mr Barrett, for all his good sense, acts as no one's "high priest".

Still, must stop

If only!

(Now there's four sentences, so I expect a reply in the form:)

I cannot and would not wish to influence or have control over (or indeed anything to do with) your alleged expectations, so consider them unsatisfvied and unsatisfiable.

[Resurrection Man]

.....

Still, must stop, starting to prattle like you.

That's why I have him/her on Ignore. Saves a lot of time.

[Flosshilde]

That's why I have him/her on Ignore. Saves a lot of time.

A man of your word, I see

Last word from me ...

[Pabmusic]

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:


[B]Section 1: Terrorism: interpretation...[/COLOR]

Thanks, Cali (25 guineas for that advice?). All I've been trying to do is to point out that the power to detain is limited (schedule 7 is clear on this). Another view seems to be that detention is OK for anything we choose to define as involving 'national security', but that view does not seem to be supported by the Act. It's not a common-law offence, so we can't make that sort of argument.

In the end, it's the old question of whether the prosecution can use evidence that has been obtained illegally.

[Pabmusic]

Even his solicitor talks about national security. Anyway, this part of the act seems to justify his detention...[etc]...

No it doesn't. You have not taken account of the definition of terrorism under the Act (which Caliban has helpfully highlighted already in post 149)* nor of the only justification for detention in these circumstances, which is given in Schedule 7, and which I have quoted many times.

*Basically: acts involving serious violence, or serious damage, endangering life, or serious risk to health or public safety, or serious disruption of electrical systems
(note the continued use of 'serious'); or threatening such acts to intimidate the public or the government; or threatening such acts for political, religious or ideological reasons. An enormous number of national security threats - possibly most - would not qualify as terrorism.

[Resurrection Man]

No it doesn't. You have not taken account of the definition of terrorism under the Act (which Caliban has helpfully highlighted already in post 149)* nor of the only justification for detention in these circumstances, which is given in Schedule 7, and which I have quoted many times.

*Basically: acts involving serious violence, or serious damage, endangering life, or serious risk to health or public safety, or serious disruption of electrical systems
(note the continued use of 'serious'); or threatening such acts to intimidate the public or the government; or threatening such acts for political, religious or ideological reasons. An enormous number of national security threats - possibly most - would not qualify as terrorism.

Pointless.

[Pabmusic]

Pointless.

It is you who must live in a parallel universe. It is not pointless by any standard. Mine is at least a reasonable stab at explaining the legal position; you just ignore it in favour of what you wish to be the outcome. I know which approach is expected in court. Perhaps I'm entirely wrong, in which case we do indeed have a police state, where the police make up the rules ad hoc. I don't believe that's true at all, and as I (naively perhaps) assume that the police still have to obey the law, it's worth considering what their powers actually are.

None of that is negated by your rudely dismissive 'pointless'.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

secrecy corrupts. Absolute secrecy corrupts absolutely

for an American view ....


and so that is what it is about then

[Richard Barrett]

and so that is what it is about then

It's for our own good apparently.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It is you who must live in a parallel universe. It is not pointless by any standard. Mine is at least a reasonable stab at explaining the legal position; you just ignore it in favour of what you wish to be the outcome. I know which approach is expected in court. Perhaps I'm entirely wrong, in which case we do indeed have a police state, where the police make up the rules ad hoc. I don't believe that's true at all, and as I (naively perhaps) assume that the police still have to obey the law, it's worth considering what their powers actually are.

None of that is negated by your rudely dismissive 'pointless'.

It's pointless when the issue is concurrently being processed through the legal system and new information emerges at every stage. I doubt RM has a preferred outcome, I certainly don't.

[ahinton]

It's pointless when the issue is concurrently being processed through the legal system and new information emerges at every stage. I doubt RM has a preferred outcome, I certainly don't.

Not at all. It might indeed be "pointless" - or at least premature - to seek to determine the outcome of every aspect of this case when an official inquiry into it has yet to commence and when litigation has also yet to commence, but it is not "pointless" to point out (as Pabmusic in particular has done in considerable detail) what laws and legal powers currently exist, as the adherence or otherwise to these will represent a fundamental part of both the investigation and the trial. I do not say that the police or anyone else acted unlawfully, for to do that would be to pronounce people guilty before trial; what I do say, however, is that the evidence of the incident so far gathered is more than sufficient to justify the requirement for such an inquiry and to identify any litigation as genuine rather than merely vexatious.

[ahinton]

It's for our own good apparently.

What I suspect that it's "for" is to give to the police et al all the ammunition that they could possibly hope for in order that they can somehow contrive, after the detention event, to "prove" that material in Mr Miranda's possession when they detained him was terrorist oriented, so as to hope to exonerate them from professional misconduct in carrying out that detention in contravention of the provisions of Section 7.

[Pabmusic]

What I suspect that it's "for" is to give to the police et al all the ammunition that they could possibly hope for in order that they can somehow contrive, after the detention event, to "prove" that material in Mr Miranda's possession when they detained him was terrorist oriented, so as to hope to exonerate them from professional misconduct in carrying out that detention in contravention of the provisions of Section 7.

I suspect you're not far off the mark there. It will be fascinating to see how the argument is made.

[Resurrection Man]

It's pointless when the issue is concurrently being processed through the legal system and new information emerges at every stage. I doubt RM has a preferred outcome, I certainly don't.

Much appreciated, AIC. Refreshing to see another open mind as opposed to those who doggedly insist on selectively quoting to support their prejudices.