Miranda nonsense

[Pondlife]

AIUI, he was offered a lawyer from the start but not his own. His (Guardian supplied) lawyer turned up after 8 hours.

[KentPhilip]

He is threatening to sue the police. But since his arrest and demand for his passwords were lawful, he has no chance of winning.

Of course a left-wing politician whose name I forgot complained that use of terrorism legislation to detain him, though lawful, was out of keeping with what the public would expect - well the Labour party brought in the terrorist laws, and they oversaw widespread use of these in non terrorism related incidents. So "hoisted by your own petard" comes to mind

The left-wingers were all happy for Murdoch journalists to get arrested by the police. But when it starts to happen to them they start whinging.

[Paddy]

Apart from the fact that he did have a solicitor in attendance...

There is no resident solicitor at Heathrow, the security services did not wait for a solicitor to arrive. He could have been anybody. The Israelis have a similar trick when they send a representative from the British Foreign Office when a UK citizen is detained. They send one of their own agents

[Ticktock]

There is no resident solicitor at Heathrow, the security services did not wait for a solicitor to arrive. He could have been anybody. The Israelis have a similar trick when they send a representative from the British Foreign Office when a UK citizen is detained. They send one of their own agents

So you are saying that the solicitor who attended was not a lawyer, but a police / Security Service agent?

Are we meant to take your paranoid (and potentially libellous) ravings seriously? Why don't you put "innocent face" after your post?

[AtW]

He is threatening to sue the police. But since his arrest and demand for his passwords were lawful, he has no chance of winning.

There is always a chance - he was not a terrorist and misuse of legislation is a serious concern.

[Ticktock]

There is always a chance - he was not a terrorist and misuse of legislation is a serious concern.

How do you know?

Anyway, I think what the authorities are saying is that he is suspected of carrying materials that may provide aid to terrorists (i.e. information that they would find useful), not that he is a terrorist, and that the legislation covers this. Legally, they don't have to prove that he was carrying these materials, just that they can meet the standard required under the legislation to suspect that he did.

I think it was a fairly stupid move to have detained him like this - it was always going to generate the negative publicity it has, and provide reason for calls of intimidation, bullying, etc. It may even have been done to intimidate.
I can only speculate that either whoever made the call to allow the detention really is this stupid, or they had good reason to suspect that he had something particularly tasty on him that they needed to get.

[AtW]

Anyway, I think what the authorities are saying is that he is suspected of carrying materials that may provide aid to terrorists (i.e. information that they would find useful), not that he is a terrorist, and that the legislation covers this. Legally, they don't have to prove that he was carrying these materials, just that they can meet the standard required under the legislation to suspect that he did.

Police then should explain in great detail exactly what they expected to find on him - even if he had any data related to NSA leaks it's total BS that it would be of any use to terrorists targeting UK which is what UK's police's job is to deal with unless they get external request.

[Ticktock]

I should first make clear that I'm not saying I necessarily agree with Miranda being detained - I'm just stating a case as to why it may be justifiable and trying to point out faults in arguments against it. And I think Miranda is acting like a cock now.

even if he had any data related to NSA leaks it's total BS that it would be of any use to terrorists targeting UK

Again, how do you know? You don't think that details of how and which communications are intercepted would be of interest to terrorists who may be looking to plan an attack on the UK?

Police then should explain in great detail exactly what they expected to find on him

Is that a requirement of the law? You can check for yourself - Terrorism Act 2000 - but I can't see that it is. Politically they may want to do so, and it wouldn't surprise me if this information is released. They'll need to do something to explain what happened, as this will either come out in the Commons, an inquiry, or as a result of Miranda bringing a case.

[darmstadt]

Schedule 7:

What is my right to legal advice?

You can request legal advice at your own expense. Your examination will not be delayed pending the arrival of a solicitor and your failure to answer questions may constitute an offence. If you are formally detained under Schedule 7 powers, your rights will be explained to you.

Thats actually from the Greater Manchester Police but so far I can't see anything similar in the Terrorism Act of 2000

Why wasn’t I cautioned/given a notice of search?

Unlike many other police powers, when questioned under Schedule 7, you need not be cautioned. Where searches are made, there is no requirement for a written notice of a search to be provided to you.

Schedule 7

More freaking information

Schedule 7 Stories

[BrilloPad]

Anyway, I think what the authorities are saying is that he is suspected of carrying materials that may provide aid to terrorists

I hope the next time you fly they decide one of your farts might be useful to terrorists and see how you like it.