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

[amateur51]

I think that someone's forgotten lambs to the slaughter, beefing on about stuff, chickening out and things being described as turkeys, not to mention "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" and that the said someone ought to get a right roasting for having done so. Back to the topic, however unpleasant it might be for some to discuss a subject that contains an assertion about having done nothing wrong...

Trussed you

[teamsaint]

!!!You're miles behind. What's a shill when it's at home?

Its a paid plant/stooge.

[ahinton]

Trussed you

Beef oven. And avoid the music of John Veale while you're about it!...

[french frank]

Casting all this to one side, the Indy reports that the IPCC is now investigating 25 complaints about Schedule 7 detntions at borders and that Scotland Yard has been "given an ultimatum after refusing to hand over evidence".

[ahinton]

Casting all this to one side

Wisely!...

the Indy reports that the IPCC is now investigating 25 complaints about Schedule 7 detentions at borders and that Scotland Yard has been "given an ultimatum after refusing to hand over evidence".

Indeed. There have been rumblings of one kind and another for quite some time now that the Miranda case might be more like the tip of an iceberg than an isolated blip, though a further two dozen for the time being will presumably present quite an embarrassing and costly headache to government, the police and others involved if some or all of these become the subject of public inquiries and even more so if some or all lead to litigation on the part of the victims as seems almost inevitable in the Miranda case; the very fact that IPCC is indeed investigation these cases (assuming, as I think it reasonable to do, that the Indy is reporting this correctly) suggests that they are being taken seriously and that substance is likely to be found in some of all of them.

[Pabmusic]

Casting all this to one side, the Indy reports that the IPCC is now investigating 25 complaints about Schedule 7 detntions at borders and that Scotland Yard has been "given an ultimatum after refusing to hand over evidence".

This saddens me, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. This provision of the Terrorism Act always worried me. It's all right (I suppose) saying "it's only designed for a specific purpose", but those who use it continually try to expend the definitions. Perhaps its all done with the best of intentions, but just look how, even on this forum, people have argued very strongly to expand the definitions. One of the sad things about Rumpole of the Bailey was that, as the 90s and 00s went by, John Mortimer had him battling against these 'new' laws that appear to abandon fundamental rights and long-established legal principles. There's never been an age like it.

[amateur51]

O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!


David Miranda's detention is a threat to press freedom, say European editors

Newspapers urge prime minister to restore Britain's reputation for free press after holding of Guardian journalist's partner

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/david-miranda-detention-greenwald-press-editors?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position3

[zoomy]

Maybe since the end of the cold war the west no longer has to demonstrate that it is free.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Sullivan in The Times has a piece on the Miranda story. His resume of the affair so far is

"To recap the core facts: David Miranda, Greenwald’s partner, has nothing to do with terrorism and has never been suspected as such. He was allegedly carrying encrypted documents from Germany to Brazil that were a central part of Greenwald’s exposé of the US and UK espionage networks. Miranda’s trip was paid for by The Guardian as part of its series about government surveillance.
This reporting has been extremely embarrassing to the American and British governments and may have endangered intelligence sources and methods. But it is emphatically not an act of terrorism."

There's a lot more in the same vein, focussing on the trauma of Miranda's (possibly) wrongful detention under section 7. He protests so much that the article becomes an obvious smokescreen to cover the more serious, main story.

I find the casual description of Miranda's journey (a man who has nothing to do with terrorism but dabbles in moving espionage secrets around the world) - (allegedly) carrying encrypted documents from Germany to Brazil - given as a throw away line/happens every day sort of thing - astonishing. Do journalists now believe that they are the arbiters of what's right and wrong in terms of the strategy and conduct of anti-terrorism espionage? If journalists are behaving like this then it's no wonder the police are using section 7 a great deal.

I find the idea that the Guardian sees fit to commission a revelatory series about government surveillance (i.e. espionage) which - casually - may embarrass the US and UK governments and endanger lives - to be tantamount to treason.

And I find the claim that interfering with national espionage has no impact on the pursuit of terrorists utterly naïve and ridiculous.

[amateur51]

Sullivan in The Times has a piece on the Miranda story. His resume of the affair so far is

"To recap the core facts: David Miranda, Greenwald’s partner, has nothing to do with terrorism and has never been suspected as such. He was allegedly carrying encrypted documents from Germany to Brazil that were a central part of Greenwald’s exposé of the US and UK espionage networks. Miranda’s trip was paid for by The Guardian as part of its series about government surveillance.
This reporting has been extremely embarrassing to the American and British governments and may have endangered intelligence sources and methods. But it is emphatically not an act of terrorism."

There's a lot more in the same vein, focussing on the trauma of Miranda's (possibly) wrongful detention under section 7. He protests so much that the article becomes an obvious smokescreen to cover the more serious, main story.

I find the casual description of Miranda's journey (a man who has nothing to do with terrorism but dabbles in moving espionage secrets around the world) - (allegedly) carrying encrypted documents from Germany to Brazil - given as a throw away line/happens every day sort of thing - astonishing. Do journalists now believe that they are the arbiters of what's right and wrong in terms of the strategy and conduct of anti-terrorism espionage? If journalists are behaving like this then it's no wonder the police are using section 7 a great deal.

I find the idea that the Guardian sees fit to commission a revelatory series about government surveillance (i.e. espionage) which - casually - may embarrass the US and UK governments and endanger lives - to be tantamount to treason.

And I find the claim that interfering with national espionage has no impact on the pursuit of terrorists utterly naïve and ridiculous.

The reason that Miranda behaved as he did is that doubtless NSA and GCHQ has Greenwald under such close electronic scrutiny that human means is the preferred method of exchange. This is not treason.

Did you view the Adam Curtis film about MI5/6 activities relating to Britain's KGB spies? The incompetence of the secret services was astonishing. They are now undoubtedly better kitted out in terms of surveillance but the incredibly low positive strike rate that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC has noted indicates that they are undertaking mass fishing exercises, something not conducive to freedom of movement.

[french frank]

And I find the claim that interfering with national espionage has no impact on the pursuit of terrorists utterly naïve and ridiculous.

Utterly. But having an 'impact on the pursuit of terrorists' is not covered by this part of the act:

' “What schedule 7 allows an examining officer to do is to question somebody in order to determine whether he is somebody who is preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism. Plainly Mr. Miranda is not such a person,” said Lord Falconer of Thoroton, a man who helped introduce this very act.'

Hence the disquiet that there are those who are attempting to expand the definition of the law.

[zoomy]

I support the Guardian in publishing their revelations and exposing this area for us - it is important journalism and whilst I understand why, journalists who have been raided by the police as a result of the Guardian basically protecting its commercial interests with the phone hacking scandal (in order to stop Murdoch's BSKYB deal) we should support it. I also think Rusbridger should be prepared to go to jail over this - which he seemed reluctant to do in his Channel 4 interview last week and, as we all know, the Guardian has form in this, remember the hapless Peter Preston over his Greenham Common story in the 80s.

[Pabmusic]

Utterly. But having an 'impact on the pursuit of terrorists' is not covered by this part of the act:

' “What schedule 7 allows an examining officer to do is to question somebody in order to determine whether he is somebody who is preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism. Plainly Mr. Miranda is not such a person,” said Lord Falconer of Thoroton, a man who helped introduce this very act.'

Hence the disquiet that there are those who are attempting to expand the definition of the law.

You are so right, FF. Doing something that a terrorist might exploit is not the same as "is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". It is so simple. The Act says that police may detain someone at an airport for A, B or C. That's it. D and E don't count.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

FF: the section 7 issue pales into insignificance when we contrast the minor inconvenience that Miranda had to suffer with the damage and danger caused by Miranda, Greenwald, Snowden and the Guardian to our counter espionage (i.e. terrorism) activities.

[carol_fodor]

the damage and danger caused by Miranda, Greenwald, Snowden and the Guardian to our counter espionage (i.e. terrorism) activities.

Exactly what 'damage and danger'?