Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:30 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

So much so that, once they'd used-up their nine hours and apparently come up with nothing to charge him with, they let the guy continue his journey to Brazil.

Eh? The investigation by Counter terrorism Command that is said to have "begun" as a result of a preliminary assessment of the stuff seized should thus presumably have charged him on spec, before that investigation had even begun, and before the preliminary investigation, and before they were involved? I'm confused. How exactly would they do that, then? Is Dr. Who on their books?

[DaveO]

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:08 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Eh? The investigation by Counter terrorism Command that is said to have "begun" as a result of a preliminary assessment of the stuff seized should thus presumably have charged him on spec, before that investigation had even begun, and before the preliminary investigation, and before they were involved? I'm confused. How exactly would they do that, then? Is Dr. Who on their books?

People are arrested all the time on suspicion of having committed an offence. The investigation proceeds with them on remand or bailed and either goes to court or is terminated with the charges dropped. Dr. Who is not required.

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:10 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Eh? The investigation by Counter terrorism Command that is said to have "begun" as a result of a preliminary assessment of the stuff seized should thus presumably have charged him on spec, before that investigation had even begun, and before the preliminary investigation, and before they were involved? I'm confused. How exactly would they do that, then? Is Dr. Who on their books?

I think they "began" long before they stopped him, otherwise they wouldn't have known to stop him.
During the nine hours, this "preliminary assessment" was begun.
As I understand it, he could have been held up to 24 hours without charge if it looked like there was going to something to charge him with ... or, if he was genuinely suspected of something under the Terrorism Act, for up to 14 days.

But they released him after the nine hours, not even on bail, to carry on to Brazil.

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:25 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No, you will never know. I'm perfectly satisfied that it contained stolen data.

Unless you are going to claim that no-one can "ever know" unless they examine the data personally? In which case we may as well all abandon a discussion forum, since whether the computer was smashed up or it wasn't, the chances of any of us seeing for ourselves are the same (nil).

No one can ever know unles they see the material, and they are unlikely to make it public at this stage, to say the least. But that doesn't detract from this discussion forum; the wild speculation and politically motivated comments (from either side ) provide huge entertainment to readers like me.

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:35 pm  

DaveO wrote:

People are arrested all the time on suspicion of having committed an offence.

They may be, but Miranda wasn't. If you want to be clever, at least bother to get a basic understanding of how Schedule 7 works. Specifically, examination under these provisions is N*O*T based on"suspicion of commission of an offence", but to ascertain if the person examined is or has been concerned in terrorism. It is a major distinction that you need to grasp.

The whole point of that is so that someone detained for examination cannot later argue that there were no grounds for suspecting them, and thus that the process was unlawful.

Now, if you wanted to contend that surely that's a mechanism for purely arbitrary stops, or else could be used to target (say) an ethnic group, well, er, yes, and indeed I believe there are a number of cases heading for Europe on just that point, but I'm simply talking about the situation as it is.

DaveO wrote:

The investigation proceeds with them on remand or bailed and either goes to court or is terminated with the charges dropped.

And how do you bail someone who is not actually in the UK, then? But as you are utterly confusing this situation with that of a person arrested under UK domestic law, I won't add to your woes. Come back when you've mugged up, if you like.

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:43 pm  

El Barbudo wrote: ... As I understand it, he could have been held up to 24 hours without charge if it looked like there was going to something to charge him with ... or, if he was genuinely suspected of something under the Terrorism Act, for up to 14 days. You don';t understand it correctly. Schedule 7 provides up to 9 hours and that's it. El Barbudo wrote: ...But they released him after the nine hours, not even on bail, to carry on to Brazil. As above, bail don't enter into it. Look, I'm bored of this. Here, as a favour, read up on the basics yourself.

El Barbudo wrote: ... As I understand it, he could have been held up to 24 hours without charge if it looked like there was going to something to charge him with ... or, if he was genuinely suspected of something under the Terrorism Act, for up to 14 days. You don';t understand it correctly. Schedule 7 provides up to 9 hours and that's it. El Barbudo wrote: ...But they released him after the nine hours, not even on bail, to carry on to Brazil. As above, bail don't enter into it. Look, I'm bored of this. Here, as a favour, read up on the basics yourself.

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:44 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And how do you bail someone who is not actually in the UK, then?

How do the UK police lawfully stop and question someone who is not in the UK?

Re: Miranda et al : Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:54 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

How do the UK police lawfully stop and question someone who is not in the UK?

I posted the link. If you don't know, and can't be bothered to read, that's your problem.

Re: Miranda et al : Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:33 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I posted the link. If you don't know, and can't be bothered to read, that's your problem.

OK it appears that a transit lounge is not a geopolitical black hole but from reading your link, where does Miranda fit in this list?

•Individuals or groups whose current or past involvement
in acts or threats of terrorism is known or suspected and
supporters or sponsors of such activity who are known
or suspected;

Any information on the origins and/or location of
terrorist groups;

Possible current, emerging and future terrorist activity;

The means of travel (and documentation) that a group or
individuals involved in terrorist activity could use;

Emerging local trends or patterns of travel through specific
ports or in the wider vicinity that may be linked to
terrorist activity.

Re: Miranda et al : Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:09 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

OK it appears that a transit lounge is not a geopolitical black hole but from reading your link, where does Miranda fit in this list?

•Individuals or groups whose current or past involvement
in acts or threats of terrorism is known or suspected and
supporters or sponsors of such activity who are known
or suspected;

Any information on the origins and/or location of
terrorist groups;

Possible current, emerging and future terrorist activity;

The means of travel (and documentation) that a group or
individuals involved in terrorist activity could use;

Emerging local trends or patterns of travel through specific
ports or in the wider vicinity that may be linked to
terrorist activity.

The Home Secretary has explained this. The courts will apparently be asked to rule if the police were correct. Also, I already basically gave my answer when I posted:

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

... counsel in the case told the court that it
"contains in the view of the police highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which would be gravely injurious to public safety" and " material the unauthorised disclosure of which would endanger national security of the UK and put lives at risk."

So, to put it neutrally, it is "possible" that Miranda was carrying stolen information, that endangers UK national security and that if it fell into the wrong hands, could put lives at risk.

You'd have to agree that, if true, that certainly amply fits the bill.