I really cannot see what you are saying a government is supposed to do when it receives information from a foreign state about suspect persons. Publish a daily report in the Sun? Government has it's first responsibility to keep it's citizens safe, so it has to constantly make judgments about how much weight to give to that information. Most decisions that come from ministers have been made by civil servants who are supposed experts in their departments. What appears to have happened here is that two departments have not communicated with each other, but although that is a poor state of affairs, it hardly amounts to little more than a red face.
Totally agree with all that, but this Miranda business is nothing to do with keeping us safe - that is the problem. The 'authorities' used this (dodgy and certainly not reasonable) legislation to help them stop further exposure of their secret actions which belie the impression that the Uk is a free and reasonable country. Had it been just an inter-departmental miscommunication, it wouldn't have stirred up the response that it has, even in August - the slow month of news.
That is not what happened here. It was the result of GHCQ spying. You don't usually use sarcasm. No if it is a genuine terrorist threat then use those laws. If it is a police matter - use those laws. We have the rule of law in Britain It does. It does and they are supposed to be. That is not the case - the departments appear to have communicated perfectly to ensnare a foreign national passing through London in the hope he had information on his computer. they then used the terrorist laws as they are easy to use and draconian in their effect instead of simple police powers to check for stolen property - in this case information. This guy was no terrorist and should have been subject at most to the rule of law. The powers of the state under the laws since 9/11 are frightening. Today you may not care about a foreign national especially if you do not agree with what Snowden did but tomorrow this could be you and yours falling foul of some bureaucratic mix up I think I am in danger of repeating myself so will bow out of this debate now. I am a small l liberal and do not like the State being a bully and justifying it by telling the public it is for their own safety. Get real these guys in the security services, MI5 etc live in a different world. Look back at the McCarthy era in the US if you want to see the reds under the beds they saw.
I live in a terrorist nation and therefore must be a terrorist. Gordon Brown said so and tried to use British anti-terrorism laws against us to get money. Why was the Guardian newspaper paying for travel for someone who was not employed by them? I would never expect my employer to pay for Frú Ak and they would not do that anyway.
I think the problem may be that we do not know all the exact circumstances and reasons behind this matter and that people have a tendancy to adapt the circumstances which have been reported, to suit their own views. Then they work themselves up into a frenzy untill all the facts are known. And we shouldn't forget that the press may not be completely unbiased as the boyfriend is a journalist.
But keeping cool- as getting into a frenzy is not good There are certain facts which are not disputed. A man was stopped and questioned for 9 hours under anti-terrorism laws. To my knowledge the government have not said he is a terrorist but wanted his PC and mobile. Was this the legal and correct way to get it?
I agree with that. There is something far more to this than first appears I suspect, although I don't know. He could have been detained and questioned under a number of laws and I believe that the one used was probably the wrong one, although that is not clear. His property is supposed to be returned to him within 7 days, so if there is nothing there he shouldn't have a problem. I was not trying to be sarcastic when I mentioned the Sun. My real point is that government has to make up it's mind what it can talk about, it is not something that can be left to the general public. Sometimes when we know something is going on behind the scenes at Watford we would like to know more, but until the club confirms things we can only speculate. The same applies to government.
If you want to see what a real Police State is like, try a trip to Cairo or a number of other capitals we could all name....that is not speculation or creating facts to suit an opinion. One fact that seems to have been buried is the owner of the lap-top that was the centre of the MI5 interest...
You have a point but we are supposed to be a developed democracy with safeguards against the 'misuse of power' ,,,, for me Lord Falconer hits the nail on the head: "... Lord Falconer, who helped to bring in the anti-terror legislation, said: "It does look like the wrong powers were used. Schedule 7 of the terrorism act is to be used... to discover whether somebody is a terrorist. If you know the person is not a terrorist, that power is not open to you." ... and that is all.
I agree with that - when the Icelandic banks went bust they tried to use the same powers to seize their assets. Can you imagine if a friendly power did that to us? Call me old fashioned but i donlt really think you should go around labelling people as terrorists becasue that's the only legislation you can use to check their possessions or seize their assets if they owe you money.
If your best comparison for us is Egypt then I would worry. I was thinking about comparing us to Norway, Sweden or any other advanced democracy. I simply ask - how would you feel if your wife was stopped say in Germany and interrogated for 9 hours without access to phones, lawyers or in fact anybody - you might even get a tad worried. Never mind the laptop - this is not how a democracy should behave unless a genuine terror threat were perceived.
I know nothing.... I voted LibDem Just a little posting to say I have just sent 99,000 words to the publisher .... and fly off to India tomorrow evening..... Will miss all the banter and the football I hope they let me back in Do you remember on BBC 606 it wouldn't let you write B O M B ... .... I have done it now!
I was not making any comparisons, I suggested that Egypt was an example of a Police State. It was you who stated that we were getting close to a Police State. Of course I should mind the laptop, when this story broke the headlines was that this guy was carrying a laptop belonging to his partner who was a Guardian hack that contained "journalistic material". My original point remains the same, the hacks are closing ranks and defending their own and failing to ask the questions that may help out the truth. Still, I can wait for the review of what happened to be able to make my own mind up. Sweden - isn't that the US puppet country?
Agreed. Whilst many accuse governments of being selective in what information they choose to release to the public in order to shield their thoughts/intentions, the press are just as selective in what they choose to report and what slant they put on what they report. I'd far rather wait to see what comes out in the review than jump in one way or the other. Having said that, I've no time for the legal niceties of whether this law or that law should apply, and to whom or when it should apply - I'm all for being able to sleep safe in my bed knowing that those charged with public safety are at least demonstrably doing something against the threat of terrorism. If that means that someone is inconvenienced for a few hours then so be it - rather that than go through what my parents did in 1988 when Pan Am 103 blew up in the sky above their village.
