Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:54 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

If Miranda was carrying classified files, he was asking to be detained.

Given that Miranda was traveling between Berlin and Rio Di Janeiro WTF was he doing going through Heathrow? Again, he was asking to be detained.

Miranda also works as an assistant to the Guardian journalist, so there isn't the separation which I, for one, first assumed.

My first thought was that this was an outrage and intimidation from the govt. But TBH at the moment it's looking like Miranda has set this up to milk it for all it's worth.

Determine what makes a file classified.

Should all classified files remain so?

Do you trust the government to act honestly and within the law? If they are in breach of the law, do you expect them to declassify files identifying such breaches?

Does is it therefore matter who exposed said breach or how they obtained the information?

Or is this all a case of the government sympathisers living life by the adage of 'ignorance is bliss'?

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:06 am  

cod'ead wrote:

It might be if you ignore the straw men, untruths and a clear and unwavering missing of the point of the stoppage. But I didn't therefore it's another load of ensch bullshit

How about, oh wizened sage of the seas, you actually explain your little rant in detail?

Sounds increasingly like Mr Miranda has acted as a mule for his journalistic partner or this Laura Poitras and carried stolen classified material (unwittingly or not - if willingly he's lied to airport security) and has spat his dummy now he's been found out. You can see the bottom lip when he's snapped arriving at Rio.

Don't want to be picked out for detention and questioning? Don't get involved in the first place. Choose to get involved and don't spit your dummy when you're 'picked on'.

The poor cherub was detained for a whole nine hours. Oh the trauma. I'd be more impressed if they bumped him off by shining a light at his limo as he raced through a Paris tunnel.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:20 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Given that Miranda was traveling between Berlin and Rio Di Janeiro WTF was he doing going through Heathrow? Again, he was asking to be detained.

Its not scientific but Skyscanner shows no direct flights from Berlin to Rio, so he would have needed to change. He would have remained airside though so not technically in the UK. Who detained him? Do the Met have jurisdiction airside?

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:45 am  

There are flights to Rio from Amsterdam and Paris.

The cheapest and most frequent flights are BA through London. But why in hell would someone deeply involved in the Snowden case, and indeed carrying classified files received from him, travel through London when it's just as easy to go through Paris? To me they were either completely stupid to go through London, or they did it deliberately because they knew he'd be detained and they wanted the scandal.

I've no idea about the jurisdiction issues.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:59 am  

Chris28 wrote:

Its not scientific but Skyscanner shows no direct flights from Berlin to Rio, so he would have needed to change. He would have remained airside though so not technically in the UK. Who detained him? Do the Met have jurisdiction airside?

Indeed, though he could easily connect through JFK (bad idea), Heathrow, Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt or Madrid onto direct flights. Perhaps the fact the Guardian paid for his flights limited his options?

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:06 am  

I don't work for the Guardian either, and I'm not a journalist. But I quite fancy a trip to Rio, so I was wondering if the Guardian would pay for my air fares too?

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:31 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

...my opinion, and is not based on the iron clad facts as trotted out in previous posts by those confidantes who rightously opine "he is not a terrorist or in anyway connected with terrorism"...

Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 of the Act says:
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)

Section 40(1) says:
“terrorist” means a person who …
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

But paragraph 2(4) gives a bit of wriggle-room to the police to determine (as per 2(1) whether or not the person being questioned appears to be a terrorist ... it says :
An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).

Bearing in mind that most people stopped for reasons of P2(4) are released within an hour rather than full nine hours allowed, this case does fall outside the norm ... and as Miranda was released without charge ... and as no-one, including the police, has said that there was any suspicion of him being a terrorist ... it does make the case newsworthy and does raise the issue of whether the law is being used/misused.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:10 pm  

Cronus wrote:

How about, oh wizened sage of the seas, you actually explain your little rant in detail?

Sounds increasingly like Mr Miranda has acted as a mule for his journalistic partner or this Laura Poitras and carried stolen classified material (unwittingly or not - if willingly he's lied to airport security) and has spat his dummy now he's been found out. You can see the bottom lip when he's snapped arriving at Rio.

Don't want to be picked out for detention and questioning? Don't get involved in the first place. Choose to get involved and don't spit your dummy when you're 'picked on'.

The poor cherub was detained for a whole nine hours. Oh the trauma. I'd be more impressed if they bumped him off by shining a light at his limo as he raced through a Paris tunnel.

I know right!

They stamped it secret and everything, we don’t need to trouble ourselves with worrying about anything stamped secret. Only good things like surprise parties or presents from Santa are kept secret, Or Victoria’s secret, another good thing. Nobody ever did anything nefarious in secret and nobody ever tried to keep their mistakes and wrong doings secret. Especially politicians, the police and army. People in power have always, throughout human history been the most trustworthy ones.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:12 pm  

Cronus wrote:

How about, oh wizened sage of the seas, you actually explain your little rant in detail?

Sounds increasingly like Mr Miranda has acted as a mule for his journalistic partner or this Laura Poitras and carried stolen classified material (unwittingly or not - if willingly he's lied to airport security) and has spat his dummy now he's been found out. You can see the bottom lip when he's snapped arriving at Rio.

Don't want to be picked out for detention and questioning? Don't get involved in the first place. Choose to get involved and don't spit your dummy when you're 'picked on'.

The poor cherub was detained for a whole nine hours. Oh the trauma. I'd be more impressed if they bumped him off by shining a light at his limo as he raced through a Paris tunnel.

He was stopped under Schedule 7, the act makes clear that police can only detain someone to assess whether they are: involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism. There's not a shred of evidence that Miranda falls under any of those three categories, therefore the stoppage was unlawful. Anything else is fluff and spin.

I have no doubt this will end badly for Cameron, May, The Met and the security services.

Mind you, I suppose Miranda should be thankful, the last Brazilian to fall foul of the Met was executed

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:37 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

He was stopped under Schedule 7, the act makes clear that police can only detain someone to assess whether they are: involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism. There's not a shred of evidence that Miranda falls under any of those three categories, therefore the stoppage was unlawful. Anything else is fluff and spin.

Wrong.

The legislation states no suspicion is necessary.