Thats why the word "assess"is used, he hasn't used "suspicion" at all, although why the police should be allowed to stop you just in case you are involved in terrorism rather than having at least a suspicion that you may be, I don't know - maybe that means we can all be detained for up to nine hours every time we leave home just in case, but especially if we fit a racial profile in which case the Met would appear to be the ideal force to administer this.

Where did I mention suspicion?

It's only an idiot's guide for an idiot like you.

Try reading the opinion of a man who rlhelped draft and present the piece of legislationrl, Charles Falconer

DJP Hodges is yet another closet tory loon, with as much gravitas as your earlier link, Louise Mensch

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.

Did a pretty poor job then, didn't he, to include such a vague clause as "an examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)" in an Act specifically aimed at Irish Dissidents. Fact is, his opinion now means f*ck all. Whether the detention was lawful is the only relevant point - and it was.

Do you therefore think people should be allowed to pass through airports smuggling stolen classified and sensitive information? If you do you're a bigger fool than I had you for. He was a mule, nothing more. He was correctly detained and the information seized.


I forgot, you lack the intellect to see past the author. As always, blinkered and bitter. You claimed there were untruths in the Mensch article. I'm still waiting for you to post them.

Seems fairly clear to me. They know he's been to see this Laura Poitras character (one of Snowden's closest confidants and "one of only two people with full archives of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures"icon_wink.gif. They therefore know there's a strong chance he's carrying highly classified information. You might not like the grammatical sentence structure but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Let's not forget, the intelligence services were correct. Not guilt by association, just plain guilt. I suspect many Guardian journalists and possibly their "assistants" [size<cough>[/size fly internationally every day. How many others been detained under Schedule 7?

Lets not forget they let him go after 9 hours so given they didn't arrest him they were proved wrong. They were unable to prove he was a terrorist and while you can argue the legislation doesn't need them to [isuspect[/i him of that, detention under the act is still only to [iassess[/i if he is a terrorist.

Of course it is guilt by association. He is the journos partner so henceforth every time he flies they must assume he is carrying classified documents and will need to assess if he is a terrorist. Same goes for every other Guardian employee. The fact other Guardian employees have not been detained just shows what a farce it is and why you ought to be suspicious of the motives behind it.

Should Rusbridger be detained at the airport when he flies anywhere? If not why not? Don't forget they don't have to suspect him of being a terrorist. They only need to assess if he is. Why would they not "assess" Rusbridger? Or his wife for that matter?

And by the way the grammar is important. The fact Hodges got so twisted with it just goes to show how tenuous a case he has.

It is obvious where this is leading. Newspapers will increasingly rely on couriers to communicate sensitive information they may have in the past transmitted electronically (encrypted or not) or even just posted. The security services will have to target more and more people if they "know they are potentially" doing this (acting as couriers).

The trouble is what they are doing is not terrorism so assessing them as being potential terrorists is just plain harassment.

They seized what they suspected (correctly) he was carrying and released him. They weren't wrongOf course it is guilt by association. He is the journos partner so henceforth every time he flies they must assume he is carrying classified documents and will need to assess if he is a terrorist. Same goes for every other Guardian employee. The fact other Guardian employees have not been detained just shows what a farce it is and why you ought to be suspicious of the motives behind it.'"

I love the line about 'knowing he may potentially be carrying....'


Have the autorities never heard of FTP, cloud servers, dropbox.....? I'm sure they must have by now.



It was nothing mor than an excuse to flex their muscles.

I admit to laughing out loud in the car when I heard on the radio yesterday that Downing Street had contacted The Guardian directly to insist that "THE computer" which held the documents in question was destroyed followed by assurances that "THE" computer had indeed had its hard drive trashed at government request.

Phew, so thats ok then, well done Downing Street for quickly ensuring that the stolen digital documents were deleted so effectively, no doubt some lacky from the PM's office was sent to The Guardians offices to witness an old Amstrad PC2086 being wrecked with a sledgehammer after being assured that THIS was the computer that the documents were being stored on.

Once again, parliament assuming that its public are as stupid as its representatives.

Seen as my response was ignored by LGJM about similar statements, maybe you could have a go at answering the below?

Determine what makes a file classified.

Should all classified files remain so?

Do you trust the government to act honestly and within the law? If they are in breach of the law, do you expect them to declassify files identifying such breaches?

Does is it therefore matter who exposed said breach or how they obtained the information?

Or is this all a case of the government sympathisers living life by the adage of 'ignorance is bliss'?

That's a rather narrow, naive and airily vacuous view.
Using the (legal) get-out clause in the act to detain the man and then letting the guy go after the nine hours ... without charge ... tells me that whilst it may have been legal to detain him, they were unable to charge him with any terrorist-related offence under any part of the act.
This calls into question the use (or abuse) of the act in this way ... given that it has been misused before.
The data has been destroyed (or at least the thickos in Whitehall think it has) but the guy has been released without charge ... don't you find that somewhat disturbing? If it was illegal data, why was he released? If it was illegal data, why is Rusbridger still uncharged?

The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.

The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.