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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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:



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