Quite surprised to see no topic debating the (un)lawful detention of a 'terrorist'. Nine hour interragation of the partner of a Guardian journalists' partner on the suspicion of 'supplying' information re: Edward Snowden.

Intimidation tactics or legitimate cause?

...rather like quoting "anti-terrorism law" to prevent photographers practicing in city centres, something that was enforced by the police until campaigning provided some further guidance after MPs got involved - give a little extra power and it WILL be abused until it gets reigned in again.

A bit devil's advocate, but if a person happens to be a mule of stolen security data that poses a grave risk to national security and a threat to life in the wrong hands, then wouldn't it fit under the general label of terrorism-related matters?


Just the argument that was heard and rejected in yesterday's case, and which will exercise the ECHR in September in another case.

I've now had the opportunity to consider the judgment in rlthe Sylvie Beghal caserl. I must say that I can't fault the logic.

The judgment also refers to annual reports by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which reviews naturally encompass the Schedule 7 powers, and what sounds like an ongoing number of consultations, checks and balances.

More to the point, The detailed judgment clearly addresses and deals with all the general principle and specific objections that have been raised earlier in the thread.

Hmm.

Judging by the latest reports on this Miranda 'row' it sounds like the authorities were right to hold Miranda for every second of his detention.

More to the point, why were so many UK secrets entrusted to a relatively low-level operative like Snowden?

I'd also suggest there's more chance of secrets being leaked while in the hands of the Met than any journalist

... and then let him go?
Doesn't square does it?