Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:13 pm  

An interesting observation on the Miranda case Especially interesting are Nick Clegg's original comments in his Guardian interview on 23 August: "The intent behind detaining Miranda was the same: to retrieve or destroy classified information." The statement was subsequently deleted and this footnote added: • This article was amended on 23 August 2013 after a request from the deputy prime minister’s office based on legal reasons. The footnote was amended on 25 August 2013 to give greater clarity I wonder what "legal reasons" led to Clegg's comments being removed?

An interesting observation on the Miranda case Especially interesting are Nick Clegg's original comments in his Guardian interview on 23 August: "The intent behind detaining Miranda was the same: to retrieve or destroy classified information." The statement was subsequently deleted and this footnote added: • This article was amended on 23 August 2013 after a request from the deputy prime minister’s office based on legal reasons. The footnote was amended on 25 August 2013 to give greater clarity I wonder what "legal reasons" led to Clegg's comments being removed?

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:11 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As I say it's 14 days but anyway, that's easy. Obviously at that point they either felt they didn't have sufficient evidence to charge Miranda or, having seized the kit, either saw no point in pursuing it further, or never intended to do so....

That is my point.
Schedule 7 is purported to be an anti-terrorist measure but was used in a case where terrorism is very probably not the issue.
Was it legal? Very probably, under schedule 7.
Was it right? To have an anti-terrorist law where terrorism doesn't even have to be suspected is way too catch-all and wide open for abuse, as this case probably shows.

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 29, 2013 8:15 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

That is my point.
Schedule 7 is purported to be an anti-terrorist measure but was used in a case where terrorism is very probably not the issue.
Was it legal? Very probably, under schedule 7.
Was it right? To have an anti-terrorist law where terrorism doesn't even have to be suspected is way too catch-all and wide open for abuse, as this case probably shows.

...rather like quoting "anti-terrorism law" to prevent photographers practicing in city centres, something that was enforced by the police until campaigning provided some further guidance after MPs got involved - give a little extra power and it WILL be abused until it gets reigned in again.

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:27 am  

El Barbudo wrote: That is my point. Schedule 7 is purported to be an anti-terrorist measure but was used in a case where terrorism is very probably not the issue. Was it legal? Very probably, under schedule 7. A bit devil's advocate, but if a person happens to be a mule of stolen security data that poses a grave risk to national security and a threat to life in the wrong hands, then wouldn't it fit under the general label of terrorism-related matters? El Barbudo wrote: Was it right? To have an anti-terrorist law where terrorism doesn't even have to be suspected is way too catch-all and wide open for abuse, as this case probably shows. Just the argument that was heard and rejected in yesterday's case, and which will exercise the ECHR in September in another case. I've now had the opportunity to consider the judgment in the Sylvie Beghal case. I must say that I can't fault the logic. The judgment also refers to annual reports by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which reviews naturally encompass the Schedule 7 powers, and what sounds like an ongoing number of consultations, checks and balances. More to the point, The detailed judgment clearly addresses and deals with all the general principle and specific objections that have been raised earlier in the thread. Hmm.

El Barbudo wrote: That is my point. Schedule 7 is purported to be an anti-terrorist measure but was used in a case where terrorism is very probably not the issue. Was it legal? Very probably, under schedule 7. A bit devil's advocate, but if a person happens to be a mule of stolen security data that poses a grave risk to national security and a threat to life in the wrong hands, then wouldn't it fit under the general label of terrorism-related matters? El Barbudo wrote: Was it right? To have an anti-terrorist law where terrorism doesn't even have to be suspected is way too catch-all and wide open for abuse, as this case probably shows. Just the argument that was heard and rejected in yesterday's case, and which will exercise the ECHR in September in another case. I've now had the opportunity to consider the judgment in the Sylvie Beghal case. I must say that I can't fault the logic. The judgment also refers to annual reports by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which reviews naturally encompass the Schedule 7 powers, and what sounds like an ongoing number of consultations, checks and balances. More to the point, The detailed judgment clearly addresses and deals with all the general principle and specific objections that have been raised earlier in the thread. Hmm.

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:00 pm  

Judging by the latest reports on this Miranda 'row' it sounds like the authorities were right to hold Miranda for every second of his detention.

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:11 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Judging by the latest reports on this Miranda 'row' it sounds like the authorities were right to hold Miranda for every second of his detention.

More to the point, why were so many UK secrets entrusted to a relatively low-level operative like Snowden?

I'd also suggest there's more chance of secrets being leaked while in the hands of the Met than any journalist

Re: Miranda et al : Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:47 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Judging by the latest reports on this Miranda 'row' it sounds like the authorities were right to hold Miranda for every second of his detention.

... and then let him go?
Doesn't square does it?