Re: Miranda et al : Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:02 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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:

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

Only if you expand the meaning of "terrorist" and "terrorism" and then accept a "considered opinion" instead of facts and evidence

Re: Miranda et al : Mon Aug 26, 2013 1:02 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Only if you expand the meaning of "terrorist" and "terrorism" and then accept a "considered opinion" instead of facts and evidence

No, you don't get it. You're persistently looking at this the wrong way round. The police didn't and don't need any evidence nor any opinion, considered or otherwise. And the words used and which I quoted would certainly encompass terrorism. Apart from a Justin Bieber concert, what else could endanger national security and put lives at risk?

[Kosh]

Re: Miranda et al : Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:20 am  

Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html

Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html

Re: Miranda et al : Mon Aug 26, 2013 9:42 am  

Kosh wrote: Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html Someone should have a word in the old duffer's shell-like. AFAIK once anyone has signed the Official Secrets Act, they are bound for life. I signed it in 1973 during a 4 week spell at British Aerospace, I'm still bound by it but am certainly no official. Surely it is the secret that is official and not the person sharing it?

Kosh wrote: Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html Someone should have a word in the old duffer's shell-like. AFAIK once anyone has signed the Official Secrets Act, they are bound for life. I signed it in 1973 during a 4 week spell at British Aerospace, I'm still bound by it but am certainly no official. Surely it is the secret that is official and not the person sharing it?

Re: Miranda et al : Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:34 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Surely it is the secret that is official and not the person sharing it?

Isn't there an old Yes, Minister joke in there somewhere.

Re: Miranda et al : Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:31 pm  

Him wrote:

Isn't there an old Yes, Minister joke in there somewhere.

Dunno but it seems strange that a country as paranoid about security as the US has managed to bumble along for 200+ years without the need for an Official Secrets Act

Re: Miranda et al : Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:20 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You don';t understand it correctly. Schedule 7 provides up to 9 hours and that's it...

Yes, I am aware of that, that's the schedule 7 limit which does not require a suspicion.
But the Terrorism Act 2006 provides for detention up to 28 days (I was wrong about 14 days, it was doubled in 2006) if there is a suspicion of a terrorist crime.
After the nine hours under schedule 7, if they had had a suspicion of a terrorist crime, they could have held Miranda for up to a month under the Terrorism Act 2006.

But they didn't.
One has to ask oneself, why?

The most likely answer is that they still had no suspicion of such a crime.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:30 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Yes, I am aware of that, that's the schedule 7 limit which does not require a suspicion.
But the Terrorism Act 2006 provides for detention up to 28 days (I was wrong about 14 days, it was doubled in 2006) if there is a suspicion of a terrorist crime.

Nope, it is 14 days.

El Barbudo wrote:

After the nine hours under schedule 7, if they had had a suspicion of a terrorist crime, they could have held Miranda for up to a month under the Terrorism Act 2006.

But they didn't.
One has to ask oneself, why?

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 else having seized the kit, either saw no point in pursuing it further, or never intended to do so.

El Barbudo wrote:

The most likely answer is that they still had no suspicion of such a crime.

If we're allowing ourselves to get into pure personal speculation, my money would go on them not having had enough time to access encrypted files within the time available, but equally I'm far from convinced that they ever really intended to charge Miranda with anything. Which isn't to say that no offence might be made out, please note; it seems to be uncontested that he was carrying stolen data, that in the wrong hands, we are told (and has not been denied) presented a threat to national security and to life.

On the 14 days, hardly anybody is held for that length of time anyway, and one reason for this may be that the government is aware that this draconian and ridiculous law is a world class anomaly of which we should be ashamed. AFAIK even US law only permits detention for a maximum 48 hours. But the lengthy period seems to have acquired shrug-of-the-shoulders status with the British public.

You may be interested to know that an anti-Schedule 7 case is currently progressing through the ECHR, having already been declared admissible, and in fact HM Gov has till 12 September to make submissions. Those should make interesting reading.

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:40 pm  

Update: Schedule 7 has survived the latest Human Rights challenge in a High Court ruling earlier today

Update: Schedule 7 has survived the latest Human Rights challenge in a High Court ruling earlier today

Re: Miranda et al : Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:57 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Update: Schedule 7 has survived the latest Human Rights challenge in a High Court ruling earlier today "The wife of a convicted terrorist has lost a major challenge against the British police's power to stop and question people at airports." Does major mean completely pointless?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Update: Schedule 7 has survived the latest Human Rights challenge in a High Court ruling earlier today "The wife of a convicted terrorist has lost a major challenge against the British police's power to stop and question people at airports." Does major mean completely pointless?