Reds Under The Bed?

It seems Ms May has stuck her wrinkly neck out again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23790578

yjavk9I am all for police powers to detain suspect terrorists, don’t get me wrong. But this is a clear cut case of abuse of power and I will bet a pound to a pinch of poo that no copper made the decision to hold the Guardianistas boyfriend for 9 hours on such flimsy grounds.

This will have been ordered by the home office and we already know that No10 was kept abreast of proceedings at every stage. My money is on the US having made a formal request to our intelligence services for this intercept to go down.

Mays ridiculous point is that this chap had information which could have been of interest to terrorists. Not that he had any terrorist intent. None of the questions were about him or where he had been, but the actions of his journo partner.

Well May, I have bagloads of info which would be very useful to a terrorist, does that mean I could legally be detained, interrogated and threatened with imprisonment?

So now it seems we should be arrested not only for what we might be thinking but what they think we might be thinking.

May should resign over this. Hell she should’ve resigned over the whole Qatada fiasco.  Of course she won’t and no-one will be able to touch her for it.

On a more humorous note, am I the only one that sees the irony that the man who has had his legal rights violated in such a heavy handed manner is called Miranda?

22 thoughts on “Reds Under The Bed?”

  1. But, but, Furry….weren’t you a signatory to the Official Secrets Act? You would now be joining Bradley at Her Majesty’s pleasure.

  2. PS Johnny Cash sang: “But the meanest thing that he ever did
    Was before he left, he went and named me Sue”.

  3. Furry, you might have bagloads of info useful to terrorists. So have I. What matters is how you got that info and what you would intend to do with it.

  4. It’s like the old larceny act, to obtain a conviction you had to prove intent. How you could prove any intent in this case is totally beyond me

  5. As I understand it, this Miranda lad was being used as a “mule” by his boyfriend, the Guardian journalist. So like the two female “mules” in Peru, he’s the one that gets stopped and searched. What’s the problem there?

  6. Off topic, furry, but my favourite aunt is impressed with your work and would like to order something — let me know if you’re interested and I will give her your contact information.

  7. Christopher,

    I am currently unable to produce pens due to equipment failure, Sorry chum. I hope to be back in business early next year.

    Hugh yes I am bound by the OSA but, I could tell people. My point is that he had info gathered by a journo, I have information gathered from experience. If he started spreading it around he could be done, if I started telling tales I would be done. This guy was detained because of what they thought he might do, that simply is not good enough.

    And now surprise surprise, they have found thousands of child porn images on his laptop? It’s a bit early to be revealing info like that isn’t it? If they try to do him for kiddy porn it will now be thrown clear out of court. The whole thing stinks like last months kippers.

  8. Sheona,
    Smuggling drugs is against the law, carrying a journalists data files is not, unless those files are known to be illegal e.g. child porn.

  9. Janus :

    PS Johnny Cash sang: “But the meanest thing that he ever did
    Was before he left, he went and named me Sue”.

    Darn it Hugh I was referring to Miranda rights. 🙂

  10. Remember Cinna the poet. His namesake is suspected of complicity in Cæsar’s murder. He is apprehended and pleads his innocence. “Kill him for his bad verses.”

  11. Four-eyed English Genius :

    Furry, you might have bagloads of info useful to terrorists. So have I. What matters is how you got that info and what you would intend to do with it.

    FEEG my point exactly, under the OSA I can dream up a million ways of leaking secret data, I can think about it all I like of course I don’t and never will. If I do its pokey time. If this Miranda is an example then they could lock any of us away simply because they believe we might blab.
    Like JL said they have to prove intent.

  12. But you won’t know if the journalist’s files are against the law until you stop and search said journalist or his mule.

  13. Good evening Ferret.

    ‘I am all for police powers to detain suspect terrorists, don’t get me wrong.’

    Very reasonable of you. Couldn’t possibly disagree.

    ‘But this is a clear cut case of abuse of power and I will bet a pound to a pinch of poo that no copper made the decision to hold the Guardianistas boyfriend for 9 hours on such flimsy grounds.’

    How can you know or make such assertions without being in possession of all the facts? The law, right or wrong,(different argument) said that he could be detained for 9 hours so where is there any ‘abuse of power’? The authorities have played by the rules as presently laid down. You do not know what grounds they had or how flimsy those grounds might prove to be. That’s what the Courts will determine in due course.

    ‘This will have been ordered by the home office and we already know that No10 was kept abreast of proceedings at every stage’

    No you don’t.’know’ any of that. Pure conjecture on your part, in my opinion. The Courts will again decide.

    ‘My money is on the US having made a formal request to our intelligence services for this intercept to go down’

    You might possibly win that bet but only time will tell. .

    ‘Mays ridiculous point is that this chap had information which could have been of interest to terrorists. Not that he had any terrorist intent. None of the questions were about him or where he had been, but the actions of his journo partner’

    What’s ‘ridiculous’ about the possibility that it might just be worth checking him out in case he was acting as an information mule within the aforementioned rules?

    ‘Well May, I have bagloads of info which would be very useful to a terrorist, does that mean I could legally be detained, interrogated and threatened with imprisonment?’

    I’m sure you have and I am personally sure that you would never divulge any of it. But, do you carry around such ‘bagloads’ in your head or on digital media which could be compromised if misappropriated?

    ‘So now it seems we should be arrested not only for what we might be thinking but what they think we might be thinking’

    As a libertarian, it will always be wrong to be arrested for what you are thinking if clear intent to act or actually acting on those thoughts cannot be shown. Not relevant, in my opinion. I believe that they lifted him for possible physical possession of material which they thought might be damaging to my country. Both they and I could, of course, be wrong.

    ‘May should resign over this. Hell she should’ve resigned over the whole Qatada fiasco. Of course she won’t and no-one will be able to touch her for it.’

    No argument there.

    ‘On a more humorous note, am I the only one that sees the irony that the man who has had his legal rights violated in such a heavy handed manner is called Miranda?’

    Rabid ‘Hill Street Blues’ fan so I have lived with the knowledge of the Miranda rights for many years. The irony of this whole mess amused me as well.

    Good to see you back and fulminating with full force, Ferret and thanks for stirring me into being more proactive myself on the Chariot.

  14. Okay Jay Em.

    Firstly, I made a bet not an assertion.

    This is my opinion based on the facts I know and those I have a fair chance of surmising and then into total supposition which as you point out, time may tell. More likely it won’t so that incompetents like May will be allowed to keep their post.

    If the evidence was not collected legally ol’ boy, the only decision the courts will make is to dismiss it.

    Detention for 9 hrs was made law for a very specific reason, the courts were clear about those reasons. We have the testimony of the CPS and Mr Miranda that those reasons were not in play. This fellow was held because he knew someone who knew someone else who the USA are severely embarrassed about. None of them terrorists or ever likely to become one. It is not even bending the rule JM it is ignoring it all together. And the crux of my argument, they could detain anyone on similar grounds because “you never know, he/she might become a terrorist”. “All men are potential rapists” ring a bell?

    “This will have been ordered by the home office and we already know that No10 was kept abreast of proceedings at every stage’ ” – Yes I do know, it is a matter of reported fact and admitted in the meeja by the Home Office and No10. May was informed at every stage. Wavey Davey and his butt monkey Clagg.were kept up to date as the events unfolded they say.

    Mays disgusting comments about anyone who finds this detention disturbing are just typical. She said that anyone who doesn’t agree is condoning terrorism. There is a fine line between security and state bullying this abuse of Section 7 crosses that line IMHO.

  15. Sheona,

    “But you won’t know if the journalist’s files are against the law until you stop and search said journalist or his mule.”

    So things like probable cause, search warrants and due process are things that happen to other people then?

  16. And… that is not a lecture from Edinburgh but a reasoned argument. Its what grown ups do when the kiddies resort to insult. You may wish to Google that while you are about it. 🙂

  17. Ferret :

    A little thing called the Magna Carta Sheona, google it if you’ve never heard of it.

    Ferret: As a historian, I’m sure that Magna Carta only applied to the upper echelons of medieval society and the Church and not for the likes of thee or me!

    I also understand that many of the safeguards of Magna Carta, which were, eventually, extended to the whole of society, have been taken away.

    John, John bad King John (who wasn’t so bad in my opinion!) would have given his eye teeth and probably a bit more to have the sort of unrestrained and unlimited power that present day Governments have.

    I don’t know anything about this particular case – but I worry about laws that take away rights that people have struggled for centuries to attain.

  18. “So things like probable cause, search warrants and due process are things that happen to other people then?”

    I thought your complaint was that Miranda had been held without any of the above, Ferret.

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s