Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
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
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
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?
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
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:
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?
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
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
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
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.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
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.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 141 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
