Quote: Cronus "Incorrect.
As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP.
rlAnother excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified.rl'"
That article is bordering on the pathetic. One of the main justifications for the detention is thisWhat’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security.
They [iknow[/i he is [ipotentially?[/i What sort of oxymoron is that?
That is simply guilt by association. Everytime Miranda has to fly through Heathrow or any other UK airport he will have to be detained because he is "potentially carrying highly classified information".
That being so wouldn't this only make sense if it applied to every other Guardian journalist, their partners and anyone associated with them or the paper?
The article also has a Guardian bashing agenda nicely illustrated by this little snippet.
"I’ve long ago stopped trying to get my head around what goes on at The Guardian. But we can safely assume that if Alan Rusbridger agreed to this drastic course of action it wasn’t because the hard drives didn't contain anything more sensitive than Polly Toynbee’s latest polemic against Iain Duncan Smith."
The trouble is Rusbridger has explained that he thought the demand for the drives to be destroyed was farcical because the idea in this digital age the data would only be held on those drives was naive.
Dan Hodges either has an agenda against the Guardian here or is as naive as those who felt they had accomplished something by having the drives destroyed. Either way this calls his position into question.