Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:02 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. Incorrect. As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: an idiot's guide, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP. Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified.

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. Incorrect. As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: an idiot's guide, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP. Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:07 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Wrong.

The legislation states no suspicion is necessary.

Thats why the word "assess"is used, he hasn't used "suspicion" at all, although why the police should be allowed to stop you just in case you are involved in terrorism rather than having at least a suspicion that you may be, I don't know - maybe that means we can all be detained for up to nine hours every time we leave home just in case, but especially if we fit a racial profile in which case the Met would appear to be the ideal force to administer this.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Wrong.

The legislation states no suspicion is necessary.

Where did I mention suspicion?

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:33 pm  

Cronus wrote: Incorrect. As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: an idiot's guide, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP. Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified. It's only an idiot's guide for an idiot like you. Try reading the opinion of a man who helped draft and present the piece of legislation, Charles Falconer DJP Hodges is yet another closet tory loon, with as much gravitas as your earlier link, Louise Mensch

Cronus wrote: Incorrect. As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: an idiot's guide, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP. Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified. It's only an idiot's guide for an idiot like you. Try reading the opinion of a man who helped draft and present the piece of legislation, Charles Falconer DJP Hodges is yet another closet tory loon, with as much gravitas as your earlier link, Louise Mensch

[DaveO]

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:48 pm  

Cronus wrote: Incorrect. As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: an idiot's guide, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP. Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified. That article is bordering on the pathetic. One of the main justifications for the detention is this: So Miranda arrives at Heathrow. The UK intelligence services are aware of his movements, because that’s what intelligence services do. What’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security. They know he is potentially? What sort of oxymoron is that? That is simply guilt by association. Everytime Miranda has to fly through Heathrow or any other UK airport he will have to be detained because he is "potentially carrying highly classified information". That being so wouldn't this only make sense if it applied to every other Guardian journalist, their partners and anyone associated with them or the paper? The article also has a Guardian bashing agenda nicely illustrated by this little snippet. "I’ve long ago stopped trying to get my head around what goes on at The Guardian. But we can safely assume that if Alan Rusbridger agreed to this drastic course of action it wasn’t because the hard drives didn't contain anything more sensitive than Polly Toynbee’s latest polemic against Iain Duncan Smith." The trouble is Rusbridger has explained that he thought the demand for the drives to be destroyed was farcical because the idea in this digital age the data would only be held on those drives was naive. Dan Hodges either has an agenda against the Guardian here or is as naive as those who felt they had accomplished something by having the drives destroyed. Either way this calls his position into question.

Cronus wrote: Incorrect. As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: an idiot's guide, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP. Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified. That article is bordering on the pathetic. One of the main justifications for the detention is this: So Miranda arrives at Heathrow. The UK intelligence services are aware of his movements, because that’s what intelligence services do. What’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security. They know he is potentially? What sort of oxymoron is that? That is simply guilt by association. Everytime Miranda has to fly through Heathrow or any other UK airport he will have to be detained because he is "potentially carrying highly classified information". That being so wouldn't this only make sense if it applied to every other Guardian journalist, their partners and anyone associated with them or the paper? The article also has a Guardian bashing agenda nicely illustrated by this little snippet. "I’ve long ago stopped trying to get my head around what goes on at The Guardian. But we can safely assume that if Alan Rusbridger agreed to this drastic course of action it wasn’t because the hard drives didn't contain anything more sensitive than Polly Toynbee’s latest polemic against Iain Duncan Smith." The trouble is Rusbridger has explained that he thought the demand for the drives to be destroyed was farcical because the idea in this digital age the data would only be held on those drives was naive. Dan Hodges either has an agenda against the Guardian here or is as naive as those who felt they had accomplished something by having the drives destroyed. Either way this calls his position into question.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:05 pm  

cod'ead wrote: It's only an idiot's guide for an idiot like you. Try reading the opinion of a man who helped draft and present the piece of legislation, Charles Falconer Did a pretty poor job then, didn't he, to include such a vague clause as "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)" in an Act specifically aimed at Irish Dissidents. Fact is, his opinion now means f*ck all. Whether the detention was lawful is the only relevant point - and it was. Do you therefore think people should be allowed to pass through airports smuggling stolen classified and sensitive information? If you do you're a bigger fool than I had you for. He was a mule, nothing more. He was correctly detained and the information seized. DJP Hodges is yet another closet tory loon, with as much gravitas as your earlier link, Louise Mensch I forgot, you lack the intellect to see past the author. As always, blinkered and bitter. You claimed there were untruths in the Mensch article. I'm still waiting for you to post them.

cod'ead wrote: It's only an idiot's guide for an idiot like you. Try reading the opinion of a man who helped draft and present the piece of legislation, Charles Falconer Did a pretty poor job then, didn't he, to include such a vague clause as "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)" in an Act specifically aimed at Irish Dissidents. Fact is, his opinion now means f*ck all. Whether the detention was lawful is the only relevant point - and it was. Do you therefore think people should be allowed to pass through airports smuggling stolen classified and sensitive information? If you do you're a bigger fool than I had you for. He was a mule, nothing more. He was correctly detained and the information seized. DJP Hodges is yet another closet tory loon, with as much gravitas as your earlier link, Louise Mensch I forgot, you lack the intellect to see past the author. As always, blinkered and bitter. You claimed there were untruths in the Mensch article. I'm still waiting for you to post them.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:19 pm  

DaveO wrote:

That article is bordering on the pathetic. One of the main justifications for the detention is this:

So Miranda arrives at Heathrow. The UK intelligence services are aware of his movements, because that’s what intelligence services do. What’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security.

They know he is potentially? What sort of oxymoron is that?

That is simply guilt by association. Everytime Miranda has to fly through Heathrow or any other UK airport he will have to be detained because he is "potentially carrying highly classified information".

That being so wouldn't this only make sense if it applied to every other Guardian journalist, their partners and anyone associated with them or the paper?

Seems fairly clear to me. They know he's been to see this Laura Poitras character (one of Snowden's closest confidants and "one of only two people with full archives of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures"). They therefore know there's a strong chance he's carrying highly classified information. You might not like the grammatical sentence structure but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Let's not forget, the intelligence services were correct. Not guilt by association, just plain guilt. I suspect many Guardian journalists and possibly their "assistants" <cough> fly internationally every day. How many others been detained under Schedule 7?

[DaveO]

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:04 pm  

Cronus wrote:

Seems fairly clear to me. They know he's been to see this Laura Poitras character (one of Snowden's closest confidants and "one of only two people with full archives of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures"). They therefore know there's a strong chance he's carrying highly classified information. You might not like the grammatical sentence structure but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Let's not forget, the intelligence services were correct. Not guilt by association, just plain guilt. I suspect many Guardian journalists and possibly their "assistants" <cough> fly internationally every day. How many others been detained under Schedule 7?

Lets not forget they let him go after 9 hours so given they didn't arrest him they were proved wrong. They were unable to prove he was a terrorist and while you can argue the legislation doesn't need them to suspect him of that, detention under the act is still only to assess if he is a terrorist.

Of course it is guilt by association. He is the journos partner so henceforth every time he flies they must assume he is carrying classified documents and will need to assess if he is a terrorist. Same goes for every other Guardian employee. The fact other Guardian employees have not been detained just shows what a farce it is and why you ought to be suspicious of the motives behind it.

Should Rusbridger be detained at the airport when he flies anywhere? If not why not? Don't forget they don't have to suspect him of being a terrorist. They only need to assess if he is. Why would they not "assess" Rusbridger? Or his wife for that matter?

And by the way the grammar is important. The fact Hodges got so twisted with it just goes to show how tenuous a case he has.

It is obvious where this is leading. Newspapers will increasingly rely on couriers to communicate sensitive information they may have in the past transmitted electronically (encrypted or not) or even just posted. The security services will have to target more and more people if they "know they are potentially" doing this (acting as couriers).

The trouble is what they are doing is not terrorism so assessing them as being potential terrorists is just plain harassment.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:52 pm  

DaveO wrote:

Lets not forget they let him go after 9 hours so given they didn't arrest him they were proved wrong. They were unable to prove he was a terrorist and while you can argue the legislation doesn't need them to suspect him of that, detention under the act is still only to assess if he is a terrorist.

They seized what they suspected (correctly) he was carrying and released him. They weren't wrong: he was carrying stolen data. The Terrorism Act 40(1)(b) defines a terrorist as someone "concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". It's not hard to see how someone actively engaged in distributing stolen classified and sensitive, and potentially dangerous, information could easily fall within that definition.

Of course it is guilt by association. He is the journos partner so henceforth every time he flies they must assume he is carrying classified documents and will need to assess if he is a terrorist. Same goes for every other Guardian employee. The fact other Guardian employees have not been detained just shows what a farce it is and why you ought to be suspicious of the motives behind it.

It may be guilt by association with Greenwald and Poitras, and Miranda's movements prior to connecting via Heathrow, and probably other intelligence we're not party to. Let's not forget, they were correct and he was carrying stolen information. All this speculation is largely irrelevant, the intelligence was correct.

Should Rusbridger be detained at the airport when he flies anywhere? If not why not? Don't forget they don't have to suspect him of being a terrorist. They only need to assess if he is. Why would they not "assess" Rusbridger? Or his wife for that matter?

If they suspected he was carrying stolen information they probably would detain him. Further, if Rusbridger chooses to associate, promote and concern himself with these matters he should fully expect questions to be asked at some point. Otherwise our security services aren't doing their jobs and frankly it's reassuring that they've been so thorough.

And by the way the grammar is important. The fact Hodges got so twisted with it just goes to show how tenuous a case he has.

Only if you're desperate to pick a hole. The bulk of the article is spot on. I care nothing at all for Hodges' alleged personal vendettas and frankly it's a non-issue.

It is obvious where this is leading. Newspapers will increasingly rely on couriers to communicate sensitive information they may have in the past transmitted electronically (encrypted or not) or even just posted. The security services will have to target more and more people if they "know they are potentially" doing this (acting as couriers).

Perhaps they shouldn't be communicating stolen classified and sensitive information?

The trouble is what they are doing is not terrorism so assessing them as being potential terrorists is just plain harassment.

If this had been some 'swarthy' (the accepted RLFans term I believe) chap called Tariq from Peshawar no-one would bat an eyelid at the possibility of him being "concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". Yet when it's a Westerner who incidentally is banging some Guardian journalist he should be allowed to carry stolen data?

Re: Miranda et al : Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:45 am  

I love the line about 'knowing he may potentially be carrying....'


Have the autorities never heard of FTP, cloud servers, dropbox.....? I'm sure they must have by now.



It was nothing mor than an excuse to flex their muscles.